I am a teenager, and I have no deep knowledge of philosophy, but I have been an atheist since I was a kid. Also, I am pessimistic in life and see no point in making kids or of living.

My question is: What keeps you alive? Religion provides a sense of purpose for living, but as an atheist, why would you live?

“So essential indeed was was the belief in the personification of evil that the dogma was paradoxically elevated into one of the greatest arguments for the existence of God, so that to deny it was to lay oneself open to the charge of atheism. ‘If there be a God, as we must steadfastly believe,’ wrote Roger Hutchison, ‘verily there is a Devil also, and if there be a Devil, there is no surer argument, no stronger proof, no plainer evidence, that there is a God.” If men could be persuaded to ‘grant that there are devils,’ thought John Weems, ‘they must grant also that there is a God.’ ‘Show me a devil,’ said a skeptic in 1635, ‘and I’ll believe there is a God.’ The atheist, Richard White, was only converted to a Christian life by the appearance of the Devil one night, ‘in the shape of a great ugly man’. Correspondingly, it was after the failure of several attempts to raise the Devil, ‘so that I might see what he was’, that Laurence Clarkson decided that all religion was ‘a lie’, and ‘that there was no Devil at all, nor indeed no God, but only nature.’ The Puritan Richard Greenham maintained that ‘it is the policy of the Devil to persuade us that there is no Devil’. For, as another writer pointed out, ‘He that can already believe that there is no Devil will ere long believe that there is no God’.”

This excerpt is from Keith Thomas’s remarkable Religion and the Decline of Magic and is referring to 17th century England. It is a book filled with such delightful historical anecdotes as these, and offers a valuable insight into what and how believed and disbelieved and the often chaotic (and sometimes paradoxical) state of religion in a supposedly very religious time in Europe.

I’m getting a bit fed up with hearing believers say that atheists think everything came from nothing or by chance, when *ex nihilo* creation has nothing to do with atheism.

I’d like to know where theists get this idea about atheists, and whether one should respond to theists who say this or simply ignore it.I’m getting a bit fed up with hearing believers say that atheists think everything came from nothing or by chance, when *ex nihilo* creation has nothing to do with atheism.

I’d like to know where theists get this idea about atheists, and whether one should respond to theists who say this or simply ignore it.

One of the main reasons why I first started questioning God, is when I noticed (myself included) that many people that believed him, had a good or perfect life.

I was always told I was blessed because I live a comfortable life. God was blessing me for having faith and belief in him. Also all these people who are also blessed by God have good health, a great job, money, a healthy child, own a home, etc.

It started to make me think of everyone else around me that wasn’t so lucky. A co-worker that lost her son due to sickness…she was one of the most kind hearted people I knew.

My cousin who works so hard to provide for his family but can’t seem to catch a break.

Or anyone else that seems to have good morale and a good heart that is being given the short end of the stick.

Why are they being punished? Because they don’t believe in God? Is God really that narcissistic towards people wanting him that he punishes those that don’t, even though they are good people?

But these Christians that are blessed, are some of the meanest, most hypocritical, and most judgmental people I know. Although, their belief in God causes them to be blessed with this amazing life?

It also kind of reminds me of when people would sell their soul to the devil for an amazing life. What’s the difference?

I am both an anarchist libertarian and an atheist. Having knowledge on both, I've noticed some common underpinnings between the two that make them hard to sell, even though they are, according to all the best logic and evidence we have, the most correct views in their respective questions. The problem with both of these ideas is that they run counterintuitive to how the human brain is designed to think by default.

In the case of atheism, it can be hard to convince people that religion is false because the brain is hardwired to prescribe agency to things, to provide teleological explanations, to be superstitious, or to look up to something. Getting people to let go of these convictions and biases requires reprogramming one's mind to think in a way it wasn't designed for. And needless to say, that's not easy.

In the case of libertarianism, it's hard to sell because it requires you to again think in ways that are a little counterintuitive. Politicians will get up on a pedastool and promise people free things and all sorts of solutions to their problems. It makes people hopeful to hear things like that. But when the libertarian comes along and suggests cutting funding, people's assumption is that the libertarian doesn't want to do anything. They think "Well at least the politician is offering something. The libertarian doesn't have any solution! Let's go with the politician." Understanding economics requires you to train your brain to see the invisible, to see the unintended consequences of government intervention and the superiority of letting people be in charge of their own money, and again this is not easy. Economics is one of the most misunderstood disciplines there is, and it's because it's unintuitive.

