jump to last post 1-22 of 22 discussions (190 posts)

What role has religion played in making you atheist?

  1. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 5 years ago

    Ok..being atheist , you dont believe in any intelligent supreme being ...my question is, you began atheist because of your observiation , experience and what role has religion played in making you atheist?

    1. Stump Parrish profile image60
      Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that I have not been able to find one shred of proof that god is real or that the bible is anything other than a novel has had some bearing on my return to atheism. The followers of most religions are the primary reason I began to question religion in the first place, I decided early in the 70's I didn't want to turn into hatefilled, miserable, holier than thou person and this is what my earliest contact with the southern baptist church member worked hard to become. If you weren't white and baptist here in SC during the 70/s you were a target for drunk, redneck, southern baptists, The local KKK rallies were full of fine southern baptists every time they held one.

      Education is amother way religion helped me to beccome an atheist again. The total disregard for truth or facts that most religouseople are so damned proud of makes no sense to someone who can think critically. The way that religion stands in the way of educating the citizens of this country is despicable.Education is what will move this country forward and we have the majority in this country working as hard as they can to return us to the dark ages. Dumb people are a blessing to religion and mst churches do a fine job meeting their monthly quota,

      Direct qupote from a friend when I asked him what he was using to prove his belief that the earth is only 6000years old, I belive in god and that's my proof. That is a childishly rediculous mentality that is exactly what the church and religion in general strive for.

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ya i know many people who reject any proof which science gives if it is against their book but same people would hail science if science finds something which is written in their book...

        1. Stump Parrish profile image60
          Stump Parrishposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Or would they claim that their religion proved science to be correct? I wonder if having your head up your rearend is what causes this level of tunnel vision.

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

      2. Pedroemose profile image60
        Pedroemoseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think one of the reasons "dumb" people become Christians may be that they are smarter than man of us, because at least they know that they have very limited knowledge on their lonesome.  If there was a God, smartness wouldn't be a prerequisite to follow Him -- the act of following God itself is based on the premise that he is a heck of a lot smarter than you are.  Here are some questions:

        How do you know you're smart?
        Science has easily uncovered more questions than answers -- increasing, rather than decreasing, the need for God.  Now, instead of just explaining why that chair exists, we have to explain why the billions of atoms and molecules that make up that chair exist.

        "Education" is such a subjective term, with so many conflicting definitions, that it's hard to understand how it is the automatic "fix" for religion.  Education will inform you more about how people think, but choosing the way YOU think is a completely different matter.

        1. Beelzedad profile image61
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol Where did you get that ridiculous notion?



          Yes, and we find gods have nothing to do with the explanations. Funny that.



          Do you not have access to a dictionary to see that education is simply the acquisition of knowledge. The differences are in how the knowledge is acquired, either through critical thinking or the uncritical acceptance of doctrine or beliefs. Big difference there.  smile

          1. Pedroemose profile image60
            Pedroemoseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What is knowledge?  I think that is a very subjective term. And "critical thinkers" disagree about knowledge all the time, rather drastically and with extreme real-world consequences.  That has nothing to do with whether you are a Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist -- it is simply true that the term "education" is a very subjective term.  I think it can tell you how other people think, but it's mission is not to thoroughly decide how you think.

            1. Beelzedad profile image61
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Of course not, that is not the purpose of science. It's main purpose is to answer the question, "How does it work?"



              Christianity is one of thousands of religions trying to answer the question, "Why?" It fails miserably in doing so because it must invoke magic in order to explain anything.



              The more we discover, the less we find it has anything to do with gods. They are not necessary at all. Whether simple or complex, gods are irrelevant.

              And, I understand why you fail to see that.

               

              No idea where you get that notion other than from your religious beliefs, which would make sense considering knowledge in terms of dogma must invoke magic. Where is there knowledge in magic?



              Yes, the indoctrinated have a very difficult time understanding what education is all about as their capacity for critical thought has been diminished. smile

    2. Elena. profile image87
      Elena.posted 5 years ago in reply to this



      Religion didn't play any role whatsoever in making me a non believer, SCIENCE did wink

      1. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        lol you are talking like believer...only with opposite premise..tongue

    3. kess profile image59
      kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You would find that those who become atheist begin so because they oppose the lie within religion but without ever understand  the truth within it....


      The lie in religion is this...

      They preach of a god they neither know nor understand...therefore their belief in god is false...

      The atheist reject their false understanding only create another for themselves...

