brakingnews wrote:I'm not sure if people would consider me an atheist or an agnostic. It seems I get labeled as both depending on who's asking. I'm a strict atheist to the idea of a personal god, but I don't know if there was any god according to anyone's definition at all ever.
The reason I'm an atheist is because although I grew up in a Christian household and went to church twice a week (on Wednesdays to a christian youth group and sundays to actual church) eventually I realized that Christianity was really unfair and if god was just then he couldn't exist as Christians defined him.
I didn't understand how christians could say christ existed and billions of people were going to hell but not spend every second of their time converting people. It didn't make any sense that we knew 100% that we were going to hell if we didn't accept Christ, but people were more than willing to spend their time doing nothing rather than saving people. I felt like I was seeing billions of people drowning except for me and my family and tehy didn't feel it was necessary to help others out of the water. I explained this and they suggested I go on missions to other coutnries when I got older, but it still didn't satisfy me.
I eventually decided that if all these people were indeed drowning that it was unfair that I was born out of the water, since i was baptized and grew up christian, but other people were born to families of other religions, thus kind of being born in a net underwater where it'd be very difficult for them to get saved. I never had that sufficiently answered and one question led to another and from the time when I was 14 through 15 I was really agnostic and had no opinion about anything except that I knew Christianity couldn't be true.
When I was 15-16 I began surfing the internet and listening to the argument's of atheists. I read Letter to a Christian Nation and it really only took a month or so after reading such great arguments for me to switch to being atheist. Now I'm 17 and I do not discount the idea of a god period, just the idea of a personal god.
BTW, my family was not ecstatic when they found out. Occasionally I get asked questions like "it must be hard being an atheist" but if I try to explain how for me it's easier to be an atheist I get told to stop harrasing people about my atheism
sorry if I went too deep into my own personal story instead the factual reasons, but i'm new to the board and figured it wouldn't be a bad place to introduce myself as well as answer the question.
brakingnews wrote:When I was 15-16 I began surfing the internet and listening to the argument's of atheists. I read Letter to a Christian Nation and it really only took a month or so after reading such great arguments for me to switch to being atheist. Now I'm 17 and I do not discount the idea of a god period, just the idea of a personal god.
Atheist37 wrote:As a life-long atheist the question I get asked most often is, "where do you get your morals?"
Atheist37 wrote:I enjoyed reading your story, I think it shows that you're a very thoughtful young man. As a life-long atheist the question I get asked most often is, "where do you get your morals?" I think this is a worthwhile topic to spend time thinking over, realizing that some great people spent a lifetime trying to figure it out and perhaps were never totally satisfied with the answer. It's an important skill to be able to make moral or ethical judgments, not just about your own actions but also about the behavior and actions of others. You can see that some of the most prominent religious leaders have made very bad moral choices in their lives, or at least they often show a great deal of hypocrisy.
Anyway, I think it's worth thinking over so that when you're presented with the challenge to back up your moral foundation, that you're ready for it.
PS -- I love your Colbert quote about BS in government! (Big Secularism) The man is a comic genius!
Hi, Baritone. I read your argument. I think it is seriously flawed and I thought I'd point out those flaws, 'cuase I knew you'd appreciate it if I did.
***#1) First, why must it be exclusively that either God is relevant and we are confounded scientifically or that God is not relevant and nonexistent (as you say). Why couldn't the all-knowing, all-loving God that you describe in your argument intervene judiciously in our lives, leaving the bulk of our knowledge and consequent science intact? Isn't it possible that God could merely confound or amaze us just once or twice in a lifetime without us losing all hope in reason? I think it far more reasonable to presume an all-knowing God capable of intervening without causing too much bodily harm.
***#2) Secondly, I don't know why you must assume that if God were to intervene to be relevant that the affect will necessarily by detrimental. Isn't it just as plausible to think that an all-loving, all-knowing God would intervene so as to enhance our knowledge of natural law? Why must God play the role of mischievous little child and confound us rather than be the enlightened teacher who reveals natural law and--presumably--enhances the quality of our lives. Unlike you , I find it far more plausible that if God were to intervene it would be to promote knowledge in truth, not vandalize the cognitive abilities of His created beings.
***#3) Third, and this one bothers me the most. In #2 I offered my view that it more probable that God's intervention would result in an enhanced understanding and improved quality of life for us. In #3 I will assume--for argument--that you are correct and that any circumventing of natural law by God would result in us being confounded in knowledge and science. If that's the case, then you believe that God is capable of malicious acts by subverting our knowledge and science; acts that seriously contradict the all loving, all-knowing God you declare God to be elsewhere in the same post. It's like God can't catch a break here. If God doesn't intervene then He is not relevant and is therefore nonexistent, as you have stated. On-the-other-hand, if God does intervene He confounds us,"thereby making our research meaningless," to use your words.
If I accept what you say is true, that God's intervention would lead to an undermining of our knowledge and science...then God's apparent absence should come as no surprise. After all, by not intervening God is merely acting concordantly with His own nature, honoring our gain in knowledge of the laws of nature and an improved quality of life. That's precisely how I would expect a loving, intelligent God to act.~Jimminy
P.s. You have another argument in your post about suffering and God's Omni abilities, but I don't have time right now. I hope you can help me understand.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest