Quote from wien :

Now, if you jump into this simulation at any given point, without knowing what the rules of the system are, and look at one box going "now what are the chances of that ending up right there?", that too will seem extremely unlikely, even though the result of the simulation is entirely deterministic given the rules and input. There is no such thing as an unlikely result within this system. You just don't know the what the rules are.
...Why are there rules? ...
...Given this point of view not even a god controlling it all is entirely out of the question, but if there is one it would just be another rule of the system, and we should be able to prove it's existence, or at the very least define the rules that make up God.

Interesting thoughts.
BTW, too all, I know I was over generalising scientific theorem, and I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent them simply by leaving out details. Rather, those generalisations are conclusions that I have to come to even upon further study of the said theory. The said theories are related because they rely on each other, so I tend to lump them together.

Here you've hit the a major point, which needs to be addressed. I find it it odd that any human thinks that they could define God with rules. I realise we seek to do it, because we want answers but it's terribly misguided to think that as a human you are even remotely capable of understanding God. If you could, he would by definition cease to be God if we could comprehend Him. More on this later.

Quote from Hankstar :

Not the Einstein mis-quote! Next you'll be mentioning Pascals' Wager *sigh* or Darwin's alleged deathbed confession.

It's not a misquote, he really said that. I didn't mean to portray that he was a Christian, but I could see why you would think that's what I was saying. I was just trying to point out that an intelligent design opinion even based simply on what we can observe is not naive at all, and that the opinon is shared by some brilliant minds. I didn't mean to make it sound like more than that. (Lady Hope FTW BTW! :razz

Quote :

As for our "feeble" human mind, it has explained much more about the universe (using a lot more than just "random bones" I might add) in the last 200 years than any religion has managed to, starting from the beginnings of Christianity.

Quote :

I think the very nature of religion is not to ask itself any hard questions: every other intellectual endeavour goes through

I 100% agree; Christianity is not about explaining how the universe works on a technical level. It's about why we are here, and why things are the way they are. Faith is not an intellectual endeavour, it's a spiritual one. You're trying to observe the unobservable based on the observable. (!) I would say it's comparing apples to oranges, but we understand both apples and oranges; so it's N/A.

Quote :

As for "everyone worshipping something", well that's the most sparklingly naive thing I've ever heard.

Ok, well, I didn't do a very good job of drawing out what I mean by that. The line may be more ambiguous for some, but my point is that everyone has something that's the most important thing(s) in your life. It could be anything, or maybe a multitude of things. I didn't mean to imply that everyone literally has an object that they bow down to, but rather more metaphorically so. For lots of people it's money for example.

Quote :

To conclude I must say that it's refreshing to find a good solid debate on something interesting in this forum. You just don't find discourse like this in "Improvement Suggestions" (yes I know, this is first and foremost a game forum ). Much respect to the participants thus far, it's been a good read :up: Work tomorrow, don't expect much more than observation from me.

I agree, it's been very interesting . I'll have to step away somewhat unfortunately because it's eating up a lot of time, and potentially could eat up about 10x more than it has already.

Quote from wsinda :

Mankind and the universe are older than 6000 years

Or at least appears to be so based on what we can observe, and deduce. Not that that matters.

Quote :

a worldwide flood is physically impossible

Or at least appears to be so based on what we can observe, and deduce. Not that that matters.

Quote :

; praying does not work;

... If you mean it does not work like a cosmic vending machine, then you're correct. You say it doesn't "work", as if it's a tool, or method to get a predictable and desired result. The fundamental purpose of prayer, from a Christian perspective is to align your will with the will of God - not the other way around.

Quote :

it's logically impossible for any being to be both omniscient and omnipotent.

Logically impossible? Who cares? Logic is again,based on human thought and discovery. To make that assertion, you would have to be somehow greater that both of those qualities - which I don't think is the case.

This never ceases to amaze me: how can a finite mind be arrogant enough (not directed at you personally btw!) to say that the infinite God is impossible? That, from MY perspective is what's totally illogical, even by human standards. Once again, you're applying scientific principles where they are completely not applicable, 100%. If a being has the capacity to create "something" from "nothing" (the big bang) I don't think we're in a position to even comment on the intellect, or the "properties" of their existence.

