Mentally Ill?

I recently read an article on the site Atheism Exposed , entitled "Are Atheists Mentally Ill?"  I would recommend reading that particular article before reading my response that i emailed to the author, but that's up to you.  If anyone finds discrepancy in my response, please feel free to comment on such.

_________________________________


Just got done reading your article "Are Atheists Mentally Ill" on your site, Militant Atheism Exposed.   I plan on reading more of your articles as time allows, but i felt a need to address this one.


I am afraid you are misguided in your attempt to 'prove' your premise.  You were definitely correct in your opening of that article that both camps [i would say all camps] suffer populations of mentally ill/crazies/nuts/psychos to varying degrees, but i feel you failed in your overall claim that "atheists rely heavily on the psychological defense mechanisms of denial, rationalization, repression, suppression and displacement" to reject the existence of God.  It seemed to me that instead of general psychological attributes to show possible mental illness, you did more to say they are mentally ill because they don't believe in God.  Understandably, you are approaching this from a Christian perspective, but in making claims about another group of people (especially if you're going to claim they are 'ill') it is not only prudent but essential to define the group correctly, else-wise your entire claim is null.

"The mind of many atheists protects itself from these realities by rejecting God’s existence."

First, you base your article on the idea that your (Christian) perspective is reality and atheists are rejecting that reality with "mind games," assuming that it is an already founded fact and not providing any examples to back your claim except to say "It is the view of this author that the existence of a Creator is the most provable of all realities and that the proofs are 'many' and 'sufficient.'"  You also didn't sufficiently explain the atheist rejection:  they do not believe in ANY god (not just yours) because there is NO evidence to support the existence of any deity.  Throughout history, man has given a god the credit for the unexplainable.  History is replete with stories of various gods from multitudes of cultures and societies, many of which are extremely similar to others and most claiming sovereignty and superiority.  There is absolutely nothing different coming from the judeo-christian belief, so there is no reason to accept one over another if accepting any at all.

defense mechanisms to block out the pain.

Denial:  can't really argue with you on this one.   there are multiple reasons anyone can give for denying something, whether it is sufficient is the question.  yes, many (hopefully not most) deny simply on the premises you propose (i wouldn't go so far as saying mentally ill though).  But for myself, and many others like me, it goes back to no evidence supporting the existence of.  IMO, this is pretty much where atheists/agnostics differ.  Atheists, for the most part, flat out discount the existence, whereas agnostics believe there is no evidence in either direction thus no claim til one or the other has that evidence.  i personally lean more to being agnostic, but i will say with almost certitude that NONE of the surviving, viable faiths of today are correct. 
Rationalizations:  Your argument here, to me, just does not make sense.  Something either is or is not logical.  If someone is fooled by 'logic-sounding' speak, then they just do not know enough to be making a judgement -- period.  The logical reasoning i have heard (by many of the authors you note throughout your site) are not "why God does not exist, or why they cannot accept the existence of God," but rather how giving credit to a deity for something that clearly is not correct is illogical and the definition(s) of given god are negated by the actions of the god and by other characteristics attributed to them ...thus given god doesn't exist and is not worthy of worship.  Atheists (the smarter ones, at least) will use demonstrable, sound rationalizations from across the spectrum of disciplines, whereas religion/faith can ONLY use circular reasoning inside of itself.  The reasoning "because the bible says so" is ludicrous, given how observable evidence, logic and scientific ventures have shown it to be inaccurate.
Repression:  your definition here is correct, but not applicable in this argument because, again, you are assuming you are correct and assuming there is a pain to be blocked.  Projecting your assumption to a subject does not make your argument valid.  Rather, the rest of the paragraph throws it out by claiming 'design' and 'artist' for the existence of what is.  "All of existence yells out 'design.'"  I beg to differ:  All of existence yells out "careful where you step."  This planet is abundant with natural existences that are not 'human-friendly.'  From microbiological organisms to natural disasters, all of existence is up-for-grabs at any moment.  The 'beauty' that you speak of is subjective -- beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- beauty is only skin deep.  I would recommend understanding what pareidolia is.
"The atheist mind will not stop and observe and see the connection."  Myself, and many others i associate with (and i know we're not alone) love laying out in the yard, or walking through the swamp or trees, or watching birds and bees, or planting and nurturing -- we do stop, and observe the 'beauty' of it all.  But again, beauty is subjective.  We do see the connection, just not the connection that you're proclaiming.  The connections we see (demonstrable evidence) have nothing to do with an invisible deity's magic wand, but with each other ...affecting each other ...relying on each other.  Even, i would say, the unpleasant ones like army ants and wasps.  There is nothing to repress in nature: it's where we learn everything from.  Nature has ALL the answers, and none of them point to a deity ...yet, at least.
Suppression:  again, your definition is correct but your application is not.  There is no rejection on the part of atheists for the "concept of design ...daily being reinforced by all the sciences" because there is no such reinforcement by the sciences, only a projection of one's ideology or, dare i say ignorance (not meant to be derogatory - please refer to the definition of ignorance).  The "fair and sufficient analyses" are out there and are being done, and i would say again, none point to a deity.  Natural cause and effect.
Displacement:  can't really argue with you here, except to say that atheism does not recognize a god, thus 'anger' or 'hurt' cannot be directed toward a god.  Only one who believes in the existence of a god can direct emotion to that god.  For atheists, we don't blame god(s), we blame the arrogantly ignorant actions of those who do or do not believe in a god for certain atrocities. 

"Over-relying on [defense mechanisms] to cope with life and specific pains in life can lead to disjointed thinking and emotional immaturity."  You are correct, but using this to claim that atheism is a mental illness is completely misguided and misleading.

I look forward to your response, if any.

Truth, Knowledge and Humanity