1. Natural Atheists: Those brought up by atheist parents who never experienced the conflict between religion and rationality.
2. Apathetic Atheists: Those whose faith was not particularly strong and who, without a compelling drive to believe or not believe, defaulted to atheism - becoming an atheist involved very little internal debate and conflict.
3. Dissonant Atheists: Those who grew up with belief but who were overwhelmingly torn up over the incompatibility between faith and rationality. These people sought one thing - to rid themselves of the terrible cognitive dissonance cat #1 and #2 atheists are spared from.

I’m here to talk about category #3 atheists because, well, I fall in that grouping.

Three Things You Must Know About Category #3 Atheists

1. We Sometimes Wish Were Wrong (Even Though We Know We Are Not): I think one of the biggest mistakes theists make is to assume an atheist’s decision to ditch god was arrived at without deeply studying the issue. They honestly believe that all they have to do is raise a little awareness and, viola, they will have an easy conversion. This is not the case for cat #3 atheists. For us, becoming an atheist was the biggest decision of our lives. After all, becoming an atheist, not only means (for 99.9999% of us) getting rid of god, it also means abandoning the idea of immortality (ourselves and our loved ones) and that makes it a very, very big decision. Many of us go through a very real grieving process over all of this. With all this on the line, do you really think we’d only put a half-assed effort into our decision?
2. We’ve Heard It All Before: I’m amazed how often - in my short, six months as an atheist - I’ve been challenged by someone who thinks they have the ultimate argument for religion. Trust me, you have nothing new to offer us on this discussion. Why am I so cocky (clue: see #1 above)? We’ve heard all your objections and questions before - probably many times before. Where have we heard them? We heard them inside our own heads during our de-conversion process. We’ve run the scenarios and questions many, many times - over and over - in our minds and, eventually, logic won out over these objections and we accepted reality. Most cat #3 atheists will have read multiple books on both sides of the argument, spend hundreds of hours on the web, and viewed countless Youtube debates (frankly, once you’ve seen Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris demolish the likes of Dinesh D’Souza a few times, our own debates seem …rather lame). What you need to know is that by the time you come into the picture, your objections are not at all new to us.
3. You are Projecting: What we’ve come to realize about your questions and objections (e.g. “What’s the purpose of life without God?” and “Why be moral?”) is that you’re projecting your thoughts, insecurities and fears onto us. Sure, we can answer your questions but, we know in doing so that our worldview troubles you, and that you ask those questions to help you imagine what it might be like to be an atheist. My advice is to keep on asking these good questions, but to also make sure you ask them of yourself. I think you’ll find that you can imagine there’s no heaven. You may even find that it’s easy if you try.

To be blunt, what all this means is that you have very little hope of converting a cat #3 atheist to your religion (you probably won’t have much luck with a cat #1 either). Seriously, your best chance probably lies in converting cat #2 atheists so you might want to start by asking a few questions before wasting time on the wrong category.

Now you have a better understanding of us. You also have a more specific target conversion market.

You’re welcome.

I tried again. “It’s not just bowling - it’s neon bowling“.

My friend: “Mark, do you like eating shit?”.

“Uh, no”.

“If I put chocolate on some shit, do you think you’d eat it”?

I laughed and dropped the subject.

I’m weary of the chocolate-on-top-of-shit argument for god.

Even people with a belief in god see the ridiculousness of fundamentalist Christianity. A 6000 year old earth, hatred of homosexuals and the jealous, vengeful god of the Old Testament do not ring true in 21st century society.

Common sense leads moderate, liberal Christians to focus on the kinder, gentler aspects of the New Testament. Only problem is, in doing so, they conveniently leave out two important parts:

1. If you reject the god of the New Testament, not only are you denied entry to heaven, but you are also condemned to eternal hell. Note: Eternity is a helluva long time.
2. Jesus Christ endorsed the Old Testament. How do you resolve this little problem? If it was good enough for him, why isn’t it good enough for you?

So much for the kinder, gentler version of Christianity the moderates and liberals want us to believe their religion is about.

But, hold on - there’s more. The cherry-picking of moderates doesn’t end there. As each year passes, we get even kinder and gentler versions of Christianity where believers try to convince us that we are to pay attention to even less of the Bible (e.g. let’s try not to talk about eternal damnation part). Does Rick Warren ring a bell for anyone?

This, is what I will henceforth call the Chocolate on Top of Shit Argument for God - the idea that, if we ignore enough of the Bible, and put a coat of chocolate on top of the crap underneath, it will magically become palatable.

Attention new-age Christians: No matter how much chocolate you put on your religion, it’s still based on some pretty mean, awful torturous ideas. Ideas based on virtually no evidence. Ideas that don’t jive with hundreds of other religions (they don’t like the taste of your chocolate shit any more than you like the taste of theirs).