The concept of infinity, whilst mathematically sound is so far beyond the ultimate comprehension of humans that it's made certain mathematicians insane - and I can understand why. The fact that things appear in some particular fashion doesn't mean that they are limited to having gotten that way by means of things that we can observe, or that we are even capable of observing the fundamental truth behind it, OR that even what we we think can observe is ultimately correct. Perhaps bacterium have the same conversation about humans!

Really, all you're saying is "I can't understand God, therefore he cannot exist". (!)
The "existence of God as a scientific hypothesis" is immeasureably absurd.

Quote from wsinda :

I think there are two types of agnostics.

I only know of one definition for agnosticism. If you could point me to the 2nd one (don't point me to an urban dictionary, please. I've had my fill of new words, like "ignosticism" etc. Perhaps you're referring to the "weak" versus "strong" agnostic, which doesn't refer to their lack of belief so much as it refers to their interest (or lack thereof) in pursuing the debate.

Quote from wsinda :

The atheist view (and mine) is that the matter is decidable. Theism makes a number of claims, and many of them have been falsified. Mankind and the universe are older than 6000 years; a worldwide flood is physically impossible; praying does not work; it's logically impossible for any being to be both omniscient and omnipotent. Etcetera. In effect, the claim of existence of god is handled as a scientific hypothesis, and this hypothesis has been refuted.

Once again, atheism sets out its position in a contrary stance to that of (I sense in this example Judaism and Christianity) the addressing of specific beliefs in a religion. What those granular specifics that Christians or Jews believe, about their god, should not be components in an argument against the existence of god. I see this so often.

Quote from wsinda :

Well, then read The God delusion by Richard Dawkins. He makes a pretty good case.
+1

Does he prove that God doesn't exist? Or does he just pick particular aspects of specific religions to build a case against those religions, and thus project that therefore god doesn't exist? Because I'm tired of those arguments. If religious people argue that elephants are pink, and atheists come along and say that elephants aren't pink.. fine. Doesn't mean that elephants don't exist.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

I find it it odd that any human thinks that they could define God with rules. I realise we seek to do it, because we want answers but it's terribly misguided to think that as a human you are even remotely capable of understanding God. If you could, he would by definition cease to be God if we could comprehend Him.

Exactly, which is why I added the last sentence: "That of course is where science flies in the face of religion." The basic premise of religion is belief, not theories and assumptions that can be tested. That means it is inherently incompatible with the scientific process, and thus my way of thinking.

So while I personally won't exclude the possibility of god-like beings, I am certain that if they exist, it is possible for us to prove they are there. (Which may not make them actual gods in the traditional sense, but still.) We may not be able to do it now. We may not be able to do it after a million more years of evolution and development of technology. But it should ultimately be possible.

I'm not expecting you to agree with this of course, but that's at least how I see the world.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Logically impossible? Who cares? Logic is again,based on human thought and discovery. To make that assertion, you would have to be somehow greater that both of those qualities - which I don't think is the case.

This never ceases to amaze me: how can a finite mind be arrogant enough (not directed at you personally btw!) to say that the infinite God is impossible? That, from MY perspective is what's totally illogical, even by human standards. Once again, you're applying scientific principles where they are completely not applicable, 100%. If a being has the capacity to create "something" from "nothing" (the big bang) I don't think we're in a position to even comment on the intellect, or the "properties" of their existence.

When we want to convince other people of our views, we have only a couple of valid ways to do so: hard physical evidence, logical reasoning, and the scientific method. You're brushing them aside: you say that none of these apply to your definition of god. If you do, then all discussion stops. You may have some notion of god, but it's your own personal experience. For others it can in no way be distinguished from a hallucination or a fantasy. It's equally valid to talk about pink unicorns or the spaghetti monsters.

Quote :

The concept of infinity, whilst mathematically sound is so far beyond the ultimate comprehension of humans that it's made certain mathematicians insane - and I can understand why.

Quite to the contrary. Infinity can be expressed in five simple postulates from a guy named Peano. No mathematician has ever gone insane by looking at the definition of the natural numbers.

