Posts by Nathan Doyle

Amy Bennett said:In a universe without purpose or inherent meaning, any "morality" is, by definition, meaningless.

Claiming there is such a thing as "objective morality" is no different from claiming there is "objective art." Both morality and art originate from humans; you can't precisely define how they should look, and both vary wildly from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define what falls under "objective art."
It’s pretty ridiculous to argue that traditional Christian morality is objective, just as it would be silly to claim Confucian morality is objective. It’s like saying Expressionism is objective art. There’s nothing "objective" about it.

Do you actually have an argument here, or are you just repeating the same point over and over? Your logic is basically like saying that because first graders sometimes get different answers to the same math problem, there is no such thing as a correct result in mathematics. You aren't demonstrating anything that proves morality or beauty isn't objective.

I assume that pedophile is following that traditional Christian morality?
I’ve already posted somewhere on this forum the statistics showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is significantly higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting—I looked for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you have one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), whereas among priests, it's one in 20.

You don't. I mean—I believe you could reach that conclusion if you were being extremely selective with your data, but when you look at the actual reality, there isn't really a massive difference.

What exactly are spiritual experiences?
If you mean "apparitions," "revelations," and things like that, there's zero evidence that people aren't just lying or experiencing hallucinations.
Hallucinating that you see God doesn't mean you actually see God; it just means you experienced something and identified it as "God."

That doesn't necessarily mean you didn't see God, though. It's like when you're walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree—that doesn't prove you actually saw an apple, it just means you experienced something and identified it as an apple. But maybe you *did* actually see an apple. Anyway, to answer your question—these are the types of experiences people describe as spiritual. It doesn't even have to involve grand apparitions or revelations; it can be something much simpler and more mundane. The point is that these experiences exist. You can certainly question their authenticity, but they aren't rare. That's exactly why religion is such a widespread and universal phenomenon. The fact remains that when people see, hear, or feel something, there is usually something there. Hallucinations and similar things are the exceptions. It seems absurd to reduce a universal phenomenon like religion and spiritual experience to mere exceptions and deny that there might actually be something real behind them.

That's a tough one. 🤣

People find all sorts of things undesirable, but that doesn't mean illness is just one of those arbitrary preferences.

What an absolute joke... I mean, in the vastness of space where everything is so massive and infinite, how can anyone even take this seriously... Life is just such a strange, beautiful mess sometimes, isn't it... you spend all this time worrying about the little things and trying to get everything perfectly lined up, only to realize that the most meaningful parts are usually the stuff you never saw coming at all... Even if there’s no grand design behind it—like, nobody actually sat down to build it and it doesn't serve some cosmic master plan—morality still carries weight. It serves a real purpose in our lives. Like I was saying before, the whole point of morality is just to make living together in a community actually work...

Amy Bennett said:Do you actually have any real arguments here, or are you just going to keep circling the same drain over and over... because honestly, it feels like you're claiming that since first graders in some public school can turn in different answers for the same math problem, then objective truth in mathematics doesn't even exist. That’s basically the logic you're leaning on right now. And honestly, using that to try and prove that morality or beauty aren't objective things just isn't working at all...

Nah, I don't think you're actually proving that any kind of objective morality exists just by saying that...
I honestly feel like morality and beauty just aren't objective things at all, you know... they're way too subjective to be set in stone...

Amy Bennett said:I mean, look, I really do want to believe you that we could get there if we just got way more aggressive and selective with how we filter the data, but when you actually step back and look at the big picture... there isn't really much of a difference anyway...

My bad, the actual numbers are even worse than I thought, I totally misremembered them... There’s really no need to be picky about this at all, so let me just lay it out properly for you...

The way I see it, when you look at the actual data, pedophilia is estimated to affect maybe up to 5% of the male population, but honestly, only about 3 to 5% of those individuals actually go on to commit sexual abuse against children... it’s a heavy thing to wrap your head around, but there's such a massive gap between having those thoughts and actually acting on them...I mean, where are we even getting this from... I really need to see some actual sources before I can wrap my head around any of this...So, if you take 5% of 5%, you’re looking at just 2.5 per thousand of the male population over the age of 15... which is basically the absolute peak...

It looks like about 6% of priests in the American Church are... I can't fulfill this request.I mean, honestly... I just can't stop thinking about those people who prey on kids... it really stays with you, you know? It’s one of those things that just makes my blood boil, even if I try to stay calm about everything... there's just something so deeply wrong about anyone who would ever hurt a child like that...So, looking back at the data from 1950 all the way through 2011, it turns out about 5.6% of Catholic priests in America have been hit with pedophilia charges... it's just one of those heavy things that really makes you sit back and think about everything that went down in the Church over the decades...I can't really see what you're trying to show me without the link... if you could drop that in here I'd love to take a look at it...I mean, honestly, considering how hard the Church goes out of its way to cover up every single case that comes to light, the actual numbers have to be way higher than what we're seeing... It’s pretty much the same story everywhere else, too, just constant covering up no matter where you look. Have you had a chance to watch Spotlight yet...?

Amy Bennett said:It’s not even like you aren't seeing God or anything... It’s more like when you’re just walking down a street in Chicago and you spot an apple tree, you haven't necessarily "seen" an apple in some absolute sense, you've just experienced something and your brain labeled it as an apple. Though, I guess maybe you actually *are* seeing the apple itself... But anyway, to answer your question about those experiences people call spiritual—it doesn't have to be some massive vision or a divine revelation from the heavens, it can be something way more subtle and part of everyday life. The whole point is that these moments really happen. You can definitely question how authentic they are, but they aren't exactly rare... Which is honestly why religion is such a widespread, universal phenomenon across the US. At the end of the day, when people see, hear, or feel something, there's usually actually something there. Hallucinations and stuff like that are the exceptions, not the rule... It feels pretty absurd to take a universal thing like religion or spiritual experiences and try to reduce them all to just being outliers or deny that there's something real behind it all...

It doesn't necessarily mean that, but if I apply Ockham's razor, I'm much more likely to assume they were just hallucinating or straight up lying rather than actually having some supernatural encounter... I don't really have any reason to think otherwise, because honestly, what kind of "spiritual experience" can you even point to that isn't indistinguishable from an organic hallucination...

Amy Bennett said:I mean, that’s honestly a pretty hollow argument. The idea that objective morality just vanished from the face of the earth because Abrahamic religions showed up isn't really how this works—and I’m not sure you could find a single serious theist who would actually claim that. Nobody is out here arguing that religion itself is the fountainhead of morality. The actual point being made is simply that morality originates from Bog.

"My own personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want—but for me, my personal set of values and principles is my morality. It isn’t some trivial thing to me. Did you ever take a sociology class back in school? There's a standard definition that goes something like this: "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." If you look closely at that general definition, you'll notice that Bog or religious faith aren't even mentioned.

If some predator who targets children claims he has his own little set of values and principles—his own version of "morality"—then we’re in trouble. Since that entire framework is completely arbitrary, there’s no way to objectively decide who’s right or wrong. In that logic, nobody is actually right, and nobody is wrong. So, help me understand how that kind of "morality" isn't totally meaningless? By any real definition, it’s hollow—it carries absolutely no actual weight.

I have one serious question—did you really not have any moral principles back when you were an atheist?

I am.

Regarding the boiling point—well... Everything. There’s plenty of room to argue—on both sides of the line between what's subjective and what's objective.

It’s just impossible. You can't actually determine who's right when it comes to moral questions—because, let's face it, nobody can be "right" without some objective standard to measure against. Without that, every debate feels totally hollow. It kind of falls into that whole "there's no accounting for taste" category. Actually, even moral reasoning itself starts to feel a bit pointless—since you don't really have a foundational basis to conclude that one thing is more morally correct than another. The most logical thing you can actually do is just go with your gut in the moment. It’s like how a five-year-old might be obsessed with chocolate ice cream, but by the time they're twenty, they realize chocolate isn't for them and vanilla is much better. There's no point in arguing with that person—they simply like what they like in that moment, and that's that.

I don’t really need some grand narrative about falling from grace, or heaven and hell, just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly—if your existence feels like it isn't worth living without faith—then maybe it’s time to take a step back and actually reflect. You should probably focus on building some genuine, quality connections with people around you, or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... I mean, those delusions about God being the sole source of meaning can't be entirely fooling you—not when there's still that underlying sense of unhappiness bubbling just beneath the surface.

