From PZ's Place: Doubting Thomas, on Why I Am An Atheist:

Well I am one because that’s what you call someone who is not a theist, whatever you think that is. So I don’t believe in gods because I don’t see any need to. It seems that the only thing different between believing and not believing is that not believing means you get to do what you want on Sunday and you don’t have to do all the other stuff believers believe they should do. Like be bored to death in church and hate others because they don’t believe what you do.

Everything else is the same. The supposed god does not in any way affect what goes on. He does not answer prayers or intervene in floods and other disasters. He doesn’t reward good behavior. Same result as not praying or not believing.

Someone, Voltaire I think once said, “If there were no god it would have been necessary to invent him”, possibly so, if your goal was to control people. I don’t need that; I’m not a king or government. And since I don’t care for any more authority than is necessary, I don’t see the need to maintain the invention.

I discarded belief in god because it was worthless. The days when an espoused belief was an asset are fading. Politicians in this country still can’t get elected without it, but I’m not a politician. There are other human interactions where ‘having religion’ is still looked on as a plus, but I choose not to get involved with many of those and when I do, such as at funerals and weddings, I just keep quiet, or sit with my sister and laugh and make jokes.

Oh, and last but not least, believing in gods and all those made up stories about him just seems stupid. I mean, none of it holds up to scrutiny. It’s all silly nonsense.
Doubting Thomas
United States


Thomas makes some points:

(a) There is no difference between believing and not believing.

(b) God doesn’t interact with the world.

(c) Purpose of religion is to control people.

(d) Belief is not an asset except for politicians.

(e) None of it holds up to scrutiny.

(f) It’s all silly nonsense.

Thomas was never a believer, or he would know that (a) is false. His concept of believing seems to be the Candy Machine belief, which he covers in (b) and (d), assuming that the entire purpose of a deity is to make things good for himself: just insert a prayer, get goodies for the effort. He can't get the Candy Machine to work.

Thomas makes an oblique reference to personal freedom from external consequences when he asserts that (c) religions are intended to control people. Not understanding the need to control himself is covered by laughing at funerals, with his sister. An indication that this Thomas is a juvenile.

Thomas charges that ”none of it holds up to scrutiny”, but the only scrutiny he has provided is that God doesn’t give him what he wants, or what he thinks he or the world should get. And that is the silly nonsense here.

I almost forgot. According to Thomas, what believers do on Sunday is to

"be bored to death in church and hate others because they don’t believe what you do."

This seems to be blatantly projectionist. The hate and vitriol expressed by Atheists (especially when talking to each other in the protection of their Atheist sanctuaries) is rarely matched by non-Atheists. It certainly is not the main characteristic. Perhaps Thomas wants it to be as he imagines it, a bolster for his rejection of his imaginary religious foes.