Evidence Yes, But Evidence For What?

shoesDuring my catch-up reading I came across an observation made some time ago by Deacon Duncan at Evangelical Realism that got me thinking.

This is the old superstition vs. science dilemma, the fellow who says shoes are made by elves in a hollow tree, and then cites the existence of shoes as evidence that elves are real.

Phrased like that it is easy to see the error in the reasoning. Yes, shoes could be evidence of elves, but there are other, less fantastic, possibilities and we should consider these first. When the example is elves, most people will be willing to look critically at the claim and see through it. Those with a sense of irony and a knowledge of rhyming slang may even describe it as “Cobblers“!

Nevertheless, this kind of fallacy appears surprisingly regularly. For example, consider the patterns sometimes found in fields, known as crop circles. Often these can only be fully appreciated from the air and seem to describe the shape of some kind of complex craft. While some crop circles are created by people making no unusual claims about them, others are claimed as evidence of alien visitors. In my view it’s far more likely to be evidence of mischievous earthlings.

When a patient improves after having taken some previously untested treatment or medicine, is that evidence that the treatment is working or that their immune system is doing its job? In cases like these it can be hard to tell, so thorough clinical trials are needed, involving more than one patient, placebo controls, etc.

Similarly, the creationist website, allaboutcrreation.org makes this popular claim:

Where is the proof of God? If we’re willing to open our eyes, we’ll see the fingerprints of God all around us and all throughout us. Our very existence proves the existence of a Creator God.

270px-CropCircleWI’m sure most of us have seen religious people point to a beautiful flower and say, “There! That’s evidence that God exists!”. Again, this could be evidence of a great many things, including the symbiotic relationship between flowering plants and insects which are attracted by bright colours and floral scents. The fact that we as humans think that the flower is beautiful may be evidence that we are adapted to appreciate a fertile ecosystem and the fruits that it can bring.

Even the Bible has some of this kind of gargantuan jump, in reverse from what they are trying to establish – the existence of a god, to a piece of alleged evidence, as in Romans 1:20:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I think that verse could be rephrased to be clearer about the leap of logic it’s making. Anyone care to make a suggestion?

In all cases it seems we are in danger of leaping to a conclusion that is not necessarily the cause of the evidence we’re seeing. The solution is perhaps to imagine several possible causes and try to understand why we should prefer one over the others.

Review: 50 reasons people give for believing in a god

I stumbled upon Guy P. Harrison‘s book in an online bookshop, knowing very little about it. When buying some other books I added it to my shopping basket on impulse hoping that it would give some insight into the psychology of belief. However, psychology isn’t really what the book is about so in that respect I was disappointed. 50 reasons people give for believing in a god is instead a series of responses to the most commonly cited reasons for god-belief, intended to promote critical thinking. Despite the above misunderstanding, I’m glad I shelled out for it because it is, in many respects, an excellent book.

What 50 reasons is not is a book of complex theology. You’ll find little discussion of apologetics, no mention of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, nor any discussion of, for example, what text was or was not interpolated into Josephus’ writings. The author aims to treat all religions equally and so doesn’t spend a disproportionate amount of time on any one belief. Each chapter is prompted by the justifications that ordinary believers across the world have given Guy on his travels, so the book is accessible and relevant to the ordinary person. Examples of the 50 reasons include, “My god is obvious”, “Our world is too beautiful to be an accident” and “Without my god we would have no sense of right and wrong”. I’m sure these are all arguments that those of us who frequent atheist blogs or debate with believers will have heard before, perhaps many times. In which case, the brief discussions in 50 reasons probably won’t be particularly new. What is noteworthy is the tone of this book.

It’s not that Guy Harrison compromises with regard to evidence; he never seems to shrug his shoulders and say, “Well maybe your religion is true”. Instead he makes simple observations and encourages the reader to make comparisons with other beliefs from around the world. The book is clearly intended to speak to god-believers and to get them to think more critically about their beliefs. With that in mind the author goes to some effort to avoid insulting them. For example, when interviewing a believer who claims to feel his god when he prays, Guy describes the problems faced by a skeptic.

“I asked the believer who said he had heard a god how he can be sure that he did not imagine it. It was at this point that I began to sense his rising irritation and decided not to push any further. So how does one question this amazing but common claim of personal contact with a god?”

