Question for atheists

[Christa]

How did you become an atheist? What made you decide religion is all lies and BS?

Something that always bothered me was that the omnipotent, loving creator had his only son killed. I could never get my head around it, no matter how hard the pastor tried to justify it. My reasoning was that if god cared so little about his own, how much less did he care about me?

[MNDemNY]

1. Really? Just plain "common" sense. The real question is how can any intelligent being buy the hype?

:shrug:

[Christa]

5. I agree ... however

not so easy when you are being indoctrinated since birth.

Also keep in mind that fear is great motivator.

[MNDemNY]

7. Any "inteligent" person, deep down knows better. the CHOOSE not to act on their instinct.

That is why religions must push the meme: have faith. Faith is nothing more than a George Micheal song.Any whio deny doubt, are lying.

[Sal316]

14. So, people of faith aren't intelligent?

Really?

Your bigotry is astounding.

....even to an "unintelligent" person like me.

[MercutioATC]

20. Perhaps "illogical" is less confrontational than "unintelligent".

There are "intelligent" people that believe in astrology, numerology...and any number of other illogical things.

A belief in a godlike higher power has no basis in logic.

[MNDemNY]

22. Maybe that is not the best term. Maybe" willfully ignorant" is better.

And fuck your "bigotry" comment. You have no "right" to not be offended. If you are offended...Too bad.Your "religion, or faith" DO NOT rise to the level of things such as gender or race. That is what you "folks of faith" always seem to resort to when your "beliefs" are called out for what they are. And "what they are" is a scourge on humankind, plain and simple.:P

[Sal316]

26. Oh, that's so much better....not.

Let's define bigotry, shall we?

big⋅ot⋅ry
–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

or

Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion

or

The state of mind of a narrow-minded person who is intolerant of beliefs other than his or her own.

It doesn't have to "rise to gender or race", my friend. Bigotry is bigotry. Tell yourself whatever you want to make yourself feel better, that you're "not as bad as them", but it's still bigotry.

You see, 99.999% of DU people of faith have the attitude of "believe, don't believe, doesn't matter to me". The same can't be said of some, and judging by the posts, a majority of the atheists here.

There's a difference between thinking what people believe is stupid and the attitude that people of faith are unintelligent, willfully ignorant, under evolved, incapable of higher reasoning, or whatever term you want to insert for "stupid".

I'm not offended you think my faith is irrational. I could care less, actually.

However, I AM offended because you think I, along with other believers INCLUDING those of us on DU, are stupid BECAUSE of our faith.

I could care less that you're an atheist. Really. Your choice, you go ahead and own it.

I don't agree, but that's the beauty of free will, that I don't have to.

I won't lose a wink of sleep over you being an atheist, nor will I demean or dehumanize you because of it.

It's just sad that you feel the need to.

[MNDemNY]

27. I can be "tolerant" of you beliefs, and still think they are insane...

Unfortunately "beliefs of those of faith" have entwined in many aspects of my life. They have caused great harm to the human race. The pursuit of such beliefs have drained lives and assets that could have gone far to advancing humankind, they have stifled science throughout the millenia to the great detriment of this earth. So, your argument of "live and let live" is way too late. Only the realization of the falseness of all religion can even begin to reverse the damage it has done.If only you could "believe as you wish" without effecting any body else. that ship has long since sailed!!!Go pray or whatever it is that you do, I'm going to have a nice single-malt. (A gift from the Scots, not god.)

[gooey]

67. So what your saying is...

Islamic Jihadists aren't the problem? It's Islam?
Islam is the problem? Christianity is the problem? Judaism is the problem?

And as far as science goes. If we're all being honest. Let's not forget the "advancement" of science has brought us nuclear weapons.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.

[charlie]

28. "But considering atheism is the product of an immature intellect, what else can one expect?"

That's you, Babaloo.

Welcome to the mudpit.

[darkstar3]

29. THANK YOU

I was wondering how he had forgotten that priceless comment.

If you're on a bigot hunt Sal, check the mirror, you ad-hom throwing, atheist hating, would-be-living-in-a-theocracy-right-now-if-it-wasn't-for-us, punk.

[Sal316]

31. I don't hate atheists...

...in fact, I don't "hate" anyone. Not my ex-wife, not the guy who held me at knife-point 15 years ago, not anyone.

Hate allows people to control who I am, how I feel, and how my life goes. Besides, it takes way too much energy.

But yes, atheism, particularly the zealots, suffer from the same problem as fundamentalists.

That is, literalism. They read texts, whether it be the Bible or whatever, through a literalist lens. They remove all cultural and historical context from the words. While fundamentalists take the mythos to be established scientific fact, atheist zealots completely ignore the mythos.

Both miss the forest for the trees.

Both are either unwilling or unable to view the whole picture.

Scripture is to be read for what it says, and then looked at from a bird's eye view to see the big picture. In order to do so, one must be able process both literal and esoteric meanings of the stories while being viewed through the proper historical and cultural context.

The inability to do so indicates an immature intellect.

[darkstar3]

36. Your posting history disagrees with you.

And BTW, if you can interpret your holy text any way that you want, why call it holy?

[uberllama42]

48. None of your exegetical handwaving provides one scintilla of an argument

for the existence of a deity. At base, that is what atheism is about. When you say that atheism is the product of an immature intellect, you are addressing the stance that there are no gods, or more aptly the lack of a declaration of belief in a god or gods. I don't see any good reason to believe that any gods exist, and that's why I'm an atheist.

There are plenty of things I don't understand about the bible. If you look down on me because of that, as you've shown, that is your prerogative. But even in talking with people far more knowledgeable than myself, I've never seen how reading the bible as a collection of parables and metaphors makes a more cogent case for the existence of a deity than reading it as a history text. That includes your post above. Your entire disposition talked completely around that point.

[gooey]

66. I have a question.

Is not believing in God the same as believing there is no God?