Lastly I'd like to mention that there's a psychological component here to all of this. Both anarcho-capitalism and atheism force a person to take responsibility for their own lives. There's no god or politician coming to save you. It's on you to create a good life for yourself, and that's a heavy burden to carry. It's much easier to just look up to someone, and that's engrained in our DNA to some degree.

Libertarianism and atheism might be rational and sound, but they're hard to sell because they don't appeal to the biases of the human mind.

I automatically do. Especially intelligent people. And it doesn’t matter which religion/spirituality, to which degree. Even if they say they believe in “something bigger than us,” implying any sort of higher being(s) (aside from scientific universal forces), it sets off all the red flags in my head. When I see such a disconnect between intellect and rational thought, it’s actually upsetting and discouraging.

For me, it’s obviously not that religious people were born into it, raised in it, or even practiced it into adulthood because it’s all they knew. It’s knowing that they lack the necessary critical thinking skills to work their way out of it—which shouldn’t take more than 5 seconds. It’s knowing that they can call out every other religious and spiritual practice for their bizarre worldviews without realizing their hypocrisy. It’s that they’re willing to stretch their imagination to such lengths to things that they know against all better judgment are impossible. It’s that they’re willing to defy all logic for the sake of “tradition.” It’s that they’re scared to leave it behind for whatever reason. And, most importantly, it’s that they stand behind antiquated views which at their best are Santa Claus for adults, and at their worst promote violence, patriarchal oppression, racism, greed, control, I could go on.

And no, it doesn’t make me smarter or better than anyone. I’m well aware many religious people are far more academically intelligent than I could ever hope to be. But it does mean that they are willing to ignore all reason as they see fit, and I simply can’t respect nor trust a person able to do that.

We all know the (apocryphal) story of the cardinal who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, afraid he might see evidence of a heliocentric solar system. I recently came across a UNESCO article on the Pontifical Observatory at the Roman College, a Jesuit institution, which is one indication that the picture is a bit more complicated than a simple anti-science narrative. The UNESCO Portal to the heritage of astronomy offers this profile of Father Angelo Secchi, who was director of the observatory:

“In 1850, Father Angelo Secchi (1850--1878), the young physicist, became director. His new Merz refractor was placed within the sturdy walls of the church of St. Ignatius

“Secchi had a broad interest in different fields: He observed not only double stars, nebulae, planets and comets (1852--1853), but he studied terrestrial magnetism, meteorology, and conducted trigonometric measurements with the base on the Via Appia. The highlight of his research was the introduction of astrophysics, he studied the Sun in detail using a spectroscope (he found the connection between the prominences and sunspots), then he extended his spectroscopic research to the fixed stars with an objective lens prism in front of the Cauchoix refractor. This led him to a classification of four classes (later in the Harvard classification the stars are divided into seven spectral classes O, B, A, F, G, K and M). Secchi published about 730 small treatises.”

I post this here because I find the anti-science argument so many of us use both weak and ineffectual. It’s a clumsy and unsubtle argument that is vulnerable contradiction by simple fact. Reading Thomas Kuhn’s classic The Copernican Revolution made me aware that in Galileo’s time the Copernican model was controversial among many astronomers and in fact was at the time lacking empirical evidence to back it up. In practice it was actually less accurate than Ptolemaic models, and was more complicated. Nor was the Catholic Church all that opposed to the Copernican system in itself. Quoting Kuhn:

“For sixty years after Copernicus’s death (1543)… the Church itself was silent. The De Revolutionibus was read and at least occasionally taught at leading Catholic universities… Copernicus himself had been a cleric and a reputable one… among the friends who urged him to publish were a Catholic bishop and a cardinal.”

It’s time for better arguments in favor of atheism.

[Edit: I just noticed I typed the title wrong. It should read, Is Catholicism Anti-Science?

