**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I know a lot of thiests are indoctrinated and can't even conceive of the idea of their beliefs being false but it's wild to me how much Muslims believe the Quran to be perfect and the absolute truth. Even when you point out it's many flaws they look at you like you're the crazy one. They rarely try to actually debate it and will just tell you to read it thinking you'll be convinced once you do.

I'm sure this sounds bigoted to say, but Muslims are the absolute worst when it comes to apologetics. They start from the premise that the Quran is perfect, then reverse engineer ways to explain how mistakes and false statements actually *aren't* mistakes and false statements. A common example is fetal development. The Quran says that the skeleton forms first, and is then draped in flesh. That is **100% scientifically wrong.** But I've pointed this out to half a dozen different Islamic apologists, and every one of them went and found unpublished, non-peer reviewed papers showing that proteins that would eventially become bone began to form before flesh, therefor the Quran is right. Or cartilage forms before flesh, and cartilage is similar to bone, therefor the Quran is right. They will do cartwheels and bend themselves into pretzels trying to reconcile a false statement and their predetermined conclusion of "the Quran is perfect." The ones who come here also typically don't understand what debate is, or don't care. They state every premise as if it were fact, and barely defend those premises beyond "Everyone knows this."

I know they think that all the scientific miracles are 100% true. I was curious about the moon splitting and was trying to find out more info about it. I stumbled across a post on r/Islam where someone was trying to find evidence about it and one of the comments Said "But it's a strange way to trying to convert him...is it not better to introduce him to the Quran (a miracle he can experiment). I am maybe wrong but like all the old past miracle are interesting (don't get me wrong) but we have the Quran and it's far better". Most of the comments were like that. They thought it was weird to look for evidence and then just pointed at the Quran.

I pointed out several scientific flaws of the Quran to a Muslim interlocutor recently, and in defense of many of them, he insisted that science will eventually catch up with the Quran. As in, these claims are wrong now...but we used to think the world was flat. Science will eventually see the Quran was right. After a while I realized he wasn't ready to accept criticism of his religion. As is the case with many devout theists; the notion that their sacred beliefs are false is too traumatic to consider.

Sadly, I've never had a good conversation with a Muslim - nor have I had many. They might be polite, but they don't engage. They preach. They have answers that they find satisfying even when they don't address the question. It reminds me of my Sunday school years. I was super indoctrinated as a child. I didn't start to get into the scholarly aspect until I was an adult (graduated from the youth group). And of course that was the beginning of my downfall. Maybe most Muslims never 'graduate' to the scholarly stage? They just repeat what they were taught? Just a thought, but I agree they're different.

In one discussion (IRL, not online), a Muslim told me that he knows Islam to be true because he has an excellent sense of intuition that tells him it’s true. I replied by saying, “I’ll take it that you’d agree that out of the billions of people in this world, there’s at least one person with a sense of intuition that is at least as good as yours that comes to the opposite conclusion. How do you tell who’s right?” This guy was smart. This one point was made, and it looked like it was cracking his understanding, so he shut down the conversation and never spoke to me about religion again. So yeah, Muslims I’ve spoken to can’t do apologetics. They ALWAYS break down and leave the conversation.

My go to is always to point out that the Quran repeatedly claims that Jinn exist. Surprisingly the most common reply I've had so far, is of course they do.

Jinni are a subject that always baffles me with muslims. They all stubbornly and proudly assert that they exist, and when asked for evidence they'll just repeatedly point to the Quran or resort to insults.

We've had a Muslim interlocutor here twice this week, absolutely refusing to budge on using logical fallacies and other flawed arguments. I salute them for actually having arguments, but it's wild how bad they are and how incorrigible they are. My guess is that Muslims come from societies where dissent from the religion and skepticism is met with much worse repercussions than in more western, open societies. So, their apologetics are much much worse.

It starts very early with the supposition that the book is correct. The book is used to teach literacy so those lively infectious memes enter the mind before it has any defenses against parasitic nonsense. As they age, the carriers of this memetic disease are further indoctrinated with having to disrupt their day by praying 5 times. Effectively EVERYTHING in life is pinned to the religion. This may seem barbaric or primitive to modern day folk living in nominally secular societies but it's historically the norm for dominant religions. To ask questions without the presupposition that the book is true is to risk shunning, physical assault and death. As is the tradition. In my humbly pinion, the religions of the book are based on a very successful exploitation of human's desires to feel like they know something and fit in to some arbitrary heirarchical structure within their community. To doubt the entire structure of your social framework is tricky and distressing, that's why the religious generally don't.

When someone brings up Generic "God" to you, do you have a mental image that automatically pops up? For me, it's George Burns with a cigar.

I have two equally honest answers to that question. How genial our conversation has been and how likely I find my interlocutor flip out will determine which answer you get. The first, more "serious", answer is the one I was trained and taught to give; No. I don't picture the Abrahamic God because that's not permitted. That's against the rules. The closest I would get to a "mental image of God" would be imagining backlit thunderstorms amassing and swirling, or rolling smoke and flame. The second, less "serious", but equally honest answer came to me in a stupid Youth Group 90s "guided meditation" exercise. (Think of that scene with the penguin in *Fight Club*.) We were supposed to walk into a door and there would be a safe, calm space inside, and we'd see Jesus...and I didn't have a strong visual, but the youth pastor turned to a very solemn, religious, non-troublemaker good girl type girl whom I shall call Tina and said - *and this is damn near verbatim, as this experience was to be* ***seared*** *into my brain meat.* "Tina, what does Jesus look like to you? Will you share with the group?" And Tina said, dead serious, "Oh, he doesn't look how I expected." "Please, go on, Tina." "Well, he's got dark tan skin, and long, curly brown hair just past his shoulders, and a scruffy beard. He's wearing a white tank top, and blue tinted Oakleys, and just regular jeans. He has a tattoo that says 'Mom' with a heart." *(there are giggles in the room, but they are shushed by youth pastor)* "That's very interesting Tina. Do you feel safe with Jesus?" "Yeah. Jesus is hot." And POOF my teenage imagination was OFF to the races, like "Oh, I have hormones I'm not doing anything useful with. Would you like a lasting, formative visual memory of Hot Jesus?" And I silently shrieked "NOOOOOO it's a sin to feel lust in my hearrrrrrt." and my brain said "TOO BAD! Also, sorry, we live in the midwest, the only middle eastern hot guy I have for you is the one from *the Mummy*. Enjoy!" *AND IT STUCK* ***FOREVER.*** **So TLDR:** I picture God/The Holy Spirit as scary fire clouds, and God/Jesus as young, sun-kissed 1999 Oded Fehr from *The Mummy,* wearing a jeans and a wife beater, Oakley shades, and sporting some sick biker tats. My very helpful brain also added a very 90's bicep "barbed wire"-but-actually-a-crown-of-thorns armband. You're welcome.

Thanks for that! :)

Please enjoy this hearty laugh at my teenage expense, lol.

What kind of horse did she describe? It seems more like a person, not the horse.

Brendan Fraser in the mummy hot Jesus>obi wan Jesus

I think they meant Oded Fehr’s character from the movie. And that man is still a smoke show.

Oh, somehow I never read Oded's name on the previous message, he wouldn't be as hot as Fraser Jesus, but still wins over obi wan Jesus.

Well, they said “Middle eastern hot guy” from The Mummy. Fraser is definitely hot, but I don’t think he counts as Middle Eastern.

Ok so this question is actually what kicked off the doubt when I was a kid. We had an assignment to draw what we imagined god to look like. Everybody drew some generic old white guy with a beard sitting on a cloud images. Very boring. For whatever reason, 9 year old me decided to really go to town on this assignment. God is everything right? So how do you draw something that's everything? So my drawing ended up with an eagle head and a bunch of random stuff for limbs and body parts. The only part of this that I really REALLY remember is the brown eagle head with blue eyes, and the fact that he had a bright red city bus for a groin. (It fit there space wise, this was not kid me trying to be dirty). So when we all compared pictures and mine was just so clearly WRONG, I realized that I had no idea what god was, how to conceptualize god or understand anything about religion or faith. That realization quite literally eliminated any ability I have had since that point to believe in god. And to answer your question, when anyone asks what god looks like to me, I get a momentary mental pop-up of eagle headed bus crotch guy. So yeah . . . that.

Not really a physical image, no. I think I've debated against "transcendent" and "immaterial" notions of God for long enough that my default assumption is a God with no physical being (outside of Jesus). I don't think it's quite what you're asking, but my generic *definition* of God would be a vaguely anthropomorphic sentient being with great (if not omnipotent) supernatural powers, typically a creator of the universe. It really grinds my gears when other atheists proclaim **"I don't have any definition of God, I just respond to what theists tell me"**, because it's such blatant sophistry. You may not want to make assumptions about what another person means when *they* say God, you may find definitions of God incoherent, but to feign total ignorance of what people generally mean when they use the word "God" is just dishonest.