[uberllama42]

74. No

Not believing in God is merely the rejection of a positive claim made by another person. Believing there is no God is equivalent to making a claim about the universe. Anyone making a claim has to meet a burden of proof.

If all I say is that I don't see evidence for another person's claim, then it's not incumbent on me to present evidence, since I haven't advanced a claim of my own. If I was to say that I know there is not a God, I would have a burden of proof to meet. That's not a claim that can really be supported empirically, and I also would not attempt to argue that, logically, there absolutely cannot be a God or gods. But I do not think that any of the arguments presented for the existence of God are persuasive.

[gooey]

77. Ok...

"If all I say is that I don't see evidence for another person's claim, then it's not incumbent on me to present evidence"

Who? When? And where? Decided that was true. Your reply could be:

"It's just a fact."
But just saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.
"I read it in a book somewhere"
But there are many books that contain lies.
"Everyone knows and/or agrees it is"
But at one point everyone knew and/or agreed the earth was flat. Moreover, just because it's what a society has deemed acceptable doesn't make it true. It only makes it acceptable.

Looking deeper into "if all I say is..."
Just because YOU say something doesn't make it a fact.

Basically what you have is a sort of head game/word game going on but that's all it is. A game.

I may be wrong. Maybe there is something I haven't thought of. Maybe there is another way for something to be true I'm not aware of. But I can't think of it yet. In the meantime, if it is a game then every game has at least two components: an opponent and an ending.

[uberllama42]

78. Are you familiar with the concept of a null hypothesis?

The null hypothesis is a concept used in science. If you are making a quantitative investigation, you declare a research hypothesis, which is a prediction about the phenomenon you want to test. The research hypothesis takes the form of "Variable X has an effect on Variable Y." A strong prediction should also describe the magnitude and direction of the effect. The null hypothesis takes the form of "Variable X does not have an effect of Variable Y" or, equivalently, "The magnitude of the effect of Variable X on Variable Y is zero." Then you collect data about the value of Variable Y that is tied to a certain value of Variable X.

The goal of the experiment or study is to collect enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis with a certain level of confidence. Depending on the level of confidence you choose and the magnitude of the data that you collected, it will take a certain amount of evidence to reject the null hypothesis and confirm the research hypothesis, your prediction. You don't collect evidence to support the null hypothesis. Indeed, you can't collect evidence for it. You need to assume that the null hypothesis is true as a starting point for a rigorous investigation. If your evidence is strong enough, you can reject the null hypothesis. Similarly, you never know that the null hypothesis is true.

I bring this up because this is the framework in which I and many other atheists consider the question of whether a God or gods exist. Obviously this is not a quantitative question, so it does not lend itself to the statistical tests used in physics experiments and so forth. However, the framework still applies. When someone claims that a God or gods exist, they have advanced a research hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that no gods exist, just as in a science experiment, the null hypothesis is that the predicted effect does not exist.

Again, in order to be responsible about the investigation, you must assume that the null hypothesis is true until you collect enough evidence to reject it. I don't know that there are no gods. But I have to make that assumption before I can consider evidence for the existence of gods. The believer, the person making the god claim, is responsible for presenting enough evidence to persuade others to reject that null hypothesis. Again, there is no statistical threshold to be met because this is not a quantitative question. The level of evidence that suffices to say with confidence that a god exists is subjective. But the burden of proof is not being assigned arbitrarily. It rightly rests on the person who is asking others to believe in a God or gods.

This is not equivalent to saying "It's just a fact," "I read it in a book somewhere," or "Everyone knows and/or agrees it is." The framework I described was specifically designed to exclude those kinds of arguments from the debate. It relies on evidence and does not allow for arguments from authority or bald assertions.

Finally, to address the "If all I say is.... The sentence you pulled that phrase out of was about stating an opinion, not declaring a fact. I do have the absolute right to state what my opinion is. My opinion can be anything at all, whether it is supported by facts or not. It is profoundly different from the claims analyzed by the scientific framework I described above.

[gooey]

81. And the game continues.

You use the words "concept", "framework", "designed". Who conceived them? Who designed and built this framework?

Who conceived "null hypothesis"?

What gives him/her ultimate authority on the matter?

Beyond that you're still putting your "faith" in the concept itself. Which you have every right to do.

But science has a way of disproving itself over time. What is true for one generation could be false for the next. Any scientist worth his salt would be quick to say that there is more we don't know than there is we do.

I'm not arguing the existence of anything. I'm simply examining your beliefs.

And let's not forget that's what they are-beliefs. You cannot KNOW anything with absolute certainty.

"I don't know that there are no gods. But I have to make that assumption before I can consider evidence for the existence of gods."

Why do you "have" to make that assumption? Is that your rule or did you get the idea from someone else? What makes it valid?

-

For clarification I feel we must define "God". I'm not speaking of any specific God but generally of another plane of existence, a spirit world if you will. I include ghosts, apparitions, angels, demons. Another dimension and/or a parallel universe.
I would even go so far as to include love and hate. While they cannot be measured I don't know anyone who would deny their existence.

[darkstar3]

85. And today's Solipsistic Prize goes to...

You cannot KNOW anything with absolute certainty.
Now THAT'S a winner of a line if I ever heard one. Shouldn't you have disappeared in an existential quandary by now?

[gooey]

87. To answer your question.

No. But I'm not the one denying the existence of "God".

And while you have an impressive vocabulary and skilled use of language. I can't help but think that might be as far as it goes.

For you haven't even attempted an answer any of the previous questions.

I can only guess you're avoiding doing so. In which case I would ask why. But that might be too personal for a public forum.

Not that you have anything to prove to me. I am no one.

[darkstar3]

89. Why should anyone answer your questions?

They are not posed in honesty, or to gain knowledge. Your statement from before, namely "You cannot KNOW anything with absolute certainty" shows that you will not accept any answer given to you.

As for "denying the existence of "God"", well, that phrase presupposes that God exists in the first place. There is nothing to deny, as God's existence, or the existence of any other gods for that matter, can never be remotely proven.

