nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

From today I can call myself an atheist

wingnut32

Well today is the day after about two years of hard thought and experience I can truly be comfortable with the fact that there is no god. Its strange really because its taken 36 years to get to this point which is probably to do with my sometimes intense fear of death.

I suspect like many posters here I was raised a catholic coming from a catholic family and like most in later years stopped going to mass a good few years ago and became a non practicing catholic. As the years passed I really didnt question my religion too much as it provided me with a comfort for my fear. That changed two years ago when I started to watch a program about the Universe.

I couldnt believe the sheer scope, size, distances, make up and evolution of life the whole thing. What really struck me was the age of the earth and then the age of the Universe itself. One of those nights after watching the program it struck me, what the hell was god doing for 15 billion years? Why does the church not address evolution?And then it started and snowballed. I suppose for the first few months I questioned everything in my mind without really talking about it to anyone.

Then I saw the god delusion which made me feel silly and a little angry at the same time for accepting the fairytale and being so ignorant for not questoning it sooner. Anyway the important thing is through the last two years of reasoning, reading and educating myself Ive accepted that death is a natural part of life and this life we have shouldnt be wasted, not one second of it, particularly on man made fairytales.

Well thats me, and today is the first day of the rest of my life and I dont have to thank god for that...:D

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

irishconvert

virmilitaris wrote: »

I think I can be fairly confident when I say that the majority of Atheists are not atheist because of any particular beliefs of any particular religion. That is to say that it's not the finer points, nor even the rougher beliefs of any religion which causes disbelief.

I don't believe in a supernatural magic sky daddy regardless of any other beliefs you wish to append to it.

I don't disbelieve Christianity because of Jesus' immorality, pedophile priests, the genocide and murder in the bible, human sacrifice, homophobia nor any other reason specific to Christianity.

I don't disbelieve Islam because Mohammad was a child rapist or that his 'visions' were quite possibly the result of epileptic fits. I don't disbelieve it because of the way it treats women or it's homophobia or any other particulars of Islam.

I don't believe Judaism because of circumcision, homophobia, silly hats, petty jealous deities etc etc.

I don't disbelieve any of them because it would entail worship of a petty jealous genocidal malevolent dictator. Or any other particulars of any religion.

I don't believe it because it falls at the first hurdle, there is no reason to believe it. There is no evidence for it. I don't believe it for the same reason I don't believe in fairies or leprechauns.

No it's not.

Not liking something and not believing something are very different things.

I don't believe in your god, nor do I like him. If you could prove his existence to me I still wouldn't like him but I would believe in him.

You're also not comparing like with like. Atheism is against theism which would be 'music' in your example, not a particular kind of music.

Go on then. Please explain how Islam is different from Christianity ? How is it 'unique' ? If you can do that then you've got a point.

What makes Islam different from Christianity or Judaism ?

As I said to Beruthiel, I'm not interested in a pointless debate where neither of us will change our opinions. I am just interested in the OP's reasons for his decision.

BTW, the level of smugness in here is choking me, terms such as sky daddy, fairy tales, etc. Actually I think it weakens your point when you have to resort to this. They are designed to make the religious perso feel or look stupid and not a constructive form of debate IMO.

wingnut32

irishconvert wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Ok, you dimiss the idea of a God that created everything, fair enough.

Do you dismiss the possibility that there is intelligent life on other planets? If there is other life, more intelligent and advanced than us, could we have been created by these "beings"? Perhaps we are a big experiment. Do you think that is a possibility, even a remote possibility?

Considering how little we know of the wider universe there is always the possibility that earths situation could be replicated somewhere else based on science and what we know of earths creation. As for the rest, no.

Beruthiel

irishconvert wrote: »

BTW, the level of smugness in here is choking me, terms such as sky daddy, fairy tales, etc. Actually I think it weakens your point when you have to resort to this. They are designed to make the religious perso feel or look stupid and not a constructive form of debate IMO.

I view religion in the same way I view the tooth fairy. For me, the most accurate way to describe it is as a fairy tale.
If you find that smug or not very constructive, then it is because your belief system is being undermined and it bothers you.

virmilitaris

irishconvert wrote: »

As I said to Beruthiel, I'm not interested in a pointless debate where neither of us will change our opinions. I am just interested in the OP's reasons for his decision.

