• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Atheism: My Perspective

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
This topic has been on my mind ever since I saw this on Google+, I figured that it's been a while since we've had a good old atheism thread so here we go.



I have to say that I'm actually rather inclined to agree, although it does miss some very obvious steps assuming that evolution is true and all that.

I write this thread because I really do care. I'm not looking to get into heated debate or to make myself look good. I'm writing this because I feel that this needs to be something that is consistently discussed and reexamined by both sides.

I've spoken with several atheists that I know over the past week and they all gave me the same crap that I've been hearing for years. "That stuff isn't for everyone." "I'm just not convinced" or "There isn't any compelling evidence." By now I feel as if they don't even listen because they honestly don't care. That's the problem these days, less and less people really care. They are taught to be tolerant of all other religions and it's shoved down their throats for 13 years at school that God does not exist.

I believe that there is compelling evidence but I feel that many atheists would rather keep living their lives as they have and ignore the information placed out before them. They would rather justify their lives than transform their lives.

Take these 3 quotes into consideration:
To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
I find it interesting just how anti-God a lot of atheists I know seem to be. If they don't believe in God then why would they bother themselves to actively work against God?

But look at the evidence for God. I want to bring back a post made in a thread a few years ago (by Hybrix). It brings up several very important facts, questions, and things to consider.

I was asked in another thread to post facts from a book claiming to prove the Bible's validity. While I still think the person who asked me should just read the book, I decided to make this thread and open a discussion on such facts. A lot of people are quick to assume that there is no evidence that the Bible is true. In this thread I will attempt to show those assumptions to be dead wrong. Additionally, I've included links to several books at the bottom of this thread that go into a lot more detail about the evidence of the Bible/Christianity being true.

I've been doing some research lately and have come across several very interesting websites that account for quite a few facts that prove the validity of the Bible based on either science, historical records and accounts, and archeology.

For starters, a very interesting read that would argue that the earth could in fact be millions of years old and not disprove the credibility of the Bible. It's actually a very interesting read:

AVOIDING A DANGEROUS TRAP | Reasons To Believe

Next, Biblical accounts of scientific "facts" long before they were ever discovered or even acknowledged by secular and mainstream science (in some cases 3,000 years prior):

Scientific facts that prove the Bible Text

Next, third party (Non-Bible) historical documentation of the Birth, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Jesus. Interesting enough, several of these sources are people who hated Christians at the time of their writings. They wouldn't have had much incentive to make up Jesus and then talk about him in their writings.

Birth: Proof of Birth

Crucifixion: Crucifixion of Jesus

Resurrection: Resurrection of Jesus Christ-Historical Evidence

Additionally, it should be noted that Jesus has the longest biography of anybody in the Encyclopedia according to the above site. They also note the following:

Jesus is recorded as a fact, as is His death, burial and missing body in the Reader's Digest Book of Facts, 1989.
Here are some archeological discoveries that validate several people and events written about in the Bible:

Archaeological

Archaeological Discoveries that confirm Biblical Accounts:
From the radio show "The Book and The Spade" by Gordon Govier and Keith Sohoville.
An inscription at a Roman theater in Caesarea Martima reading, "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea".

An inscription found in Northern Israel mentioning King David's dynasty. The inscription is the oldest reference to any Biblical figure outside the Bible.

The discovery of an ossuary, a stone box used for retaining bones of the deceased, inscribed with the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over the trial of Jesus shortly before his crucifixion.

From the Jerusalem Christian Review
JERUSALEM - Israeli archeologists have uncovered a 1st century cave, in a suburb south of Jerusalem, which served as a tomb to a family of disciples of Jesus Christ.

The burial cave, carved in the mountainside, off the Kidron Valley, contained several coffins, with names engraved on their sides, as well as signs of the cross. These inscriptions identified the cave as the burial vault of the Barsabas family. This family is well known to us, since several of its members are mentioned in the book of Acts. The tomb remained hidden for nearly 2000 years.

Eminent Jerusalem Historian, Prof. Ory N. Mazar, states that "at least some members of this family were among the very first disciples of Christ."
Finally, the validity of the Bible vs. other historical documents:

Validity of the Bible

Pay special attention to the chart on that page. I'll see if I can duplicate it in this post:

Some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted because we do not know if the copies we have of the Bible are accurate, or if the original manuscripts are accurate.