      So in effect they reject religion false god only to replace him with their own...which is "god is not"

      1. 0
        Twenty One Daysposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        saved me the trouble in replaying, kess.

      2. pisean282311 profile image57
        pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        like you replaced  with 'god is' ...interesting...

        1. kess profile image59
          kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Truth says .. God is ...and..... God is not...

          The Lie says... God is ...and.... God is not...

          So what is said means little.... what is known means everything.


          Truth know all things...

          the lie knows nothing...


          I am Truth.
          Who are you?

          1. VOICE CIW profile image82
            VOICE CIWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            VOICE CIW
            So kess, are you saying you are Truth? I think not. Jesus is the Truth. You should not talk about things you know nothing about. You know absolutely nothing about God, you see, the things of God are spiritually appraised, and you are not spiritual, but carnal minded. You see, all these people who says they don't understand the Bible and God, saying that the Bible is just another novel, and consider God as a myth, they are carnal minded (worldly). I laugh at you, and people like you because you live your life as though what you see with your eyes is all there is in this world. There is a earthly realm and a Spiritual realm, I would give you scripture in the Bible to prove my point, oh excuse me, that's right you and people like you don't believe in the Bible. Like Jesus said, " You will die in your sins" that is in the Bible too. I wonder what you are going to tell Jesus when you die and come before Him for Judgment.

            1. superwags profile image81
              superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              As an atheist, I feel I can answer the question "what will you tell Jesus or god when you dies and aree judged before him?".

              I will say; "Why didn't you make it more obvious that you were real? Why were you so cryptic? Why did you spout so much bile in the bible? and why is the majority of what you said just inkeeping with iron-aged myths and the rantings of lunatics rather than having any basis in fact? Why do the most unpleasant people on the planet follow you to the letter? Why do you give children AIDS, dysentry and Cholera? What were you thinking of when you invented Smallpox?!"

              Oh and "Why did you make me an atheist?!"

              1. VOICE CIW profile image82
                VOICE CIWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                VOICE CIW
                superwags and Jesus would ask you why didn't you put forth the effort to seek me? Why do you curse My Word (Bible)? Why do you slander Me as a lunatic because you are void of understanding? And then He (Jesus) would say My people that follows Me have Joy, they only seem unpleasant to you because you are not spiritual but worldly. Also I do not give children AIDS, dysentry and Cholera, I am Holy, I do no evil, the one (Satan) who you follow brings sickness to children. Finally, I did not make you an atheist, in that regard, you are self-made man fashioned after your father, Satan (the devil). There is still time you can repent and make Jesus your Savior.

                1. superwags profile image81
                  superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You people terrify me. You win as most nutty one I've spoken to in a while, congrats. Why do you have to invoke this rubbish? What's missing from your life otherwise?

                  "Why not look at a beautiful garden, without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too".

                  1. VOICE CIW profile image82
                    VOICE CIWposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    VOICE CIW
                    superwags, I will not go word for word with you. You should be terrified of yourself. And you are the nut talking about things you know nothing about. You know nothing about God or the Bible, in fact I doubt if you have even picked up the Bible and read a verse out of it. There is nothing missing from my life, I have Jesus. You don't have Jesus, you are just empty shell, you probably hate yourself.

            2. 0
              just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Basically, we'll all say the same thing; assuming your scenario is the one that plays out. We all did the best we could, with the information we had.

              1. superwags profile image81
                superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Haha. Here here!

            3. kess profile image59
              kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Before we can run around beating up the air....
              I have said ...

              I am Truth.

              Who are you?

              When that is known discussion may happen....
              .....and if that is not known to you then you are false because the false will never know itself...

              1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wait a minute - I am Truth. You are False. This is why you speak as you do. sad

                Terrible.

                1. kess profile image59
                  kessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You can only see that which is you...
                  Therefore you take what is yours...

                  Another will come and read the same and take what is theirs
                  and will not think to even say the things you have said...

                  So I judge you not for you have already judged yourself...

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                    Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes - you do. Please stop Lying. You are False. There are no judges in my world. I am Truth.

    4. Pcunix profile image90
      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      By the way, everyone STARTS as an atheist.  Some get taught to be theists. The rest of us are smarter than that.

      1. 0
        just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL. Your hilarious. Unless of course you were serious, them LOLOLOL.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I am serious. 

          Do you know anyone who was a theist at birth?

          1. 0
            just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Short for the confusion. I was laughing at the second sentence.