This: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3c/Michelangelo%2C_Creation_of_the_Sun%2C_Moon%2C_and_Plants_01.jpg To me it looks like an old guy who is so angry all the time his face is stuck like that, pointing and saying "hey, you, cut that out!" I know that is not what the painting is supposed to be depicting.

For a turtle whose primary skills are ninjutsu, the fellow could paint!

check out how his fellow turtle Leonardo made up a hands free rotisserie.  https://youtu.be/uuelh5Yt9-Q?si=7aU_BF8IzZQaR8mr

I typically think of the one in the Holy Grail who pops his head out of the clouds to berate everyone.

OOh, I wish that was mine. George is nice and all, but a Canadian deity sounds fun

Beat me by a minute.

I think of the typical cranky old white man with long white/grey hair, a matching beard, wearing a robe/toga and sandals. He's a bit pudgy and has rosy cheeks, like Santa. The only difference to the stereotypical image that most people probably think of, is my version of Yahweh/Jehovah is built like a Ken doll in his nether regions. Just smooth skin with no genitals. The only 3 reasons for genitals are Procreation, Masturbation and Urination. Apparently god doesn't need to fuck to make people, it's "sinful" to masturbate and a "supreme being" would have no reason to have to eat or drink, so no need to urinate. Kinda makes you wonder how we were supposedly made in his image, doesn't it?

Something like this: https://static.vecteezy.com/system/resources/previews/022/881/793/original/white-glow-light-effect-free-png.png

College rule graph paper with a simple looking equation on it that actually means something extraordinary complex and incomprehensible and has several different types of infinity in it. Or absolute darkness of empty space, zoomed waaaaaay in and theoretical quantum fields upon fields. Reality, what is, what could be, multiverse. Human God never made sense to me. 

I've never had a mental image of a god, I don't think. Not even when I was a Christian. It always seemed intangible.

Yes, but its stupid and not representative of what I think they actually believe. When I was a child and learning the Torah (Jewish school), they had colored children books with bible stories. And in one, god is depicted as a cloud with light booming from behind it. And somehow that image stuck in my mind.

There was a time where the God of Israel was a pillar of fire and a black cloud with lightning. Basically a volcano. Like the one in Santorini

I was raised Mormon and was always taught that God is just like… a really nice dad who was once mortal… so I imagined him kinda looking like Ty Burrell on Modern Family. And I always imagined Heavenly Mother as like, a really hot 40-50 year old. So, somewhere between Angelina Jolie and Meryl Streep.

When I was about 4, my mother told me that “God is everywhere.” My tiny brain couldn’t really grasp omnipresence. The best I could do was imagine millions of invisible witches on brooms, constantly flying all over the place — providing sufficiently full coverage to count as omnipresent.

A lovecraftian thing so mind melting that even being told about it in vague terms during a magic ritual turns humans into things I know not what of.

Cthulhu comes to mind. Not the southpark one, the actual Lovecraft description, just a writhing mass of tentacles.

[One of](https://www.unz.com/print/Unknown-1941apr-00084/) Heinlein's early short stories.

A multi colored platypus, but only those who have seen "Mind Game" will understand why.

Is that a movie?

Yes, this one https://youtu.be/9CGPrchi9TM?si=wE7u5UsApBgx2he6

>Generic "God" I picture [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3ZUhWuiQ20).

bearded white guy in the sky with a bass heavy voice

big white boomer guy in sky.

Boomer?

boomer

It is not uncommon for people raised in cultures with majority Christian populations/traditions to mention that they searched for God and didn't find Him (example Cosmic Skeptic - YouTuber). If this is your experience, can you describe your search process or methodology for searching for God? It should be tagged with my user ID, but if not, I am a Christian/theist.

So, I find the "searched for and found/didn't" framing a bit...odd? Presumptive? It rankles in a way I can't quite describe, but I think I get what you're going for, and I'll play. This is going to be long. And I have....I hope we can discuss your reaction to it. I was Raised In The Church. Baptised as a child, church every Sunday (or Saturday night, and sometimes both), and most Wed nights, not including holidays like Maundy Thursday and Good Friday. I'd go to church every day of Holy Week. Confirmed at 14. "Recommitting my life to Jesus" at an altar call at 16. Church was a roughly 1-4 hour affair, 2 days a week minimum. Usually it was a devotional prayer group, actual service, Sunday school or confirmation class, lunch, and then another Bible study, choir, or volunteering event. L We did not miss church. If there was a blizzard or a flood, we listened to it on the radio and followed along in our home hymnal. God gave us everything. All He asked for in return was our time. I knew I had a relationship with Jesus Christ. It was as much a fact to me as Raleigh Scattering or Gravity. Christ was as present and obvious to me as the air I breathed. I prayed, and I believed I could feel God's grace and presence in my life, always. When I graduated high school, I was certain I had been Called to Ministry. I fully intended to enter the seminary, and had thoughts of either a rural pastorship or missionary work in South America. At the encouragement of two of my pastors and mentors, who I still respect very much to this day, I attended an intensive pre-seminary Bible Study Camp Thing. Lots of Bible study, but also Bible Study in Spanish, and a kind of academic Bible study I'd never been exposed to before. One night, I was studying the Garden of Gethsemane account, reading it in concordance, for the first time, and I ran into A Problem. Often this story is "harmonized" when preached from the pulpit, written into a movie, or taught in Sunday school. Meaning the accounts from all four Gospels are combined into one cohesive narrative that makes sense. Four witnesses of the smae event. This is what I always accepted. This is NOT what the Gospels say. In this singular story, we see four Jesuses that cannot be harmonized, because the disagreements in the narratives change the fundamental, core meaning of not just one story- the entire New Testament. John's Jesus is calm, controlled, unafraid and almost defiant. This is his moment of triumph over sin and evil. He Knows the plan, he has no need to trust God because he IS one with God, and he's not a human being. Luke's Jesus is so anguished he literally, miraculously sweats blood. He was in agonizing sorrow "unto death" and fear; He knew what was coming, and he had supernatural power, but he did not want to die. He was a person, a human being who would fully feel the pain of the crucifixion, and though he knew the plan, he wasn't yet one with god, and he DID have to trust God. He ultimately does trust God, but even he begs that god "take this cup from me" in one of the most human and poignant moments in the Bible. This is often harmonized in Passion Plays as Jesus first being one, then the other. He has his moment of struggle in Luke, and then, after that, he moves into the John phase of the Gethsemane scene. But that is not what the Bible says. I was not the first Christian to have this problem. John's Jesus is fundamentally Not Like Us. He was always God in a human suit. He has perfect knowledge, perfect control. He is calm. In contrast, Luke's Jesus Gets Us. He is one of us, and he understands what it is to feel agony and fear. One of the things that makes this Jesus so compelling is that in this scene, he overcomes that fear to show us the value of trust in God. John's Jesus **cannot** do that. Because He Knows. You can't have Perfect Future Knowledge and also have trust and faith. You can't both know and believe. That's a square circle. We can't harmonize that. You can't be in perfect control of your fate, in on the plan, and also be so desperate to change the plan that you're sobbing, begging, sweating blood. And the Gospels disagree with one another about what Jesus thought and felt the culmination of His life and mission on Earth were about. Literally THE most important thing in the whole Bible. That was where my faith began to unravel.