[gooey]

91. Does the manner in which the questions are posed really make a difference.

If, as you say, the were "posed in honesty" would that mean they are more worthy of being answered?

Maybe if I state it like this.

"God" exists. True or false. In your opinion of course.

[darkstar3]

94. Questions are only worth answering

if the questioner is actually interested in answers. That's what I mean about posing questions in honesty. Do you actually care to hear the answers?

At any rate, let me answer your question with a question:

"The Flying Spaghetti Monster" exists. True of false? In your opinion of course.

[gooey]

99. LOL

Good one. I've heard this one before.

The answer is: False.

Your turn :)

And yes. I do want to know the answers. Otherwise I would have given up searching long ago.

[darkstar3]

103. Exactly.

Now tell me WHY it's false, and you will have the answer to your own question.

[gooey]

105. Well...

I would not presume to be able to prove it's falsehood, or truth, for the only way to do that would be not only know the expanse of time an space, but I would have to be able to show you all of that as well. And I think we can agree that this is impossible.

And given our unique ability to reason and use logic, I think we can also agree that this does not mean the question is unanswerable or even unapproachable.

Having said that, and to my knowledge,

There is no written or recorded testimony to it's existence.

There is no physical evidence of it's existence.

So I can reasonably deduce the answer is false.

Although it is late and I may be missing something.

If, however, you have information I don't, then I will gladly hear it.

If, as i suspect, I have just walked into a trap, then I am already prepared to admit it.

[darkstar3]

108. Welcome to atheism.

You admit you cannot prove that the FSM does NOT exist, and yet when asked the True/False question you answer False. Your reasoning is sound: you have exactly zero reason to accept the existence of something so unnatural/supernatural, and therefore you can dismiss the idea out of hand without being forced to prove that it does NOT exist.

This is not just the crux of the atheist argument, it is also common sense. We are required to doubt those claims which have no evidence to back them up. If I tell you, for example, that I am a medical doctor, but I provide you with exactly zero proof of my credentials, should you trust my medical advice? Of course not.

[gooey]

110. Actually

Before I would trust credentials I would trust a personal referral. Which is actually how I found my doctor. Credentials mean very little in this day and age. At least to me. It's hard to know who to trust.

George Bush has a degree from Harvard. I rest my case.

[gooey]

111. Thinking about the first paragraph.

While it can't be proven scientifically that the FSM does not exist.

In a court of law, it could most certainly be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I think we can agree on that.

Proving "God" does not exist beyond a reasonable doubt, I imagine to be not quite as easy a task.

HOWEVER

Proving "God" DOES exist beyond a reasonable doubt, I think would be equally as difficult.

Now, at first you may dismiss this approach. But this is how we decide guilt or innocence, life or death. And the process of gathering and weighing evidence, listening to testimony, this is how we determine our own individual belief systems. About life, about relationships. About our jobs, our careers. Our political affiliation.

Now, I honestly believe you've already considered this, you have gathered and weighed all the evidence, listened to testimony after testimony, and have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that "God" does not exist.

And this evidence you been presented with I will ask you to share with me. For if I am walking the way of the fool I certainly would want to know it. What man would not?

[darkstar3]

113. I do not agree.

It would be just as difficult, in a court of law, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the FSM, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Russel's Teapot, or "God" do not exist. If you believe otherwise, compose your court argument against the FSM and then see if it doesn't also apply to God.

Aside from that little problem, the whole idea of proving or disproving their existence in court is crap. Court doesn't prove a thing. The sheer number of people released from prison after false convictions should tell you that.

And remember this VERY important point: Testimony =/= proof.

You also have made an incorrect assumption about my conclusions. I have not 'concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that "God" does not exist.' Rather, I find the entire claim and idea of "God" to be just as implausible as any imaginary being, and until someone presents me with a shred of evidence to back up their claim that there is such a creature, I doubt his existence. In fact, I doubt the existence of anything supernatural, including all gods, ghosts, angels, demons, magic, and lots of other things besides.

It's all about burden of proof. The ones who believe in "God" are the ones making the claim, and it is they who must support that claim in order for me to agree with them. And EVERY argument I've ever heard for "God"'s existence has been lacking.

[gooey]

115. I figured you might say this.

I didn't say in court, however.

I believe what you are looking for is tangible proof?

[darkstar3]

117. Tangible means something I can touch, so no.

The phrase you're looking for is "verifiable evidence of any kind."

[gooey]

119. OK...

That sounds good.

But how do you define: verifiable, evidence

And what are the different kinds?

[darkstar3]

122. Don't do that.

The words "verifiable" and "evidence" are easy enough to understand and have in NO WAY disputed meanings in the English language. To claim you do not understand the concept of evidence, when clearly you have a grasp of the English language, of debate, and of court room proceedings, is dishonest.

[gooey]

123. I'm not claiming that I don't have any concept of evidence.

But evidence means different things to different people. Otherwise there would be no need for a jury.

I just want to know your personal requirements for what "verifiable evidence" includes.

[uberllama42]

118. Was this post intended as a repy to me?

It reads that way to me, but of course I could be wrong. I'm just wondering if I should answer anything you said here, or if you were talking to another poster.

[gooey]

129. To be honest

I can't remember.

[Sal316]

30. Oh, was that offensive to you?

Did it hurt your atheist sensibilities?

Please note that it didn't say atheists, as in the people, but that the non-belief system of atheism is the product of an immature intellect.

The same way that fundamentalism is the product of an immature intellect.

[charlie]

34. No, didn't hurt or offend me

I thought it looked good a few inches from this:

However, I AM offended because you think I, along with other believers INCLUDING those of us on DU, are stupid BECAUSE of our faith.

They make a nice illustration of hypocritical indignation, no?

Please note that it didn't say atheists, as in the people, but that the non-belief system of atheism is the product of an immature intellect.

You'd feel better if you'd quit stepping on your dick, angry God person.