      2. 0
        Sophia Angeliqueposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        @Pcunix., well said.

      3. GodTalk profile image86
        GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, babies don't yet have the  ability to believe or disbelieve in the concept of a god. That is developed later, as a person matures. You cannot reject a concept you know nothing of.
        That's like saying a cow is an atheist. If a cow understands what a god is, they haven't told or shown us yet, but I suspect that their reasoning capacity in that area is quite limited.

        1. Pcunix profile image90
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If this foolishness had anything to do with "reasoning", I might agree.

          1. GodTalk profile image86
            GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I do agree that saying that babies are atheists is foolish reasoning to the extreme.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image61
              Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Why is that? You yourself claimed that babies are incapable of believing anything.



              Therefore they do not believe in god, therefore they are atheists.

              You do know what the word "atheist" means - right? sad

              1. 0
                just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Atheism, as defined by dictionary.com:
                The doctrine or belief that there is no God.

                Any baby having a doctrine or belief would be quite the anomaly. Don't you think?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  lol lol lol
                  A-theism means no such thing.

                  Dear me. Little wonder your religion causes so many conflicts. sad

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol More food for fodder. Now I get to call you delusional, and I already had more material than I'd found time to use. You can't throw a dash in to add weight to your argument. It appears that you are grasping at straws to back up your claim.

                  2. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Mark, I've generally stopped responding to much on the religion forums, but you really need a new tag....

                    "No wonder your religion causes so many wars."
                    "Little wonder your religion generates so many conflicts"

                    You atheists/theists are going to go round and round and round about this issue until the day you die, and will have made zero headway into actual understanding. 

                    If you want to continue the same argument, at least switch it up a little on occasion.

                    No offense intended, I assure you.

                2. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Did you forget about this definition?

                  A lack of belief in the existence of gods.

                  So, does a baby lack a belief in a god? smile

                  1. 0
                    just_curiousposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Can a baby possess a belief, or lack thereof? They're kind of an empty vessel. They don't possess a lot more than poop, and cute little hands.

              2. GodTalk profile image86
                GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I am wondering if you know what the term means. This word, in the whole history of using it, going back to the Greek period, has never been applied to babies in the sense that you mean of being without god. The Greeks used it to describe a person who rejected the gods worshiped by the larger society. Thus, a Christian would have been considered an atheist for rejecting the Greek gods.
                    The term, as most dictionaries define it is: "One who denies the existence of a god." Babies, as I've said,  are incapable of denying a god and so, by definition, cannot be atheists.

                1. Mark Knowles profile image61
                  Mark Knowlesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So - you obviously do not understand what the word means. That explains it.

                  A-whatever is a lack of something. In this case belief in a deity. It is not denial of something. Your god simply does not exist. I do not "deny" something that exists when I say I am an atheist. I do not hold a belief in it. Not the same thing at all.

                  If you are a-moral - you do not deny morals - you just do not have any. If you are a-political, you are not denying politics - you simply do not have a political allegiance.

                  Babies have never heard of god, or morals, or politics, therefore they are a-moral, a-political and a-theistic. Grown up people who have never heard of the concept of a god are atheistic also. You are an atheist because you do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (The One True Godd/ess).

                  Hope that helps you understand what this means. I did not realize you were so confused. I realize the dictionaries you use are probably written by religious people such as yourself - that does not make the meaning correct. Mirriam Webster online and Dictionary.com huh? lol

                  But thanks for demonstrating the type of behavior religion played in making me an atheist. wink

                  1. GodTalk profile image86
                    GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The dictionaries I use are the dictionaries every English speaking person in the world uses. If I don't understand the meaning, then all of the scholars that have ever written dictionaries of the English language don't understand as well. Add to that Greek scholars from which the word comes from in the first place. 
                       Apparently you want to give your own definition of the word and go against the accepted norm.  I suppose that is all right if you are a relativist, but in the real world where word meanings actually mean something, you can never, by any stretch of the imagination call a baby an atheist. I am sorry for you that you have to twist truth to your own way of thinking.  Maybe you have to come up with your own atheist dictionary, and move to a part of the world where only atheists communicate with one another. Then everyone will understand your interesting logic.

                2. Beelzedad profile image61
                  Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  There are (2) distinct definitions that I have seen in all the dictionaries I have access, and you have purposely and dishonestly left out the second one, which is:

                  "A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

                  You see, it does define atheism as a "lack" of belief. Anyone, including babies, who has a lack of belief in your god or any gods, is defined as an atheist.