The answer he comes up with becomes a reoccurring theme in the book. There are thousands of gods that people have believed in. Those believers have had similar experiences and present the same arguments as you – so why should these arguments work better for one god than any other? By treating all religions with equal skepticism and making reasonable comparisons, the arguments for belief are shown to be weak and often flawed.

The book’s simple approach has obvious benefits – 50 reasons is very readable. Probably the most readable book I’ve read on religion or atheism. The author is an accomplished journalist rather than an academic and the style of language is as accessible as you would expect. There are some great insights in the book, many of which will be familiar, but they are expressed with such simplicity and clarity that I found them sticking in my mind. One of my favourite quotes is in chapter 41, “Science can’t explain everything”.

“Gaps in our scientific knowledge are not shortcomings or failures. They are shining examples of why science is better than religion. Science can’t answer everything because science doesn’t cheat by providing answers without evidence.”

Noting the simple style is not to say that the book lacks real content or research. To his credit, Guy Harrison has obviously done his homework and 50 reasons contains some good examples, research and anecdotes to illustrate his points. A good example is in chapter 10 – “Believing in my god makes me happy”. Guy cites research surveying some eighty-thousand people worldwide to discover the world map of happiness. As it turns out, some of the happiest countries are also the least religious.


Critics of 50 reasons have accused it of being superficial and lacking the detail of other similar books. It’s true that others can and have written entire books discussing the points which Guy Harrison covers in short, roughly 5-page, chapters. However, that’s not what this book is about. To thoroughly debunk all religions ever would require many volumes and probably amount to several lifetimes’ work. In any case, as the author points out, the vast majority of believers don’t believe because of convoluted apologetic arguments; they may not even be aware of them.


In my opinion, 50 reasons is the ideal book for a non-believer to swap with a believer as part of an attempt to understand each other’s points of view. I’ve previously taken part in book swaps with believers and found them worthwhile. So I look forward to lending 50 reasons to my religious friends; I’d even consider buying additional copies for this purpose.

But is it worth reading, even for the well-read atheist who isn’t planning a book-swap? Well, such a person may not learn much about the arguments against religion from the book, but the concise insights, style and tone are worth experiencing. It demonstrates a different approach to debating with believers – one which I think is more suitable to discussions with friends and colleagues, especially in person. In these situations it is more important to keep things simple and amicable, whilst encouraging critical thinking. I must confess that several times I’ve made valid arguments which were insensitive and relationships have suffered as a result. I think the approach Guy Harrison uses in 50 reasons is a good example which I’d like to emulate in future.

Return To Blogging

This post is to announce that I will to return to blogging regularly in the next week.

My hectic life is almost under control and I have several posts planned for the near future. I’ve been catching up on reading and commenting on other blogs. I’m also reading a few books, some of which may result in reviews.

Thank you for bearing with me over the last few months.

Blogday And Excuses

It was a year ago last Wednesday that I made my first post on Bridging Schisms.

Since then I’ve written 45 posts, perhaps somewhat below average. I could tell you that the reason I haven’t written more is my dedication to accuracy, originality and quality. But if you’ve actually been reading Bridging Schisms for the last year you’ll find that a rather obvious piece of marketing codswallop. The reality is that life has often got in the way of blogging and all the more so in recent weeks when my job situation has changed, keeping me busier than I’d like. (I actually wrote this post a week ago, but forgot to publish it, which only goes to show the hectic state of my life at the moment!)

However, I have a number of new articles planned for the coming months which I hope you will enjoy. These include an interview, several book reviews and a challenge to practitioners of pseudoscience, which I hope to finish off in the spare moments I can grab around work deadlines.

In the mean time I’d like to thank you for reading and beg for your patience. Your comments and suggestions are welcome as always and I promise to return to blogging (and commenting on your blogs) as soon as I can.

Take care,

- Eshu

The Zealots Of Open-Source

uce-desktop1It’s about time I owned up to being a zealot and an evangelist… for open-source software. I’ve been using Ubuntu Linux as my main OS for about 4 years now along with Firefox for web browsing and OpenOffice for all that tedious work stuff. I’ve even managed to convert my technophobic mother to using Ubuntu, which ensures she doesn’t end up with viruses or other malware.

