3 Purely Logical Reasons Why You Should Be an Atheist

[Correctfemale]

Welcome to my myTake.

I am a militant atheist who is sick and tired of religion. Call me #Anti-theist or #Anti-religion , I won't deny that I am.

Religion can be a touchy subject for most but at this point I do not give a single damn. Most of this is against mainly Christianity since I am very familiar with it.

1. The concept of hell.

If we go against God, commit sin and harm others without accepting Jesus we go to hell right? Well the purpose of hell is punishment for our wrong doings by heat, fire and other outrageous things... But if we are already dead how can we actually feel pain? This is how pain works- "In the spinal cord, the electrical pain signals trigger release of chemicals called neurotransmitters, which activate other nerve cells that process and transmit the information to the brain. "- livescience

How the actual fuck does that make sense to feel pain in hell if we are already dead... Our "souls" can't have a brain, blood and nerves... if depicted mostly everywhere they are "see-thru".

^what the actual fuck!!!

2. If god is all knowing.. what in the world is the point of "free will"?

God knows the future, he is everywhere and he is watching you right now. What if I'm going to hell anyway? God would know, meaning it is inevitable and you wouldn't be able to avoid it because it is your destiny. So why bother telling me I'm going to hell, if I'm going to hell anyway or heaven in a special case ( maybe I repent before my death on my special death bed). Thats ridiculous and does not make sense. And don't give me that God works in mysterious ways bullshit, nice excuse to avoid the painful truth!

3. GOD SOMEHOW ONLY CARES ABOUT YOU OR YOUR SPORTS ON TV.

* A white family is cheering for the football game and they are praying and hollering for team A.

They win and all of a sudden god is on their side. Why wasn't god on Team B's side? Are they evil? Is that their destiny?

Why does god ignore starving thin children around the world? but manage to care about your stupid ignorant tiny little church? You know why? Because he does not exist. god is supposed to be all knowing and the strongest, why does he need our help? Why can't he just kick Satan and his demons out of earth out on to another lake of fire on Jupiter? If god chooses not to do so then does that even make god harmful himself or a "holy" spirit.

------------------

Overall Muhammed was a schizophrenic pedophile.

Jesus never existed.

Adam and Eve was just fictional and was used against women and men to justify society.

Whoever wrote the Quran and Bible is a racist and misogynist

^ Very beautiful but it's not real, sorry to burst your bubble.

OH AND BY THE WAY.... GOD CAME FROM NOTHING AS WELL... SO THAT ARGUMENT IS IRRELEVANT.

[EllieLexis513]

1. The concept of hell that Christians believe is wrong, actually. Hell is actually in reference to the common grave. The punishment for sin, as it states in Romans 6:23, is death. Actually, Psalms 146:4 explicitly says that the soul goes into the ground and stays there without thought. Even when Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead, how could he bring him back to life if his soul was already in heaven or hell for all eternity? It says that Lazarus was in a deep sleep, not in hell or heaven. If anyone bothered to read the Bible, they'd know that, which most 'Christians' have not.

2. Omniscience and free will is a tricky subject. It's like putting both a bowl of chicken meat and a bowl of broccoli in front of my dog. I know she's going for the chicken meat first because I know my dog, but that doesn't mean she won't choose the broccoli because she can still technically do what she wants. Basically, knowing what a person WILL do doesn't mean you are controlling their actions in any way.

3. He allows suffering because Satan is the ruler of this world which, again, is said explicitly in the Bible. Also, sin is only in the world because it entered through man. This goes back to that 'free will' you were talking about. Eve ate the fruit and then so did Adam. Had only Eve eaten it, there wouldn't be suffering because sin is passed through man, not woman. Eve was a gift and wasn't an original part of the plan. If Adam hadn't eaten it, Eve would've been replaced. So basically, because man decided to be an idiot and not be in charge of the garden like he was supposed to, there's suffering and sin has entered. If God was against free will, the fruit wouldn't have been in the garden in the first place, thus taking away Adam's free will to chose to sin or be pure.

Also, the Bible says God is the Alpha and the Omega, meaning he always was and always will be, which means he didn't come from nothing, he just always has been.

Anymore questions?

[Correctfemale]

So the world is only 6000 years old?

[EllieLexis513]

Now that I don't know because I never read anywhere in the Bible that says it's 6000 years old, but rather that's a number that some Biblical philosophers came up with researching the book. I've only recently in the past like year or so have heard this, and it's never been from anyone I know, but just things I saw online. These researchers are assuming the Bible refers to a day as 24 hours, but there was no concept of this type of time frame back then. A day in a Bible was a considerable amount of time and longer than 24 hours, which is that's the case, the Earth would be much much much older than 6,000 years. Psalms 90:4 says "For a thousand years are in your eyes just as yesterday when it is past, Just as a watch during the night." It's actually, as far as I know, impossible to calculate the age of the Earth using the Bible because time was not given in terms of hours, minutes, etc. Also, The Earth was a void and was there before God put life on it.

[Correctfemale]

Do you understand you are on the same level as a Muslim? They would just bring up random verses like you to say they are right. Humans only existed 200,000 years.

[somebodysaycheese]

You have far more patience than me to go into detail but🙌🙌
Well said

[EllieLexis513]

I don't know anything about Muslims, but if you meant that as an insult, then that's pretty rude of you. There's nothing wrong with someone being a Muslim if that's what they believe.

Also, those are random verses. I'm assuming you're one of those Atheists who never cracked open the Bible and actually read it. Are you mad that someone was able to address your points and explain to you the error in your logic and reasoning? It's obvious that you haven't read the Bible before posting this because I answered all of your questions and if the only response you have for me is to say 'You sound like a Muslim' makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about.

@somebodysaycheese lol, thanks, but I'm really just trying to answer questions for people who don't understand or didn't do their research the Asker. A lot of these things are answered by the Bible and common sense, both of which are rare finds these days.

[EllieLexis513]

*Aren't random verses

Sorry, typo.

[Correctfemale]

I didn't say you sounded like a Muslim. And I have opened a Bible and read more than my Christian colleagues. You can't take all these Bible answers because that's the point... Before actual science we needed something to explain life as is.

[EllieLexis513]

You said I was on the same level as a Muslim, which is still an insult the way you meant it so quit beating around the bush.

Also, reading more than your Christian colleagues doesn't mean you really read the Bible. Reading the Bible means actually reading it thoroughly and studying it, which I don't believe you have. My students can read the first page of Romeo and Juliet, doesn't mean they 'read' Romeo and Juliet.

I'm still waiting for you to actually find something in my response that is wrong because you haven't actually done this. Instead, you've been dismissive and closed minded so since you're such a 'science' person, you should know that your arguments should be backed up with sources, in this case, the Bible or scientific research, which you haven't provided so let me know what you actually do this.