                  You believe in one god, but you don't believe in others, in that you not only deny a belief in other gods but you also lack a belief in them, hence you are an atheist, as well. smile

                  1. GodTalk profile image86
                    GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    That is the most twisted logic that I have ever heard of and your understanding of words makes words relative. And if words are relative none of us can communicate because we can give it any definition we please. "A lack of belief in a god or gods"implies reasoning ability to know what a god is. With your definition everyone is an atheist because no one accepts every god that is out there. And if everyone is an atheist, then why are we still arguing over it. You win. There are no theists in the world. By the way: HA! HA! HA!.

        2. pisean282311 profile image57
          pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          @godtalk you are right..god concept is man made and not natural..so needs books and telling others...one doesnot need to teach kid about how to breathe, how to cry  ,how to laugh ,how to smile...but one needs to teach how to speak in parents language , since language was created by humans...in same why one needs to tell who was jesus or krishna or moses or muhammad...one needs to tell what is bible or quran or torah or veda...one needs to teach about money too...since money is human's creation...so all that is natural can be grasped independently by humans but all that is man made needs to be taught...you are right that kids dont believe in religious god and so consider entire human race as one ...once religion enters , division enters...

          1. GodTalk profile image86
            GodTalkposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So if all that is true then there should not be any concept of God in the human race.  Who was the first to teach humans about God? It was his fault. The truth is as humans begin to reason, they have a natural affinity for worshiping something or someone.  That is why there are so many religions in the world.

    5. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I guess I don't count? hmm I'm not atheist. lol
      Being? No.
      Religion is a hoax. The doctrine which make up all religion of the world, specifically to major 3 doctrines are all unattainable according to human nature.

      Tested and failed. wink

    6. dutchman1951 profile image61
      dutchman1951posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      count me as one of those tested and failed also

      could not measure up I guess..smile

    7. mecheil profile image61
      mecheilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      i have yet to find out for myself.. i'm trying to understand why most people would believe in god despite the ill and confusing comments being thrown at him. and i'm also trying to understand if it's really wiser to believe in what science tells amid both beneficial and ill results of it.

    8. Titen-Sxull profile image94
      Titen-Sxullposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I don't believe in any supreme beings, intelligent or otherwise. I was raised as a Christian in a Fundamentalist family though I'm not sure I would have considered myself a Fundamentalist. Religion didn't cause my atheism but reading the Bible more often definitely contributed to losing my Christian faith. I drifted around as a sort of pantheist after that before eventually realizing I had no reason to believe in any gods and was just clinging to those ideas for emotional reasons.

      So in some sense religion played a fairly big role but I think that skepticism, logic and reason also played their part. If I hadn't had the ability to think critically and question what I was taught I never would have broken free.

    9. weblog profile image60
      weblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      As a kid, the stories were interesting and then when I started to ask questions... Hmmm, You Know! smile

  2. tom_caton profile image81
    tom_catonposted 5 years ago

    Well it was a pretty bad start when as a three year old i found church boring enough to announce in front of the entire congregation (of my home villages catholic church) that the priest was so boring, which stopped my family from attending mass ever again.

    Then when I was seven the priest of our next local church refused to give me my first communion because I was a Protestant and he was Catholic.

    Having being told to pay no mind to religion by my parents from then on, I got to observe religious studies in secondary school from a fairly unique viewpoint, one where I could see how one-sided the so called "religious studies" class was.

    It was extremely Catholic, with prayers at the beginning and end of class, there was precious little mentioned about any religions other than Christianity, and what was said was told with a touch of scorn. Amazing for a school that was not in any way affiliated with the church, unlike many schools in Ireland.

    I did not participate in this class so I could develop frustration with the teaching without having a workload to distract me from my eventual hypothesis.

    Which was of course: This is bullshit

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      hmmm...you were lucky to have got bored too early smile

      1. tom_caton profile image81
        tom_catonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Indeed! Lucky also that my mother didn't decide to continue church visits for the sheer blood minded masochism!

  3. TahoeDoc profile image97
    TahoeDocposted 5 years ago

    I was 8 years old, sitting in a church that a nice neighbor lady would take me to every week, and looked around. I couldn't believe that people were taking it seriously. Talking snakes, a God they said loved you but would torture you for eternity if you didn't grovel and declare yourself unworthy, guilt, fear, animal sacrifice, human sacrifice....