[darkstar3]

35. Ah, now we hit the nail on the head

Non-believers are immature, otherwise they would realize that there must be something greater in this world.

If you honestly thought that your statement would NOT be offensive, than the only thing I can say is that you have a lot of learning to do.

Oh look, I called you unintelligent again! :eyes:

Here's something for you to chew on, aside from your own bile:

Your feeble attempts at throwing ad hom during your repetitive and circular argumentation only serve to demonstrate your readily apparent lack of intelligence, decency, and respect.

Or were there too many big words in that sentence?

[MNDemNY]

37. That's hilarious!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: What a maroon!(not you)

[Odin2005]

42. Not unintelligent, just deluded.

[rd_kent]

46. Maybe "not intelligent" isn't correct, but definaitely ignorant.

Willfully ignorant.

[Deep13]

64. There are specific limits to human intelligence...

...that make it difficult to reject ideas we are taught to accept as children. This is actually valuable survival instinct since there is far to much to learn by experience alone.

[Auggie]

2. How did I become an atheist? Well...

my parents did not make religion a default behavior as I grew up. I was left to decide on my own. When I started to learn the sciences it became evident.

So blame a good education.

[gooey]

59. Explain...

How did it become evident when you started to learn science?

[immoderate]

79. If I may, (my history is similar to Auggie's)

When you learn that thunder is caused by an atmospheric disturbance from a static discharge, it is no longer god speaking. And floods are not because god is pissed off. And disease is a result of microbes, not demons. And that the universe is an unfolding of natural processes, which are increasingly understood, and that life as we know it is a result of natural selection. Then there is a decreasing role for a superbeing.

Also when you learn logic and critical thinking, the supposed actions of a god contradict some natural process that is known. God becomes superfluous to the universe, so what does he do, besides frighten children?

God explains nothing and may indeed preclude asking intelligent questions.

--imm

[gooey]

124. Maybe

Maybe not.

[Tikki]

3. You are correct...it was the empathy thing...

Seemed like any religion speak I heard.. got ultimately turned into
how to better achieve emotional stiffness and the tools needed
to better express condemnation.


Tikki

[FiveGoodMen]

4. #1) I read the whole bible (not just selected verses)

#2) I noticed that the people who went to my church were warmongers, anti-science nuts, and sometimes pushed their kids down the stairs (yes, really)

#3) After careful examination, this story doesn't hold water:

God who is perfect, loving, and knows everything makes two people who disobey one order and he decides that the only appropriate response is to torture them forever. Also their kids, and grandkids and so on.

Thousands of years later, he comes to visit and arranges to get himself killed (because that will somehow get him past the vengeance thing), but then makes it a game by hiding for the next 2000 years and only being nice to those who are convinced that all this happened based on the word of someone, who took the word of someone else, who took ... ... ... the word of someone who wasn't there and couldn't possibly know whether it was true in the first place.

Sound reasonable?

[YOY]

6. I became an adult and realized that if there is not factual proof beyond paper it's bullshit.

But I'm an Agnostic and not an Atheist.

[gooey]

62. What does that mean?

"Factual proof beyond paper"?

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Took a long time. I have 12 years of Sunday School pins for perfect attendance and was

once the church secretary. I read the Bible from cover to cover multiple times and the Book of Mormon and books on lots of different religions, ancient and current.

I think the thing that drove me away was realizing how 'god' had been created in the image of man. If there were such a super being that created the universe, why would he have the emotions of hate and anger and seek revenge?

I think the only thing worth keeping in the Bible is Christ's words, even if they were made up decades later. Jesus seemed to have a good soul.

As the years went by and I saw how those who claimed to 'love Jesus more than anything' acted and behaved, I just got more and more turned off. Then when you attempt to apply logic to the whole 'existence of God' thing, I just said that no matter how much I would like for there to be a heavenly after-life, it just can't be.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. At the moment I remain an agnostic, but I followed this path.

I found that claims in "Holy Books" were false. When I asked about those falsehoods, the answers always came down to taking it on faith. So, if god were Omnipotent and omniscient, why would that same god have self esteem so low that people must worship it/him/her blindly and without proof. That was a beginning.

I was faced with other problems.

God is both a loving and beneficent God that cares even for the sparrow and a vengeful capricious god that punishes the slightest transgression with torture for all eternity. Why would god have multiple personality syndrome?

It was not one thing, but a process that went on for most of my life with many distinct steps. My brother, who lived a simlar life, has come to a conclusion the exact opposite of mine.

I am an agnostic because the claims of the bible and holy scripture are based upon lies, falsehoods, and myth. A god based upon lies, falsehoods, and myth makes no sense. An omnipotent and omniscient god would be more than capable of consistency. Therefore, the God of Abraham, Isac Jacob, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, etc. etc. doesn't exist.

I am an agnostic because there is neither proof of god nor any way to prove that some God somewhere does not exist as I can see it. So I keep an open mind and will judge the possible existence of a god by that beings actions.

[RKP5637]

10. The brutality and stupidity of it all. I also became a Bright ...

http://the-brights.net/ I knew religion was a joke when a very tiny kid and they threatened to throw me out of Sunday School for asking too many questions about the supposed creation and how they knew any facts. I flustered the hell out of Sunday School teachers.

They couldn't begin to answer my questions other than to threaten me with hell and damnation. I also always viewed christians as a brutal bunch and full of bigotry, hypocrisy, selfishness and tiny little narrow minds. I view religion as the embodiment of evil. And christianity as one of the greatest hoaxes on mankind. Additionally, religion is pure politics, about power, control, wealth and punishment for those not in compliance. It is filled with violence and evilness, and followers blinded by their supposed faith and blind adherence to whatever the flock is told. Packs of Lemmings.

Also my education is in the sciences. It is quite difficult, at least for me and I would think others, to be schooled in the sciences and believe in the fables of any religion. Additionally, I was born not believing the crap doled out in religion. My favorite one is "God works in mysterious ways." :rofl: The standard answer often to questions of WTF.

