Damn! I wish I had said that.

I think you could find some other great ones from Guy P Harrisons book “50 reasons people give for believing in god“. Its a great read for everyone.

One good argument against the existence of God is the existence of apologists. If he is as they describe, then why are they needed? Spin doctors for the Divine Embarrassingly Absent. It’s Argumentum ad Verbosum. They’re talking so much so therefore it must be true. (Or maybe if I just say yes I believe they’ll finally shut up.) Somewhere I heard one argue that the complete absence of evidence was actually proof of his existence. My head collapsed in on itself like a falling souffle.

-The reason I have no belief in God is because I haven’t read the rational, intelligent theist literature in depth (St. Aquinas, St. Augustine…).

-If my conclusion on god is based on emiricism then I would also have to conclude many other things don’t exist (freedom, rights, love).

-If you never discussed these issues with anyone when you had a “crisis of faith” then that is why you are an atheist now. And it’s pointless now to do so since you are obviously stuck in your belief (or don’t want to believe).

If someone is of the mindsets “Ignorance is bliss” and “To each hir own,” there is not a lot to engage with. I respect those people, because they’ve made a choice ONLY for themselves. As long as their actions don’t infringe on the rights of others, I could almost be content just to let them be.

For that very reason, which I think you have acknowledged, those perspectives are moot in the discussion of defensive memes. They have no need to be defensive, because nothing is on the line for them.

I said “almost” before, though, because I am NOT content to let them stay in ignorance. I think those of us who have found freedom outside of religion (i.e. The Matrix) need to work to free others. Like you Sarah, I will still continue to engage and press intellectually, regardless of how frustrating it might be.

What survives is this: Some theists (moderates and liberals, for the most part) don’t claim to have any proof that their belief system is correct and don’t puff up when it’s criticized – they simply rely on the fact that religion *works* for them, and that’s all they need. They believe because they want to believe, because it feels nice, because they like the results of belief in their lives.

So long as they don’t claim that any of this constitutes proof of anything supernatural involved, I don’t mind this approach, but it can be frustrating trying to discuss any religious topic with someone of this mindset.

It is good as a standlone essay. Well done in fact. I enjoyed it. (I am such a crumudgeon these days…hehe)

I know, of course, that the points themselves are not new. I’m currently rereading The God Delusion and see the same arguments being brought up by Dawkins. My goal was to articulate the arguments into the kind of language we’ve been hearing a lot lately… address the arguments not as arguments but as simply cultural ideas that are quite pronounced.

I make no assumption the ideas are original, just perhaps that this presentation of them makes it easier to identify them when they are encountered.