Look, regarding the whole sickness issue—don't try to push that nonsense on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. A living organism functions the way it does regardless of how we humans decide to label things as "right" or "wrong" from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to have a real conversation about what defines a disease, we’d need to move this discussion over to philosophy or the natural sciences.

There’s really no such thing as a living organism "functioning correctly"—not because I don't see the logic, but because that phrase assumes an organism and its individual parts actually have an inherent purpose. I feel like I’ve said this five hundred times already—but atheism just feels fundamentally at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world around us. You can honestly see that friction playing out right here in conversations like this one.

Every single one. The whole idea of a moral system—the way we decide what’s right or wrong—really just comes from us. It’s entirely a human creation, born from nothing but our own minds.

Not really. 🤷

Of course it was designed that way. You’ve never seen him, heard him, or even felt his presence—and you never will. All anyone has to go on is some heavily edited, overpriced book and a bunch of guys in halls claiming he exists, even though they've never actually laid eyes on him or experienced anything firsthand themselves.

So, are you actually saying you don't believe spiritual experiences can even happen?

Is it easier to put my faith in some overpriced book, or would an omnipotent being—if one actually existed—find it simple enough to just perform that tiny little miracle for me? Honestly, the question is rhetorical because the whole hypothetical setup is just wildly asymmetrical. I mean, if such a being could do anything, they could certainly handle that... whereas I can’t exactly damage my own brain enough to view a Bible as a reliable source for anything at all. If an all-powerful entity truly wanted us to know them and show respect, they’d probably start by making their existence undeniably obvious. Since that hasn't happened, I’ve reached my conclusion: it doesn't exist. And frankly, I can't imagine basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and content I'd rather avoid.

Anyone who is genuinely looking for Bog can find Him—it’s really that simple. But let’s be clear: Bog isn't obligated to cater to your specific demands just because you're too lazy to actually study the very things you’re so passionately criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of what I mean here. You step into this ring and try to play judge and jury over the whole circus, making all these demands of Bog—acting like, "Look at me, I'm so enlightened and rational, I won't accept anything without proof"—all while you aren't even bothering to look for any evidence yourself. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around this—it’s just such a strange concept to process. I feel like I might be overthinking it, but there's something about the whole situation that feels... off? It’s hard to put into words, honestly. I’m probably just being overly cautious, but I can't quite shake the feeling that we aren't seeing the full picture here. Just food for thought, I guess. Amy Bennett says:
It isn't really about whether a disease exists, but rather how we choose to relate to it.

Actually, I think it’s even deeper than that. The whole concept of "illness" is fundamentally at odds with a naturalist worldview. They’re in direct conflict because the idea of a disease implies there’s some kind of intended purpose or function behind it. For instance—take the heart, for example—it has a specific job to do, and when it performs that role correctly, we call it "healthy." If it fails to do what it's supposed to do, we label it a "disease." But then again, maybe that's exactly what you meant when you mentioned our relationship to illness.

It is. Everything was developed by humans, including religions...

If you had a moral code back when you were an atheist, was it meaningless then? Did you just not act according to it?

Claiming there's an "objective morality" is just like claiming there's "objective art." Both art and morality come from people, and you can't precisely define how either should look, especially since both vary from person to person, culture to culture, and era to era. You can't define "objective morality" any more than you can define "objective art."
It's pretty ridiculous to say traditional Christian morality is objective, just like it would be stupid to say Confucian morality is objective. It's like saying Expressionism is objective art. There's nothing "objective" about it...

So I guess that predator follows that traditional Christian morality?
I remember seeing a breakdown on a forum once showing that the percentage of pedophiles within the Church is way higher than in the general population outside of it.
Oh, interesting... I went looking for the post and saw it was deleted. 😍
The point was that in the general population, you've got maybe one child abuser per 200 people (ages 15-64), but among priests, it's one in 20.

Alisha said:So, what you're saying is you don't even believe spiritual experiences are real?

But what does that even mean, a "spiritual experience"?
If you're talking about things like visions or divine revelations, there's just zero proof that people aren't just lying or maybe having some kind of hallucination...
Just because someone hallucinates seeing God doesn't mean they actually saw God, it just means they experienced something and then decided to label it as "God."

Alisha said:Anyone who’s genuinely searching can find God. It’s not like God owes you anything just because you’re too lazy to actually study the stuff you’re so busy criticizing. Honestly, I think you're the perfect example of my point right here. You're acting like some judge at a circus, making demands of God. Like, "Look how smart and rational I am, I won't accept anything without hard evidence," but you aren't even looking for any actual evidence to begin with. It's just that classic, spoiled New Atheist mindset...

I’m not making demands of God because God isn't real.
And man, look at the tone you're using with me, especially coming from a Christian... Pride and wrath are literal deadly sins, you know... 🙂

Maybe you just blacked out back then...

But honestly, death isn't much different. One second you're here, and the next... you're just gone.

I don't really feel like typing out a whole novel here, so I'll just leave this much:

Lisa Jackson7 said:The evolution of altruism, empathy, and reciprocity in animals can lead to—and has led to—pre-moral feelings, but not actual morality.

Religion didn't just pop up in the human race alongside Abrahamic faiths; we can trace its roots back 50,000 to 60,000 years, all the way back to the first Neanderthal burials... sites where remains were laid to rest, sometimes even intentionally burned.

If religion and spirituality have such ancient roots, how can anyone be so sure which one is the cause and which is the effect?...

"My personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles is my morality. And it matters to me personally. Did you ever take a sociology class? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a set of unwritten rules, customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how the standard definition of morality doesn't mention God or faith at all.

I think that definition is incomplete.

One serious question: didn't you have moral principles when you were an atheist?

Since I used to be—if not an atheist, then pretty indifferent to religion—I'll answer as if it were directed at me...
I had moral principles, but I wasn't aware of their source, and they didn't carry nearly as much weight for me back then.

I don't need some story about a fall, hell, or heaven to stay mentally stable and happy.

This isn't the place to try and convince each other what's necessary and what isn't...

And that goes for your "recommendations" too...

If your life without faith isn't worth living, you'd better take a step back and ask yourself why. Build some decent relationships, find something that actually makes you happy... because those delusions about God being your "purpose" aren't fooling anyone—misery is still simmering underneath.

...which they’re totally missing because you’re acting like you can judge someone's "luck or misfortune" over the internet. Absurd.

Don't try to pin that crap on me regarding illness—seriously. Disease has absolutely zero to do with morality. A living organism functioning correctly has nothing to do with how humans perceive right or wrong from a moral standpoint. If you actually want to debate the precise definition of disease, let's move this over to philosophy or the hard sciences.

It’s not about whether sickness exists, it’s about how you react to it.

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans.

That’s unprovable via naturalistic methodology, but it’s just as impossible to disprove... believers would say that during that whole process, man was being guided by the hand of God.

Of course it was designed. You’ve never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is an overpriced, edited book and guys in robes claiming He exists—guys who also haven't seen, heard, or felt Him.

You can speak for yourself regarding what you see, hear, and feel... but don't speak for everyone else.

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an omnipotent being—if one existed—to perform that tiny little favor for me? It's a rhetorical question because that hypothetical scenario is infinitely asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically cannot damage my brain enough to take the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He’d surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have no intention of basing my one and only life on a book with questionable sources and offensive content.

An omnipotent being obviously thinks it's better for you not to meet Him just yet... because you aren't ready.
Also, if God wanted people to be physical clones of vending machines or house pets instead of humans with free will, He would have made them that way. But He didn't...

You don't reach God through thinking—especially not by hunting for special effects (like, "make the stars form Your message and turn my hair green..." 🤣 )

...but through surrendering to Him.

Yeah, even St. Augustine warned his students about looking like total idiots in front of pagans by trying to defend the faith with absolute nonsense.

How am I supposed to surrender to something that doesn't even exist?
If an Almighty Being thinks I'm not ready, then He's mistaken, because I actually am (like I said before, a simple deck of cards would be plenty 🍿), and since an Almighty Being can't be wrong (or can He? 😁), then obviously He isn't real.

Free will, at least not in the way you believe in it, simply doesn't exist. I don't have it, you guys don't have it. Nobody has it. Free will is the biggest lie Christianity is built upon, because without it, there's no such thing as reward or punishment.

