I'm in the atheist group because it's very clear that man created these stories of immortal supernatural beings due to the FEAR of death and the unknown. Plus even a Christian is 99.9% atheist because they don't believe the thousands of other gods that man has worshipped throughout history!

So how about you guys?

I may be atheist but let me be clear I've gone to church with friends or as a visitor and have nothing against church or Christians. It's just that NO religion can prove life goes on after death.

:wave:

I’m an atheist. Swear to God.

(Old joke :wave:)

Religious people tend to be happier:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Just about every culture starts off believing in some form of God, and every culture that goes strictly atheistic ends up hellish very quickly. People should learn from all that.

I can understand that because the fear of god's wrath can help people lead good, virtuous lives.

I'm just saying there's no evidence it's anything but a man-made coping mechanism.

How widespread it is is the evidence. The odds that all these different little cultures, in jungles and deserts and polar areas all over the world, just imagined a spirit world as a coping mechanism are incredibly small.

Lies, fairytales, & myths can be widespread too! Mythology and fairytales have been spread among humans all over the planet for many thousands of years. Ever since humans began to speak!

What's the difference between myth and reality? You can PROVE reality. I can prove gravity exists. Just pick up an object and drop it & watch it fall.

Unless you can interview a dead person, prove life goes on after death, or bring a god down to earth then religions are just like the myths man has been creating since the dawn of mankind!

You can't prove any of that. You can't prove there's an object or any motion. All you can do is perceive these things - and human perception is flawed. Ironically, in order to prove what you say you can prove, you would require flawless perception - and that would be a characteristic of a God that you say doesn't exist.

The bottom line is the burden of proof is on the BELIEVER to show a certain thing or process exists.

No religious person can meet that burden to actually show a god or afterlife exists. You can't visit heaven or the afterlife in the same way you can book a flight to Chicago or Paris.

My brother-in-law is...and he shared something on Facebook which made my dad hit the ceiling and a passing airplane....

I only know a few atheists and even one guy told me "If I'm In Hell, then that's my fault"!

When one says that they don't believe in God, do they mean that they don't believe in some "grand old man in the sky", or that they don't believe in some benevolent power behind the grand scheme of things that offers hope and courage amidst the drudgery and tragedy often happening in life?

See, even to define God on those latter terms is limiting. So how DO we define God? Or CAN he be defined? Is "definition" even limiting?

How widespread it is is the evidence. The odds that all these different little cultures, in jungles and deserts and polar areas all over the world, just imagined a spirit world as a coping mechanism are incredibly small.

Children all over the world believe in santa clause, but it doesn't make it true.
It is a coping mechanism like when mommy says: "eat your vegetables, or santa isn't coming"!

man created these stories of immortal supernatural beings due to the FEAR of death and the unknown.

It's no different than parents making up the lie of santa clause to keep their kids in line.

"If you're bad, santa won't leave you any presents"!

The believer doesn't have any burden of proof. He or she just has belief. It's the person who claims certainty who has a burden of proof, and not just in religious matters.

EXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point!

People believe in all sorts of CRAZY things but that does NOT make them true! People believe in Bigfoot, aliens, the Loch Ness moster, Yowie, vampires, ghosts, flat earth, the Illuminati, the swamp monster, the giant 200 foot Octopus/Kraken, the moon landing was FAKE, 9/11 terror attacks were an inside job, etc. etc.

Belief is simply faith but NOT evidence!

It's no different than parents making up the lie of santa clause to keep their kids in line.

"If you're bad, santa won't leave you any presents"!

In the same way religion uses fear of god to keep people in line!

The believer doesn't have any burden of proof. He or she just has belief. It's the person who claims certainty who has a burden of proof, and not just in religious matters.

Say hello to the easter bunny for me

In the same way religion uses fear of god to keep people in line!
This reminds me of the Karl Marx quote: "Religion is the opium of the people." I suppose atheists and agnostics are entitled to cite the wars started and millions of dead killed in the name of religion. It's such a shame because life would be bleak had Jesus Christ never walked the face of the earth.

islam is the most evil religion in the world.

Liberalism is second.

Say hello to the easter bunny for me

...as well as The Tooth Fairy!

If I ever have a family...again, big IF...

I'm NOT using the myth of The Tooth fairy nor Easter Bunny...but I'll have the myth of Santa Claus, I will because when the oldest child is 8 or 9, I'll tell them the REAL Santa...St. Nicholas....

