87 posts shown.
Joseph Bailey41 said:Have you ever actually worried about hurting someone else? Why should I be worried about you? Are you some kind of special indigo old-soul starseed unicorn who deserves extra attention?
Gregory Jackson said:I guess it's more about celebrating the actual birth and the arrival itself rather than the specific calendar date, you know? I mean, it could honestly be any day for all we know. We can't really go blaming the Roman Empire for not keeping perfect records, because they probably didn't think anyone would even care about having a precise date two thousand years down the line. Jack, people didn't even have last names back then—it was just a first name and maybe a nickname or something...
Bryan King3 said:It’s really not that black and white.
Every single atheist out there has their own specific reasoning—their own set of convictions—as to why they don't buy into religious nonsense.
Now, if you ask me, a huge chunk (maybe even most!) of atheists actually struggle to put their exact stance into words.
But hey, there are actual reasons for that!
One major factor is that religiosity is, among other things, tied to intelligence.
What I mean by that is that a believer often lacks the intellectual breadth required to truly grasp a world where God simply doesn't exist.
I like to explain it using a little analogy:
Imagine a believer riding in an elevator—that represents their entire world, moving from the lowest floor to the highest floor the elevator can reach.
The problem is, the believer has absolutely no clue what exists outside that elevator shaft.
(Instead of an elevator, you could imagine them trapped inside the covers of the Bible, the Quran... or whatever else acts as a cage for their mind.)
Another point we absolutely cannot overlook is that an atheist would never go out of their way to bother a believer.
However, the sheer aggression found in almost all religions is specifically designed to be intolerant of atheists.
It’s an old rule of thumb: a believer will almost always tolerate someone from a different faith—even one they despise—much more easily than they will tolerate an atheist.
So, where do we see this intense friction between believers and atheists?
You find it in the most primitive environments: Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia... even right here in America.
Meanwhile, in places where religious questions are just fringe issues in society—like the Czech Republic, Sweden, Germany, or France...
And so...
wiredfalcon2 said:If my points were actually wrong, you’d see it in the numbers. Look at the facts: believers managed to pull together around 700,000 signatures demanding that the names of every single predator in the church be made public and that they face actual prison time. Compare that to the measly few hundred signatures gathered trying to ban gay marriage. It speaks for itself.
wiredfalcon2 said:For those believers, the ultimate sin is just anything that doesn't fit their mold: not having kids, "deviant" sexuality—their words, not mine—tearing down the patriarchal family unit, and obviously, denying God and faith. You can't even ask questions from our side of the fence. We’re living in two different worlds that just don't speak the same language.
Nicole James said:But look, if you are dreaming, then there has to be something there doing the dreaming—regardless of what that thing actually is. Even if it turns out to be nothing more than a simulation running on some supercomputer, the mere fact that you are experiencing yourself means you exist as some kind of entity.
Nicole James said:But regardless, it still counts as existence in some capacity.
Nicole James said:At the end of the day, we can't be 100% sure of anything, other than the fact that we exist in some capacity.
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.
Lisa Jackson7 said:Oh yeah? What kind of science—what actual methodology are we even talking about here?
Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, it all depends on how you apply that binary logic and what the situation is—if I’m staring down two choices, I’m obviously going with the one that actually makes sense to me.
The whole black-and-white thing? That's just the default setting we use to filter whether we accept information or toss it out.
A lot of priests are notorious for just shutting down new info—it’s pure laziness, honestly—so they end up narrowing their own worldview by sticking to this rigid, binary mindset where they only acknowledge what they want to see.
If I'm looking for it, it's "white"... if I'm not looking, it's "black." Simple as that...
Gerald Jackson48 said:I see Akasha as basically the spiritual version of the internet. On the web, you’ve got all the world's info right at your fingertips if you just google it. This feels way simpler. There aren't any hellish planets involved, and even most Christians are pretty much on board with the idea... Just watch out for those pop-up ads and cat videos trying to distract you while you're on your digital journey.
Paul Anderson15 said:You're right, I knew that sounded familiar! 👍
Where exactly are you pulling this "information" from? 🤦
Paul Anderson15 said:Exactly. From what I understand, Metatron represents the masculine aspect of God—the Word—while Shekinah embodies the feminine, or the physical body. Since human consciousness and physiology exist in such a positive feedback loop, it’s highly likely this is a mythological representation of that connection rather than a literal, physical location. The article also brings up Anubis, whose role is to weigh the hearts of the deceased, which suggests that the heart itself could be the actual meeting point for Metatron and Shekinah.
I haven't had a chance to work with Metatron yet. How about you?
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?