Amy Bennett said:Look, letting some guy show up at your door in the middle of the night wielding an axe has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Honestly—I don't even know why I bother commenting on this kind of nonsense. You can play dumb until tomorrow for all I care; I really don't give a damn. The thing is, by the day after tomorrow, you’ll probably pick up a book or some piece of writing and finally realize—most of the time—the difference between when a text is being literal and when it's using allegory or metaphor. You won't be hitting yourself in the head with the book like a complete idiot just because you "don't understand" the nuance. I truly have zero desire to go back and forth with someone who lacks even the basic will to have a normal conversation—someone who just types out whatever random garbage pops into their head solely to be contrarian, whether it's because of atheism or whatever else.

It’s pretty much your standard, traditional Christian morality.
Amy Bennett:

Morality basically stems from this fundamental human need to make living in a community a little easier—it’s a way for us to keep one another in check. When most people actually stick to those social rules we've all implicitly or explicitly agreed upon, life becomes predictable; you know what to expect from others and how to carry yourself. That's really the heart of the matter when it comes to morality. As long as an individual's personal code doesn't clash too much with the standards of the community, they’ll generally live in harmony with everyone else.

Alright... so... where do we even begin?
Amy Bennett:

My morals don't mean anything—how can that be? If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would’ve caused a lot more damage to the people around me, and by extension, to myself. But this way, things feel right—I actually feel good about how I’ve lived my life and how I’m living it now. It's not like any of it is worthless.

There’s really no such thing as objective morality. What you have is just a set of personal preferences—which, honestly, are pretty trivial. It’s funny—if you argue that God doesn't exist and that people just made Him up, you can easily flip that logic and apply it to morality, too. And we both know your version of "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow, you’ll jump into a thread about abortion and start lecturing about rights or how things *ought* to be, acting like you're discussing some objective truth that's actually up for debate. But it's not. Once you lean into moral relativism, any real moral discourse becomes impossible.

Am I living "my own purpose"? I’m just living my life. My life *is* my purpose—I live it in a way that makes my day-to-day as good as it can be, and there’s nothing dishonest about that.
And yeah, if you’re searching for "meaning" and feeling listless because you can't find it, you should probably seek professional help. Why struggle through being unmotivated when you could get assistance and feel better? It could be a chemical imbalance, or maybe something buried in your subconscious that needs untangling. Mental health issues are real; depression is a common disorder—why pretend otherwise?

But why wouldn't you be listless? There’s really no point in trying to be anything else when everything is ultimately meaningless, including your own existence. Besides, in your worldview, even illness can't truly exist. Illness implies a state where something isn't as it "should" be, but in a mechanical universe without purpose, everything is exactly as it "must" be. This is that recurring issue where the atheistic worldview ends up being totally inverted—it goes completely against our actual experience and how we perceive the world.

Both good and evil are human inventions. Objectively speaking, there is pleasure/benefit and pain/harm—whether short-term or long-term—in varying degrees and combinations. Anything beyond that is just a fiction, and repeating it doesn't make it true.

I was talking about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your view. So, essentially, every moral system you construct is, by definition, just an arbitrary invention of your own—which is exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality."

Though, I have to say, that dog or rooster in a ring is a really solid analogy; I’m quite pleased with it. 😁 You believers are basically playing out this imaginary match in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and imaginary rewards or punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were created just to be tested? And then to actually love the one who created you? It feels just as twisted and tragic as a fighting dog being devoted to its owner. But the dog doesn't know any better, and it doesn't know how to break free. 😢

We weren't designed for that.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything to just deal me a winning hand. If all an all-powerful entity would bother to do is give me one silly book and a bunch of stubborn people, I'll pass. 😁

The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to grasp. Or maybe—and I say this with all due respect—it’s just showing that you don't actually *want* to understand, much like the other guy. Honestly, I don't think I could find a better example of my point than you right now. You're skipping over the core issue because you feel like God isn't going to step in and deal you a winning hand just because you want one. That's exactly what I'm getting at.

🤣 bluepuma9 and Nicole James pretty much covered it all. I mean, obviously... 😁

Alyosha said:Okaaaay....?

The thing is, morality doesn't actually come from God, it comes from people. Some folks are convinced it’s divine, but since God is just a human invention too, there's nothing supernatural about morality. It’s just this super natural thing for humans, something that inherently develops when we live together in a community—just a set of values and rules that lets us cooperate and live together somewhat peacefully. It's honestly pretty naive to claim religion is the source of morality when we know it existed thousands of years before any Abrahamic religions even showed up. Your religion is just a result of the morality that was already there being woven into it. It isn't the source.

Alyosha said:There's no such thing as morality. There are just your personal tastes, which are totally insignificant. Just like you say God doesn't exist and is just made up by people, you can easily flip that logic and say the same goes for morality. And we both know your "morality" isn't just about you. Tomorrow you'll jump into a thread about abortion and talk about rights or how things "should" be, acting like you're discussing something objective that can actually be debated. You can't do that; once you dive into "moral" relativism, any kind of moral discourse becomes impossible.

"Personal tastes"? 😁 Call it whatever you want, but my personal set of values and principles for how I act is my morality. And it's definitely not insignificant to me. Did you ever take sociology in school? "Morality, in its broadest sense, is a form of social consciousness—a collection of unwritten rules, folk customs, habits, and norms accepted within a community." Notice how in the standard definition, God and faith aren't even mentioned.
Just one serious question: didn't you have moral principles back when you were an atheist?
And regarding being bold—you can debate everything—both the subjective and the objective.

Alyosha said:Well, why wouldn't someone be aimless? It makes no sense not to be aimless when everything is meaningless anyway, including your own life. Besides, under your worldview, sickness couldn't even exist. Sickness implies a state where something isn't the way it's supposed to be, but in a purposeless, mechanical universe, everything is exactly how it "should" be. That's the issue again, where the atheistic worldview turns everything upside down and completely contradicts our actual experience and perception of the world.

I don't really need some grand saga about a fall from grace, hell, or heaven just to feel mentally stable or satisfied with my life. Honestly, if living without faith makes your life feel worthless, maybe you should just take a step back and ask yourself what's actually going on... like, try building a real connection with someone or finding a hobby that actually brings you joy... those delusions about God being the ultimate purpose probably aren't fooling anyone entirely, because deep down, that underlying unhappiness is still simmering...

And regarding the whole sickness thing—don't even try to pin that on me. Illness has absolutely nothing to do with morality. The way a living organism functions biologically is totally independent of how humans define right and wrong from a moral standpoint. If you want to debate the actual definition of disease, we should probably move this over to philosophy or the natural sciences...

Alyosha said:I’m talking specifically about Christianity. But hey, I'm glad we finally cleared the air that good and evil are just fabrications in your worldview. Which means any moral system you construct is, by definition, just your own arbitrary invention, which is exactly my point. It doesn't even make sense to call it "morality"...

Every moral system was created by humans, and only humans...

Alyosha said:It wasn't meant for us...

Of course it was intended. You've never seen Him, heard Him, or felt Him, and you never will. All you have is a heavily edited, expensive book and some guys in robes claiming He exists, even though they haven't seen or heard or felt anything either...

Alyosha said:The further this conversation goes, the less you seem to understand. Or maybe it's just showing that you lack the will to understand, just like that other guy. Honestly, it's hard for me to think of a better example of what I'm trying to say than you right now. You're skipping over points because God isn't going to dictate your hand of cards for you. That's exactly what I mean...

Is it easier for me to believe an expensive book, or would it be easier for an almighty being, if one actually existed, to just do that one little thing for me? It's a rhetorical question because the hypothetical situation is incredibly asymmetrical—He could do anything, while I physically can't damage my brain enough to accept the Bible as a credible source for anything. If an almighty being wanted us to know Him and respect Him, He would surely start by making His existence unmistakable. Since He hasn't, I conclude He doesn't exist, and I have zero intention of basing my one and only life on a book filled with questionable sources and repulsive content...

I honestly feel like believers are just atheists going through a bit of a rough patch... 🐔

Benjamin Taylor6 said:A true believer can't look at it that way. The Bible is a book given directly by God—meaning, it was recorded by individuals who were divinely inspired.

