https://web.archive.org/web/20070616032525/http://nobsword.blogspot.com/1993_10_17_nobsword_archive.html

Alot of you will have a serious animosity to being called religious. If you take a day, and consider just how much of your 24hr period is imprinted with a social pattern of subjective value and culturally sensitive behaviour.

Can we really say Atheism is not simply a new cycle in world religion.

I'm genuinely interested in what people think about abortive civilisations. That is religious movements that have a terminal praxis. It been on my mind a fair bit, because in my own country (Australia) the remaining balance of the century is clearly going to see the rise of an Islamic and Hindu element within my country, and the rapid decline of the DINK Atheist, who admittedly form the bulk of my Urban friends and a minority of the Capital city.

I can appreciate this may seem like a distant problem for thos eof you hunkered up in the USA, with a population of 330million.

Australia has a population of 25million, only 18million are Australian born and the atheist population are the least likely to viabley reproduce any kind of family structure.

Thoughts?

Before I go any further, I want to clarify that I will not end this post with a "gotcha" about spirituality. While some concepts from modern spirituality are indeed encompassed in my post, I'm finding I like the phrase emotional health or well-being much better.

So basically what this boils down to is that I struggle with a variety of physical and mental illnesses and disabilities that hold me back much of the time. Thanks to a recent treatment, I am feeling somewhat normal and have hope for my future. When I've gotten to this point in the past, I have admittedly chased down the spiritual. I've found it hard to differentiate between spiritual concepts and emotional health (in the form of activities like reading, yoga, and meditation) and that is something I'm trying to maintain this separation this time around, because I know I am a happier and more successful person when I pursue these activities.

So I began thinking, in therapy, I've been taught to "reframe" things. So how do I reframe spirituality? There's certainly nothing for me there in the esoteric about it, and I am perfectly happy being in awe of the fact that some of the dots in the sky are fucking galaxies to try and justify some creator or force. So I reframed it as emotional wellbeing. I do think there is value in many things that would fall under the spiritual umbrella. Metta meditation, for example, is something I practice and notice a difference in how I treat others. Mindfulness and insight meditation both calm me and help me focus. Yoga brings me to a place of nearly a high.

So what's the point of this post? I guess I'd like to see if anyone has come to the same conclusion. I don't think anyone would argue there's a divide between atheism and emotional well-being, but I know I have redefined terms a bit. I am not worried about going back to more mystical spirituality, but some of the concepts and practices therein give me too much help to ignore them.

In the last month alone, I've run into three atheists who think evidence and proof are the same thing (i.e. that evidence removes all doubt about something, and is irrefutable).

We can agree that they're two different things, right? Evidence is a fact that supports a position or belief, and proof is evidence that firmly and undoubtedly establishes a fact. Evidence exists for untrue things, and proof does not.

Why do so many atheists disagree with this? Is there some popular atheist who spreads this misconception or something?

As someone who struggles with bipolar disorder, the ones times I have felt "connected with god" were when I was manic. It kind of makes you think that maybe people's religious experiences are really times when they are not quite thinking right.

Let me preface this post by saying that I don’t have anything against Christians. This post is only to share my frustration on ANNOYING Christians who keep commenting about Jesus under videos that are NOT about religion or politics. This is specifically about Christians because I’ve never seen a Jewish or a Hindu or an Islamic person posting about their Gods unless that subject is brought up. (I might be wrong idk)

Please tell me why I came across a “Jesus is coming back, repent” comment under a MAKEUP VIDEO? 😭

Isn’t this shoving their beliefs down everyone’s throats? (Edit: I meant this as an idiom, guys. Don’t take this too literally. I’m talking about a few comments which have phrases like “believe in Jesus” “repent immediately for all your sins” etc)

I will NOT tolerate hatred against any religious groups, including Christians, under this post. Please be respectful

