Alright, this is sort of in response to Podo's (monster's) "feeble attempt" thread.
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of any god whatsoever. Any questions?

Ok I get that you don't beleive in God, but is there anything ese that you choose to beleive in? [not nessecarily god related.]

It's not uncommon - as an atheist - to receive comments like this. If I had a nickel for every time someone asked me, "So you believe in nothing?!" I wouldn't be a millionaire or anything, but I would have a ton of f**king nickels. At the most basic foundation, this question really holds very little relevance. I'm tempted to argue its transparency - the insecurity and fear inherent in most believers. However, I'll just try to answer it instead.

I believe in a shit load of things, but, to keep this broad and short: Science, rationalism, empiricism, philosophy, critical thinking, Gregory House M.D., art, skepticism, life, myself, some of my friends, film, etc. etc.

Although some of these things may appear contrary - these are all things I hold either an honest dispassionate interest in or some sort of vested interest in. They are aspects of my life that I must, in all convenience and reason, engage in to a certain extent. Essentially, they're my life. I believe in tons of things - just like most people do. I just don't believe in mysticism and spirituality.

Atheists, why is it that you blame us for countless murders and the slaughter of innocent people when, if you look at Atheist regimes, ( AKA Communist regimes; i.e Mao Tse Tung, Kim Jung Il, Stalin, Lenin, Fidel Castro, etc,. etc. ) and you find that for each dictator, the killing and the body count starts in the millions for each dictator within a near few years?

Well, in either case, I think it's a generalization to suppose that anyone is suggesting that merely religiosity or irreligiosity are singularly to blame for any one crime or social illness. Society isn't that complex, but it's also not that simple. Sure, religion, I do believe, does hold a certain amount of responsibility for the crimes of the world (the crusades, the inquisition, witch burnings, etc. etc.) - however, I don't subscribe such tragedy to just theism itself (much as most atheists do not). In the cases of atheistic regimes (often Communist in nature) committing mass genocide it's often in the justification of nationalism or a similar dogma - this is something I am chiefly against: dogmatism (much as most atheists are).

The reason I believe that religion has been used as a tool for destruction and "evil" is seated in dogmatism. I am, most immediately, against dogmatic thinking - whether that thinking be religious in nature or not. Dogmatism does not favor critical thinking, questioning, skepticism, or pliability. These are bad things and they often lead to social illness which can later develop into awful "crimes against man." We don't find such crimes hidden behind rationalism, skepticism, science, and reason - the climate is not conductive to such. However, in the case of dogmatism, an individual is reduced to a sheep like follower. Intellectualism, rationality, and free thought are discouraged in favor of obedience - this often occurs in nationalistic countries. This sort of climate allows for such crimes to be committed more easily and without opposition.

The reason religion is so often attacked on this front is due to the fact that religion is one of the most popular, common, and recognized transports of dogmatism. Often its followers and proponents are not encouraged to think or challenge a position. Often its believers are motivated by "divine" rights and wills communicated through revelations which hold irrefutable authority and power (it's hard to convince someone that accepts heaven and a moral divine code of anything contrary to such a position). In the case of nationalism, the divine right is in the superiority of one's country or king. In the case of religiosity, the divine right comes from heaven. In either case, these foundations are difficult to rationally argue against and thus result in fanaticism.

The less falsifiable the belief the more difficult it is to combat (the more susceptible it is to fanatical ends) - because of this, I believe that religiosity is dangerous to society and to the individuals that follow it just as nationalism would be dangerous. What is of real danger, fundamentally, is dogmatic and irrational belief - and atheists feel that religion is full of it.

And, then, of course, I would also point to that reality that man is a vicious creature - religious or not, he is often interested in the imposition of power. This imposition of power can manifest in violent and harmful ways. An atheist can kill just as well as a theist can, and parties which do not believe have killed just as well as parties which do. However, dogmatism is to blame, largely, for some of the more heinous of these crimes. And, dogmatism, is easily found within theism, where I do not believe it is an inherent quality of atheism.

