How I Became An Atheist

If you were brought into this world by atheist parents, it’s pretty likely you became one yourself. For you, atheism was the natural, default position, and you have a hard time imagining how anyone could believe in god. You had it easy.

In North America, a very large majority of people are Christians. Children, by and large, are born into Christian families, and become Christian themselves. Atheists like myself who are raised among this group of people typically experience a difficult journey toward non-belief.

My family was never evangelical or fundamentalist in its practice of religion. In fact, we never went to church. Not only that, but we grew up in a liberal Christian community (most were members of the United Church of Canada).

So, on the surface, we were the most moderate Christians in an already moderate Christian community. Generally speaking, my parents didn’t have much to say about religion unless my brothers and I brought it up (because of something we heard at school from friends). Apparently, they believed in God – they just didn’t much like speaking about him.

Looking back, three people had tremendous influence on the religious beliefs within my family.

The first, I’d rather not identify. Suffice to say, this person had periodic access to my mind, and was able to plant the seeds of religious fear quite effectively. Every time I saw this person, I became more and more indoctrinated into a belief system that told me I needed the help of god to be saved.

The other two influencers were an an aunt and uncle who happened to be devout Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The fact that we were related and lived close to them gave my aunt and uncle good access to introduce their beliefs to my mom and dad and my brothers and I. This process was slow but ultimately, quite effective. I remember in the first “visits” hearing my dad remark that the Jehovah Witnesses were a fringe religion that had it all wrong – he may even have called them a cult. Still, it was hard for my parents to deny them these visits and, over time, I could see them them buying into more and more of what the Jehovah’s had to say.

I was not immune to these visits. My aunt and uncle would bring pamphlets – even slickly produced books – for my brothers and I to read. I often sat and listened in on the conversations. They were very compelling speakers – especially my uncle.

To this day, I still feel the influence of those people in myself, and in my family.

Years passed. I graduated from high school and then university. Post-secondary education did its job and expanded my mind, and my faith in the supernatural was suitably shaken – but not distinguished. I graduated, and the old feelings of being supervised by some omniscient being returned. I knew I would some day be judged. I struggled with this for many years.

And then, after what seemed to be a sequence of bad experiences, I found myself crying in the shower as I looked up to the heavens asking “why, why why?” and gave myself to Jesus. I was, in my mind anyway, born again.

I met my future wife-to-be the next day, and it became obvious God was now looking out for me.

Of course, that feeling didn’t last – even though I was attending church regularly! I eventually came to realize that the expectation that things would, from that moment on, be forever better, was seriously flawed.

Worse, the existence of a god that would permit such suffering in the world made even less sense. How could he permit those things? And how could the religions of the world often be the source of the suffering?

In the first few months of 2008, with all this baggage piling up, I began to seriously question my beliefs. I read literally hundreds of pro and anti-religion articles. I studied the Bible, watched hundreds of videos and eventually found Richard Dawkins web site. I bought The God Delusion in May, and confirmed what I probably already knew – that there was no god.

I continue to probe, challenge and learn. The more I do this, the clearer things get, and the more convinced I am that I am right.

June 18, 2008 · Filed Under About Me, Atheism

Comments

76 Responses to “How I Became An Atheist”

newbie atheist on June 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am

2 books that aren’t see mentioned a lot that I found helpful were “Like Rolling Uphill: Realizing The Honesty Of Atheism” by Dianna Narciso and “Natural Atheism” by David Eller
beverly on August 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am

Wow.
I have a lot more thinking to do here before I can properly comment.
Speechless, you have left me.
Jimmy on September 6th, 2009 at 8:29 pm

Good for you! I followed a similar path myself, more pentecostal though. I’m agnostic, but me coming out has been a rough road..
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 6:34 am

I proclaimed atheism at the age of 12 to the absolute devastation of my dear Catholic mother.

I’m not a fan or organized religion (which includes Eastern religions as well ) of any stripes and I’ve taste tested many of them. I find religion stifling and life killing.

But, I find facing this life without some sort of understanding of a God terrifying.

It seems to me that mankind will erect his god in some form or fashion. We are designed to worship something. You’ve erected yours as well.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 8:52 am

“You’ve erected yours as well.”

And what would mine be, Magnolia? I worship nothing but I’d be curious to hear what you think I worship.
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 9:07 am

It’s impossible to worship nothing. really.

I’m going to take a leap here and presume you consider yourself a thinker and a student of history? It seems impossible to decide you believe in nothing and not study history in some form or fashion.

Anyway. If we choose to dismiss the idea of God or a diety, and choose instead to look to science or reason to define our existence. Then we have chosen our God. Science & Reason.

It’s not hard.
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am

As a former debater and philosophy student, it’s very hard for me to stay out of these conversations.

It’s also impossible to proclaim an unbelief in God or to deny his existence. To say there is no god and you do not believe there is a god must begin with the premise: there is a god. Otherwise you would have no logical reasoning by which to proclaim there is no god.

So, in a nice circular logic kind of way…….you’re painted into a corner. You must admit he exists in order to deny he exists.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 9:14 am

Thanks Magnolia. I had a feeling you were going to point to science.

The first definition via google for “worship” is:

“idolize: love unquestioningly and uncritically or to excess; venerate as an idol;”

Do I do this with science in the same way believers worship their god/religion? No. Certainly, I admire the scientific method since it is the most reliable method we have of understanding the universe we live in. That said, I do not worship it. It has its limitations – mostly these are based in our human limitations.

I am fond of science, the scientific method and reason, but I do not worship them – or any of the people who practice(ed) those things.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Hi again Magnolia,

I’m not even sure what I wrote in this post (it was a long time ago) but I do not say unequivocally that there is no god. I say there is no evidence for such a being.

I think I know what you are saying – that, at best, we can only claim to be agnostic in terms of knowledge. We will probably never know if there is a god in the deist sense. However, in terms of a *personal* god, I think we can be more certain of our *beliefs*.
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 9:46 am

I’m not sure if you actually *said* it anywhere either. I’m made a leap that you deny he exists.

Having had my own years of god denying and religion testing, I did eventually come around to the idea that there is a god. The next question for me was how do I get to him and what is the relationship supposed to look like?

At 53 years of age, I wouldn’t say I’ve exhausted most arguments about God and his nature or the truth of his existence, but, I’ve certainly entertained many of them ad nauseum.

I have concluded that the Christian bible holds up under scrutiny much more so than any other book of religion (and I’ve looked at all of the major religions both western & eastern – chased a few gurus too ).

What I *don’t* buy into is the organized denominational interpretation of said book. I think the nature of God is far to expansive for anyone to think he can completely and totally define him.

Were it not for some phenomenal acts of miracles I’ve witnessed (mountain top kind of experiences) I would likely be right there with you – denying the existence of or at least agreeing you can’t prove the existence of God.

Though I can no more answer the majority of questions I still have about God, I have settled a couple. That’s enough for me and it enables me to move forward.

I admire the lack of vitriol in your answers back to me. Most atheist/agnostic types are pretty hostile and angry.
40 Year Old Atheist on September 8th, 2009 at 9:52 am

I have my moments – just ask Jon.

Anyway, I don’t think we share a common assessment of how the Bible holds up historically.

I don’t deny god exists in the same way I don’t deny Russell’s Teapot exists. In other words, with so little evidence, it is just as unpracticle for me to entertain god’s existence, as it is for my to entertain a myriad other claims for the supernatural.
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am

I certainly understand your point of view, believe it or not, as I am one of those born-again Christian types. Those most wouldn’t claim me as their own.

All kidding aside, I understand the adversarial relationship that exists between the idea of God and man’s reason. It defies reason. That is why it is so mind blowing. God himself even declares that the mind of man cannot conceive of nor contain the totality of the his nature.

Anyway. I don’t know how in the world I found your site, but knowing what little I know about human nature, it seems to be that underneath all of that intellectual denial you’re pouring into this blog, there is a believer waiting to pop out.

Hope you have a good day. I didn’t come around to antagonize.
40yearoldatheist on September 8th, 2009 at 10:13 am

No there isn’t Magnolia. I have this blog to help others shed their own belief in god. I do not run around the internet (or streets in my own city) looking for potential Christians to de-convert. I write here for the doubting Christians looking for an alternate to being a believer. My focus is on describing that a life that contains atheism is not an empty existence.
Jimmy on September 8th, 2009 at 10:20 am

I’ve heard this same thing a few times, “God is trying to speak to you, you really do believe, you just need to accept”..

I can honestly say.. I really don’t believe. I’ve studied the bible in depth, it’s very terribly flawed. I spent 25 years being a charismatic christian, and now I’m a full fledged agnostic. My conversation was based on deciding to think rationally and really deciding to look at the bible with a critical eye and not just ignore the terrible errors in it in the sake of maintaining some belief.
I for one, never knew freedom until I knew it without religion. The bible is correct in one aspect..You can find the truth, and the truth can make you free…
It did for me..
Magnolia on September 8th, 2009 at 10:33 am

?? I’m befuddled sir. I didn’t suggest nor do I think that you are trying to “de-convert” anyone.

