Top Five Reasons I'm an Atheist

Oct 14, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Buzzle.com

With so many religions, the world over, is atheism a safe retreat for people who want out of this 'religion' retrace? As a scientist, I always followed logic over belief, and I present my personal favorite five reasons to be an atheist.

Comments
181 - 200 of 208 Comments Last updated Apr 7, 2012

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#188 Feb 26, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>What a beautiful post. Dear child you are waking up, and what a incredible light it is, that you will soon see.
I agree-- it is a priceless treasure to meet a thoughtful theist.

>>Especially<< in the world of Topix....!

:)

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#189 Feb 26, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree-- it is a priceless treasure to meet a thoughtful theist.
>>Especially<< in the world of Topix....!
:)
Answers, she searches for answers! Wow! Where ever it may lead her, she has searched and not settled.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#190 Feb 26, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Answers, she searches for answers! Wow! Where ever it may lead her, she has searched and not settled.
Just as we did, once...

:)
Random Internet Surfer

Oxford, OH

#191 Feb 28, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>We can let the bible itself show you ......
2 Kings 18:27, Isaiah 36:12
Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?
Isaiah 9:19-20
Through the wrath of the LORD of hosts is the land darkened, and the people shall be as the fuel of the fire: no man shall spare his brother. And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm.
Ezekiel 4:12, 15
And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man.
Why does god want us to mix poop with barley, cook it and then eat it?
Leviticus 11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you.
God wants people to eat poop, drink piss, eat their own arms, but you are going to hell if you eat a shrimp cocktail! W.T.F. is wrong with the Buybull God?
Then there is Leviticus 26: 28-29 where the buybull god makes it known, that if he gets pissed you are going to eat your own child.
Was that what you wanted, or do you want the Jewsus loves me verses?
Thanks for responding to my question.

I totally agree the Bible has a lot of crazy shit in it, but I was aiming more at finding out why the Bible historically is not credible... like getting past all those b.s. things I get told about the Bible like it being THE WORDS OF GOD. I want to discredit this Apologetics book I read because its context was intellectual, but it pulled a 180 on me because its only arguments were based on what the Bible said.

I mean it really does help that I can point out all the stupid shit in the Bible, but if I were to proclaim that some things in the Bible are stupid, so therefore the generic preachy stories are automatically wrong, its not going to get the desired reaction I want with Bible thumpers. I'm sure that they'll just throw the B.S. at me that some parts are meant to be taken figuratively, or in context with_____. They only see what they want in the Bible.

But if I can accurately attack the foundation of the Bible, by discrediting its sources in any way, that would go over much better, i think. For example, weren't there a bunch of books that were left out of the Bible because they were contradictory to other books in it? I have a theology major friend at Notre Dame that even admitted that the Bible is nothing more than a compilation of a couple culture's understandings of God. But I don't have the details to back up this claim.

Would you mind touching on that? Or sending a link w/e. Sorry for the annoyingly detailed request...
Random Internet Surfer

Oxford, OH

#192 Feb 28, 2012
I just wanted to post this because it made me feel clever.

So I borrowed a different apologetics book from a pastor at this old church my family used to go to. While reading it I got to the popular Liar, Lunatic, or Lord argument. The pastor had highlighted, circled, and wrote in all capitals BRILLIANT!! next to it like it was some groundbreaking new idea.

I've heard that argument before, but that's when I was still on the Christian team. Looking at it in an unbiased way, it occurred to me that Jesus was the first Charles Manson! He was a liar AND a lunatic, and he has a similar background to Jesus:

1. Both had an extremist group of followers that would lay down their lives for their leader.

2. Both groups of followers believed their leader to be god (though manson said he was god and the devil).

3. Both were punished by the government not for direct actions, but for speaking dangerously.

4. Both groups of followers continued to argue the innocence of their leader and recorded his teachings (the Bible versus video recordings that are still being created upon monthly visits to the prison).

Problem?:D
Random Internet Surfer

Oxford, OH

#193 Feb 28, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I suggest you study some of the more modern biblical scholarship.
Here is a site my brother would recommend, I think:
" http://www.centerforinquiry.net/jesusproject&... ;
It's called The Jesus Project, wherein various scholars, clergy and other modern people of faith, have attempted to study the historical Jesus along with the biblical Jesus.
My brother thought highly of the effort (he's a christian much as you are), and considers it excellent scholarship.
And he would have agreed with your TV guy: Noah is a >>parable story<<, one of redemption, not one of punishment. Same for the first parts of Genesis-- parable, the message being quite different than a literal take on those tales.
But I digress-- have a look, you might like what you see there.
Alas, this project came a wee bit too late for myself, things being what they are-- but I would've loved to have had this, back in my 30's.
So I really want to apologize to you Bob. After I read this, I was like "Why the hell does he not say this kind of cordial stuff all the time". I went back to my first post on here and I saw that I was a complete asshole, and my posts were just instigating for a stupid fight.