Edit: I did not mean this as an insult. I apologise if I offended anyone

After years of online debating, I'm concluding that a major component of theism is sadism. In no way am I saying that all theists are sadists; I'm not even saying the majority are. I'm saying that people who are prone to sadism would be attracted to religion, particularly the Abrahamic religions, because they involve the extreme punishment that sadists crave. For most of us (like me) who do not enjoy the thought of other people suffering it is hard to comprehend, but I feel as if I've been inside the mind of this type of theist. Unfortunately, they often have a huge influence on how their religion behaves, as their lust for power over others is an extension of their sadism. I'd calculate that about one in four is this type of theist, and I'd also calculate that two of the three others are easily swayed by the sadists.

In this Islam-promoting book someone gave me, I ran across the line that "valid modes of reasoning show that there must be a Creator" this is because, it claims, the first lifeform must have arisen intelligently. Can anyone here tell me why such reasoning is off base?

This is going to probably be one of those topics but i would like honest view points on this. I see the word bible literalists thrown around a lot especially by more open Christians as some kinda backhand statement fundamentalist other(it's also used by atheists) . Problem is the roots the Fundamentalist follow are written in the book, then comes the claim of “well not everything in the book should be taken seriously” well that's pretty true however barring actual parables or Hymns/poems in the books, the book doesn't give any form of indication of what should be taken literally.

Genesis has also been sited by some as non literal which is very odd bcos genesis is referenced by other characters later down in the mythology and there are no reference to the genesis mythos being a parable of some sort. The Literalist / fundamentalist ideals are coming from the book itself and the book itself never mentions anything about people not taking them as fact. Where are they getting the information for what is literal and what isn't from? Is this cherry picking?

The book's issue literalism in reality the practice just shows the splinter in philosophy amongst it's readers/ followers. None of them seem to have the right information according to the other some of them think the story of genesis and it's theme of talking snakes is ridiculous or that the claim a world wide flood is ludicrous but at the same time believe a dude died and got back up in 3 days then later ascended to heaven. This comes off a bit disengenious even though I know they actually aren't trying to be disengenious, it's basically feels like whatever i don't like shouldn't be taken literally.

The churches and it's church fathers oversaw some crazy stuff why weren't they like “oh don't take that part seriously it's meant to be a metaphor”. Also in reality the church fathers couldn't even reach agreements on certain issues actually we will never know some of the early Church fathers bcos their ideas were not popular amongst theologians. The only claim of what's literal and not literal about the bible is really just a matter of opinion nothing else which just kinda makes it seem like cherry picking, or am i just seeing things wrongly?

Lately i'm thinking more and more about that. I know it is mandatory to encourage critical thinking.

I know they themselves have to want to know about religion in the first place and the backfire effect when voicing strong opinions.

The socratic method and asking questions dampens said effect, if you dont overdo it.

How though can someone like me make it easier for young folks to see truth and choose tools that lead to truth? Am i missing something?

(Disclaimer: im not running around deconverting people. I know that wouldn't be healthy for myself. It's about some situations where such topics arise)

Yesterday i saw a reddit post that included a description of fierce debate at a theogical conference between people trying to decide how the snake in the garden of eden must have moved before he tempted Eve and was punished by being made to crawl on his belly. The discussion apparently became quite heated when someone suggested the snake may have used its tail like a spring.

Obviously this would only matter to someone trying to make themselves believe the Bible is literally true and for anyone else it's pure entertainment.

In that spirit, does anyone have any quibbling, unresolvable religious questions that they would like to use to derail a conversation when a religious person is obviously arguing in bad faith?

I'm not going to go into the whole oh religion is about controlling people thing I'm talking more about individuals. The main thing I've noticed with people who ascribe to faith is they want a sense of control of their situations not necessarily them controlling it but more like looking for an actual reason for the situation and assigning it to being controlled by somethings . I cannot count how many times I've heard someone say “i was depressed then i found God”. Kind of interesting how they all find gods in their worst possible times, almost like they're trying to gain control of situations they aren't in control of.