I was just making a commentary that it has been my experience that when people take up a cause very passionately there is also some person element to it.

It really *isn’t* about others. Others may benefit from it, but mankind is first and foremost self-serving. So, I never believe that anyone’s motives are purely altruestic. There’s *always* something in it for them. And I tend to think that when someone is blogging about certain things, it is usually “unfinished business” of some sort. however, I’m incapable of seeing into someone’s heart and accurately knowing their true motives. So, it is pure conjecture on my part. You are free to dismiss me out of hand.

Anyway. Like I said. I didn’t come around to antagonize. I really didn’t. I still don’t even know how I got here.
40yearoldatheist on September 8th, 2009 at 10:43 am

Magnolia: No, you did not say I was trying to de-convert anyone. What you said is that I am a Christian convert in waiting. The statement implies that my purpose writing here is somehow a call for help – that with enough introspection on the blog, and interaction with believers, that I will ultimately abandon atheism.

Because of your assessment of me, I felt compelled to describe why I write in this blog.

I’m not viewing your statements as trying to be antagonistic. You *are* being presumptious in your opinions about how/why I became an atheist, as well as your perceptions of the resolve I have around my beliefs, but I do not think you are doing so in an antagonistic fashion.

Have a good day, Magnolia.
Sang Lee on September 14th, 2009 at 7:33 pm

Wow, I have no idea what to say to you other than, you have my compassion. I was one of those people who had it easy. I grew up without any religion. I had to define my own beliefs along the way.
My best friend struggled with what you recently struggled with (perhaps still struggle with), he was raised Catholic. He had a very hard time letting go of what he called his “programming”.
I, on the other hand, rejected all religion because of my early interest in science (and by the way, Magnolia, science is not a belief system, it’s a peer-reviewed method of data testing that explains how parts of our universe work. Comparing science to religion is like comparing bagels to Michael Jordan’s feet). And because of parents who worked way too many hours, I was spared the grips of any religion. I truly don’t have faith in anything but the people living on this planet with me.
Sorry for rambling, but I just wanted to wish you good luck in your journey, regardless of its ultimate outcome.
Sang Lee on September 14th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Oh, and I enjoyed perusing through your blog. I’ll be sure to check in from time to time and see how the journey is progressing. And, I’ll be linking your URL to my blog (don’t feel obligated in any way to link mine to yours – sincerely).
Renshia on September 15th, 2009 at 1:31 am

It defies reason. That is why it is so mind blowing. God himself even declares that the mind of man cannot conceive of nor contain the totality of the his nature.

What is it about this that christians find so appealing.
Firstly, If this god existed, and we were created in his image, then it is reasonable to assume that god provided us with a rational brain to seeks answers. To then tell us to accept the unreasonable is only going against everything he created, What the hell was that, a mistake.
Secondly, being that were rational as he created us, I do not think any one expects to be able to “conceive of nor contain the totality of the his nature” but to make sense of the completely conflicting evidence and contradictions that “his” presence creates.
Thirdly, this self declaration, seems to me to just be a great way hide the fact that everything we have supposedly been told really doesn’t connect unless you deny whats right in front of you.
The only thing that supports the belief in any kind of god is delusional acceptance of empty words, that have nothing to support it.
If that is good enough for you, well, okay, but don’t think this childish behavior needs to be accepted by others. Especially those with the desire to know whats really going on. Funny how he provided all this information to us, but none of it has any connection to the reality he create, that’s the really mind blowing part.
Daniel on October 14th, 2009 at 5:27 pm

Do you have any direct evidence that there isn’t a God? I don’t recall ever seeing any atheist give evidence of the non-existence of God. They usually base their (non) belief on things they don’t like about religion such as the God of the Bible is a tyrant (Dawkins) or that there wouldn’t be any suffering in the world if there was a God. Do you have anything that proves you have absolute knowledge of the universe, things seen and not seen, through all the ages of time, that specifically shows that there isn’t a God?
40 Year Old Atheist on October 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

Daniel,
Do I have evidence there isn’t a tooth fairy? Do I have evidence there isn’t a talking Giraffe on a planet 100 light years from earth? Of course not.
The onus is on the person making the claim. If you claim there is a god, you are the one who has to prove it. Good luck with that.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 14th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

Oh, and let me guess – your next question will ask how I can believe something came from nothing. Go read another Ray Comfort book.
Jimmy on October 14th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

haha, Ray Comfort, he’s so funny. What an idiot. I’m guessing some christian on here will bring up the fact that a banana just happens to be shaped exactly like the human anal cavity.. so there MUST be a god..
Before he even suggest the first cause approach..If all somethings can’t come from nothing..then is God either a something or a nothing? If he’s nothing then no prob, if he’s something..then something had to make him..
Renshia on October 15th, 2009 at 12:20 am

Do you have any direct evidence that there isn’t a God?

Yes!!! A world of evidence, that is a world without a scrape of evidence there is one.
The majority of the world once believed the earth was flat. Mass belief in something does not make evidence for that belief.
Daniel on October 15th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

So no evidence huh? Seems like saying there isn’t a God is an absolute statement and my question was trying to show you that you don’t have absolute knowledge of all things and therefore can’t make an absolute statement. And saying, “If he’s nothing then no prob, if he’s something..then something had to make him..” Why not apply that to your own beliefs? You won’t let me say God has always existed. Yet that’s what you say with the universe. Even if the BB created the universe (most insane thought of all-time) something had to cause the BB. And where did that cause come from? And what caused that cause? Both of our beliefs need something to be outside of time to start existence as we know it. Mine has Intelligence behind it, yours has chaos and random chance — both of which we know through experience in life do not create order. I’m not sure why I’m even writing a response. For all I know, your responses might just have been a Little Bang in a house that built itself, on a planet that came from nothing, that somehow created keystrokes that formed sentences of the upmost arrogance.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pm

Daniel,
I am an agnostic atheist which means I do not share your belief in a god, but that I know I can never declare his non-existence definitively – just like I can’t prove lots of things (fairies, ghosts, leprechauns etc).

That said, the lack of evidence for your god is reason enough for me to call myself an atheist (although there are other reasons I won’t mention here). Do I have “absolute knowledge”? I repeat that I do not. What I have is a pretty good level of confidence – 99.9% sounds about right.

Keep on spouting your Comfort-isms and misrepresenting atheists, Daniel. I’ve heard it all before.
Jimmy on October 15th, 2009 at 7:24 pm

I for one, gave up religion so I could sin all day long. Been very enjoyable ever since.
Renshia on October 15th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

Even if the BB created the universe (most insane thought of all-time) something had to cause the BB. And where did that cause come from? And what caused that cause?

The only reason for you to say this is you choose to be ignorant of the evidence. You only assume someone had to be the cause. We do not yet know all the causes of the causes causes. We do not accept the ignorant position of jumping to the conclusion that because we do not know, there has to be a mighty god doing it. We proved the earth was round although religion said it wasn’t. We will find the causes of the causes eventually.
In the mean time I recommend you keep believing in magical men in the clouds and the talking snakes. If you are to small minded to know there are things we have yet to learn, I understand your need to believe. Someone with a bigger brain will figure it out for you and we will let you know.
In the mean time, what caused the causes and what evidence is there for what you believe?
Pop on October 15th, 2009 at 11:42 pm

Hope it’s okay if I jump in here…ok, thanks.
I’m no scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but here’s my problem with the whole ‘evidence vs religion’ claim: most of the reasoning from the comments I’ve read on here (I skipped a few, but tried to read a lot of them) is stating that one doesn’t believe in a god because a lack of evidence to prove its existence. To me, scientific evidence proving something doesn’t discredit a god, it just explains how said something works.
I’ve heard a lot of ‘fairy tale’ comparisons made to the Christian God, but here’s my reply: If I don’t believe in, say, the Loch Ness Monster, would that make it any less real if it does exist? Likewise, if I did believe in Nessie, would that make it any less fake if it didn’t exist?
~Renshia~ you stated yourself that “The majority of the world once believed the earth was flat. Mass belief in something does not make evidence for that belief.” So, going by your standards (only going by evidence) for those people that lived back then, there was no existing evidence (to their knowledge) that proved the world wasn’t flat…but did that make it any less round?
Apply that to today; just because there isn’t any evidence (to our knowledge) that proves the existence of a Supreme Being, does that make the Supreme Being any less real?
Nick on October 16th, 2009 at 1:55 am