My friends had told me you can't take atheists on forums seriously because nothing intelligent is said, I checked it out, and that's how I saw Topix. So I got PISSED and iterated my judgement on what I saw.

So long story short, I lost my temper, and I see now that your posts that I considered petty and irrelevant aren't because you're not capable of intelligent posts, but because you treat others how they treat you. I thought about how long you've been on here and how many of these idiots you must have tried unsuccessfully reason with. So I see that when they spit hate at you you're going to poke the bear. I respect that.

Sorry for being a whiney hot head those months ago.:/ Sincerely
Random Internet Surfer

Oxford, OH

#194 Feb 28, 2012
Eh nvm about getting back to me, I think I may just get one of Christopher Hitchen's books.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#195 Feb 28, 2012
Random Internet Surfer wrote:
<quoted text>
So I really want to apologize to you Bob. After I read this, I was like "Why the hell does he not say this kind of cordial stuff all the time". I went back to my first post on here and I saw that I was a complete asshole, and my posts were just instigating for a stupid fight.
My friends had told me you can't take atheists on forums seriously because nothing intelligent is said, I checked it out, and that's how I saw Topix. So I got PISSED and iterated my judgement on what I saw.
So long story short, I lost my temper, and I see now that your posts that I considered petty and irrelevant aren't because you're not capable of intelligent posts, but because you treat others how they treat you. I thought about how long you've been on here and how many of these idiots you must have tried unsuccessfully reason with. So I see that when they spit hate at you you're going to poke the bear. I respect that.
Sorry for being a whiney hot head those months ago.:/ Sincerely
:)

It takes a pretty strong and self-reliant person to admit to a simple mistake.

And it takes someone with real integrity to admit to a large one.

I freely admit to being a wee bit cynical on Topix, having been a regular since 2005, and registered since 2006--

-- as you discovered, I tend to react to people as they first react to me, and I also (I freely admit) tend to not be very forgiving.

But, I can learn too-- and such a heartfelt post as above cannot go unrecognized.

So I would in turn, ask for your to forgive my overt reactionary response to your initial post as well.

Life is too short to stay mad, right?

:)

(I was really not mad-- this Topix is more of a hobby to me, and I am mostly on auto-pilot sifting past the sad, for the occasional jewel to which I may Pay Attention to. I tend to use canned replies to most religious or religious sounding posts, as they tend to be of a repetative nature anyway.)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#196 Feb 28, 2012
Random Internet Surfer wrote:
Eh nvm about getting back to me, I think I may just get one of Christopher Hitchen's books.
I've not read any myself, but they do tend to be critically acclaimed.

I suppose I've never felt the need to be re-convinced that faith is not rational.

Once you come to the conclusion that faith by itself, is irrational?

And that faith is simply a useful short-cut we use to avoid re-examining similar things in our environment?

Such that evidence-based faith is a useful shortcut, but non-evidence based faith is totally irrational, you realize that all religion is based on non-evidence based faith.

And you inevitably come to the conclusion that it's (religion) all bogus.

The rest is only details.

:)
Ocean56

AOL

#197 Mar 15, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I've not read any myself, but they do tend to be critically acclaimed.
I suppose I've never felt the need to be re-convinced that faith is not rational.
Once you come to the conclusion that faith by itself, is irrational?
And that faith is simply a useful short-cut we use to avoid re-examining similar things in our environment?
Such that evidence-based faith is a useful shortcut, but non-evidence based faith is totally irrational, you realize that all religion is based on non-evidence based faith.
And you inevitably come to the conclusion that it's (religion) all bogus.
The rest is only details.
:)
I totally agree. As for Hitchens' books, I've read the "God Is NOT Great, How Religion Poisons Everything." Personally, I thought it was okay, but not particularly outstanding.

It didn't say much of anything I didn't know already, but it might be a good beginning for anyone who is either undecided about religions/churches or considering leaving religion but might be afraid for some reason(s) to do so.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#198 Mar 15, 2012
I must confess that I've never read any books on atheism. When it comes to nonfiction, I tend to choose books that take me into new territory rather than ones that confirm conclusions I've already made. Have I really missed anything?