Now one of the benefits of open source software is choice and the ability to customise everything. As a result, there have recently been a number of religiously-reworked Ubuntu distributions created for and by people with particular beliefs. This started three years ago with the released of Ubuntu Christian Edition (CE). This includes custom wallpaper, bible study program GnomeSword and a filter to block unsavoury web content. In other respects it works exactly like your plain vanilla Ubuntu, just with Jesus lording it over your desktop. The people involved mesh their theology with open source philosophy via Matthew 10, “Freely ye have received, freely give”, showing that the Bible really can be used to justify anything. Sadly Ubuntu CE has now been discontinued so that its authors could pursue another religiously themed project that judging by the merchandising will be a lot more lucrative.

Not to be outdone, open-source zealots who are also followers of Islam have brought out their own ubuntu-mecustomised distro – Sabily. Again it has a custom theme, Islamic calendar, prayer time reminders and even a console that allows users to type from right to left for that Arabic feel.

Previously nothing more than a rather unfriendly joke, there now seems to be a genuine Jewish edition of Ubuntu, cleverly named Jewbuntu.

However, those with darker philosophies, a taste for the ironic, or simply a desire to wind up Christians, there’s “Linux for the damned”, Ubuntu Satanic Edition. ubuntu-seThis comes with a suitably dark, malevolent desktop theme and a collection of free metal music. Judging by some of the comments it has generated, Ubuntu SE has already succeeded in getting on the wick of some uptight believers, although it’s not clear if they are disgruntled Satanists who are complaining that it’s not the “right” kind of Satan worship, or Christians on a mission to save the damned.

So what about atheists? With all this choice, surely there is an Ubuntu distribution for us? Well, not really. The nearest thing is probably Buddhabuntu, which predictably caters for Buddhists and includes AI software for machine learning, so your PC can become enlightened too.


The main complaint about these distros is that there’s very little additional content to justify burning an entire CD. The same effects could be achieved by adding the desired programs and themes to an ordinary Ubuntu install with little hassle.

On the other hand, I’m all for choice, be it philosophically or in software. I think in both cases the majority of people are sadly ignorant of the vast choices that are available to them. Instead they tend to stick to what they know and never explore outside their comfort zone. If these distros encourage religious people to “get” open source, then that’s all to the good in my opinion. Plus, actually taking the time to read their holy books is one of the major factors in many people’s de-conversion, so Bible or Qu’ran verses poping up on people’s screens may have edifying consequences.

How about you? Are you a fan of open source? Are they any religiously-themed distros that I’ve missed?

No True Christian

I’m willing to bet that any atheist who has spent any time discussing religion online has come across the suggestion that anyone who no longer believes, never truly believed in the first place. An ex-Christian was never a “real” Christian. Commenter al expressed this opinion about myself and Lorena over on Fallen And Flawed a few weeks ago.

… because Jesus Christ has promised that [1] whoever comes to Him He will never cast out, and that [2] no one (not even ourselves) is able to pluck us from His hand, therefore:
There can be no such person as a former Christian– only those who think they were once Christians but never really were.

This idea is not dissimilar to the perseverance of the saints – “once saved, always saved” thinking of Calvinism. Leaving aside the theological geekery, the obvious first response to this is that al is committing the “No True Scotsman” fallacy, which can be expressed as:

220px-porridge“No true Scotsman would have sugar in his porridge.”
“My uncle Hamish is Scottish and he has sugar in his porridge.”
“Well, then your uncle Hamish is not a true Scotsman.”

The pertinent question here being whether the first speaker is trying to make a generalisation about true Scotsmen, or to define what a true Scotsman is – that is, someone who does not have sugar in his porridge. As most people already have a reasonable definition of what a Scotsman is, to redefine it here without saying so explicitly is misleading. If this is what the first speaker had intended it would be better phrased as, “The definition of a true Scotsman is someone who does not have sugar in his porridge” and perhaps some other criteria such as country of birth or parentage.

In al’s case, the assertion comes from the bible, which he interprets as “There can be no such person as a former Christian”. To a biblical literalist it seems, any conclusion – no matter how much of a stretch it is – is better than the bible being wrong. And yet there are plenty of people who changed their mind about Christianity. So, when faced with atheists who claim that they genuinely believed as Christians before changing their minds, apologists are left with few choices.

One is to say that these former believers are lying and only pretending not to believe because they hate God or want to live as they please.

Slightly more charitably, they can claim the ex-Christian was mistaken and didn’t have a genuine relationship with Jesus in the first place. This is what al does.

You both have obviously tried something– church, a belief system, the counsel of others, I don’t know what– but something that represents itself as Christ. But it was not Him, and you have discarded the baby with the bathwater.