They want to be able to assign any form of misfortune to something and gain hope from something. This is usually how all cult groups gain followers find someone who's usually in that head space where they feel they aren't truly in control of their lives and prey on the fantasy of individuals. I've heard this people found god in depression statements from so many people in several religious groups a very common theme at this point. People simply just like the feeling of having a controlled surrounding even if the control is really nonexistent

Christians and Muslims (and others of course) mostly say that they don't praise and worship their god because or fear, but because of love. Right. Because of their relationship with god. Not because he'll send you to burn in Hell forever as a 'punishment'. It's not punishment but the way, because you don't learn a lesson and then get sent to Heaven. It's just endless torture. Forever. Heaven doesn't even seem that good. It's endless praise. Nobody would want to live forever and ever, literally never ending. Forever! Forever. Life, with its suffering, love, purposefulness, then graceful end, is Heaven to me. Living forever is endless torment also.

They convert people to save us from god. He's a sadistic dictator. It's sad, honestly. They don't realize that they're scared of him. Or do they secretly think so? I always loved him until I actually read the Bible. The Quran is utterly sickening too.

I will attempt to make rational arguments against religion and would enjoy stimulating discussion in the comments. I will divide this into 4 sections

One - Invention

Two - Indoctrination

Three - Monetization

Four - Power, Privilege and Perpetuation

1. Invention - Back when human beings were primitive, when our species of homo sapiens heard the roar of thunder, or saw the flashes of lightning in a storm. How did they think? This is the argument of Democritus of Abdera. The God's did not create mankind, instead mankind invented the God's. Why? Essentially God of the Gaps. At the time religion and God's were invented we lacked microscopes to show us cells to explain our biology. We lacked telescopes to peer outside our planet. Due to this gap in knowledge our primitive ancestors who had but recently discovered fire, housing, agriculture et cetera still were ignorant compared to us and religion became a primitive sort of science where supernatural claims were made to explain the natural laws that were then mysterious, unknown and beyond comprehension.
2. Indoctrination - Following this primitive science a.k.a religion becoming established. The next natural step was using imaginary Gods to create codes of conduct to control people. Here we see how rational thinking was suppressed in favor of concepts like "faith". So Jesus was born of a virgin says the priest. Rationally a critical thinker would question this assertion along biological lines by responsing with, Didn't Mary's egg have to be fertilized by male sperm in order for pregnancy to occur in the first place? Such critical thinking is labelled "blasphemy". So in order to win the hearts and minds of adherents, the religionists had to suppress rational thought and encourage blind belief in their dogmatic doctrines which were imposed as above reproach.
3. Monetization - With commerce emerging in human societies as equivalence of exchange, demand and supply as a means of organizing and maintaining society the religionists saw a great opportunity. Look at the tithe and tax exemptions. The Church for one encourages people to pay them simply by moralizing at them with no real productive value other than feel good songs and sermons from a book that yields no new knowledge. The Bible is simply Genesis to Revelation. If someone is preaching from the same book year in year out how does that imply new knowledge is being produced? So in addition to repeating the same thing over and over again, adherents of a religion work and toil from Monday to Friday, the Clergy simply come in once a week on Sunday and fleece the so called believer, some adherents who are extremely deluded devotees forking over 10% of their income to the predatory priestly class
4. Power, Privilege and Perpetuation - With the minds of the religionists won over by dogmatic delusions, their pockets consistently emptied by swindlers this creates a powerful system in organized religion. Look at the corporate headquarters that these religionists operate from. Some are fancy and beautiful stone cathedrals that the hard working common man labored to produce while the clergy indolently benefitted from. As long as the "offerings" a.k.a fleecing continues unabated organized religion operates under the veneer of an institution of morality while in reality being a dodgy corporation selling fantasies.