(Oh, just to add: Atheists are less likely to be involved in violent crime, let alone any crime. [1])

Damn those violent catholics.

What flavor of atheism are you eating?

oo nice. im starting to like debate again.

What is your theory of how we are what we are? How did we get here? Like equivalent to God putting us here.

Explicit weak.

I don't deductively posit the non-existence of any god (but a few specifics). I merely lack a belief in any spiritual entity that resembles a god - mainly due to a lack of evidence and the incoherence and inconsistency of most god models. My position is that atheism is the most reasonable, probable, and consistent of "world views".




I don't know. I don't have the resources to confidently decide on any absolute or conclusive (all-encompassing) answer. These cosmological issues are heavily philosophical and often outside of our current grasp and scope. Although, given the contents of the universe, the observed phenomenon within, and our current science, I do believe that all has followed from purely materialistic and naturalistic mechanisms.

I do believe in the reality of a sort of Big Bang (in order to explain the observed hyper-expansion of the universe). I do believe in abiogenesis (as the most rationalistic position towards the emergence of life). And, I am a very firm believer in descent with modification - I wholly subscribe to the modern evolutionary synthesis (the theory of evolution).

Hopefully both yours and my thread will give some insight to some people. Best of luck. I'm gonna' try to get that rebuttal on my thread sooner or later.

what do you think about warren jeffs followers

So belief in no God would mean you're unconstrained by the insecurities of not knowing whether or not you're going to heaven or hell and that your actions after death for good or evil will go unpunished by a Higher Being - because an afterlife cannot exist in Atheism, right?

So what happens when you die? What is the purpose of a life without divinity?

Note: I'm agnostic.

Mormonism, in general, is something I'm rather disgusted with on a very basic level. However, these forms of fundamentalist and fanatical Mormonism manage to transcend this disgust - rising to a whole new level of contempt. Mormonism is immensely dogmatic, increasingly cult-like, and hardwired to intimidate, belittle, and cripple its followers (often from a young age). In the case of Warren Jeff, all of these things were actualized to an even more apparent level. Although I don't care how many wives you have (I don't care about your sexual ethics - not to say I don't practice a pragmatic breed of my own), the FLDS Mormon's conception of polygamy is designed to subjugate - this I do care about. Base line and sinker - followers of such movements tend to fall into two categories: the weak and insecure, and the brainwashed and pressured. Really, I don't find their fellowship much different than any other religious fellowship aside from gradation and severity. But, in either case, it's all f**ked up.




Well, first off, the idea of an afterlife is not entirely mutually exclusive to atheism. Atheism only posits, in its most broad manifestation, a lack of belief. Atheism is not a system of beliefs or a religion much like theism is not. Atheism merely communicates one's non-belief in any sort of god. So, an atheist might happen to believe in ghosts. He might believe in aliens. He might be into taro cards and the Jersey Devil. He might believe in the afterlife. Granted, this is highly unlikely, for, if the atheist is honest and dispassionate in his disbelief, he would, in the same vain, have no courtesy or dispensation for those other innumerable superstitions. In my own personal case, I'm proud to be entirely superstition free - I don't believe in any of that shit. However, it isn't impossible for an atheist to transgress in such a manner (I've met plenty of silly, down right moronic, atheists in my life).

Alright, now, to more directly address these questions:

You die. I don't believe in any sort of afterlife due to several things. Firstly, the lack of any observed phenomena which would suggest such a reality beyond our lives. Secondly, the contrary observations we make everyday which seem to suggest our consciousness is a meaningless byproduct of our material brains and that dissipation and denigration of body is equitable to dissipation and denigration of mind. And, lastly, the obvious psychological fairy tale motivations behind the invention of such an idea - it's very human.