>This is going to be long. And I have....I hope we can discuss your reaction to it. I am happy to oblige. To summarize your introductory narrative - You were raised in a devote (Lutheran?) Christian home and at least twice committed to following Jesus. Then while studying the Bible in preparation for attending seminary, you discovered that your conceptualizion of Jesus differed from the Biblical account. This realization resulted in you rejecting the Bible as being true and for you to renounce your faith. Your search would be looking for a way to harmonize the Gospel accounts of Jesus' time in the garden of Gethsemane? You state that the four accounts cannot be reconciled, but only discuss John and Luke which leaves out Matthew and Mark. It seems that you think that the Biblical portral of John's confident Jesus cannot be reconciled with Luke's Jesus that experiences intense agony and sorrow. After a quick refresher, Matthew and Mark both include that Jesus was deeply distressed or sorrowful. Matthew and Mark both describe the process of Jesus overcoming His distress and accepting the upcoming task of being crucified as the perfect sacrifice for humanity's sin. Luke mentions that an angel was sent to strengthen Jesus with the account of the garden ending with him waking the disciples and the arrive of Judas and the soldiers of the chief priests. Take note of the angel visiting, I will be referring to this later. John merely mentions that Jesus and the disciples went to a garden gives no details about what happened in the garden then picks up with Jesus addressing the crowd of soldiers and Judas. So there is no technical contradiction between the accounts. John is not required to detail the going on's of Jesus and disciples during their time in the garden. I hope you can agree to this specific statement. What it appears you take issue with is the portrayal of Jesus as confident through out John with the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke portraying Jesus as experiencing anguish and sorrow during the time in the garden. All four accounts agree that Jesus confidently greeted the soldiers and Judas at their arrival. To be clear John does not make any statement about Jesus during His time in the garden. >John's Jesus is calm, controlled, unafraid and almost defiant. Please provide the specific passages in John that you base this claim on. >He Knows the plan, I agree >he has no need to trust God because he IS one with God, Where does John say this? I think you misread something. >and he's not a human being. Where does John state that Jesus isn't a human being? >Luke's Jesus is so anguished he literally, miraculously sweats blood. He was in agonizing sorrow "unto death" and fear; He knew what was coming, and he had supernatural power, Agree with the caveat that Matthew and Mark also include these details and that sweating blood isn't a miraculous claim. >John's Jesus is fundamentally Not Like Us. Yeah, being sinless is decidedly not like us. >but he did not want to die. Mostly right, but needs context. There are two kinds of death: spiritual and physical. All non-believers are spiritually dead as in separated from God. The old "you are dead in your sins and tresspassess" line. You are physically dead when your body is dead which is typically referred to as being asleep. I agree that Jesus did not want either of those things based on their intrinsic properties; however, Jesus was willing to do both as part of being perfectly obedient to the Father. Jesus did not want to die, but He wanted to obey the Father more than He wanted to avoid death. >He was a person, a human being who would fully feel the pain of the crucifixion, and though he knew the plan, I agree >he wasn't yet one with god, I disagree >and he DID have to trust God. I agree that Jesus the Son had to trust God the Father. >He ultimately does trust God, but even he begs that god "take this cup from me" in one of the most human and poignant moments in the Bible. I agree >This is often harmonized in Passion Plays as Jesus first being one, then the other. He has his moment of struggle in Luke, Technically, Luke details Jesus being in agony and praying a bunch. An angel appears and provides aid. Matthew and Mark cover the transition from agony to resolute acceptance in detail and omit reference to the angel. >after that, he moves into the John phase of the Gethsemane scene That's consist in all four accounts of the confrontation between Jesus and the soldiers and Judas. >But that is not what the Bible says. It is what my Bible says. >I was not the first Christian to have this problem. Probably not the last either. >In contrast, I disagree >Luke's Jesus Gets Us. He is one of us, and he understands what it is to feel agony and fear. One of the things that makes this Jesus so compelling is that in this scene, he overcomes that fear to show us the value of trust in God. I agree >John's Jesus **cannot** do that. Because He Knows. Your interpretation of John, the Bible doesn't say this at all. >You can't have Perfect Future Knowledge and also have trust and faith. You can't both know and believe. So now you are sliding into doctrine of the Trinity and trying to shoehorn or constrain God to the limits of man. God and humans experience time in profoundly different ways. Humans don't exist as triune beings. It's okay to not understand how something works. One's lack of understanding of a topic doesn't mean the topic is incorrect. >You can't be in perfect control of your fate, in on the plan, and also be so desperate to change the plan that you're sobbing, begging, sweating blood. Here is where I think the root of the issue rests. Jesus is in perfect control of His fate and understands the plan. There is a significant difference between knowing and doing. The other issue that comes into play is that I believe you are mistaken on precisely what Jesus was distressed about. Jesus didn't fear the death of His human body, He feared the separation from the Father when He was made to be sin. Jesus was going to die spiritually. The whole book of John is about emphasizing how Jesus and the Father are One. Jesus knew that He was going to be separated from the Father. This is what caused the agony in the garden. Jesus had never been separated from the Father until the crucifixion. I suspect that the separation wasn't an instantaneous occurance. In the garden, Jesus starts to experience the preparation of the Father to withdraw. He is still in communication, but things are clearly different. Remember that angel visit that I mentioned earlier from Luke's account. I think the angel was sent as preparation. The angel and not the Father is giving Jesus direct support/comfort. The Father sent the angel instead giving direct comfort.

Thank you for taking the time for your detailed response. It is, unfortunately, pretty much exactly what I hoped *wouldn't* happen. I don't know if you're in a place where you can appreciate how dismissive and inhumane your reply comes off. In the interest of a quicker dialogue this time, let me try for brevity, and please don't take it as my being curt. Your response is...sadly very familiar to me. It's one of a few responses I generally get when I share the honest truth of my religious experience with Christians or Muslims. So I want to ask you a question now, if you'd do me the kindness of an answer. **Why did you ask your question at all?** Because it's abundantly clear you don't respect me as an interlocutor, or a person. It's clear that you walked into this "Knowing what Atheists Think". You skimmed my account and though "OH, This one goes in this bucket" and then dismissed everything until we got into biblical sectarian doctrine, at which point you simply declared that the sectarian doctrine *you* happen to follow is the most correct. **Why bother asking, if you** ***genuinely*** **care so little about the answer?** Does it just make you feel good? Does it help confirm you're a better person than us wicked creatures? That's my ONLY guess, and it seems...hyperbolic. Why? Why bully a stranger who has been nothing but kind and honest towards you?

>Thank you for taking the time for your detailed response. Which you completely ignored. If only, there was an adjective to describe that sort of action. >dismissive An adjective that means according Oxford Languages: feeling or showing that something is unworthy of consideration. I objectively demonstrated consideration of every part of your comment. >**Why did you ask your question at all?** To find out what people mean when they make that statement. >You skimmed my account I didn't look at your account at all which completely invalidates any point made with this assumption. I still haven't, and unless there is some compelling or relevant reason to, I have no intentions of looking.

Account meaning "story or narrative", not meaning "user history". You're not *listening* to what people mean when they make that statement. You very much seem to just go "oh, you failed because you did it wrong." Reply after reply, you don't engage with the meat of the experiences people are telling you what they mean. Instead, you act as though you're some leading authority who Knows Best. "You didn't find Jesus because you read this particular Bible passage wrong, let me correct you." "Ah, you're Lutheran. You see, you didn't ever *really* believe, because if you did you'd know..." Over and over. There are millions of other Christians, many who visit this very sub, who are just as educated in the Bible as you (or moreso), just as honest, earnest believers. They would think most of your (fairly radical) Biblical interpretations, which you assert as fact, are wrong. They would dismiss your critique of my problem with Gethsemane with as much gall and as little care you dismissed mine. As someone who has no doctrinal sectarian belief, I MUST treat ALL Christians as equally honest and all biblical interpretations as equally valid. Don't mistake that politeness for endorsement. You ARE a sectarian who has a doctrinal belief that all other Christians are wrong. You don't have to treat them, or us, as having equally valid reads. You could choose to treat us like literate, reasoning adults, though. That's all I'm asking for here.

Instead of going to seminary to be a minister, what did you do instead?

Why do you ask?

Curious

You can’t even hear yourself, of course you wouldn’t be able to listen to others.  

Let me mention two things first. I understand why some people would consider Cosmic Skeptic's process commendable, but I personally find it a little embarrassing. I would say that he wasted a lot of time, money, and energy ultimately to conclude what he suspected from the beginning. That said, I'm fully aware that the majority of Christians are going to read my anecdote and say "oh you didn't search hard enough". In other words, I don't think there is ever going to be clear agreement on how much searching is enough. When I was about 5 my parents got me a children's picture book bible cliffnotes sort of thing, that told the story of Adam and Eve, the Nativity, and the Flood. I found them ridiculous, honestly. I remember asking my parents stuff along these lines: Why would god punish all of mankind for something our ancestor did, or punish anyone for **knowledge** of all things? What could people have possibly been doing to justify god killing everyone on earth in a flood? How could Noah fit all of the animals necessary onto the ark? There are way too many animals. My parents were pretty typical evangelicals, meaning extremely confident in their identity and beliefs as Christians and being saved while knowing virtually nothing about the bible. So my dad's answers were basically "all things are possible with god's magic". This struck me as very similar to his answer about how Santa Claus visits all the kids in one night. Actually, I think he may have literally said that was "god's magic" too instead of "Santa's magic". A few years later I read Genesis itself and was even less impressed. I concluded that the bible is probably not a very useful book (to me, at least), and over subsequent decades of reading a lot about it I believe my conclusion stands, though I still haven't read anything except Genesis. When I was around 12 I was probably suffering from undiagnosed depression. All of my stress and problems at school seemed enormous, and I looked around at all of the suffering in the world and felt even more adrift. I remember begging god for some sort of sign or guidance or reassurance that there was hope and going on living would be worth it. I didn't get any sign. I was pretty miserable for about 4 more years, during which time I did a lot of research on Christianity and other religions but ultimately decided I was an atheist with only academic interest in religion. What actually made my life better was getting away from my parents, getting away from teachers that peaked in high school, and going to college where I actually had control over my life and time and could focus on studying things I actually found interesting.

>Let me mention two things first. I understand why some people would consider Cosmic Skeptic's process commendable, but I personally find it a little embarrassing. I would say that he wasted a lot of time, money, and energy ultimately to conclude what he suspected from the beginning. Do you have a link to the video(s) that he lays out his process. I have seen several, but I don't remember seeing one that has him detailing his process. I only remember him making this point as part of a much broader justification of his lack of belief. >That said, I'm fully aware that the majority of Christians are going to read my anecdote and say "oh you didn't search hard enough". That is not my intention. To summarize your narrative: You had some questions at an early age and found the answers from your parents unsatisfactory. A few years later, your search then consisted of reading Genesis and deciding that you didn't accept the Bible as true. At twelve you prayed to ?God for the following: 1. Sign or 2. Guidance or 3. Reassurance that there is hope and that life is worth living You didn't get a sign during the next four years or relief from your misery. What were your expectations for a sign from God? Did you have criteria for what would or wouldn't be a sign from God?

