Wrong

I came across this piece of silliness this morning, entitled Is Atheism Only a Bundle of Sentiments? Some highlights:

--Atheism is more "a bundle of sentiments than a coherent doctrine."
Here we have a nice bit of dopey vagueness. By "sentiment" does the author mean "view" or "opinion"? If so, then he's simply stating the obvious: atheism is not, in fact, a "doctrine." Christianity and other religions are doctrines (from the Latin, doctrina, "teaching, learning") which require indoctrination. Religion is a learned set of beliefs and behaviors; atheism is the "default" setting of all humans. Calling atheism a doctrine is simply a childish bit of "projection" on the part of theists.

--Atheism "requires more faith than Christianity."
Nonsense. Atheism is, in large part, the complete lack of faith in a particular doctrine ("God exists"). It would be truer to say that atheism requires more reason than Christianity. Being an atheist requires no special effort or act of will on my part. Devout theists, however, seemingly have to keep reminding themselves that they believe in God.

--Atheists "are often very angry at the God they claim does not exist."
Logically, an atheist can't be angry at a God he doesn't believe in. This statement does, though, represent a certain type of individual--someone who is having a "crisis of faith," or even perhaps someone who is in transition. I have no doubt that people like this exist (I'm reminded of certain characters in Dostoevsky), but they are not atheists (not yet, anyway).

--"Back in my days as an atheist, [...] I rejected Christianity largely because it would not have allowed me to continue getting drunk and high every night while splitting time between four girlfriends."
Wow. Where to begin with this steaming little pile of shit? First of all, notice how the author tries to deceive with his choice of words--he didn't reject God, he rejected Christianity. Nope, not an atheist. Notice also how he equates "immoral" behavior with atheism, as if there have never been any "evil" believers or "saintly" atheists. (I suppose he was also a communist during this atheistic interlude.) In fact, I would argue that this sounds more like "Satanism" than atheism: a conscious rejection of Christian morality in favor of a hedonistic, egoistic lifestyle. Whatever. The fact that his morality (even at that point in his life) ultimately derives from Christian doctrine shows clearly that he was not an "atheist." Besides, does he seriously expect us to believe that there are no Christians who get high and fuck around and that everyone who gets high and fucks around is an atheist?

I'd say this guy was bullshitting us, or call him a liar, but that would make him out to be somewhat un-Christian. Let's just chalk it up to stupidity...

[Update: I forgot to add a link in the text to Satanism. That's been fixed.]