Sure, there are “fundies” who “say the darndest things” – there are also New Yorkers who say thoughtless things and rant. For that matter, there’s people everywhere who say the darndest things. As I said, I don’t assume that all atheists are ranting “Christian-baiters”, any more than all New Yorkers are arrogant bimbos or all Christians are sheep with faith where their brains should be.

I wasn’t really trying to suggest that all atheists simply want to be free to sin. (I’m not trying to suggest anything at all about all atheists, except that, by definition, they believe there is no god.) Most of the ones that I’ve met, as a scientist, have decided that the existence of God is not supported by any evidence they’re prepared to accept. Many of them have been quite decent folks, and even been “traditionally moral” at that. No frothing rage involved

As far as the “article” … it was part of a letter, actually, which Paul wrote to the Roman church. The first chapter explains – from Paul’s point of view – the path through which the world got into the state in which he found it, and which it’s still in today.

I suppose it’s largely a question of one’s basic assumptions, as to whether Paul’s explanation holds any water. Certainly there are purely naturalistic explanations which are entirely compatible with atheism; what Paul describes as the deterministic consequences of rebellion against God, a naturalist might describe merely as the deterministic consequences of “the selfish gene”.

Another translation of the specific verse I quoted puts it, “They thought it foolish to acknowledge God.” Isn’t that essentially the same thing as what you describe?

“To believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity in the face of suffering” would (you say) be foolishness. People faced with that conclusion can either choose to be “foolish” — retaining belief in God even if it may involve logical paradox — or they can choose to be wise (according to their basic assumptions) and choose not to “retain God in [their] knowledge”. That’s not necessarily “a mere preference”, nor is it a choice that should be made lightly; but both choices are possible.

(My own choice is the former, as you’ve probably guessed, on the grounds that there’s far more going on in that particular area than I can currently know. What is revealed to us in Scripture, and apparent to us from our senses, is entirely accurate. It is not entirely complete. “Now I see in part,” as Paul puts it; “then I shall see fully.”)

Truth be told, the original author wasn’t particularly clear in his thoughts. I don’t think he’s angry over the fact that others believe, however. In any case, these kind of rants are common to both sides. Best not to take them too seriously.

I’ve never heard of someone coming to an atheist belief because they found the idea of god constraining to their freedom. It sounds very much like the familiar Christian accusation that atheists simply want to be free to sin. This is not to say no such reasons are ever given. Rather, I’ve never come across them. Usually, the process of disbelief is quite painful and fraught with much soul-searching, with often serious consequences to family and career.

I’d be interested in the article which explains the basis for atheism is not liking to retain God in one’s knowledge. The idea seems to suggest a mere preference, but the basis of the things I describe is simply honesty. To believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity in the face of suffering, for example, is simply not reconcilable.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/radio_reminder_13.php

“Simply the lack of belief in god(s)” does not obviously require any particular reaction to the beliefs of others. In particular, it does not obviously require anger, and yet that often seems to be the reaction. Not always, of course. Perhaps it’s more precisely described as an angry reaction to attempts at evangelism – some frustration is understandable since (from the target’s viewpoint) they’re simply wasting your time. But anger? Anger at the very fact that others believe?

As you said, atheism does not intrinsically require that, nor does it require efforts to confound and trip up JWs (for instance) who come to one’s door. It certainly does not require satisfied glee at “lookit the poor confused Christian sheepie! he met someone smarter! ha!” (Paraphrasing, perhaps uncharitably, from comments in that same thread.)

The quote about “disliking to retain God” was from a text from “the other side” which presents an explanation (from that viewpoint) of the origins of atheism and how other things follow.

I understand that, for many, it’s a purely intellectual process based on the perceived evidence, as you describe.

I have also seen accounts of individuals’ “coming to atheism” which began with ideas along the lines of “the idea of a ‘god’ is distasteful to me, because it would constrain my freedom in one sense or another”. (“Not having to deal with cognitive dissonance and the freedom to explore truth unbounded by baseless dogmas” sound rather like “I didn’t want to continue to include ideas of god(s) in my thinking” – which doesn’t seem that different from “they did not like to retain God in their knowledge”…

I really don’t assume that all atheists are the same, or that all such are filled with vitriol or anything else. And I recognize that having reached a different conclusion may have left me blind to particular steps along your way. In particular I applaud your open-mindedness – it would be unfortunate to have left religion to avoid “baseless dogma”, only to have traded one dogma for another…

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more. If you’re looking for a life plan or a basis for ethics, you’ll have to look elsewhere. Humanism, for example. The attractiveness of atheism, if there be any, is not having to deal with cognitive dissonance and the freedom to explore truth unbounded by baseless dogmas. Many who’ve left religions like Christianity cite these as key benefits.

Sorry to disappoint, but it’s not a matter of disliking to retain God in our knowledge. I’ve weighed the arguments and examined the evidence. There’s no God to be found in the first place. It’s entirely possible, however, that one day God will show up. I keep an open mind.