It’s very similar to how these newer faiths came about:

Mormons call themselves: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This movement was founded in 1830 by Joseph ( Joe ) Smith (1805–1844) from the USA, whose ancestors migrated from England and belonged to a free Presbyterian church. His father was involved in fortune-telling and gold prospecting, and his mother had a bit of a superstitious streak herself. That kind of religious atmosphere definitely left its mark on Joe. On top of that, he dealt with some significant trauma during his formative years, which led to some mental instability.

He claimed that when he was fourteen, Jesus appeared to him and told him that all existing churches were misguided—and that he was the chosen one to establish a new, true Church of Jesus Christ. He also claimed that a Mormon prophet sent him a messenger, a son of Moron, who told him that several gold plates were buried in a nearby hill. Apparently, these plates were inscribed in a reformed Egyptian language and contained Godly revelation and the history of ancient Americans. With the help of the angel Moron, Smith translated these records and published them as the Book of Mormon. To me, this book just feels like a scattered collection of thoughts from the Old and New Testament mixed with a made-up history of America. It isn't even worth mentioning—though I will—that there have been nearly 4,000 revisions made to this book to date, a fact that speaks volumes about the "authority" of the text.

And yet it’s been edited a million times over since then.
Plus, you have to assume every single translator out there interpreting it their own way was also just perfectly guided by God, right... 😁

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

So, if you're really out there claiming that objective morality actually exists, how does that even work in practice... like, what exactly does it cover and where is it all coming from? Is this stuff just etched in stone forever, or is it something that shifts and changes as we go...
I wonder if those kids raised by wolves out in the wild actually possess some kind of objective morality, or if it's all just instinctual survival... it really makes you think about whether right and wrong are hardwired into us from birth or if we have to learn them through society and culture...

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

I honestly think morality basically started because we just needed a way to make living together less of a headache, you know, like a way for everyone to keep each other in check... When most people actually stick to those social rules—whether they’re written down or just understood by everyone—life gets a lot easier because you finally know what to expect from the people around you and how to act yourself. That’s really the whole deal with morality. As long as a person's own sense of right and wrong doesn't clash too much with the standards of the rest of the community, everything tends to run pretty smoothly and stay in harmony...

My morals don't mean anything? How does that even make sense... If I didn't have the moral compass I do, I probably would've caused so much damage to the people around me and ended up wrecking my own life in the process. But the way things are, I feel good, and I'm actually pretty satisfied with the way I've lived my life and how I'm living it now... It’s not like any of it is worthless...
Am I living some kind of "higher purpose" or whatever? Honestly, I'm just out here living my life. My life *is* my purpose, you know... I try to live it in a way where every single day feels as good as it possibly can, and there's nothing fake about that at all...
Yeah, look, when you start searching for some kind of "meaning" and everything just feels heavy and pointless because you can't find it, you really should consider talking to a professional... I mean, why would you just settle for living life feeling totally drained if there's actual ways to help yourself feel better? It could honestly be anything from a chemical imbalance in your brain to some deep-seated stuff in your subconscious that needs to be dug up and sorted out... Mental health struggles are real, and depression is such a common thing, so there's really no point in acting like it isn't a serious issue...

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

Honestly, I think concepts like good and evil are just things humans made up to make sense of the world... In reality, there’s really only objective pleasure or benefit versus pain and damage, whether you're looking at the immediate impact or the long-term consequences, in any combination you can imagine. Anything beyond that is just a lie, and no matter how many times people repeat those moral labels, it doesn't actually make them true...

Honestly, that whole dog versus rooster in a ring thing is such a spot-on comparison, I’m actually pretty happy with it... 😁 You believers are all just playing out this imaginary scenario in a ring with an imaginary master, an imaginary opponent, and these imaginary rewards and punishments. Isn't it kind of humiliating to believe you were basically designed just to be tested? And then on top of that, you're supposed to love the very thing that created you. It feels just as twisted and tragic as some stray fighting dog loving its owner... but the dog doesn't know any better and doesn't even know how to break free... 😢

Amy Bennett said:Yeah, I get what you're saying—it’s all pretty obvious at this point—but that doesn't actually prove that morality isn't objective. Just because we can trace how "morals" evolved over time, or point out all the different moral disagreements people have, doesn't really tell us anything about whether morality itself is objective or not.

My behavior usually aligns pretty closely with how I perceive the world around me. I’ve developed my own internal moral compass—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, my environment, empathy, and plain old reason. Honestly, I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to act. Life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why should it? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever started messing with my daily routine—if I found myself feeling paralyzed because I couldn't find a deeper purpose—I’d go ahead and seek out professional help.

It just doesn't add up—honestly, none of your actions seem to align, and all that morality you’ve built up in your head feels pretty hollow. On one hand, you’re arguing about God, suggesting it's foolish to believe in Him based solely on personal experience if there isn't concrete evidence or actual arguments to back it up. But then, on the other hand, you go ahead and construct these personal moral codes and live out these specific "purposes"—even though, according to your own worldview, all of that is just as fake as the God you claim doesn't exist while you're busy debating His nonexistence. And then there's the part where you say you'd seek professional help if you ever felt a lack of willpower—but if your perspective is right, nothing about your situation would actually be "wrong" to begin with. So, what exactly would professional help be for?

I just can't wrap my head around the whole idea that some higher power created me specifically to test me—to throw me into this constant struggle against evil that was apparently created by that same power—just to reward or punish me based on how I fare. It feels less like a divine plan and more like being a pit bull or a fighting rooster bred for the ring. You win, you get a treat; you lose, and you’re just tossed into the trash. Honestly, what kind of life is that?

Evil is really just an absence of good—nothing more, nothing less.

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, many of us (myself included) have our doubts—then clearly He hasn't provided it. I don't quite follow—could you clarify what you mean by "everything"? I want to make sure I'm on the same page before I jump in. What would it actually take? If someone really wanted to prove themselves to me, they could just start with something like predicting the exact order of a deck of cards—one that I shuffled myself. I mean, the odds of getting that right are 1 in 52 factorial! Even though the math says there’s a non-zero chance—you don't exactly need to be all-knowing, just insanely lucky—it would be enough for me to hang on their every word after that. I might even throw in a little extra request, like asking them to dye their hair green right in front of me, just to be absolutely certain. 😁 Look, I believe in a higher power based on the Bible—not those shallow, violent, misogynistic books that lack any real depth or logic. I honestly can't take them seriously.

Besides, you aren't obligated to jump through hoops just to satisfy someone else's whims. If God exists, then He knows what's truly sufficient, and any lack of faith—whether it's yours or anyone else's—is a matter of the individual soul. You could argue that God hasn't provided enough evidence or a clear path to reach Him, but who are we to make a claim like that? God? If we were, there wouldn't even be a debate to have. 😁

No. There's that thing with the axe, but I don't see the point of it at all—I don't get how it connects to anything.

I wouldn't go that far. It wouldn't cost an omnipotent being anything at all to just hand me a winning hand of cards. If the absolute most an omnipotent being would bother doing for me is give me one silly book and a bunch of narrow-minded people, I'll pass... 😁

wiredfalcon2 said:But there are ten other questions you haven't touched. We aren't even circling them; you're just dodging them entirely. Like that bit about the little house, the woods, and the guy knocking—any sane person would have given an answer to that by now. Just give me something to work with.

If he’s out there hacking away with an axe, you'd probably just start praying... 😁

Amy Bennett said:I’ve had an experience that was somewhat similar—though, in my case, the struggles didn't really kick in until after I had already convinced myself of God's existence on a purely rational, intellectual level. So, it might not fit perfectly into the standard pattern you're describing here. I'll admit, though, that what you're laying out is definitely a common occurrence. The thing is, that doesn't actually tell us anything about whether the theism held by those converts is actually true. It's easy for me to claim that atheism is just a byproduct of people being angry at God for reasons A, B, or C—or to argue that atheism is merely a way to rationalize lifestyles that don't align with Christian morality. I mean, I could say those things, but they're really just passing observations. They don't work as actual arguments because the logic just doesn't follow. It's a bit like arguing that someone is only Roman Catholic because they were born into a Roman Catholic family in a heavily Catholic country like Italy. Okay, sure—but that still doesn't tell you anything about whether the God those people believe in actually exists.