My parents went to church for political reasons, you really could not be good politicians way back then without your family having some church attendance record. I suppose much is the same today in this ridiculous country.

[kenfrequed]

18. Hmm

Never liked the term 'Bright.' It's too arrogant sounding for my tastes and it reminds me of all the things I dislike about religionists.

That said I was an atheist from sometime around the age of 8 and on. I was raised Lutheran and I had a bit of knowledge of a few other religions but the whole thing didn't take. After I got out of the service I started considering a wide variety of possible religions again. About the closest hits were Unitarianism, extremely liberal Judaism, a few varieties of Neo-paganism, Zen Buddhism, and maybe some interest in Hinduism.

I loved the discussions that the unitarians would sometimes get into. Likewise with the Jews though most of my firends there ended up being atheists anyhow. The Lovelock Gaia thing was what pulled be to nature based religions and I found though I enjoyed hanging out with pagans they tended to be a bit fantasy prone at times. Still Polytheism at least wasn't as absolute and judgemental, and most of those kids knew their religion was not even remotely literal and was intended to be symbolic. I absolutely loved Zen Koans and the meditation was rather useful too.

Honestly though I could not find anything to convinve me of the absolute and literal truth of a religion. I have had odd sensations and feelings and felt very at peace in meditation but I really can't extrapolate any origini mythology out of such feelings. I also had a number of odd conincidences and synchronistic experiences go through my life, but again what to attribute them to? I would expect any diety of measurable worth to do a better job signing his name than that. And if it is the work of some divinity how do I know which one is responsible. I mean I really hate to offend anyone.

Seriously though, the quest for meaning in our existance is really too important to be bound up by a bunch of literalist theologians and dogmatists.

As much as I really want to believe in some kind of spirtuality, I mean really believe, I am unable to. Even the religions that sound neat and that I agree with are hard for me to say "yes, I believe" to.

[RKP5637]

23. Actually, the name "Bright" has bothered me some too... I've always found Transcendental...

Meditation beneficial. I dabbled in TM for some time and still use it today off and on for the benefit of relaxation. I do find that works, but I attach no mystical meaning to it... Perhaps in the complexity of the infinite universe there is something in a quantum manner or whatever, but I certainly, much as you, find "the quest for meaning in our existence is really too important to be bound up by a bunch of literalistic theologians and dogmatists."

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. I never 'became' an atheist.

We are all born atheists. Then we are indoctrinated throughout childhood to believe the unbelievable. We are allowed to learn that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are not real, but are smacked down for coming to the logical conclusion that God and the Great Pumpkin are also fictional.

I first slipped into doubt at about 9 years old, and started trying to define 'god'. Pretty much came up with 'The Force' 15 years before Lucas put it on film. From there to agnosticism, and then to atheism. Returned to christianity via Alcoholic Anonymous (a stealth proselytisation program) but never could buy into the Jesus thing, so converted to the 'religion of reason' and stayed there for several years until concluding that it is just as unreasonable as its descendants - all the logic and rationalizing in the world is futile when based on an unprovable assertion in the first place.

Now I no longer concern myself with religion - only morality and ethics.

[mike_c]

12. no specific event or personal quandry at all....

I'm a born empiricist, I think. I'd be happy to believe in deities-- just show me one. That's how I've regarded religion for as long as I remember. As I've gotten older and learned more I've overlaid that with more considered skepticism, but at the beginning I just didn't buy it.

[BurtWorm]

13. Love that lolgod.

:thumbsup:

I got into blasphemy pretty early--challenging god to strike me dead for it--when I was maybe 9 or 10. I knew nothing was going to happen. I found Bible stories ludicrous, impossible to take seriously even earlier. It helped to have a mother who decided to stop going to church around that time. I had negative associations with church and religious people for most of my childhood. Found the whole thing unappetizing and repulsive. Maybe having a senile grandmother being the prime example of religiosity for me pushed me over the edge early. In my 20s I tried to get in touch with my mystical side. Convinced myself I had one for a while. In my 30s I lost interest in being a mystic. I've always been interested in science, always in awe of that kind of knowledge, and I developed that side of myself after my daughter was born. I started having to think about what I wanted her to know, and it sure as hell wasn't "Jesus loves you!" I got into arguments with wing-nuts and alternative medicine proponents on Usenet around then and realized that I was basically a skeptic. I also found myself defending atheists and atheism, and eventually I realized that described my cosmological position to a T.

And here I am.

[Yunomi]

15. Oh, it's a LOOOONG story...

but the short version is I was raised agnostic; had teenage flings with satanism, among others; settled into half-assed Buddhism. Then I had a brain hemorrhage. During that, some dark scary things started harassing me, frightening me badly. To my rescue came, not god, but http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf These good fellows explained it was all in my head, and I was being saved by cartoon horses off the Internet, so what did that tell me? I immediately stopped believing in anything supernatural. I believe in science. And the Internet.

[RKP5637]

25. I love that cartoon... an oldie and a real goodie!!! n/t

[frebrd]

16. Like everyone else, I was born an Atheist...........

The difference in my case is that I was never successfully brainwashed.

Not only did I not believe the religious stuff, I never even realized I was actually supposed to believe it.

I assumed they were simply teaching me a socially acceptable pretense.

I must have been thirty before I realized some people really "believed". What a shock that was! :)

[ZombieHorde]

17. I am not entirely sure.

I went to a Catholic school for kindergarten and first grade, possibly second grade as well, I don't really remember. I do remember all of us at the school getting together in the hall to say prayers. Prayer and church never felt right, something concerning the whole religious aspect of school nagged me. I got into trouble for blasphemy at school. The older I got the more questions I had which could not answered by the adults around me. I started to get into trouble with my mother for my doubts.

Growing up with serious doubts in a world where everyone else seemed to be a hyper-sensitive believer was extremely alienating for me. I had no one to talk to about it since asking questions and expressing doubt angered others and got me into trouble. Once I became 15 or 16 years old I met a few other non-believers my own age, I am still dear friends with those people today.