Life is purposeless and meaningless. But we live it anyways. And, billions and billions of people find billions and billions of different excuses (although most of those excuses tend to be very similar or arguably the same). People find comfort and solace in an explicitly detailed meaning or purpose - but that doesn't make one a reality. Largely, I think that people invent purpose and meaning and or look for it (as in the case of religion) in order to sooth their insecurities and weaknesses. The realization of an objectively meaningless world is a troubling reality for the weak and frightened. To an average human being this realization will be battled passionately and without restraint - they will deny the meaningless world in order to protect their world views and maintain a status quo of effortless comfort and familiarity. For many atheists this meaningless world is found bathed in a sort of perverse beauty - an awe and "magic" which denies purpose and extends into infinity. In my own personal case, I've never had a serious existential crisis (at least not to the point of distress). I've once held my existentialistic beliefs concerning the individualistic search for meaning. I've once believed man has within him the power to bring forth meaning and purpose. I've once prescribed to Sartre dictum - "existence precedes and rules essence." And, really, I would still prescribe to such ideas if it were not for my extended philosophical studies - I've become a determinist. But, in either case, life is a blast - without it you'd be dead.

Note: Me too.

how do you react when someone tries to convert you when you inform them you are atheist? do you just reply with, i'm atheist?

what do you think about gay and straight marriage?

Fantastic answer NoSex.

I love it, love it, when people try to convert me. It's always worth an interesting conversation, some good social experimentation, and some good laughs. Also, from time to time, I can learn a little more about myself, a little more about the human race, and maybe a little about another individual. I tend to make my case, listen to theirs, form rebuttals, etc. etc. I almost conduct it as if it were a formal debate - not always, but rather commonly. I'm almost always polite, well behaved, and as respectful as one can be towards someone who thinks some dude walked on water two-thousand years ago. From time to time I like to have a bit of terrorist fun, but that's only in extenuating and special circumstance. Generally, I just talk with them. Hell, I can't tell you how many people I've de-converted myself - probably a hell of a lot more than most Christians.

In my younger years I use to frequent churches and church functions in order to excite these sorts of confrontations. It's often a very worthwhile experience.



I'm sour on marriage in America because of the unrealistic expectations our society holds in concern of romanticism. However, there are very real financial and pragmatic benefits to marriage - these are benefits that I believe any tax paying citizen is due. I don't care if a guy wants to bone another guy - that's fine with me. And, given that they are both tax paying citizens, I think that it is their right to be given fair and equal treatment under the law. This means that I am a full supporter of same sex marriage. Go gay people! Go!



Thank you. The rarity of life enforces its power, beauty, and value. What is this all but a demented waiting room in Christian theology? We have one life to live and I'm pretty determined to take it by the throat, spit in its face, and force intense and unforgiving amounts of pain upon it until it admits I'm its daddy. Life is a mother f**ker, and, ain't it sweet?

Here is something I wrote here on cB maybe a year or more ago, back when I was a bit more naive and a lot less cynical:

"In a way I'm a demi-existentialist when it comes to this question. There is no substantiation for an objective purpose in any life, let alone human life. There is no reason to believe that a sentient force had dictated to each and every one of us, or all of us as a whole, a meaningful direction in life. As far as I am concerned, the universe does not even suspect our existence. We are a meaningless and insignificant blip in the whole history of the cosmos. The thousands and thousands of years that men have walked the earth is just a blink of the eye.

But I find boundless beauty in this conception. The idea that our lives are our own to create. We are responsible for the direction and purpose in our lives. To make uncomfortable and scary our passage, by taking further and further control. The essence of our existence precedes us. Instead of that cold, empty, and arrogant desperation in the ideal of an objective purpose, we have freedom, pliability, humility, and wealth of fullness. There is no end to the road that we must all converge on to be successful or to bring meaning to our lives. In fact, there is no road. There is just a vast and open field. There is a field in infinite length - as infinite as human desire, will, imagination, and freedom. There is a beautiful field. f**k roads."

Sounds nice.