What do you all think? Between our primitive ancestors seeking answers, dogmatic delusions being trumpeted as truth and swindlers masquerading as sages? Religion is outdated and erodes the cognitive capacity of society. Thats my take. See you in the comments, Cheers

One thing I've often noticed among prominent atheist commentators, is that there seems to be an almost arrogant pridefulness to their assertions, particularly when confronting/debating religious proponents. I'm not using that to discredit their arguments, I count myself as an atheist as well for the simple fact of having no faith in the metaphysical. It can easily be argued that many religious people also have arrogant pridefulness as well.

My main point though is that I often get this impression, or I should say I feel very "alone" in that I don't often meet others who are atheist who would also count themselves as humble. One thing I've come to realize as I learn and know more about the world is how much I don't know. Only a fool would claim to be wise in all things, and even an expert in one specific niche can't possibly be an authoritative font of all knowledge on the subject. What annoys me thus is the assertion that even irrespective of religion or divine entity, that man's hubris is the greatest thing?

I think many atheists could agree that a moral order can exist outside of religious contexts, and that man can be virtuous without fear of posthumous damnation. Why then is it not more common for atheists to espouse humility as a virtue, to acknowledge that we don't know all things, and that we have not only the capacity, but the historically proven likelihood to be wrong in many key beliefs. The very principle of science itself is founded upon disproving ideas. While it's quite common for atheists to decry the illogical or immoral aspects of religion, should atheists then not make the same fallacy of assuming infallibility? I say we should be humble and revel in the prospect that gives us to grow. Acknowledging we are not perfect is a much better path to becoming better than assuming we already are. While it's easy to cast the same shade towards the institutions we denigrate, we ought put our own house in order before casting stones.

I don't have all the answers to life, all I have discovered is that religion has (thus far) not been the appropriate path for me to gain those answers I seek.

This of course is all a matter of perspective, as I am sure others likely have encountered far more humble atheists in greater numbers than I have, but that is partly why I wished to open the discussion and gather insight from others on their own experiences. Do you, as an atheist, feel humble? Do you know many atheists whom you would describe as possessing a great sense of humility?

I was not raised religious, unlike most Americans. I was aware religions existed, and studied world religions in school, but I didn’t grow up in any faith. Because of this, I’ve had a lot of Christians try to convert me over the years, and what sticks out to me is that they have no idea how to convince someone who wasn’t indoctrinated as a child.

Some examples: “Jesus died for your sins”, I don’t believe in sin. I don’t walk around every day feeling guilty for being alive. So why should I be grateful to some guy doing me a favor I never asked for?

“Without God, how do you know right from wrong?” The same way I have my whole life, my moral compass. I was taught that all humans are equal, and that they deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. A good person is honest, kind and fair. God has nothing to do with it. In fact, my life has taught me that how religious someone is has no correlation to how moral they are. There are good and bad people all across the spectrum, and some of the worst people I know are also the most vocally religious.

“You’ll go to Hell if you don’t believe!” This isn’t even a threat, I don’t believe in an afterlife. The only thing that’ll happen to me after my death is decomposition.

“There has to be a God because the Universe needs an original cause to exist.” If thats true, whats so special about the Christian God that I should believe in him and not the thousands of other gods who fill the same role? And if God can exist without a cause, why can’t the universe?

There are more, but you get my drift. Christians are so stuck in their own worldview that they often fail to understand that these are not convincing arguments for someone who isn’t an exChristian. Free from the indoctrination of the church, I was taught the value of empiricism, skepticism and logic. Ive read a lot of the Bible and its the same thing. A whole lot of things are boldly claimed to be True, but no work is put into actually convincing its audience that these stories really happened. The closest it comes are with prophecies, but those are all written and fulfilled within the same book, so they’re as convincing as the prophecy in Harry Potter. There is nothing about the bible that separates it from any other religious text I’ve read.