Well why don't you explain further what you meant by talking about looking at other religions.

BTW, the level of smugness in here is choking me, terms such as sky daddy, fairy tales, etc

And whys that ? You believe I should treat religious beliefs with respect ?

On a related note do you know what the Chinese characters for 'god' are ? (At least as in some versions) They literally translate as "Sky Father" so I think 'sky daddy' isn't too much of a stretch now is it ?

Actually I think it weakens your point when you have to use terms such as this. They are designed to make the religious perso feel or look stupid and not a constructive form of debate IMO.

I'll forego using them again in this thread if you answer my last post.

Boulevardier

I consider Deism to be the most reasonable position. The universe cannot have created itself. There must therefore be a higher, but not necessarily personal, being.

The organised religions ask people to beleive too many nonsensical things. Deism, on the other hand, is a product of reason and of reasonability. I commend it to others.

Here is a link:

www.deism.com

robindch

irishconvert wrote: »

terms such as sky daddy, fairy tales, etc [...] are designed to make the religious perso feel or look stupid [...]

No, they are describe the reality of religious belief to an atheist. Much as, I would imagine, belief in the Ancient Greek deities must look to you.

It's entirely up to the religious person reading the descriptions if he/she wishes to self-identify with the religious beliefs concerned to the extent that an insult of the one means an insult of the other.

Dades

irishconvert wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Ok, you dimiss the idea of a God that created everything, fair enough.

Do you dismiss the possibility that there is intelligent life on other planets? If there is other life, more intelligent and advanced than us, could we have been created by these "beings"? Perhaps we are a big experiment. Do you think that is a possibility, even a remote possibility?

I think it's quite possible other life forms exist - possibly more intelligent than ourselves (I mean look at the way people treat each other - would that be difficult?

)

Could we have been 'spawned' by some alien race? Sure - it's a possibility. Though I doubt that alien race would care if women never wore material to cover their heads or if we ate sea creatures on an arbitrarily chosen revolution of the planet.

Boulevardier wrote: »

I consider Deism to be the most reasonable position. The universe cannot have created itself. There must therefore be a higher, but not necessarily personal, being.

Why? Because you said so or because you can't get your head around the idea?

That kind of thinking sounds remarkably like "humans couldn't have evolved from pond scum".

liamw

irishconvert wrote: »

As I said to Beruthiel, I'm not interested in a pointless debate where neither of us will change our opinions. I am just interested in the OP's reasons for his decision.

Why only the OP? The majority of atheists here rejected the religion into which we were indoctrinated. Surely the opinions must interest you...

BTW, the level of smugness in here is choking me, terms such as sky daddy, fairy tales, etc. Actually I think it weakens your point when you have to resort to this. They are designed to make the religious perso feel or look stupid and not a constructive form of debate IMO.

Try giving us some good reasons to think your religion is not a fairytale, and perhaps we will come to respect your religious beliefs? You must have some!

dead one

Beruthiel wrote: »

it is because your belief system is being undermined and it bothers you.

so it means you have superior belief system. Would you kindly brief it? What makes your belief superior.

dead one

virmilitaris wrote: »

Go on then. Please explain how Islam is different from Christianity ? How is it 'unique' ? If you can do that then you've got a point.

What makes Islam different from Christianity or Judaism ?

Please, First tell me what do you know about Islam?

AhSureTisGrand

dead one wrote: »

so it means you have superior belief system

No. No it doesn't

Yahew

liamw wrote: »

Why only the OP? The majority of atheists here rejected the religion into which we were indoctrinated. Surely the opinions must interest you...

So did IrishConvert. I dont want to spoil the atheist party, but I think modern day atheism - with it's late life converts, who see the light at 36 - are quasi-religious anyway. Dawkins is the main prophet, Grayling the secondary one. Hitchens is a bit iconoclastic.

Old style atheists include Terry Wogan, who just gets on with his lack of belief and never a hint of a "sky fairy", or a zombie Jesus. Same with my dad. Same with me.