When I see atheist bus signs and billboards I think of little atheist children realizing they are not alone. I think those signs are fantastic.

[MineralMan]

19. I read. I read more. It became clear that all the religions

were man made. So I gave them all up for Lent in 1966.

[Vehl]

21. Im a Hindu Atheist

:)

As for me...Atheism seemed like the logical progression....from monotheism...Pantheism...to Monism and later on to Atheism.
I did not have any issues being an Atheist as my family or friends did not hold it against me at all. Atheism being one of the schools of though/philosophies in Hinduism probably helped.

according to certain schools,"transcending" the notion of "god" is one of the qualities of a true sage (lol i dont claim to be one:P)

[gooey]

127. Would u explain...?

"Atheism being one of the schools of thought/philosophy in Hinduism" a little further?

[Warpy]

24. Nobody was ever at the other end of the prayer

and at the ripe old age of ten, I got sick of pretending there was or ever would be.

At 12, I discovered Bertrand Russell and found it was nothing shameful.

I was bullied into giving lip service for a few more years, and then I grew up and stopped even that.

If thin skinned believers are terrified of hearing their own doubts echoed by non believers, that's just too bad. While I am sympathetic enough not to go out of my way to bruise their feelings, I'm just too honest to pretend any more.

You did ask, you know.

As for the allegories in the bible, that's what they are, along with all the regional myths from around the Mediterranean with the names and sometimes the places and times changed. Allegory is a very powerful teaching tool but is never meant to be taken literally.

[gooey]

128. Question

Did you feel or think that God was answering other people's prayers and not yours? or not anyone's?

And, if it's not too personal, can I ask why you got sick of pretending? As in, did something specific happen?

[Silent3]

32. I don't recall a particular moment I left theism behind.

Deciding to call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic happened in the past couple of years, as the result of conversations like these in R/T, when I became satisfied with the definition "lack of belief in a god/gods" for atheism, as opposed to taking it to mean adamant insistence that no such thing can possibly exist.

The trip from believing in God as I'd been taught as a child to what I called agnosticism (even though it became effectively atheism even before I called it that) wasn't and sudden decision or choice, but more a matter of my idea of God becoming more and more abstract and provisional over time until I realized that what was left hardly amounted to a belief in anything meaningful at all.

[cynatnite]

33. I was always doubtful, but the real turning point was watching people die...

There was the suffering factor, but after watching people die I came to the conclusion that dead is dead. There is nothing after that.

[edhopper]

38. The event that

pushed me from being agnostic, where I was questioning religion and God, to being an atheist, was reading Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker".
His logic and intellectual truth made me stop fence sitting and answer the God question for myself.

[jonnyblitz]

39. when i was told that santa didn't exist i figured they lied about

the god stuff as well since both stories are equally farfetched. Both Santa and God seemed to peform similar functions for people.

[Jokerman]

40. I was born an atheist.

In 47 years I've yet to see or hear a single thing that would convince me to change.

[Odin2005]

41. The notion of a "Personal God" NEVER made sense to me, even when I was a little kid.

Maybe that's my Asperger's showing, but I thought the whole thing was ridiculous, people wanting a Daddy in the sky to tell them what to do, projecting elements of human social behavior where it doesn't belong (because of my Asperger's I didn't have anything to project, I had to learn those social things intellectually and so saw when people were projecting them where they don't belong, like accusing a malfunctioning device of having sinister intentions). I was pretty much a Deist until I was 15 and after dabbling in Neo-Paganism I deduced that the notion of a "creator" also made no sense because there is no evidence of design in the universe.

[RebelOne]

43. I just became enlightened when in my 30s

and realized that religion is just nothing but B***S***.

[Realityhack]

44. I honestly don't remember.

I remember being raised highly religious (my parents still are), I remember believing all the crap.
But I do not remember any singular moment, event, argument, etc. that changed my mind. At some point I guess I just started seeing it all as complete nonsense.
It might have started with my understanding more and more of the physical impossibilities/gross historical errors in the bible but I don't know.

Other atheists I know who were raised as religious remember long struggles to overcome their upbringing etc. Weird.

[rd_kent]

45. Common sense and rational thought.

Believing in god made about as much sense as believing in Santa Clause. Now that I think about it, Believing in Santa Clause makes MORE sense, since Santa is a really good guy that brings presents.

[rd_kent]

47. We are ALL atheists, or at least start that way. Its the default position.

Then the weak minded ones get brainwashed and then as those got older, they willfully ignored the fact that they were brainwashed. Many were able to get past the brainwashing and leave it behind.
So, no one "becomes" and atheist. Thats the default position.

[Christa]

49. What do you mean

the "weak minded ones get brainwashed" ... you realize it happens since birth, don't you?

[rd_kent]

50. I will rephrase....

Yes, parents take advantage of their children and brainwash them. You are correct to point that out. The weak minded ones are not able to undo that brainwashing as they gor older and then adults willfully ignore what has been done to them.

[Christa]

51. Better, MUCH better

Watch out :popcorn:




:rofl:

[rd_kent]

52. Im not scared......

I am not afraid of religion......its the followers I'm worried about......


:evilgrin:

[Christa]

53. Oh, I did not mean you shoudl be afraid of religion

Be afraid of calling me weak minded :evilgrin:

Be very afraid :eyes:


:rofl:

[gooey]

61. Interesting.

How do you know that?

[Zhade]

101. It's a fact that everyone is born an atheist.

In order to be religious, one must first learn about religion. You cannot learn about religion from birth, as you lack the capacity to understand its claims. Thus, everyone is born lacking belief -- thus, born an atheist.

It's pretty easy to understand.