[Correctfemale]

It's all wrong because it is all claim not evidence. A man with schizophrenia could of wrote the book and you couldn't prove it or go against because you don't know the real intention of the bible. Bringing out bible claims isn't evidence. Sorry

[EllieLexis513]

Well, it is evidence if you're talking about the Bible and God, which you are. If this was a debate over whether or not the world was round, then no, it wouldn't be evidence. This because argumentative knowledge. You can't want to debate about God and Bible and then not even use them in the argument. In fact, as someone who is trying to refute it, you should be using things from the Bible, as well, because that's what your Take is based on: The Bible and it's flaws.

You still haven't provided any research or evidence, so I'm guessing you don't have any. You can't even use the Bible to your own advantage to prove it wrong. This tells me you aren't really interested in hearing the other side but rather you just want people to agree with you. So have fun replying to this comment, but I just can't take you or this Take seriously and will be moving on to Takes by author's who know how to back up their statements.

[Correctfemale]

Don't use bible versus to go against me. Use bible versus to explain why today is today. Why non Africans seem to have it better in general

[akadatank44]

Wow this is amazing Ellie props to you. You have more patience than me to do this

[EllieLexis513]

@akadatank44 Lol, I'm trying to be more patient on here because I know I have a bit of a mean streak on this site and I'm trying to be nice. It's hard, though lol

[akadatank44]

Lol all I can say is good luck. Your only mean cuz of the circumstance at hand some people can just be stupid. Its not as if your a mean person tho 😊 just the people on this site can bring out your worst

[EllieLexis513]

@akadatank44 They do, but still gotta play nice with them lest their feelings get hurt lol

[Waffles731]

I'm just going to leave this here
Seriously Atheism is literally just as much of a complete mind-fuck as religion and here is why
Pick an origin theory. Either way you're left assuming something has always existed, unchanged, with no beginning or end.

Atheism/Naturalism: constant = matter + force
Alternately: The universe mathed itself into existence, because why the hell not.
Creation (Biblical): constant = God
Theist Evolution: constant = all of the above or God first then creating matter and force for the heck of it
Pantheism: constant = God + matter + force, all of which are one and the same
Panentheism : Uhhh...
The fact is that all of humanity whether they are religious or not should realize this quotes applicability
I have zero idea how everything got here. I would personally say that, if I had to make a list of possibles, God would be pretty far down. But if I were to make a list of people that know what the fuck they are talking about, I would be really far down."

-Louis C. K
Thats pretty much all of humanity whether they are talking about being religious or an atheist. That your thoughts are just as outlandish as the other sides.
The fact is that the only people who can say they are sure are the people who claim to be agnostic because the fact is that the only thing an agnostic claims to be sure of is that they just don't fucking know.

[the_rake]

pantheism is awesome. it's basically the same as buddhism but you don't have to concern yourself with all the mythology and mysticism, etc. you can just be kind of... "scientific" if that's the right word for it. buddhism's cool too though. sometimes people need to be told stories - and that's the reason religion came about in the first place. if only buddhism had came about on a more international basis we would not have been as religiously or ideologically fragmented as we are. not saying there would not have been wars or oppression and stuff (buddhists have done messed up stuff too in history), but I think the magnitude of human division would have been a lot less and of a radically different nature.

[G-Daz]

There's a lot of wishful reductionist thinking in this post which clashes with your desire for logic.

I'm fairly certain you are no different than most atheists... iin the sense that I'm sure you would assert that you were a devout religious believer once up until 10 to 18 when you began thinking for yourself and realised that God doesn't exist.

According to all the evidence we have on studies of child psychology including the largest ever study conducted by Oxford. It concluded that children have an innate desire to believing in God and seeing creation in the world. Which provides a reasonable basis ass to why the majority of the planet has always been religion and atheism shrinks as time passes.

Only when the child is manipulated out of this belief will they lose it. This can be through culture or parent indoctrination.

So innately if you foster the child's belief without the influence of an atheist culture. They'll quite easily remain born believers in God. The problem with telling a child to believe in whatever they like without taking the time to build a solid framework for a reasonable belief is they'll take a very reductionist dismissive attitude to all beliefs and won't try to ground root logic.

I. e a lot of people that turn atheist in their teenager years tend to say that they can be good without God. Without asking what is good without good besides a subjective opinion. Following on from the flawed logical falacy you chose to take on in your attempt to disprove religion highlighted your ignorance about reason and validity.

Point number 1. As expected, you take on a reductionist approach to the question, applying an atheistic naturalism approach rather than taking the question from it's route. This just presents misunderestanding rather than a genuine rebuttal. Heaven isn't presented in Christian literature as a product of naturalism as you would believe. Neither is it ever taught as such, your worldview however tackles it with a questiion

[G-Daz]

that doesn't apply. I think you most likely believe in a mind even though you haven't attempted to study the irrationality of such a belief because you presume it's a given. but this disproves the logic of such an assumption

point 2. Free will is not negated by knowing what someone would do. God is timeless... in the sense that he is outside of space and time, something i presume you cannot even begin to comprehend even though you take a reductionist approach to knowledge. Knowing the future doesn't negate your ability to change it, there is no correlation between the two. One is able to change the path themselves.

Funny thing is, i am fairly certain you believe in free will, a mind, morality yet you have no foundation to ground any of that within your worldview rationally. Instead you ironically have to borrow from Christian philosophy in order to attempt to criticise it.

Point 3. I never made that argument, neither do the majority of christians, it doesn't work like that

[G-Daz]

IF we're going by kill count here, if we include atheist vs christian. We can quite easily work out that even as a minority of people and only in the last 100 years have atheist atrocities killed more people than the entire history of humanity while being the majority. Stalin, Mao, Hitiler, Pol Pot, the list goes on, a minority of people providing a mountain of bodies over anyting any religion has accomplished in thousands of years.

Atheism especially new atheism is an irrational wishful thinking belief arising out of teenagers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1Qao3A4yU4

[Peskyn3gr0]

I swear, you keep posting the same stupid soundbites over and over on this website regardless of what anyone ever says to you... Typical religious type, just won't reconsider their positions.

"Atheists are just angsty adolescents, having a belief in something that isn't grounded in any evidence other than what my mommy and daddy have been telling me my whole life and indoctrinating me by sending me to Catholic school is more grown-up."

I assume the "study" you are referring to is the one Justin L. Barrett, or otherwise some other theologian whose thesis is based more on philosophy rather than research. Another study done after the referenced one above shows that education in children is much more likely to indoctrinate them rather than them have innate sense of "god"

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../abstract

Here's an article about it incase you do not have access to the above link

www.vox.com/.../are-kids-born-with-an-innate-belief-in-god

[Peskyn3gr0]

By reductionism, I assume you mean that the mind and body are one state and that there is no soul. Which does make sense, since when you have brain damage it affects movements of your body and your personality. This is also true given that drug abuse leads to a compromised mental ability. I would also say casual interaction is another point against dualism... if I were to burn my finger, nerve endings become stimulated and the peripheral nerves lead to a specific part of the brain that cause pain, however, that pain is at a particular spot (my finger). The mental event of moving my arm up and down can't solely rely on me just contemplating to do it, so there has to be a physical action of me moving my arm. What about free will? That leads me to my next point...