I think that most non-Nessie believers would think twice if any actual proof (i.e. a live Nessie, recent skeleton hard evidence etc.) came to light. Likewise, if actual imperical proof about a supreme being came to light, rather than attributed miracles, crazy ramblings or ancient texts, then perhaps agnostics and athiests would have to questions themselves. The trouble is that as we develop and learn more about our world and our origins, all the evidence that we find points against a supreme being rather than in favour. The attributed miracles are shown to be natural phenomena or exaggerated claims, the crazy ramblings are shown to be either crazy or cynical, the holy texts are shown to be inadequate and in accurate. Yes the world was still round though people believed it wasn’t, but now there is hard evidence to show that it isn’t. Yes, people believed in Genesis creationism but now there is hard evidence to show that the world is much older and that life developed through evolution. Although there is no hard evidence to explain the origins of the universe and indeed the origins of life on our planet, scientific evidence at least leans against the supposal of a divine creator – certainly in the form of a caring god-figure watching over us.
So does a lack of evidence make your supreme being impossible or unreal? Well, you may argue that it does not, but does it make it less likely given the current state of knowledge? You probably have to agree that it does.
Pop on October 16th, 2009 at 7:56 am

Nick, I think that our current state of knowledge is far from making a God less real by the current evidence. You surely don’t think that humans are so advanced that we have less to learn than we already know, do you?
Science doesn’t reveal the existence or non-existence of anything, it just brings to light things we didn’t understand before. When humans discovered that the world was indeed round, how would that in any way prove that God wasn’t real, just because Christians believed it was flat?
You might find this hard to believe…but Christians are wrong more times than not. In my opinion, religious zealots are a lot of the reason to blame for this ‘science vs religion’ debate, simply because anytime science showed something that they thought to be different, scientists (some, not all) then claimed it just proved how crazy Christians were, and the Christians fired back with ‘Hey, they made that stuff up!”
I am a Christian (I’m sure you’ve concluded that already) but I’m not so ignorant as to say ‘You can’t trust those scientists.”
Look at it this way: I’ve never seen God, but still I choose believe in Him. Have you seen the wind? No, but you’ve seen and felt the effects of the wind is what I’m sure you’d say. Well, when science proved that wind was really just air flowing from high pressure to low pressure, did that prove that wind didn’t exist? Or did it show that wind is really just air moving in conjunction with the rotating of the earth and the pressure systems in it?
What if science reveals how every story in the Bible worked? What if Jesus was really walking on a sand bar and not walking on the water (I don’t believe that way, I’m just saying….)? Does that prove that there really is no god? Or does that simply show that Jesus walked on a sand bar?
I don’t know why it always has to be science versus religion. What if it’s both? I saw Carl Sagan doing a presentation on 4d one time (which was stinkin brilliant), and I’m pretty sure that he was using it to explain the possibility of extraterrestrials, but the whole time I was thinking, “He just said in about 6 minutes what Christians have been trying to say for thousands of years…there’s more!” (Here’s a link to the brief vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwL_zi9JNkE).
My point is this…how do you know that all discoveries in science are pointing against the existence God? Could they not just be revealing the intricate awesomeness of a God?
Jimmy on October 16th, 2009 at 8:37 am

Pop,
I think what Nick is trying to say is that time and time again, scientific discovery has removed the gaps of religious knowledge. For example, people once attributed thunder and lightning to God directly. Now we know that it’s really just air and electrons. People used to thin earth quakes were God doing something, science proves that’s not what it is.

In NO case has science ever tested something and found out that God was behind it. In every case when science shows something, even when the religious are convinced it’s God, it’s not. The gaps that God gets to hide in are systematically being uncovered, and each time, God’s not found to be hiding in them. Eventually, the only gaps left to hide in will be the human mind, and for some people, they’re so religious, no amount of science can ever uncover that gap..
For the most part, and you’ve indicated this yourself, when you can’t attribute God to some mystery, now you’ll try to “see” God in all the wonder that science explains. That’s cheating a little bit I think…
Nick on October 16th, 2009 at 8:59 am

I think I kind of see what you’re saying…. even if every story in the Bible, and by extension every miracle attributed to any god, could be explained by our expanding knowledge as a natural undivine phenomenon, then you would see this as signs of a supreme being who is too awesome for us to comprehend.
Or, from the link (which is, as you say, ‘stinkin brilliant’ I will readily admit), maybe you are suggesting that our concept of God is really an entity from another dimension.
Surely either of these concepts, which I agree are both difficult to prove and argue against, is a far stretch from the idea of a Christian God, which you profess a belief in, or a God of any other major religion, and the religious teachings that are claimed to be the word of God.
I don’t have a problem with people wanting to believe in an awesome supreme being whose awesomeness can be explained away (sooner or later) by scientific knowledge and natural phenomena, and the possibility of interdimensional aliens screwing with us is pretty cool as well. My problem is with the organised religions, with their insistence on blind faith in areas that science has started to explain as false. Scientific progress and developments in others areas of knowledge hasn’t explained everything, and is perhaps opening more doors than it is closing, but the doors they close do soom to be raising pretty damning questions about the existence of a Judaeo-christian God as set out in the Bible.
The fact that you say you would choose to believe in a Christian God even if the Bible (i.e. the word of your God) was proven to have no trace of divine intervention or awesomeness simply shows how religion operates on faith, in a world that is increasingly operating on fact.
p.s thanks again for the link, it was really very interesting and explained a difficult concept very clearly.
Pop on October 16th, 2009 at 10:35 am

Jimmy,
First off let me say that I’m not trying to see God in science, I just claim to see the works and effects of God moving, science or no science. It’s hard to get a point across on here because you, just like I, don’t know where the other is coming from. All that you know of me and all I know of you is all that we type on here. You can form opinions about me based on seeing ‘results’ from other Christians arguments in the past. But, where is the individuality and fun in that? Each time one of us leaves a comment, we (hopefully) learn a little more about the person it’s coming from. Does that mean that what you don’t know about me doesn’t really exist? Not at all. All that means is that you slowly learn more about who you’re communicating with. Now the things you read may lead you to believe that I operate in a certain manner in every situation, but that doesn’t change the facts of how I operate in non-cyber world. For me, science can’t explain away the mystery of God, because the mystery of God is everything He is…physicalness, non-physicalness, His heart, mind, ways…everything. Science has never tested something and found God behind it because they’re not looking for God. Discoveries are made that explain things like thunder and lightning and earthquakes, but does that take away from the fact that there may be more going on than air and electrons and plates? Not at all. What if we’re all just communicating with God, and we’re just slowly learning more about who He is and how He works? I would like to go on, but I hate to take up 9,000 gb of space, so I’ll get to Nick’s comment.

Nick,
I’m wasn’t trying to say that God is an entity from another dimension, but here’s how I see that video: God (apple) is trying to communicate with us (squares…funny?). But all we really know is what we see here in 3D World. The square knew what he lived in: 2 dimensions. What if all the stuff we discover on earth is really God communicating with us? I’m not trying to sound shallow in my beliefs (I’m actually a conservative Southern Baptist believe it or not), I’m just saying it’ s not as simple as saying 2 or 3 or 5 million scientific discoveries can explain away God. If that were the case, there would be no need for God, because we would know all that He knew. That probably wouldn’t be good for the scientist’s line of work either, because if we knew everything, there would be no room for science.
About the comment on believing the Bible even if it were proved to have no divine intervention: I didn’t mean it to come across that way, I was just saying that even if science explains the miracles in the Bible, that doesn’t take away from the divine intervention of the writing of the Book. It doesn’t take away from God sending Jesus Christ to save lost souls. My faith in God isn’t based on the miracles that happened in the Bible, it’s based on a relationship with Christ. I know that probably sounds weird every time you hear someone say that, but again, it’s hard to explain in short comments. It seems to me that we all have faith in something, I just choose to put my faith in God. By that statement, I simply mean this: you probably don’t know how everything works in the brake system of your car (or maybe you do), but everytime you hit the brake pedal, you believe that car’s going to stop, or you hope it does anyway .

I’m trying my best to discuss with you how I believe and why I believe it without using the same old arguments like, “Well, air and electrons create thunder and lightning, but where do the air and electrons come from?” I’m sure you’re tired of hearing those arguments, so let me know if I get too repetetive, and I’ll do the same for you.