    I dismissed it as myth. I studied the bible quite a bit again later on, first with a rabbi (long story) and then with preachers and missionaries. The more I read, the more I could not believe that any human would take it any more seriously than any story with talking animals and magic. And the whole contradiction of a vindictive god who is supposed to be "love" is unfathomable.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TahoeDoc,

      I applaud your intellect at such a young age - I am not so sure I would have not have felt compelled to accept the beliefs of those around me as they would have been older and wiser.

      But then, I was reared in the evangelical bloodlines from inception, and as a physician I am sure you are aware that it is inordinately difficult for a child of formative years to doubt or question beliefs held by parents. 

      The only thing that saved me from supersticion was a rational mind - the ability to reason my way out of of hellfire and damnation, salvation and heaven.

      To paraphrase Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven: Reasoning - deserve's got nothing to do with it.

      1. TahoeDoc profile image97
        TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not really intellect, they just didn't get me young enough. smile

        1. TahoeDoc profile image97
          TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And I'd have gotten there eventually because I do like to find things out for myself. Once I read the bible, there would be no way I'd be part of that.

          As Isaac Asimov said "Properly read, the bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

          1. Lady Wordsmith profile image81
            Lady Wordsmithposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I've not heard that quote by Asimov before TahoeDoc, but that speaks volumes to me.  It truly was the Bible itself that made me question to whole God thing - none of it ever made sense to me, with all of its contradictions and terrifying stories of a vengeful God who would cause terrible pain and death to the creatures he was supposed to have created. 

            Nah, the Bible was never anything more to me than a book of interesting stories, that only served to tell me something about what life was like in millennia past.  I do like the Bible for that.

    2. Eaglekiwi profile image74
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wierdo's I agree.

      If you went to doctor and found out he was a quack,does that mean you would quit looking for a real doctor? smile

  4. Pcunix profile image90
    Pcunixposted 5 years ago

    Religion played no role. I was not born with any nonsensical beliefs. My parents made me briefly believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy and also took me and my sisters to church.

    For a long time I did not understand that the guy yammering up front was being serious. I though he was just telling fairy tales like the Winnie the Pooh stories my mother had read to me.

    When I did suddenly understand, I was very upset and scared. On our way out of the church that day, I asked my father if everyone believed this. He said no, but most did. I said I did not and that I would not be attending church any longer.

    I was seven or eight - the age of Reason, I guess.  Too bad most never do reach that.

  5. 0
    Muldanianposted 5 years ago

    I was a Jehovah's Witness for a few years, and for some time I took everyone of that religion's teachings to be true. However, I never felt at ease with its teaching that evolution is entirely false and a creation of the devil.  I started to look at the scientific evidence and saw hundreds of skulls showing the progression of man from an earlier form to that of modern man.  The evidence is there for all to see, yet my religion denied that it existed.  This started my questioning.

    When I finally decided to leave that religion, I began to study the archaelogical evidence which showed that many of the events which are described in the bible did not actually happen, such as the exodus of the jews from Egypt.  It all began to add up.  That science can prove the origins of the universe and of man's origins, and many of the events of the bible didn't happen.  As I came to realise that my religious belief was leaving me, I began to fear death more, and I therefore realised that this is what religions exist for.  That we are possibly alone in the universe, that we are not that important, and that the universe is unaware of out existence, and that when our short time upon this earth comes to its close, that really is the end of each one of us is too depressing to contemplate.  However, the need to believe was no longer enough.  I felt that I could no longer deny what science shows us in the hope of finding some comfort.

    Yet those who remain in that and other religions have to deny scientific discoveries in order to maintain their beliefs.  Instead of being God's faithful, I began to see such people as ignorant and arrogant.  That so many of them are willing to die and to kill for their beliefs I came to see as tragic.

    So yes, religion was a cause of my becoming an ahteist, at least a part-time one.   Because, I still pray, and have the greatest of respect for the bible, even though I no longer believe a word of it, and believe that there is no one there to hear my prayer.  However, I do believe that man is by nature a religious animal, and the need for something outside of ourselves is so a part of our natures.

    1. 0
      AKA Winstonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @Muldanian,

      There is no reason to be morose.  Being alone in the universe is quite liberating.  You are your own boss.  And tell you what - you aren't really that alone as there are about 6 billion other intelligent apes who share this planet with you, and many of them need and want your help.