[iris27]

54. The circular logic and gaping holes in the arguments of the most prominent Christian apologists.

I grew up Christian, and in early college wanted to witness to my atheist roommate/good friend. I studied every bit of apologetics I could get my hands on, as well as online arguments from atheists on a Christian rock band's message board, in the hope of being able to convince her and save her soul. (I was always very bothered by the idea of people whom I cared about going to hell.)

Only, I saw the obvious flaws in the apologists' arguments pretty clearly from the beginning. I kept searching for something that wasn't completely circular or didn't rest on assumptions that atheists wouldn't share (like lord/liar/lunatic starts from the assumption that the bible is a faithful and accurate account of the life of Jesus and the things he said). After about a year of this, I had to conclude that I'd studied myself right out of my own belief in Christianity.

The idea of seeking out any other organized doctrine seemed just as illogical, and for another few months I was loosely deist. I eventually dropped that too, as the full implications of the 'problem of evil' really sank in. If there's 'something' out there directing human history, it's more likely to just be something so incredibly advanced that we think it's divine than it is to be an actual deity. And I think it's more probable that there's just nothing.

[Taverner]

55. Years of nagging doubt, that finally came to a head when I rejected God

And then everything made sense, and I no longer feared death

[gooey]

60. What do you mean?

How do you reject God?

[OttavaKarhu]

56. I was born that way

Nothing else made sense and all the stories seemed like Stupid Human Tricks.

Haven't yet met a tree or bird all obsessed about god, etc.

[andycox]

57. Atheism

Hi Christa,
See http://andycox1953.webs.com/ for my reply
Andy

[NotTheist]

58. Bible

I took college level classes on:
History
Evolution
Evolutionary Psychology
Ancient Lit
And a bunch of misc religion 101 classes

I read the bible


I think the most common cause of atheism is the bible and education.

Religious people are not stupid - well not all of them.

However, religion is stupid.

The most effective way to deal with stupidity is unbias education.

The majority of peopl who receive unbias educations are non-theist.

[Deep13]

63. I realized that there is no god.

All the rest immediately became superfluous.

[gooey]

65. How did you realize it?

[Deep13]

68. Slowly over time.

Unfortunately, the programming was strong enough that I resisted the idea for a long time.

[gooey]

70. Programming?

[Deep13]

71. Childhood indocrination. nt

[gooey]

72. Example?

[Deep13]

73. Huh? It was Christianity.

Do you really need a description?

It was the usual self-loathing, JC died for us, we are all sinners, sexually phobic, faith in the impossible is a virtue, suffering makes one holy crap. And any noticing the contradictions or questioning the reality of its ridiculous claims will send you to hell.

[gooey]

83. So you're throwing in the existence of God

with religion?

[LAGC]

84. Is not the question of the existence of God a religious one?

Religion being defined as the belief in supernatural forces that cannot be seen or observed.

[gooey]

88. Well...

While the meaning of words themselves evolve over time and from culture to culture,

Let's start with your definition of religion.

Is love not a "force" that cannot be seen or observed. Yet, who can say it does not exist except on faith.

The same goes for hate.

I say questioning the existence of anything, natural or supernatural, is a human question. Many great thinkers, philosophers and even scientists have believed in the existence of "God".

Also, while many acts are done in the name of "God"-some good, some bad-that does not mean they are "ordained" or "commissioned" by "God".

With careful thought I imagine you would agree with that.

[darkstar3]

90. .

Love is not a supernatural force. It is completely natural, and occurs in the brain. In fact, with proper scanning equipment (such as fMRI), you CAN observe love. And hate.

Questioning existence is a human trait, as is pondering the supernatural. But there is a big difference between pondering the supernatural, and believing in it, and there is no reason at all to believe in the supernatural. Further, the questioning of existence to such an extent that you devolve into solipsism is counter-productive. At some point, you have to accept that there IS a world outside your own brain, because otherwise there is simply no point in your continued existence.

Whether or not great philosophers or other figures have believed in "God" is irrelevant. That's called an "argument from authority," and it's a logical fallacy.

[gooey]

92. I'll start with the last thing you said first.

I believe we agree on the very last statement. But I must again make myself clear. Let me not argue the existence of "God". But rather examine the assertion that a belief in "God" is a fallacy.

I do question what the supposed irrelevance is irrelevant to. My intent was not s to prove the existence of "God". Merely to show that a belief in "God" is not limited to irrational thoughtless individuals, and any rush to judgment ought to be avoided.

As for the first declaration. If, as you say, love occurs in the brain and is easily observable by machine, then it is most assuredly a physical phenomenon and therefore can be controlled in the physical realm. Furthermore the idea of a "love-potion" should be easily manufactured. I will not go so far as to say one does not exist. But I have yet to be presented with one.

And if love IS provably a physical phenomenon brought on by chemicals and/or hormones, is it love that produces them or is it they that produce love?

[darkstar3]

93. You're boring me.

I never said "belief in "God" is a fallacy." I said bringing in authority figures to make your argument for God seem to have more weight was a fallacy. And it is.

And the rest of your post is drivel. Psychiatrists have observed, using fMRI, the brain activity that appears when various emotions, including love, are experienced. We may not yet know EXACTLY what causes love, but we do know that it exists in the brain, along with all other emotions.

You're still playing with solipsism. Everything you've asserted here boils down to "we can't know anything." Solipsism is and always has been a boring POV.

Edit: clarity

[gooey]

100. It seems...

You won't answer or you can't answer what I've asked.

It also seems that you have your mind made up on this matter.

I guess we'll both have to keep our own faiths.

[Zhade]

102. He doesn't have a faith, jackass.

NT!

[gooey]

106. I'm sorry you feel the need to call me names.

But he does have faith. From what I can tell he has faith in knowledge. His own knowledge and the knowledge of others, to be more precise.

[darkstar3]

104. Which question?

The last sentence of #92? It's a stupid question. The clause before the comma answers the question posed after the comma.

ETA: And oh yeah, what Zhade said...jackass.

[gooey]

107. There is one more thing.

You mentioned solipsism. How did you discover this idea?