Quote :

Really, all you're saying is "I can't understand God, therefore he cannot exist".

No, I'm saying that god, as commonly defined, is not consistent with the facts.

Quote from SamH :

Perhaps you're referring to the "weak" versus "strong" agnostic, which doesn't refer to their lack of belief so much as it refers to their interest (or lack thereof) in pursuing the debate.

Yes, I meant the "weak" versus "strong" agnosticism (at least, as described in Wikipedia).

Quote :

Once again, atheism sets out its position in a contrary stance to that of (I sense in this example Judaism and Christianity) the addressing of specific beliefs in a religion. What those granular specifics that Christians or Jews believe, about their god, should not be components in an argument against the existence of god.

Agreed. Proving that a piece of wood from Mt. Ararat is just an oaken plank of 1000 years old does not disprove the existence of god. I only mentioned those as easy-to-recognise examples. But IMO also the most central aspects of religion - most notably, that god(s) created the universe and mankind - have been falsified.

Quote :

Does he prove that God doesn't exist? Or does he just pick particular aspects of specific religions to build a case against those religions, and thus project that therefore god doesn't exist?

No, Dawkins aims his arrows at the core of religion.

Quote from wsinda :

No, Dawkins aims his arrows at the core of religion.

Are there any atheists out there that aim their arrows at god? I'd be interested to hear what they have to say, definitely

Quote from wsinda :

that god(s) created the universe and mankind - have been falsified.

Far be it for me to argue on the side of the religious nuts, but the notion of god you're referring to is as defined by particular/specific religions. Assuming that the big bang theory isn't actually just a theory (which it is at the moment), and take it as a law (even though it isn't known, only evidenced), there might be an argument that the big bang happened because of the guiding hand of a deity. I'm not proposing it.. I'm just pointing out that atheists do rather have a tendency to make their references of a god or gods in relation to what seems very much the "opposite stance". Is atheism really about "religions have got it all wrong", or is it about "there is no such thing as god"? Those two are, IMO, wholly distinct. What isn't clear to me is why atheists make constant references to existing religions to argue the bigger, and core question (ie. god/no god).

Quote from Racer Y :

Damn Hank, Can't you put more than three posts in a thread with out having to bash bush?

That wasn't a bash. SamH was spot on - the facts are that George W is a born-again evangelical right wing Christian conservative. Because of that, he's under lots of pressure from religious groups to try and achieve certain things on their behalf and it seems like he's getting a lot of them done. Regardless of my opinion, that's the way it is. As for bashing him in other threads, well, that can't be helped. He's barely put a foot right since the Supreme Court installed him. The man's a frickin pinata! Ole! *smack*

Sam, I can't speak for others but when I make references to major religions it's because I don't think they really deserve the amount of influence they have over peoples' lives. The religious right in the US is a great current example, but the most obvious example is the Pope with his literal power of life and death over his subjects, especially poorer ones in the third world whom he still prevents from using contraception.

My real beef with faith has more to do with its political effects and its real, measurable effects on humanity rather than its theory. I work for the Australian Red Cross. I should be clear I'm not a field worker, but nonetheless I am quite familiar with how HIV/AIDS can devastate entire communities, even nations (we're holding a Papua New Guinea HIV appeal here as we speak), and how frustrating it can be when the Vatican continues to refuse peoples' rights to use condoms, and even allows its cardinals to make glaringly false statements saying they don't even work and that they even help to spread the virus! Of course many authorities on HIV/AIDS immediately condemned the statements outright, and rightly so, but unfortunately the residents of the developing nations would most likely have heard the cardinals' statements first and wouldn't have heard anything about the condemnations and refutations that came afterward. I think the cardinals would have been well aware of that likelihood, so I am as suspicious of their motives as I am of their scientific credentials. That's just one example of how I see religion wielding far too much political power in the lives of ordinary people and it's also a shining example of how the church should simply leave comments on science to people who actually understand it.

