Review: "Why am I an atheist"

Greta Christina is an atheist blogger. This article is a sort of summary of one of her books, "Why are you atheist so angry?". The reading of this opinion on the website prompted me to search for her book and, on Amazon reviews, there is a good and sound rebuke to her lack of soundness in referring to religion, by David Marshall, titled " Eloquent but ignorant and based on false premises",which is worth reading.(https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Are-You-Atheists-Angry/dp/0985281529)

I have already made my case against the necessity of proving God's existence. Here, I will offer a few comments on a text that illustrates what happens to all of us when it comes to our mental faculties. We are an island of knowledge in an ocean of ignorance—things we don’t know or simply ignore. Below, you will find my brief comments on her topics. 

_"The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones." 

"Consistent" is an adjective, and adjectives don’t always sit well with rational explanations. Here, she reveals her confirmation bias. When she asks, “How many times has a natural explanation of a phenomenon been replaced by a supernatural one?” and answers “Zero,” it’s because she refuses to acknowledge that the goalposts have been moved.

Take, for example, when someone is cured of a cancer that is almost always fatal. Instead of considering the possibility of divine intervention, science labels it “spontaneous remission.”

Furthermore, just for the sake of the argument, if a biblical miracle can be explained today using our current scientific knowledge, that doesn’t make it any less miraculous in the time it originally happened.

_The inconsistency of world religions.

This one is actually easy. Religions are inconsistent because only one of them is right, and the others aren’t. In our case, we profess that Christianity is that one. Trying to submit them to a purely human perspective or a blogger’s opinion to prove their truth is like asking a scientist to submit their theory to the judgment of a five-year-old.

This is exactly what she does. Throughout this whole topic, she keeps asking, "IF God...", as if divine truth should be measured by human skepticism rather than by the time, place, and reality in which it was revealed.

_The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetic.

"Weakness" again is an adjective, which doesn’t sit well with scientific attempts. The author once more relies on her chosen tool and confirmation bias to make her point.

Moreover, returning to the idea of "an island of knowledge in an ocean of ignorance"—in quips like "And all these arguments are ridiculously weak," there have been countless attempts to challenge religious reasoning, yet none have ultimately succeeded. For example, William Arndt offers helpful insight on this: Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

_The increasing diminishment of God.

This is pure confirmation bias, not much to comment here.

_The fact that religion runs in families. 

The statement "Which leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity" is a classic example of overreach. Conclusions can indeed be drawn from selected pieces of information, but drawing a conclusion does not automatically equate to the truth. Just because religion runs in families does not inherently negate the existence of the very entity it seeks to worship. In fact, the transmission of faith across generations could indicate something deeper—perhaps the foundational impact that religious beliefs have on shaping individuals and cultures over time. To dismiss this as merely a product of family tradition is to overlook the profound and often transformative role that religion plays in many lives, regardless of its familial root.

_The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.

"So the obvious conclusion is that consciousness and identity, character and free will, are products of the brain and the body. " Same as above

_The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.

The claim that supernatural phenomena fail to withstand rigorous testing is, at best, not satisfactorily substantiated. While scientific methods are powerful in their realm, they are not always equipped to measure or account for the non-material aspects of existence—such as spiritual experiences or supernatural occurrences. These phenomena, by their very nature, often transcend the physical laws that science is designed to test. To dismiss them simply because they don't conform to empirical standards is to ignore the possibility that some aspects of reality may not be bound by what can be measured or observed through conventional methods. It’s important to recognize that there are limits to what science can explain, and just because something doesn’t fit within those limits doesn’t mean it doesn’t hold truth.

_The slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs.

I get the frustration. There are religious arguments that seem to shift and morph depending on the situation, and some people do use God as an all-purpose explanation for everything. But that’s not a problem with the idea of God—it’s a problem with bad theology. A sloppy argument for something doesn’t mean the thing itself is false; it just means that particular explanation is weak.

Now, about this whole idea that unfalsifiability makes religious belief meaningless. Science and faith aren’t playing the same game. Science is built on testable, repeatable observations. It deals with the physical, the measurable, the how of things. Christianity, at its core, is about relationship—about the who and the why. It’s not a scientific hypothesis but a claim about ultimate reality, meaning, and purpose. You can’t put love, morality, or beauty in a lab experiment either, but that doesn’t make them meaningless.

And let’s not pretend science doesn’t also shift and correct itself over time. That’s the whole point—it refines its understanding. The same happens in theology. Christians throughout history have wrestled with Scripture, with reason, with tradition and experience, trying to better understand God. Some interpretations get tossed because they don’t hold up. Others deepen. The Bible itself is full of people questioning, doubting, and wrestling with God. Faith isn’t about shutting down hard questions—it’s about engaging with them.

Now, do some Christians move the goalposts when challenged? Absolutely. But so do a lot of skeptics. Some demand hard evidence for God’s existence, but when presented with historical, philosophical, or experiential arguments, they wave them away because “that’s not real evidence.” The truth is, both believers and nonbelievers have to confront evidence, ask hard questions, and be willing to adjust when faced with good reasons to do so.

So, if you’re frustrated with slippery arguments, I hear you. But the existence of bad arguments doesn’t mean there isn’t a good one. And if you really want to wrestle with faith, then let’s do it honestly—not by dismissing it because some people make bad defences, but by actually engaging with what it claims.

the scientific method has led to massive leaps in our understanding of the physical world, while religious beliefs seem stuck in an endless cycle of disagreement. But here’s the thing: science and religion are not the same kind of pursuit.

Science is about understanding the material world—what we can measure, test, and predict. It thrives on correction and refinement because its goal is to get closer to objective truth about the physical universe. But religion isn’t trying to do the same thing. Faith isn’t a hypothesis to be tested under a microscope; it’s about meaning, purpose, morality, and our relationship to something beyond ourselves.

_The complete lack of solid evidence for God's existence.

Well, we probably cannot prove the existence of God. But we certainly can prove the existence of the Bible.

Still, "...and it's completely reasonable to act as if he doesn't." This is in my opinion the most correct affirmation by the author in the entire text, which sums up the entire rationale of the text: reason can't grasp God's existence by its own means.

And which finds support even from the Bible.

Some extra thoughts on the theme.

 ___________

Source of the picture: Microsoft PPT template