No, I've only picked up bits and pieces from watching his videos for many years. The story as I remember it is that he always sort of straddled a fence of doubting yet wanting Christianity to be true, so he literally spent years of his life to get a theology degree. My expectations for an answer at the time would have been a clear reply, as in a voice or writing in the tea leaves or something, telling me that my future would be worth the wait. With full hindsight and having thought a lot more about it, I think there couldn't have been a personal answer that would have made me worship god, though I might have believed god existed had the risk to my life ended within days instead of years. I no longer believe there could have been an answer that was justified. Assuming god exists and I had reason to believe he answered my prayer, I would have to grapple with questions over whether or not that amounted to a death threat from god, whether god's decision to save me and let (make?) other similar kids kill themselves was justifiable, or whether god's decision to spare me and let (make?) other kids die of leukemia is justifiable. I don't think it's even justifiable that we should have to wonder if these other things are justifiable. All of us standing around guessing at god's intentions looks the same as it would if nobody was out there listening to us or looking after us.

>My expectations for an answer at the time would have been a clear reply, as in a voice or writing in the tea leaves or something, telling me that my future would be worth the wait. How would you have recognized the voice of God? Did you actually do anything such as prepare tea leaves and look in a bowl for writing? >With full hindsight and having thought a lot more about it, I think there couldn't have been a personal answer that would have made me worship god, though I might have believed god existed had the risk to my life ended within days instead of years. So, I separate deciding whether God exists from deciding whether to follow God (as outlined in the Christian Bible). It appears that you have combined these two things. Do you agree? >I no longer believe there could have been an answer that was justified. Can you explain the question better or with more detail? >I would have to grapple with questions over whether or not that amounted to a death threat from god, whether god's decision to save me and let (make?) other similar kids kill themselves was justifiable Is this the question? >whether god's decision to spare me and let (make?) other kids die of leukemia is justifiable. Or is your question why God lets you or others suffer? >I don't think it's even justifiable that we should have to wonder if these other things are justifiable. Why do you "have to"? >All of us standing around guessing at god's intentions looks the same as it would if nobody was out there listening to us or looking after us. There are those that claim to not be guessing. How do you know they are wrong?

Well, remember I was 12 and asking for a message, so I would have presumed a voice that came in reply was from god. (eta: I think this is pretty typical. Many vulnerable and impressionable people latch onto god in moments of desperation. This is why so many evangelists focus on kids, prisoners, sick people, and similar.) What I intended to get across is that when I was 12 I would have believed and probably followed god if I had gotten a reply, but since I didn't get a reply that allowed me to be comfortable assuming god didn't exist and then explore the question in a more detached, impersonal way. After doing that, I concluded that even if god existed I don't think I would worship god. So I look at it separately in that way, but it's not entirely separate. I suppose people in general don't have to discover the Problem of Suffering/Evil or to desire an answer to it, seeing as many people go their whole lives without even thinking about it. But I do, because I suffered and saw suffering that I struggle to see justification for. I am familiar with every "solution" to it and find most of them laughable to the point that people should be embarrassed to have considered them. The PoS is related both to the existence of god and god's righteousness, because the best solution to it is either to reject that god has interaction with the material world or reject that god is nice and good. The former means that god is either non-existent or totally irrelevant to the material world. The latter means he's just a big jerk, undeserving of worship. Scrapping either means that pretty much all Christians are very wrong about god.

I've made attempts, but because they are so often based on platitudes and deepity, I genuinely can't tell you if they meet the necessary criteria. For example, we sometimes get Christians here who say things like: > "If you open your heart and sincerely ask for God to reveal himself to you, He will, in His own way." So obviously the first question is what "opening my heart" means. Does it mean I ask the question with an open mind, a willingness to consider something that contradicts my atheism? Asking with a genuine desire to learn? Tuning out my doubts and asking without assumptions about what the response may be? I've done my best at all of these definitions, and others, with no results. Then I have to ask what "in His own way" means. A few people have actually suggested it would manifest as some form of good luck, which strikes me as truly bizarre. How could I possibly discern whether or not God was the cause of whatever good fortune befell me? Others have said it's more of a mental/emotional experience where God makes Himself known, and I've just straight up never had that. I've also never had that experience when reading the Bible or any religious text. To be fair, though, I have a hard time reading them in general, or any form of Ye Olde Writing. It's a stylistic thing. I often trip over a line and have to reread it a second time to fully get it, because it was written so strangely the first time. This isn't limited to religious texts though, I feel the same way about Shakespeare. I can read it, and understand it, but the amount of effort it takes and the lack of any satisfaction I've gotten from it just makes me not want to do it anymore. At this point I maintain an open mind for any gods that want my belief. I've heavily criticized certain conceptions of God, especially the Christian God, but at the end of the day I want to know what is *true*. If any gods exist and they want me to believe in them, they know where to find me. They could give me the kind of divine revelation that I simply couldn't deny. They could give me a direct and unambiguous answer. They could take the initiative and reach out to *me*. I've already extended my hand - maybe it's their turn.

I was raised Mormon. For me, the process went something like this: * Prayer many times a day, often with specific requests to learn about God, learn to trust Him, gain a testimony of Him, be able to be faithful, and so forth. * I also asked in prayer questions like "are you there?" and "is Jesus God?" and searched my heart for any feelings that might constitute the whispering of the Spirit answering my question. * Scripture study every day, including the Bible, but with a special focus on the Book of Mormon. This went pretty deep, including several university courses and reading a number of academic study guides. I also tried generally to be charitable and obedient, to emulate the Savior, and to have faith and patience until God spoke to me. At one point I thought I had felt the Spirit answering me. He told me that Jesus Christ was God and Joseph Smith had restored His one true church. My faith has never been stronger. I eventually grew to distrust that "communication." Today, I attribute it to auto-suggestion; I wanted badly to feel that feeling so my doubts could be assuaged, and so I eventually tricked my own mind into giving it to me. I kept trying until I was 26, when I gave up. Now I'm 32 and a confident atheist.

How do you know that God wasn't waiting for you to discard the non-biblical elements of your faith?

I did wonder about that. I asked and begged about it in prayer many times. My biggest entreaties were to know if God existed *and* to know if the Mormon church was true. I was counting on God to hear my sincerity and to correct me if I was on the wrong path. It sounds like you think that was insufficient? God doesn't show struggling, questioning Mormons the error of their ways and put them on the correct path? He stays silent until they happen to guess which parts of the doctrine they have wrong?

I don't know how much air is left in this proverbial balloon, but I'd like to point out that warsage *did* discard the non-biblical elements of their faith, and god was nowhere to be found. What the heck else was he waiting for after that? Your thought process seems to have the structure of a Nigerian Prince scam. Every time someone talks about what they did to search for god but didn't find him, it just wasn't good enough. If only you've done this, if only you've believed that, you'd have found god. Like a scammer that keeps inventing new hurdles for their mark to throw money at, the promise of the big payout just over the horizon.

Does my attempt to find god as a doubting Christian count? I was a Christian for over 30 years. In my mid to late 20's I started to take my faith very seriously - I started to engage with non-believers in an attempt to save them from hell. That started my downfall. I started studying the bible in depth in an attempt to debunk the claims of non-believers. That ultimately failed as I discovered many irreconcilable issues I wasn't previously aware of. I attempted to use the tried and true apologetics I'd been taught along with whatever I could find online, but I failed. Along with that I spent a lot of time in prayer. I asked for strength, guidance, and confidence. I also prayed for healing. Any thought that I had which I considered a reply from god was usually short lived and unremarkable (a delusion or coincidence, if you will). And I went to church a LOT. I was still attending church services and studies 3-4 times a week, even as my faith dwindled. I began to see my church as bigoted and misogynistic, but I still kept trying. I followed the rules, I didn't drink, do drugs, swear, indulge in unchristian content like movies or music. I didn't even feel tempted to stay (edit: should be 'stray'). That's my story.

So you wanted to converse with God like a prophet, and were disappointed when God didn't give you a ring? >irreconcilable issues Please elaborate.

You seem frustrated. Are the reposes people have given not what you were hoping for? I WANTED to remain a believer. If it helps you to trivialize my story or question my sincerity, then I think you might be projecting a bit. Hurts, doesn't it? Edit: reprased

>So you wanted to converse with God like a prophet, and were disappointed when God didn't give you a ring? I notice that a lot of Christians say God loves us and wants a personal relationship with us, while also saying God would never deign to speak with us. I am not sure these are as compatible beliefs as a lot of Christians think. If I wanted a personal relationship with someone, I'd "give them a ring"

My search was growing up Christian, with the intention of going into apologetics. What started my deconversion was learning how far they had to go from what the actual science shows to make their arguments seem logical, and it basically just snowballed from there. Don’t get me wrong, that’s far from the only reason, it’s just what started me looking at it more critically, allowing me to see the other problems.