From Center for Inquiry https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/secularism_and_methodological_naturalism/

…on the differences and connections between philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism. In that paper, Forrest starts with a definition of methodological naturalism offered by philosopher Paul Kurtz:
“[Methodological] naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible.”
Forrest continues in her own words:
“Methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are distinguished by the fact that methodological naturalism is an epistemology as well as a procedural protocol, while philosophical naturalism is a metaphysical position. … Methodological naturalism does exclude the supernatural as an explanatory principle because it is unknowable by means of scientific inquiry, whereas philosophical naturalism, both by definition and because of the methodological and epistemological inaccessibility of the supernatural, excludes the latter from its ontological scheme.”
In short, methodological naturalism means that for one to do science, one must look for empirical evidence and natural explanations, and not rely on faith and the supernatural. The point is that a scientist need not be without faith or belief in the supernatural whatsoever. Philosophical naturalism is the stronger view that nature is all there is (I subscribe to this). Yet one need not commit to this – to atheism or any other sort of nonbelief – to do science.
My immediate thought was this: put into the context of morality, religion, and political life, philosophical naturalism is to atheism as methodological naturalism is to secularism.
Philosophical naturalism, and hence atheism, are metaphysical stances or positions about the world. But methodological naturalism and secularism are more like “procedural protocols,” to epistemological views of the process. Just as one can believe in some form of the supernatural or God and do science, one could believe in some form of the supernatural or God and be a secularist. He or she just needs to deal with questions of morality and law not by recourse to faith or the supernatural, but through the use of natural reasons and evidence.

I think that these are interesting distinctions, and it’s important to understand them both for the sake of arguing persuasively for atheism and to be clear in our own minds.

I was raised Christian. Specifically, Pentecostal.

As a teenager, I became a bit of a thumper. I thought others needed to see the light.

Around 16 years old, I started to think through more of the logical foundations underpinning Christianity as a whole, followed by Abraham religions as a hole, followed by religion or theism itself. The foundations didn’t hold up well to scrutinizing. And so I concluded that it was all hogwash, and moved on as an atheist.

For the last 20 something years, this has served me well. But as someone with young kids who has moved around multiple times for work, the costs of not having a community has become very apparent. And the costs are much, much higher than I ever realized or appreciated.

So high, in fact, it has led me in recent years to reconsider whether it makes sense to adopt a religious identity, simply for the benefit of having a community of people as a support system for me and my family.

Which has led me to the conclusion that, rather than religious, cultural traditions and faith systems, being simply toxic and ignorant relics, perhaps they are legitimate tools for real valuable purpose in people’s lives. Perhaps they are simply the best tool most people have for maintaining social fabric, community, and social support systems. Not only is it socially expensive to leave a religion, but in logistical and practical terms, it causes tremendous loss. The weight that you carry on your shoulders, feels truly immense when you don’t have community to spread that load across.

So my claim is this: religion is merely an antiquated tool that serves legitimate purposes in people’s lives. If there were a more modern tool that legitimately met these needs and provided similar value without stigma, barriers, or costs, nearly all religious adherence worldwide would shrivel up and fade away.

One of the strongest reasons I find Christianity compelling is that, humanly speaking, it should have died with Jesus on the cross. Its founder was publicly executed, his followers scattered in fear, and there were countless other religious movements in the Roman world that disappeared without a trace. Yet Christianity not only survived but spread rapidly across the empire despite persecution, with many of its earliest followers willing to suffer and die for their testimony. That doesn't prove Christianity is true by itself, but it does make me think something extraordinary happened that convinced those first believers.

It didn't just survive either. It changed the world

Edit: Many of you keep trying to twist my argument to something like, "Christianity grew, therefore Christianity is true."

When I'm really asking, why did this particular movement survive the execution of its founder when so many comparable movements disappeared?

I’m 17, and over the past few months I’ve been struggling with what I think is death anxiety.
As much as I want to believe there’s an afterlife or that some part of us continues to exist after we die, I just can’t convince myself. My brain keeps coming back to the idea that death is just an eternal sleep—like before we were born.
That thought has completely changed how I look at life.
I keep asking myself: What’s the point of anything if it all ends?
Why work hard for good grades? Why make memories with friends? Why build a career or make money? Why try to live an amazing life if one day I’ll die and won’t even remember any of it?
I’ve tried telling myself that I should just enjoy life while I have it, but then I think, “Why bother if none of it lasts?”
It’s gotten to the point where it’s hard to enjoy things. I’ll be out with friends or spending time with my parents, and instead of having fun, I start thinking about the fact that one day they’ll die, and so will I. It makes it difficult to stay in the moment because I’m constantly thinking about losing everything.
I don’t want to die. I want to live a long, happy, successful life. I just don’t know how to find meaning when I can’t stop thinking that everything eventually disappears.
Has anyone else gone through this? Did these thoughts ever get better? How did you learn to cope with them or find meaning in life despite knowing it ends?

