A Question for Thesists

[Kingpin]

At the age of 21 I became a Christian and found profound change and peace in my own life.  I continue to pursue intelligent reasoning and do not shy away from opposing viewpoints.

With all respect, you 'found' a religion that was most available and familiar to you. Backs up our recent comments completely.

I would be curious of the answers if it was posed to the opposing view.  Most atheists I have conversed with indeed started out in religion and walked away from it because of religion itself (hurt by church, find church people fake) or evil and suffering in the world, or find religious atrocities both current historical etc.  These are also emotion based reasons not to believe.  Not saying that is why anyone here does not believe, just that in my personal experiences that is why I find most people claim to be atheist.

A bit of a mixture really, there are plenty of de-indoctrinated atheists here but a few, like Rob and myself, who never had to go through the pain and torment of childhood brainwashing. The former are advantaged in a deeper understanding of their position unlike myself - I don't have a proper appreciation of the whole process.

Which is the better position depends on your outlook but I would hazard a guess that most deconverts would have preferred not to have gone through the ordeal?

I have no emotional reasons to not believe in any of your gods, it's purely a  need for facts instead of myths. Simple as that really.

You mention that yourself and Rob did not have to go through the childhood brainwashing.  Can I deduce from this that your parents were also atheists?  Could I logically say then that you are just continuing in the belief that you were raised in?

---

"The suffering in the world is not evidence against a god, but it is evidence against a powerful being with our best interests at heart."

I go back to moral authority here.  When you say there is evil, you must assume there is good.  But if there is good and evil there must be a Moral Law to differentiate between the two.  If there is a moral law there must be a moral law giver.  But if there is no moral law giver (no God), there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good, if there is no good there is no evil.  

Because you see such a thing as suffering and evil there must also be love, compassion and goodness.  If a powerful being created a world where there can be no evil and suffering (and also no love, goodness), would that not be equivalent to a world of automatons?  A world where we could only follow what was allowed and have no freedom to choose?  But you ask why would a God create a world where his creation could disobey his rules and reject and hate Him?  

Why do people have children?  Do we not also run the risk of those children rejecting us and disobeying us?  We certainly run the risk, but still feel they are worth creating.

So, you don't believe in heaven, if you keep your story consistent.

How do you come to this statement?  I was responding to Rob's comment regarding suffering in the world being evidence of no God with our best interests in mind.