During my confirmation, I was sincerely trying to become a Christian and get saved by Jesus to enter heaven, to have all those treasures that writers of Matthew report. The fact was, I was given reasons which were not adequate and not reasonable. The evidence was shaky, or the arguments were really veiled assertions that were too easy to refute and thus Christianity collapsed around me as unintelligible – which is a serious matter in the field of philosophy. And it didn't take many of them either, since every reason that I was urged to accept was rationalized upon a non sequitur or by blatant appeals to faith or emotion. If there is a Christian reading this that wishes to supply a reason that does not beg emotion, authority, ignorance, why I should accept Christianity, I urge that reader to do so. But until that time, I feel one-hundred percent comfortable in stating that not only is Christianity dangerous, irrational, and the stuff of delusion, it is also not true.
Thus, I became a weak-atheist.
Only later did I become a strong-atheist.
It's pretty simple. The gods are supernatural. Our senses, our science, our tools, can only describe nature. Theism failed to deliver any reasons convincingly; it only begged its own conclusions, appealed to emotion or ignorance, or when that failed it turned to extortion and veiled and not-so veiled threats.
If you try to employ these senses, these tools, and our reason to the supernatural, you are only describing nature once again. Therefor, the supernatural and god is hopelessly beyond our epistemology, our reason, and our science. Arguments for the supernatural and god are only that, arguments and not evidence. When a theist attempts to do so, they do by not only appealing to materialism, but by denying the law of the middle ground, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of identity. If there is a theist that thinks they can argue otherwise and not fall into the morass above, then I challenge the theist to do so.
So no, I don't have any reasons at all to be an atheist.