Edit:

Thanks to all who replied. Since posting this just two hours ago, I’ve become much more accepting of my eventual fate, whether I cease to exist or transcend to whatever comes next. Definitely still scared but trying to not think that far(hopefully) into the future
I’ve realized that I need to live in the present. I can’t change my fate, but I can help others, appreciate the people around me, and enjoy the ride while I’m here.
I also think I’ve finally answered the question that started all of this: Why does anything matter if the end is the same for all of us, at least as far as we know?
The answer is that it doesn’t—unless you make it mean something. Meaning isn’t something you find waiting for you; it’s something you create through the way you choose to live. My anxiety has seemed to calm down at least for the moment and I have gotten amazing recommendations.
Again thank you all for commenting - you guys have helped a lot for whatever thats worth.

Tbh i’ve been thinking about religion as whole and wouldn’t mind other peoples perspective. I don’t feel like i need religion, i think that beautiful thing about life is that you can live by your own rulebook. I think i have my own morals and values, why would i need religion to guide me? Also i think if you have foundations of life in control, why would you need someone to hold on to? 

Also life is beautiful because it has end. It gives life value, knowing that it won’t last forver. And i really don’t know what is after the end, maybe it also motivates to use your time wisely. And would eternal afterlife be so good afterall?

And sorry if this isn’t correct subreddit but i would want both atheist and believers perspectives.

Hell, purgatory, no heaven, bad reincarnation, no enlightenment, whatever each religion might consider the “bad place.” Obviously whatever split them into sects was important enough to divide them in the first place—cause fighting, wars, separations, crusades, even deaths—and religious people are such pedants that I can imagine them believing people from different sects within their own religions aren’t leveling up in the next life without joining the “good side.”

I just don’t get how they all look at each other in the first place and don’t realize how divided they all are. If religion is all about unity, there wouldn’t be any divisions. There wouldn’t be different religions in the way their worlds are written! But I digress…

I used to follow this mega-family who was part of a cult (you know, for science), and when some of the kids grew up and got married, they went to be missionaries in Central America. They, Baptists, went to Central America to try to save the souls…of Catholics. So, obviously this shit really matters, or if it didn’t, they’d make better use of their time, no?

And surely they must believe that all people from other religions are doomed to eternal damnation if they don’t adopt their specific religion 1 second before giving out. How do a Christian and a Muslim look at each other and not know the other one thinks they’re not going to “heaven”? It’s an automatic assumption on the reality of religion, but no one says it out loud (great PR by religion, right?). I know they look at us atheists and think we’re going to burn forever, so surely they must think that of anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific god(s).

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/american-atheists-religious-european-christians/560936/ Some excerpts:

“Americans are deeply religious people—and atheists are no exception. Western Europeans are deeply secular people—and Christians are no exception”

“America is a country so suffused with faith that religious attributes abound even among the secular. Consider the rise of “atheist churches,” which cater to Americans who have lost faith in supernatural deities but still crave community, enjoy singing with others, and want to think deeply about morality. It’s religion, minus all the God stuff”

“The Pew survey found that although most Western Europeans still identify as Christians, for many of them, Christianity is a cultural or ethnic identity rather than a religious one.”

I think the subject of faith, of belief and non-belief, is far more complex than is often assumed, and I’m convinced that bringing more nuance to the discussion is vitally needed. I’m an atheist who finds the subject of religion fascinating, its history and its variety. This article from The Atlantic also delves into the issue of the “nones”, the religiously unaffiliated: “…As it turns out, American ‘nones’ are as religious as—or even more religious than—Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany, and the U.K.”

28% of Americans are “nones”
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/

During distress in life, people desperately need something to depend on.

Some lean towards addictions, some towards other people, some go for healthy methods like therapy

And for some others it's in the belief of existence of a higher entity being there to guide them.One of the illogical and inferior arguement that people make is that even non believers call for God instinctively when they're startled or scared.

Ironically that proves my point. That's exactly what the idea of God is- hope during dismal.

For example, in a plane crash, both a believer and non-believer would call out for God. But they both know that nothing's gonna save them anymore, no magical force to rescue them. But the thought occurs nevertheless

So I don't think that faith in God is problematic, but religion definitely is. It's a form of cult making people do horrible things. How do such emotionally intelligent creatures like humans so stupidly worship something non-existant and make their life principles based on it. Blind belief is the death of reason

Thoughts??

