Anything worth having is worth paying a price for – that’s what Hart means by “purchased cheaply”, and I agree with him.

I counter that with what Madonna said: The best things in life are always free.

No, because Santa Claus is a fairy tale. See, this is what I mean by the paucity of thought in the tyical atheist argument. Argument proceeds by analogy, and your analogy is flawed, and you can’t seem to see it.
Santa Claus is a fairytale, Christianity is one of the world’s major religions. Your argument, presumably, is, “No, it’s a fairy tale too”: but that just doesn’t wash. There’s a misunderstanding right there for you – a misunderstanding of what a fairy tale is, and a misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong about that. The myth of Santa Claus is not a fairytale told to children. It is something practiced on children, forced on them deliberately, to supposedly bring them great joy and happiness and to keep them disciplined and yadda yadda. You end up knowing about Santa and singing about Santa before ever reading one of the fairytales about Santa.

“a misunderstanding of what a fairy tale is, and a misunderstanding of what Christianity is.”
Or, to put it another way: what a fairy tale claims, and what Christianity claims. The claims that the Catholic faith makes are a whole lot different to those that the Santa myth makes. And the evidence is a whole lot different.
We make our decision to not believe in Santa based on the evidence for that belief: ie there is very very little.

No, the evidence is not a whole lot different. In fact, in both cases there is no evidence at all. None. None that supports the existence of Jesus/God or Santa Claus, or any of the magical things Santa or Jesus/God can supposedly do. We rightly make our decision to not believe in Santa because we realize there was never anything there to support it (sometimes we have to be told he isn’t real first, but that realization still comes) in the first place. We ex-theists did the same with religions; the paths we took to get there vary much more than the path most take to aSantaism. The Why are You an Atheist series seeks to explore that path, not the outcome (or, for permanent atheists, it seeks to know how they managed to avoid going down that path).

The evidence for the truth of what the Catholic Church claims is much more compelling (not irrevocably irrefutable: I didn’t say that). I don’t claim to be able to prove God’s existence: I might be wrong in throwing my lot in with the Church but weighing up the evidence for and against I go with for because it is much more compelling to my mind. Yes, I go as far as reason takes me and then make that step of faith. I think that’s how an honest atheist sees their choice as well.

Nope. That isn’t at all how an atheist sees their “choice”. Atheists don’t see a choice. Reality does not support religious claims about gods and superpowers at all. Choice has nothing to do with the conclusion of atheism. Atheism is reliant on not denying reality and not fooling oneself. You need to pay attention more to what atheists say if you think we decided that gods are not real.

“What ]else] is there to misunderstand?”

What it is to be human. What it is to be male or female. The issue of free will. What Christianity does and does not claim. How the Bible is actually to be interpreted. Sex. Love. Suffering. Sin. History. The Enlightenment. Modernity. Good and evil. Virtue. Et cetera.

So, you are saying that the people telling us why they are an atheist must demonstrate an understanding of why they are the sex they are, why they freely or not wrote what they wrote, yadda yadda yadda? Again, I’m sorry but that doesn’t cut it. It’s not only off-topic but would be laborious to have to hit all those points just to say, “Hey, here is why I am an atheist.”

Or, to put it another way: what a fairy tale claims, and what Christianity claims. The claims that the Catholic faith makes are a whole lot different to those that the Santa myth makes. And the evidence is a whole lot different.
We make our decision to not believe in Santa based on the evidence for that belief: ie there is very very little.
The evidence for the truth of what the Catholic Church claims is much more compelling (not irrevocably irrefutable: I didn’t say that). I don’t claim to be able to prove God’s existence: I might be wrong in throwing my lot in with the Church but weighing up the evidence for and against I go with for because it is much more compelling to my mind. Yes, I go as far as reason takes me and then make that step of faith. I think that’s how an honest atheist sees their choice as well.

Your analogy would work better if you talked about Islam, or Norse mythology, in place of Santa because then you’re talking about religion not fairytales. But that’s a whole other discourse and I need to be somewhere else!

Anything worth having is worth paying a price for – that’s what Hart means by “purchased cheaply”, and I agree with him.

“something tells me you would never see this written about people who had given up their belief in Santa Claus when they discovered he didn’t exist, or for the people who never fell for the whole Santa Claus thing.”

No, because Santa Claus is a fairy tale. See, this is what I mean by the paucity of thought in the tyical atheist argument. Argument proceeds by analogy, and your analogy is flawed, and you can’t seem to see it.
Santa Claus is a fairytale, Christianity is one of the world’s major religions. Your argument, presumably, is, “No, it’s a fairy tale too”: but that just doesn’t wash. There’s a misunderstanding right there for you – a misunderstanding of what a fairy tale is, and a misunderstanding of what Christianity is.

“What ]else] is there to misunderstand?”

What it is to be human. What it is to be male or female. The issue of free will. What Christianity does and does not claim. How the Bible is actually to be interpreted. Sex. Love. Suffering. Sin. History. The Enlightenment. Modernity. Good and evil. Virtue. Et cetera.

Mm. Because I find it interesting: in two ways:

The first is that I’m learning about what the “atheist man in the street” actually thinks; how he talks about atheism; what it means to him; how he sees life. This is good because more and more I want to stand up and argue against the truth-claims of the “atheist movement” so it’s good to know what atheists actually believe about atheism as I work towards a blog or book or whatever. I’m seeing a smidgeon (just a touch!) of the best of atheist thought and a whole lot of the bottom of the barrel – it’s an interesting project to attempt to filter out the garbage and get to the good stuff.

The second is that I’m liking the challenge that atheism gives me to think critically and to live my Catholicism more honestly and courageously. That’s a good challenge and one the Church should rise to.

I’ve been reading here for a month or two and keep thinking, “Seriously? Two or three hundred years of brave freethinking and this is what you’ve come up with?” (Exhibit A: Myers’ “Why I am an Atheist” series – cheaply purchased atheism of the “Just because” variety – one misunderstanding piled on top of another.) –Emmet

Because atheism is supposed to be hard. It’s supposed to be the prize at the end of a long battle. It has to be something you suffer for. There aren’t enough martyrs here!

Something tells me you would never see this written about people who had given up their belief in Santa Claus when they discovered he didn’t exist, or for the people who never fell for the whole Santa Claus thing.

What is there to misunderstand? Why should there be only one way to arrive at the conclusion that gods don’t exist?

“[Atheists today] lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. … they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. … the sheer banality of the New Atheists—with their childishly Manichean view of history … their wanton incuriosity, their vague babblings about “religion” in the abstract, and their absurd optimism regarding the future they long for?”

haven’t read the book myself, but if it’s anything like what i read here on freethought blogs I don’t think I’m missing much.
Atheism purchased cheaply: this is my impression when I view much of freethought blogs – I’ve been reading here for a month or two and keep thinking, “Seriously? Two or three hundred years of brave freethinking and this is what you’ve come up with?” (Exhibit A: Myers’ “Why I am an Atheist” series – cheaply purchased atheism of the “Just because” variety – one misunderstanding piled on top of another.)