[Peskyn3gr0]

Neuroscience is increasingly moving toward the idea of determinism over free will. That our actions are merely a post hoc inference of an event that occurred involving neurons before we are able to contemplate what action to make.

blogs.scientificamerican.com/.../

[Peskyn3gr0]

As for your statement about Atheists not having morals, humans have a great mental capabilities to reflect on their actions more than other animals (of course, animals like bonobos are capable of feeling empathy as well). If atheists are so immoral, why are we so lowly represented in the U. S. prison population?

wp.production.patheos.com/.../rNyTbDJ.png

Of course, your "objective" framework is one that does not denounce the laws of the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17).

[Peskyn3gr0]

As for your comment on communist societies, keep in mind that leaders like Stalin and Mao wanted to abolish all religion to make a religion centered around themselves by their people. Atheists strife for a rational and logical society, does it sound that way to imprison/execute those who challenge the government in anyway? That sounds closer to religious dogmatism than the aim of a secular society. North Korea's "divine leader" is a shining example of this. But continue to believe that communists were killing in the name of "atheism".

[Peskyn3gr0]

Were the Christians of Europe in the 12th century following an objective morality? Well, according to their beloved text they were, carrying out mindless murders to those they deemed unfit in the words of the "good book"

[Peskyn3gr0]

Finally, you used a video of Milo Yiannopoulos, right-wing internet trolls favorite self-loathing Catholic homosexual! Which you've used multiple times, not a rebuttal of atheism, but more of just him trying to get a rise out of people because that sums up the intelligence of a "news source" like Breitbart. Why would you deny your innate self for fictitious bronze age mythology, again?

[G-Daz]

@Peskyn3gr0 "Were the Christians of Europe in the 12th century following an objective morality?"

Very vague, you'd benefit from being more precise. But assuming you are talking about acts of violence being commited by Christians. Regardless of whether an individual chooses to follow objective moral law or not, it exists whether you are christian or not because there is an objective moral law giver. One can choose to follow that law or not, to be a christian means you have to acknowledge that you aren't perfect. Whereas, as an Atheist, you start from a foundation of you are perfect. God gave mankind an innate moral compass whether you are christian or not, which is why you know when some things are innately "wrong" or "right". people aren't compelled to follow that.

[G-Daz]

@Peskyn3gr0 you actually have no basis for condemning any act of atrocities, including the mountains of bodies created by Atheism as a minority within a few short decades as "wrong". Feel free to provide a rational reason outside of borrowing from Christian logic.

Milo is entertaining, because he highlights the flaws in new atheism, thin skinned white priveledged liberals under the nanny state. Something that grounds new atheism and has created the dismissive plagued philosohy of todaay

[Peskyn3gr0]

I'm of course referring to the Inquisition, or did they not cover that in Catholic school?

You know, the systematic torture and executions of "Heretics, witches, and sorcerers?" A literal interpretation was enough to justify inquisitors to turning against their own loved ones.

"If you hear that in one of the towns which Yahweh your God has given you for a home, there are men, scoundrels from your own stock, who have led their fellow-citizens astray, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," hitherto unknown to you, it is your duty to look into the matter, examine it, and inquire most carefully. If it is proved and confirmed that such a hateful thing has taken place among you, you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction-the town and everything in it. You must pile up all its loot in the public square and burn the town and all its loot, offering it all to Yahweh your God. It is to be a ruin for all time and never rebuilt"

[Peskyn3gr0]

- Deutronomy 13:12-16

Nothing insane or cult-like there... Jesus seemed to have suggested something similar in John 15:6

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned". Interpret it how you want, but scripture leaves many open ends to create a myriad of different interpretations that can be used to justify atrocities in defense of the faith, as you see going on with modern Islam.

[Peskyn3gr0]

The justification of torturing these "suspects" into making false confessions came from "brilliant" theologians like Saint Augustine himself, who reasoned that if torture was appropriate for the laws of men, it was even more fitting for those who broke the laws of God.
Don't worry though, he wasn't a total sadist, he thought heretics should be examined "not by stretching them on the rack, not by scorching them with flames or furrowing their flesh with iron claws, but by beating them with rods"

[Peskyn3gr0]

It's funny though, you talk about an objective moral lens through a subjective perception of what text that morality is coming from. Do you believe Allah to be the creator of the universe? Do you believe the arch angel Gabriel came down and visited Mohammed in his cave? That he flew to heaven on a winged horse? No? Uh oh, you're going to hell! Wait... why aren't you losing sleep over the thought of this? Oh right, because they're all unwarranted claims that can't be proven. Now you see how Muslims view your religion and how I view every other faith on Earth.

But no, your's is the true one, and it's truer than the rest of the 30,000+ denominations in the Christian faith.

[Peskyn3gr0]

I've yet to meet any "atheists" that believe they are "perfect", I certainly don't see myself that way. How did we get here? Why are we here? Any honest answer to that question is "Well, we don't really know" But Christians see this and go "Well, if science hasn't found an answer to it, it must be God! and not just anyyyy God, my God!" as they've posited for everything else that didn't have answer at the time. It is an astonishing, unprecedented level of arrogance, which is reiterated by you claiming you have found the "objective" morality (whatever that means) and that "God" has set forth an innate morality in all of us even though cultures around the world live in different contexts. Here I am, here are all the other atheists living in the secular world, representing one of the lowest portions of the prison population. I'll let you know when I start robbing, killing, and raping people because of my lack of belief in some sort of "God".

[Peskyn3gr0]

Did Greek Mythology by chance warrant the same atrocities as in the Inquisition? Were they complete savages prior to the birth of Christianity? Since of course, they couldn't borrow any of your precious "Christian logic". Everyone is just borrowing from that and beforehand we were just barbarians, right?

You're British, right? Why are all these people turning away from this perfect worldview that is Christianity? Why are so many churches closing down?

www.wsj.com/.../europes-empty-churches-go-on-sale-1420245359

[G-Daz]

@Peskyn3gr0 who said I say "if science hasn't found the answer, god did it" that's not how I think at all. You are also imposing an atheistic reductionist philosophy on science. I don't believe the 2 are the same, as I believe that there are different facets of knowledge, all equally valid. God did it... yes, but that's an entirely different answer vs the mechanism. The mechanism by which I believe God gave us through science for finding the answers. As all the founders of modern science equally tend to be Christian. When atheists were reluctant to acknowledge the big bang theory due to it being founded by a Catholic priest and even banned it in the atheist state of the soviet union, the funny thing is now atheists acknowledge there was a beginning.