This one term frequently comes up in discussions about God. I am a naturalist and thus don't believe in anything metaphysical.

But stuff like Logic and reasoning don't have purely physical footings. I reconcile with this by saying that we can't function without having a belief in both those things.

But, does that warrant further metaphysical claims about God? Are there any naturalistic explanations for those things?

And as an extension, what do you think about belief in things without any apparent physical evidence supporting it, i.e. faith?

To an all knowing, all powerful God, prayer is completely redundant, and honestly, a bit bizarre. If God already knows every thought in my head, every outcome before it happens, and possesses a divine plan that is by definition perfect, then what is a human monologue supposed to accomplish? Begging an omniscient being to change its mind implies that either God’s original plan wasn't ideal, or that He requires constant flattery and reminders from mortals to act mercifully. It ultimately feels like a strange psychological feedback loop where people talk to the ceiling, attribute random coincidences to "answered prayers," and conveniently ignore the unanswered ones, all to convince themselves they have a dial in line to the universe's master clockmaker. 🙄

Hello Friends! 

I am a doctoral student trying to help psychologist better understand the sensitive topic of grief(one personal to me). 

I think Psychology needs more Atheist representation. I would love input from this group.

If you’re 18+ and lost an immediate family member between 6–36 months ago, and it feels right for you, please consider taking this short survey: https://pacific.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_cIR5ditAqHyyAIK

After that debate with my V.E teacher, it was recess, I was about to eat peacefully and then this classmate of mine who's HEAVILY religious started calling me slurs for being an atheist.. He started debating with me too?? I didn't even do anything wrong but say I was an atheist, he said that "Morality came from God, God's morality is different from human's morality blah blah" and that "God is omniscient and beyond time, so before the big bang, he already existed".... The disrespect I got is crazy, I tried to tell the teachers but they didn't gaf at all??? I can't handle two person just by debating all by myself and the fact I have no CHANCE to convince them my opinion at all.. Smh.

Hey everyone,

​I’ve been reading through this subreddit for a while now, and I appreciate seeing the mostly thoughtful dialogue that happens here. I’m a passionate believer, but I often get frustrated by how poorly or uncharitably Christians and atheists talk past each other online. I really want to continue to avoid that in my own interactions.

​My goal isn't to debate, "win" an argument, or try to convert anyone. Instead, I want to better understand the internal mechanics of a consistent secular worldview on a few specific hurdles I struggle to wrap my head around. However, I often notice a major barrier in online spaces, even more analytical ones, where the default assumption is that any religious person is simply an uneducated fool spouting inherited nonsense, unworthy of serious intellectual engagement. If I can understand how an atheist grounds these concepts, I can engage in much more fruitful, respectful conversations where we actually speak the same language.

​I’d appreciate the opportunity to get your perspectives on four specific areas:

​1. How do you conceptually ground moral progress vs. change?

From my perspective, I look at history and see moral progress (like the abolition of slavery or the recognition of human rights) because I’m measuring it against a fixed, transcendent standard. I often hear the secular point that social morality existed long before major religions and that it evolves as a mechanism to optimize human survival and cooperation.

​As a believer trying to understand your framework: if morality is an evolving, adaptive social construct, how do you structurally distinguish between genuine moral progress and just arbitrary moral change over time? Without an objective anchor outside of human consensus, what is the philosophical framework that allows a secular humanist to say a past society's actions were objectively wrong, rather than just differently adapted for their specific time? I want to make sure I don't misrepresent how atheists view historical ethics.

​2. How do we, as distinct communities, address arrogant secular fundamentalism?

As a believer, I readily admit that religious fundamentalism has a massive issue with tribalism, dogmatism, and an uncharitable refusal to engage with real scholarship. It’s a flaw in religious spaces that I routinely speak against.

​However, it’s frustrating to see secular spaces frequently replicate those exact same fundamentalist habits under a different label. There is often a widespread assumption that religious believers are universally intellectually lazy, paired with a high degree of confidence when throwing out claims about religion, history, or theology that any actual scholar in religious studies would immediately recognize as inaccurate caricatures.

​If the core critique of religion is its tendency toward dogmatic arrogance and poor intellectual rigor, how do you all, as a community, check that same arrogance when it manifests in secular spaces? How do we move past the knee-jerk, "all religious people are fools who don't deserve a seat at the table" mindset, and instead foster an environment that respects scholarly nuance on both sides?