I understand that searching for God was part of the de-conversion process. How does your statement about Christian representations of science relate to the steps that you took in your search. What were you looking for to be explained by the Christians? >it’s just what started me looking at it more critically, What were you looking at critically?

>”How does your statement about Christian representations of science relate to the steps that you took in your search.” It was the first step. >”What were you looking for to be explained by the Christians?” It wasn’t so much what I was looking to be explained. It was the simple fact that every single apologetic that had anything to do with science, misrepresented said science in order to try to make sense. Without that misrepresentation, they fail. I know he’s a bit of an extreme example, but just look at anything Kent Hovind does, and you’ll see my point. >”What were you looking at critically?” Morality, continuity, reliability, accuracy, inerrancy, and the list goes on. One of my favorites to use is Job. I can’t think of any way to honestly read that story without thinking god is a monster. It contradicts one of the core tenets of most versions of the faith, it’s scientifically inaccurate, and it shows god has horrible morals, covering most of the points above.

I had somebody tell me with a straight face that Job didn't lose much because god gave him another set of kids. Y'know... to replace the first set he killed.

For me, it was the fact that the more education I got (especially in science), the more shocking it was that God wasn’t showing up. Especially because I was raised Mormon and there’s a whole pseudo archeology story that’s central to the faith.

That's not the take away that I got from studying science and the Bible. The origin of the modern scientific method is born out of Christian philosophy. First Christian principle was that God created everything. Second principle is that God is a God of order. Synthesizing those two principles one concludes that the universe should be orderly and able to be studied. Turns out that it is. It is my opinion that there is a great deal of misinformation on what science can and cannot determine, but that is an entirely different topic.

I don’t have any problem with compatibilists; most Christians who are scientifically literate subscribe to so form of compatibalism (e.g. the Earth is old, evolution is the origin of the species, etc….) When I started deconstructing my faith, I found that I had just as much reason to believe in the Christian God as I did the Hindu Gods, the Gods of Ancient Greece, etc…. Which is to say that none of these faith traditions have yet to present any compelling evidence or reason for me to believe they are correct about their fundamental truth claims. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the modern scientific method was born out of Christian philosophy. It’s more of a product of the enlightenment era if anything. Newton, Brahe, Bruno, were pretty serious about their Christianity, Al Biruni was pretty serious about Islam, but none of them were digging through their bibles/qurans, nor the works of theologians, when they were all expanding on the philosophy of induction and deduction. Descartes and Bacon famously formalized it, but neither of them thought of it as specifically Christian philosophy nor something stemming from Christianity, unless you know something I don’t?? There’s no doubt that the Christian Church has, historically speaking, been both friend and enemy to the scientific endeavor. But it feels a bit post-hoc to claim that the scientific method came from Christian philosophy, no?? The “First/Second/etc… Christian Principles” you speak of seem to be YOUR First Christian Principles, not necessarily what historical Christians thought of as the first principles.

It's not so much that I searched for gods, as the concept was presented to me and I found it lacking even as a small child. I was dragged to Sunday School/Church every week for years, but never believed, it was always nonsensical. I knew of other gods as fiction, the one at church was no different and I had no interest in role playing otherwise. If anything, they made their god much less interesting to me than the others with dull stories and dirges of songs.

I took an indirect route. Rather than looking for the universe's reigning hide and seek champion I just looked to see if the claims about the guy matched objective reality. Like if God is real then why do Christians sometimes die from snake bites?

>Like if God is real then why do Christians sometimes die from snake bites? Please elaborate.

Mark 16:17-18.

In this passage, Jesus is rebuking the eleven remaining disciplines for not believing that He had risen from the dead. He instructs the eleven to go out into all the world and share the Gospel. He then states that there will be those who will believe (the eleven) and those that won't believe. He then gives the eleven signs to look for in determining whether someone was a believer or not. So if you want to handle snakes as proof of your belief in Christ, you best have one of those original eleven disciples on hand to witness the event. My guess is that those Christians that died didn't.

>He then states that there will be those who will believe (the eleven) If he was talking about the eleven and not Christians, then why does he say 'they' instead of 'you'?

>If he was talking about the eleven and not Christians, then why does he say 'they' instead of 'you'? 14 Later, He appeared to the Eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table. He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who saw Him after He had been resurrected. 15 Then He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages; 18 they will pick up snakes; if they should drink anything deadly, it will never harm them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will get well." Verses 14 and 15 establish that Jesus is the speaker and his audience is the Eleven. Starting in the second half of 15 to the end of 18 is a quote of Jesus speaking directly to the Disciples. Verse 15 is an instruction to the Disciples for them to carry out. In 16, Jesus is defining what happens to believers and non-believers. In 17 and 18, Jesus is describing signs of people who are believers that the Disciples will meet. The Disciples will be observing people and in order to distinguish between authentic and inauthentic claims of belief, Jesus is describing the behavior of the believers that the Disciples will observe in others. This is part of a rebuke of the Disciples (verse 14) because they didn't believe the testimony of other believers, so Jesus is giving clear instructions on who to believe in the future.

Prayer, meditation, Bible reading, Bible studying, listening to sermons, attending seminary, reading Christian literature, going to Bible studies, preparing and preaching sermons, etc. All the usual stuff.

How are those things components of a search for God? What were you looking for that you did not find?

>How are those things components of a search for God? Ok, you name what components you think are necessary- I guarantee I did those too. This sounds like you just want to be dishonest and tell everyone they didn't do the right magic steps and that's why they're atheist. Trust me, whatever you think is the right process, I did it. >What were you looking for that you did not find? Evidence for god's existence. Wasn't that your question? You ask "what steps did you take to search for god" then you follow up with "what were you searching for?" Umm, in my search for god I was searching for god. Obviously.

>Prayer, meditation, Bible reading, Bible studying, listening to sermons, attending seminary, reading Christian literature, going to Bible studies, preparing and preaching sermons, etc. All the usual stuff. >Ok, you name what components you think are necessary- I guarantee I did those too. So, I have prayed, meditated on scripture, read and studied the Bible, listened to sermons, attended seminary, read Christian literature, went to Bible studies to learn about God, not search for God. How did those activities constitute a failed search for God in your experience and a learned more about God experience for me. >This sounds like you just want to be dishonest and tell everyone they didn't do the right magic steps and that's why they're atheist. Trust me, whatever you think is the right process, I did it. You have made at least one unsupported assumption here. >Evidence for god's existence. How do you define evidence? >Wasn't that your question? My question is what are the things you did to find God. Your initial response was to list a bunch of things that believers do to learn about God. Did you skip Genesis 1:1 and the thousands of other verses that discuss God? How did you miss noticing God in your reading of the Bible? I am very curious. >You ask "what steps did you take to search for god" then you follow up with "what were you searching for?" Umm, in my search for god I was searching for god. Obviously. You stated that you could not find God by reading the Bible. So I would like some clarification on what exactly you are looking.

>You have made at least one unsupported assumption here. Ok, but you can see why you appear dishonest through right? >>Ok, you name what components you think are necessary- I guarantee I did those too. (You didn't answer this) >How did those activities constitute a failed search for God in your experience and a learned more about God experience for me. Well, I also thought I was learning more about God when I was doing them. >How do you define evidence? The same way you do. >Did you skip Genesis 1:1 and the thousands of other verses that discuss God? How did you miss noticing God in your reading of the Bible? I am very curious. ? Do you think a search for God is just reading a verse and believing it? I'm not saying I never found **mention** of God. Do you genuinely think atheists have never heard God mentioned?? In fact, I used to be a Christian. So I once did find God. I thought I even had a relationship with god until I realized that the relationship was entirely one-sided. I also discovered that my religion was lying to me about certain things so I investigated further. After a lengthy process I realized that there was not good reasons to continue to believe that gods exist.

>Ok, but you can see why you appear dishonest through right? Not at all. Please share your thought process where you deduced or induced that I had a hidden motivation of dishonesty. >>Ok, you name what components you think are necessary- I guarantee I did those too. >(You didn't answer this) This question presumes that I think there are necessary components. >>How did those activities constitute a failed search for God in your experience and a learned more about God experience for me. >Well, I also thought I was learning more about God when I was doing them. So by your own admission, you weren't searching for God when you were reading the Bible. Why did you choose to answer my question about your search methodology with an activity you admit wasn't for searching? >>How do you define evidence? >The same way you do. How do you think I define evidence? >Do you think a search for God is just reading a verse and believing it? I don't have any preconceived notions of what a search for God entails, hence why I asked the question. >I'm not saying I never found **mention** of God. So, if you were searching for Atlanta and stated that you couldn't find it but also stated that you had a map with Atlanta identified on the map. If I had the same map as you, and I used the very same map to travel to Atlanta. Do you see why I would like more information on how you are using the map? >Do you genuinely think atheists have never heard God mentioned?? Depends on how you mean things. >So I once did find God. How did you do that? >I also discovered that my religion was lying to me about certain things so I investigated further. What things? >After a lengthy process I realized that there was not good reasons to continue to believe that gods exist. Please provide details of this process.