Regarding morality, I never said that there are not other cultures around the world. Indeed I stated that there are, atheism itself is a worldview founded under it's own philosophy on reality. Allbeit disenfranchised dellusions but

[G-Daz]

beliefs non the less. Every human being has an innate moral compass, although culture and philosophy can make it go off rails. As much of history points to.

"Did Greek Mythology by chance warrant the same atrocities as in the Inquisition? "
This is a blatent demonstration of the sound bite culture of new atheism. the Spanish inquisition lasted roughly 700 years. OF which 125000 were investigated and 1.8% were executed (under a regime i might add not officially supported by Religious institutions but rather the state).

The Inquisition was responsible for less than 100 witch-hunt deaths, and was the first judicial body to denounce the trials in Europe.
Though torture was commonly used in all the courts of Europe at the time, the Inquisition used torture very infrequently.
During the 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition, between 3,000-5,000 people were sentenced to death (about 1 per month).
The Church executed no one.

People generally become atheist in their adolescents and maintain

[YourFutureEx]

1. That's a religious concept. I don't follow it.
2. Again, I don't believe in heaven or hell. Do whatever you want.
3.
(* A white family is cheering for the football game and they are praying and hollering for team A.
They win and all of a sudden god is on their side. Why wasn't god on Team B's side? Are they evil? Is that their destiny?)

-Because them A did greater effort. That's why they won.

(Why does god ignore starving thin children around the world?)
-Because those children and their ancestors didn't do efforts to find food and were not smart enough to resist colonialism.

(but manage to care about your stupid ignorant tiny little church?)
-Who says he do? Did he ask you to worship him?
I'm against idol worship

(You know why? Because he does not exist.)
-Oh yeah? How? Where is your logic?

(god is supposed to be all knowing and the strongest, why does he need our help?)
-Who says he do?

(Why can't he just kick Satan and his demons out of earth out on to another lake of fire on Jupiter? If god chooses not to do so then does that even make god harmful himself or a "holy" spirit)
-“In this world, whenever there is light, there are also shadows. As long as the concept of winners exist, there must also be losers. The selfish desire of wanting to maintain peace causes wars and hatred is born to protect love.”

Where is logic?

[YourFutureEx]

team* A

[YourFutureEx]

Well, damn you're not active anymore. So much time... wasted.

[candyaurora]

Three purely logical reasons why you should be a theist:
1) The concept of hell:
Since God had the power to create humans once, body and soul, out of nothingness He can surely do that again. The humans will be resurrected once again on the day of Judgement and then their bodies will be subject to Hell fire (if they were evil in their life on Earth!)
2) The concept of free will and omniscience, or are not mutually exclusive, nor are free will and predestination. Humans have the free will to choose from right and wrong in this life (and will be judged only on this basis in the hereafter) but God knows (does not choose or wills it for them!) what a person will choose because the concept and restriction of time doesnot apply to him (He created Time after all).
3) God basically cares for everybody and that is why every human is given a chance in this world. Only prayers won't work since that would mean you didnot do your part well. Hardwork along with prayers will surely work. So if a sports team puts in all the effort and prays it will succeed easily in this world and afterlife. Again the concept of free will and hardwork dictates that humans should at least have the intention of helping the starving kids, which sadly they dont hence they will be the ones suffering in the afterlife while the poor kids will be rewarded in heaven because of their suffering.

[the_rake]

I gave up trying to convince theists a long time ago, in fact I never have been a militant atheist but somehow I always ended up with the evangelicals at my door. It's just a boring discussion, if we all understood the simple premise that (a) we don't know if a higher being exist (agnosticism) but (b) rational belief tells us he does not (weak atheism), then there really wouldn't be any need for controversy.

But one thing you said:

"Jesus never existed."

That might not actually be true. There is in fact more evidence supporting a historical figure - the Jesus of Nazareth - preacher and founder of the new Judo-Christendom tradition, than there is evidence against. The whole miracles and resurrection things are probably myth though.

Blomberg, Craig L. (2007). The Historical Reliability of the Gospels
Fox, Robin Lane (2005). The Classical World: An Epic History from Homer to Hadrian. Basic Books

[the_rake]

"How the actual fuck does that make sense to feel pain in hell if we are already dead... Our "souls" can't have a brain, blood and nerves... if depicted mostly everywhere they are "see-thru"."

Well, pain is actually psychological (primarily) and it's likely Christians believe that if we have a soul, then pain is more than simply skin-deep. Not that I care about this argument, just saying... you can do better :P

[Correctfemale]

Well then what is the burning fire and Dante's theory for? It depends on domination. Over 33,000 all believe they are right.

[the_rake]

Depending on the interpretation, a religious person could describe the "burning fires" as the metaphorical burning of the soul itself, not the body. but I'm not a religious person, and it's probable that there are different scholastic theories here.

As for dante's inferno, 1. that's very limited to a christian perspective of hell and 2. as I understand it, the inferno refers to the structural division of hell according to the specific sins and the gravity of said sins committed. I don't see what that has to do with the body versus the soul being burned.

Anyway, god's omnipotent, if he existed, I'm sure he could find a way around all of this - e. g. recreate the human body so that it would endure the damage that hell incurrs without being destroyed in the process (so the human keeps on suffering). after all... he's god, right?

But whatever, as an atheist, I'm not the one to defend this so I'll have to delegate the argument to some religious believer.

[Correctfemale]

I don't agree with the theory. That would defeat the purpose of being scared of hell?

[the_rake]

suffering is worse than pain

[the_rake]

like, immeasurably worse and I personally know this from personal experience.

[Correctfemale]

So your telling me you'd rather have ur feelings hurt vs being burned alive in 10000000 degree temp

[the_rake]

you seriously need to get acquainted with a little buddhism.

[Correctfemale]

I dont want to practice religion

[the_rake]

I said you need to understand it, not "you need to practice religion".

[Correctfemale]

Well i want to stray away from it

[vonasaurus]

i'm agnostic~ no organized religion or militant beliefs (atheism included) for me. not because i don't believe, but because of what they represent.

religion has become a cult: a platform for hatred, bigotry, and pushing the right-wing political agenda, neither of which i want any part of.

your belief, or lack thereof, is a personal choice; it's only when people start shoving their religion or beliefs down my throat that i take issue with any of it. the way i look at it, you and everyone else should promote what you love instead of bashing what you don't.

agnostichumor.files.wordpress.com/.../53693192.jpg

[Maxemeister]

I am also an atheist but these reasons were not particularly the main reason

Lack of evidence, for one. And the Bible keeps changing as the world changes. What, God didn't get it right the first time?

[Correctfemale]

Too much cherry picking, but these reasons really changed my mind when I was much much younger

[Maxemeister]

Well yea they're definitely true but I wouldn't have noticed these on my own lol

[Correctfemale]

Now they're making excuses that it was psychological. Yeah that's the point, psychological brainwash and torture. God sounds like an abusive husband I swear

[EllieLexis513]

I can understand the lack of evidence part for an Atheist. I mean, we need things proven to us all the time and for most people, that's physically being able to see God.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Well it's not only that. The possibility of an afterlife conflicts with the ceasing of existence theory where nothing happens. We haven't seen anything of a soul.