To determine the accuracy of the manuscripts, we can compare the Bible manuscripts to manuscripts of other literature. If we are going to be fair, we should not require more of the Bible than we do other literature, but the Bible will hold up to even more scrutiny.

The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.

Author-------------------No. of Copies------------Time Span
Caesar------------------------------10------------1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies)------------------7------------1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals)--------------------20------------1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History)----------7------------750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum)---------8------------800 years
Homer (Iliad)----------------------643------------500 years
New Testament--------------Over 24,000------------25 years


After looking at the chart above, which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span compared to 500 years for Iliad. Yet many of our readers would read Iliad as the gospel before the Bible.

We should also mention that of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts they are 15 different languages and they all are accurate in their translation.

Let's look at one more point regarding the accuracy of manuscripts. It is the concept of textual variations and textual corruption. We will compare Iliad with the New Testament. The Iliad has about 15,600 textual line variations compared to the New Testament which has about 20,000 textual line variations. Not bad considering there are over 23,000 more manuscripts of the New Testament than the Iliad.

The Iliad has 764 lines of textual corruption whereas the New Testament only has 40 lines of textual corruption. So, which is the more accurate document?

*This data is from "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell 1979. There is a newer edition of this book which probably has even more powerful proof of the validity of scripture. As time allows we will update this page, better yet, why not get the book and read it yourself.
There is plenty more evidence where a lot of this came from too. That last part references a book titled "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. There is an updated version with even more evidence titled "New Evidence that Demands a Verdict". It's 800 pages long.

Another book that Josh McDowell endorsed is called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. This one is 448 pages long.

Both of the above books are detailed and complex reads. They are also quite lengthy. I have found that in general, most people aren't willing to read 400+ pages about something they are not even sure if they are open to, let alone 800. However, I recently read another book that is a lot shorter than the above two. Granted it doesn't have as much information, but it still provides enough to really get you seriously thinking. It's a very smooth read. I read it in two sittings without getting bored. It's titled "One Heartbeat Away" and it's by Mark Cahill. For those interested in reading this book, I've offered a challenge in another thread where I have even offered to buy the book for you. For more details on that, visit this thread. http://www.generalforum.com/religion/8-hour-challenge-christianity-true-72034.html

So here's how I'd like this thread to work. First of all, this is a fact thread, not an opinion thread. While you can have opinions based on facts, make sure that you post facts as well. This thread will definitely lead to several intense debates. Please do your best to cite your sources that back your arguments. Obviously I've shown what I feel to be evidence that proves Christianity. If you feel you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it. Also, I would also appreciate it if you would address the evidence I've posted. I believe some of it is exceptionally strong and I'm curious to see how it will hold up against some of the more serious atheists and agnostics here. I will do the same with any evidence that you post to support your side.
http://www.generalforum.com/religion/facts-prove-disprove-bible-72080.html


One other important thing that I would like to note (since it was not included in that post) is something known as the "Lewis Trilemma". Now we all know that Jesus did in fact live, that is a verifiable fact, the question is whether or not he did what the bible claims he did.

There is one big issue with this though. Since we know that he lived and people do not want to accept Jesus as God he is simply called a good teacher and is is typically left at that. But think about the things that Jesus said. There are only 3 possibilities for Jesus: He was a madman, a liar, or he is in fact God. He cannot be accepted as simply a good teacher. But look at the things that he said, certainly he was not a madman, a madman is not that wise. He couldn't have been a liar, he would have been caught for sure, and on top of that being a liar does not make one a good teacher. The only option left is that Jesus was in fact telling the truth and he is God.

This argument is originally put forth by C.S. Lewis.


Everything I have posted about atheism is based off of atheists that I know. Try not to let it rub you the wrong way. I understand that viewpoints and actions among atheists differ significantly.


Anyway that about sums up what I wanted to say for now. I realize that it all may be a bit much to read all at once. But this is what I believe.
 

oxyMORON

A Darker Knight
I don't necessarily think that schools teach that God does not exist, but rather they teach science, which just in my opinion, is more difficult to explain and ever-growing, and leave religious education to outside sources. Both science and religion need well educated people to teach them effectively. I just feel like there isn't a place to exclusively teach science like there are places to teach religion.