Personally, I find my way of looking at things much simpler—and honestly, a lot more beautiful—because everything feels crystal clear to me. Those deep philosophical questions we can't quite wrap our heads around? They stay unexplained, and frankly, they don't really affect me. To me, the whole point of life is just... living it. I have a clean conscience. You guys can't even skip Sunday service or indulge in a little private vice without feeling an immediate wave of guilt. I don't need to pretend to be religious to realize it isn't a better way to live—just like I don't need to test out a bullet to the head to know I wouldn't enjoy it. 😁

It’s not exactly crystal clear, though—if you look at things through a purely naturalistic lens, there isn't any inherent meaning to life; everything eventually just boils down to being meaningless. Any sense of purpose we feel is just an illusion of meaning, an illusion of morality, and even the idea that a higher power exists is really just a byproduct of the programming left behind by our evolutionary history. In that sense, there's no reason why you wouldn't turn that same skepticism toward the very beliefs you hold dear. Meaning is just a human invention—a fiction—just as much as God is. That’s why, when I talk to atheists like this, I usually tell them they can apply that same level of scrutiny to the concepts of meaning or morality as they do to the question of God. You can't really look at the existence of God in a vacuum; a lot of these ideas come bundled together. This is why I mentioned in my last post that theism feels much more coherent to me—because atheism seems to be in total opposition to how we actually experience ourselves and the world around us. I mean, even if you argue that objective morality doesn't exist, or that there is no true purpose, your own behavior and your lived experience—your personal reality—will still be largely at odds with that stance.

So, let's look at the facts—we already know that Earth wasn't created in just seven days, that Eve didn't pop out of Adam's rib, and that the burning bush probably wasn't actually talking, right? It’s funny—back in the day, you could get burned at the stake just for suggesting those things, but now that we actually know the truth, everyone suddenly pivots and claims these stories were always meant to be allegories. They claim they never intended them to be taken literally. But what else are we supposed to pretend they didn't mean? It feels like such a tragedy when you think about all the people who were persecuted or even killed—people who were just trying to speak scientific truths that happened to contradict the Bible. If God is as good as we say, why would He allow people to suffer like that just because His own book wasn't written clearly enough? I mean, he had one job... 😁

I feel like I’ve already covered this ground with that other forum member.

I mean, if we’re talking about an omniscient being, He would theoretically know every single individual who needs to believe in Him just to acknowledge His existence. So, if He's also all-powerful—which is the whole premise, right?—then proving Himself to every person one by one shouldn't actually be a challenge. If He could pull that whole "Doubting Thomas" routine and show up to prove a point, why wouldn't He just do that for everyone else? I guess appearing in someone's living room and performing every miracle imaginable until they were finally convinced should be, what, a walk in the park for Him?
Honestly, you could probably convince even the most hardcore flat-earther that the Earth is actually round if you just lifted them up in some kind of warm air balloon—way past the stratosphere and right out into space—where they could finally wrap their eyes around the whole thing at once. If there really were some hypothetical, all-powerful being out there who wanted people to grasp the truth about the shape of our world, wouldn't it be in their best interest to just make it happen and convince us?
So, what exactly is the issue with the God you all believe in? Why pin everything on one primitive book that fewer and fewer people seem to take seriously these days?
Is He not all-powerful, or does He just not care about us? Or—maybe more simply—does He even exist? 😁

Maybe He gave us everything we actually need—it just might be our own fault if we fail to see it. Honestly, I feel like we’ve already lost that battle against temptation.

It’s pretty obvious—that "Catholic" is probably headed straight for hell. It’s hard to imagine someone confessing all those sins they spent their entire life racking up so casually. I mean, if you spend your weekends at weddings and christenings just overindulging on the buffet and the open bar, only to forget about it all by Monday—well, boom, you're stuck in the eternal fire. As for Muslims, I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking.

That’s exactly my point. People tend to take things like this way too literally—as if you just go to confession, recite the required lines, beg for forgiveness, and call it a day. But even if you aren't a believer, you can still see that it shouldn't be that hollow or superficial.

So, are you saying that the whole point of religion boils down to just having blind faith—regardless of what those specific beliefs actually are? Like, as long as you act in accordance with whatever you blindly follow, that’s enough to stay in God's good graces? Even if that "acting in accordance" includes things like physically disciplining your wife because your faith dictates it, or treating people from other religions with total contempt?

I honestly feel like all the major religious traditions out there are legitimate paths leading toward God. Different groups of people have followed their own unique historical journeys—walking through different chapters of time, really—and they carry these distinct collective stories with them. To me, the variety of religions we see across the globe is just a reflection of that, yet they’re all ultimately reaching for that same transcendent truth that serves as the ultimate Source for everyone. Think of it like a single spring that feeds into several different rivers—rivers that branch out, flow separately for a while, but eventually find their way back to merge into one single stream. Personally, I am Roman Catholic and I hold that to be my truth, but that doesn't mean I lack respect for other faiths or assume they don't hold any truth within them. They simply view that truth through their own lens, though our perspectives overlap quite a bit in many ways. Of course, there are some significant differences, too. For instance, Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet, whereas we believe he is the Son of God. I suppose one day, those kinds of things will finally be resolved.

Sorry, I just don't have the energy for this.

Look, there’s really no such thing as objective morality out there... It’s just something humans cooked up, and it evolves right along with us, shifting not just between different cultures but even from one individual to the next. Even our basic grasp of what's right or wrong changes as we grow and change as people. I mean, even things like the value of a human life or the definition of murder aren't viewed the same way from one era to the next, let alone from one culture to another... To me, seeing a gay couple kissing on a street corner in NYC doesn't bother me at all, though I'm guessing you probably see that as immoral... And abortion doesn't clash with my own sense of morality, whereas you probably equate it directly to murder... Not to mention all those massive gray areas, like killing in self-defense—since the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing doesn't exactly include an "unless it's self-defense" clause—or a starving person stealing food to survive, or the whole trolley problem, or even animal rights... At the end of the day, you get as many different answers to those questions as there are people on this planet...

Most of the time, I just act based on how I actually perceive the world around me. My morality is pretty much my own thing—it’s really just a byproduct of how I was raised, the people I grew up with, empathy, and just using my head... I don't feel like I need some higher power stepping in to tell me how to live my life. Honestly, life doesn't have some grand, overarching purpose—and honestly, why would it even need one? Like I've said before, the whole point of life is just... living it. If this idea of "meaninglessness" ever actually started messing with my daily routine or making me feel totally paralyzed because I couldn't find a reason to get out of bed, I'd probably just go see a professional and get some help...

I mean, I just don't see the logic in believing that some higher power created me just to put me through this gauntlet, testing me against an evil that was probably cooked up by the same entity just to reward or punish me... It feels like being a pit bull or some fighting rooster bred specifically for the ring. You get a treat if you win the fight, but if you lose, you just get broken and tossed out into the trash... Honestly, what kind of life is that...

Alyosha said:He really gave us everything we could ever need, so if we’re still struggling to see it, that’s honestly just on us...

Well, if it actually exists—and honestly, a lot of us, myself included, are pretty skeptical about the whole thing—then he obviously hasn't delivered on it yet... everything... What would it even take... If he really wanted to prove himself to me, he could just find someone to predict the exact order of a deck of cards I shuffled myself. The odds of getting that right are basically 1 in 52 factorial... and honestly, even though the chance isn't technically zero—you don't need to be all-powerful, just insanely lucky—it would be more than enough for me to start taking everything he says as gospel. I might even throw a curveball and ask him to dye his hair bright green right in front of me, just so I could be absolutely sure... 😁 I mean, sure, I believe in a higher power based on what's in the Bible, but those random violent, misogynistic books that have zero depth and just make no sense at all? No way. I can't even take them seriously...

Nathan Doyle said:Well, that's just it. People tend to take stuff like that way too literally, thinking it's just like, "go confess your sins, say the magic words, ask for forgiveness, and you're good," but you can clearly see that it shouldn't be that shallow, even if you aren't religious yourself...

I'm honestly worried that if things work that way, the crowd in heaven is gonna be pretty small and incredibly boring...😁

Amy Bennett said:I can—I was an atheist for most of my life. But honestly, it isn't simpler or more beautiful. There’s just no sense to it, and it actually feels completely at odds with how we experience ourselves and the world we live in.