[EllieLexis513]

Yeah, I can see that, but some people believe ghost sightings are souls, though I'm not sure I believe that myself.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 While the idea of ghosts scares the living shit out of me lol, I have not (and quite frankly do not wish) to see a ghost. No evidence of them has been widely accepted in the scientific community.

Ghosts, if they existed (I sure hope they don't) would be either souls, never being able to let go, or just fading memories of what they used to be

[EllieLexis513]

I've seen figures before, but not like the face of a ghost. Of course, I don't tell everyone that because like you said, it's not really widely accepted as evidence. I've heard they were souls, spirits, demons, all that stuff, but no one can agree on if they exist or what they are if they DO exist.

[Correctfemale]

Which is where religious people fail as well

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 If, in a recorded experiment, a well respected scientist made trials and found ghosts (this scientist did NOT have a tv show called ghost hunters) then it would become accepted as fact that ghosts are real and that Maxemeister would hide under his bed at night

[EllieLexis513]

I think everyone fails there because ghosts can't be studied objectively, even if you do spot them.

[Correctfemale]

@EllieLexis513 humans easily hallucinate which is the problem

[Maxemeister]

I never will understand how religious people can believe

[EllieLexis513]

I don't think many scientists believe in ghosts and if they have, I haven't heard of them.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 How did we get on ghosts lol

I would say religion is pseudoscience. Saying "You can't disprove it" isn't enough, so the only way you can prove it to yourself is having faith. Pseudoscience isn't well accepted in the scientific community, so they like to separate religion and work

[Correctfemale]

Like astrology

[EllieLexis513]

Religion in general annoys me. I don't align myself with a 'religion' because I associate those with organizations and brainwashing. I'd rather just read things for myself and so I don't go to church. But I do read the Bible when I can and try to look things up about it and compare it with science and common sense lol

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Yeah. Science and common sense are my main beliefs. I believe in proof, and religion conflicts with that, so i don't believe in it.

@myTake Owner astrology is a bit less than pseudoscience because people can sort of see how it operates without believing in it

[Correctfemale]

@EllieLexis513 but why do people talk about science like it isn't already a fact

[Maxemeister]

Theories are treated as such because they can be disproven. But they are backed by evidence so they should be paid more attention to than philisophical ones.

Also some are just delusional and were brought up wrong

[EllieLexis513]

Well, science has been wrong on several occasions, even things that have been believed for hundreds of years, for instance, phrenology and The Big Bang Theory. Also, science has been manipulated just like religious beliefs and doctrines to hold people down, like when people believed blacks were genetically inferior, resulting in the Tuskegee experiments and the military tried to use it as an excuse to keep them flying in the air force at one point, so science isn't the end all be all so many people make it out to be. Science has been disproven over and over again throughout the years.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Indeed. As more materials and technologies become available to us, the wider the spectrum of information we can process

[Correctfemale]

@EllieLexis513 more like science has been improving for many many years

[EllieLexis513]

Okay, at this point, I can't tell if you're just trolling or if you really believe anything you're saying anymore.

@Maxemeister I think personally that science is going to discover something soon that it wish that it hadn't. I don't know. Science is cool, but some parts of it rubs me the wrong way because it seems like they don't respect any boundaries at all.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Like it or not, we need science now. We're in the middle of an energy crisis that if we play our cards wrong, it'll tear us apart. Science will begin planet colonization, the only hope for the human race to continue.

[EllieLexis513]

It's not about liking it or not, it's about them not respecting boundaries lol. I feel like we just completely destroyed the Earth.

[Correctfemale]

@EllieLexis513 are you being serious?

[EllieLexis513]

Of course, are you?

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Oh no that wasn't science that was industry and business! Scientists are trying to stop it!

[EllieLexis513]

Hey, science is part of industries and businesses, so they definitely helped cause the problem.

[Correctfemale]

Which is what I thought

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Sure, but then again without it disease would prevail and such

[EllieLexis513]

Well, disease is prevailing actually because last I checked, we haven't cured all diseases and can't prevent the ones we can cure most of the time. And almost every other year, there's something new or something old pops up. Swine flu, Avian flu, Zika, Ebola, AIDS/HIV... I mean, science has done some remarkable things but it's not as glamorous as people say it is, especially with all the side effects all these medications are having that are supposed 'cures'.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Actually the only reason lots of people are dying is cuz we've got so many damn people lol. And seeing as diseases were killing significant percentages of our population, science did damn well.

[EllieLexis513]

Never said it didn't do well, but the medications lately aren't doing their jobs without causing some type of pain to others. My co-worker's sister lost a kidney to a medication she was taking because it was a side effect and she only need it for like 2 weeks. So, science still has a bit to go for me.

[Maxemeister]

@EllieLexis513 Yup. But without science we would not be the dominant species

[bcromartie]

All you've done is pose a rejection of one class of philosophy (Abrahamic Religions) and poorly at that. This isn't actually grounds for atheism, it's grounds against a very specific deity, which makes no sense.

Zeus doesn't suffer any of your arguments.

But you're 18. It figures that this as big as your world gets. I'd say "What of the Eastern religions?" since Abrahamic religions are majorly Western but I'm sure I'd be equally disappointed.

Good arguments for a thing don't involve slandering something else. Ironically this is illogical from the root.

[Correctfemale]

I told you that I am familiar with christianity meaning that really this is targeted toward Christians. I understand mythology quite well thank you

[Correctfemale]

I wanted to include some humor too

[bcromartie]

Well the reality is that even your Christian mythos is wrong. First and foremost the conceptualization of hell has absolutely nothing to do with your activities in Christian lore; since you carry the sins of your forefathers ( Lamentations 5:7 ) even if you lived a perfect life you would be condemned to hell. Not only this but Elijah's faith in God, prior to Jesus' existence, was so great that he ascended to heaven and did not actually ever die ( 2nd Kings 2:1-17 ) therefore proving it has nothing to do with one's activities.

Furthermore your understanding of pain is at best poorly laid out since it completely ignores psychological and emotional pain so there wasn't even a valid set to work from there if one were to attempt to express scientific explanations. Pain is far more complicated than that actually since you can feel "pain" from ghost limbs despite the neurotransmitters being completely gone. ( www.webmd.com/.../phantom-limb-pain )

I feel like this is the best you can do.

[bcromartie]

Won't even go into how you actually don't know or even pretend to know Free Will argumentation because there are many schools of thought on that in Theology and you somehow even in humor managed to miss them all. You see, even as you jest, you miss the mark, and that is not interesting. That just makes you sound dumb as a brick.

Fortunately for you most of the people here are atheist and aren't going to scrutinize anything you said just sitting saying "here, here!" which makes them also dumb as a brick just for agreeing by association.

