A friend of mine prompted the following thoughts after post this quote by Marilyn Adamson...
"What is it about atheists that they would spend so much time, attention, and energy refuting something that they don't believe even exists? ... Perhaps those who challenge [others] who believe in God are [yearning] to be convinced otherwise."
One of his friend's responded,
"I would imagine that a great deal of atheists have scientific backgrounds. Accordingly, given their hypothesis that God does not exist it is logically congruent they search for evidence otherwise. Science doesn't necessarily seek for proof of a hypothesis rather for the vigorous disproof of all alternative explanations."
In addition to the scientific argument, individuals holding contradicting perspective are oft pursuaded to engage in debate to both validate their own position and to change others' beliefs. This is especially true when views infringe upon the liberties of others. In other words, atheists aren't a big fan of suicide bombing, and since they attribute that behavior to radical Islam, they will naturally arguable against its practices.
While various attempts at gihad are certainly under the scrutiny of atheists, they also have plenty to say about Christianity. The extremist militia group, the Hutaree Christian Militia, planned on murdering a police officer followed by bombing the funeral in order to start a holy war against the secular government of America. The sex scandals within the heirarchy of the Catholic Church have caused many atheists to question why a Pope might protect an admitted pedophile priest. On a less extreme front, its no surprise that the GLBT community is not satisfied with the Christian right's response that their rights are being denied because of a writings dated more than 2000 years ago.
Ultimately, it comes down to the atheist community's frustration with institutions perpetuating group think and encouraging their members to accept blind faith above rationality. Its the same reason why I attack propoganda groups like Fox News for instilling in their viewers fallicious ideas like Barack Obama is a socialist in an attempt to achieve economic prosperity. If I feel like someone is spreading principles that are detrimental to society, it is my civil obligation to oppose that. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, individuals benefit from this discourse by creating an intellectually stimulating conversation. While everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it is these discussion that promote personal and societal growth, and therefore are welcomed in my book.
