What age were you when you realised God didn't exist

Fortune_Cookie · 22-04-2011 05:30PM

I don't think I ever believed in God. My mam's family are really religious but my dad's family hate the Catholic Church with a passion. my grandfather's dad died when he was a child and the church forcefully took away my grandfather & his 7 brothers and sisters from his mother. My grandfather never saw his mother again and lost touch with his siblings because they were all sent to different orphanages. The church made huge mistakes in their paperwork which has made it extremely difficult for my grandfather to find his siblings. Most of the younger ones seem to have been sent to America and Australia. He's only managed to find three of them. Listening to grandfather's horror stories about the Catholic Church made me distrust and hate any and all types of religion.

drkpower · 22-04-2011 05:34PM

Yahew wrote: »

The internet aint family. And you are wrong, anyway. I haven't believed since I was 9 but I dont got to Christmas dinner, or Easter and talk about zombie Jesus with "Aunt Mary" who is a believer.

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine. I said that 'amongst many people' discussion of their belief (particularly if they have none) is taboo, to which you recited a personal anecdote, which is next to irrelevent to the point I was making.

I did chuckle, though, when you lamented the modern smug atheist's condescenscion while saying this though.....:D

Yahew wrote: »

I assume my brother doesn't believe either, as he is also a scientist,

philologos · 22-04-2011 05:41PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Fair points on Popper, but the terms of the debate often rest on a scientific view of the world, and Christians will often pick and chose bits to back up their world-view.

I don't see how science leads people more towards atheism than theism, and by the by it is quite common for atheists to use bits of science to back up their worldview. I think its absurd for atheists to say that I'm using science to back up my worldview as if science is actually theirs to begin with or that there are no scientists who are Christian or indeed of other beliefs.

I think science is asking different questions than what Christianity is answering.

Christianity is asking about the ultimate cause of all things and about the meaning of life. Science deals with the mechanics of things.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

However, that dealt with, maybe you could speculate as to what events or circumstances would have to occur in order for you to reject God?

I've heard things that have made me think twice about my faith, but I haven't heard anything that would make me reject Christianity. I can't think of anything that would make me reject Christianity bar if someone could disprove the Resurrection.

Donkey Oaty · 22-04-2011 05:43PM

Fortune_Cookie wrote: »

I my grandfather's dad died when he was a child and the church forcefully took away my grandfather & his 7 brothers and sisters from his mother. My grandfather never saw his mother again and lost touch with his siblings because they were all sent to different orphanages.

That is truly shocking.

123balltv · 22-04-2011 05:50PM

I believe in God always have from childhood to present hes in my heart, part of my life nothing to do with a pervy
priest or nasty church
I hate the church in Ireland I can go to any Catholic church in Spain,Italy,
France etc now they're all Catholic Countries but their churches are so different not as stuffy as our's

Donkey Oaty · 22-04-2011 05:51PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard things that have made me think twice about my faith, but I haven't heard anything that would make me reject Christianity. I can't think of anything that would make me reject Christianity bar if someone could disprove the Resurrection.

Okay, I've a few things to say about your reply, which some might find a bit insulting, but never mind. Moving on:

What would it take to disprove the Resurrection?

stephenjames · 22-04-2011 05:52PM

this a sick and stupid thread!

maybe having the title better worded, as in how old where you before you stopped believing in god!

Donkey Oaty · 22-04-2011 05:56PM

stephenjames wrote: »

this a sick and stupid thread!

You mean it is a badly-phrased heading for a thread, from your point of view.

Who is the sick and stupid person here?

philologos · 22-04-2011 06:03PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Okay, I've a few things to say about your reply, which some might find a bit insulting, but never mind. Moving on:

What would it take to disprove the Resurrection?

I don't know how much it would take. I think there is a pretty good case for it and that I find pretty good reasons to believe that it did happen.

By the by, you shouldn't feel the need to sugarcoat what you say to me. You know that is rare that people give me an easy hearing in AH :pac:

I expect strong opposition.

Donkey Oaty · 22-04-2011 06:54PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't know how much it would take. I think there is a pretty good case for it and that I find pretty good reasons to believe that it did happen.

By the by, you shouldn't feel the need to sugarcoat what you say to me. You know that is rare that people give me an easy hearing in AH :pac:

I expect strong opposition.

Now, I know that you believe in a pack of lies designed by powerful people to get the rest of us to behave in a way that suits their interests.

I also know that there is nothing I can say to un-brainwash you.

I also know that you are not a bad person.

There is not much more I can do other than to wish you well, and say thanks for the chat.

Donkey Oaty · 22-04-2011 07:00PM

Unsugarcoated - not being nasty!

Best wishes to you, Jakkass - over and out.

Dudess · 22-04-2011 07:04PM

stephenjames wrote: »

this a sick and stupid thread!

maybe having the title better worded, as in how old where you before you stopped believing in god!

Agreed but how is it sick and stupid? Sick?

Freddie59 · 22-04-2011 07:10PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

This thread proves just how over-sensitive religious people can be. The name of a thread can get them so angry...

Actually, no. The word I personally would use is bemused. It's amazing how some non-believers get really angry..........at something they think doesn't exist!

RichieC · 22-04-2011 07:15PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Actually, no. The word I personally would use is bemused. It's amazing how some non-believers get really angry..........at something they think doesn't exist!

I get angry at the halfwit believers rather than the superstition itself.

Yahew · 22-04-2011 07:17PM

RichieC wrote: »

I get angry at the halfwit believers rather than the superstition itself.

I get angry at half wit unbelievers. Of which there are an increasing number. It brings the rest of us down.

RichieC · 22-04-2011 07:19PM

Yahew wrote: »

I get angry at half wit unbelievers. Of which there are an increasing number. It brings the rest of us down.