So, whether I'm right in being a godless heathen or whether anyone else is right for being faithful is utterly irrelevant compared to the power religion wields over its followers as far as I'm concerned. Humankind will probably never leave religion behind, as it has left so many other ideas behind like shed skin as they are superseded by new information (like the flat earth theory or the the one about the sun orbiting the earth, or that brilliant one about the Tuatha de Danaan). For all I care people can continue to worship their gods and wear robes and speak in Latin for two thousand more years, but we as a species would do well to remove religious influence from politics as much as possible before some damn fool starts another crusade into the holy land and gets us all killed ...

In the end, I'm not too fussed about whether there is a god (btw, there isn't ), I really just wish priests would stop acting like politicians and vice versa - that's the part that gets up my kilt, not the fact that people go to church and sing songs and pray. I mostly argue the theoretical intricacies of this issue because it's fun and exercises my brain (work sometimes doesn't give it much to do).

Quote from wsinda :

When we want to convince other people of our views, we have only a couple of valid ways to do so: hard physical evidence, logical reasoning, and the scientific method. You're brushing them aside: you say that none of these apply to your definition of god. If you do, then all discussion stops.

Good call. I was trying to point this out before but you said it more eloquently than I. Biblically speaking (don't hate me) faith & relationship with God is initiated on His part, not ours - therefore I could never reason anyone into faith in Christ, and I'm silly for even trying. Reason, as you pointed out, is not the basis for faith so I think we're done here. I do think I've proposed some thoughtful arguments towards a battle I knew full well I wasn't going to "win". If nothing else, I've come to a much better understanding of those dynamics

Quote :

For others it can in no way be distinguished from a hallucination or a fantasy. It's equally valid to talk about pink unicorns or the spaghetti monsters.

Empirically speaking, of course you are correct. Of course I just happen to share that hallucination / fantasy with hundreds of millions of other people!

Quote :

Quite to the contrary. Infinity can be expressed in five simple postulates from a guy named Peano. No mathematician has ever gone insane by looking at the definition of the natural numbers.

Georg Cantor, although that was dealing with "numbers larger than infinity" (!?). I was certain the fellow who first invented the concept went insane also, but I can't remember the details right now and can't be bothered to look it up. The tendency of incredible mathematicians to "lose it" is pretty widely known though. Neither here nor there obviously, but rather a different interesting topic.

I realise the concept of infinity is (relatively, on the surface) simple - my point is a simple one - you or anyone else cannot grasp infinity in real terms, rather you can express it and conceptualise it, but you cannot intrinsically and completely comprehend it. We currently exist in a finite existence, and think ONLY in finite terms and have absolutely no infinite frame of reference whatsoever, other than symbols of theoretical numbers. We exist in a place where time is interwoven with space, and everything that matters to us is measureable in finite terms... Time, distance, quantity etc.

Quote :

Far be it for me to argue on the side of the religious nuts

Ouch

Oh crap. It's one of those retarded religious debates. I have been in too many of them...

All this starts is people typing with an actually readable sentence structure, and a mass amount of confusion, flaming, and hard feelings.

/lock ??

Quote from Cr!t!calDrift :

Oh crap. It's one of those retarded religious debates. I have been in too many of them...

All this starts is people typing with an actually readable sentence structure, and a mass amount of confusion, flaming, and hard feelings.

/lock ??

There was absolutely no reason to make that post. Those that are interested in the debate are participating in it. Those that aren't *SHOULD* be walking on by. If you're not interested in it, don't post in it.

Way to contribute to the discourse, CD.

In my experience, religious debates only become "retarded" when people with nothing constructive to say jump in and start talking anyway.

BTW haven't I seen you post something to effect of "if you don't like drift threads don't read them" in other threads? This thread has hit its third page and people are still being respectful to each other. But hey, if you can't handle a bit of grownup intellectual badminton, you should definitely leave.

Just forget it. I'll hold back what I wanted to say.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Ouch

LOL! Sorry! Force of habit

For the record, I am "the son of a preacher man", and I do have respect for peoples' religious beliefs. The fact that I don't share them doesn't mean that I dismiss either their beliefs or the person who holds them (provided that's met equally, coming the other way - ergo I struggle a bit with Jehovas Witnesses).

Ah, those JW's. Bless.