Note the subtle shift here. We’re no longer talking about people “being Christians” as most of the world understands it, but the relationship with an invisible, intangible muslim-woman-at-prayer240Christ. Christians may complain that it is the same thing, but there’s a difference. The world at large does not define people as belonging to a particular religion on the basis of some invisible supernatural relationship. How could they? Nor do people look inside the heads of professed believers and see all their beliefs – they can only see the way people act and trust what they say they believe. If for example someone says they’re a Muslim, if they attend to Muslim prayers and regularly visit the mosque as other professed Muslims do, then it’s quite reasonable to call them a Muslim. The statistics which show there are around 2 billion Christians in the world are not based on observing whether they each have a genuine relationship with Christ. They’re probably based on what which box they tick on census or identification forms.

However, al says, with an air of authority, “But it was not Him”. I doubt he would claim any special insight into our former religious beliefs. He is inferring that our Christian belief was not a genuine relationship with his god by the simple fact that we no longer believe it. It seems he is making a new definition of what a true Christian is – that is, someone who does not lose their faith or change their mind about Christianity.

However, there are some interesting implications of this viewpoint. If this is not the only way to identify a true Christian, then there is potential for a contradiction. If for example professional ministry or daily prayer were considered proof of genuine Christianity, then there are already many examples of “real” Christians who have become atheists.

On the other hand, if there are no other certain indications of true Christianity that rather throws doubt on everyone. The effect is that there’s no certainty whether anyone, however enthusiastic they might be about Jesus, is a true Christian by al’s definition.

So, if we run with his definition, al can’t be certain that there are any true Christians. I’m sure his relationship seems pretty real to him, but even he could change his mind at a later date.

In one sense I’d agree – I was never in a genuine relationship with Jesus because, as far as I can tell, no such person exists. However, at the time, my belief was entirely genuine, as I would assume al’s still is.

Review: Godless by Dan Barker

Dan Barker is now the co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but what makes his story interesting is that he was once an evangelical preacher. His latest book, published only last year is godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Barker’s earlier book, published in 1992 was Losing Faith in Faith and from the few online excerpts I’ve seen, it seems to have a lot in common with godless. However, as the more recent publication, godless appears more polished and up to date with plenty of additional content.

Godless is organised into four sections, the first describing his experiences as a preacher and his growing doubts. The second and third sections discuss the arguments for atheism and the problems with Christianity, while the final section covers some of his work with the FFRF.

Rejecting God

For me, the first section is the most interesting part of the book as it offers in insight into the mind of a sincere believer, detailing his lifestyle and thought processes during his five-year journey out of Christianity. What is notable from the introduction onwards, is that Barker was perhaps more rational about his reasons for believing than some. He didn’t believe it because he found it comforting, or because he wanted to fit in. He simply thought it was true.

I was always in love with reason, intelligence, and truth. I thought Christianity had the truth. I really believed it. I dedicated my life to it.

I seems to me that Dan’s desire for the truth was a factor in his de-conversion, as often seems to be the case. I am impressed by the honesty and modesty with which he describes his thoughts and actions as a believer. Some of these are no doubt embarrassing to him in retrospect, but he manages to have a laugh at his own expense. Of particular interest are the reactions of his Christian friends to his loss of belief. These range from total shunning through confusion, to amicable acceptance. My only criticism of the first section is that there’s not enough of it. At only 67 pages out of around 350, it is not the main focus of the book. This is partly because he avoids going into any theological arguments in the first section; it’s entirely about his experience.

Why I Am an Atheist and What’s Wrong With Christianity?

The largest part of the book is taken up by the two middle sections, in which the author covers in detail the arguments for atheism and against Christianity. I’m not entirely convinced by the approach of splitting the book up into personal story followed by the philosophical arguments. Sometimes I think technical, precise writing can become more readable when interspersed with human anecdotes – see for example Bill Bryson’s excellent A Short History of Nearly Everything. On the other hand, the volume of philosophy included would be in danger of drowning his personal experiences, so I can see why he did it this way.

Together, these two sections fill nearly 200 pages, which is perhaps justified. If they’d only been touched upon during the biographical first section, some of the finer points would have been lost. As it is, he thoroughly covers common theistic arguments, biblical contradictions and questions over gospel history in surprising detail. Additionally, one chapter titled “Dear Theologian” takes the form of a letter from God. This has a rather different style, asking questions rather than providing answers. At first this seems out of place, but I found it an interesting piece of philosophy and questioning things is exactly what free thought is all about.

