Question for atheists...

[pocaracas]

The warm fuzzy feeling.
I can get that with a blanket!!
Aye, you believe what was implanted in your brain. And you were implanted with the notion that you belong in this social group called "orthodox christians", and you hang in there by following its rites.

I questioned my faith billion of times, and wanted to find better reasons for believing instead to believe just because I was born where the Orthodox Church is the biggest religious group.

Did you get any answer?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Nodoctrination.

[naimless]

What were the main reasons that led you to the conclusion that you shouldn't believe in God and belong to any religion?

I stopped going to church because I didn't enjoy being lectured about the devil for 2 hours.

I stopped belonging to a religion because it was part of the excuse for fighting where I was, and indeed around the rest of the world.

I stopped believing in god because this universe has no morality about it. It rewards ruthless cunts.

[Mister Agenda]

If all you did is take a break from your religion, you were probably never an atheist in the first place.

I think some Christians define an atheist as someone who doesn't attend church regularly and has pre-marital sex.

[Baalzebutt]

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

I can't believe no one has jumped on this yet.

Are you actually saying that the church does not deal with morality?? I think most of the religious world would disagree heartily with that statement.

For many thousands of years, the church has claimed ownership of morality. In fact, defining morality is one of the single most powerful tools the church has.

If you actually believe that the church does not deal with the question of morality, you are, without question, the single most deluded person who has eve posted here.

Now, on to the second part of your statement.

It is empirically provable that morality is NOT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM a universal constant. If that were true, children in Pakistan would not be getting shot in the face for going to school.

[Annik]

Not to mention morality is definitely not universal.

[Faith No More]

---

If empirical evidence for a metaphysical being is impossible, do you have any non-empirical evidence that doesn't fall flat on its face by relying on logical fallacies?

Yes, I think I have good non-empirial evidence or reasons for believing in God. And not in a God in purely philosophical manner, but in a personal God.

1. In my opinion and opinion of some other theologians and philosphers, religion is not something that deals with politics or science. It's not a job of religion to give answers on such a questions. It doesn't deal with morality as much, because universal moral vaules are familiar to all people. As many scientists pointed out, morality is a product of evolution.

2. So, what is the subject of religion if it's not science, morality, culture? What can it give to us? The answer is that religion deals with our inner state. Religion is interested in transformation of our personality in its completeness. This determines religion as discipline that offers us a way (or ways, if we talk about many religions) how to change ourselves; how to improve and transform some properties and potentials that we have and how to set us free from others.

3. But the question that still remains and that should be resolved is: what God is the real one in which we should believe in? From my point of view, the answer on this question depends on analyzing of different "ways of transformation" and goals that different religions are suggesting to us. It would take too much time to speak about many religions and their teachings and techniques. That's why I'll speak only about religion to whom I belong. It's Orthodox Christianity.

I believe in Christ as a perfect model of person, with whom I want to identify myself, my personality and complete existence. It doesn't mean that the goal (according to Orthodox Christianity) is to convince yourself that you're Christ or something like that. It's rather a mental state someone is trying to achieve by using some techniques and living as a Christian.

But what kind of mental state is it? A state where you're released from negative passions (anger, pride etc.), while positive passions (sex drive etc.) are developed and transformed, so that you now live a new life, that overcomes biological existence. It is existence where you can be in loving communion with God and others in true and full sense of the word.

That's the goal I'm trying to achieve, and I know it is possible (not completely) because there are a lot of people through history who made it. Such people exist even today, and I met some of them.

So, in a brief: I think that other religions don't have better existential models but Christ. I may agree with other religious teachings at some degree, like buddhism and I appreciate some of them, but I think that Orthodoxy gives best answers on some of the most important questions, and has best effects on my person.

5. As I've said, morality has a little to do with religion. Someone who's atheist can be good or evil, and it has nothing to do with his/her beliefs/lack of beliefs. Thus, someone can ask me: "Can you be good without religion?Can you achieve the same goal without your religion"?

Yes, you can be good without religion, and no, you can not achieve the same goal. Although you can improve your potentials, you can not reach the same level of spiritual evolution. My experience and experience of others told me that this is not possible. I have period(s) when I declared myself as atheist, and lived without religion. But I couldn't achieve it. Therefore, I believe that this goal (that we in Orthodox Church call "theosis" or "deification") is a consequence of sinergy of God and man. That's why we insist on taking part in holy communion, where, we believe, we unite with God, through his energies, and on personal effort, that includes fasting, praying and other kinds of asceticism.


Hope this helps to understand my beliefs.

---

But none of that is evidence, is it? I asked for non-empirical evidence for a metaphysical being. Are you saying that the ability to achieve a certain mental state is proof of god?

[fr0d0]

I asked for non-empirical evidence for a metaphysical being.

No you didn't! You asked if he had any, and he answered yes. Now you ask: could you tell me what it is please?

[Tiberius]

The lack of evidence is probably the most common argument that atheists use, but I think it's missing the point, because it leads us to a debate where from the very beginning, the final conclusion is known and evident: there's no evidence that supports God' existence or existence of any other metaphysical being.

So the question remains: why do you think we should believe in things without evidence?

Slow down people, I can not speak with ten of you.

Perhaps you should not have come to a forum of hundreds of atheists and asked them all a question then?

[CleanShavenJesus]

I stopped believing for a while, but I think the thing that really made me get away from Christianity was when I attended Church on Ash Wednesday a couple of years ago. I hadn't gone to Church for a year prior to this. And honestly, I found the church ceremony....slightly disturbing. The way the deacon would say something and everybody in unison would reply the same thing. It sounded like a Satanic chant. I felt like a damn robot. It was disgusting.

Plus, the Gospel reading for that day was from the Book of Matthew, and all it did was blast the Jews and call them "hypocrites". And people were eating up every word, not even questioning it.

I didn't want to be one of those kinds of people. I didn't want to be a damn robot. And there's no reason for me to, and there's no reason for them to.