[Correctfemale]

You're biased that's why. Im going off of what most people generally believe not what MR. Big man Pope knows. Personally a Reverend ex pastor even told me that the Bible is made up and it's used for mass control, which got me amazed that even he would know!

[bcromartie]

Actually I'm more "atheist" than you are. I'm not "biased", though again you're fingerpointing because you have absolutely no logical ability and require someone to slander to make your points. You can't actually validate your beliefs through your own beliefs; you can only work through comparisons which is the pinnacle of a weak belief system. You are literally no different from the people you are condemning.

I can tell you right now that you've no real grounds for being atheist. You are, at best, just along for the ride.

[Correctfemale]

Wtf I don't believe in God. Thats it. My whole family does believe in God. Why would you believe there is no god more than me? That doesn't make sense other than the fact you have more logical proof compare to me.

[Correctfemale]

There is no proof of god. I know in order to succeed in life, you need to work for things

[bcromartie]

Grounds of belief. You see, atheism is not just a lack of a belief it is a distinct belief in the absence of a deity. Though you've no idea the history of the term it used to mean, when Greeks were still owning it, an actual contempt for the gods or someone who literally rejected and hated deity figures. Skip forward several centuries and a few men who wanted to impose an idea and you get "soft" and "hard" atheism, which of course makes no sense, but soft atheism is used to bring into the flock (ironically) people who were actually not of either particular side since contrary to popular belief you actually have more options than two. Rallying these people to the cause and offering them a warm blanket of camaradarie took a truly abrasive idea and made it more acceptable.

And that's where you come in. Rather than being able to actually explain why you are something you use a state as an explanation, which is the same as saying "I'm alive!" without being able to define what makes you so.

[bcromartie]

Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence at all; for instance there actually is no evidence of most of the things we hold dear including our wildly theoretical math system. The very basis of 1 + 1 is a philosophical rollercoaster so when we talk about proofs, proofing, and what constitutes valuable evidence, proof, and metaphysical thinking we are left with totally different sets of criteria. For instance there's no reason that believing in a deity erases the need to work hard. As a matter of fact there's parables (Matt 25:14-30) that encourage hard work and wisdom meanwhile you have the new age Law of Attraction which literally makes zero sense, has no basis, and is completely atheistic.

Again, this is why atheism has fallen so low, and philosophy in general. People do not understand what they are saying. They are just trying to make a quick mental buck by fitting in and writing themselves as smarter than they are. YET they cannot explain their decisions, or worse, are passive.

[Correctfemale]

Well if I do not check in on my school attendance list then that is evidence that I'm absent. When I was 10 I would always rent religious library books which turned me into an atheist. But the thing is I have a very bad memory as well, so I do solely have a purpose to why I chose atheism, but I do not really remember why again since it was so long ago

[bcromartie]

Let's actually take your example. I was once in a class where we didn't get attendance points if we were late, even 10 seconds late, so the question becomes was I physically absent for all of the absences I had during that semester? In real life looking at the data what would you presume? Yes, I had skipped the entire two hours, or no, I may have just been late a few times. You'd look at trends, take an educated guess and go from there, no?

And this is how we live.

So when you say "When I was 10 I... " that makes no sense, when you were ten you were neurologically developed as a ten year old, when you become twenty-five you'll make much more sense and also be able to make better decisions and craft a basis for your beliefs. Not to say they will change but as they are they are not really strong. "I am not this, THEREFORE I am that" isn't sensible, a rock isn't dead because it's not alive etc.

Your aversion to deities sounds less "logical" or "rational" and more emotional.

[bcromartie]

I am not suggesting you rethink your stance but perhaps you should rethink your reasoning. If you've long forgotten why you are something... maybe you're not that something after all. No point to clinging to dead grudges. That just isn't healthy.

[Correctfemale]

I don't understand what you mean. All I said was that I do not believe in any gods therefore I am an atheist. Thats all

[bcromartie]

It's alright. That might be for the best.

[Correctfemale]

What do you mean? Can you explain?

[the_rake]

"Furthermore your understanding of pain is at best poorly laid out since it completely ignores psychological and emotional pain so there wasn't even a valid set to work from there if one were to attempt to express scientific explanations. "

Yeah, I thought that as well. Also judging from my discussion with her, she does not understand much about the nature of suffering which is borne from attachment and the object of desire. I guess the abrahamic religions which she focusses on do not have a very broad conceptualisation of suffering though, to be fair: they are not like buddhism.

[nooriginality]

This looks more like a "Reasons not to be Christian/Jewish/Muslim" which i guess you sort of stated, but what is there against other religions? I mean to push religion down is to push many cultures down. So many societies and their religions are very intricately intertwined and the lines are very blurred. Religion is no longer necessary in the western world, but its still wanted by many there. why you against religion?

[Correctfemale]

First lets talk about children. You have to do A, B, and C, or you go to a place of torture for eternity. I think that can cause PTSD alone.
Second, you don't really live your life because you are waiting for the better one. Sorry Charlie but this may be your only life so why are you making all these sacrifices for no reason (mormons won't drink alcohol, christians try not to have sex until married etc etc). Sex makes females feel dirty if they are religious.
Religion makes people feel the need to apologize every single day for being human, insane!
Maybe we wouldn't have so much misery and depression if people got off their butt and did things to actually help others instead of praying.
Sudan cuts off females clits as a religious practice and many of them die as a result not to mention crippling them from ever being able to enjoy sex.
Palestine says it is a holy war as they blow up a school bus of children.
I think mankind has lost his mind and reason.

[nooriginality]

Again, those are things tied to the 3 main religions, what about the hindu? (they dont like ism at the end because thats western and they tie the west to coldness and murder and shame and punishment) or how about the sufi muslims? The examples you gave are of people misusing religion. In Sudan thats a cultural notion that was there long before islam, islam was just used to justify it.

[Correctfemale]

Like i said, i dont want to talk about things i dont know very well like hinduism but you can justify that if everyone saying theyre right and all the others are wrong plus no one has proof, you can come to the conclusion that no one is right and that it is all the placebo effect.

[nooriginality]

I guess we have a similar mind set but i believe every one is right. I just dont see how you can be anti- anything that is so so broad with so many broad effects and ideologies

[Correctfemale]

I understand.

[nooriginality]

this was a really clean and respectful little chat thank you

[Anpu23]

You know when someone says "Joana couldn't live in a whale, therefore all religions are false" the logical fallacy is self evident, your arguments are along the same lines.

Lack of proof is not proof of its lack of existence, just that there is no proof that it exists. So to say such things as "Jesus didn't exist " is a logical fallacy,

Adam and Eve could just be a moral story, or it could be explaining something that is lost in history. Seems that you are confusing facts with allegory, of course Christians are guilty of the same.

Ultimately the religious experience is a personal experience, it's internal, nothing that can be proven only shared, and it does have intrinsic value, religious people are happy, healthy, and have a better quality of life. Why do you work so hard to take that away?