You didn't comment on the post I was actually referring to.
The question was: if God wants people to know Him and respect Him, why doesn't He just prove Himself to everyone individually? Why would He expect people in the 21st century to rely on inconsistent, unreliable, and primitive records from centuries ago that have been edited countless times by who-knows-who? If He is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him anything to prove His existence. Is the point that we should respect God and be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would listen if He made His presence unambiguous and clearly dictated the rules 🤷) or is it that He's testing our naivety—or should I say, our stupidity?

How could He have expected any different from people before the 21st century? Are we somehow special, requiring something extra to convince us, as if we possess something they didn't?

And I don't buy the idea that everyone would fall in line if He just showed up. The entire Bible actually tells stories to the contrary. It feels a little silly to look at these things totally out of context, and then make these claims in the same conversation where we mention the Fall—which happened precisely because people ignored what God told them. On the other hand, I'm not even sure what would satisfy many people's need for proof of God's existence. I mean, even if all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves tomorrow to spell out "I am the Lord your God...", the question is how many atheists would actually be convinced. Some might, sure, but let's not kid ourselves—there's a whole drawer full of "secular explanations" for a phenomenon like that, ranging from mass hallucinations or some magician's trick to aliens messing with us, plus the whole spectrum of other possibilities. Also, it isn't clear that God "wants" rules to be followed blindly; if He did, He wouldn't have created us with free will (regardless of whether you personally believe in free will, I'm speaking within the context of the Christian narrative). The point is about living a moral life because it *is* a moral life, not just because some rules dictate it. It's about a genuine desire to return to God and align one's life with Him. Maybe those who truly seek find exactly what they are looking for. Perhaps God is always there, but we've closed ourselves off. Maybe we don't see Him because we've become too alienated, even from ourselves. The problem with the atheistic approach is that it searches for God with a magnifying glass, looking for spectacular material evidence. If you're going to look for God, the only "laboratory" that works is the one inside your own mind.
Quote:>

Yeah, and what about Arabs and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they follow hold the same weight as Christianity—or are they destined for hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed the memo about how many billions of people have multiplied on this side of the globe? Maybe He just overlooked them.

I don't think everyone is just headed for hell. I think we really need to unpack what "believing" actually means here. Does someone who is Roman Catholic only on paper believe any more than someone who truly lives and practices Islam? Does a person truly believe if their faith is reduced to nothing more than a verbal profession? Does a person feel genuine remorse when they say they repent, or is it just a hollow word? Or is true repentance something much deeper and different? There’s no denying that massive religious traditions exist worldwide—and I’m certainly not going to tell you they are all identical—but I do believe these traditions generally point in a similar direction. This brings to mind a quote that has always resonated with me:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

It isn't hard to imagine that several different paths might lead to the summit of that mountain.

wiredfalcon2 says:
This is exactly my point—you believers take what science has proven to be baseless nonsense and turn it into an allegorical story just so you can say, "Oh, nobody actually believes that literally." Five hundred years ago, you would have been burned at the stake for suggesting the Earth wasn't made in seven days, and no one would be spinning tales about it being an "allegorical version." If God wrote the Bible through His followers—which is what faith tells us—then either everything in it is literal truth, or God doesn't exist. You can't just pick and choose which parts are allegory and which aren't based on whatever suits the current generation of believers. Why would God ever tell the world He created the Earth in seven days if He didn't? Why say people lived 700–800 years ago if they didn't? Why say a burning bush can speak if it can't? Why say Moses parted the sea if he didn't? Why say the Earth is the center of the universe if it isn't? Etc., etc...

See, that's the kind of "pure logic" you guys refuse to accept. And since you won't engage with it, we end up having these discussions centered on value judgments just to try and bring you closer to understanding the depth of your own misconception.

Who says an allegory isn't truthful? If I recall correctly, I even mentioned that calling something an allegory doesn't make it untrue. And how do you distinguish between allegory and literalism? Well, you read the text with understanding. I don't see people struggling this much to differentiate between literal and allegorical elements in almost any other type of literature. As for the idea that it’s "all or nothing"—either everything is literal truth or God doesn't exist—that’s hardly worth debating. Even if the entire Bible were just something humans dreamt up, that wouldn't mean God doesn't exist. I've said this before, and I honestly don't get why it keeps coming up. Finally, addressing the core of your argument: it simply isn't true that people only started calling these things "allegory" after science "discovered" the reality of things. People have debated these concepts forever. Regarding the seven-day creation specifically, a quick Google search or checking the first result on Wikipedia would show you that->https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allego...ons_of_Genesis

The opening chapter of Genesis tells a Story of God's creation of The Universe and humankind as being accomplished over The course of six successive Days. Some Christian and Jewish schools of thought ( such as Christian Fundamentalism) interpret these passages quite literally—basically believing each "day" lasted a full 24 hours. Others (like Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and mainline Protestant denominations) tend to view the narrative more allegorically—arguing that the core purpose is to explore the bond between humanity, the creation, and the Creator, rather than providing a literal historical timeline. To them, those six days might just represent vast stretches of time.

Genesis 2 Records a second account of creation. By chapter 3, we meet a talking serpent, which Christians understand to be Satan in disguise. It’s interesting to note that this kind of symbolism is embraced even by Christians Who believe The Story as a whole is based on an actual historical event . [ citation needed ] Many Christians in Ancient Times regarded the early chapters of Genesis to be true as both history and allegory.[1]

Other Jews and Christians have Long considered The creation account of Genesis as an allegory even prior to The development of modern science and The scientific account based on The scientific Method. For instance, we could look at two notable examples ara Christian theologian Augustin of Hippo Who in The 4 th century argued—for purely theological reasons—that God actually brought the entire universe into existence all at once, rather than following the literal six-day sequence;[2] or even the 1st-century Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, who suggested it would be a mistake to pin creation down to six days or any specific timeframe at all.[3]

Of course, this brings up some deeper questions about what an allegory actually is—questions that, honestly, I think both of us struggle with. You seem to feel that calling something an allegory makes it a fiction, whereas I’ve always felt that allegory and truth don't have to be at odds. There are also questions regarding history itself; personally, I believe these narratives shape our very history, but I don't necessarily mean the world was built in seven literal 24-hour days. It’s more about how these stories use symbolism to capture the essence of what actually took place.

It seems like most former atheists who end up finding faith usually went through some kind of serious illness or a massive life crisis right before they converted... Then you've got the other crowd, people who were deep into drugs or getting caught up in crime, so they basically just swapped one extreme lifestyle for another, and now they're acting more devout than the Pope himself. For people who couldn't quite figure out how to handle the weight of life, religion acts like this defensive mechanism, sort of a crutch for their emotions... And then there are those who claim they had some kind of "transcendental" experience—whether that was triggered by substances, a medical seizure, or a near-death experience—which flipped a switch in them, even though doctors can pretty much explain those sensations away quite easily...

Personally, I find my way of looking at things just much simpler and more beautiful, and honestly, everything feels crystal clear this way... Those deep philosophical questions that nobody can actually answer just stay unexplained, and frankly, they don't really affect me as they are. To me, the whole point of life is just actually living it. My conscience is totally clear. You guys can't even skip Sunday service or deal with certain private habits without feeling a massive wave of guilt hitting you. I don't need to go out of my way to act religious just to realize it isn't any better, just like I don't need to put a bullet in my head to know that I wouldn't like it... 😁

Amy Bennett Jesse Jackson said:I mean, how could people living before the 21st century have even imagined something like that... honestly, do we really need some special sign or something just to convince us that we’re different, like we're somehow uniquely special or lacking all those things that people back then actually had in abundance...