~Glad you enjoyed the link!
40 Year Old Atheist on October 16th, 2009 at 11:57 am

@pop: I get what you are saying but don’t you think a god could/should/would be able to get his message across a little better? Why would a god struggle so to get his message across in such cryptic ways?
To me, the inability of such a god to communicate effectively is just another clue about his non-existence.
Jimmy on October 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

The first rule to remove a God from consideration for being real?
If a perfect being makes a claim of having a “need”, he’s a liar. If you’re perfect, then having a need would instantly indicate imperfection.
Pop on October 16th, 2009 at 1:29 pm

40 Year Old Atheist,
One example: Men and Women. I’m sure that you would agree that men and women sometimes have a hard time communicating. If you’re married I know that you’ll agree with me It’s not neccessarily because women don’t know how to communicate or men don’t know how to communicate, but rather sometimes we have trouble understanding. I don’t think it’s that God has trouble communicating, it’s more that people don’t know how to listen. God has communicated, and is still communicating, we just argue about who is right or wrong or ‘delusional’.
That’s a very, very simplified (not for your sake, but simply that it’s the best I could come up within 38 seconds), maybe ignorant answer. I was going to go into the explanation of ‘fallen’ man from Genesis, but I’m sure you’ve already heard it, and since it’s from the Bible, it probably wouldn’t have much credibility with you. So, I’ll spare you the time of reading it…unless you haven’t heard it and wonder what the heck I’m talking about.
Thanks for allowing discussion on your site and not being crabby at every Christian that gets on here….that goes for everyone that has replied to my comments.
MJ on October 16th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

I don’t believe in unicorns. There’s no proof of unicorns. Does that mean unicorns are real? Or that I just can’t see them because I’m an imperfect being? Maybe I just need to believe in unicorns in order for them to exist and before they exist. Did unicorns make us after we made them? Darn unicorn!
Pop on October 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm

MJ,

I hope after you posted that, you thought, “Man, that wasn’t as good as I thought it was going to be.”
Renshia on October 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pm

I know I have listened and I ain’t heard shit.
I see a lot of bible, but anyone who’s read that and has a mind knows that bunch of crap couldn’t have been written by a perfect being Without that, all you got is a bunch of guys claiming knowledge but having nothing but pretty stories to back it up.
Sorry crap like that may serve as proof enough for you, but it seems very week to me.
No evidence – No god. That’s my evidence.
Jimmy on October 17th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

Renshia, I have some notes on my facebook you would like. I explore just what you said “all you got is a bunch of guys claiming knowledge but having nothing but pretty stories to back it up.”
You’re right on..
email me if you have a facebook account and I will befriend you.
jipock@gmail.com
Pop on October 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Renshia,
I’m not sure if you have kids or not, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend that you do. What if your 13 yr old teenage daughter comes home one day and informs you that she’s pregnant? Instead of beating the crap out of her or screaming at her, telling her that she’s made a huge mistake, you calmly look her in the eye and say, “I’m very disappointed in you…”
I don’t know if that’s how you would react, but again, for the sake of the argument, let’s say that’s what happened.
What if your daughter laughed and said, “You’re not disappointed, what are you talking about?”
But you insist, “No, I’m VERY disappointed.”
How does she really know that you’re disappointed? There’s no evidence that proves you’re disappointed. You may have just eaten a bad taco. If she took your approach to things in this life, she might say you’re just rambling and can’t prove that you’re disappointed, so why should she believe you. After all, her best friend got pregnant just a few months earlier and her parents were excited to be having a grandchild. Are excitement and disappointment the same?
You could punish her, but then she would just cry and say, “Why are you so mad at me?!?”
There’s a big difference between anger and disappointment.
Does disappointment even exist?
Does a scientist have to tell you they’ve discovered evidence for the feeling of disappointment for you to feel it?
I guess No evidence – No disappointment.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 18th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

@pop: Disappointment is an emotion. All emotions are rooted in the brain, and the brain is based on biology and chemistry. If you had the right connections you could – with the assistance of science – map out exactly what disappointment looked like as a biological/chemical process, show that disappointment showed the same indicators among humans, and show that your disappointment was real.

Your argument is exactly like the “how can you prove that you love someone” question. Here is a link discussing the science of love.

The mapping of emotions is actually a rapidly growing field of study. I am currently reading a book by one of the gurus called “How the Mind Works”, by Stephen Pinker. It’s quite fascinating stuff.
Renshia on October 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

My daughter would know I was disappointed by my actions. She would witness my actions and be able to see my disappointment. She would see it in my actions.
Why can we never see god in action? Where is the manna he is providing for the hungry? Where are the blind that now see. Where are the priests that aren’t molesting kids… Okay… that last was a joke, I am sure there are one or two that haven’t.
–
For the record I do have a daughter, she is 16, luckily, that never happened. What I would do tho is, I would find out what happened and if this pregnancy, was caused by a non-consensual means. Then we would do what was appropriate. I would not tell my daughter I was disappointed in her. For any reason. I believe in learning from mistakes not condemning them.
–This is a difference I find between my life and your faith. You think you are justified in condemning those that make mistakes, that you have a right to be disappointed by those that don’t live up to your expectations. Just like your god. The kind of god that sets up some chick in a garden, that has no understanding of good and evil, no understanding of being beguiled, no experience with deception. Then when a good old willey snake comes along and tricks her. Bang, he condemns her. Hes not there to help her,he just condemns her. What kind of a fucking retard would do that to someone. Only your god, and apparently his followers.
I live to a higher standard than that. I know My children know nothing. I know my children learn from experience. Sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes there bad mistakes. Instead of condemning my child I would take the opportunity to make it into a learning experience and yes, that learning would come at a high cost. Only it would be the real cost not some high and mighty judgment made by an egotistical jerk.
And Just so you know I concur with the 40yr old.
Your just presenting straw men. Another story, but it is not evidence. It is meaningless drivel, that just blatantly shows why religious mentality is one of the most destructive forces of humanities creations.
Renshia on October 18th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

Hi Jimmy,
Sorry man I don’t do facebook. It’s a paranoid thing, I sure I would be black flagged on lists if I was on there. Or people of my past would be contacting me and wanting to talk and stuff. Then you never know when some bible thumper will get it into his head that god told him to kill me. Better if they don’t know what I look like, thank you very much.
ROFL…..
Jimmy on October 18th, 2009 at 9:26 pm

Thanks Renshia, it’s all good. I actually had someone call me up last week and threaten to come over and beat my ass for bad mouthing their God, so I know how you feel..
I do post some pretty good notes on the FB, I came up with what I call the 7 day challenge. Any adherents that are willing to step up and put their God to the test can sign up. They have seven days for him to perform, if he does (according to my scoring) then I will fall down and denounce my atheism and serve him. Really pisses them off but not one has stepped up to the plate yet.. You would enjoy reading some of my material. That last comment looked just like something I wrote already!
Pop on October 18th, 2009 at 9:37 pm

40 YOA,

Thanks for the link to the article, pretty interesting. There seem to be a lot of variables in the grand scheme of things, though. I know it’s just a short article and there’s probably alot more in that area of study that I’m not getting, but for me there’s still a lot of questions. I’m not questioning whether or not they can read that stuff; science is really good at answering the ‘how’, but many times not so good about answering the ‘why’.
For instance…it mentions someone looking at the object of their affection and producing certain levels of certain chemicals in their brain. What if someone looking at a picture of a car that they really want produces the same effects of someone looking at their lover; such as the release of dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine? Does that mean that they’re in love with that car the same way that the other person is in love with their lover? Then if you answer that, scientifically speaking…what is love? It seems to me that you can’t really produce evidence for ‘love’. For what one might think is love, someone else might see as lust or infatuation. I just don’t see how you can scientifically classify feelings, if that makes sense…
I understand that it’s possible to read the release of certain chemicals and what not, but it seems nearly impossible to read why people react the way they do. There are a lot of factors in emotions. What they are really doing is studying the side effects of those emotions and not really the emotions themselves. (i.e. – “That initial giddiness that comes when we’re first falling in love includes a racing heart, flushed skin and sweaty palms. Researchers say this is due to the dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine we’re releasing.”- that’s from the article) The racing heart, flushed skin and sweaty palms are all results to the releasing of certain chemicals, but how would you know that ‘love’ was the only feeling going on? Maybe their heart is racing, skin is flushed, and palms are sweaty because they’re nervous about something.
It’s kind of late for me, so this might make more sense in my head right now than it’s coming across to you. If so, I apologize.
~~I’d be interested in reading the book you mentioned by Pinker…is it available in most book stores?
Pop on October 18th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

Renshia,
You’re jumping to a lot of conclusions about me, but i’ll be alright, i think.
First of all, who wouldn’t want to learn from mistakes? I think your stereotyping of Christians is based on maybe a radical few. I in no way have ever ‘felt’ justified by condemning someone. If by condemning you mean being judgmental, I would be lying if I said I’d never did it, but I strive to be unbiased toward everyone, but I’m the first to admit that I’m not perfect.
About your reference to Eve in the Garden: that’s kind of a warped way of looking at it, but I can see how you could feel that way. God designed man (and woman) with a free will, He didn’t create a bunch of puppets. In that free will, Adam and Eve chose their path, and as a result we’ve suffered the consequences of disobedience. (I understand all that is nonsense to you…I’m just letting you know where I’m coming from)
There is one major thing I have to disagree with you on in your last comment. You stated that you know that your children know nothing and that they learn from experience. I believe that in all of us (except for maybe some insane psychopaths) there is an innate sense of basic right and wrong principles. If there weren’t how could there even be a right or wrong? The earliest humans would not be able to learn it….there would only be results from actions, like “If I hit cavewoman in the head with a rock…she dies.” But there would be no sense of “I shouldn’t do that because it’s wrong,” only that she dies if he does it.
It kind of goes along the lines of how I feel about the ending of this article from a link on this site. It’s stated that “…you should always remember that no morals are absolute…” The problem I see with that argument is that you could essentially say that Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler are morally equal people. They were both just living out what they thought was the best choice for them.