The new hysterical atheist is a convert, with all the associated zeal and anger.

Boulevardier

Dades, how likely is it really that the universe created itself?

Is it not more reasonable to think it didn't than that it did? Obviously I could be proved wrong by some cosmological equivalent of Darwin, but that has not happened.

Therefore, as things presently stand, I would have to say, like Paul Davies, that the balance of reasonability points more towards external origin.

dead one

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

No. No it doesn't

Rejecting others beliefs is also one's belief.

Beruthiel

dead one wrote: »

so it means you have superior belief system.

I don't have a belief system.

Would you kindly brief it? What makes your belief superior.

I'm an atheist. How can I have a superior belief system if I reject all belief systems?

Rejecting others beliefs is also one's belief.

Utter nonsense. Rejecting fabricated tales is not a belief, it is a rejection in the belief of a fairy tale just as we have rejected the existence of Santa.

seamus

Boulevardier wrote: »

Dades, how likely is it really that the universe created itself?

As likely as any of the other infinite possibilities.

While classical mechanics and cause & effect would lead us to believe that there was a something before there was anything, the physics on which the universe are based can't be used in formulating theories because they didn't exist before the universe. Strictly speaking there was no "before" the universe because time didn't exist until the creation of the universe.

That's the level of complexity we're dealing with. It can't even be expressed as a series of complicated equations on a university chalkboard, never mind as a simple idea.

AhSureTisGrand

dead one wrote: »

Rejecting others beliefs is also one's belief.

Absence of belief is actually belief?

mikhail

Yahew wrote: »

So did IrishConvert. I dont want to spoil the atheist party, but I think modern day atheism - with it's late life converts, who see the light at 36 - are quasi-religious anyway. Dawkins is the main prophet, Grayling the secondary one. Hitchens is a bit iconoclastic.

Old style atheists include Terry Wogan, who just gets on with his lack of belief and never a hint of a "sky fairy", or a zombie Jesus. Same with my dad. Same with me.

The new hysterical atheist is a convert, with all the associated zeal and anger.

I can't recall a poll to quantify it, but my recollection of many stories here from people discussing their loss of faith suggests a large majority of the posters here typically became atheists in their teens, so take your straw man and shove it.

seamus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Absence of belief is actually belief?

Of course it is, otherwise how can you build a straw man on which to declare that your belief system is better than their non-belief system?

wingnut32

Yahew wrote: »

So did IrishConvert. I dont want to spoil the atheist party, but I think modern day atheism - with it's late life converts, who see the light at 36 - are quasi-religious anyway. Dawkins is the main prophet, Grayling the secondary one. Hitchens is a bit iconoclastic.

Old style atheists include Terry Wogan, who just gets on with his lack of belief and never a hint of a "sky fairy", or a zombie Jesus. Same with my dad. Same with me.

The new hysterical atheist is a convert, with all the associated zeal and anger.

In my case Ill disagree. Im not a convert, I hoped this tale was true because of my fear of death and I was ignorant for years continuing to hope. It was a slow realization when I let myself question things that this wasnt right. Kind of like when you realize Santa doesnt exist.

Am I angry?..no! Do I feel abit silly?..maybe but thats life you live and learn. Will I go out of my why to preach to people?..no! If im asked a question Ill respond with an answer true to myself...

dead one

Beruthiel wrote: »

I don't have a belief system.

That is your belief.

Beruthiel wrote: »

I'm an atheist. How can I have a superior belief system if I reject all belief systems?

I am sure you don't meaning.
Here are some of your belief

1. You reject God
2. You place yourself above god by denying him
3. You dont believe in afterlife.
4. You don't believe in Hell.
5. You don't believe in Heaven.
The list goes on. These are your counter beliefs.

virmilitaris

dead one wrote: »

Please, First tell me what do you know about Islam?

Founded by a epileptic child rapist who was gods messenger. Don't like the gays.

Let's just say that's all I know. Now tell me how it's different to christianity.

Dades

Boulevardier wrote: »

Dades, how likely is it really that the universe created itself?