That is the true power of indoctrination, it drills these concepts into your brain when you’re so young that you have no defenses, which gives christians emotional leverage on you forever. Without all of that, it’s obvious even as a child how silly these people’s arguments are. They defend them so passionately and so obviously want me to believe that I often feel too bad to point out how weak their points are. I just wish people would stop trying to convert me so I can stop having these same circular conversations. Has anyone else had this experience?

I've noticed this in almost every debate with Christians or Muslims it also applies to other religions but I've seen it with them more specifically in an argument or a debate. The more the debate against their religion goes on the more vague their argument gets, its becomes less about is my god true to the possibility of a god. They claim they don't know “God's ways” but create arguments to justify it arguments not in their scriptures that their god never claimed. Arguments like the freewill argument are so redundant and I'm yet to see anyone of them use it in any meaningful way that makes any sense. It's kinda like they never read their bible how can u claim free will in a religion which has predetermined prophecies? Or a being which created a world, holds all the knowledge, can see through all of time and all that will ever happen yet changes it's mind as much as any normal person working in the limits of time almost like it was made up by people. Every single argument they ever dish out can be applied to every other religion like the divine hiddenness or concept of design. Everything moves slowly away from the argument of i know to the arguments of ifs and but disguised in assurances. The more a debate goes on the more abstract their god becomes and it turns from their god to not just every man's god but to every mythological concept ever.

The question of whether or not a literal god exists is a matter of (exo)biology, not philosophy.

Gods who are proposed to be extant and alive are lifeforms. That is how they're described, and I believe that's how they should be approached.

Thoughts?

(Posted elsewhere with my rough thought process and addressing anticipated issues, and was accused of everything but atheism. lmao So I'm keeping it short and sweet.)

An infinite being, by definition has no limits, or flaws. It's perfect in any way that can, or can't be imagined; henceforth, there's no gap between what such a being is and what it wants to be. It would have a psychology we can't even fully fathom, such a being probably lacks desire, or a feeling of something missing, due to being infinite. Humans are finite beings with feelings of something missing, and thus we have desires. We have a gap between what we are, and what we want to be! Due to our limitations, and feeling of something missing, we create to "fill the void" so to speak. Due to all this, it would violate basic logical principles for an infinite god to do anything, let alone create anything. It would be satisfied with merely existing all alone in a endless cosmic void with complete stillness.

A few people religious even atheist I've seen seem to hold the misconception that all atheists believe in science or have a similar world view. This isn't necessarily correct atheists don't have a doctrine we are not a belief system we aren't all atheist for the same reasons. People believe in a lot of things there are atheists who believe in Aliens, some who believe in a multiverse.

A misconception that all atheists stick to science as source is also false we don't all share the same journey. There are ass holes, nice people, bigots, open minded atheists and some who even believe in pseudo-science and use it to prop up misogynistic, Racist, Homphobic acts.

Atheist are not a doctrine just people who don't hold a theistic view we don't have codes we don't all think alike and not every atheist is some smart guy who uses science to understand the world. What led me down to atheism was growing up in a highly theistic society with so many claims and never any evidence , hypocrisy in ideology, seeing through the elite using it as a tool for control and people who i would otherwise look at as good having irrational behaviours or views on certain subject due to their beliefs that they hold no real reason for having. This doesn't apply to all atheist as some have different lived experiences

I feel so closed in and unable to share my viewpoints sometimes because of how people would judge me. Maybe not all of my ideas and viewpoints are “unpopular,” but I feel like if I shared them to the common person, they would view me as a terrible person.

