We are often told that Christians believe in God simply because they want to believe in God. Such belief is supposed to be comforting and reassuring. The atheist, in contrast, is said to be strong-minded, with the ability to follow the evidence, even if it leads to the denial of God and an afterlife.
But maybe things are a bit more complicated than this. We’ve already seen the subjective aspect of evidence, such that while Christians can be guilty of confirmation bias, atheists can be guilty of disconfirmation bias.
Well, consider how Richard Dawkins views the God of the Bible:
a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
Now, I think it safe to assume most Gnu atheists would share in this perception, given that many have applauded this description while I can’t seem to find one who has objected to it. So what would that mean?
Would you want to believe that the Universe was created by a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully? Well? Would you want to believe such a being existed and was also omnipotent and omniscient? And had the power to judge you in the afterlife?
I think it safe to say that no atheist would want such a being to truly exist. It would be more comforting to believe there was no God. Sort of like a wishful denial. So it looks like the sword cuts both ways. If Christians believe because they want to believe, atheists disbelieve because they don’t want to believe. Throw the subjective aspect of evidence into the mix and it becomes even clearer why most debates about the evidence for God’s existence are silly theatrics.