Also, some atheists are atheists because they think it's cool to be rebellious. I mean, there's nothing you can really do about that except ignore them because they aren't going to even listen.

I do believe that Jesus could just be a good teacher though. I've heard the Bible be described as the longest game of telephone in history. So whoever thinks well of Jesus could make him sound a little cooler and appealing to the next guy. Stories and lessons were at the mercy of the teller. Even when it was all written down, countless revisions have been made, not to mention translations. You basically have to trust whoever's translating to get it right. So you get this legend going and an otherwise good guy gets turned into the son of God. It seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
 

Crouton

Ninja
V.I.P.
Reading this thread makes me wish I could be more atheist than I already am, which isn't even possible. I don't know if you meant to outrightly offend atheists in your original post Dave but you succeeded. It wasn't school or Science that made me atheist, it was in one part the country I live in, and in an even bigger part small-minded religious people like you who love to judge and degrade us.
 

Random9

Registered Member
This topic has been on my mind ever since I saw this on Google+, I figured that it's been a while since we've had a good old atheism thread so here we go.

you might find it funny,but this is more offensive to some than it's true,a bad way to start a thread,it'll be a better idea to put it in ST.
I have to say that I'm actually rather inclined to agree, although it does miss some very obvious steps assuming that evolution is true and all that.

I write this thread because I really do care. I'm not looking to get into heated debate or to make myself look good. I'm writing this because I feel that this needs to be something that is consistently discussed and reexamined by both sides.

I've spoken with several atheists that I know over the past week and they all gave me the same crap that I've been hearing for years. "That stuff isn't for everyone." "I'm just not convinced" or "There isn't any compelling evidence."
as with christianity a lot of atheists have no idea what it is they believe and why,it's similar to asking most chrisitans about what is wrong with being gay.
By now I feel as if they don't even listen because they honestly don't care. That's the problem these days, less and less people really care. They are taught to be tolerant of all other religions.
so should they be taught to be tolerant only of your religion? would you be happy if they are thought to hate christianity but that islam is the true religion?
now there are so many religions and atheists don't see any significant difference between them.(you might think christianity is special,but that's only because you belong to it) reasearching one religion takes a LOT of time and for an atheist to be fair in choosing a religion will take pretty much his entire life of studying all religion,so not to care seems a decent solution.
and it's shoved down their throats for 13 years at school that God does not exist.
why would it be better if you shove god down their throats instead?
I believe that there is compelling evidence but I feel that many atheists would rather keep living their lives as they have and ignore the information placed out before them. They would rather justify their lives than transform their lives.

Take these 3 quotes into consideration:

I find it interesting just how anti-God a lot of atheists I know seem to be. If they don't believe in God then why would they bother themselves to actively work against God?
because from an atheist point of view god doesn't exists but the idea of his existence does influence their lives(through religious people),it's an influence some of them don't like and therefore take a stance which might seem like them hating god(while in reality they hate the idea of god(or a specific god)).
some athiests do go to some length to what could seem like a "rebellion" against god,while in reality they rebel against religion.
But look at the evidence for God. I want to bring back a post made in a thread a few years ago (by Hybrix). It brings up several very important facts, questions, and things to consider.



http://www.generalforum.com/religion/facts-prove-disprove-bible-72080.html
aside from claims of proof of jesus's resurrection(which are extremely dubious). the rest is just utterly meaningless and doesn't even imply anything.(harry potter contains descriptions of natural phenomenas,does that prove it true(or even implies it's true)?(and everything else in there is pretty much as meaningless))

One other important thing that I would like to note (since it was not included in that post) is something known as the "Lewis Trilemma". Now we all know that Jesus did in fact live, that is a verifiable fact, the question is whether or not he did what the bible claims he did.
not really,the questions are: is he really the son god?is there a god for him to be a son of? and if there is,is that the biblical god? and if all of the above were true,was he telling the truth?(and not lying for some purpose which we cannot understand,which isn't necessarily in our best interests)
There is one big issue with this though. Since we know that he lived and people do not want to accept Jesus as God he is simply called a good teacher and is is typically left at that. But think about the things that Jesus said. There are only 3 possibilities for Jesus: He was a madman, a liar, or he is in fact God. He cannot be accepted as simply a good teacher. But look at the things that he said, certainly he was not a madman, a madman is not that wise.
madmen can be wise,they can simply have one thing confused the rest being very logical/intelligent/convincing.
He couldn't have been a liar, he would have been caught for sure, and on top of that being a liar does not make one a good teacher.
that's nonsense,it took a lot of time to catch some liars(i'm sure youve heard of cases) and there's probably plenty of liars who were never caught,in fact i see no reason for a good liar in such a time to be ever caught(however that would make him somewhat unlikely to die when given a choice not to-but there's plenty to debate over even about that)