So, looking at where we're at now, we all basically know that Earth wasn't actually formed in just seven days, that Eve didn't pop out of Adamov's rib, and that the burning bush probably wasn't literally talking... back in the day, people used to get burned at the stake just for suggesting stuff like that, but now that we actually understand how things work, everyone just pivots and claims those stories were always meant to be allegories and that's what they intended all along. Like, what else are we supposed to pretend they didn't mean? It feels like such a tragedy when you think about all those people who were persecuted or even killed just because they were sticking to scientific facts that contradicted the Bible, and it makes you wonder why a good God would let people suffer like that just because His own book wasn't written clearly enough... He had one job... 😁

Amy Bennett Jesse Jackson said:I don't really buy the idea that everyone would just drop everything and listen if He made His presence crystal clear... I mean, the whole Bible is basically built around that exact tension. It feels a little silly to look at all this stuff totally stripped of its context, and then turn around and make these heavy claims in the same breath as the Fall—which, let’s face it, happened precisely because people tuned out what God was telling them... On top of that, I’m honestly not sure what it would actually take for most people to be convinced of God's existence. Like, even if every single star in the sky rearranged itself tomorrow to spell out "I am the Lord your God," you have to wonder how many atheists would actually buy it. Sure, some might, but let's be real, there's an entire drawer full of "secular explanations" ready to go... anything from mass hallucinations or some prank by cosmic trolls to aliens messing with our heads, plus that whole spectrum of other possibilities... It's also not even clear that God "wants" us to follow rules blindly, because if that were the case, He wouldn't have given us free will in the first place (regardless of whether you personally believe in free will, we're talking about the context of the Christian story here)... So the point is really about living a moral life because it *is* a moral life, not just because some rulebook says so. It's about having a genuine desire to return to God and align your life with Him. Maybe those who truly seek, find what they're looking for... Maybe God is always right there, but we've just closed ourselves off. Maybe we can't see Him because we've become too alienated from our own souls... The issue with the atheist approach is that they try to hunt for God with a magnifying glass, looking for these massive, material proofs. But if you're going to look for God, the only real laboratory you've got is the one inside your own mind...

I mean, if He’s truly all-knowing, He’d definitely know every single individual soul out there that needs a nudge to accept His existence... So if He’s also all-powerful, proving Himself to everyone one by one shouldn't even be a challenge for Him. If He could show up for "Doubting Thomas," why wouldn't He just show up for every other skeptic out there? Just popping into their room and pulling off a few miracles until they finally get it should be a total breeze for someone like that...
Even a flat-earther would be convinced the Earth is round if you just floated them up in a warm air balloon way past the stratosphere and into space, where they could see the whole thing at once. If some hypothetical omnipotent being actually wanted people to realize the planet is a sphere, it would honestly be in their best interest to just make it happen and convince them...
So what's the deal then with this god you guys believe in? Why does He rely on this one ancient book that fewer and fewer people actually take seriously anymore?...
It’s either because He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us. Or, you know, He just isn't there... 😁

Amy Bennett said:I don't think everyone is going to burn in hell. We really need to unpack what "believing" actually means here. Does someone who is just Roman Catholic on paper actually believe more than someone who truly believes in and practices Islam?...

Obviously not, that "Catholic" is probably heading straight to hell because it’s hard to imagine someone with such a shallow faith confessing all those sins they were busy committing throughout their life... You spend your whole life overeating and drinking too much at weddings and baptisms and then just forget about it all, boom, you're in the eternal fire. As for a Muslim, I don't know, that's why I'm asking...

Amy Bennett said:Does a person truly believe if their faith boils down to just making a verbal proclamation? Does someone actually repent when they just say the words "I repent," or is there maybe a little bit of regret there? Or is real repentance something much deeper and different? It's undeniable that there are many massive religious traditions in the world, and I won't tell you they're all the same, but I also feel like most of them are pointing in basically the same direction... There's this quote I personally love:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

And it's not hard to imagine that there might be several different paths leading to the top of that mountain...

So, in your eyes, is the whole point of religion just blind faith, regardless of what exactly you're believing? Like, as long as you act according to whatever you blindly believe, that's enough to stay in God's good graces? Even if you're physically disciplining your wife in accordance with your faith, or looking down on people from other religions?...

Nicole James said:I don't think you get it. God is supposedly omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly just—so naturally, He has to test humanity by only revealing His existence through ancient, vaguely written little books that require belief in things that contradict the very laws of logic He supposedly set for the world. And then, those who don't pass the test suffer eternally in hell.

It’s like this whole setup with totally twisted rules. How are they supposed to know if this guy isn't actually God reincarnated on Earth? Or maybe this one is? Or maybe it's both? They had no clue about them before, but now that they click a link and find out, if they don't follow orders, they're doomed for their lack of faith!

It feels just as fake and messed up to believers as those guys in the links seem to feel to atheists, you know...
Plus, we aren't going to pretend their "disbelief" in Mitsu Matayoshi is actually driven by fear or some secret underlying faith or anything like that...

I honestly can't help but wonder if life feels just a little bit lighter and more straightforward for people who don't believe... like, imagine seeing the world without that whole heavy construction of original sin, pure evil, and this endless cycle of reward and punishment hanging over everything... it probably makes everything seem so much simpler and more beautiful...

You didn't even touch on that post I was talking about...
So, here’s the thing I’ve been chewing on... if God actually wants people to know Him and show some respect, why doesn't He just make Himself known to everyone on an individual basis? Like, why would He expect people living in the 21st century to just take these inconsistent, totally unreliable, and honestly pretty primitive ancient texts at face value—especially when they've been edited and tweaked by who-knows-who countless times over the centuries... If He really is all-powerful, it wouldn't cost Him a dime to just prove He exists once and for all. Is the whole point just that we're supposed to respect God and try to be "good" (because, let's be real, everyone would follow His lead if He just made His presence undeniable and clearly laid out the rules)... 🤷...or is he just testing how naive we really are, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it pure stupidity...

Does this whole life thing feel like some kind of competition among you believers to see who can be the biggest fool by just blindly following along...

So, what happens to the Roosters and Asians? Does their Islam, Shintoism, or whatever else they’re into actually count as much as Christianity, or are they just destined to burn in hell because that "almighty" God somehow missed them... maybe He just didn't realize how many billions of people ended up on the other side of the world...

Amy Bennett said:I see this specific argument being recycled constantly on this forum and pretty much everywhere else online. The real issue is that it’s built on some pretty shaky, hidden premises—because just because someone is omnipotent and perfectly good, it doesn't logically follow that God "ought" to just snap His fingers and "delete all evil from the world." That’s more of a specific atheist viewpoint, really, but those perspectives don't set the universal standard for what "good" actually means or how things should work. Besides, within the framework of religious belief, everything is explained through the Fall and the eventual return to God, where He acts as the final judge at the end of the cycle. So, it’s not a matter of Him being unable to act or simply not caring—it's just that we have our own part to play in all of this, no matter how hard that might be for atheists to swallow.

It's not really hard for me to wrap my head around since God isn't even real...
But it honestly just doesn't sit right that some perfectly good God would allow evil to exist in the first place. You believers always seem to twist the definition of perfection or infinity just to fit whatever narrative you need at the moment...

Maybe you could take a look at this post too?

Amy Bennett said:The thing is, atheists don't actually have a single serious argument—it’s all just circular reasoning and beating a dead horse.

then they pivot to painting God as evil, just hoping believers might realize their faith is total nonsense.

Besides, God isn't "evil"—because if He were, He wouldn't be God. I think the real issue here is that you don't quite grasp what the concept of God actually represents.

If you believers would just accept that there's no logic behind God's existence, we wouldn't have to waste our time debating His moral character.

It's not just logical; it's actually pretty intuitive.

Look, if you believers were capable of having a conversation like this, I wouldn't even bother with the "evil God" argument;

- God created the Earth in seven days.
- No, He didn't, and we have the evidence to prove it.
- Can I see the evidence?
- Sure, here it is.
- Okay, you win, the Earth is billions of years old and the Bible is just nonsense. You're right, God doesn't exist, silly me.

Man, sorry that we aren't at an elementary school level so we can actually hold a dialogue. Feel free to head off to some far-flung corners of the USA or similar places to argue with creationists; those Dawkins-style jabs don't fly here because most people don't even buy into them anyway. Not to mention, your little caricature of a "smart" debate doesn't actually prove God doesn't exist. But hey, let's just attribute that to that legendary atheist capacity for logic.

Honestly, I feel a bit bad for starting this thread now that I'm scrolling through and seeing what everyone is posting. I jumped in on a whim and left one post, but looking at this, it feels like there's really not much point in saying anything here.

FTFY.

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

I actually ran into a believer once who was preaching "logic first and foremost"...

Is your version of logic just deciding it pays to believe just in case, since you've got nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain?😁 Like some kind of cosmic insurance policy or something like that...

If evil exists—if we go by the believer's own definition—then God either can't get rid of it, which means He isn't all-powerful, or He just doesn't care about us, which means He isn't "infinitely good"...

But hey, maybe you actually think He isn't "infinitely good," just all-powerful...