I apologize if it was in any way offensive referencing a teenage girl…it was purely coincidental that you have one.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 19th, 2009 at 12:12 am

@pop: You’re just drilling deeper into more questions that will eventually be answered by science. I disagree with you on the origins of why. We are biological beings – everything we do is a result of cause and effect. You ask questions that are typical of someone who believes in mind/body dualism. I do not subscribe to that idea. There is no soul – there is only our body which contains our brain which creates our thoughts. Why we have the thoughts we have is because our brains function in a way that makes those thoughts possible.

I know you will not find this view of life as romantic as the view you have, but all indications (i.e. evidence) are that, that is the reality we are a part of.

Yes, the Pinker book is widely available.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am

@pop: I was just re-reading your last comment to me and it reminded me of something I forgot to say.
It’s good to have the questions you do (the hows and whys). The issue I take with the theistic perspective is that there always seems to come a point where a believer says, “I don’t understand how or why this something happens” and, from there, they invoke the mystical (supernatural, god etc). Meanwhile, science continues to illuminate by showing specifically how and why things happen. Science keeps on pushing back the line and, yet, many among the religious keep saying, “but you can’t explain this or that”.
Science cannot explain everything …yet.
But, imagine yourself living a thousand years from now and, recognizing the progress we’ve made in just the last hundred years, try to tell me that many of the questions your asking won’t have been answered.
My bet is that they will have been answered. My bet is that it won’t take a thousand years either.
MJ on October 19th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

Pop, I was pointing out how nonsensical the whole God argument was being articulated earlier in this thread. The logic is not mine – read up fatrther and you’ll see it articulated as such. Also, this whole idea that humans couldn’t evolve ideas of how to treat people without your God is absolutely at odds with the reality. Many earth based belief systems hold dear beliefs whioch would be similar to the Christians, other world religions also talk about respect, and not killing, etc. and they don’t resort to a God which smites people for not believing in him. and as for saying Mother Theresa and Hitler are the same, well I’m not a Christian but isn’t their the whole idea that people are saved by the Grace of God and that it is not our humans to judge? And I’ve also heard that in Christianity if a person confesses and accept Jebus into their life that they are saved – so a person like Gandhi who was non-violent and talked about love and the humanity of all and the brotherhood of all humans (simialr to what Jebus talked about) would go to hell while a Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, etc. could go to heaven if they accepted Jebus. What kind of a God does that?
Pop on October 19th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

40 YOA,
The point I’m trying to make is that science isn’t doing much damage to Christianity, or any religion that I know of with its findings. You might think that just because scientists discovered thunder and lightning are air and electrons, that it is just more proof that God doesn’t exist, but all it does is show what thunder and lightning are…it doesn’t have much to do at all with whether or not God exists. Just because someone knows what causes me to sneeze has nothing to do with proving that I’m alive. There are billions of things going on in scientific study that I don’t know about, just like there are a lot of things about the Christian’s life that you don’t know about. Christianity isn’t about avoiding questions for me. Once I start ignoring the hard questions about God and my faith, I’ve put God in a box. Why would anyone want to serve a God that small? At the core of things, I’m not an expert in science, and you’re not an expert in Christianity. Basically, all I know about scientific things is what I read in articles…which I’m sure you would agree, leave out a whole lot of details. It isn’t because I write science off for any reason, it’s just that it hasn’t sparked my interest enough to want to be an expert in it…which doesn’t take away from the progress that’s been made. It probably sounds ignorant and lame to you, but a lot of the stuff that science discovers makes me more in awe of God. Just because science can tell me why leaves can change colors in the autumn and spring back to life in, well, the spring, doesn’t take away from the beauty of things. (I won’t drag that out and bore you to tears).

MJ,
I was rebutting Renshia’s statement that her kids knew nothing. If we know nothing, how do we ever know anything? I’m sure that you would agree that you can’t create something from nothing. It seems to me that there almost has to be some kind of higher intelligence to the universe. Everything works too good for there not to be. The reason I believe in God is not because I don’t have answers to a lot of questions and it’s easy to fantasize that a God somewhere does and it gives me the warm fuzzy feeling I need. And just because I believe in God doesn’t mean that I have all the answers about Him. There are a lot of times when it’s hard to believe in an invisible God, but that’s where faith in Jesus comes into play. It’s not always easy understanding a God you can’t see, but a life on this earth, the life of Jesus…I can see that. I can understand that. He came to show us what that invisible God is like – how that looks for us.
I’ll be sure and state here that I know it’s all from the Bible and I know that you think it’s a load of crap, but to me; it’s life. And probably as much as you would like to think I’m some kind of looney religious whacko, I’m not. I’m just a normal guy that believes that Jesus shows us how to live our lives to please God. And even though you can point to a lot of reasons to stay away from a god whose followers act like condemning pricks…that’s not Jesus. I don’t know that I’ve ever heard anyone have a complaint with the way Jesus lived, and that’s who I want to be like – Jesus. Not some religious nut that confuses you with what they say and then how they act.
And since you’ll probably ask, here’s one difference between Ghandi and Jesus: Ghandi was into religions, Jesus wasn’t. I find it hard to believe that Jesus wanted to start or be a part of any religion. He was about the way of God-how He wants us to live.

I need to learn how to get my point across better and quit taking up so much space…
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 6:15 pm

The reference to your faith was not meant to be directed at you, but faith, christianity, religion in general. The point was that religion does not teach learning from mistakes, it is based on rules and obligation. Those rules follow a closely defined prescription for how to act, what to think. They also impose clearly defined punishment. They do not encourage thinking, or discussion, nor do they account for changing circumstances. they are blanket black and white rules.
Religion does not encourage learning from mistakes. Mostly because they do not offer real consequences as learning tools. You talk about free will, that god gave us, but this is a lie. If he existed, you may say he gave us the capacity for free will. But god does not sanction the use of it or encourage it. Let me compare Gods free will with a slave, say one from Mississippi. If you were a slave and your master told you to go plow the field. Then he said this is your choice. you do not have to do it. You can stay home instead. However if you do I will beat you until you have no skin left. So, your free to do what you want, but there are imposed consequences. So tell me, does this slave have free will. No he doesn’t, because those choices are no choices at all. The beating is not part of the real consequences, they are an arbitrary punishment that have no lesson to it. This is the god you worship. he doesn’t offer us free will he offers only slavery. You are a slave that will be beat for disobeying. Nor is there any incentive to learn from mistakes. He offers you a way out from the responsibility of learning from the consequences, now. All you have to do is pray and all is forgiven. So no matter how many times you make the mistake, all you have to do is say I am sorry, and voila, all is forgiven. No need to take responsibility, no need to learn.
I am sure you will not see it that way, You will think I am once again warped in my perspective. But if you examine it you will know I am writing the truth. You say my perspective of what I said about eve was wrong. But according to your book, she did not have knowledge of good and evil. She didn’t know what lies were. Maybe the snake told here god sent him because god changed his mind. How would she have known he was lying. She could not have known, she had no knowledge of good or evil.
And then where was god while the snake was deceiving eve. Why did he not protect her. If he was omnipotent, he must have known what was going down. Why did he not intervene? Use it as a learning experience? Cause that’s not how your god works. He would rather you disobey so he can condemn, that teach and allow you to learn.
I agree with you he did not create a bunch of puppets. He just forces you to live like them.
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

I believe that in all of us (except for maybe some insane psychopaths) there is an innate sense of basic right and wrong principles.

I would disagree. Right and wrong are just inventory of the mind. Learned inventory. Many things seem right or wrong, depending on the inventory you carry in your head and the circumstances in which they are presented.
I would bet you can not name one thing that is wrong that when put under different circumstances could not be construed differently. ???
For instance, I would think you believe raping women is wrong. You probably think that under no circumstances could rape be right or acceptable behavior. However, your god thinks otherwise. There are many instances in which the god of the bible condones rape. One instance is when the Israelites defeated the Canaanites. When god told them to keep the young women so they could know them.
Now how do you separate god sanctioned rape from plain rape? And why would you follow a god that sanctions it?
But beyond that, Right & Wrong, Good or Evil, good and bad are just arbitrary concepts, based on your minds inventory.
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 7:18 pm

If there weren’t how could there even be a right or wrong? The earliest humans would not be able to learn it….there would only be results from actions, like “If I hit cavewoman in the head with a rock…she dies.” But there would be no sense of “I shouldn’t do that because it’s wrong,” only that she dies if he does it.

Unless he sits down and goes… Hmmmm. Mrs. cave women not cook, she dead. Hmmmm, no one to grunt with, now I am lonely, she dead. Hmmmm, me all alone, me sad, should not have hit Mrs. cave women. Hmmmm. not do again…Hmmmm Hitting mrs. cave women with rock was wrong to do. Hmmmm I think I will teach my son not to do that….
So why is that you do not think he could gain a perspective of morality? Seems real easy when you think in terms of real consequences instead of arbitrary ones.
Maybe you can’t see this because your religion does not have any real consequences. All it has it this make believe consequence.. your going to burn if you do not listen to me.With only imaginary consequences you only get imaginary effects.
This is what learning should be, learning from real consequences. This is the difference between learning to think and forcing on someone what to think. The difference between real consequences and arbitrary ones.
40 Year Old Atheist on October 19th, 2009 at 7:21 pm

@Renshia: That is one funny, smart caveman. It’s easy to see why we’re around today with ancestors that bright.