      You don't need god to do good things and get a reward for that action - that is what actions and consequences is all about.  It is why the claim of religious superiority of morality is spurious - go do good for others because it will make you feel good about yourself.  There is nothing magical or mysterious about it.

      Quit thinking, poor lonely me, and go make some positive change in the world, or at least in the lives of those less fortunate - after all, you don't have all that much time in this world and there is no second chance.

      Hope this helps.

      1. 60
        caucasian79posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Muldanian hello. We're social animals, therefore it's quite natural to feel down when we're alone and in trouble. Universe is huge, I agree. However, earth is massive, but that doesn't change anything in our lives. Most of us work while we can, and try to enjoy lives as much as we can. All those we do regardless how big universe is or how unimportant we are or we feel. If you consider that the only animal, who can pray is human, tthats quite something, isn't it? Moreover, science is advancing by day and theories like evolution are to remain theories, I don't know for how long(it's startling that it has remained that way for such a long time). Nevertheless, it's science's best shot so far to create an alternative to what Bible claims to have taken place. Btw, I don't think anywhere in the Bible it's stated that the earth is 6000 years old, it's human's interpretation. The fact that Bible is not a scientific book should make one to evaluate it in other grounds. As for archeology seems to be quite  in line with the bible. But again it's you who decides to believe, there are no obligations.

    2. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @Muldanian

      interesting...

    3. TahoeDoc profile image97
      TahoeDocposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      @Muldanian...this is exactly what my in-laws tell me when they state why they couldn't live without religion.

      "That we are possibly alone in the universe, that we are not that important, and that the universe is unaware of out existence, and that when our short time upon this earth comes to its close, that really is the end of each one of us is too depressing to contemplate."

      But as you stated, wanting something to be true has no bearing on its actuality. I see that you get that and I'm sorry it bothers you, but Winston is right, make use of that fact to enjoy your life.

      Interesting, I have never found this outlook depressing, just the way it is. To me, it's actually life affirming. You better get around to loving your family, taking care of the important things in life, making your mark or whatever NOW, because this is it. LIVE this life Instead of wasting it trying to please some sky god to earn favor for the next.

      Maybe because I never had any other expectations of what happened when you died, or because I never though I was so special as to be watched over by a creator/god, I always find this comforting.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g

      Not sure if you have seen it, or if it will make you feel better or worse, but your comments made me think of it.

  6. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    What role has religion played in making you atheist?

    The truthful religion has played no role in making one an atheist; it is their own frustration and confusion that has made them atheists agnostics.

    Others could differ with me out of their own free will.

    I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you trying to draw attention to yourself? lol lol

      You do know, it could be seen as self-promotion. tongue smile

    2. 68
      paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this
  7. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    The truthful religion has played no role in making one an atheist; it is their own frustration and confusion that has made them atheists agnostics.

    Others could differ with me out of their own free will.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      and it is desperate attempt by human to find meaning in their lives which has made them to believe in something called god...desperation to have eternal life (concept) , heaven (concept) makes people believe in god (again unproven concept)..

  8. wormdo profile image62
    wormdoposted 5 years ago

    To be honest, not much. I was raised Christian, and I never really had a bad experience with it. I liked going to church and I adored the Bible (I even got a big illustrated one as a present for Christmas, after asking). I just felt like I was play-acting the whole time, I never believed it. And then I realized I didn't believe in any kind of higher power at all.

    Atheism is the only system where I feel like I'm being truthful with myself.

  9. Eaglekiwi profile image74
    Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago

    Born in a rebel state ,some choose to remain there I guess.

  10. superwags profile image81
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    Religion has played virtually no part in making me an atheist. Why would it? I hope that even if I believed in god I'd still be appalled by the things organised religion gets away with...

    1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
      Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with the last part there.

      There have been some mentally deranged people who have claimed atrocitys in the name of God and all countries seem to go to war 'Under God' kinda must suit them to fly under that banner when they feel patrioctic,but support all kinds of crap (while still 'Under God)

      like Greed ,Corruption,Injustice etc etc.

      Hypocrites in my opinion.

      1. superwags profile image81
        superwagsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, the assertion that god's on "your side" troubles me no end. Scary people hide behind its facade.

        I'm not an atheist because of religion in the slightest; "the opposite to a fundamental religious person is not a fundamentalist atheist, but a gentle cynic who cares little about whether or not there is a god" (Voltaire).