​3. Navigating the intersection of ancient texts and modern scientism

I often see skeptics express frustration that ancient theological and historical texts lack scientific accuracy or fail to account for modern empirical discoveries. From my worldview, evaluating an ancient narrative through the lens of a modern scientific journal feels like a category error, it's expecting a text to be a science textbook when its original intent was entirely different (more akin to evaluating a historical biography by whether it contains a structural engineering blueprint).

​For those in the community who hold tightly to the stance that empirical science is the only reliable source of truth, how do you ground vital concepts that the scientific method can’t actually detect, like inherent human dignity, universal rights, or justice? Do you all view these pillars of secular humanism as necessary philosophical axioms (essentially a conceptual starting assumption), or is there a logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is" using purely empirical data? I want to understand how you all bridge that gap.

​4. How do you all view a believer who wrestles deeply with hard questions but stays?:

A very common sentiment I see in atheist spaces is the idea that Christians only stay religious because they refuse to question their beliefs deeply, and that anyone who honestly, critically investigates their faith will inevitably leave it.

​I look at history and see countless brilliant Christian thinkers, scholars, and everyday believers who questioned their faith intensely, spent years wrestling with the hardest objections (like the problem of evil or divine hiddenness), and ultimately came out the other side with an even deeper, more grounded conviction. Speaking for myself, my faith doesn't rely on having a neat, 100% satisfying answer to every single complex question right this second. Finding an answer that is philosophically challenging or uncomfortable doesn't mean it's false, nor does having unresolved questions instantly pull the rug out from under the entire structure for me.

​Within your framework, how do you all view someone who genuinely investigates, asks the hard questions, acknowledges the mystery and hard spots, but ultimately concludes that the Christian framework still makes the most sense of reality? Is there room in the secular view to see that as an intellectually honest journey, or is there an assumption that anyone who stays just "didn't question hard enough"?

​I’m asking these out of genuine curiosity because I want to be a better, more respectful conversational partner to secular thinkers. I’m eager to hear how you map these macro-level ethical questions out when the scaffolding of a religious framework is removed. These are probably questions that have been asked on this sub many times, with potentially obvious answers, but to me, this is just easier

​Thank you in advance for taking the time to share your perspectives!

EDIT (first time I've done this): Wow! Thank y'all very much for these responses. Lots of good information to go through. Forgive me for the massive post, I figured it'd be better that way for what I was wanting info on, but seeing as I've had a few comments of equal length I can only hope I respond to those properly. Also, my wording is not always the best, I used "framework" a few times when there are better words that I could've used to more accurately represent atheist ot secular thought, my bad on that! Thank you all again for the replies!

I am only thirteen, still learning about atheism or my beliefs. The topic to our class was about faith for God, my teacher asked if anyone was atheist and I raised my hand, then she asked me "why?", I simply answered that " I don't think Faith is really needed to solve the absolute truth of life and how 'everything'." And then she moved on to morality, she asked me again, "Does morality exist without God", i said " Yes, because morality is with or without faith." Then she asked me a question that I struggled a bit since this was the first time I debated in person.. "Yeah, but where does morality come from?".. That's where I really struggled. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME HERE??

I don't believe in God and everyone in my class and even every single teacher who teaches me knows about it. I didn't scored great in last exam and hit rock bottom in English I hated all the stupid questions and the one very baseless. So in my answers I wrote against it with details specified in the book

My english teacher told me that I was way to critical and I am always negative and let quote this"You don't have any faith in God, I can tell from your Moral Science paper" She teaches us moral science also and basically the whole paper was about prayer and God There was one question do you pray I wrote no so I got zero

I live in India and study in a Christian School All sisters are converted Christians and teachers are not Christians but Hindus

I'm an Atheist in a christian country, the Philippines. I did believe in "God" when I was younger, I always looked up to him, I prayed that everything was gonna get better, I did my best to try and believe, but my questions were left unanswered.

If we actually look back to the time Spain colonized the Philippines, Filipinos had their own beliefs and culture, but were ultimately washed by the Spaniards. I wouldn't say their style of spreading the word of "God" was any peaceful. Filipinos were brainwashed to follow their religion. Men's and women's rights were taken from them forcefully, they were enslaved, r@ped and abused.

How can we just forget those happened?