In terms of arguments for atheism there is only a little in this section that will be new to a moderately well-informed atheist.  Nevertheless, he makes a comprehensive and convincing case for atheism which is as clear and relevant as any atheist book I’ve read.

Life is Good!

Appropriately, the book’s final section covers Dan Barker’s work with the FFRF trying to maintain the separation of church and state, fighting cases against organisations which use supposedly secular tax dollars for decidedly sectarian purposes. This is reasonably interesting, although there were no anecdotes which stood out as particularly memorable. Perhaps it would seem more relevant to those living in the US.

Overall I found the book an enjoyable and edifying read. I was a little disappointed by the briefness of his de-conversion story, but to be fair he probably wasn’t keeping a diary or holding a tape recorder during conversations, so it may be difficult to go into more detail without misquoting people. To some extent godless may be seen as a jack-of-all-trades – part autobiography, part philosophical debate, so may be unsatisfying to those who are not interested in reading both those things. For those who are however, it is both entertaining and informative. I would highly recommend this book to the recently de-converted or to Christians wanting to understand a different perspective.

Sinister Superstitions


Barely two generations ago left-handed children were being forced to write with their right hands. Nowadays left-handedness usually only brings good-natured teasing and a difficulty with tools designed by their right-handed oppressors.

However, superstitions about all things lefty go back centuries and can be found in almost every language and culture.

Left in language

The Latin word sinestra, originally meaning left, took on an unfortunate meaning over time and is where we get the English word sinister. A similar pattern is apparent in other languages. For example, in Welsh chwith means left, but also “wrong”. The Swedish word for left – vänster - is related to the word for infidelity, whilst in Chinese the adjective, 左 which means “improper” also means, you guessed it, left.

Left in culture

The left side or left hand is often seen as evil or untrustworthy in religious traditions. Buddhism sees the left path as being the wrong way of life and the right path as being the right way to Nirvana.

The Bible mentions the right hand of the Lord as being special or just, although there are many more references to both right and left hands, where no bias is obvious.

In Islamic society it is seen as wrong to eat with the left hand, which historically was reserved for unclean bodily duties.

The World of Handedness website tells us that “Ancient Mayan and Aztec (Central/South America) rituals use the middle finger of the right hand to first tip into the soil then to the lips in order to bring protection and blessing.”

Tarot cards usually depict the personification of justice holding a sword with his right hand whilst the devil is left-handed.

In sailing, a boat on a starboard tack (with the boat’s right side to windward) has right of way over one on a port tack.

According to Anything Left-Handed, “The Meru people of Kenya believed that the left-hand of their holy man has such evil power that he had to keep it hidden for the safety of others.”

There are a few traditions which favour the left hand side as being lucky, but they’re far outweighed by those which consider it evil.

Possible origins

calliostoma_ligatum-smFrom the examples above it seems that bias against the left hand is widespread and either very old, or derived from some common factor amongst all people. One possibility for this suspicion or resentment may have been due to the surprising advantages left-handers have in combat. This is apparent in one-on-one sports such as boxing or fencing. I’ve also noticed – anecdotally – a larger than expected percentage of left-handers who are successful in racket sports.

So why should left-handers have an advantage in these situations? Well, as less than 10% of all people are left-handers, most people will be used to competing against right-handers. So a left-hander causes confusion by being unexpectedly stronger and more skilful on their left side. This only works whilst left-handers are a relatively small proportion of the population, if the balance was 50% left-handers, then there would be no advantage. Why the majority of people are right-handed is still open for debate. It may be a simple chance of evolution.

The effect is also apparent in the case of other animals, such as aquatic snails and crabs:

The overwhelming majority of snail species are right-handed — their shells coil clockwise. Dietl studied a species of snail that are lefties, and have shells that coil counter-clockwise.

The left-handed advantage is realized when snails interact with predators of opposite handedness. Some predatory crabs are “righties” — and have a specialized tooth on their right claw that acts like a can opener to crack and peel the snail shells.

So when faced with a “left-handed” shell the crab ends up looking like a left-handed human trying to cut straight with right-handed scissors. Being self-concious about their clumsy feeding the right-handed crabs will often give up, leaving the left handed snail feeling rather smug about its shell design.