[Correctfemale]

The most poor countries are highly religious... Why?
So you think you're right when there are over 33,000 dominations in christianity? Who all say the other is wrong. Who is right?

[Anpu23]

Does it matter? I am not Christian, and honestly do not care which, if any of them, are correct. You know I've never been to France, but I do believe that it exists. Beliefs without direct knowledge is not unusual.

I have had some incredible personal religious experiences, and I know that I can not prove them to anyone. A good friend of mine wrote a great article on results based religion, that the proof is in the pudding.

[Correctfemale]

Ever heard of the placebo effect? Do you know the jibber language that many Pentecostals speak is complete utter rubbish?

[Anpu23]

I have heard of the placebo effect, have you ever heard of the Manroe Institute? Or the studies done with Buddhist monks, or the unexplainable results of such people as Edgar Cacee? There's more to this world then we currently know, science knows this, as does many others.

[Anpu23]

And the Pentecostal language is just another logical fallacy, if you disprove ONE thing, does it make EVERYTHING false? Rubbish!

[Correctfemale]

Yes because each will contradict, why do you have to lie to yourself? There is no proof.

[Anpu23]

Lack of proof is not truth, it's just lack of proof. It's not lying to myself if I find results in my practices, if I see results then the proof is against you.

[Correctfemale]

Still the whole point is that the only evidence religious people have is there scriptures which isn't actually evidence but a claim

[Anpu23]

No, scripture is a book of myths, truths, allegories, and history. You know I have read most major religious works, including the Bible, the Vedas,, the Tao, the Havamal, some of the Koran (that one was hard), the Book of Mormon, Tibeten as well as Egyptian Book of the Dead, and many others. And everyone of them is in essence a guidepost, not definitive. The truth is within yourself, not in the book.

[Correctfemale]

But John Smith was a certified con

[Anpu23]

Did I say I was Mormon? No, just that I read the book. I am living in Utah so it was a natural decision. I am actually pagan (consider it like non-denominational Wiccan) and have ran a pagan community for 10 years, I study and meditate, and religion is a big part of my life, I honestly do not care what anyone else believes as long as they let me believe what I do, to worship my gods in my own ways, and Atheism seems to want to stop me, and I don't understand why, but I do know that when pagans do not defend their religion they are killed over it, so I work hard defending my beliefs.

[Correctfemale]

Pagans are cute

[Anpu23]

In what sense? Cute, honestly, paganism is defined as not believing in the Old Testament or in other words neither Christian Muslim or Jew. Hindu, Buddhism, Wicca, Odenism/Asatrue, etc etc, and you say cute? Oh well.

[Correctfemale]

Lmao im just being lazy. Wiccans have such a beautiful practice. On my phone I have Wiccan songs which I rather find amusing

[Anpu23]

Okay, anyhow good luck to you.

[Mustachekitteh]

hehehe, I wonder what kind of comments people will leave. :D

[Correctfemale]

Somebody already thinks I'm trolling. Shame

[Mustachekitteh]

lel XD

[EllieLexis513]

Lol, read my comment and you'll see :p

[QuestionMan]

I wrote a more comprehensive myTake on atheism if you'd like to read it.
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a23685-what-is-atheism-the-3-main-types-of-atheism-their-religious

[ThisDudeHere]

I'm atheist and one of the major reasons I don't believe in God is that he just makes absofuckinglutely no sense. There's so much contradiction that I can't even.

[Correctfemale]

Do you agree that many people are brainwashed?

[ThisDudeHere]

Yes, absolutely.

[IceCubedude]

iam just gonna say one thing, the universe happened and keeps happening, but it came from something, everything came from something that one thing that is the source of everything what is it?

[Correctfemale]

Where did the source come from?
That is literally the worst most popular argument.

[IceCubedude]

answer it

[Correctfemale]

I personally believe the universe is infinte... meaning no beginning and no end.

[IceCubedude]

you can't believe in whatever you want thats your right but it did start from somewhere nothing just keeps happening without ever begging.

[Correctfemale]

Well in hinduism im pretty sure thats the case.
Also quantum physics may predict that.
If something is infinite like math and lines then how was there a beginning? I believe the earth had a beginning but the universe did not.

[IceCubedude]

everything had a beggig there is the big bang theory but where did that huge mass that exploded cum from?

[Heera]

I'm an atheist too but I think trying to explain this to religious people is pointless. People will become atheists only if they get themselves to the conclusion that there is no god and if they want to believe or not is their choice.

[Markzspectrum123]

I totally agree with your views on being an Atheist. When I turned to nihilism I made a best choice in my life. I see things more clear, I don't impress anybody and I do things that I want to do. I realised that I was more than just a Nihilist but a Misogynist and Anti Consumer. People shouldn't look for significance in there life, by doing that you lose sight of what matters most in the present. So being a Atheist is fine

[SovereignessofVamps]

I'm happy to have free will, but I've read debate articles that have said the bible nvr mentioned hell or that it was mistranslated.

[Correctfemale]

Yes but in most churches they teach you about hell like this.

[ladsin]

Meh, not the best as far as reasons go, but still enjoyable.

[Correctfemale]

What other reasons would there be?

[ladsin]

They haven't met their burden of proof is probably the main one, and then pointing out that faith is not a virtue, or any way to try and discover truth.

[the_rake]

thing about the burden of proof argument is that it's a double edged sword. I know you're going to say the burdens on religious people because they're the ones making the claim... problem is we all have to make our own claims about the universe and how it began. truth is nobody really knows. physics and cosmology consists of a whole pile of extremely contradictory theories, religion is no better, and really and truly, there's no man alive that can truly honour the burden of proof (not that we know of, anyway). besides, the burden of proof goes is subjective. for example claiming one thing to be true (e. g. god created the universe) is often the same as claiming another to be not true (e. g. big bang theory). and we also have the reverse situation where denying the truth of one thing (e. g. creation theory) means affirming the truth of another -something else. then we have to define what is meant by things like "god", "omnipotence", "omniscience", "omnibenevolence", "universe", etc

[Correctfemale]

@the_rake actually the claim is that there is a god and the response to the claim ( not the claim) is that there is no god.

[the_rake]

yeah, problem with looking at it that way is it raises all kinds of ontological questions about the nature of existence, what is meant by god (for example, to a pantheist, "god" is simply the universe), if it's possible to exist without making a claim, etc. we all exist, we're all part of the universe - which is the same as god - and we all make claim on something just by existing. there's no prove or disprove. that's one possible counter-argument. burden of proof is ultimately just a play on words.

[Correctfemale]

Unfortunately, the concept of pantheism is meaningless. It's like giving a new word for the universe. If you just want to sound more poetic then you could use the word cosmos.
I am fully aware that the universe exist but I think that it is stupid to call it god. The word god has been used to describe mostly personal gods (Yahweh, Allah, Zeus etc.). And being a theist in the sense of being a pantheist has almost nothing in common with actual theism.
The concept of pantheism is simply a concept made for people that realize that personal gods don't make sense, but to whom is very important to believe in something for the sake of believing.

