Thoughts on religion for a Sunday morning

[zolace]

Why when someone sees a beautiful view do they claim "Look how beautiful that is. Only God could have created that. It is proof of his existence". Actually its proof of no such thing. It is what happens because of time, weather, nature and natural elements in harmony. Its not due to anything superstitious. It is the beauty of reality.

Actually that is called reason, not superstition.  Either the enormity of the cosmos  or a majestic view present such overwhelming order, design, and complexity that to believe that randomly came to be after matter popped into existence would be illogical, or at the very least it is illogical to entirely dismiss the supernatural.  Even prevailing views of origin cannot completely answer all associated questions, nor do they refute the existence of the supernatural.  You simply hold another faith based possibility which excludes an intelligent designer.  

[sana8410]

Why when someone sees a beautiful view do they claim "Look how beautiful that is. Only God could have created that. It is proof of his existence". Actually its proof of no such thing. It is what happens because of time, weather, nature and natural elements in harmony. Its not due to anything superstitious. It is the beauty of reality.

Actually that is called reason, not superstition.  Either the enormity of the cosmos  or a majestic view present such overwhelming order, design, and complexity that to believe that randomly came to be after matter popped into existence would be illogical, or at the very least it is illogical to entirely dismiss the supernatural.  Even prevailing views of origin cannot completely answer all associated questions, nor do they refute the existence of the supernatural.  You simply hold another faith based possibility which excludes an intelligent designer.  

You make a lot of presumptions in your comments above which I don't have the time to dispute one at a time. I will say your entire concept of what "atheism" is all about is completely wrong. Atheism is a celebration of the logical over the illogical. There is no logic in superstition which you admit religion is. I have had experience with both theism and atheism as I have been both a Christian and an atheist. Believe me....of the two.... being an Christian is much easier. Its safe, comfortable and can be wrapped around you like a warm, protective coat. Being an atheist means you have to leave the matrix and except some harsh realities. We are animals, all animals die and that's the end of it. No eternal life, no soul, no heaven or hell. No God.

That's not easy to swallow.

Some people need the truth. They simply are not fit for the matrix. Just like some need drugs to cope with reality and others prefer reality over fantasy. There is no "hopelessness" in being an atheist. It is not dark or bleak. There is no alienation, pessimism or gloomy desperation as some claim. There is strength in being able to live with what is real. There is a sense that life is precious and this is our only chance to do a good job as we won't be here again. It makes me a better mother to my children and a better wife to my husband. Atheism has given me many gifts, the greatest is freedom from superstition and unlocking my intellectual possibilities.

Thanks for something interesting to respond to........

[zolace]

Why when someone sees a beautiful view do they claim "Look how beautiful that is. Only God could have created that. It is proof of his existence". Actually its proof of no such thing. It is what happens because of time, weather, nature and natural elements in harmony. Its not due to anything superstitious. It is the beauty of reality.

Actually that is called reason, not superstition.  Either the enormity of the cosmos  or a majestic view present such overwhelming order, design, and complexity that to believe that randomly came to be after matter popped into existence would be illogical, or at the very least it is illogical to entirely dismiss the supernatural.  Even prevailing views of origin cannot completely answer all associated questions, nor do they refute the existence of the supernatural.  You simply hold another faith based possibility which excludes an intelligent designer.  

You make a lot of presumptions in your comments above which I don't have the time to dispute one at a time. I will say your entire concept of what "atheism" is all about is completely wrong. Atheism is a celebration of the logical over the illogical. There is no logic in superstition which you admit religion is. I have had experience with both theism and atheism as I have been both a Christian and an atheist. Believe me....of the two.... being an Christian is much easier. Its safe, comfortable and can be wrapped around you like a warm, protective coat. Being an atheist means you have to leave the matrix and except some harsh realities. We are animals, all animals die and that's the end of it. No eternal life, no soul, no heaven or hell. No God.

That's not easy to swallow.

Some people need the truth. They simply are not fit for the matrix. Just like some need drugs to cope with reality and others prefer reality over fantasy. There is no "hopelessness" in being an atheist. It is not dark or bleak. There is no alienation, pessimism or gloomy desperation as some claim. There is strength in being able to live with what is real. There is a sense that life is precious and this is our only chance to do a good job as we won't be here again. It makes me a better mother to my children and a better wife to my husband. Atheism has given me many gifts, the greatest is freedom from superstition and unlocking my intellectual possibilities.