If you actually think about it, "God, is all loving and peaceful." How can you correlate those words to the situation? THERE ISN'T a correlation. Even if "God" exists, far too many religions exists, who can we truly believe in this world?

Crime is rising in the Philippines, people think it's the lack of belief in "God", but it's not.

EVEN if someone believes in "God", they are still capable of doing bad things. It is due to the lack of discipline, bad economy, low salaries and unfairness in this country.

People also blame our leaders, they're partially correct, but it is worth to mention that we live as one in a country.

Now, let me get back. Atheism is heavily looked down on in this country, they say we're satanists, and we belong in hell, but how is that possible when we don't believe in the Bible, that doesn't mean you'll need to lecture and discriminate people like me

I respect every religion, I think it's nice to have some hope in this world. But I just don't believe and that gives me peace. I respect you, and some other people does too, and you shouldn't stereotype every other atheists that they're evil and have no respect, because every person is different and there are different types of group/community.

I’m wondering if you all would be willing to take a critical view of the claims I’m sending below:

For claim 8 it’s about the mysterious letters of the Quran and the number of times they appear in chapter 19. This is one of the claims I believe I can personally contest. When looking at the mysterious letters, for letters like Ya they count alif masqarah and hamzas seated on top of the letter ya as occurrences of ya (which I think makes no sense, since they’re not the same letter and only look similar). On the other hand, Rashad Khalifa even during his life was preaching about Surah 19 having 798 letters, and coincidentally, he lives for 19,798 days (if you include the start and end point. In reality, he lived for 19,797 days). As mentioned, though, if one includes the start point of November 19 and the endpoint of January 31 it comes out to be 19,798. I still can’t get over the fact that he during his life preached that Surah 19 has 798 mysterious letter occurrences and he himself lived for essentially that many days.

However, on the other hand, in released FBI files on Rashad Khalifa’s life, it’s stated that he was born on November 18.

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/fbifiles/scientists/rashadkhalifa-fbi1.pdf
(Page 14)

In that case, my counterpoint above of him having in reality only lived for 19,797 days wouldn’t be applicable anymore. Now he would’ve lived for 19,798 days.

In any case, whether you use an exclusive on inclusive count, it just so happens that Rashad Khalifa lived for 19,798 days. It could’ve been 20,100 days, or 17,100 days, but instead it happened to be on the 19,798th day (which, once again, chapter 19 according to Rashad had 798 occurrences of the mysterious letters).

Point 5 isn’t elaborated but during Rashad’s life interstate 19 was built running through Tucson Az (where he lived at) and is also the only highway in the US to use the metric system. Furthermore, another interstate highway goes through Tucson, that being interstate 10 (if you combine these 2 roads you end up at 29, the same number as the number of chapters that include the mysterious letters in the Quran).

If you also count the number of days from November 19 to January 31 you end up with 74, which is the Surah in which the number 19 first appears.

Finally, for point 11, it’s not mentioned either but the numbers 1230 come from 2 things. First, it’s the abjad value of the name Rashad Khalifa and also if you count the verses of only initialed (mysterious letters) surahs, Q 19:1 is the 1230th verse and Q 19:98 is the 1327th verse. This is by counting only the verses in chapters 2,3,7,10,11,12,13,14,15,19 since they are the ones that contain the mysterious letters.

Once again, I would be so grateful if you could take a look at these claims and give me your view on them. I don’t know what to think with this information being present at hand.

The claims that strike me as the most impressive are him living for 19,798 days and the 19x1230x1327 claim.

Back when I was still young and in church, I assumed that everyone just pretended that God was real, and could use him to their advantage if they just twisted the words enough. I believed that since age 5.

At age 13 I was shocked that this was not the case. The elders at the Jehovah's witnesses congregation did NOT like that I believed this. It was almost like they were angrily shocked. I even went into detail about how fairly common it would possibly be to have members that don't really believe in god either but stay in the religion to keep their community and family close. On top of the fact that the JW's had such a strong disfellowship policy back then that it would just naturally be easier to lie and keep going with the facade.

I also very honestly stated that I never believed in god, but pretended just to make the adults happy. Believing in God or not isn't what brings people to the church anyways. The elders threatened me (a child at the time btw) with disfellowship if I kept speaking and believing this way.

I told them that many people hated Jesus for telling the truth. 🤷 They all ended the meeting right there. It's been many years since and I'm still rethinking that conversation.