I am also an atheist. Most of the time I really don't like when people try to convert me.
I guess it's because the people that try are generally not very educated about Christianity, or anything else for that matter.
Because of that I can't have an educated debate with most people in my town because almost every intelligent person I know is an atheist.

So, I guess there are two ways to look at everything.

I'm generally in the same exact boat. Although, I think the uneducated are amusing and interesting (in several different ways and from several different angles). In either case, the organization of my own ideas, and the social experience still make the exchange worthwhile - even if the other party acts like a third grader (which is far too often the case). Though, I must admit, these sort of encounters can easily lose their charm and novelty.

I definitely sympathize.

You don't believe in god who made the Earth who made astronomy. When you die where will you go ?

Sir, that is a loaded question. Further, if you do not have the intention of actually reading the thread maybe you should reconsider your involvement in it. Anyways:

Is this your way of promoting atheism? And when you say that uneducated people such as most of us are "amusing" do you mean that you're like fux pro wtf omfg these fuxing noobs need to gtfo?

No.



Yes.

omfg pwnt

Just to comment. You guys--the one who dared to make the original thread and the one one who made a witty response thread--are great. Entertainment is good for the soul.

I guess people here are usually Christian hicks. They believe anything because they are told to, and they haven never looked into what the bible actually says.
Also, the Christians here are the people selling drugs, raping girls, murdering, and robbing. I just don't see the point in believing if you don't follow the rules of your own faith.

I know I am going going to get a response from someone that says "everyone sins" but in my opinion part of being a Christian is to make an effort to not sin and to be the best person you can be.

If you are Christian I really think you should leave the judging and converting up to God, because it's his job anyway!

And about $9071.85.


What do you think about Deism?

Offtopic ALERTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!

What the hell is the difference between a nickle, dime, quater (or however it's spelt)? I'm too lazy to google.

What do you think of Aquinas' arguments for the existence of a god from an ontological approach?

So, you believe in the existing? You, life, art, and such? I wouldn't go as far as to believe in those. I mean, yes, they are real, so I believe they are there. But what are you actually believing in them? I really don't understand. Please, tell me.

How do you deal with the hatred for being a atheist?

do people really hate atheists though? they always say, "oh i feel sorrrryyyy for them. i will pray for you."

idk many who would say they would hate since it's all about "love"

I don't know but people do mistreat atheist because they don't believe in a God. They think they're devil worshipers and hate God. But they don't believe in God so how can they hat what they don't believe exist?

As having experienced both worlds. It's really no difference. Atheists have a faith that there is no god. They'll say it's not faith. In fact, it is faith because they can't prove there isn't a god.

Same goes with Christians and those of all faiths. They have equal faith there is a god. And also have no evidence there is a god.

Judgement weighs in about the same for Atheists and Christians. All those I have met, of both faiths tend to pass judgement on those of opposite and even those within their faith.



And you should hear what atheists say. It's a two way street pal.

If that is the case, then the person is his faith, but a product of his up bringing and other factors affecting mannerisms and personality. As does faith, but you can't say a person is a certain way due to his faith. Where is the rest of the pie chart going to if that is the case?

I wouldn't feel sorry for any one. Christian or atheist. They have choses a specific route to follow and if he happens to change himself, let it be.

That's the great thing about life. Second chances.

A nickel is five cents, a dime is ten, and a quarter is worth twenty-five. Each cent is worth one penny equal to one-hundreth of a dollar. You do the other conversions.

I'm VERY Christian, but I do understand where an aetheist is coming from. It's hard to believe in something you've never seen or experienced. I've had my doubts.

I agree. I heard a atheist say they have a lot of hatred towards them for their beliefs.

It really depends on the people surrounding you. If you live in a city, for example, it's not likely you will deal with people that hate you for being an atheist because it's a lot more common in a city. If you live where Nate and I live, in a small town in Indiana, it's more likely that people will dislike you and avoid even speaking to you unless it's insulting you solely for your atheist beliefs. The more people, the more indifference toward difference. Small towns are a breeding ground for sheepism.