[darkstar3]

109. I don't even remember.

I read the word long ago somewhere, and I looked it up.

Why does the method or time in which I discovered solipsism matter?

[gooey]

112. Just curious.

I like that you're up late too. Are you on the west coast?

[darkstar3]

114. Nope.

CST. Just a night-owl.

[MineralMan]

69. More intellectual capital has been wasted on counting angels

on the heads of pins and other theological silliness than on any other intellectual pursuit. Imagine where we would be had all that reasoning ability not been squandered. Deep pondering about imaginary entities does not seem to me to be a wise use of a scarce commodity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. Why did you stop believing in Santa?

There you go. Same thing.

[gooey]

76. I think maybe you just haven't thought it all the way through.

And, I may be wrong, but it seems as if you're done thinking about it.

[immoderate]

80. What do you mean?

Where does "thinking it all the way through" get you to?

--imm

[gooey]

82. The truth.

[immoderate]

97. Which, of course, you can't reveal...

I know how it can be when you share consciousness with the Creator of the Universe. B-)

--imm

[gooey]

120. How can it be?

Have you done this?

[rd_kent]

116. I have "thought it all the way through" and have found the "truth"

which is there is no evidence of a god and religion is nothing more than a vehicle to control people.

[gooey]

121. Then...

Please share with me your thought process with so that I can know this truth.

[onager]

86. Becoming an atheist took a lot of hard work for me.

So I really resent it when Xians try to tell me it's "just a phase" or I am "emotionally immature" or I "hate God." Or any of those peppy, off-the-cuff one-liners they usually hork up to deal with people who reject their fairy tales.

Fortunately, I was raised as a Southern Baptist, and had relatives who dragged me to tent-revival circuses and places like the Fire-Baptized Pentecostal Holiness Church. That means I had a good grounding in the mythology, e.g., I had read the Bible all the way through by a very young age.

Also by a very young age, I was asking questions and being told to shut up, that some questions should not be asked. That only made me more curious.

I owe a large debt to my father and my mother's father, who both lacked education but were voracious readers. I remember my Dad bringing home a ragged, well-worn collection of "Great Quotations," where I first bumped into Mr. Robert Green Ingersoll. That was an eye-opener.

Still, getting to the point of dumping religion completely took a lot of reading, pondering, and "long dark nights of the soul." (In quotes because I don't believe in souls.)

I've also been lucky in that my job has taken me all over the world and I've been able to see quite a variety of religious experiences. And get sales pitches from the various believers. Surprisingly for the bad rap they get in general, Muslims are not very big on proselytizing. (I've spent about 6 years living in Saudi Arabia and Egypt.)

I only got a "hard sell" from one guy in Saudi Arabia, and even he tried to approach it on the basis of logic - Islam is the most logical belief because it is the latest and therefore "most complete" - after the Jews and the Xians only got things half-right. I call that a Logic Fail, but was not going to insult the man in his own country. Especially when he had access to my passport. :-)

As of this writing, I think my favorite place is Prague. Not only because the Czech Republic calls itself "the most atheistic country in the world." But that sure helps.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

95. "Muslims are not very big on proselytizing"

They seem to have settled into another tactic: avoid apostasy at all costs. Trying to leave is no piece of cake.

[Zhade]

96. Like everyone else ever born, I was born one.

The delusions just never took root.

[Deep13]

98. The Christian religion itself seemed to be designed for a species...

...other than us. Maybe some obedient, docile, self-hating species, but not humans. That and the fact that most of the dogma that is taken for granted was the result of political decisions throughout the last 2000 years. And of course was the fact that the holy book on which Christianity relies is flat out wrong.

[lazarus]

125. a long, slow process

I was raised moderately religious, with no real attachment to any one franchise. In high school, due to my family's moving to the deep, deep south, I gradually drifted into what I later realized was fundamentalism. College did it for me, though. I met my first avowed atheist, saw how silly the CCC folks looked when they debated him, and promptly became what I thought was an agnostic (I now realize I was a soft atheist). A few short years later, I took a philosophy of religion class, and that washed the last lingering bits of doubt away. I understood that my position all along had been atheism, and that agnosticism doesn't mean what "agnostics" think it means. Other than a brief fling with a particularly weird flavor of religion for a brief spell when I was very vulnerable due to the death of my son (barely lasted a month), I've been rational ever since.

[marginlized]

126. It's all in the Reading

Both my parents were atheists by the time I was born. My father was raised Methodist and my mother grew up starchy Lutheran. They were also both college grads. So my earliest books were about dinosaurs and evolution. I remember being about four and telling adults that I wanted to be a paleontologist when I grew up. So even before school, I was well aware of the age of the earth and evolutionary time lines. And dinosaurs were just really cool.

I also had plenty of exposure to organized religion. Most of my cousins were Roman Catholic, and I did go to the occasional mass with them. I briefly tried the local Sunday School one year, but because I didn't share the religious background and didn't know the stories, I felt ostracized by the other kids. So there was a bit of negative feedback. But more importantly, there was simply nothing compelling about bible stories or what was happening in church that engaged my imagination. And my parents weren't there to reinforce attendance.

However, early in elementary school, a big turning point occurred when I discovered an illustrated version of Homer's Iliad & Odyssey. I discovered Greek mythology, and by extension, other early religions. Now here were stories that were completely fascinating. I read a bio of Heinrich Schliemann. Of course at that time I was telling everyone I would be an archeologist when I grew up. This was cinched when I came across a book on comparative mythologies. There were so many far more engaging stories than what the bible had to offer. And when mythologies are compared and presented in their anthropological context: much more interesting. How could I not see the bible as just one among many mythologies?

Of course education and maturity added a certain layer of cynicism. In High School for example, I read Twain's Letters to the Earth. So by the time I went to college, I was a confirmed atheist. I want to stress that no one ever gave me any of these books. I found them on my own. Nor did I ever discuss them with my family. There was never any sense of an approved reading list.

[rd_kent]

130. Kick