Thanks for something interesting to respond to........

For the record I did not admit [all] religion was superstition.   What I did state was that your belief is also faith based.  And I do not think I am wrong in my concept of atheism, at least not in terms of anything you've argued.    
I can agree atheism appeals those who value the empirical above all else.   But philosophy, which involves more than the empirical, is also based on logic and truth seeking.   Personally I would argue it takes a higher intellect to be a philosopher than it takes to be a scientist.  And I say that as someone with a math degree who firmly believes math is the only true science (suck it physics).  
And I think you missed the point of the my argument/analogy:  If someone has never been in love, they cannot comment on what it is like or what it is worth in the same way as someone who has/is.  You (generic you) simply cannot know the full value of that experience which transcends the intellectual until you've had it.   One can use logic and science to reduce that experience down to the level of chemicals, but one cannot expect to convince someone who is in love that that they are superstitious and inferior intellectually for believing love exists and makes life more wonderful when they are experiencing it and you are not.  
And while someone may have been in love or thought they have been in love at one time, and for whatever reason is no longer in love, they can only argue they find greater benefit living with the belief that it is nothing more than a chemical cocktail within those destined to be worm poop.  But that kind of statement generally is received with pity from those who are in love.

[umair127]

To argue that religion is easier...as if that is evidence of its inferiority and all the more reason a higher intellect would seek to dismiss it...is laughably illogical.    Why would the more intelligent animals seek a harsher, less safe, more difficult reality which ends in annihilation, making your entire existence nothing more than a blink of irrelevancy, and then turn around and claim it is a superior faith based POV because you've really thought it through?  Lol.  Have you really? 
I will tell you why atheism will always be a minority view.  Because theism is the only measure of hope one can find when they are in the position of being effectively oppressed by other human beings exploiting their superior might, which for all our supposed intelligence we still haven't figured out how to stop doing.   And you are deluding yourself if you believe the godless are any better at not reeking mayhem than religious zealots because they are every bit as zealous in their self worship.

[sana8410]

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

[Rigon]

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

[noviapriani]

Why when someone sees a beautiful view do they claim "Look how beautiful that is. Only God could have created that. It is proof of his existence". Actually its proof of no such thing. It is what happens because of time, weather, nature and natural elements in harmony. Its not due to anything superstitious. It is the beauty of reality.

Actually that is called reason, not superstition.  Either the enormity of the cosmos  or a majestic view present such overwhelming order, design, and complexity that to believe that randomly came to be after matter popped into existence would be illogical, or at the very least it is illogical to entirely dismiss the supernatural.  Even prevailing views of origin cannot completely answer all associated questions, nor do they refute the existence of the supernatural.  You simply hold another faith based possibility which excludes an intelligent designer. 

I agree that it is called reason, but there is reason that makes sense and flawed or weak reasoning.  "Reasoning" your way to a belief in magic and other fairy tales doesn't make it valid reasoning.  If what you don't understand is therefore "reasoned" to be the work of a god, this is called the God-of-the-gaps argument, and it fails the test of actual reason.   If humans cant explain it, God built it.  That isn't reason.  However, I agree with you that a force of creation cannot be wholly discounted....this doesn't make it the most logical reason.

And you are wrong about a number of things in your line of "reasoning"....we don't know if matter popped into existence or was just going through a big crunch.  And, once in existence....all things don't happen randomly.  Matter interacts in unique ways due to gravity and its own unique physical and chemical properties.  Gravity is really god.   Its the unifying force and we have no good theories about how it works.  If I put 50 metronomes on a board with wheels and start them all off at different times, I can calculate the time until they will all synchronize.  One might look at that and ask how I did that....seemingly magic.  No, its how matter interacts.  The board starts moving slightly on its wheels with the majority of metronomes throwing their centrifugal force together, they all eventually get forced to fall into line.  There are a billion examples of how matter can create complexity and order in nonrandom ways.  This is not to say a bearded man didn't create matter just to watch it expand and crunch for all eternity....you just cant really "reason" your way there with any earthly logic.