How should you ... and we live our lives?

i'm somewhat tired of relying powerful being to help me ... and always praying.
are you successful?

I know where you are coming from, I live in a small town in Ohio and I know I get treated differently sometimes for being an atheist. Even in my own family.



I know this wasn't directed towards me but I feel that I can help you.
I am very successful. You don't need to pray or believe in God for great things to happen to you. Rather than putting all your faith in someone you don't know is there put all your faith in yourself. If you are smart enough to question the things around you, you are smart enough to do almost anything you really put your mind to.

Live your life like you did before treat people kindly, do what your parents tell you to do, get good grades in school, work hard. Be a good person, being an atheist is no excuse whatsoever to be an a-hole.

aw. thank you. i'm a loser. i HATED myself for not relying on myself.

ughhhh.

thank you.

Deism bores me - it's also sort of a dead movement. On one instance, I can't imagine how people, today, make the transition from theist to deist without, instead, stepping a few more feet into the realm of atheism. Deism is, supposedly, a scientific decision - it removes the more supernatural and unbelievable aspects of traditional theism. However, though impersonal and often apathetic - the god of deism is still a god. Given the scientific atmosphere of today I fail to really see the appeal of deism but for a comfortable transition between theism and atheism. I made a similar transition myself. Before denouncing god altogether, I imagined that he might just not be like anything described in the Bible. But, I still had no basis for such a belief - though I had removed the more outlandish and immediately fairy-tale-esq aspects of religious belief, I still believed in something for which there was no evidence. At that point my deism had blurred into atheism, eventually disappearing altogether.




Thomas Aquinas' "Five Ways," though proposed nearly eight centuries ago, remain, to this day, to be the most popular and often only arguments which are repeated in an effort to prove the existence of a god. And, as I have explored all of them rather extensively, I have found them to be embarrassingly self-defeating on the basis of their own premises.

(As goes your mention of an ontological approach? Are you asking me to compare them to reality or are you referencing the Ontological Argument made popular be Rene Descartes? In the case of the later, I'm an empiricist - I don't believe in a priori knowledge - thus I find all ontological arguments for the existence of god meaningless.)

To address the "Five Ways":

Aquinas' "Argument from Motion" posits that all things which move must have been moved, and then later concludes that god is an unmoved mover. This argument is self-defeating for its conclusion is contrary to its premise. If everything which moves must first be moved itself, then god must, if he is to move, be moved himself.

Aquinas' second and third ways ("Argument from Efficient Causes", and "Argument from Possibility and Necessity") largely resemble his first. All together they comprise what is known as the Cosmological Argument - which is, in of itself, just like the "Argument from Motion." It is, alone, very unconvincing. Not only is it self-defeating, it also ignores temporal inaccuracies in its model. The Cosmological Argument wants the universe to be created, but if the universe is the totality of all things, within it is also the fabric of time. And, as creation is a temporal concept, without the universe (and the fabric of time), talk of "creation" is quite meaningless. In fact, talk of "anytime before" the universe is absurd - what time is therefor before time itself?

Aquinas' fourth and fifth ("Argument from Gradation of Being", and "Argument from Design") ways were designed to identify the creator he felt he proved in his first three ways as the Christian God. The fourth way is something that has nearly disappeared entirely - it's impossible to identify what one thing is "better" than the rest. Such a concept is often considered subjectivist and meaningless. But, the fifth way has indeed become very popular (if not the most popular argument for the existence of a god). The fifth way today is known as The Teleological Argument or The Argument from Design. These arguments, much like the Cosmological Argument, are self-defeating. They posit that things which "appear" to have purpose, have complexity, or have order, must have an intelligent designer. In this case, would not the intelligent designer himself require design for he would be that much more complex and "amazing?" Again, the arguments are contrary to their conclusions. If the argument stands on the improbability and the unlikelihood of our "natural universe" existing without intelligent direction than the argument must also, in its essence, posit the even further improbability and unlikelihood of an exceedingly intelligent, complex, and ordered god existing without intelligent direction. In this way the Argument Design actually supports a natural mechanism (like evolution) which moves in a non-complex, non-intelligent, and non-directed, way towards complexity, intelligence, and seeming direction - for this is the most likely mover in the case of such argumentation - it has within itself the most minimal requirement for intelligent design as it is largely simplistic.

