Rejection of superstition/supernaturalism
Naturally, I am an Atheist. I reject the irrational epistemology of religions based on “faith” i.e. wishful thinking, because reason is mans only means of survival and gaining knowledge. Apart from leading us to false conclusions which can potentially harm our lives (see homeopaths who think they can heal cancer with little sugar globules…), superstition is also dangerous because it deprives one of any right to criticize other – even potentially dangerous – beliefs (or even other interpretations of the same faith). If reason plays no role in the process of finding one’s faith, how can one criticize others for their conclusions, which they achieved through the same process? Thus, even moderate believers are part of the problem because they share the same basic philosophy, the same epistemology, as e.g. Islamist suicide bombers who justify their crimes with the same reasoning.
Of course, theologians use reason and scientific methods to build their faith as consistently as possible. But the basis of epistemology remains “faith” (accepting arbitrary assertions) and “revelation” (automatic knowledge / knowledge from nowhere). It’s like evaluating characters, the meaning of the story, and future developments of a series or a book: it can be done in a highly logical, quasi scientific, way – but that has little to do with reality.
To answer the question of where we come from with “God” is also irrational: it only shifts the problem back one level because it does not answer how “God” came into existence. And he must have done somehow. “God” cannot be everything and at the same time nothing specific, it violates the identity axiom. As a personal “God”, that is, a thinking identity like us, he must have undergone some developmental process. When using common definitions, even if they are ambivalent, “God” is either superfluous or impossible – often both.
The term “supernatural”:In the philosophical sense, nature denotes the totality of perceptible things, that is, everything physically existent. That means that the “supernatural” does not exist by definition. Are there things in nature that we have not discovered yet? For sure. But that does not mean that you have to fill these gaps with “God” or other “supernatural” stuff. If anything seems to contradict our current knowledge, it is also no proof (not even an indication) of the “supernatural”.
Rejection of “divine” ethics
For the same reason I reject the epistemology based on faith, I reject ethics based on faith. A moral code is supposed to tell us how to live. Therefore, it must be based in reality, i.e. be objective. Religious ethics refer to divine revelation, or what their leaders claim it to be. Hence the countless crazy rituals that often have long since lost their true purpose (if they’ve ever had one) and are simply carried on by tradition. Even if a religion advocates a liberal moral code, it does not make them legitimate. The religion must objectively justify it if it wants to implement it politically. It has to prove that there is a “God” and more importantly, why the hell we should be interested in what he demands.