Bleak existence?  It would be very easy for me to describe the beak existence under the yoke of superstition of religion, but I will refrain because I believe even those who are indoctrinated to fables and folk lure can also experience love and uplifting emotions of hope and joy just like anyone else can regardless of their religious convictions.  Other's existence may not be any more or less than anyone else's when it comes to fulfillment or bleakness regardless of what we believe.  You are filled with the holy spirit and it uplifts you in ways that make you rejoice.  I am not filled with the hocus pocus and I am uplifted me in ways that make me rejoice just as deeply as you do.  The things that blow me away every day and uplift me in spiritual ways are just different than the things that do this for you.  But all humans feel deeply about the things they feel deeply about.  You hold no dibs on feelings just because you believe in a guy named Jesus that makes your loins twitch.  ...and please spare me the "oh its so much more than that".   Its not.

It is the height of arrogance to assume people who don't share your beliefs must have a bleak existence.  You guys need to read the teachings of the Buddha. Thoughts expressed by you like  "You don't know what you are missing"   "its like the difference with talking about being in love and actually being in love" is nothing more than the words of an arrogant and ignorant person about the human condition that thinks they feel something special that others who are not like them have never felt.   Its horseshit.  100%  complete and total horseshit.  Our existence is undefinable, transcendent and miraculous with or without god in equal amounts.  The fact the religious don't see that is something they are missing, not the non-religious.

[sana8410]

This is becoming an interesting conversation with many differing and intelligent views being expressed.  It what I always hope for when I put up an opening post. Instead I usually get a troll screaming "FOOL" or yelling "BAIT THREAD" without them even thinking about the OP and the issues it might raise. Worse they may take the OP, change a few words and repost it under their own nic. The goal is too ridicule rather than any attempt at satire or parody. They simply do not have the intelligence or imagination to put up their own rebuttal. And they get away with it.

[umair127]

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

I would agree completely with you that it rejecting one's childhood faith in favor of atheism isn't the same as "experiencing" both...real faith requires a certain maturity of mind that children don't have. I think it's because they've only processed the words of say the Bible AS stories that, when they become adults, they reject them and turn to atheism--they've never really given themselves the opportunity to examine faith with all the tools of their intellect because they've rejected it before all those tools were at their disposition. You CAN'T, honestly, make a decision about faith at 10 or 15 years old, I would even doubt that 20 were a decent age to make that decision. Sadly, too many people, having made the decision when they were young, now are set in their ways and refuse to reexamine it to see if they jumped to conclusions too quickly.

[zolace]

I cant believe people are agreeing with this frankly.  You don't think atheists have hope?  I'm not a true atheist, but as a pretty hardcore agnostic, I can tell you I have every bit as much hope as a person can have.  Hope to live a good long life.  Hope to do well.  Hope to take care of my family.  Hope for my genetic line and their prosperity and eternity.  Hope for mankind.    What kind of hope do you think I am missing?   Hope to see my parents in heaven?  I didn't think that that was hope....I thought that was faith.   Christians "know" it on faith.    You don't hope it's going to work....right???

Please expand on the hope you have that I don't have, and when complete, explain how it makes my life bleak.

I'm sorry, its nothing more than human arrogance and nearsighted worldview.  Something very common in every religion since the beginning of time.

[sana8410]

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff".

[umair127]

I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

[Rigon]

Well Zolace....you are really fixating on a lot of presumptions and this "love" analogy is getting really tedious. May I remind you that I am the one who has known both worlds and you are the one who has known only one. I was a Christian and am now an atheist. You.... I presume..... have never been an atheist so how can you make such sweeping wrong statements about atheism and atheists motives? How can you know that which is harder to be [ Christian or atheist] when you have never been an atheist? Atheism is the fastest growing bracket concerning peoples religious beliefs or lack of them in America { so says the last census}. I have no interest in debating if philosophers are smarter than scientists or in claiming atheists are necessarily smarter than theists. That's of no importance to me. I really think your disgust toward atheism, non believers in general or just me perhaps has clouded your judgement. You claim no one can understand love if they have never been in love and yet you claim with your statements that you seem to know what atheism is all about. Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

I didn't get disgust at all from zolace's thoughts towards non-believers, rather more the proposition they perhaps can't know what they're missing.  It's not a new thought - Kierkegaard, the Danish theologian/philosopher proposed that it was only through a 'leap of faith' that the religious perspective could be apprehended and known.  That is, without faith, humans are more or less stranded in their own limited universe, their every experience processed from that viewpoint.