[It was a long weekend - I'll try to get to some of these other questions soon. I'm looking forward to addressing the claim that atheism is a belief held in "faith." That's funny.]

How would you explain the unexplainable? Something not yet proven by science?

i have more to ask but ill edit later, time crunch!

Oh, people f**king despise atheists. I've gotten a lot of guff in my life for all sorts of absurd things (being a rapist, a drug dealer, a devil worshiper, etc. etc.) but the one thing reality does not force itself against is my atheism. I am indeed an atheist - and, a lot of people have thought all sorts of unfavorable things of me for just that. Generally, this does not concern me. Atheism is more accepted and more popular than it has ever been - it's actually sort of nice. And, it has always been a blessing in disguise - people's hatred. When people react to my atheism in such a manner as to signify bigotry, ignorance, or just good ol' stupidity, it's really easy to file away faces in all the right places. Essentially, it becomes really easy to choose your "friends" and to choose your "enemies." I've had plenty of Christian friends, but for each I've probably had three irreligious friends. I'm not too much of a discriminating anus, but, in the same vain, I must admit I don't have much tolerance for spirituality (I pretty much hate it).

But, this disfavor on each case makes a lot of sense - both parties have very different, often very divergent, world views. Theists and atheists are people who see the world dramatically different from one another. This difference cause tension and conflict which often manifests itself in hateful behavior. Altogether though, and this is largely anecdotal, I have found theists to be far more hateful, unforgiving, and uncivil in comparison to atheists. This may have something to do with the fact that for a theist these questions are of utter importance. For an atheist, many of these questions are jokes - they could care less in many cases. A passionate hatred tends to be that much more passionate when hell fire is in question. If I were a Christian, for example, I would be more afraid allowing my children to play with an atheist than I would allowing them to play with child molesters and murders. Think about it - In one case you're risking their immortal and eternal soul, in the other case you're only risking their fleshy bodies. It's a no brainer!

In either case, atheists are definitely one of the most hated, if not the most hated minority in all of America. [1]



A two-way street? Are you kidding me? It's more like a dirt path taken by horse and buggy against about fifty super-highways all headed in the opposite direction. The numbers are staggering. The many people who explicitly hate atheists against those who dislike Christians are stupendous. It's just unyieldingly obvious that is isn't so simple that both parties dislike each other. This is an army of spiritualists against a small band of rogues - it's like a f**king holocaust of hate.

Not that it isn't fun or anything.



So, if we can't prove something absolutely we have "faith" in it? Alright, given that broad interpretation of "faith" then we all have faith in all things to a certain gradation. If you push it enough, there might be no distinction at all - might as well render "faith" as meaningless. Rather, I would like to explore another definition - something I think is more commonly accepted.

Hell, let's use the god damn Bible!

Hebrews 11:1 (NASB)
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Hmm. It's becoming a bit more clear. Simply, I would argue that faith is belief which is disproportional to reason and evidence. Faith is an emotional manifestation - an intricate and masked version of wishful-thinking.

Now, you seem to argue that atheists and theists both have this so-called "faith." Even further, you seem to posit that they have an equitable faith - that it is of similar quality. If this were true evidence and reason would have to be as disproportional in the case of an atheistic position as it would be for a theistic position - this is a proposition of which your initial premises denounce.

You argue that theists have no proof that there is a god, thus they have faith. So, in what case would they not have faith? If they didn't believe in god? Are you starting to see how silly your position is?

