Atheism is a position on one particular issue in the vast sea of possible ideas and beliefs, but the thing that made me an atheist was skepticism.  I answer this question briefly in the FAQ, and I mean it; my skepticism was what ultimately led me away from the church, and continues to influence the way I learn and position myself.

Skepticism is simply serving a healthy serving of “Why?” with every piece of new information that is presented, especially when that information runs contrary to one’s current understanding of a situation.  This allows one to the intellectual freedom to actually ascertain truth, without just believing whatever is presented to you as fact.

From Fundamental to Fact

In my path to atheism, several ideas and beliefs I took for granted were defeated once I began being skeptical of what it was that I was being told.  This took place first in 2005, in my first foray into apologetics, but would resurface in 2009.  Ultimately my skepticism led me to question the foundations of the bible, the gospels, and the martyrdom of the apostles.

Information from scholars who did not necessarily have a Christian agenda, who are generally labeled “liberal” by Christian groups (because of their dissenting views on the text), turned me on to facts that I had henceforth either ignored or not been aware of.  Textual criticism pointed to the non-eyewitness nature of the gospels, which was attested as fact in many “conservative” sources as well (although not nearly as often).  There is also the red herring of having a large number of manuscript copies of the NT, with a very small average variation, but few Christian scholars will ever point out that having many copies of the final, edited, redacted, interpolated version doesn’t mean it’s magically correct.

Things like this made me put on my skeptic hat towards any and everything I thought I knew.  The time leading up to my deconversion had me continually frustrated with the credulous acceptance of ideas, and the blind dismissal of other facts by my fellow Christians; When Dawkins came to town, my reprimand extended to Christian and atheists alike.  From my post,

Christians.. stop being ignorant. Shut up, read 1Peter 3:15, and come back when you have more than resounding gongs, and clanging cymbaic words sans sound logic. You dishonor Christ with your blind faith and hatemongering. – Patrick, circa 2009

And yet by re-reading my own perspectives, I find the platform from which I argued riddled with factual errors, such as

The resurrection of Christ was recorded by 4 well known eyewitnesses, the effects were such that secular historians admitted it, as well as sources that were anti-Christian. (Josephus, Tacitus) - Patrick, circa 2009

Because I allowed my skepticism to be influenced by my worldview, I accepted facts such as the eyewitness nature of the gospels and the Testimonium Flavium as unequivocal truth, and this allowed me to miss the fact that there was little evidence for the gospel being the word of god, and much more evidence for it being a pious fiction, replete with interpolations in historical works from Christians seeking to bolster their own mythology.

However, this doesn’t preclude me from being skeptical about all claims, especially now that I am on the flip side of the coin; I hold myself to a higher standard of skepticism than I should, and there is plenty of baloney from the atheist side that people spew forth, that is accepted as factual without any skepticism whatsoever.  I hated it as a Christian, and I still hate blind acceptance as an atheist.

Faithless Atheism

On the Reddit subgroup about atheism (/r/atheism; theists, be warned: beliefs are not treated as sacred), I came across a thread titled, “I was a Catholic this year until I found the main factor of my religion(Resurrection of Jesus) was a story the church added in. This article is a great example of what I found.”  I’ve never heard the claim that the resurrection was a story that the Church added in.  I know that the books of the bible were written after the ‘resurrection’ happened, but it was never ‘added’; it was always there.  There was a Christian in there who said that the article was misrepresenting the text, that it was making wild accusations; and on a cursory reading, I agreed with him.

I took a look at the article the opening poster linked to, and it made an incredible case: that the resurrection was “added in,” citing the Sinaicticus Manuscript as proof, and pointing to Constantine as the author of the doctrine, through his establishment of the Canon.

And herein lies the difference between the two schools of thought; as a skeptic, I read from competing sources to make sure I hadn’t missed something along the way, verses someone who is credulous or gullible believing the article at face value.

So I researched, and continue to research, but there it was: The Gospel of Mark in the Sinaicticus did not have the resurrection.  Anywhere (keep in mind that Mark was the first Gospel).  It was a later interpolation.  The claims about the book of Luke missing a large portion in this manuscript were true.  Mark to this day has no virgin birth story; it was a later adoption by Matthew and Luke, borrowed from Mithraism (which I knew already).  But what does that leave me to think about the Council of Nicea?

Iraneus was quoting from the New Testament books in 180, and makes one of the first attestations of the four gospels as equally authentic. In his book, “Against Heresies,” he makes his case for the four (saying that as there are 4 corners of the earth, so there should only be 4 gospels).  It is also clear in the same work that the idea of only using these four was somewhat controversial, and not at all universal:

These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those, [I mean,] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer. (Against Heresies 3.11.9)

Iraneus, not Constantine, was much more responsible for the establishment of the canon, as well as Origen, who came after him (c.200 AD).  Thus, the council of Nicea codified the already established canon.  Constantine placed a request to Esubius to collect the most fantastical stories, specifically those which include stories similar to the other Gods that were worshiped, many of which were already in place in the Sinaicticus.  Constantine simply codified what was already there that would unify the maximal number of people.

Still No Resurrection

So while the article pointed out some major truths and problems in the development of the gospels (and I would urge anyone interested to read the codex for themselves), the article also misconstrues the events of the council of Nicea, as well as the influence of Constantine.  There is plenty of damning evidence in the bible, and with the Codex Sinaiticus, that the stories were legend and myth, without mythologizing the events surrounding Nicea.

Don’t trust me.  Don’t trust anyone.  Allow your mind the freedom to evaluate the truth from every angle.  Skepticism saves minds, and open-mindedness simply means being open to new ideas; however, this doesn’t mean that you have to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.