“"I believe in humans." ”

Since: Apr 09

A place where peace reigns.

#199 Mar 15, 2012
Random Internet Surfer wrote:
Eh nvm about getting back to me, I think I may just get one of Christopher Hitchen's books.
Christopher Hitchens is truly a great author. It's too bad he's dead. He was a great man.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#200 Mar 15, 2012
Random Internet Surfer wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for responding to my question.
I totally agree the Bible has a lot of crazy shit in it, but I was aiming more at finding out why the Bible historically is not credible... like getting past all those b.s. things I get told about the Bible like it being THE WORDS OF GOD. I want to discredit this Apologetics book I read because its context was intellectual, but it pulled a 180 on me because its only arguments were based on what the Bible said.
I mean it really does help that I can point out all the stupid shit in the Bible, but if I were to proclaim that some things in the Bible are stupid, so therefore the generic preachy stories are automatically wrong, its not going to get the desired reaction I want with Bible thumpers. I'm sure that they'll just throw the B.S. at me that some parts are meant to be taken figuratively, or in context with_____. They only see what they want in the Bible.
But if I can accurately attack the foundation of the Bible, by discrediting its sources in any way, that would go over much better, i think. For example, weren't there a bunch of books that were left out of the Bible because they were contradictory to other books in it? I have a theology major friend at Notre Dame that even admitted that the Bible is nothing more than a compilation of a couple culture's understandings of God. But I don't have the details to back up this claim.
Would you mind touching on that? Or sending a link w/e. Sorry for the annoyingly detailed request...
Sorry this took so long, sometimes there is just too much going on, to even get to, some of these threads. The lost books of the bible, are what you are looking for. The gospel of Thomas covers the infancy of Jesus Christ. The 30 odd years that the Holy Bible skims past are fairly well documented there-in. There are lot's of links to them simply google Bible: lost books. Below is my favorite >>
http://www.thelostbooks.com/

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#201 Mar 17, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
I must confess that I've never read any books on atheism. When it comes to nonfiction, I tend to choose books that take me into new territory rather than ones that confirm conclusions I've already made. Have I really missed anything?
I'm with you there-- when I read, I want to be entertained, dammit.

:D
Ocean56

AOL

#202 Mar 22, 2012
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
I'm with you there-- when I read, I want to be entertained, dammit.
:D
lol I like being entertained when reading, plus being able to learn something interesting.

That's why I consider the "holey buybull" (do I have that right?) one of the WORST books imaginable. It doesn't entertain, nor does it teach anything worthwhile.

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#203 Mar 22, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
I must confess that I've never read any books on atheism. When it comes to nonfiction, I tend to choose books that take me into new territory rather than ones that confirm conclusions I've already made. Have I really missed anything?
Yes, conclusions are fine. I have my own, but what is really exciting is when my "conclusions" are challenged. To me, there are NO absolutes. What are your thoughts?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#204 Mar 22, 2012
I think that challenging what I already think I know is one of the ways that good writing takes me into new intellectual territory. Are there any absolutes? I don't know, but even if there are, most of them are probably elusive, even deceptive. It's more useful to take a more fluid approach to ideas both new and old.
Random Internet Surfer

Oxford, OH

#205 Mar 24, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry this took so long, sometimes there is just too much going on, to even get to, some of these threads. The lost books of the bible, are what you are looking for. The gospel of Thomas covers the infancy of Jesus Christ. The 30 odd years that the Holy Bible skims past are fairly well documented there-in. There are lot's of links to them simply google Bible: lost books. Below is my favorite >>
http://www.thelostbooks.com/
I actually just checked back on here for the first time since my last post, so this was good timing.:)
I think your link is perfect for what I was looking for! Thanks a lot
Ocean56

AOL

#206 Mar 25, 2012
To me, the BEST reason for being an atheist can be stated quite simply.

Atheism = FREEDOM. No dogmas required.

Works for me!:-)

“The King of R&R”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#207 Mar 25, 2012
Ocean56 wrote:
To me, the BEST reason for being an atheist can be stated quite simply.
Atheism = FREEDOM. No dogmas required.
Works for me!:-)
Agreed.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should Uninformed Opinion Be Respected? 41 min Patrick 33
I left Creationism! Ask me anything! 42 min Thinking 5
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 45 min Thinking 226,367
The Ultimate Evidence of God 52 min Thinking 59
Our world came from nothing? 55 min Thinking 426
Atheists forgetting the meaning of freedom 4 hr Patrick 52
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 4 hr Patrick 173
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••