I’m just going to listen a few here:

• There’s no such thing as a soul

• There is no third eye. There is no sense of true self. All of our personality comes from experiences. A simple life-altering event can completely change your personality. Evidence? Look at people with comas or those with head trauma

• Religion preys upon mentally ill people. Spirituality as well

• Calling something as “the devil’s work” or “demons” gives it too much power over you

• If god gives you strength, that takes away from your own achievements

• The “devil” gave us free will because the church wants you to obey

• Horoscopes and Witchcraft is the same thing as essential oils. It’s a placebo effect most of the time. I know because I used to practice both. Psychosis is what made me stop

There’s a bunch more, but of course it dives more into what a lot of atheists believe as well as some more average people. It just sucks not being able to have an open conversation about these things in my day to day life

I'm not a Catholic nor am I a member of the Church of Satan. The Catholic Church in recent years has been accused of many horrible things and is guilty of many horrible things. Yet it still has an image of respectably. The Church of Satan, founded by a confessed spiritual charlatan, Anton Szandor LeVay, and has an unofficial policy of Neo-Conservative Traditionalism, and is currently being run by Peter Gilmore as it's "High Priest." Both of these organizations are, in my mind, excellent examples of why institutionalizing ideas and philosophies is a bad idea. However the Church of Satan is, in the minds of many believers, the worst of the two. I think that's fairly disingenuous and shows the inherit dishonesty of most pious individuals. Yet when I question believers on this matter they seem in almost unanimous agreement. Many say things like the Catholic Church may be fallible but it's an institution founded by "good Christian men" and the Church of Satan is directly responsible for all the evil in the world, because it's godless and promotes sin. Wuh⁉️So I figured I leave it to all the "godless heathens" on this Sub. The Catholic Church VS the Church of Satan which is the WORST?

People often wonder about the ones that go to heaven and if they are worried or crying about the ones that are going to hell, well as of today, I'd never heard a Christian complain of being sad, because they're friend who wasn't a believer and hell and burning. So if they don't care now, they never will

Just thinking out loud

Hello everyone, I am a Protestant Christian and I would like to ask a few questions about some of the personal reasons that you reject Christianity.

Also, I would like to start by making it clear that I respect everyone's religious views and am in no way trying to insult or shame anyone for their religious affiliation.

Here is the list of questions that I have, thank you for answering!

What has been your religious upbringing? Did your parents, or those who raised you,

have religious beliefs? If so, what did they believe and practice?

2. If you could ask God a question, what would you ask Him and Why?

3. What has had the biggest impact on your current beliefs about God and Christianity?

4. What do you believe regarding the Bible?

5. What do you believe about Jesus Christ?

6. Has someone ever shared with you how you could go to heaven?

7. What has been the greatest barrier to you becoming a follower of Jesus Christ?

8. If heaven exists, and you could go there, would you like to know how you can go to

heaven?

9. If not, Why?

I recently watched a discussion with Richard Dawkins and Alex O'connor. I really enjoyed it but there are two things I wanted to address.

First, I felt that Dawkins was kind of "snooty" towards Alex. I think he asked good philosophical questions but Dawkins just went back to his original points that what only matters is what is true and can be proven scientifically. I don't disagree on that, but as atheists/antitheists/agnostics I feel we can and should still talk about morals and ethics.

Second, I read some disturbing stuff in the comment section, not sure if it was just slander.

Did anyone else watch that intervju? What did you think?

Honestly, it's terrifying. I dread the total loss of control to a powerful deity that can do with me as it pleases. Maybe I will become its favorite torture toy. I fear that existence is a cage, and that I'm forever stuck in it, without the ability to permanently leave. Hell isn't the only thing I'm scared of. Maybe after I die, I instead find myself strapped to a hospital bed, forced to think of nothing but terrifying racing thoughts forever, thoughts about being imminently tortured. Maybe I find that this is an unethical scientific experiment. Maybe my life repeats itself (eternal return). Maybe I get reincarnated into a deer that suffers a most painful death by a lion.

I know there's an infinite number of worst case scenarios that I can't disprove, but I still live my life without fretting about them. I'm little worried about getting into a car crash, struck by lightning, or killed by a stray bullet. I want to feel the same way about the afterlife, but I just can't. I see so much suffering, I can't help but think it reflects on the possible creators of this universe. The FEELINGS are what make embracing uncertainty difficult. It's like gorilla glue. I dread I might never recover from this.

