I questioned the existence of God at age seven. No matter how hard I prayed, no sparkling ballet flats appeared in my closet, no puppy was delivered to my front door. By thirteen I found it impossible to believe in creation myths and became doubtful that a perfect God because existed as I was unable to reconcile the idea of a benevolent, all-powerful deity that was willing to allow pain and suffering to continue in the world around me. The more I learned about the world–the history of conflicts and injustices–the harder it was to believe in a creator orchestrating the human drama. The contradictions became too glaring to ignore. Instead of finding comfort in religion, I began to see it as a nonsensical framework that often failed to ease human suffering.

This early disillusionment has led me to believe that atheism is not a rebellious act but is rather a rational response to religions that are often riddled with contradiction. Atheism offers an intellectual stance critical of organized religions that seem too often constructed to perpetuate power dynamics and provide rationales for injustice and suffering imposed by some humans onto others. Even a brief examination of the role that religions have historically played–as tools to control, manipulate, destroy, and even to carry out warfare–demonstrates clearly that atheism is not only a plausible stance, but a morally superior position. Atheism provides individuals the freedom of choice, making room for critical thinking and self-determination.

There was a time when, for want of a rational explanation, mythologies were woven around frightening natural phenomena that would have been inexplicable otherwise. The ancient Greeks, for instance, sited the Temple of Apollo and its Oracle at Delphi, on the slope of Mount Parnassus, where priestesses experienced visions seemingly delivered by Apollo himself. The Greeks believed mythical powers were at play, but current research has confirmed that the priestesses' visions were the result of ethene and methane seeping from fault lines, gases widely known to induce violent trance states (Hale).

There are vast implausibilities that contradict both science and nature across many current world belief systems. The Old Testament, for example, contains stories at odds with observable phenomena and well-established scientific understanding. How likely is it that God personally warned Noah of the flood, and Noah lined up every animal species in pairs? Or that a man survived inside a whale? One might also consider at least one of many paradoxes in Buddhism: that life is both real and unreal. Purely articles of faith, religious mythology is unable to withstand scrutiny under literal interpretation. If sacred texts present claims that defy empirical evidence and rational analysis, how can they

serve as contextual sources for understanding human existence in the universe?

Untethered from observable and experiential life, religious texts make claims that seem more fiction than fact, creating a dissonance between widely accepted sacred doctrines and the scientific method. Often supposing one or more supernatural beings or forces that must be accepted as truth, whose existence lies outside of the human experience, this contradiction between empiricism and faith is not easily resolved. Unable to resolve this conundrum, physicist Stephen Hawking postulated that God could not exist, as the existence of a god would defy every law of nature. Per Hawking, science offers convincing explanations, including the idea that the universe is self-generating and needs no creator (TIME). By this reasoning, atheism provides a reasonable and evidenced stance consistent with science, requiring no Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”. With the progress in technological and scientific advances, many of the gaps in human knowledge once attributed to the intervention of gods (natural disasters, diseases) have been explained empirically.

Scientific consensus also provides a greater degree of freedom for humans to take responsibility for their own welfare, as the atheistic worldview eliminates the need to appeal to a higher power for guidance. Since religion is often used to fulfill certain basic needs, individuals depend on belief within their personal lives. For many believers in God, religion and spirituality provide comfort and a social life structured around religious ritual. Atheistic thought is consequently associated with an absence of support and a lack of community. Organized religion provides not only routine and certain rhythms to mark the passage of time, but also rituals to mark the pivotal events for individuals and communities Sociologist Émile Durkheim viewed religion as serving only to fulfill our social needs, a fundamental part of the human condition. His study of totemic societies in Australia led him to the conclusion that through worship and religion, God and society became one (465 Durkheim). By applying Durkheim’s theory, it is entirely possible to eliminate religion and replace it with any activity that unites a community to serve the same purpose as religion. Whether we are people of faith or not, everyone’s lives are controlled by schedules, with weekly routines at work, at school, and social gatherings; and we are free to create our own rituals within family, friendship groups and the larger community.

Furthermore, religion posits a higher power with control over our lives. For centuries, religions have provided templates for worshippers’ lives, with some denominations, specifically Catholicism, even absolving sins. By centering religious life around prayer and the sacraments of confession and penance, believers have lifelong access to absolution, offering peace of mind with minimal critical reflection. Other religions also offer templates for life, such as the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path to Nirvana or Islam’s five pillars that allow an individual to reach Jannah (heaven); both provide ways to atone. This promise of divine, or at least spiritual, forgiveness provides psychological relief but also allows for unethical behavior without consequence. Historian Rene Girard refers to this as the “Scapegoat Theory, a system in which religious figures are really sanctified victims whose deaths bring peace to the community that worships them (Girard). Adherence to a world religion implies belief in an overarching ethical system, but if endless forgiveness is available, what deterrent remains for wrongdoing?