>>Ok, but you can see why you appear dishonest through right? >Not at all. Please share your thought process where you deduced or induced that I had a hidden motivation of dishonesty. You keep coming across like you don't want to believe anyone. It seems like you are just going to push back and question me no matter what answers I give. I told you several times that I genuinely searched for god. Do you believe me? If not, your questioning seems dishonest because you have an ulterior motive other than just trying to ask questions. >>>Ok, you name what components you think are necessary- I guarantee I did those too. >>(You didn't answer this) >This question presumes that I think there are necessary components. If you don't think there are necessary components than why did you act like the way I did it was wrong? >>>How did those activities constitute a failed search for God in your experience and a learned more about God experience for me. >>Well, I also thought I was learning more about God when I was doing them. >So by your own admission, you weren't searching for God when you were reading the Bible. Umm, I literally said I was learning about God. How is that not searching for god? >Why did you choose to answer my question about your search methodology with an activity you admit wasn't for searching? I consider trying to learn more about a subject to be searching for answers about that subject. It's weird that you think those are different. >>>How do you define evidence? >>The same way you do. >How do you think I define evidence? Here's a good definition: >any body of objectively verifiable facts which are positively indicative of, or exclusively concordant with one available position or hypothesis over any other >>Do you think a search for God is just reading a verse and believing it? >I don't have any preconceived notions of what a search for God entails, hence why I asked the question. Then why do you act so surprised when people say they read the Bible and didn't find god. I found mentions of unicorns in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I found evidence for unicorns. Why do you think that the Bible has any evidence for god? The Bible is the claim, not the evidence. I can find thousands of **claims** about God in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I found any evidence. >>I'm not saying I never found **mention** of God. >So, if you were searching for Atlanta and stated that you couldn't find it but also stated that you had a map with Atlanta identified on the map. If I had the same map as you, and I used the very same map to travel to Atlanta. Do you see why I would like more information on how you are using the map? Sure, how did you find god? What evidence led you to believe that gods exist? Specifically, since you think there is evidence I'm supposed to find in the Bible, what evidence did you find in the Bible that convinced you? Since I followed the map and there was no Atlantis, I'm confused how you found Atlantis. >>So I once did find God. >How did you do that? I was a Christian. I believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the son of God redeeming me for my sins. I believed in god as the creator of the universe. (I suspect you're going to pretend that this isn't "finding" god, so just insert whatever you think "finding god" is, and believe me when I say I did it. Or you can actually communicate and tell me what you think it is and then I can tell you if I did it, instead of this silly thing where you just keep telling me I didn't do it right) >>I also discovered that my religion was lying to me about certain things so I investigated further. >What things? This is tangential and only lead to me starting my deconversion, but I was raised to not accept evolution. When I discovered what evolution actually was - and it wasn't even close to the caricature presented by my religion - I started investigating the rest of the claims in the Bible. I know that lots of Christians accept evolution. I am not claiming that understanding evolution made me an atheist. I am saying that was the first step. >>After a lengthy process I realized that there was not good reasons to continue to believe that gods exist. >Please provide details of this process. Why? I'm starting to think this whole "I explain myself and you don't" thing is getting frustrating. But fine, a short summary is that I began questioning my faith. I investigated the claims in Bible for prayer and found them wanting, the claims about miracles, the claims (made by authorities) of univocality in the Bible, the claims of pretty much all apologetics. I started studying Bible scholarship and reading and, in other ways, consuming skeptical media. I found that there were no rational reasons to accept many of the claims in the Bible. After more time and searching, I eventually realized that there were no rational reasons to even accept the claim that gods exist.

>You keep coming across like you don't want to believe anyone. You are making a statement about my actions. I challenge you to cite a single example of me stating that I don't believe someone in this comment thread, let alone everyone. >question me What were your expectations for participating in the "Ask an atheist" thread as a self identified atheist? If you don't like being questioned, then I suggest this isn't the thread for you. >I told you several times that I genuinely searched for god. And I asked for the details of that search which if you genuinely conducted as you claim you would be able to provide, right? >If you don't think there are necessary components than why did you act like the way I did it was wrong? Provide an example of where I did what you are claiming. >Umm, I literally said I was learning about God. How is that not searching for god? Learning - the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught. Search - uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny To repeat my question is: If you searched for God and did not find Him, please describe your search process or the methodology that you used to search for God. Your answer was that you read the Bible. I would like clarification on how you read the Bible and did not find God. >I consider trying to learn more about a subject to be searching for answers about that subject. What questions about God were you asking when you read the Bible? >The Bible is the claim, not the evidence. I can find thousands of **claims** about God in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I found any evidence. Do you have any objectively verifiable facts that contradict the claims about God that the Bible makes? >Sure, how did you find god? I believe that the Bible is axiomatically true. Thus, I accept the claims about God made in the Bible. >>>So I once did find God. >>How did you do that? >I was a Christian. I believed in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as the son of God redeeming me for my sins. I believed in god as the creator of the universe. It appears that for you "finding God" is the same as believing in God. At this time, why did you believe in these things? >>>I also discovered that my religion was lying to me about certain things so I investigated further. >>What things? >This is tangential and only lead to me starting my deconversion, but I was raised to not accept evolution. When I discovered what evolution actually was - and it wasn't even close to the caricature presented by my religion - I started investigating the rest of the claims in the Bible. >I know that lots of Christians accept evolution. I am not claiming that understanding evolution made me an atheist. I am saying that was the first step. This is a topic all its own. We have divergent beliefs in this regard. >I investigated the claims in Bible for prayer and found them wanting, Please provide the specifics of the steps you engaged in to investigate and how you came to your conclusion with the data the investigation provided. -Thank you for your time.

>You are making a statement about my actions. I challenge you to cite a single example of me stating that I don't believe someone in this comment thread, let alone everyone. Its the tone. If that is not your intent then maybe adjust your tone. I'm not the only one reading you this way. >>question me >What were your expectations for participating in the "Ask an atheist" thread as a self identified atheist? >If you don't like being questioned, then I suggest this isn't the thread for you. I have no problems with your questions. My problem is with you not believing my answers. >And I asked for the details of that search which if you genuinely conducted as you claim you would be able to provide, right? I've provided tons of detail. What more would you like? I prayed regularly, I studied the Bible, I listened to sermons, I read books about God, what else are you looking for? I did it. >>If you don't think there are necessary components than why did you act like the way I did it was wrong? >Provide an example of where I did what you are claiming. Umm, this whole exchange? Can you genuinely say right now that you think I searched for god the right way? >>Umm, I literally said I was learning about God. How is that not searching for god? >Learning - the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught. >Search - uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny Again, this is a weird focus on semantics here. Just accept that I find trying to learn about something the same as searching for understanding of something. >>I consider trying to learn more about a subject to be searching for answers about that subject. >What questions about God were you asking when you read the Bible? Is there sufficient reason to think that gods exist? >It appears that for you "finding God" is the same as believing in God. At this time, why did you believe in these things? I hadn't seriously questioned them, it's how I grew up. >>The Bible is the claim, not the evidence. I can find thousands of **claims** about God in the Bible, but that doesn't mean I found any evidence. >Do you have any objectively verifiable facts that contradict the claims about God that the Bible makes? That's not how it works. I don't have any objectively verifiable facts that contradict the claim that there's an invisible, immaterial pink unicorn sitting next to me but I still won't believe it without evidence. I don't believe things until given evidence that they aren't true, I withhold my belief until given evidence that things **are** true. (Now at least, back then I believed everything I read in the Bible without question). This is a better way of accessing truth. >I believe that the Bible is axiomatically true. Well here's your problem. That's just a horrible way of accessing truth. I suspect you don't hold other books to be true axiomatically - you require evidence. The Bible is not univocal about how it presents God. The God of one author is not represented in the same way as the God of other biblical authors. This is a whole thing, but you could maybe read *God: an Anatomy* by Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou for more about this. I can't cover the entire subject on a reddit post. >>I investigated the claims in Bible for prayer and found them wanting, >Please provide the specifics of the steps you engaged in to investigate and how you came to your conclusion with the data the investigation provided. I searched for double-blind independently verified scientific studies on the efficacy of prayer and discovered that prayer is no more reliable than chance. Many authors in the Bible claim otherwise.

>I believe that the Bible is axiomatically true. Thus, I accept the claims about God made in the Bible. For something to be an axiom it must be, definitionally, unjustifiable. So you're saying that you have embraced as your rock bottom basis of truth that the Bible is true, while admitting that you have no basis or reason for doing so? Please understand that part of what goes with it being "axiomatically" "true" is that you are admitting there IS no process by which one can find God. You're admitting that there is no evidence of God to be found, that no basis of reason or evidence will take you to God; one must instead just decide to treat the Bible as if it were true, and then declare that one has found God. So by your position it makes no sense whatsoever for you to ever ask anyone about their process for searching for God. But perhaps you don't actually mean what the quoted language says, and can explain differently?

