At some point in life, almost everyone has either pondered atheism, or met someone who was an atheist. It is a word that has many strings attached to it; for some it has a positive connotation, but to others, a fire burns deep within them containing a hatred for the “Godless unbelievers.” Also, there are those who are just plain indifferent, and think that, “it may be right for some, but not for me.”
As an atheist, I feel it necessary to share some of my experiences when revealing this aspect about me to others. I have heard almost every generic reaction there is. Everything from, “how can you possibly think that when the overwhelming majority of the world believes in some sort of god,” to, “excellent, I am one as well, it’s good to meet another person fighting the good fight.”
As a college student, the most common reaction that I get from anyone well into their adult life is that, “Oh, you’re just a young college kid rebelling against your upbringing, you’ll come back to the church eventually.” Not only is this statement disrespectful to atheists and college students, but especially to me personally. It has the connotations that any opinion a young person has is illegitimate simply because they are young, that any atheist is simply rebelling against something and has not come to their worldview rationally, and that I embody all of the above.
With that said, I would like to say that I am aware that there are plenty of people out there who do fit this description. Many get mad at their church at some point or another for whatever reason, and claim that they don’t believe. Some people just get bored with going to church and don’t really care in either direction. Regardless, neither of these types are what I like to call an “intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
An “intellectually fulfilled” atheist:
-Has done their research on both sides of the issue.
-Knows their material scientifically.
-Knows the theology behind many different religions.
-Has come to their decision rationally and in a non-rebellious way.
An “irrational” atheist:
-Has never read the works of Darwin, Dawkins, Stenger, Neitszche, Hawking, or any other famous scientist, philosopher, evolutionary biologist, physicist, or naturalist.
-Is not familiar with the secular humanism movement. (Albeit not all intellectual atheists are part of this, though it is very common.)
-Cannot hold a calm and intellectual argument with a creationist or believer of any type.
-Will have a more explosive reaction toward preachers and evangelists, and show their insecurities and lack of comfort in their own doctrine.
These are not all of the aspects to define someone one way or the other, just a few general guidelines and signs to look for. Also pertaining to the argument that any young atheist is simply rebelling and will at some point re-convert to the religion of their upbringing, I would like to point out exactly which types are honestly more likely to go back, and which ones are not.
When someone is simply rebelling, they have obviously had a bad experience or were given a reason to rebel. This can sometimes lead to becoming an “intellectual atheist,” but not in most cases. I would like to argue that the rebellious type is the one that is actually more likely to re-convert, simply because they are not well versed in the material, and will have the beliefs ingrained by their parents as their primary source of reasoning, and will at some point revert to this type of thinking. This could be like the old saying, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree,” or it could be argued that it is a genetic occurrence. For someone who is well versed in the material of science, theology, and philosophy, they will have a sound reasoning for their initial decision for unbelief, and will not usually stray from this reasoning as easily. The same could be argued that this is a genetic occurrence, but that is for an psychologist or geneticist to decide.
There is also a difference between being an atheist, and being an antitheist. Many antitheists see the evils of religion, but may still have a personal god. An atheist can be an antitheist, or vice versa, but they do not necessarily go hand in hand. The main point that I am trying to make is that not all atheists are rebellious, and they shouldn’t be looked at as such. People need to stop with the fallacious attacks and actually try to prove the other person wrong logically; and that goes for anyone in any type of argument or debate. Just remember, rationality and rebellion have nothing to do with one another, and the same applies for rebellion and atheism.
I think that an expression of anger, MASSIVE incredulity, etc. towards theists is not necessarily incompatible with “intellectual” atheism as opposed to “rebellious” atheism.
What, say, the Christians would have one believe, for instance: that the Supreme Creator of the universe secretly substituted his sperm for Joseph’s, but Mary, you know, noticed the substitution, because well, Joseph, well, he was betrothed, but well, never, you know, *did that*, so the baby that was forthcoming was of course, the “Son” of God, but such a concept isn’t conceivable (no pun intended) so clearly this “Son” must actually _be_ God, and well, God has prepared a special place, well, two special places to which you might go when you die. One of the places is non-specifically wonderful. (Don’t ask.) The other place is specifically horrible, with fire, and “brimstone” (melted , burning sulphur — if you’ve never gotten some sulphur from the drugstore and set it on fire, I highly recommend it as an experiment, supposing they still sell sulphur at drugstores these days.) Anyway, the 2nd place is full of everlasting torrment (see th e Bible, end of Matthew, ch. 25), so you def. don’t want to go there.) Since you don’t want to go there, you’d best believe….
My point is, to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, all that is required is that you not be completely fucking retarded.
If you have an ounce of sense and and ounce of confidence in your own abilities to think, and the ability to catch a whiff of bullshit from all the people loudly professing belief, then you’ll figure it out.
You don’t have to be smart to figure out it’s bullshit. It’s obviously bullshit. You have to have enough confidence to buck society’s expectation. Most people don’t have that.
Consequently the best way to promote skepticism of the prevailing religion is to make yourself well known as a skeptic. The more “normal” it is perceived for people to be skeptical (by highly visible examples) the more people will be willing to acknowledge their own doubts, and repudiate what has, heretofore, been the societal norm — belief in the insulting idiocy called Christianity.