[ladsin]

@the_rake
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. For example if I were to say "There is NO god/s" then I would take on the burden of proof. However, that is not what most atheists claim, instead they respond to a positive claim "some god exists" by saying " what's your proof."
We do not have to come up for an explanation for the origins of the universe... That's just asinine if you do not know what caused the universe to exist then you say "I do not know." That is honest, it is dishonest (and a logical fallacy) to say I don't know how the universe came into existence therefore god (doesn't have to be a god, but that is the most common one)

[the_rake]

"The word god has been used to describe mostly personal gods"

What is meant by personal gods? As I understand the Abrahamic religions there is a strong underlying belief about objectivity when it comes to defining God: omnipotency, omniscience and omnibenevolence. Pantheism essentially believes the same things taking out the element of myth and religious symbology: the universe (God) essentially is all-seeing and all-powerful because it is infinite and effectively created itself, if you believe there is a necessity for an origin theory (alternatively, the universe [God] always existed and always has been).

@ladsin
"However, that is not what most atheists claim, instead they respond to a positive claim "some god exists" by saying " what's your proof." "

I'm saying that we must claim something or believe in something (or the negation of that fact) by very fact of our existence. Also, you can't say "most" atheists simply respond... there are militant atheists too.

[ladsin]

I never said there weren't @the_rake I said most, because most are.
Why do we have to believe things with no basis in reality? That doesn't make sense. I don't know if there is a multiverse, and in addition I have no belief about it.

[the_rake]

"Why do we have to believe things with no basis in reality?"

I think to fully understand the debate, we have to understand that there is no argument with any basis. The whole idea of something coming from nothing, or even something having existed and continue to exist for infinity, is illogical. It doesn't matter if we bring the idea of a deity (or multiple deities) into the equation.

[ladsin]

@the_rake
Right so we should withhold belief until evidence is presented.

[the_rake]

@ladsin
tbh, that would make one more of an agnostic than an atheist

[ladsin]

@the_rake
Gnosticism is not equatable with theism... Theism/ atheism is about belief, and agnosticism/ Gnosticism is about what you know.
So I'm an agnostic atheist

[Anonymous]

I agree.
Although, 1 logical reason you should be an atheist is... LOGIC.
Logic is the death of fantasy.

[lost_alice]

I am an atheist but please don't try to change what people think about religion

[Correctfemale]

I wanted to kind if do an experiment

[YourFutureEx]

That's a very good attitude :)

[somebodysaycheese]

I hope your joking. Beause this is the most ignorant, laughable angry atheist thing i ever read. Please stop trolling.

[Correctfemale]

Oh I'm not trolling at all. It is true. Which do you find hard to believe?

[somebodysaycheese]

Lol. That you can be so ignorant. you may wanna crack open a history book and see whom has caused the most deaths in history and its not religion. You just said its racist and misogynist. Which is so dumb that its sad but your 18 you can still be educated. So crack open a history book and read the bible. You literally know nothing. You sound like 90 percent of brainwashed atheist. Lol i was one i should know. time to start thinking fo yourself babe

[Correctfemale]

So slavery is right? Raping an non virgin is ok? Women must obey the superiors which are men? Think again. Start thinking. You were told by everyone around you that this was the truth. Religion is for control.

[somebodysaycheese]

Slavery existed you intelligent human. The bible literally recalla history. Women must obey their superiors doesn't say that. Its says men are the lead and if a man respect god he will treat her like he loves god and that is respect and honor. It also said a man should cater to his wife. See if your going to talk hae about something dont be ignorant do your research. And where the fuck does raciam come in? The jews where brown people the only people who are known for being genocidal racists are white people. So do you hate yourself?
Your ignorance and lack of any knowledge but your astounding hate amazes me.
Peopel generally hate things they fear
And religion doesn't control iys a guideline to having the most fulfilling life. See statistically those of spirituality are the happiest while the rest of you are mentall ill. You haven't thought for yourself since you came out your moms vag everything you knwo youve been tauht from someone. You literall dont think for yourself but think you do

[somebodysaycheese]

When you start questioning the thinhs your taught and told to accept... you realize its all bs
Start questioning what youve been conditioned

[Correctfemale]

Doing something without evidence is dangerous.
Stop cherry picking and believing the some parts you want to believe. That is not fair to others. Why would god need us to pray to him? Why is he such a narcissist? That isn't a god

[somebodysaycheese]

Um. cherry picking what? Read the bible
Its not hard most dont understand it so have someone help you. Anyway, i hope you find god. And your probably going to get offended by it but really you have freedom of will not to choose him. But you'll have to answer to those consequences so. Do you boo

[Correctfemale]

God doesn't exist. The bible isn't evidence because you for a fact do not know the intention or who even wrote it. The bible is a claim and I've had experience with other religious people who use their crazy scriptures as "proof"

[somebodysaycheese]

Honey bunches of oats. You know events in the bible are facts. They are archealogical findings of them infact some Roman emperors too written on it. An Egytptian king wrote about jesus when he was in Egypt as a child. The Ethiopians wrote about jesus. Proof the shroud of Jesus is the biggest proof you need. Science feared it so much that for 40 years they where taking test on it wrong until they where pressured to test it correctly. the findings where so astounding that even scientist where baffled. They couldnt even come up with a theory on how it could be faked cause it couldnt I advise to research it. So much proof but see the thing is if one day you could proof the supernatural and you chose to beleive you still wouldn't make it to heaven beasue you needed proof in the flesh. Anway, live in your own reality if you wish. things are far greater than you think honey.

[Correctfemale]

Still a claim and zero evidence. Do you believe in Muhammed?

[somebodysaycheese]

are you like illiterate? If I just mentioned the shroud that means there is scientific evidence. WOW , you are one of those athiest who are to proud to beleive in something you can't understand. No i dont beleive in muhammed. He is a false prophet.

[Correctfemale]

So why is your prophet more credible? There is proof that Muslims have researched just like you. Why are you any different?

[somebodysaycheese]

lol. Do you know who thier prophets are? they are all Jewish prophets. Muhammed to them is the desendent of ishmeal whom is the illegitimate child of abraham.( all of this in jewish christian bible but not in theirs). Ishmeal was banished from Isreal over 2,000 years ago and the muslims beleive god chose them. Problem is ishmeal is a jew and the muslims dont claim judaism they dont even claim that ishmeal was banned for being a illegitimate son. thats why they want to see the jewish people all wiped off the face of the planet. i know too much history about religion that your school teachers and college teachers dont know I was taught by people who have been to isreal know hebrew and aramaic.

[Correctfemale]

I've been to an Islamic and christian school. And first of all teachings like that are banned in schools unless you really want to do bible studies in college