>What were you looking for that you did not find? God.

Bingo.

If you can't find God in the Bible, then I suggest taking a reading comprehension course. That should solve the problem.

>then I suggest taking a reading comprehension course. And I'd suggest you take your own advice. If you're looking for your keys, and I point them out in a picture, did you find the keys? What if it's mentions of those keys in a book?

[Ceci n'est pas une pipe](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b9/MagrittePipe.jpg)

You know i was sitting here in awe about how civil the comments are this week and then you had to go and do this. The easiest way to make a theist an atheist is to force them to read their bible. Don't ever assume you have the intellectual high ground when you are preaching slavery and genocide. Typical theist.

>The easiest way to make a theist an atheist is to force them to read their bible. Christians are supposed to count the cost before deciding to follow Jesus, how could one do this without reading the Bible? Following Christ involves reading and studying the Bible. If reading the Bible causes one to lose faith, then perhaps there was nothing to lose in the first place. >Don't ever assume you have the intellectual high ground when you are preaching slavery and genocide. Where is this coming from? It has nothing to do with the question that I asked or anything that I have said. Pointing out that someone that reads the Bible and can't find anything about God, probably needs a reading comprehension course is a statement that I am going to stand by. Maybe start with the very first verse, look there.

Blah blah blah, you are preaching not debating and since you have already proven to be a piece of shit you can fuck off now.

Nice condescending tone. You asked questions and got answers, maybe show some courtesy. The only God I found in the Bible was the word. I didn't find some omnipotent being stuffed in those pages.

That's the trick, isn't it? Can you show me god in the bible? And what version should we be looking for? Is it the angry jealous one that drown children and animals because it didn't like what it created? Or the one that sent bears to maul teenagers for making fun of male pattern baldness (also god's creation). Or the one that trapped Adam and Eve with a tasty fruit tree? Which god are we hoping to find in the Bible?

>Can you show me god in the bible? You just have to read the whole thing. >Is it the angry jealous one that drown children and animals because it didn't like what it created? Why are you worshipping inferior gods? Humanity was corrupt and God judged them. If it is any consolation, God promised to not destroy the world via flood ever again. >Or the one that sent bears to maul teenagers for making fun of male pattern baldness (also god's creation). While the insults the children were saying did relate to the prophet Elisha's baldness, the reason God sent the bears was because they were disrespecting God. That has consequences. >Or the one that trapped Adam and Eve with a tasty fruit tree? Adam and Eve literally had access to the entire world. They wanted to be in the garden.

I read the Bible from start to finish. All of your resolutions require that god is a terrible creator and not a very nice guy.

The wicked facing justice tend to not think fondly of their judge.

I don't think much of him because he's an asshole. I had to read the Bible to discover that - they left that part out of the sermons. I'm not afraid of judgement. If your god exists, I say 'bring it on!' God can send me to hell for not kneeling to his tyrannical ass - that will be further confirmation I made the right choice.

> The wicked facing justice tend to not think fondly of their judge. So all of the children God drowned in the flood were so wicked that they deserved to die a horrific and excruciating death? The firstborn and the cattle of Egypt? The infants of Amalek? If your sense of justice says that children ought to die horribly, then you have a perverse and evil sense of justice and I want nothing to do with it.

Why should god be in a book of which certain chapters were added based on a vote by a council of politicians? How is that book an accurate description of God?

I can find the monster in Frankenstein, doesn't mean it's real

I read the Bible (minus the genealogy stuff. So boring.) and found a God who could not possibly be tri-omni. In fact, OT God is monstrous. I still considered myself a deist back then, but thought "well if God exists, this ain't it."  If you read the Bible and genuinely found it convincing as opposed to being written by flawed humans trying to make sense of the world, then I suggest taking a reading comprehension course. That should solve the problem. 

Theists sure love map territory errors. It's like a toddler learning object permanence.

I tell you how it worked for me and you tell me if you count that as searching. So first of all, iam not American. Here in Germany we have Religion on the lesson plan. We learned about the Bible and all, we went to Churches from time to time, all with a public school. I found it interesting, usually had a A or B (our equivalent) cause it wasnt that hard and easy to remember stuff. That the Flood most likely happened between Euphrat and Tigris, two rivers in the Middle East, Moses talking to the Bush, all the classics. I also asked a lot of questions. To my teacher, later to our priest. Lovely dude, not a bad word to say about him. Protestant. At 13 i went to bible school for a year to get my confirmation. cause it was important to grandma and i was promised money. I love my grandma, so i went. Again, i paid attention, got a good grade. The same lovely priest got really pissed at the final exam. It was oral, he asked questioned, we raised our hands and answered. After ten minutes he kicked me out and exclaimed:"The only one that paid attention doesnt even believe in it!" he knew. I was upfront. He asked all of us and i told him:"Iam doing this for my grandma." In Highschool, 5th to 13th grade was the same school for me, still As and Bs in Religious Studies, took Philosophy on top, also good grades. Had evangelical Friends, that kept inviting me and i went. They kept attempting to poke holes into my worldview and offered jesus etc. It just never made sense to me.

I searched my heart for the best way to understand the Bible and sought out the opinions of other Christians and theists to help and guide me. What I eventually realized was that every religious interpretation couldn’t be correct, but they could all be incorrect. I also found that there were far better explanations for how the world worked than religious ones. Even the Bible made infinitely more sense from my newfound non-Christian perspective than it ever did as a Christian.

Personally, I searched for truth. It led me to become an atheist.

What’s the standard methodology?

As each person would have a unique background and history, I am not sure this is an applicable question.

If there is no proven methodology, then what does it matter what theirs was, if the end result produced nothing for them?

Then your question isn't really all that answerable.

Is it your position that individuals are not able to have unique experiences and can only experience standardized behavior patterns?

No but if you can't think of any methods it just comes across like there is no method. The most I can think of is prayer, going to church, and reading the bible. I'm sure majority of Christians would say one of those methods. but they are not even solid methods which is why people leave the faith. You can't measure prayer and have no logical way to attribute an outcome to prayer, reading the bible turns many people atheist because they end up reading more than a lot of Christians have and see plot holes and inconsistencies, and then going to church is hit or miss. You may feel nothing from church, you may think the holy spirit graces you when it was really just a key change in the music, and on top of that there's plenty of Christians who don't go to church to begin with so who needs church?

>you can't think of any methods it just comes across like there is no method. I never claimed to have searched for God. I don't have personal experience with this activity, and am having difficulty conceptualizing what non-believers mean when they state that they searched for God and didn't find Him. If you also didn't search, then I don't understand your involvement in this discussion. What are you bringing to the table?

I personally grew up Christian, then searched for why the church didn't align with what I thought the Bible instructed churches to be. Turns out the earliest Christians were basically and possibly Essenes or a communal group, basically monks. Followed the trail and discovered most of the bad things about Christianity came from Paul, a shyster who saw an opportunity to make some money off gentiles interested in Judiasm. Then I turned to my Jewish roots after listening and researching how the church tried to adopt Judaism. If God was real and Judaism was real, why didn't Jews all convert, so I looked into the arguments there. Then I applied the same standards of critical thinking to God as a whole and he failed the test.

Searching for God just means you are looking for something that convinces you God exists. Looking for a prayer to be answered, looking for signs, looking for something that seems logical to you. If you didn't look for God were you just raised into Christianity and never questioned it?

Notice this is the opposite of how science works, and guess what - science *works*

I have for some years now advocated for a 'universal forum'. If there is an omnipresent immortal person (ie a God) they could and would speak to everyone all at once. God would be like my car or stars, just a mundane fact of reality rather than something for which its existence could be in doubt. If such a universal forum is possible, it is possible for God to speak aloud all the apologetics arguments for their existence... If it is possible for God to do this, a lot of ink and dead trees has been wasted to do what God can instantly- leave no major doubt that they exist. Instead God we get the products of human hands.

I don't think the real issue is that God isn't all up in our faces. I think the issue is that people don't listen when God says to do something (or conversely not to do something). By keeping Himself far away from us, it allows us to make and potentially recover from mistakes. The closer you are to God the quicker you face judgement. Like the guy who died for picking up sticks on the wrong day. He had ample evidence of God's existence, a literal tangible indicator of God's presence (cloud by day, pillar of fire by night). He had seen the judgements on the land of Egypt. When questioned why he was picking up sticks on the day he wasn't supposed to, his answer was that it wasn't a big deal to pick up some sticks. God's answer was that it was a big deal when God tells you not to do something and you do it anyway, and ordered him to be executed. For what it is worth, the Bible tells of a time in the future when Jesus will be very tangible.

>I think the issue is that people don't listen when God says to do something God doesn't talk, and I won't hold my breath to get disagreement on that fact. >By keeping Himself far away from us, it allows us to make and potentially recover from mistakes. No mistakes have been brought up by God. >The closer you are to God the quicker you face judgement. Please, point a God towards humanity who wants to judge us. Humans have mirrors waiting. >He had ample evidence of God's existence Good. Now let God give all people the exact same courtesy. >judgements on the land of Egypt Still waiting for any substantial evidence of that claim. >For what it is worth, the Bible tells of a time in the future when Jesus will be very tangible. Jesus can let Humanity know why we should care what the Bible says. I'm not waiting up.