All this to say that I don’t care how much you tell me “Jesus loves you” - I just can’t buy it. I can’t buy a sales-pitch that has all these shortcomings and that ultimately ends with the threat of eternal damnation.

In case you are just now catching up, Roger Ebert posted a Q&A of creationist beliefs (6000 year old earth etc) on his blog the other day. The thought that such an apparently intelligent man could believe such nonsense caused quite a stir - PZ Meyers spoke about it here.

Today, PZ posted a follow-up after Ebert himself posted an explanation for the creationism satire. As usual, PZ’s analysis is insightful, as are the many comments left by readers of his blog.

One point I haven’t yet seen mentioned by either PZ or Ebert is that Ebert’s original article will, if my guess is right, be used extensively by creationists to bolster their dark-age views.

We’ve seen it before. Einstein, Stephen Hawking and even Charles Darwin have been quote-mined and taken out of context. And, despite our best efforts, as time passes, the myths of these incorrect uses of their words becomes further ingrained in those who would rather not delve deeper.

So, Mr. Ebert - although you may have made a point about our inability to see satire, you (and we) will pay a price.

Your name is, as we speak, undoubtedly being added to the list of people who believe in creationism. Well done.

Surveys aren’t the complete picture since they don’t fully address awareness of atheism - awareness being the first step toward deconversion. The question of awareness got me wondering about the number of news articles being written at least partially on the subject of atheism. I went to Google News to see what I could learn:

                  
1. Good News: Between January 2006 and 2008, there was an approximate 75% increase in the number of news articles containing “atheism” or “atheist”. This figure throws out a December 2007 spike to be explained below.
2. Interesting News: There are more articles written about atheism in December than any other month. Is it just a coincidence that December is the high point of the Christian calendar and that more is being said about atheism at that time of year?
3. Depressing News: Articles that generated the highest peaks were almost always written on religious websites/by theist authors. In other words, we get our best press when theists ponder our - in their view - wrongness. This is, unfortunately, consistent with the previous point about December articles.
4. Celebrity News: By far, the biggest boost to atheism came with the December release of The Golden Compass. In case you were asleep, there was quite a bit of controversy in religious circles as to the films anti-religious leanings. Atheism got it’s all-time biggest boost over this nugget of controversy.
5. Not Surprising News: There were some upswings in conjunction with major book releases. Generally speaking, there were small two to three month blips around The God Delusion (October 2006) and God Is Not Great (May 2007). This is pure speculation - although there were blips in those months, I can’t say for sure the books were 100% causal. That said, it’s probably a fair guess they had at least some impact.
6. Very Bad News: March 2008 (the last month of Google News data) showed the largest drop in atheism articles over the past two years. In fact, the number of articles indexed on Google in March 2008 was almost as low as the number indexed in March 2006.

Notes On The Data

1. I conducted analysis using “atheism” and “atheists”. The numbers (e.g. 75% growth) were similar for each.
2. I was a bit concerned that the numbers may have been indicative of overall Google News growth. Meaning, I thought that perhaps Google’s overall news grew by 75% - just like the percent increase in atheist articles. To test this, I conducted the same analysis on “religion” and “Christianity” and found that the percent growth wasn’t even close to “atheism” and “atheist” growth. The growth of the former search words were quite flat.

What Can We Learn From This?

I’m not a media guy, but I think someone with media background could use this information to great effect. My own thoughts are that:

1. Books Help (I know - duh): My sense (based on nothing) is that most of the big books have probably already been written and that, to be successful, new ones will need to hit a new demographic (e.g. maybe someone can break in by dumbing it down a bit and speaking to the masses). If famous atheists Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were to write a book about atheism, it might just become cool to be one.
2. Movies and Controversy Bring More Attention Than Books: Let’s face it, North America loves its movies. The bigger the movie with ties to atheism, the better the message will get out. Someone needs to get on that. I tend to think that a mainstream movie with a controversial atheist agenda might do well because of it.
3. The Tail Needs to Learn How to Wag the Dog: We know the news covers atheism when theists write about it. My view is we should figure out one kick-ass way to feed the trolls.
4. Christmas: Feed the trolls more at Christmas since theists seem to be looking for it anyway.
5. No Stopping: Does the trend of less media coverage mean people are tiring of the atheist message, or is it just time to think hard about the approach we’re using to get that message across? 

One Last Thought

We still don’t seem to have a meme that’s taken hold in a big way. We’ve got a few out there (Out Campaign, The Brights, and The Blasphemy Challenge) that seem to appeal to atheists, but none that seem to have really struck a positive chord with the greater public.

What makes a good internet meme? How do we get all the cool kids to run around with an atheist related t-shirt? I’m no expert on memes - I just think that no one has hit that particular nail on the head …yet.

What are your thoughts? How do we increase atheism’s visibility in the news? How do we reverse what looks like a recent decline in news coverage and public awareness?