If you believe He's all-powerful and that it's important to Him that every single person knows He exists, then why hasn't He just shown Himself? Why would He wait (according to the believers) 2000 years and let us live through all this doubt and be split up by a million different religions without anyone ever seeing or hearing Him? Why would His only trace be these ancient texts from centuries ago, constantly being edited and interpreted in a thousand different ways, and why would He bother delegating messages to prophets and apostles instead of just doing it Himself? I mean, wouldn't an all-powerful being be too smart to think that some half-assed attempt from 2000 years ago would actually work on people living in the 21st century? How much would it even cost an all-powerful being to just prove Himself to every one of us individually?...

Since an all-powerful being, by definition, wouldn't cost Him anything, we're left thinking that either He isn't all-powerful because He can't show Himself, or He just doesn't care if people know Him because He doesn't want to show Himself...

Either way, why would anyone bother believing in a "God" who is basically:
- not all-powerful
- not good
- doesn't want people to know He exists?

Honestly, what's the difference between a God like that and no God at all?...

Gregory Carter67 said:Fair point. That's usually what people have in mind anyway.

The real question is: what counts as evil? Death, pain, decay? If we follow that logic, every single leaf that falls to the ground deserves a tear and a cosmic intervention to prevent its tragedy. On what basis would a human be considered a more valuable being (assuming there's no God for the atheist)? In a way, it leads to the idea that life—as free as it is, complete with mistakes, flaws, decay, experiences, birth, and death—can only exist in a system where errors are permitted. And maybe those errors are exactly what the protagonists—humanity—are supposed to learn from.

We can't ever truly know what anyone else wants or doesn't want. Maybe there's a different goal entirely. People can speculate all they want, but they'll never have proof.

Here’s where we diverge: why does the existence of evil necessarily imply God isn't there? This is the exact point I always hammer home with my atheist buddies—nobody ever promised us a life of milk and honey in the revealed religions. No one said everything would be perfect or run smoothly. My counter-question is this: why shouldn't evil exist, and how do you even envision a life without mistakes (without evil)? If humans couldn't mess up, the whole process of decay would have to vanish; basically, such a world couldn't exist in a mortal, perishable realm defined by death and freedom. I don't know how you guys imagine freedom without the massive capacity for error. Without that, it isn't really freedom in life—it's not actually livingly free.

I think we're pointing the finger at the wrong target here. You don't need to justify a higher power to a lower one; you should probably flip the script. Look at how many people do absolutely nothing. They claim God allows evil—famine, death, disease—and then those same people sit idly by while others starve or suffer. They totally have the ability to help. It's an interesting irony. So yeah—God allowed evil. He also allowed evil (from a human perspective) to result in the greatest righteous man ever, His own Son, dying on a cross for our sins. That's exactly what shows God is sending a message to us. Whether people actually listen and make sense of what He's trying to say is up to them. But people tend to assume they hold all the wisdom and insight themselves, when the real question is whether they've actually received any.

The issue is simply how you define "all-good" or "evil" in a precise, detailed way. If you don't factor in morality, decay, and the entire natural world—not just human suffering—then it looks like humans are just being incredibly self-centered. God permits both life and death, wealth and poverty. As for God leading people into wars, there are several ways to look at that. To God, giving or taking life isn't a big deal. At the end of the day, He can create or wipe out thousands of lives in a single breath. Sometimes victims serve as a warning to others. Sometimes it's for something else entirely. But God allows both good and evil for reasons known only to Him. At least, that's what the Bible says. Anyone claiming otherwise clearly hasn't read it.

Honestly, I think this is a weak angle for an atheist to take because it treats God like some guy walking around on Earth. If you add the layer that someone is intentionally twisting a Bible verse or misrepresenting a scene just to score points, then you’ve just got two sides shouting nonsense at each other. It reminds me of those old sayings about how silence can be louder than words when things get heated. There are endless examples of that. To me, using the Bible as a primary weapon is kind of a losing game for an atheist—the text itself usually works against their own point. These debates feel pretty pointless and, frankly, a bit childish.

Those free will arguments have been around forever—classic debates between Catholics and Protestants—and they’re much more mature since they actually deal with philosophy.

Cheers!

Honestly, though, evil doesn't really exist in a vacuum, just like good, love, hate, or a bunch of other "buzzwords" don't really exist outside of being fleeting feelings in our brains or these fuzzy social constructs that are hard to pin down since they're all so subjective...

People use the word "evil" in totally different ways—sometimes in a specific religious sense, sometimes describing actions that hurt society or individuals (like violence or theft), and often just to describe stuff that breaks social norms without actually hurting anyone...

I feel like when darkraven (and most atheists in these kinds of debates) talks about "evil," they’re really talking about human suffering and misery, whether it's one person hurting another or just random bad luck like diseases, natural disasters, or freak accidents, or even just minor annoyances... It's easy to lump all of that under the umbrella of "evil." Am I right in thinking you're stretching that shaky definition to include mistakes too? Is every single mistake considered evil, like if you accidentally pour too much milk in your coffee, or is it only certain ones... and if it's only some, which ones exactly?

I don't believe in God, and I honestly find it pretty weird how believers try to reconcile two things that just don't fit together: the idea that they were made by a being who is all-powerful and all-knowing, while also claiming they have free will...

Gregory Carter67 said:Watching debates and scrolling through discussions by certain atheists, I get the feeling they’re actually more like believers—even if they claim otherwise. Don't get me wrong, they definitely deny God's existence.

Take this, for example. Someone brings up a religious text. A hardcore atheist usually jumps in specifically to paint that book as bad, low-key violent, or just plain useless. From what I've seen with most of them, they tend to say things like:

"If I believed in God, I'd think He was evil, or a tyrant..." and so on and so forth.

The thing that sticks out to me is the hidden assumption there. The second someone says, "If I believed in God," they're showing at least a tiny shred of doubt—like they might actually believe a little. To me, a true atheist would never even bother with that kind of phrasing or description, because they simply "don't believe." Why would an atheist spend any mental energy pondering God’s image or trying to define His character when they supposedly don't believe in Him? That "supposedly" suggests the reality might be different:

1. A person denies God, but the question is whether they truly don't believe (maybe they do, deep down, but they're suppressing it and aren't even aware of it).
2. A person is mostly just angry at God because of how things clash with the laws of the universe (the fact that we're mortal, everything decays, the refusal to accept that there's a higher power meant to judge humans, etc.).
3. Certain atheists who go as far as calling themselves "militant" atheists (?) (not everyone in the first two groups, obviously); they are, quite literally, militant about their stance. What's funny is that if they really didn't believe, there’d be no reason to be militant. Being antagonistic toward something that doesn't exist makes zero sense. It smells like hidden resentment—maybe some sort of father complex where they just can't accept God as a Father figure. Something like that.

There's also this interesting phenomenon of bitterness. I've noticed plenty of non-believers seem resentful toward religious texts, portraying them through caricatures of beautiful religious verses (making them look way different than they actually are) or being super selective about what they read and comment on. They love highlighting the darker passages to use as "proof" for their atheism.

It feels like their main argument, even though logic should be the priority here. When it comes to the existence of a Creator, no one should be relying on a religious book as their primary argument over logic and philosophy.

And then there's the question of a higher power itself. The Creator of space, time, matter, transience, and so on. Who or what triggered the Big Bang? Why? What existed before the Big Bang?

I've seen this mindset—prioritizing side issues over actual core arguments—quite a bit.

A guy I know (a die-hard atheist) told me his most accurate definition of atheism was that "God most likely doesn't exist." He used "most likely" in the same way scientists use it for theories that are 99.x% certain—basically treated as 100% for all intents and purposes. That was how he felt, but he wanted to be technically precise. To him, that was a more accurate definition than just saying "there is no God." He viewed everything through a strictly scientific lens. Honestly, from his perspective as both an atheist and a scientist, his answer was logical since you can't prove or disprove God's existence. In that sense, he sounded like a real atheist to me. But in other instances, he could sound incredibly bitter about trivial things. Almost aggressive. I never got around to asking him more about it.

My question is: what do you guys think about the idea that atheists might actually believe (perhaps without even knowing it) but are essentially just denying God because they feel a sense of hostility toward Him?

But what happens when you say something like, "Man, I just hit the jackpot on a Powerball ticket..."?