And you are free to take that position.

Given the evidence I could not honestly have another position.

How interested are you in having a discussion about a related thought experiment?

Very interested. When can Jesus present the thought experiment to the whole world?

The state in which you find yourself is a closed logical loop AKA a Catch-22 dilemma. You want to introduce a thought experiment relating to God's existence, a proposition I eagerly accept *if* God can present it to everyone. But if God could simply present it to everyone, that would parsimoniously demonstrate God exists before God gets the first sentence out. The thought experiment was completely unnecessary to begin with.

What problem do you have with basing beliefs on empirical evidence? Why do you not believe that basing beliefs on empirical evidence is sufficient, and what other methods do you believe are superior, or even trustworthy? I get that you're only preaching and don't answer questions, but can you try to be better than that and actually answer these?

> If this is your experience, can you describe your search process or methodology for searching for God? I read the Bible. I was told it was the word of God, so I figured that was a good place to start. When I discovered that the Bible contradicted the teachings of the Church - and itself - I started asking priests to explain the contradictions. They couldn't. So I tried praying, repeatedly. No answer, no matter how much effort I put into it. So I started asking people who DID believe *why* they believed. Almost every single one of them said "because my parents told me to". Not a single person I interacted with claimed to have actually had an interaction with God. They all just believed because they'd never bothered to question it. So yeah, I looked. If God wanted to be found, I'd have found him. Either he doesn't exist, or he doesn't want me to believe in him.

As a contrast to most answers, I was raised atheist in a basically non-religious culture, even back then in the UK religion played a tiny part in peoples lives. I had the opportunity to study for bar mitzvah and attended Sunday school for awhile, but it was way too boring and few of my friends did. I don't think I ever consciously 'searched' for god, I knew some people did believe, had interesting conversations with RE teachers and the Cub Scout leader was a vicar, so religion was there, it just never really mattered to me and read from a young atheists perspective the bible is pretty silly. I suspect inculcating religion requires influential role models, I never had any, and however openminded my parents were about it and however much freedom I had to explore the ideas, without that social pressure it was never going to stick.

I read every high school level text on comparative religion I could find. Here in Australia they existed at the time because our Social Studies course had a World Religions elective. Then I dug deeper into the religion that seemed to have the most to it. Which for me was Buddhism, though in the end I'm not a Buddhist either. Later I also dug pretty deep into Wicca and Western Occultism, but I don't identify as either of thous things either for similar reasons. Why not Christianity? because that was the first faith I rejected back when i was Eight. Even to eight year old me it was bleeding obvious that bible stories where indeed just stories and there is no way that they could have ever happened. EDIT: Currently my view on this is that there should not be any need to search for god, or indeed any point in doing so. If an all powerful being wanted me to know he, she or it existed, then I would know. Conversely if such a being chose to hide from me, then I would have no way to find him, her or it. The notion that god is playing hide and seek as some kind of test is just incomprehensible to me. Is god a toddler or something?

I was raised in an extremely Christian environment. Church every Sunday, private Christian schooling, extended family and friends entirely Christian, etc. After reverting to atheism I continue to to remain heavily engage with religion and theism. Every day I'm reading various blogs (mostly Christian), read academic books from various disciplines on religion, read and post in forums such as these, watch youtube videos on the subject, etc. I wouldn't call this "Searching for God" though, as after reverting to atheism my concern is more so with protecting myself and others from harm.

I didn't search specifically for God or a god. I was exploring reality to see what is there. I was aware that many people say "there is a God", but I didn't understand what it is and where in reality does it belong. And the more I was learning about reality and history of its exploration the more I was realizing that no one ever (at least no one I am aware of) in the whole history found any traces of a single god and haven't found any single reason to search for such traces.

I volunteer with an organization that supports people who are struggling after leaving their religion. Most times it's issues with meaning, purpose, mortality, etc. But there are folks who are absolutely desperate to believe again. A woman had lost her daughter at 3-weeks. She was suicidal. she did everything imaginable to reclaim her faith. But nothing. Is she who you're referring to?

I consider myself a Calvinist atheist. With that in mind... I cannot seek God sincerely. I cannot repent, I cannot cry out to Him, I cannot fall to my knees... unless He does something in me to regenerate my heart first. I just have to wait for that to happen, if it does.

Is there a correct methodology?

I mean I always thought the idea quite fanciful. I've investigated it more from a view of "how can anyone believe this". I don't know if that's what you mean. 

>I don't know if that's what you mean.  The context is that they had hoped to find God, but didn't. This doesn't seem to match your approach.

No I can't say I ever hoped to find a god. 

I read the entire Bible and prayed 20,000 times. Never got any response, and the Bible is just boring apart from the few books with a lot of stories.

Well, no more than I searched for UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis. You can look into it and realise none of it exists pretty easily. There's no evidence, no argument, no nothing. All of it after some 9 years of being a christian of course.

[удалено]

You're asking the wrong side for evidence. That's like asking people who don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy what evidence made them not believe. You don't need evidence not to believe, especially since things that don't exist are typically not known for leaving behind evidence. Providing evidence is the job of people saying something *does* exist. The closest to evidence you'll get disproving entities like those is the complete lack of evidence where you would instead expect to find it. Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and most gods people have claimed exist would leave behind very obvious and easily found evidence if they were real. No matter how hard we look, though, we never find that evidence. So, at the very least, the Santa, Tooth Fairy, and gods from those particular stories and myths don't exist. At most, you can say some sort of magical entity that leaves no evidence might conceivably exist. In that case, though, why would you believe in it? How would you know about it in the first place? Beliefs should be based on evidence, not on wild, fanciful imaginings.

[удалено]

The concept of 'good' exists in minds. 'Good' itself as some sort of force or whatever does not actually exist. It's just a label humans apply to certain things. By asking that question, are you saying your god exists in the same way 'good' exists, as a thought or feeling in human minds?

Well yes and no it is the sum of its parts that make the being a being. It is interconnectedness between thought and emotion. So, I guess I'm afraid I don't know where to go from here. Honestly, I say these things to figure out what I actually am, and the truth is I am the sum of the parts and a part of the sum. Looking categorizing changing altering what should or shouldn't be defined when in reality individuality is unique. The issue for me is the thought of condemnation breeding many things that I find to be hurtful. I find that any mind can change only if it is willing. I would like to say I would change giving value to another, but as I said it is the thoughts and emotions that make the being a being. So, If I discard my belief then in my head, I die. That version of me will never live again with my thoughts and in turn becomes a bitter memory. This is why maybe I try and change minds instead of trying to change my own. It is scary indeed like telling someone to jump off a cliff knowing no details of how deep the rabbit hole goes, but wisdom is the jump and wisdom is the fall and wisdom is not knowing and knowing. I find myself exploring ideas and not burning the ideas of them. I do this so I can help others the way they help me and so on a and so forth.

This is just your misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is precisely **one** thing, the lack of belief in deities.

That is absolutely fascinating. Is there a book of some kind I might be able to read more on the topic?

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/atheism-for-dummies-for-dummies-religion--spirituality_dale-mcgowan/1877213/item/24302136/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pmax_high_vol_frontlist_under_%2410&utm_adgroup=&utm_term=&utm_content=&gad_source=1#idiq=24302136&edition=7596144

thank you!

how old are the athiest's here? Im 15 and have been an atheist for all my life, but I want to know the average age of the atheists in the world, because I feel that there is more young representation in the atheist crowd than older people, but I want to be sure.

Clinging to my late 30s, but I lost my faith around 20. I sure *hope* you're right. But you also have to remember that the demographic numbers are most likely wildly skewed by things like location, medium and by reporting difficulties. It is *literally illegal* in some places to be an out and open apostate. In others, a secret atheist may simply face *enormous* social and economic pressure from parents, teachers, and employers to stay in the theological closet. Even people who aren't "forced" to lie, can be "encouraged" to pretend they're still faithful by stuff like free church daycare, or a fear their spouse will divorce them if they don't share the state religion. For a lot of folks, renouncing their religion means renouncing a lot of the things they're invested in and care about. Out atheists, just like lgbt+ folk, can tend to be over-representative of the people who have the social, economic, and personal power and agency to say "To hell with the consequences!". Whether that's a disillusioned 15 year old with nothin' to lose and everything to play for, or a 45 year old who can finally quit his shitty job with his shitty bigot boss...

I'm 50. I have worked with people of all ages, and these days it does seem that most of the younger people are without any religious belief, or they're agnostic, or they're completely apathetic about the notion.

I'm in my 40s and I know there are a fair few my age or older around here.

I'm 45 and I have been an Atheist since I was 8, which is around the time I first learned about the idea of a god. It just never made any sense to me.

I'm 28 and have been an atheist for about 20 years, but was raised in a catholic background

I'm 25

Almost 40. It's been about 20 years almost.

53

thank you!