also look at muhammed(the muslim prophet)-i'm sure you don't think he was a real prophet-so you either think him a madman or a liar-but he was never caught and he was certainly wise.
The only option left is that Jesus was in fact telling the truth and he is God.

This argument is originally put forth by C.S. Lewis.
so many other options. with one of most irrefutable(as in cannot be proven false,not that it can be proven true) being: jesus was indeed sent by god,but him and god do not want humanities best interest,and work and lie to achieve some bizzare goal.(and the bible is written to achieve that goal and therefore has a decent amount of lies)
this is similar to a conspiracy theory,just that conspiracy theories are usually insanely complex and require an inhuman amount of foresight-which makes them very implausible,however this is not the same case here,as god obviously has an inhuman amount of foresight and is capable of making complex plans.
 

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
Reading this thread makes me wish I could be more atheist than I already am, which isn't even possible. I don't know if you meant to outrightly offend atheists in your original post Dave but you succeeded. It wasn't school or Science that made me atheist, it was in one part the country I live in, and in an even bigger part small-minded religious people like you who love to judge and degrade us.
I can certainly understand and respect people for not believing in God, everyon has their own opinion. But even if you take that last statement as true for the sake of argument, why would someone judging you make you believe less in God or more atheist? Some atheists who love to degrade and make fun of Christians don't make me believe more. I believe what I believe based on my life's experiences, it isn't influenced by other people's reactions.

You say school or science didn't make you an atheist but judgmental people "judging us" did. But that implies you were already an atheist since you were being judged for being one, so how could the judging make you an atheist if you already were one?
 

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
Reading this thread makes me wish I could be more atheist than I already am, which isn't even possible. I don't know if you meant to outrightly offend atheists in your original post Dave but you succeeded. It wasn't school or Science that made me atheist, it was in one part the country I live in, and in an even bigger part small-minded religious people like you who love to judge and degrade us.
I guess that this could turn into a heated debate.

Of course I'm not aiming to degrade atheists. I already stated that my viewpoint is based off of actual atheists that I know. If you do find it degrading then blame the atheists that I know.

In the case of people I know school played a big part in making them atheists. Some of them even used to call themselves Christians.

I'm sorry if I offended you, that is certainly not my intent. Judgment is the last thing that I want to pass upon others, it's not my place to judge others.

You can't get offended every time people bring up God though. I have to listen to you say there is no God, why is it that atheists I know can't listen to me say that there is a God?
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
I guess that this could turn into a heated debate.

Of course I'm not aiming to degrade atheists. I already stated that my viewpoint is based off of actual atheists that I know. If you do find it degrading then blame the atheists that I know.

In the case of people I know school played a big part in making them atheists. Some of them even used to call themselves Christians.
On the other hand, there are many schools (more so in the States than here in Canada) where it's taught that modern science is a tool of evil and that God's existence is only a matter of debate if you want to be expelled or punished. Some of them have big fences around them so no one can get in or out.

Anyway,

I've spoken with several atheists that I know over the past week and they all gave me the same crap that I've been hearing for years. "That stuff isn't for everyone." "I'm just not convinced" or "There isn't any compelling evidence." By now I feel as if they don't even listen because they honestly don't care. That's the problem these days, less and less people really care. [red]They are taught to be tolerant of all other religions[/red] and it's shoved down their throats for 13 years at school that God does not exist.
The red part is what leaped out at me from the entire post. Maybe I'm misreading it, but is the implication here really to be that tolerance of other religions is a bad thing?

And what is it that they don't care about? Religion? Kissing the ground in the hopes of getting a maybe afterlife? If one doesn't immediately believe in an afterlife, it kinda makes sense to me that some people wouldn't want to waste all their time living by someone else's rules, regulations, and rituals. I wouldn't necessarily call it not caring - Maybe they'd simply prefer to focus on life, rather than death.