I don’t know whether snails and crabs have any superstitions about left or right handedness, but humans certainly do. The suspicion of left-handers may have been because their success seemed somehow sneaky or underhand.

While there are some theories about differences in thought-processes between left and right handers, there’s no evidence I know of to justify the malign superstitions sometimes expressed against lefties. Although I’m right-handed myself, I’m thankful that these superstitions have for the most part been left behind.

What Does Atheism Offer That Belief In God Can’t?

in-person_questionIt seems that atheism is puzzling to believers. Demian Farnworth recently interviewed Hemant Mehta and in the following comments asked him,

What does atheism offer that belief in God can’t?

I certainly admire the approach of asking non-believers what they think, rather than guessing. Many of us lose track of the number of times we’ve been accused of only being atheists so we can act immorally or “do what we like“.

So what is so great about atheism?

Certainly there are genuine benefits to being an atheist. They’re not just obvious things like being able to cut your hair when you want, or getting a lie in on Sundays. Plenty of writers have already listed some more important advantages. Here’s a selection that I particularly liked.

From Adam Lee:

Being an atheist means you’re free to form your own opinions, rather than having your outlook colored by a belief system that tells you what you should think.

Being an atheist means you don’t have to think of yourself as a sinful wretch who can never do anything right.

From Dave Hitt:

Atheism, by itself, frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be wasted in worship… It provides great freedom and at the same time great responsibility – while I can now do things without worrying if they’ll annoy some nasty sky-daddy, I also know that the results of my actions are my responsibility – I can’t blame it on “sin.”

The wrong kind of question

The benefits of atheism – what it offers – seem rather irrelevant. Likewise if it causes inconveniences to non-believers, that shouldn’t affect a person’s willingness to call themselves an atheist. The important thing is whether or not it is correct. Again, other people have already said some great things about the advantages of atheism.

On atheism.about.com Austin Cline says,

This is rather an odd question — shouldn’t the primary concern be with whether or not any gods really do exist? Shouldn’t the truth of this question be the focus of our attention, and not any personal advantage or disadvantage which we might get by taking one position or the other?

On asktheatheists.com, logicel asks,

Christians are atheistic towards all gods except theirs; atheists just go one god further. Why not also pose the question of what are the advantages of Christians not believing in other god(s)?

While Erik_PK’s answer I could not have put better myself.

I think this is a strange question, as it implies that religious belief is a bit like buying a new car – you look at the available accessories, compare gas mileage, and then figure out which one works best for you. Each person has their own idea of what’s important to them, so there are lots of opinions on what’s best.

But matters of existence are questions of fact rather than questions of opinion. They are not decided by what we would like to be true, but rather by what is true…

clogsDemian’s question makes me wonder how he and other believers think. Did they choose their belief based on what it offers? Did they “shop around” for a belief-system with the most benefits – a nice bunch of people, a reasonable moral code, plenty of religious holidays and a pleasant-sounding afterlife?

None of those things should matter. To be honest if I found a religion that provided sufficient evidence that it was true, I’d believe it. I wouldn’t care if it required me to wear wooden shoes, eat only vegetables and walk on all fours every Tuesday. Conversely, if a set of beliefs are false, then it doesn’t matter how many virgins believers could spend eternity with.

I’ve generally given believers the benefit of the doubt and assumed that they genuinely think their belief-system is correct. Certain questions from believers however, make me wonder if I’ve been right about that. For example, when a believer tried to convince me to join their religion by seriously suggesting Pascal’s Wager, I do wonder if it was the evidence or the fear of going to hell that convinced them. When asked for their reasons for believing, several believers have told me, “I find it comforting”. I’ve no doubt many believers genuinely think they’ve got it right, but suggesting “comfort” as a reason to believe suggests that veracity is a secondary concern.

Apart from the quotes above I’m speaking for myself here. Simply put, all atheism “offers” me is that it’s true. No doubt many believers feel the same about their beliefs. Atheism seems to me to be the only reasonable position. I don’t need it to offer me anything else, I have the rest of my life for that – my family, friends, sports, nature, humanism, sometimes even my job – offer me things to make life interesting. I see atheism more as a simple fact of life, like the sky being blue or the Earth being round.

I’d love to hear what others think about this, believers and non-believers. How important are the benefits your beliefs bring or claim to bring? How much does it matter to you whether what you believe is true?