        1. Eaglekiwi profile image74
          Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hmm..ok I got that.
          Bottom line for me is Im not much into labels/stereotypes ,even though I'm, sure someone has judged, and filed me under R.lol


          Unconditional love is strange concept to many,because its not about self,but I tell you its exciting smile

          1. pisean282311 profile image57
            pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            It is strange concept because it is impossible thing as per psychology...

  11. Pierre Savoie profile image61
    Pierre Savoieposted 5 years ago

    Religion plays its part in encouraging Atheism.  But even if there were no snarky religious boosters polluting your personal space, there are audio factors at work as well, such as the deafening absence of any God...

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Deafening absence of any god? WOW! roll

      1. Pierre Savoie profile image61
        Pierre Savoieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Heheh, yes, the "deafening absence of any God".  Scientists have extended our senses well beyond what our bodies are capable, but still no God or spirit-stuff anywhere.  Also Jesus is said to "stand at the door and knock" -- and if you say "knock" backwards it's "con".  Think about it!  lol.

  12. know one profile image61
    know oneposted 5 years ago

    My siblings and I were briefly sent to Sunday school as youngsters. We liked the gold star for turning up but everything else was just silly. After several weeks of this nonsense, we decided that our parents must have only sent us there to enjoy having the house free of us briefly on a Sunday - so we declined to go again. It just made no sense. It still doesn't... but it seems even more ludicrous as an adult. My children have religious education in their supposedly secular primary school and I allow them to attend only because it provides a useful platform to teach them critical thinking. Our home discussions on the subject are lively.

  13. superwags profile image81
    superwagsposted 5 years ago

    I wouldn't have say that religion caused too many wars over the course of history. I think it's more often used as a cover story or an explaination for a war. I'm not saying that it has nothing to do with it, but in the vast majority of cases it's not the major reason and I think the war would probably happen anyway...

    It does help to keep cultures apart, which certainly encourages war...

  14. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Who was the first to teach humans about God?"
    Was that one god or many gods or polytheism?

  15. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "The Greeks used it to describe a person who rejected the gods worshiped by the larger society." Seems like sound logic to me.

  16. Trish_M profile image88
    Trish_Mposted 5 years ago

    I shouldn't really be posting, as I am agnostic, rather than atheist, but I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God; I think that it is the mythology, history and religious ideas of an ancient Eastern Mediterranean tribe.

    I used to be Christian, when I was a child, and I chose to go to Sunday School, church, etc, with my friends ~ three times per week. However, even then, I questioned so much that I was not particularly popular with Sunday School teachers or Religious Education teachers at school. I was actually evicted from one 'Home Church' meeting, when I was 12.

    The more I thought about it, the more difficult it became to believe ~ and that was terrifying for a teenager, because of the threat of hell.

    Then, in my 20s, I heard that the Bishop of Durham had trouble believing in a lot of things ~ that gave me permission to doubt.

    By my 30s, I would go back and forth, from almost-believer to almost-atheist.

    Finally, I concluded that I really just didn't know. I don't see how anyone can really 'know' for certain. There appear to be supernatural 'things', which may one day be explained, but while there are mysteries, I leave 'God' with those mysteries and say that I am agnostic. It's the only position which makes sense to me.

    I know some truly lovely caring Christians; but I have known some who are smug, pompous and insulting towards anyone who does not share their opinions and beliefs.

    I don't think that there is any proof that God exists ~ but it's possible. I don't see why the Biblical interpretation of God should be any more true than any other ~ eg Norse tales of Odin and Thor. I don't see why people should be so enamoured of a Biblical God who loves his creation, yet tortures and kills them ~ note the flood, the Amalekite slaughter, the threat of hell. I think that hell frightens some people into 'believing'.

    Religion? ~ Well, much evil has been done in the name of, or with the blessing of, or because of the set-up of organised religion. It's nothing to be proud of, but not a reason to know whether or not God exists, whether he is interested in us, whether he created us, whether we should believe in and worship him, etc.

    If God is there, I do wonder why he doesn't make this clearer and why there is so much unpleasantness in the world. Seeing lions and tigers tearing weaker creatures apart is horrible, for example, but it is how God has ~ supposedly ~ made his world ~ the world where even the smallest sparrow is said to be important to him.

    I do not know whether there is a God or not, but I have very little time for organised religion and I do not think that the Bible is God's special book.

  17. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 5 years ago

    Some politicians are pacifists, some are warmongers.

    This causes inner conflict within the group.

    Whatever is contained within must spill out.
    So you are right to say tht conflict comes from within polotics.