I believe that there is compelling evidence but I feel that many atheists would rather keep living their lives as they have and ignore the information placed out before them. They would rather justify their lives than transform their lives.
The exact same, word for word, could be said for Christians.

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge" --Ravi Zacharias
Once again, word for word, could be said for belief in God.

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
I find it interesting just how anti-God a lot of atheists I know seem to be. If they don't believe in God then why would they bother themselves to actively work against God?
Most of the atheists I know just want to be left alone. But I've never heard of an atheist fighting with God... That doesn't even really make sense. Atheists either fight the belief in God, or they fight the spread of the belief in God.

And at that, I think there would a great deal less anti-God out there if there were a great deal less evangelism, intolerance, religious violence, and gigantic Christian organizations taking advantage of some bad situation or another to pump out converts.

One other important thing that I would like to note (since it was not included in that post) is something known as the "Lewis Trilemma". Now we all know that Jesus did in fact live, that is a verifiable fact, the question is whether or not he did what the bible claims he did.

There is one big issue with this though. Since we know that he lived and people do not want to accept Jesus as God he is simply called a good teacher and is is typically left at that. But think about the things that Jesus said. There are only 3 possibilities for Jesus: He was a madman, a liar, or he is in fact God. He cannot be accepted as simply a good teacher. But look at the things that he said, certainly he was not a madman, a madman is not that wise. He couldn't have been a liar, he would have been caught for sure, and on top of that being a liar does not make one a good teacher. The only option left is that Jesus was in fact telling the truth and he is God.

This argument is originally put forth by C.S. Lewis.
It's a gross oversimplification - The summary of any man's life cannot possibly fall into one of a meagre three one-word possibilities. As a novelist, C.S. Lewis should have known better.
 

Wade8813

Registered Member
I do believe that Jesus could just be a good teacher though. I've heard the Bible be described as the longest game of telephone in history. So whoever thinks well of Jesus could make him sound a little cooler and appealing to the next guy. Stories and lessons were at the mercy of the teller. Even when it was all written down, countless revisions have been made, not to mention translations. You basically have to trust whoever's translating to get it right. So you get this legend going and an otherwise good guy gets turned into the son of God. It seems like a reasonable possibility to me.
Did Jesus claim to be God like the Bible says? If so, that was a pretty terrible thing to do, and makes him not a good teacher.

Also, it doesn't count as "telephone" if it's all written down. And going from the original language to English isn't exactly a long chain. And if they got it wrong, the thousands of people who also do translations of that language would condemn it.

On the other hand, there are many schools (more so in the States than here in Canada) where it's taught that modern science is a tool of evil and that God's existence is only a matter of debate if you want to be expelled or punished. Some of them have big fences around them so no one can get in or out.
My public middle school in a suburb outside Seattle has a big metal fence around it. Just saying...

Anyway,

The red part is what leaped out at me from the entire post. Maybe I'm misreading it, but is the implication here really to be that tolerance of other religions is a bad thing?
Yeah, I think he phrased that wrong. I think what he meant was that they're taught to tolerate every religion except Christianity.

Once again, word for word, could be said for belief in God.
Nope. it doesn't require infinite knowledge - just knowledge that (presumably) people don't have.


And at that, I think there would a great deal less anti-God out there if there were a great deal less evangelism, intolerance, religious violence, and gigantic Christian organizations taking advantage of some bad situation or another to pump out converts.
Why is evangelism lumped together with intolerance and violence?

It's a gross oversimplification - The summary of any man's life cannot possibly fall into one of a meagre three one-word possibilities. As a novelist, C.S. Lewis should have known better.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For one thing, those words are pretty loaded. For instance, "reducing" the description of someone down to 'God'... millions of people have been expounding on what all that entails throughout all of human history, and they're still going.

If Jesus really claimed to be God, can you think of any other possibilities for what He was? I honestly can't.
 

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
My public middle school in a suburb outside Seattle has a big metal fence around it. Just saying...
Yeah, I'm not saying Christian schools are the only ones brainwashing. I'm just pointing out that atheist teachers don't have the monopoly on it.