@Pop: I think you’ll find most atheists subscribe to the idea that morality evolved – along with every other aspect of our brain-based thinking.
Pop on October 19th, 2009 at 8:33 pm

How do you use the blockquote thing?
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

” The problem I see with that argument is that you could essentially say that Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler are morally equal people. They were both just living out what they thought was the best choice for them.

Regardless of your problem the fact is yes, you could say that, not saying you need to agree that is the case.
I see no difference between the Jews killed by Hitler because of his crazy dominant race beliefs and the many thousands of helpless victims that died due to improper medical treatment because Mother Theresa believed suffering brought you closer to god. Even more so because huge portions of the funds raised for her shelters was diverted to Rome instead of helping people it was intended for.
So to me Hitler and mother are quite equal in their morality. You however, may feel the suffering and death she fail to prevent because it brings people closer to god is not as bad as the suffering and killing Hitler caused to create his pure race. But causing it and failing to prevent it when you could have is pretty closed to the same to me. Unless you think that the numbers count, maybe she was more moral because she caused fewer deaths, But then again I do not think that, to me intention is as important as the effect.
I guess the only difference between the two is who has a higher standard of what morality should be. Or what beliefs you have, and how your morality corresponds with those beliefs
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 9:36 pm

How do you use the blockquote thing?

The way I get it to work is, I copy and paste the section I want to quote.
I hit enter a couple times to give some space.
Type a few lines then go back to the part you want to quote, highlight it and then hit the quote button.
Seems to be the only way I can get it to work properly.
Renshia on October 19th, 2009 at 9:45 pm

That is one funny, smart caveman. It’s easy to see why we’re around today with ancestors that bright.

I have some pretty bright cavemen in my family tree….
Nick on October 20th, 2009 at 3:46 am

Morality doesn’t come from God, doesn’t God come out of morality? Morality is a social development and socially necessary. You can even see a kind of morality among any animals that group together, wolves, dolphins, don’t kill each other, share food, co-operate to some extent etc.
As our bright cavemen and women developed socially, so did their sense of morality, probably out of a sense of the Golden Rule. And then leaders might use an all-powerful, all-seeing god figure to enforce the moral code that developed out of early social interaction.

As society changes, morals also change. First the morals are largely within the family or the tribe, where it is socially ‘acceptable’ to rape and kill among other peoples (especially if with the backing of your God). This would be the Bible-condoned rape and pillage, but also vikings, crusaders, conquistadors etc. Then as societies grew, and civilised further, social interaction increased and so did our sense of morals, laws etc. and moral reciprocity became more global…. to a certain extent.

And the Hitler vs Mother T comparison does fall down as Rensia points out. Though, as Eddie Izzard said, Hitler was a murdering f***head, he was doing what he thought was best for his ‘tribe’ of Aryan Germans, (kind of similar to what the israelites did in the old testement, no? invading, pillaging etc maybe that’s going too far), but the world’s morals had evolved past ‘tribal’ morality and what he did was seen as abhorent. If the Nazis had been successful, he would have been heralded as a saviour and to have morally and socially cleansed his nation, and Mother T would be the unacceptable mystic outcast, with a morality based on superstition and poverty. Fortunately he didn’t.

But Pop, your arguments are interesting and stimulating, this is why I’m glad I found this site.
Pop on October 20th, 2009 at 7:39 am

There have been a lot of comments…so I probably won’t address all of them. I’ll start at the top and sort of work down.

“The point was that religion does not teach learning from mistakes, it is based on rules and obligation. Those rules follow a closely defined prescription for how to act, what to think. They also impose clearly defined punishment. They do not encourage thinking, or discussion, nor do they account for changing circumstances. they are blanket black and white rules.”
(I tried doing the blockquote here, but it indents everything I’ve typed before and after like it’s quoting it as well…)

This is where a lot of people miss the point – including Christians. I’m a youth director at my church and I’m always trying to get this across to the high school students: Faith in Jesus Christ isn’t a list of ‘don’t do this’ or ‘don’t do that’, it’s about seeking a God who is bigger than all of that. I myself saw religion that way a lot of times when I was growing up, but slowly it’s being revealed to me that God is less rules than reality. The argument that religion doesn’t encourage thinking or discussion is a false one. Deuteronomy 4:29, 1 Chronicles 28:9, 2 Chronicles 15:2, Ezra 8:22, Job 8:5-6, Psalm 9:10, Psalm 14:2, Psalm 24:5-6, Psalm 27:8, Psalm 105:4, Psalm 119:2, Psalm 119:10, Isaiah 55:6, Jeremiah 29:13, Lamentations 3:24-25, Hosea 10:12, Amos 5:4, Luke 11:9, Luke 12:31, Acts 17:26-28, and Hebrews 11:6 are all verses that speak of seeking God. Seek means to try to find or discover by searching or questioning.
Our laws tell us how to act or else their will be punishment to those who break the rules…does that mean that the government’s laws have done away with our need to think?

Oh, crap! I’ve got to get to work! I’ll get to some more later. Thanks for the advice on how to get the blockquote to work..guess I’m just an idiot.
Pop on October 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Sorry I had to cut my last comments short. I just got back from my great-uncle’s funeral and it’s been a long day….so I probably won’t get to a whole lot tonight. Moving on:

“Religion does not encourage learning from mistakes. Mostly because they do not offer real consequences as learning tools. You talk about free will, that god gave us, but this is a lie. If he existed, you may say he gave us the capacity for free will. But god does not sanction the use of it or encourage it. Let me compare Gods free will with a slave, say one from Mississippi. If you were a slave and your master told you to go plow the field. Then he said this is your choice. you do not have to do it. You can stay home instead. However if you do I will beat you until you have no skin left. So, your free to do what you want, but there are imposed consequences. So tell me, does this slave have free will. No he doesn’t, because those choices are no choices at all.”

How do the consequences of certain actions take away from free will? If you murder someone, you’re most likely going to jail for a long time. That doesn’t take away the fact that before you kill that person, you can choose whether you’re going to do it or not. Just like the slave…he knows that he’s going to get beat senseless if he stays home, but there’s still the option of staying home. I think our definitions just differ a little bit on the ‘free will / choice’ scale.

“He offers you a way out from the responsibility of learning from the consequences, now. All you have to do is pray and all is forgiven. So no matter how many times you make the mistake, all you have to do is say I am sorry, and voila, all is forgiven. No need to take responsibility, no need to learn.”

This is another area where a large number of people misinterpret what is meant in Scripture. I’m just guessing that you think of salvation as an event, as do a lot of people that call themselves Christians. Most people look at it like this: “Jack went up to the altar and got saved last Sunday. So now he’s going to heaven even though he’s still living like hell.” While salvation may start with a moment like that, it’s a process that continues throughout the rest of your life. The writer Paul said it like this (speaking of grace): “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” (Romans 6)
Just because we have faith in God, doesn’t mean that now we’re free to do what we want, then we just tell God we’re sorry and all is sweet and peaceful.

“I am sure you will not see it that way, You will think I am once again warped in my perspective. But if you examine it you will know I am writing the truth.”

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but atheists don’t believe in absolute truth, right? So no matter how much I examine what you’re writing, how do I know that it’s truth? How do you know it’s truth? I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, I just need a little clarification on that.

“But according to your book, she did not have knowledge of good and evil. She didn’t know what lies were. Maybe the snake told her god sent him because god changed his mind. How would she have known he was lying. She could not have known, she had no knowledge of good or evil.”

That is an extremely good point, I’ve honestly never heard that argument before. Here’s what happened according to Genesis chapter 3:
1 Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

God warned them that if they eat of the fruit, they would die. Obviously, they had to know what it meant for them to die, or God probably wouldn’t have said it. To die had nothing to do with knowing good or evil other than Satan being evil tempting Eve. Satan also never pretended to act like God sent him, he just told Eve she could be like God if she ate the fruit. I wish I could make it sound clear and sensible to you, but, I’m just an uneducated farm boy and quite honestly…that’s the best I got right now.

“And then where was god while the snake was deceiving eve. Why did he not protect her. If he was omnipotent, he must have known what was going down. Why did he not intervene? Use it as a learning experience? Cause that’s not how your god works. He would rather you disobey so he can condemn, tha(n) teach and allow you to learn.”

I’m sure God did know what was going on while Eve was being tempted, as to why He didn’t intervene…I don’t know. Maybe it’s because of the whole ‘free will’ thing? But, I think it can be a learning experience…for everyone; and the basic principle: Do what’s right (because now we know the difference between good and evil). To the statement that God wants us to disobey so he can condemn us…I’m not quite sure where you’re getting that from, other than jumping to a lot of conclusions about who you think God is.
Renshia on October 20th, 2009 at 9:56 pm

God is less rules than reality. The argument that religion doesn’t encourage thinking or discussion is a false one.

