Logic x Reason = Atheism

I do get overcome with joy whenever I see a debate against theologians, because they’re always left trailing. Why is this? To answer, I need to make a very relevant point.

Atheists do NOT get consolation from their atheism. You’ll never hear an Atheist say “I thank no god for my life. Thank no god for the wonderful world that no god created for me.” It sounds preposterous doesn’t it? Exactly! I don’t get consolation for believing that no god exists, but I am persuaded to disbelieve in a god because logic and reason demand disbelief or at the very least, a suspension of judgement.

Religious people on the other hand, DO get consolation from their belief in god. Why else would they believe it? Because there is ‘evidence’? No. If there were evidence in the case for god, then explain why over 90% of the world’s top scientists are non-religious. In my experience when talking to religious people about their faith the only way they attempt to defend their position is by using suggestive and symbolic words, with hints of metaphor for deeper meaning which sounds nice, but in objective terms, it means squat.

They know they’re not going to persuade someone who is in tune with logic, reason and rational thinking, that god exists. So instead, they opt for poetic verses and symbolism. But with each passing day my disbelief grows stronger because I challenge myself more and more, trying to make sense of every argument I can for the existence of a god. But there are none. The very idea of or existence of god gets smaller and smaller the more I think about it.

But once you are persuaded by symbolic poetic metaphors, even remotely, in that very instant, you render yourself a fool. You have been sucked in by unintelligent half-baked nonsense that would fail to hold in a court of law or any institution that promotes logic and reason. It gives no more substance to your claim in god than someone else's claim in fairies.

However, I must add that I’m not criticising literature and poetry, or dampen its importance. I think it’s a wonderful thing because it leaves a blueprint on our culture, just like how our ancestors who drew paintings in caves trying to make sense of the world. I enjoy poetry and yes, even the Bible. You wouldn’t understand the likes of Shakespeare and Blake without at least some knowledge of the Bible. But in order for something to be ‘true’, it would have to be objective and factual, and this is something that poetic and symbolic wordings miss out on. And honestly, for the most part I dislike God. I say this in the same way I dislike Iago in Othello.

The only consolation I can bring myself to mention is that Atheism (disbelief in god) has the strongest material advantage as a default position. But it’s not really consolation at all, because I personally, do not gain from it. Religious people on the contrary, really do think they have something to gain from their belief. But to be frank, believing in a claim that is a lie, is a loss. This is why theologians lose debates. Their entire position relies on an immediate willingness to believe, that is not based on evidence. Sure, they may say it is based on evidence but they're only saying that to provide some weight to a featherweight claim. Its not 'evidence'. If it was evidence, it would be testable, repeatable, verifiable. Not symbolic poetry, which is nice. But believable? Nah.