On your spiritual evolution account - I'm wondering if the experience of a default faith (the childhood variety) meaningfully compares to that of adult who has reached (or sustained, enriched) theirs through contemplation, testing and trial from a more informed viewpoint.

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff".

Of course you are - but our subjective impressions of the tone of her message obviously differ then.  I see the religionist’s imaginative picture of the quality of the non-believer’s existence not as necessarily arrogant or condescending (though it can be), often more on order of empathetic wish for atheist's to be enriched similarly.  This mindset needn’t imply the religionist looks to elevate themselves, demean others.  


And while the atheist might reject the possibility their lives would not be changed positively were they to ‘get religion’, there’s no way  they can  know that to a certainty.  Obviously through the contrast, they might see their former perspective as limited, and even bleak - countless testimonies exist to this effect.
More like leaping over slough of despond, which comprised your only view, onto a promontory from which can be seen heretofore unimagined vistas, colors, landforms, a perspective inconceiveable and unavailable until action taken. Or switching lenses to 3-D. This transformation would not have been possible had you stayed where you were.
Anyway, that sounds very like the extravagant, enthusiastic accounts of some religionists. ;-) Far be it from me to dispute the ecstasy that followed when you shed those painful chains. More to point, I wasn't making claim about process through which you renounced religion and god, or saying it was facile. I was observing you were young - and you can’t possibly know what a more fully informed faith might be like now, your world view having almost certainly considerably changed in subsequent years.

[noviapriani]

People's needs that give them feelings of well being or allow them to reach places where they can nurture feelings.  I must have missed the part about religion being necessary for the best self-actualization results.  Religion can certainly fit the bill for some people to move from one rung of the hierarchy of needs to another, but it is not required.  Religion may boost love, belonging, self esteem in people and help them fulfill self actualization, but so too can many things.

[zolace]

A new study of almost a century’s worth of data shows that the smarter you are, the less likely you are to believe in God.
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/08/16/are-atheists-smarter-than-believers-not-exactly/

This study says just what I was saying.  Smarter people are more likely to find more basic needs  met by things outside of religion, but met nonetheless.  While religion can serve that purpose.  It is not necessary.  People on both sides can be just as fulfilled.

It should also be noted that this does not mean religious people are dumb.  Some are WAY dumb for sure, but some are very smart as well.  The human mind is amazing.

Oddly enough the things they found where religion provides benefit include self-esteem and being in control.....as evidenced herein by those who believe their religion makes them more fulfilled than others.

[Rigon]

My atheism is as simple and direct as the childhood religiosity that I finally, and completely, abandoned in early adulthood. I can't remember an anti-road to-Damascus moment, but I do know it happened way back then because I was trying to romance an extremely comely and intelligent (and Jesus-committed) C.S. Lewis fan. (If you've never read that guy, do yourself a favor and do so; for an easy entrance, I recommend Surprised by Joy). The eventual romance was short but sweet, and its conclusion had nothing to do with theodetic issues (nevermind evil -- she wasn't a fan of baseball, or the blues, or stupid comedy . . . I mean, c'mon). But that's when it happened.

Anyway, because I have never once observed even a scintilla of evidence for the existence of anything but that which physically exists, I am, as I have already said, a pretty simple atheist. I also have no problem with becoming worm poop, the prospect of which has never once made me feel hopeless. I remember that back when I felt persuaded to consider the possibility of the existence of a higher power, whether it was the Holy Trinity of my childhood or the Guiding Oneness -- whatever that means -- of my agnostic stage, I didn't feel any day-to-day difference from how I feel now. I was still quite displeased, for example, about the party continuing without me. I still am -- I mean, who wants to miss a good party? Envious? Yup. Angry? A little (less so as I age, because, well -- life). But no more "hopeless" now than then.

I do hope, though, that when the moment of my extinction (my disappearance) comes, it will be in circumstances that allow me to shout: "I was alive! What a lucky, fantastic coincidence it has been!" Like everyone else, I will have no control over those circumstances, but . . . a guy's gotta hope for  somethin', right? Me, continuing forever? A nice idea (at least from my vantage point), but hardly a necessary one. I'll disappear one day, or one night, but I'm a big boy and I can take it.