First off, One thing god is not any part of is reality. Show me a piece of reality in which you can see, talk to, feel, or verify in anyway god.
When I look outside I see nature, (I live in the country), I see a wonderful marvelous world, evolved over millions of years, beautiful it is, but in this reality I see no evidence of a god. you can pretend to see it, you can imagine it is there, but in reality, nothing.
No religion doesn’t encourage learning, it encourages seeking god. There is much more to life than seeking god, yet when you do seek god, unless you put your imagination into high gear, you cannot find him, anywhere. I guess that is why it takes a life time, because he is nowhere to be found. Seeking god is a lot different from Learning and growing to become more that what you are. You see all those scriptures you present, None say, seek to understand the mysteries of the universe, heck for the most part they do not even encourage seeking knowledge, only god. If the bible encouraged learning and growing, I sure it should say that somewhere. In fact In many places, it discourages it.
How about Ecclesiastes 1: 17-18
17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.
18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Yes this sounds encouraging doesn’t it.
or maybe,
1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a “fool” so that he may become wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;
20 and again, “The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile.
doesn’t seem very encouraging to me. In fact it seems to discourage it. Don’t ya think.
So here we have another fine contradiction. The only thing the bible encourages is seeking after a guy you can never find, But when it comes to learning and growing, unless it is all about him it is discouraged.
Renshia on October 20th, 2009 at 10:22 pm

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but atheists don’t believe in absolute truth, right? So no matter how much I examine what you’re writing, how do I know that it’s truth? How do you know it’s truth? I’m not trying to sound like a jerk, I just need a little clarification on that.

I can not speak for other non believers, I can speak for me. I believe what the evidence shows, I also believe that as we learn and examine the evidence, what I believe to be true can change. However this requires evidence to justify the change. Please understand, the key part of this is the evidence, this is why I can no longer believe in god, There just is not any evidence for his existence. Only pretty analogies, and old books.
Just so you know I was not always a non believer, I spent well over 25 yrs, involved in church. Starting as an alter boy in the catholic church, to preaching at revival meetings and missions. I have invested years in seeking god to no avail. I just could not keep the delusion when the facts could not support the belief.
—

on another note, the key to making the quote button work is hitting enter a couple of times and then not including the extra spaces in the text you want to quote. you can go back and delete out the extra spaces once the quote is set.
Pop on October 20th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

None say, seek to understand the mysteries of the universe, heck for the most part they do not even encourage seeking knowledge, only god. If the bible encouraged learning and growing, I sure it should say that somewhere. In fact In many places, it discourages it.

The verses you presented are not discouraging learning altogether. The Bible speaks a lot of eternity. All those verses are saying is that in the grand scheme of eternal things, the gaining of wisdom for yourself is vain. Because, whether you believe in eternity or not, once you’re dead there’s not much earthly wisdom can do for you anymore. However, wisdom is good for those that are left on the earth, (I’m sure you would agree) for the sake of progressing.
Pop on October 20th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

I’m terrible with technology…I give up on blockquotes.
Pop on October 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pm

Obviously, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on a lot of this stuff. The main reason I came on here was because (not any of you) most atheists I have talked to have done a lot of Christian bashing. Just like I’m sure that you feel a lot of Christians have belittled you and tried to make you feel like crap for not believing in God. I basically wanted to talk with some atheists that weren’t complete buttholes anytime I asked a sincere question about how they felt about certain things. I appreciate all the comments and discussion, but I’m going to be pretty busy for the next few weeks, so I probably won’t get a chance to be back on here for a while. Thanks for putting up with my questions, as I truly do enjoy commenting with all of you.
I guess the bottom line is, you’re waiting on evidence to prove that there’s a God – and I believe the evidence is already pointing to God. Again, thanks for the discussions. Talk to ya soon.
MJ on October 21st, 2009 at 3:52 pm

Hi Pop sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. First thanks for being a good sport and having the discussion – I feel it’s very important we learn to talk and listen to one another.

Two other things. firast you can get something from nothing. In physics, a balance of positive and negative is zero or nothing. For example an atom with one proton and one electron is considered zero but you can have a case where the electron goes to one side of the atom and creates a positive and a negative thus creating something from nothing. So I wouldn’t agree with you – I think you might have been referring to the conservation of energy where matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

Second, my understanding was that Jesus was a practicing Jew and that his attempts were to reform Judaism. And furthermore, the Bible can’t be taken as a definitive biography of Jesus because huge parts of his Jesus’ life are not covered nor are all his thoughts explored or stated. the other thing is the Bible has been edited several times and there are many, many chances for mistranslations – to view it as the Gospel truth is dangerous. 40 YOA has a book on here titled Misquoting Jesus which explains quite nicely what those errors are. Keep on your hunt.

MJ
Renshia on October 21st, 2009 at 5:09 pm

By looking at the way it quoted, I would say you did not put enough spaces between the two sections, at least threelines seem to work best. when you highlight the section you want to quote start from the end of that section and go up to highlight it all. then hit the quote button.
don’t give up, learning something new even if it is a challenge is a great way to expand your perspective.
Do you know how to highlight the text?
Alexis Mullino on November 19th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

I can’t help but comment on how Richard Dawkins did such a great thing for the world, greater than I think he ever envisioned while writing The God Delusion. I’ve read and heard so many stories where people struggled all their lives–or didn’t at all–and came to conclusions on their beliefs because of his book. That’s amazing to me. Like you, I am one that found concrete results in my concepts and ideas of God by reading The God Delusion, and I’m not even done with it yet.
Alaina on November 21st, 2009 at 7:39 am

40YOA, nice blog. Glad I found it. I’m Canajun, too.
What I see over and over in these debates is that people don’t understand what science is. Science is NOT the answer and does not pretend to have the answers. It is a process, not a thing. Perhaps the media and popular representations of science make it seem that way, but no scientist worth anything would claim that they are the ultimate arbiters of Truth.
I can sum up why I love science in six words: “I don’t know. Let’s find out.” Science represents our best current understanding of how the universe works, and gives us a roadmap for advancing that understanding. There are many things that we don’t know, and I can use an example an earlier commenter offered: Where did the universe come from? Well, our best models and the current evidence point toward an inflationary Big Bang, but we don’t know for sure. What happened before the big bang? We don’t know – one idea is that it was the collision of two d-branes that created enough energy to cause a Big Bang; another is that there is a never-ending cycle of expansion and collapse; another is that we’re inside a black hole, and that every black hole contains a universe, to a point of infinite regress. We have a pretty good sense of how the Big Bang happened, but not why it happened. That’s right: we don’t know.
THIS is why science is cool: because we can say “I don’t know. Let’s find out.” Science require evidence and falsifiability. If we simply accepted claims with no evidence, we might still believe that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, or that sin causes disease. “I don’t know” lets us advance our knowledge rather than being stuck in the Iron Age. It permits a humble search for truth, and history shows us that it is the most useful approach for understanding the world.
I think the belief that we have all of the answers (i.e., God did it, the end) is the pinnacle of narcissistic arrogance and hubris.
gildedmushroom on April 12th, 2010 at 7:47 pm

You ran away from the experiences you had with your uncle and aunt. I think you should return to what happened there, and become knowledgeable about it. Not external facts, but internal research.
40 Year Old Atheist on April 12th, 2010 at 7:51 pm

@gildedmushroom: What the hell are you talking about? They were part of an idiotic religion (more idiotic than most) with access to me when I was a child. They tried to indoctrinate me/us. It did not work. Even then, I was smart enough to know it was bullshit.
angelo custode on December 16th, 2010 at 2:33 am

The fact that you met your future wife after a prayer to God was not enough for you? Sure bad things happen to us, me, everyone. God loves to bless his people. He also has the ability to take anything away from us, and not give us anything we want. We see right now. He sees 5 minutes, 1 week, 1 year, 50 years, 100 years from now. He works in all of our lives distinctively to bring his plan to come. The fact that you are debating about God shows something is working in your mind ABOUT God subconciously. God is going to keep knocking, even if you keep saying he doesn’t exist. The fact that you go out of your way to say he does not just because the world is not perfect (have you read the bible? I recently have read a lot and it says in there that this world is a FALLEN world where bad things DO happen! Even with God in control! Until the day he comes back. Which could be right now, tomorrow, or 50-100 years or more from now!). Keep on keeping on, I hope the right answer comes to you!
40 Year Old Atheist on December 16th, 2010 at 12:44 pm

@Angelo: It’s curious that you noticed part of what I wrote and ignored the rest.

What I said in a nutshell is that some things triggered a reaction (“religion doesn’t seem to be adding up”) which led to an extended period of reading and investigation.

