[Piers]

You seem to assume that religion is the default, and someone needs a reason to be an atheist (whatever that is). For instance how about:

5 The person who was brought up to believe that religion was all aloud of nonsense, and can’t see what all the fuss is about.

6. Someone who just thinks it’s obvious that religion is a silly fantasy. No $hit, just gut instinct.

Maybe you could argue that they have not thought enough about the subject to be take seriously. Although they might argue the subject is not important enough to be worth the effort.

7. Also what about someone who asks the question why does religion exist?

Comes to the conclusion that the reason is entirely due to our inbuilt desire to create religious belief. Hence religion exists independent of the truth of the matter. (If God exists believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did not exist, If God does not exist believers would believe in God in just the same way if he did exist.)

Such a person might well conclude that a typical religious belief should therefore be treated at the same level as any other human fantasy. “I reckon it’s as least as likely I can get to Narnia through my bedroom wardrobe than a biblical God exists”.

[ QUOTE ]
Those who look at the things that science has only recently explained. Things that previously seemed so astonishing that a God, as farfetched as the idea is, was a more likely explanation than anything else. And upon looking at those recent explanations come to the conclusion that it is now much more reasonable to expect that still unexplained phenomenon will also eventually be explained by science rather than the God of the bible


[/ QUOTE ]

I always consider the argument “I can not understand this, hence God, as farfetched as the idea must exist” to be horrible, but typical human arrogance.

Compare it to the argument of the poker player who reasons, “I have had a significant loosing steak. I know I am a winning player, hence as farfetched as it might seem the loosing steak must be due to the site/casino being rigged against me.”

Why do people not accept their limitations rather than invent fictional structures to get around them?

I believe that even in the pre technological age, there were still people who could accept that not being able to understand an unexplained phenomenon just meant they could not understand it. And did not use this as an excuse to fantasise explanations just to satisfy their ego. Although I admit modern science makes this position more natural.