What’s bugging me is the arrogant, condescending attitude we often have toward believers. Certainly not everyone is guilty of this and, of those, not everyone is guilty all the time but it is, in my estimation, still too prevalent.

You’d be right to say that we atheists are often the object of arrogance and disrespect and that all we’re doing is a tit-for-tat thing but, do two wrongs make a right? Do you really want to have that kind of dialogue?

7 Pillars I Try to Live My Life By was my first shot at conveying that, although I have no belief in god, I do have values that might connect with people examining their own beliefs. And that’s what I think we should be striving for - to connect and demonstrate alternative world views, and communicate that we do not lead empty, uncaring, valueless lives.

Perhaps more importantly, is a group of people who speak degradingly of others a group that someone questioning their faith would want to be a part of?

One of my pillars is being empathetic to others, but I think compassion and being humble are also important when it comes to discussing atheism. Overall, I’d rather be empathetic and treat people with compassion, than add fuel to the theist-atheist fire.

Of course, in doing so, I’m sure there will be those who do not respond in kind. That’s ok. The conversations I want to have are with people exploring belief versus non-belief in a non-combative manner, and I think that those people will turn away from discussing atheism if all they see from the messenger is arrogance and condescension.

So, I’m going to take one out of that book many of us like to ridicule and turn the other cheek.

My Pledge: If you’re coming here to learn about atheism, I will give my best effort to always treat you with respect. I hope you’ll afford me the same courtesy.

I’m not interested at all in patting myself and other atheists on the back for being more clever than “those poor, dumb, deluded religious people”. No, to spread atheism, we don’t need an ego building initiative - we need to convince others that there are hope-filled, meaningful alternatives to being religious.

I understand that for questioning theists, a leap of unfaith can be a difficult and scary thing. I’m here to respect - not denigrate - that challenge.

Here’s a gem written by David Garnet over at Glittering Muse.

If we are to attract more people to atheism and the humanist worldview, we need more of this kind of writing.

I know some atheists take a really hard line on anything to do with religion - including prayer (e.g. “I don’t want anyone praying for me”) whereas I’m softer on the whole thing. As a “Dawkins” atheist, I know all about the argument that there is a slippery slope between the average, well-meaning, good Christian, and wacky fundamentalists. However, I am not quite as militant about the former kind simply because I don’t think they are bad people. Incorrect, yes. Bad, no.

In fact, they mean well. They mean to help. I can’t fault them for that. I’m happy and grateful they have concern for me and my family.

If someone says, “I’m praying for you”, the translator in my head hears, “I am thinking about your family and hoping for the best”.

In my view, the only difference between them and me is that they believe there is someone “up there” listening to those prayers whereas, of course, I don’t.

Thinking about this makes me wonder … to those of you who do take a hard line, how do you reject a prayer?

It was a momentary lapse that was quickly dispelled with a little dose of rational thinking and the reminder that millions of undeserving people are inflicted with suffering every day. This undeserved suffering that’s been happening over hundreds of thousands of years is just one indication that there is no god.

The horrible experience convinced me that emotions like fear and hope evolved with strong connections to an often supernaturally based yearning for protection and comfort - we didn’t understand the world, so we looked to the mystical realm for help. While this may have been helpful to us in the past, in my mind, that approach is today a distraction. Hope and comfort are now better sought out in our own growing knowledge of the universe - of how things work and how things can be fixed.

Bringing it back to this personal experience, my kid gets to live because of humanity’s growing knowledge of biology, and I feel grateful to live in a time and place where my family can benefit.

Fear gives way to hope and comfort in the knowledge that our species is, with growing rapidity, learning to eliminate the suffering many people’s god is either unable or unwilling to end himself.

Dear god,
Hope you got the letter,
And I pray you can make it better down here.
I dont mean a big reduction in the price of beer,
But all the people that you made in your image,
See them starving on their feet,
cause they dont get enough to eat

From god,
I cant believe in you.

Dear god,
Sorry to disturb you,
But I feel that I should be heard loud and clear.
We all need a big reduction in amount of tears,
And all the people that you made in your image,
See them fighting in the street,
cause they cant make opinions meet,
About god,
I cant believe in you.

Did you make disease, and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too!

Dear god,
Dont know if you noticed,
But your name is on a lot of quotes in this book.
Us crazy humans wrote it, you should take a look,
And all the people that you made in your image,
Still believing that junk is true.
Well I know it aint and so do you,

Dear god,
I cant believe in,
I dont believe in,

I wont believe in heaven and hell.
No saints, no sinners,
No devil as well.
No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
Youre always letting us humans down.
The wars you bring, the babes you drown.
Those lost at sea and never found,
And its the same the whole world round.
The hurt I see helps to compound,
That the father, son and holy ghost,
Is just somebodys unholy hoax,
And if youre up there youll perceive,
That my hearts here upon my sleeve.
If theres one thing I dont believe in…

Its you,
Dear god.