    The same is true for any group that conflict resides....  for the same reasons


      BUT   even if thee were no groups ???   conflict seems to be a product of humanity as a whole.

      There will always be someone who wants more controll and will do anything to get it.

      If the Boy Scouts were the main sourse for controlling the world; there would then be more conflict coming from within the Boy Scouts.

       It doesn't matter the name of the group or what it says it stands for.  Conflict is but one of the natures of mankind.

  18. chatpilot profile image78
    chatpilotposted 5 years ago

    I was a former evangelist in a very fundamentalist church you can say I was a fanatic. But through it all I was also very inquisitive and judgmental about some of the actions and even injustices attributed to God. For example, the O.T. portrayed God as a murdering tyrant who ruled with an iron fist under the dispensation of the law. After having read the bible in its entirety four times as a theist, it seemed that the more I read it the further I got from God.

    I didn't and don't see a difference between God and Hitler, in fact Hitler was raised Catholic and believed he was doing his gods will in destroying the Jews. He makes this assertion clear in Mein Kampf which I also read. I judged the biblical God by the standards of men, and after reading all of the things he allegedly did in the O.T. I was disgusted with being his servant.

    To this day I have problems with tyrants and in my view that is exactly the way I view God. If God were a physical man and had done all those things that the bible attribute to him he would be tried for war crimes and sentenced to death. The bible is what actually led me towards becoming an atheist. I have been a proud atheist for the past 16 years and find more joy and fulfillment in my everyday life now than when I was "serving the divine tyrant."

  19. Kangaroo_Jase profile image80
    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 5 years ago

    So , who brought beer to this shin dig?

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yep! I have a couple of dozen crown lager to warm up with.smile Atheist is a word religious people use to describe people who don't believe in invisible super beings.

      I would have thought the word sensible would suffice myself.
      I don't believe in Santa or the tooth fairy either, but I don't think that makes me an atheist. smile

  20. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    "Today the word atheist is only used to denote any one who does not accept the existence of a god. I certainly do not fall into that absurd category." The term absurd sticks in my craw. 'A god' - would you have problem with atheist as non-belief in many gods?

  21. 60
    WhatsTheDealposted 5 years ago

    Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

    Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Frederick Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

    Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

    To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

    In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

    1. Reality is an illusion.
    2. Reality is/was self-created.
    3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
    4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

    So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

    Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

    Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

    • Something exists.
    • Nothing cannot create something.
    • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

    Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

    To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

    Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

    Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

    • Something exists.
    • You do not get something from nothing.
    • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
    • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
    • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
    • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

    Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

    But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

    • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
    • He must be powerful (exceedingly).
    • He must be eternal (self-existent).
    • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
    • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
    • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
    • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
    • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
    • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
    • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
    • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
    • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
    • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

    These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

    One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

    Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

    This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

    So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

  22. 68
    paarsurreyposted 5 years ago

    What role has religion played in making you atheist?

    Truthful Religion has played no role in making one an atheist; it is their own confusion and irrational thinking that has made them atheists.

    1. pisean282311 profile image57
      pisean282311posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      confusion...well might be...confusion is mid stage which leads to clarity ..confusion like why religion is so limited and so naive...then comes clarity that since it is man made we can't expect better...it is process of irrational thinking like religious god to rational thinking that humans created religious god ...so you have point confusion and irrationality of religion leads to rational thinking of coming out of religion...

      1. 68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        When one gets clarity; one is on the Revealed Religion.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When one gets religious clarity one is indoctrinated.

    2. 0
      gobanglaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You're right about confusion. Religion is confusing. When you really think about what religions teach, they make no sense. As for irrational thinking, what is rational about talking snakes tempting people to eat fruit and blood sacrifices to atone for sins? You can't be religious and fully rational. You have to set aside at least some of your common sense to be a believer. Of all the thousands of religions and gods people have and continue to believe in, how could anyone possibly know if one was true or truthful? Or that their particular interpretation of it was true?

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The way to see through religion is to read the tome of each one.

        When you get to the part where some psychopathic "god" threatens you, or the proponents of that religion kindly explain that you are going to hell, the search is over. Start again.

        After you have discovered that they all follow the same threatening controlling pattern you can walk away and say with some authority, it is simply myth.

      2. 68
        paarsurreyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is no mention of talking snakes or blood sacrifices mentioned in Quran.

        It is the sinful Bible scribes who understood things incorrectly and hence mentioned incorrectly; Quran rectifies their mistakes.

 
working