By removing the possibility of divine absolution, atheism places the moral burden directly on the individual. Absent of faith in a god, an individual’s ethical behavior is not based on the promise of heaven or the fear of hell, but on a personal righteousness. While some atheists like Nietzsche and his acolyte, Ayn Rand, declared God to be dead and elevated an amoral Übermensch, it is more likely that an atheist cultivates a moral standard based on responsible participation in a community. Atheism is both virtuous and courageous; it is a single individual standing in the vastness of the universe with no kind and benevolent god to play savior. By taking full responsibility and make reparations on their own terms, atheists seek atonement without the aid of spiritual. Through living a life without a god, a more upstanding life can be created.

Historically, institutionalized religions have also been used to justify war, colonization, and other forms of oppression, transforming them into a tool for manipulation, killing, and exploitation. The Crusades, for example, were postured as religious wars to reclaim Jerusalem from the infidel Muslims but was instead deeply entangled with the political and economic conflict among the papacy and European powers of the time. Framed as a religious duty and promising absolution and the reward of heaven to those who participated, it allowed the pope to remove powerful kings and was rooted in the economic desire to access lucrative trade routes, wealth, and strategic land holdings. In later eras, religious fervor was used to justify the brutal massacres of Huguenots in the 1500’s, and the Thirty Years War, destroying much of central Europe a century later. During its long colonial periods, Europeans used religion as a reason to exterminate native populations in the Americas, Africa and areas east. The conversion of native populations from local religions to Christianity was a mere excuse to perpetrate violent abuses, with the brutal reality of violence and cultural erasure masked by a mission to “civilize” the natives. By dismissing indigenous religions, European powers destroyed ways of life and corrupted many nations for decades to follow. Religion was so clearly transformed into a tool for oppression, not peace.

In addition to the persecution of non-believers, religious institutions can exert considerable influence over the views of their members, even to the point of supporting coercive and extremist governments. In Imperial and modern Japan, Shintoism has consistently been co-opted by the state to support ultra-nationalist ideologies, with the emperor being linked to the divine so that loyalty to him (and the divine) was tantamount to loyalty to the state. A similar political position was reintroduced by former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who masked his economic reforms as religious devotion (Beyers). This fusion of state and religion was also achieved through the fundamentalist Islamic takeover of Iran in 1979 where religious law has been enforced since then, blurring the lines between religion and sovereignty.

Elsewhere extremist interpretations of Islam by jihadist fundamentalist groups have weaponized religion for political and violent ends, distorting its teachings. Through groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram, which use selective and radical interpretations of Islamic scripture, terrorism, brutality, and authoritarian rule have been justified. Their “us versus them” rhetoric demonizes Western ideologies and targets other Muslims who do not conform to their rigid stances. The actions of select extremists has unfortunately led to the stereotyping and marginalization of Muslims worldwide, creating misunderstandings of a religion. Even in the United States some Christian fundamentalists support an anti-democratic movement and have made gains in imposing their narrow, Bible based beliefs on others through state legislature. 

Such developments beg the question: Is an ethical and socially responsible religion ever truly possible? Should belief systems based on inventive and outdated mythologies continue to have any relevance in a world better explained by science? Is it reasonable for a priest to excuse individual unethical lapses when humans are perfectly capable of developing their own ethical codes and living by them? When religion is so often corrupted to aid of oppression and authoritarianism, can it truly serve as a foundation for the inclusive principles it claims to represent?

To this extent, religion fails to achieve the moral and social high ground. Across all world faiths, the underlying message is the promotion of truth and justice. Despite this, religion has been widely used to divide rather than unite, to dominate rather than liberate. When faith is subverted for political power, it becomes indistinguishable from any other form of tyranny and no longer serves a spiritual purpose. By contrast, atheists adhere to personal ethics and create societies not dissimilar to traditional religious communities, and by opposing coercive systems of theocratic control, offers a morally superior alternative. In the modern world, atheism offers a rational, honest, and responsible alternative to faith-based systems. The belief in gods is not necessary for ethics, purpose, or an understanding of the universe. By surrendering a belief in a higher power, atheists are given the moral reins on their life, having to form their own definitions to live life by. A strong creed is developed through an individual's own experiences and thoughts.

Ultimately, it is undeniable that belief and atheism are mutually dependent, as one cannot exist without the other. Across hundreds of thousands of years, religion would not have become so decisive without its dissenters, and atheism would have ceased to exist with no doctrine to disobey. Therefore, the plausibility of atheism itself is undeniable. However, in a world that increasingly demands empathetic and accountable actions to brutality, atheism stands not as a rejection of meaning, but a conscious choice to seek it through human reason. It is not the absence of values, but a newfound freedom that lies in both moral strength and hope.

Works Cited

Beyers, Jaco. "Religion as Political Instrument: The Case of Japan and South Africa." Journal for the Study of Religion, vol. 28, no. 1, 2015, pp. 142?64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24805684. Accessed 21 June 2025.

Durkheim, Émile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse). 1912 ed., 1912.

Girard, René. "Interview: René Girard." Diacritics, vol. 8, no. 1, 1978, pp. 31?54. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/464818. Accessed 29 June 2025.

Hale, John R., et al. "Questioning the Delphic Oracle." Scientific American, vol. 289, no. 2, 2003, pp. 66?73. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26060404. Accessed 20 June 2025.

TIME Magazine. 14 Mar. 2018, time.com/5199149/stephen-hawking-death-god-atheist/. Accessed 20 June 2025