Yeah, I think he phrased that wrong. I think what he meant was that they're taught to tolerate every religion except Christianity.
You could be right, but I still disagree. Tolerance of Christianity is more or less inherent to secular Westerners, since we've grown up in Christian countries and we're all exposed to it from birth. Other religions are taught in school because often there's no other exposure to it for children. But those religions are not taught to be taken as true or absolute.

What's more, millions of folks like dDave grew up in the public school system, and generally had no trouble at all holding on to their faith, so I don't see what the huge problem is...

Why is evangelism lumped together with intolerance and violence?
The way I see things, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of evangelism - At best, it can be a real bother to some people. You're right, though, that it doesn't belong with intolerance and violence.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. For one thing, those words are pretty loaded. For instance, "reducing" the description of someone down to 'God'... millions of people have been expounding on what all that entails throughout all of human history, and they're still going.

If Jesus really claimed to be God, can you think of any other possibilities for what He was? I honestly can't.
Not in one single word, no. But like I said, you can't sum a person's life up in one word. You can't say:

Was Jesus batshit crazy? No! We would have known!
Was Jesus a pathological liar? No! He would have been caught!
Was Jesus God? Must have been! We just looked, and there's nothing else even remotely possible!
It's not even close to being that simple, not by a long shot. Hitler and Stalin both killed millions - by all accounts "madmen" - and yet nobody who knew them would have called them crazy or suggested they were not in control of their faculties.
 

Crouton

Ninja
V.I.P.
I can certainly understand and respect people for not believing in God, everyon has their own opinion. But even if you take that last statement as true for the sake of argument, why would someone judging you make you believe less in God or more atheist? Some atheists who love to degrade and make fun of Christians don't make me believe more. I believe what I believe based on my life's experiences, it isn't influenced by other people's reactions.

You say school or science didn't make you an atheist but judgmental people "judging us" did. But that implies you were already an atheist since you were being judged for being one, so how could the judging make you an atheist if you already were one?
I just don't like being spoken to in such an openly rude and disrespectful manner as Daves original post. Maybe he didn't know how plain offensive the post actually was, but he was very rude. And the reason it makes me wish I was more atheist is that it's people like that, and small-minded comments like his that make me wish I could distance myself even more for religion and it's people who go around judging everyone else.

And no I wasn't already atheist and became one through people judging me, I became through just growing up and learning more about the world. As I got older I learnt more about the Bible, I actually read it and saw how horrible and contradictory it was. I watched more news, I saw on TV images of wars, present and past caused because of religion, I saw gay kids beaten to death in different countries all over the world and people claiming it to be "God's Work". I never saw one good thing come out of religion, and that is why I become atheist.
------
I guess that this could turn into a heated debate.

Of course I'm not aiming to degrade atheists. I already stated that my viewpoint is based off of actual atheists that I know. If you do find it degrading then blame the atheists that I know.

In the case of people I know school played a big part in making them atheists. Some of them even used to call themselves Christians.

I'm sorry if I offended you, that is certainly not my intent. Judgment is the last thing that I want to pass upon others, it's not my place to judge others.

You can't get offended every time people bring up God though. I have to listen to you say there is no God, why is it that atheists I know can't listen to me say that there is a God?
How could you not aim to be degrading? I'm sorry Dave, but your post was extremely rude and highly offensive, and it's been a very long time since I saw any atheist be as rude and disrespectful to a religious person.

So you are judging all atheists by a small group that you personally know? Oh, well done, that's a good move, because you know every single one of us are exactly the same!

As for school, I spent my entire schooling years, primary school and high school in a Christian school. We studied religion, we went to chapel, we sung hymns in assembly, and when I graduated I was about as atheist as I can be. I don't think school has as much influence on everyone as you think. School suggests things for you, but in the end something like religion is down to an individual person making a decision, fact or fiction?

Also, you say you are sick of having to hear atheists say there is no God. When exactly is the last time you were forced to sit down and do this? Atheists are constantly surrounded by religious imagery on TV, in schools, in businesses etc but most of the time we don't complain. Funnily enough, most atheists don't like talking about religion, we avoid the topic.

You seem to think every atheist spends their day just complaining about religion and it's people, it's not true. I have many friends and family, people I admire, celebrities I admire etc of all religions and I don't care. I like them for their person, not their religion. It's only when people like you come out and start making gross claims like you did in this thread that I actually start to feel uncomfortable around someone based on their religious preferences.
 
Last edited:
Top