I have no idea! However people more educated than me have posited the idea. Have a read of Stephen Hawking's The Grand Design.

Stephen Hawking wrote:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going

I'm in no-way saying this is all fact, only that we mortals should never write off ideas because we don't understand them.

It appears you have moved the goalposts somewhat!

Boulevardier wrote: »

The universe cannot have created itself. There must therefore be a higher, but not necessarily personal, being.

Boulevardier wrote: »

Is it not more reasonable to think it didn't than that it did?

Again, if I believed I had the brainpower or knowledge to make a decision based on reason, I'd chose option one. But knowing my limitations I'm just going to have to remain open-minded on the question.

wingnut32

dead one wrote: »

That is your belief.

I am sure you don't meaning.
Here are some of your belief

1. You reject God
2. You place yourself above god by denying him
3. You dont believe in afterlife.
4. You don't believe in Hell.5. You don't believe in Heaven.
The list goes on. These are your counter beliefs.

Can you explain what hell is to me?

b318isp

Dades wrote: »

I think it's quite possible other life forms exist - possibly more intelligent than ourselves (I mean look at the way people treat each other - would that be difficult?

Who was it that said that God hasn't done a very good job of earth if he created humans in his likeness? If it was a job he would be sacked.

Probably George Carlin.

liamw

Yahew wrote: »

So did IrishConvert. I dont want to spoil the atheist party, but I think modern day atheism - with it's late life converts, who see the light at 36 - are quasi-religious anyway. Dawkins is the main prophet, Grayling the secondary one. Hitchens is a bit iconoclastic.

Old style atheists include Terry Wogan, who just gets on with his lack of belief and never a hint of a "sky fairy", or a zombie Jesus. Same with my dad. Same with me.

The new hysterical atheist is a convert, with all the associated zeal and anger.

Atheism is still the rejection of belief. People simply just aren't willing to give religion the respect that it doesn't deserve anymore. You think it's fairytales, just like I do. The only difference is that you choose not to say it; that's your own choice.

AhSureTisGrand

dead one wrote: »

That is your belief.

I am sure you don't meaning.
Here are some of your belief

1. You reject God
2. You place yourself above god by denying him
3. You dont believe in afterlife.
4. You don't believe in Hell.
5. You don't believe in Heaven.
The list goes on. These are your counter beliefs.

TROLOLOL

dead one

virmilitaris wrote: »

Founded by a epileptic child rapist who was gods messenger. Don't like the gays.

What is source for this i.e man made distorted history. You have belief in manmade history than what makes you to deny universal truth (God). You can believe a man "Rapist" from distorted facts, Than what makes you to deny God. Can't you listen his cry.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Let's just say that's all I know. Now tell me how it's different to christianity.

No you don't know. Now tell me what makes you to reject christianity and Judasim? Please explain briefly. Than i will explain.

dead one

Beruthiel wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Rejecting fabricated tales is not a belief, it is a rejection in the belief of a fairy tale just as we have rejected the existence of Santa.

You edited your post, which shows you are hiding something from me. Rejecting fabricated tales is not a belief but accepting new fabricated tales like evolution or we are product of chance or We are going on and on because of chance is belief. Why you don't accept you believe in new scientific fairy tales. You put trust in fairy tales purposed by science.

swampgas

Yahew wrote: »

So did IrishConvert. I dont want to spoil the atheist party, but I think modern day atheism - with it's late life converts, who see the light at 36 - are quasi-religious anyway. Dawkins is the main prophet, Grayling the secondary one. Hitchens is a bit iconoclastic.

Old style atheists include Terry Wogan, who just gets on with his lack of belief and never a hint of a "sky fairy", or a zombie Jesus. Same with my dad. Same with me.

The new hysterical atheist is a convert, with all the associated zeal and anger.

It might simply be that modern atheists finally have the confidence to put their heads above the parapet and challenge the religious orthodoxy that surrounds them. There has been a significant shift in the last few years where atheists can more easily declare their lack of religion to the world.

Religion is still very deeply ingrained into the fabric of society. BBC's Desert Island Discs still insist on giving you the bible (along with the collected works of Shakespeare) whether you want it or not.