Thinking about it a bit further, maybe, deep down in my subconscious, I'm an athesit simply because I resent being woken at 8 a.m. on a Saturday by people trying to convert me - and who happen to bring their unfortunate children (whom they've given no choice about religion & who look as annoyed and sleepy as me at that time on a weekend) with them, presumably as some sort of sympathy vote, or because there are no sitters available because all their friends are out knocking on doors too. Fortunately my dog has no time for anyone who comes to our door. I can shut her up easily enough but in those cases it's fun pretending that she's lethal: "you guys better get going - if she gets past the gate she'll eat your lungs!" It works equally well with people holding clipboards who are trying to get me to switch gas companies.

Religious belief is someone's personal business. Attempting to convert people to yours by cold-calling them at their homes is far beyond decent behaviour imho. Most people have already been born into a faith that serves their needs or have elected not to follow one. You'd think if people wanted a new religion they'd look for one themselves and not wait for someone to knock on their door. On a Saturday morning. When normal people are happily dreaming about Kate Winslet.

Now's probably a good time to qualify my earlier statements about love, hate and indifference! Now, I *could* be very wrong here, but you raise a question that I have to concede seems to be answered time and time again. I've hinted at it already, but now might be the time to get stuff out in the open.

See.. most (read: all so far) atheists I know, when I ask them why they're atheist and not agnostic, tell me that they began life as Christian but realised that the whole thing's a big lie.. an insurance policy for the afterlife. Something that's been over-sold to them. They're generally also very angry about it. They hate religion because of the time they lost to it, and because of the misery it brought them in childhood (eg: catholics teachings to minors about hell for non-believers). The atheist stance, thus, forms from a specific rejection of the ideology.

I think that I reached enlightenment, rejected religion but didn't become angry. Well, if I did, I got over it, I guess. I moved into indifference.. and in so doing, I moved from a brief period of atheism rapidly into agnosticism.

This is why I made the analogy of love, hate and indifference.. because it seemed to me that all of my atheist friends were/are angry.. in rather the same way that I remember breaking up with girls, and being angry.. and declaring undying hatred for them (yes I was young and still in love!).. and only through the passage of time did I become free of the emotional tie and achieve indifference.

Could be way off the mark, but it's the way I see things happen, and the reasons given for them

Quote from SamH :

For the record, I am "the son of a preacher man"

Cool! How was she?

The point above regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster made me think of the Mormons. For anyone here - christian or otherwise - who wants to see what bona-fide blind faith looks like, look no further than the LDS church.

FTR: I'm also agnostic. I don't know anyone from a churchgoing background who ever made it to adulthood while still believing in god, and I came to the conclusion that all the reasoning they threw at me during childhood just couldn't withstand the throbbing biological urges of adolescence.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Cool! How was she?

::chortles::

Quote from thisnameistaken :

The point above regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster made me think of the Mormons. For anyone here - christian or otherwise - who wants to see what bona-fide blind faith looks like, look no further than the LDS church.

I used to fancy Marie Osmond

Quote from thisnameistaken :

FTR: I'm also agnostic. I don't know anyone from a churchgoing background who ever made it to adulthood while still believing in god, and I came to the conclusion that all the reasoning they threw at me during childhood just couldn't withstand the throbbing biological urges of adolescence.

hehe.. does seem to be the make/break for many a faithful, definitely!

Sam: Thanks for taking the one point I made that wasn't about shagging, and relating it to shagging for me. What a team!

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

Of course I just happen to share that hallucination / fantasy with hundreds of millions of other people!

You may say so, but there is absolutely no way you can know it's the same, as you've just declared all ways to exchange thoughts as not applicable to your god.

Quote :

Georg Cantor, although that was dealing with "numbers larger than infinity" (!?).

Ah yes, his diagonal argument to prove that the cardinality of the real numbers is higher than that of the natural numbers. Elegant, and not that hard to grasp. If you really want something that boggles the mind you should take a look at string theory with its 27 dimensions. Still, it's the daily work for hundreds of theoretical physicists.

Quote :

you or anyone else cannot grasp infinity in real terms, rather you can express it and conceptualise it, but you cannot intrinsically and completely comprehend it.

That's a ... peculiar way to reason. In the same vein you could state that you can't "completely comprehend" a drop of water, because it contains gazillions of atoms tumbling around -- far too much for any human mind to understand.