Good for you, sir. keep up the good work.

Yahew · 22-04-2011 07:21PM

drkpower wrote: »

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine. I said that 'amongst many people' discussion of their belief (particularly if they have none) is taboo, to which you recited a personal anecdote, which is next to irrelevent to the point I was making.

I did chuckle, though, when you lamented the modern smug atheist's condescenscion while saying this though.....:D

Why? Most scientists are generally not believers - the whole point of my argument was the difference between smug and smart. My brother is smart but doesnt call others stupid - See RichieC above for a different example.

To explain my position:

All logically smart people are atheists.
Not all atheists are logical or smart.

My anecdote was an example of how people live their lives. You were whining about some taboo about people discussing religion, I explained why religion - outside of the internet, or a skeptics convention - might be a "taboo" in general conversation. If you think that my family is un-representative say so, but I think it isnt.

Alternatively give a different explanation for the taboo.

22-04-2011 07:26PM

I think I was about 14 or so. There was no factual evidence to back the existence of any God(s). Just people telling you to believe.

It conflicts so much with Scientific facts and research that it is in a way laughable. I mean there is just zero proof, and the majority of the religious population began believing in their particular religion because their parents/school and general upbringing forced or encouraged them to. What kind of belief system is that? Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist does not then mean that it does. I could come up with 10 things right now that nobody could prove do not exist, does that mean that they therefore do exist? Nope. I personally find it ridiculous.

drkpower · 22-04-2011 07:27PM

Yahew wrote: »

Why? Most scientists are not believers - the whole point of my argument was the difference between smug and smart. .

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?
But in any case, you appeared to assume your brother to be an atheist solely on the basis that he is a scientist, while criticising condescending atheists. If you cant see the irony in that, I cant help you.:D

Yahew wrote: »

My anecdote was an example of how people live their lives. You were whining about some taboo about people discussing religion, I explained why religion - outside of the internet, or a skeptics convention - might be a "taboo" in general conversation. If you think that my family is un-representative say so, but I think it isnt.

When was I whining?
I was merely pointing out that amongst many people, revealing their atheism is 'taboo', and that that was not a good thing. You then went on to tell me some story about your family. Your story had no wider application so was irrelevent.

Mammanabammana · 22-04-2011 07:44PM

Yahew wrote: »

All logically smart people are atheists.

Can I just clarify this - are you saying here that every single person who has achieved full use of logic and intelligence has become an atheist (thereby implying that every single person who is NOT an atheist has somehow failed to achieve the full usage of either or both of these faculties)?

22-04-2011 07:47PM

Yahew · 22-04-2011 07:59PM

Sacramento wrote: »

yeah, noticed that did you. What a brainiac. I thanked him for a fairly polite response, and I didnt want to continue that argument.

22-04-2011 08:01PM

I thanked you to complete the circle of irony.

Yahew · 22-04-2011 08:05PM

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Can I just clarify this - are you saying here that every single person who has achieved full use of logic and intelligence has become an atheist (thereby implying that every single person who is NOT an atheist has somehow failed to achieve the full usage of either or both of these faculties)?

I think that in modern life I would be surprised to find a scientist who was not an atheist because science explains the world without the need for God, but that does not mean that they are hostile to religious practice, or as smug as the New Atheist. They arent the type to worry about the usage of "Christian" names, or a few remaining hangovers from the past - like Good Friday. Or to claim that the country is a Theocracy.

As for intelligent Christians - there are plenty in history, of course. Most scientists pre-Darwin were believers, and many were priests.

Nowadays I think that, in Europe at least, the average Christian is probably more intelligent than the average atheist, because the latter is common ( thus on average average) and the former less common, so it takes a person able to make their own mind.

There are different forms of intelligence, however, and pure logicial reasoning is not that common. Jackass is pretty smart, but his logical reasoning for God falls short.

philologos · 22-04-2011 08:19PM

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Now, I know that you believe in a pack of lies designed by powerful people to get the rest of us to behave in a way that suits their interests.

Christianity was suppressed by the political system for a very long time. Indeed it is being suppressed by political systems all around the world right now in some countries to the extent that people are being martyred for their faith.

Where's the power?

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

I also know that there is nothing I can say to un-brainwash you.

If brainwashed means freely deciding to accept and follow Jesus consciously then that's quite a definition of brainwashing, no?

Freddie59 · 22-04-2011 09:14PM

RichieC wrote: »

I get angry at the halfwit believers rather than the superstition itself.

Whatever floats your boat Richie. Doesn't really bother me TBH - more puzzles me as I've already said. Only one of us is angry.:)

partyatmygaff · 22-04-2011 09:43PM

Yahew wrote: »

Why? Most scientists are generally not believers

Indeed?

About two-thirds of scientists believe in God, according to a new survey that uncovered stark differences based on the type of research they do.
The study, along with another one released in June, would appear to debunk the oft-held notion that science is incompatible with religion.

http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

All logically smart people are atheists.

So I take it that Isaac Newton, the writer of Principia Mathematica and the developer of so many massive scientific and mathematical advances such as infinitesimal calculus was not logically smart?

- the whole point of my argument was the difference between smug and smart. My brother is smart but doesnt call others stupid - See RichieC above for a different example.

+1
The truly wise never boast of their wisdom.

cucbuc · 23-04-2011 09:20AM

From this boards microcosim its not hard to see why the world is in such turmoil.
Is it just a basic flaw in us that otherwise intelligent people cant just agree to differ when it comes to personal beliefs?

OutlawPete · 23-04-2011 09:51AM

When Schillaci scored.

parker kent · 23-04-2011 10:23AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

When Schillaci scored.

Wait God's main headquarters are in Rome, that may be proof God exists. Looking after his own and all that :pac:

What age were you when you realised God didn't exist

Comments