Is atheism a liberating and good experience?

[Mister Agenda]

I got to give up a lot of cognitive dissonance, which felt very liberating. No more 'God loves everyone as his own children and is going have any of his children who don't love him back tortured forever' and so forth. It was like untying a knot in my brain.

[CapnAwesome]

I'm not sure what the right word is for what Atheism is as an experience. Empowering maybe. I have no fear of death because I know it to be inevitable. I take care of my body because I know it's the only one I'm going to get. It's almost a nihilistic power, I certainly am not held back from doing things I enjoy because I think some sky daddy is going to punish me. So many of the religious are wasting their lives for a lie. It's sad.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Hello, you voluptuous ragamuffins,

I was watching a lot of Richard Dawkins videos on YouTube recently. He says many things that I find impossible to disagree with. I'm sure you all have had similar experiences, perhaps with Hitchens, maybe even Hicks, Carlin...

Nevertheless, one thing Dawkins mentions is receiving messages from people thanking him for liberating them. Indeed, it baffles me how he sees atheism as a good thing for somebody who had faith to discover.

I am an atheist because it is the most harsh and universal truth I've found, not because it is a good or liberating experience. Indeed, my most euphoric and liberating experience came from believing in karma and Buddhist philosophy utilising things like meditation and lucid dreams (around the age of 15-17).

Even up to around the age of 10 I was raised Christian and happy that I had a higher power in stages 1-2 of Dawkins' scale. As I am now nearing stage 7, quite frankly I can't sleep at night, I don't eat properly, I don't exercise enough any more, I have panic attacks, pains in my neck, migraines, flashing vision etc. and I have little self-esteem or genuine feeling of empathy or compassion for others.

Honestly the main thoughts that go through my head now are, "if I had a gun, I could blow my head off".

As someone who has seen it all, I honestly stop and suggest you rethink your decision to follow atheism based on Dawkins' dogma.

Dawkins is an idiot, and intelligent atheists and theists don't take him seriously.

I feel like writing a manifesto as to why I think Dawkins is worthless, because I think it's valuable reading for most atheists.

But really stop and reason about what you believe and why.

[downbeatplumb]

As someone who has seen it all, I honestly stop and suggest you rethink your decision to follow atheism based on Dawkins' dogma.

Dawkins is an idiot, and intelligent atheists and theists don't take him seriously.

I feel like writing a manifesto as to why I think Dawkins is worthless, because I think it's valuable reading for most atheists.

But really stop and reason about what you believe and why.

Dawkins may be rather blunt and dismissive but in what way is he in error?

[Violet]

Honestly the main thoughts that go through my head now are, "if I had a gun, I could blow my head off".

I'd have done it ages ago... but I first think of all the fantastic people who would extremely put out by my death.

Up to you, depends on if you're the kind of selfish fucker who'd do something like suicide. Bang and it's over... for you. Everyone else has to fucking live with the hole you rend in them.

And really... if you're here to bitch about how much your life sucks and you want it over, then you have something stopping you, and should already recognize the fucking futility of your life-ending desires.

[TaraJo]

Before I became an atheist, I identified as a Christian. In fact, being a Christian was a given, something you didn't really ever question. I think that's why becoming an atheist is freeing to me: I feel like I wasn't able to make that jump until I reached the point where I could allow myself to think, free from societal dogma. It feels a bit like The Matrix: I see the truth now, and I couldn't go back if I wanted to.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Dawkins may be rather blunt and dismissive but in what way is he in error?

The problem is not bluntness. Although submissiveness of reality is a problem.

The problem is not adequately answering the most sophisticated problems of theism, but still eagerly holding on to the mantle of the frontman of atheism.

His best argument is "...well who designed the designer?". Critics have panned The God Delusion.

This man is a PhD Biologist, spent a lifetime in academia, and has no idea his own coworkers mock this argument for its lack of intellectual merit. He's embarrassing.

He claims to want to talk to and/or debate anybody and everybody on the merits of atheism vs religion, but he failed to do the debate everybody wanted to see. And he gave the silliest reasons for backing out.

He's even being mocked by Bible-thumpers for it. As well as his own critics. Other atheists have accused him of cowardice in refusing to do the debate.

And email records about the Richard Dawkins Foundation (as part of the evidence in the Josh Timonen case) allegedly showed that he was having an affair with his secretary for some time.

But the worst part of all is that he is blind to all of this. He's indifferent. He doesn't care about his own coworkers who say "Listen Richard, this argument doesn't work, because of the definitional semantics in play here."

And instead of listening, he puts it in a book!

If you are looking for an atheist celebrity to be a fan of, please, be a fan of Michael Ruse.

[Kousbroek]

The problem is not adequately answering the most sophisticated problems of theism,

There is only one problem with theism.
It is still here ...

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

The problem is not adequately answering the most sophisticated problems of theism,

There is only one problem with theism.
It is still here ...

I think that's what most civilized people say of you when you walk down the street too huh?

You can never justifiably say theism is a problem unless you can give good reasons why.

[Kousbroek]

You can never justifiably say theism is a problem unless you can give good reasons why.

You are a nasty little man.