Quote from SamH :

See.. most (read: all so far) atheists I know, when I ask them why they're atheist and not agnostic, tell me that they began life as Christian but realised that the whole thing's a big lie.. an insurance policy for the afterlife. Something that's been over-sold to them. They're generally also very angry about it. They hate religion because of the time they lost to it, and because of the misery it brought them in childhood (eg: catholics teachings to minors about hell for non-believers). The atheist stance, thus, forms from a specific rejection of the ideology.

I'll be your exception, then, because I have taken the reverse route. I've been non-religious all my life. Wasn't brought up to believe, and never felt any need to. In my twenties I used to call myself an agnostic: existence of god is undecidable, so it's no use to fuss&fight. Let each have his own view, live in peace, and not bother his fellow men.

I'm in my forties now, and in recent years I've drifted towards atheism. One reason is the growing realisation that accepted scientific theories, most notably evolution, are fundamentally incompatible with religion. (I know there are escape routes, but I see them as uneasy compromises.)

Another reason is my growing anger about the imbalance between religious and non-religious people. Many Christians demand respect for their faith and traditions, but are not willing to respect the views of the non-religious. Too many times I've heard a Christian say that if you lose your faith then you lose all moral grounding. Too many times I have heard the Pope, or some other spiritual leader, make claims and verdicts for all of humanity instead of just his own flock. I can no longer be indifferent.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

...and I came to the conclusion that all the reasoning they threw at me during childhood just couldn't withstand the throbbing biological urges of adolescence.

Hahahahah. Sad but true.

Quote from SamH :

hehe.. does seem to be the make/break for many a faithful, definitely!

And I think we all know what urges we are talking about

Quote from wsinda :

Another reason is my growing anger about the imbalance between religious and non-religious people. Many Christians demand respect for their faith and traditions, but are not willing to respect the views of the non-religious. Too many times I've heard a Christian say that if you lose your faith then you lose all moral grounding. Too many times I have heard the Pope, or some other spiritual leader, make claims and verdicts for all of humanity instead of just his own flock. I can no longer be indifferent.

There it is again.. a basis for personal atheism being specific to a contrary or an opposing religious doctrine

I'm not suggesting for a moment that you don't have good reasons to be an atheist. I'm sure you have very good reasons.. and added to that, I'd admit that I'd struggle to disagree about the offensiveness of certain Christian denominations.. but are the observations about those Christian denominations really a part of your argument against the existence of god?

Free yourself.. become a pure atheist! One that isn't polluted by religious doctrines! (including abhorrence thereof!)

Just messing with ya

Eh..I hold no hard feelings against those without religious beliefs or otherwise (as I am roman Catholic).

I don't really like to be generalized anyways, because I treat athiests, agnostics, buddhists, muslims, and Jews just like the rest..

It would be a fair assumption to think my own atheism rose as a result of being displeased with religion as a youngster, but it's not so black and white.

My brothers and I weren't raised either religious or non-religious and I think it's because our parents wanted us to make that decision ourselves. We were, however, sent to Sunday school (I quit when I was six because watching Space Ghost was more important) but I think our folks wanted us to(a) to hear some Bible stories and get some real experience of religion and (b) perhaps pick up some moral lessons. I can't recall many discussions about religion when we were living at home and we never went to church except if someone died or got married (except for my own wedding, which was in a herb garden ). There was Religious Instruction at primary school (as an actual class in a state school, but it was the early 80s and it didn't seem as strange to me as it would now). I think my parents purposely avoided pointing us towards church but didn't actively discourage us because, as I said, they wanted us to make our own decision on the matter. I really should thank them for that

As it happened, I chose to be religious until I was about 15, when I realised that my religion had basically the same core values as every other religion that I knew about, and that this was no coincidence - they were basic human values that transcended faith or culture and all the other stuff I was doing in the observance of Christianity was redundant (to me). I realised I could be a "good" person by just simply being a good person and following my moral compass. I also realised that my faith as a boy wasn't responsible for those morals (such as they were), rather the influence of my parents. I then reasoned that if I did behave myself and didn't steal or kill or do anything else I wasn't prepared to have happen to me, and still got sent to hell because I ate the wrong thing or wore the wrong hat, any insecure god who would do that wasn't worth worshipping anyway. I mean, why give me free will and then punish me for exercising it? Free will with conditions is not free will at all, it's the Vista EULA. On that point, god sounds more like a jealous lover than an all-loving super-being.