. but I'll have the myth of Santa Claus, I will because when the oldest child is 8 or 9, I'll tell them the REAL Santa...St. Nicholas....
It would make more sense for you to tell them the truth from the start instead of lying to them until the age of 8 or 9.

islam is the most evil religion in the world.

Liberalism is second.

:yeahthat :thanks:

This reminds me of the Karl Marx quote: "Religion is the opium of the people." I suppose atheists and agnostics are entitled to cite the wars started and millions of dead killed in the name of religion. It's such a shame because life would be bleak had Jesus Christ never walked the face of the earth.

Maybe he never did.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Maybe he never did.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
What bunkum that link is. Jesus turned the Jewish religion in many respects on its head, so I don't know where the statement "nothing in the Christian message was original" comes from. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

What bunkum that link is. Jesus turned the Jewish religion in many respects on its head, so I don't know where the statement "nothing in the Christian message was original" comes from. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

This is NOT bunk. I'm talking about the historical record OUTSIDE religious texts which is very weak. You can't just accept something simply because it's written in a book or you also believe 1000s of Hindu gods exist and a LOT of other things from other religions! You need CORROBORATING evidence of the Bible and Talmud but that doesn't exist.

There are no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts of Jesus. The Bible was written around 70 years after Jesus allegedly lived by people who NEVER saw him!

That's strange you know?

I'm NOT saying he didn't exist. But the actual historical record OUTSIDE the Bible is very weak & even Christians have admitted this. Even mainstream sources like the Washington post have debated the topic. See below:

There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68e8b614f5ca

You could say that about any individuals born way after someone whose memory has existed for 2000 years.

This is NOT bunk. I'm talking about the historical record OUTSIDE religious texts which is very weak. You can't just accept something simply because it's written in a book or you also believe 1000s of Hindu gods exist and a LOT of other things from other religions! You need CORROBORATING evidence of the Bible and Talmud but that doesn't exist.

There are no eyewitnesses or even contemporary accounts of Jesus. The Bible was written around 70 years after Jesus allegedly lived by people who NEVER saw him!

That's strange you know?

I'm NOT saying he didn't exist. But the actual historical record OUTSIDE the Bible is very weak & even Christians have admitted this. Even mainstream sources like the Washington post have debated the topic. See below:

There are no existing eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus. All we have are later descriptions of Jesus’ life events by non-eyewitnesses, most of whom are obviously biased. Little can be gleaned from the few non-Biblical and non-Christian sources, with only Roman scholar Josephus and historian Tacitus having any reasonable claim to be writing about Jesus within 100 years of his life. And even those sparse accounts are shrouded in controversy, with disagreements over what parts have obviously been changed by Christian scribes (the manuscripts were preserved by Christians), the fact that both these authors were born after Jesus died (they would thus have probably received this information from Christians), and the oddity that centuries go by before Christian apologists start referencing them.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.68e8b614f5ca

So you're saying...

...going to a place of worship is a waste of time?

I won't doubt you think man never walked on the moon...500 people saw Jesus as he returned...and I believe that the creation is true, not only in The Bible...but every ancient civilization has a creation story similar to Adam and Eve!

We have contemporary eyewitnesses at NASA who saw the people who went to the moon. Plus we have/had the actual astronauts themselves! Plus we have video.

So YES I most definitely believe we went to the moon. People forget that our rivals in the Soviet Union, China, & elsewhere would have immediately exposed EVIDENCE the moon landing was fake if they had it!

So you're saying...

...going to a place of worship is a waste of time?

I won't doubt you think man never walked on the moon...500 people saw Jesus as he returned...and I believe that the creation is true, not only in The Bible...but every ancient civilization has a creation story similar to Adam and Eve!

Not at all. I've been to church myself. There are many doubters & even non-believers who go to church.

You know other religious texts make claims too? You believe a story simply because it was written?? Of course not. Every civilization has even MORE fairy tales and myths going back thousands of years. So simply because ancient civilizations have old stories doesn't make them real unless you have corroboration which NO ONE does!

Again, people of faith don't have to "make them real" for you. They don't have to prove anything to you. You're not God - do you understand that? You don't have the perfect knowledge of a god, and because of that you should show good will toward those who disagree with you.

Exactly!

You don't have to prove it because you CAN'T! NO ONE can prove it! That's my point from the start.