Just to be clear, I enjoy arguing and I'm an atheist. And that's a-theist, not anti-theist. In the same way that there are moral, amoral, and immoral ideas.
Theist -- believes that there is at least one god
Atheist -- believes that there's not enough proof to know
Anti-theist -- believes that there are no gods
Agnostic -- believes that there's no way of knowing
I explain this because there's too much with us or against us attitude in this area. I don't believe in gods, nor do I believe that there definitely isn't a god or two or three. Although I believe it to be redundant, for clarity I usually say open-minded atheist. The analogy I use is that I don't believe that there's proof yet of a cure for cancer. I hope that I'm wrong, but until I see the cancer wards shutting down, it seems the more accurate stance.
Why do I take an atheist position? I just do. The religious usually say that you have to have faith, and that you have to believe. Well, if you don't believe, then you can't really force yourself to, can you? I mean, unless you see a miracle, find a logical proof, or can commit on a gut feeling.
Compared to most people I know, I've read a lot about religion. I've read, watched, or listened to, the earnest explanations of many people and how their belief works for them. It's helped my research, but mostly not swayed me in any huge way. To their credit, most people are humble about this, and keep it a personal thing.
Back when I was smarter, I read logical proofs from minds like Rene Descartes and David Hume. In fact, I remember Descartes' treatise on religion where he logically proved the existence of God. I was shocked. I remember thinking that I had to now believe in God. That's quite a thing, if you haven't gone through it. I was stunned, wondering how it would change my life. Then I went back and reread his argument, only to find a proposition that needed to be accepted for the logic to work. I wasn't being closed-minded, but I legitimately couldn't accept the proposition, so it invalidated the argument for me. That was my hour as a believer.
I understand the value of religion. I also understand the value of atheism. Religion promises eternal value to one's consciousness, meaning for life, redemption of evil, an external code of conduct, etc. Atheism generally gives more meaning to the value of life and decisions on Earth - and puts the onus on the individual.
Truth be known, I'm jealous of anyone who truly believes in a god. It'd be a huge weight off of my shoulders to know that there's meaning. I can't imagine, for the life of me, what that meaning would be - but it'd be nice. I'd trade places with anyone in the world who believes.
Being kind of scientific, it galls me to see the irrational blustering from most sides. It makes sports and political discussions seem downright civil and logically backed-up. The thing is, the arguments are less on the actual existence of a god, and more on the follies of some organized religion practitioners and anti-religionistos. Amazingly, both sides have iron-clad proof of the stupidity of the other side. There's a saying somewhere about throwing poo and getting it on yourself. Or there should be.
To win an argument, you first frame the question in your terms, then most of the work is already done. For example, when George W Bush wanted to dismiss the Global Warming crowd, he insisted that people call it Climate Change. He and I differ on a lot of things, but we both agree on at least one thing: GWB really is great at politics. Yes, actually great. He knows how to play the bully card better than anyone going back to at least McCarthy.
In religion, typically the argument is framed using the terms believer and non-believer. If you believe that religious discussion is an argument measurable by the number of people on your side, then this is genius for the religious side. A non-believer is wishy-washy, non-committed, and pessimistic. The argument is already won.
Okay, but enough crap...who's right?
Who knows the answer to existence?
I'll save you oodles of time and distill the answers to existence right here.
If you believe in a god or gods, then the basic explanation of existence is simple...because God made it:
• "It just works that way."
But hey - you're big into reasons, science, proof, and analysis - so that simple explanation just isn't good enough for you as an adult. Thus, you do research and find out how atoms work, then you find out how electrons work, then you find how mesons work, and then you find out how quarks work. Eventually, you get to the very core of the building blocks of the universe. You are the mack-daddy physicist of all time. But you still don't really know why they work, you just know more and more detail about how they do. Your eventual answer to the question of existence and why things work is:
• "It just works that way."
Congratulation people, you now agree. Now go do something useful, be a good example for 'your side', agree to the folly of extremists on both sides, and quit hacking each other.
So anyway, this boils down to the fact that I won't* argue religion. It's not that I don't want to. I can, and have done it quite well. See...I don't believe in deities, but I could, and I see how people could. I see great value in the reasonable belief of them, so I wouldn't want to 'win' the argument and convert anyone away from that. Making someone less happy would be a loss to me. I explained that at the outset of several discussions with the Jehovah's Witnesses. They're quite delightful people, if you take the time to find out.
Paul
* Okay, that inaccurate, I will argue it if you're a pompous, lecturing windbag and I have a moment of moral weakness. To be fair though, I now will argue either side with almost-equal abandon.