After thinking about it a while I realised that if there was a supernatural god who listened to our prayers and answered them, I didn't need to actually pray or do anything to acknowledge his existence because this god should know how I feel anyway. He shoudn't need me to go to church or do anything that's in his book because he should know how I feel and what I think about everything. In that respect, religious observance is pointless.

Following that, if there is some god who has a plan for everyone (as I hear from time to time from some people), then (again) there's no point in me praying or doing anything, because he's got his plan and I can't change it because I'm merely a cog in his pocketwatch. If he's already got a plan for everyone, why do I need to even think? In that respect I am irrelevant, my free will is bogus and god is way too involved in the project.

Then I realised that if god's just cool to let all his creations go their own way, do their own thing and not intervene at all, ever, because he's letting us use our free will, then religious observance is again redundant and he may as well not be there at all. But, then, what if he is there judging us and he's going to wait until we're dead and then send us to hell for doing the wrong thing while we were alive? Again ,he's just being malevolent by giving us enough rope to hang ourselves.

So I continued on this train of thought and took notice of what religion demands of people and what it gives them. Generally, I saw lots of scared people and lots of people looking forward to going to "a better place". I saw lots of people doing great things in the name of charity and goodwill, but I couldn't help myself - I questioned their motives. I questioned their "Christian values". Would they be being charitable and kind and helpful if they weren't religious or are they just racking up points for the afterlife? If religion had never entered their lives but their upbringing was exactly the same, would they still be kind and generous? I reasoned that they would and that their motives for helping other would in some ways be even purer because they were motivated entirely by concern for others and not in the least by promises of eternal bliss.

I also reasoned that due to god's human-like traits, especially in the old testament (which often resembled those of the vengeful, spiteful, jealous gods of ancient Greece, thanks Classical Studies ), I concluded that god was created in the image of man as a way of explaining some things that weren't explainable using the knowledge of the day (read just about any creation myth from any culture and parallels fly at you like gnats), as well as codifying & recording tribal laws and customs. Some developed into fully-fledged cultural manuals, describing in detail how to live from the moment you wake to the moment you sleep, what to eat, wear, who to marry and how etc (all no doubt influenced by local custom more than holy instruction). Some then developed (in some cases) as a way of exercising great control over very large numbers of people, often greater control than many kings, and gaining enormous wealth at the expense of the poorest of the faithful (the period of the Inquisition was very lucrative for the Vatican - appropriating the properties and wealth of "heretics" was big business).

So, an atheist I am. Entirely unconvinced of god's existence from a logical point of view, and on the other hand entirely convinced that religion itself is a purely man-made device, much as any table, book, microwave or other intelligently designed object or system. My current concern with religion is not so much that I'm a de-converted Christian (I have no regrets as it made me who I am), but that it has an unholy and undeserved influence on earthly human affairs in many nations, and that children are raised into religions without being given any choice in the matter (which is a whole other incredibly long post).

Thanks for bearing with me

Quote from SamH :

but are the observations about those Christian denominations really a part of your argument against the existence of god?

Well, it's not exactly about the denominations. I've met a nun who was 100% tolerant of other world views (and a great person, too). I've met a once-in-a-year-to-mass Catholic who was denigrating about atheists without ever having thought about it. The bigotry is not part of my argument against the existence of god. It's part of my reason to become vocal about it, and to re-label myself.

Quote :

Free yourself.. become a pure atheist! One that isn't polluted by religious doctrines! (including abhorrence thereof!)

Yeah. Who knows, some day I might become a true atheist and embrace agnosticism again. I was born free of sin, um, I mean religion. I only need to get back to that blessed state.

Quote from Hankstar :

I concluded that god was created in the image of man

The big question is, of course: Did god just evolve by pure chance, or is he the product of some Intelligent Designer?