To demonstrate by way of analogy: Do I have faith that unicorns and Santa Clause does not exist? If I do, is this so-called "faith" proportional to the faith of believers in unicorns and Santa Clause despite the blatant lack of evidence?

Nate you are one of the most "hardcore" religion hating athiests I know. I have felt it myself. You have barely any tolerance for someone who talks about their faith, almost none. You have a big mouth when it comes to that subject. Sometimes it's as if you go out of your way to offend people when the topic comes up. If a conversation of faith comes up, you're the first one to step up to the plate and try to make a religious person look stupid for being religious. No-one likes someone who makes them look stupid for something that they have grafted into their life. Perhaps the pain your receive from religious people is due to the effects of your own actions. They don't hate athiests, they hate you.

The part about kids, I don't trust anyone Christian or Non-Christian. Yes, Christians are supposed to have a moral standard, but the majority of them don't follow it. People are sinful, and the don't stop sinning. I say that you're just as likely to be raped/molested by someone who claims to be a Christian as you are by someone who claims to be an atheist. They are just as sinful as many athiests.

Lol, are you sure they called you a call you a rapist because your an atheist? I never had a problem with athiests. It doesn't bother me when someone believes strongly in something I don't. Believe whatever you want. I'll answer questions about my faith, but I don't need to defend it. xD

The faith part, you're choosing not to believe and we're choosing to the believe. You do have faith that he doesn't exist. I know this because you try so hard to prove us that he doesn't exist. You can't prove he doesn't exist. We can't prove that he does. You're choosing.

People are very closed minded, and those labels aren't the least bit surprising. I have no doubt that he was called such, I've received the same for not believing in any organized religion.

That's just it though, it's people. Not the religion. The people of a religion do hold it's reputation in their hands, however they aren't the religion. I have even been labeled by other Christians. It's not just athiests that receive that kind of treatment.

PS: I have to say, I have never been called a rapist. LOL

I wasn't blaming Christianity for that. I know that the majority (or seeming majority) of Christians don't practice Christianity as it is meant to be practiced (regardless of the presence of a god). Organized religion and it's hypocrisy is one of the major reasons I started to doubt the Christian god. I would have been perfectly brainwashed if:

A. Church wasn't so damn boring.
B. People practiced what they preached.
C. There was more evidence (I know you can't prove/disprove yada yada, I'm just very logic oriented)
D. Interpretations of the Bible that shunned members of society that did nothing wrong (see: Gays) did not come to light and become so prevalent.

I can't blame you for the way you feel. I completely understand. I would never force my beliefs upon someone. I don't know, the only reason I said what I said was: I feel that this has turned into a "bad Christian people" argument. Sometimes, I think that people out side of our religion look down on our religion and not us when they should be doing the opposite. In some ways, I hate Christians just as much as you do. It's depressing to see people brainwashed. Hopefully I'm not as hypocritical as the rest.

People who are civil and non-judgmental about it are just fine with me. Even if they go around having sex with everyone and doing a lot of non-Christian things, I don't care as long as they don't try to lecture me about it.

I understand Christians are looked down upon, but that's only because y'all are the root of the evil in this world. You especially because you're a white male from America. No but seriously, y'all have a shit load of people, not so much atheists/deists/hei ren.

I don't pay attention to it. I turn a blind eye to it all. I'm better off ignoring that kind of behavior until I learn how to deal with it properly.

Way off base; I know a ton of very serious and dedicated Christians who absolutely love me. You're just sort of clueless; you would be better off not trying to play psychoanalysis.



You don't. If you can't explain something it's just that simple, you can't. Inventing some sort of supernatural entity doesn't serve as an explanation, it serves as an excuse - often a comfortable one. (ex: "Where do we go when we die?" "Well, all the bad people go to a very bad place and all the people who believe exactly what I do - I mean, all the people who are good - go to a very good place.")