In the end, I concluded – based on many reasons – that your god (i.e. a personal deity involved in the daily ongoings of human beings) does not exist. Most notable among my reasons for not believing in god are lack of evidence and poor responses to the problem of evil.

Your comment adds no new food for thought on the matter.

Your Comments
- Jimmy: I’ve always been a live and let live kind of guy. If you believe in god, and it...
- Derrick: Actually I am a believer in God, but I kinda want to talk to someone who...
- David: I’ve been raptured. Anyone reading this has been raptured. We are not...
- Jimsey: Well, I could use a new stereo system. I’m just going to go around trying my...
- Harmonika Savingsbonds: Be wary of moderation in the movement, though. I just got kicked off...
Recent Articles
Amazing Atheists
- AnAtheist.net run by James Tracy who also looks after ‘The Atheist Spot’ (an atheist link sharing service)
- Atheist Climber Thoughts about science, nature and religion, as well as politics, philosophy, atheism and the occasional rant
- Atheist Revolution by vjack – an unbelievably prolific writer on the subject of atheism
- Attempts At Rational Behavior Godless liberal firmly supporting separation of church and state
- August Cline is the atheism & agnosticism author at about.com. He is excellent.
- Common Sense Atheism Awesome, awesome, awesome awesome atheist blog. End of story.
- Dangerous Talk an atheist/progressive blog discussing the three most dangerous topics of polite conversation: Religion, Politics, and Sex
- Daylight Atheism Night time is for dreaming. Daylight is for action.
- Friendly Atheist warmth and wisdom from the guy who sold his soul on eBay
- God is for Suckers! Group blog, providing commentary, news, and rants on the evils and stupidity of belief in the big invisible daddy in the sky.
- Godless Girl Ex-christian sarcasm-a-tron armed with a vag and a brain. Curiosity killed the faith, not the sass.
- Greta Christina's Blog I don’t think anyone writes more powerfully about atheism than Greta
- Happy Jihad's House of Pancakes As the title suggests, HJHOP is a fun and quirky (but still thoughtful) critique of religion.
- Lousy Canuck He’s Canadian and he’s an atheist. Need I say more? ;)
- Monicks: Unleashed Monica is the tireless force behind the ‘Think Atheist’ community
- No Religion Blog Nice, clear explanations relating to historical accuracy/claims in the Bible, among other things
- Pharyngula by PZ Meyers – evolutionary biologist, heathen and communion cracker desecrator!
- Stupid Evil Bastard What the hell is wrong with you people? (I love that tagline)
- The Gaytheists group blog for LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgendered) Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists
- Unreasonable Faith Excellent atheist blog (one of my favorites) by former evangelical Christian Daniel Florien
- Watching the Wheels see-er. do-er. writer. photographer. thinker. doodler. worker. lover. whiner. reader. cooker. planter. designer. laugher. cleaner (sometimes). remember-er. traveller. questioner. dreamer. organizer. learner. giver. crier. taker. sleeper. imagine-er. eater
Heathen Bling!
Awesome Atheism Websites
- Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Touch his noodley appendage!
- God is Imaginary 50 simple proofs for non-existence of god
- Iron Chariots Wiki Awesome encyclopedia of counters to Christian apologetics.
- Secular Web contains a simply fantastic article library from both modern and past atheist/agnostic writers
- Skeptic's Annotated Bible Great place to learn about the contradictions, scientific fails and absurdities within the Bible (and there are many)
- Talk Origins Archive Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
- The Freethinker Excellent secular focused site based on the magazine founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion.
- The Panda's Thumb excellent site focusing on evolution/creationism & the defence of science
- Why Won't God Heal Amputees? Is God real, or is he imaginary?
Skeptical Rulers of the Universe
- Doubtful “Skepticism is a process.” This is a great place to learn. Sharon really does her homework for our benefit.
- Grassroots Skeptics A volunteer organization promoting critical thinking and a reason-centered worldview by helping local skeptics groups to share tools, information and strategies, and connect with skeptical individuals and activists.
- ICBS Everywhere Knowledge, science, reason, education, philosophy, behavior, politics, religion, and B.S.
- James Randi Educational Foundation Not-for-profit organization that promotes critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today. Home of the $1 million paranormal challenge.
- Podblack Cat Science, Superstitions and Skeptical Life
- She Thought women. thinking critically.
- Skepchick A group of women (and one deserving guy) who write about science, skepticism, and pseudoscience. With intelligence, curiosity, and occasional snark, the group tackles diverse topics from astronomy to astrology, psychics to psychology.
- Skeptic North The first Canada-wide blog for skeptics. Its mission is to affect and promote positive, science-based change in mainstream media, Canadian culture and education, and in government policy
- Skeptic's Dictionary Definitions, arguments, and essays on topics ranging from acupuncture to zombies. Detailed information on the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Dozens of topics in logic, perception, science, and philosophy.
- SkepticReport Extremely well organized and laid out skeptic site. Lots of good information here.
- Skeptics Society A scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science.
- Skeptics Society Blog Official blog of the Skeptics Society, featuring the writings of Michael Shermer as well as many others.
- Skeptigirl dedicated to free thinking, critical thinking, science, and skepticism
- Woo Fighters Purpose is to promote critical, skeptical, and scientific thinking by inspiring students to become active promoters of scientific skepticism and defenders of science.
Health & Medicine
- Quackwatch International network concerned with health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct. Primary focus on difficult/impossible to find quackery-related information.
- Science-Based Medicine Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine
- Science-Based Pharmacy Turning an eye on the profession, separating fact from fiction on both sides of the counter.
- The Denialism Blog Discussing the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science.
- The SkepDoc Retired family physician, former U.S. Air Force flight surgeon and skeptic who writes about alternative medicine and quackery.

Why I Blog
I'm here to help doubting believers let go of their fear and guilt, to provide an example of an atheist leading a happy, moral and fulfilling life, and to connect with fellow non-believers. Welcome!
Subscribe/Bookmark
Navigation
On Youtube
Podcasts/Radio
- For Good Reason Interview program hosted by D.J. Grothe, promoting critical thinking and skepticism about the central beliefs of society.
- Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Home of one of the longest standing skeptical podcasts.
- Skepticality Official podcast of Skeptical Magazine
- Skeptically Speaking Live radio/podcast hosted by everyone’s favorite geek girl, Desiree Schell “Call in. Question Everything.”
- The Atheist Experience Fantastic call-in atheist TV show out of Austin, Texas with big focus on talking with believers.
Great Reads
- Letter to a Christian Nation - by Sam Harris
- Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible & Why - by Bart Ehrman
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
History & Statistics
- Adherents.com Excellent statistics and maps on the subject of religious adherence.
- History of the End of the World This is a great link showing the 220 times the world was predicted to end, but did not.
- Maps of War: History of Religion
- What Charles Darwin believed about religion an excerpt from his biography should clear things up
Favorite Articles
- Frequently Asked Questions for the Newly Deconverted is for new atheists wondering where they go from here
- Jesus Myth the case against the historical Christ
- Why are atheists so angry? Greta Christina has a post that sums the reasons up quite well!
Communities
Advocacy & Activism
Favorite Videos
- Atheist a simply made video with an incredibly inspiring message
- Intelligent Design on Trial An excellent documentary about the controversy that occured in Dover, Pennsylvania over the teaching of evolution.
- My Spirituality as an Atheist One of my favorite videos – truly poignant and beautiful.
- Pat Condell’s Youtube Channel is Atheism on the offensive (controversial, funny & brilliant)
- Potholer54′s Youtube Channel home of the amazing “Made Easy” series (evolution & natural selection, the scientific method, and history of the universe etc)
- Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? is an excellent 24 part Youtube video series by Thunderfoot
The Four Horsemen
- Christopher Hitchens author of “God is Not Great”
- Daniel Dennet author of “Breaking the Spell”
- Richard Dawkins author of “The God Delusion”, “The Blind Watchmaker” & more
- Sam Harris author of “The End of Faith” & “Letter to a Christian Nation”
Meaning of Life Type Stuff
- Ethic of Reciprocity “The Golden Rule” is one of things that guides my life
- One Source of Morality might be from our feelings of empathy
- Secular Humanism check out the Council of Secular Humanism affirmations and declarations
- Secular Humanism on Wikipedia atheism is what I don’t believe & secular humanism is, more or less, what I do
Kick-Ass Science
- Action Bioscience Promoting bioscience literacy. Great articles on evolution, genomics, the environment, biotechnology and more.
- Bad Astronomy My favorite astronomy blog! Written by Phil Plait
- NASA Image of the Day Pure awesomeness!
- Sense About Science responds to the misrepresentation of science on issues that matter
- Wired Science Nice, eclectic mix of science articles from a variety of fields. Always entertaining.
Fun/Entertaining
- Atheist Cartoons Best atheist related comics on the web!
- Jesus & Mo The adventures of modern-day Jesus and Mohammed. What could go wrong?
- The Onion News Network The best satire news on the web. Not an atheist site, but often satirizes religion and religious beliefs.
- xkcd A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language