"To grunt and sweat under a weary life, but that the dread of something after death, the undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of?"

I saw the word about a year ago, can't remember where, that describes evidence-based atheists who won't believe in anything without empirical evidence. Started with P something. Most atheists are like this anyway. I think it's incompatible with agnosticism even though most atheists are agnostics too.

The numerous claims of Mary Baker Eddy and her “Christian Science” cult and how the stories kept building on and get more and more mythologised to “fix” the plot holes. Claims of her origin and claims of her deadly situation refuted by her doctor and Evidence of her time joining a church. The church herself and her apologetics have different stories on what age she even joined a faith/Church. Similar to how Christians can't seem to agree on the historicity of the bible. The church scientists just like other similar religion changed the structure of beliefs to fit the times, narratives or situation. Like suddenly a religious cult which believed in zero medicine all of a sudden now saw the need for Birth to be carried out by authorised personnel after the death caused by these teachings or having a physician to give morphine is now ok bcos she had a physician come treat her (bcos she had kidney stones) or going to a dentists is now alright bcos she got caught going to one and basically now every Christians scientists is allowed. They changed the rules more and more as times kept going, all of a sudden the use of medicine is now good even though their entire thing in the beginning was no to medicine as we are beyond physical properties and sickness, diseases or any of that stuff are all in our heads and we are beyond Matter as matter is false. The stories will always change and the believers cannot seem to see through the ruse, U see these same nonsense with things like formation of Scientology. The only difference between these things and creation of things like Christianity, Islam etc is simple it was actually documented and reviewed by a whole lot of people a world of evidence was already on the rise people could get access to information people couldn't get in the past.

Honestly u can make the same arguments for people outside that I'll use Trump as an example if Trump and his many supporters existed in a time with no cameras or varying news sources like this. And all they had were a few scribes and his followers wrote about him. What would be the concensus on him as a person from how they view him? U would think he was the greatest, most loving, “God sent” man trying to persecuted for “sharing the truth”.

Claims aren't evidences anyone can make a claim and the story of Mary Baker Eddy /Christian Science or the Church of scientology are a good way to look into the creation of mythology and how people will attach themselves and believe in it even though everyone else sees it as nonsense and it having zero validity or evidence of truth

In a recent conversation with a street preacher I was asked if I am a Christian, have I accepted Jesus as my lord and saviour? I answered No. I was then asked why? I tried to make my answer as succinct and short as possible not wanting to engage in a long and tedious conversation, I find these exchanges lead nowhere except to a dead end where neither party is happy.

My answer (and I’m paraphrasing) “your god Yahweh is neither evident or necessary, the bible is not a reliable source of history or fact, it fails miserably. Biblical prophecy is illusory and the claim of the resurrection of Jesus is not evident. Your faith is just that, and I consider blind faith to be debilitating and damaging to inquiry.”

When pressed further I made it clear that as a historian I would happily discuss the historical merits of the old and New Testaments but would not engage in a theological discussion. He asked “have you actually read the bible?” I answered I have which lead me to the conclusions I have and why I am an atheist. But assured him that goes for Allah or any of the thousands of gods that litter history. Despite his obvious desire to engage further I ended our conversation and wished him a good day. Would you have given a different answer, how do you engage with these street preachers when approached?

What is a counterargument for this statement? I have a "friend" (I put this in quotations because she's been borderline psychotic with her obsession with Jesus and my tolerance is dwindling) who won't respect my decision to not be Christian because of my religious trauma. Her statement feels very... invalidating of my feelings.

TIA

Gods will vs Free will

Im in recovery for addiction and i hear all the time gods will, surrender to god/higher power

Now its said god gave mankind free will. This led lucifer to revolt against god because he wouldn’t give it to the angels

Ok now ive been thinking on this, if everything is gods will, his predetermined plan….how can we possibly have freewill???