[sana8410]

My atheism is as simple and direct as the childhood religiosity that I finally, and completely, abandoned in early adulthood. I can't remember an anti-road to-Damascus moment, but I do know it happened way back then because I was trying to romance an extremely comely and intelligent (and Jesus-committed) C.S. Lewis fan. (If you've never read that guy, do yourself a favor and do so; for an easy entrance, I recommend Surprised by Joy). The eventual romance was short but sweet, and its conclusion had nothing to do with theodetic issues (nevermind evil -- she wasn't a fan of baseball, or the blues, or stupid comedy . . . I mean, c'mon). But that's when it happened.

Anyway, because I have never once observed even a scintilla of evidence for the existence of anything but that which physically exists, I am, as I have already said, a pretty simple atheist. I also have no problem with becoming worm poop, the prospect of which has never once made me feel hopeless. I remember that back when I felt persuaded to consider the possibility of the existence of a higher power, whether it was the Holy Trinity of my childhood or the Guiding Oneness -- whatever that means -- of my agnostic stage, I didn't feel any day-to-day difference from how I feel now. I was still quite displeased, for example, about the party continuing without me. I still am -- I mean, who wants to miss a good party? Envious? Yup. Angry? A little (less so as I age, because, well -- life). But no more "hopeless" now than then.

I do hope, though, that when the moment of my extinction (my disappearance) comes, it will be in circumstances that allow me to shout: "I was alive! What a lucky, fantastic coincidence it has been!" Like everyone else, I will have no control over those circumstances, but . . . a guy's gotta hope for  somethin', right? Me, continuing forever? A nice idea (at least from my vantage point), but hardly a necessary one. I'll disappear one day, or one night, but I'm a big boy and I can take it.

Quite beautifully put- mostly I feel the same way though hedge just a little on the 'continuing forever' part, for which  everyone else could rightfully take me to intellectual task, so we will not elaborate.  Read recently "Death Takes No Holiday" an excellent essay and meditation by Joseph Epstein (whose writing I love), who expressed also beautifully same sentiments, and was looking for a place to c&p closing his paragraphs.  This is it!
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/death-takes-no-holiday/

[zolace]

Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

Sana,just because your parents took you to church when you were young doesn't mean you automatically know anything about Christianity.  Your comments concerning Christianity only indicate that were exposed to a dysfunctional person that claimed to be Christian. That person could be yourself or someone else. Only you would know, or would you?
Then, it seems as if you experienced a difficulty in life, blamed it on this "God" of your making and then decided you hated "God" or believe there is no higher power in this universe because you didn't like what your life was. Gotta blame somebody right?

[bitsmichel]

Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

Sana,just because your parents took you to church when you were young doesn't mean you automatically know anything about Christianity.  Your comments concerning Christianity only indicate that were exposed to a dysfunctional person that claimed to be Christian. That person could be yourself or someone else. Only you would know, or would you?
Then, it seems as if you experienced a difficulty in life, blamed it on this "God" of your making and then decided you hated "God" or believe there is no higher power in this universe because you didn't like what your life was. Gotta blame somebody right?

There's only the bible, after 20 years you should know globally what's inside - even if you did not read it - or you have been sleeping in church for the last 20 years. The existence of a higher power is very discussable, as we will see in this thread 

[sana8410]

Spend 20 years or so as a Christian and 20 years or so as a atheist and get back to me.

Sana,just because your parents took you to church when you were young doesn't mean you automatically know anything about Christianity.  Your comments concerning Christianity only indicate that were exposed to a dysfunctional person that claimed to be Christian. That person could be yourself or someone else. Only you would know, or would you?
Then, it seems as if you experienced a difficulty in life, blamed it on this "God" of your making and then decided you hated "God" or believe there is no higher power in this universe because you didn't like what your life was. Gotta blame somebody right?

Right but it was expressed with the sort of condescension I am often accused of showing theists. They certainly are free to complain about it and so am I. Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" is a leap into the abyss of superstition. Its like saying "you will never enjoy the sense of flying until you jump off a cliff"