Pathfinder

18 hours ago, Through the Living Hopper said:

You can interpret Han Solo's comment as meaning he went closer to potential dangers so that the run was shorter. 

I mean sure? I don’t really care about Star Wars enough to interpret his intent versus what he said. Just for however long, the concept was misunderstood. I just thought how they went about calculating the distances to stars once upon a time very interesting because you can literally emulate it with your own eyes and a thumb. Retcons can retcon lol. 

8 minutes ago, Shatter said:

parallax? (a parsec is a measurement of distance)

Yeah. I believe the satellite Gaia used this technique to calculate the distance of over 1 billion astronomical objects. 

really cool stuff there. we got to measure stars up to 30,000 ly away from us.

Here's a map Gaia made.

absolutely insane.

Yep, I was explaining the process that would get the measurement. Star Wars sadly messed up the general understanding of it to be how fast a distance was traveled (made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs). When 12 parsecs would be the distance measured period.  

I mentioned this in another thread, but I found what parsecs actually are very interesting. The Startalk episode explains it far better than I will, but I will try to sum it up. Basically choose an object in front of you (tv, painting, couch, etc). Pick a hand (right or left, doesn’t matter), raise it up in front of you with your thumb up. Close one eye (right or left), and position the thumb so it covers the view of the object. Then close the opened eye, and open the closed eye. The perspective of where the thumb is shifts. If you measure the distance between your eyes, and measure the shift in perspective of the object when compared to your thumb, you can calculate the angles, and then determine how far you are from the object. That is how they calculated how far stars were from earth. Now this only works to a certain distance, and there are better tools now, but I found that was really cool. 

On 5/6/2026 at 9:51 AM, Rynturning_Light said:

Hey all! I've got a really random question, but as people who don't hold religious beliefs, do y'all have any symbols that like give you hope or reassurance or anything?

It's no secret that each religion has, in some form, have symbols or icons that like represent or inspire that religion. For example, Christianity's cross is commonly worn by Christians. Usually to represent their faith, but also to inspire/remind of confidence in that faith.

I've been struggling with my mental health recently and, as an Atheist, I don't really have one of those symbols, but it has gotten me thinking about non-religious symbols that could inspire those feelings of contentment or hope in non-religious people.

For me, I've been wearing around my phoenix necklace more. I like the story of the phoenix and what it represents, and while it might not have a religious connotation or connection (at least to me), it kinda helps to remind me that these hardships only serve to lead me to the next point in my life.

Probably really corny, but I'm curious if anyone else has stuff like that. Important symbols or icons to them that have no religious influence or meaning but still kinda hold the same place as religious symbols

Love the question and love all the answers!!!!

For myself I do not have a symbol I look to for hope. I really like @CoderDrag0n8 ‘s answer regarding relying on other people. I think that is the closest I could say to that for myself. 

On 4/27/2026 at 1:26 AM, NameIess said:

Thanks for the information! I understand not wanting this to devolve into an Atheism vs. Christianity or Atheism vs. religion thread, that sort of discussion would be better held elsewhere.

To answer your question, probably not. I understand some parts of an atheist worldview. I can understand and agree with wanting to base a worldview on evidence, even if I don't agree with where the evidence leads. I don't, however, really know what it would be like to live as an atheist.

Did I come onto the thread to build my understanding of the atheist experience? I was curious about a specific point that had come up here related to the atheist experience, so, yes, probably.

That is great! Thank you for your candor and contribution! If you have any other questions for myself or others regarding our experiences I am more than happy to answer and discuss! Thanks again!

11 hours ago, NameIess said:

@Pathfinder, you'd mentioned a kind of harm related to people deconstructing back on page 2. could you perhaps PM me some more information about that? I looked at the website you linked, and there seems to be quite a lot of information on a great many topics, and I couldn't narrow down exactly what you may have been talking about.

@Verdance, if you were making a group PM do continue the discussion, I'd be interested in being there, although I'm not certain if I'll be very active in it.

Hi Nameless! Thank you for that question! When you click the link, scroll to the bottom, select “Unshackled”. That is a YouTube series. An example of a video that discusses a this in particular is “Healing from Religious Trauma”. I have linked the video below in a spoiler with the explanation on how “not all christians” is harmful to religious abuse survivors. The reason I kept things vague in the beginning is as I explained later, I did not want this to devolve. I will explain why I felt it would devolve and why I felt that devolution would be harmful.

So let’s say I posted a thread discussing Oreo Reeses. And @Verdance posted on that thread that Dark Chocolate Reeses is actually the best Reese’s and why. I can guide the conversation back to Oreo Reeses which is the topic of the thread or I can reply as to why I do not like Dark Chocolate Reeses (which I genuinely do not like dark chocolate lol). Verdance will understandably upon being told why I do not like it, will want to reply on why they do like it. And then the rest of the post will be Verdance saying why they like Dark Chocolate Reeses while I say why I like Oreo Reeses, but instead of both sides being heard, we would be talking past each other. Further as the thread is focused on Oreo Reeses, there are going to be a lot more people that like Oreo Reeses on that thread than like Dark Chocolate Reeses. At least potentially initially. So it will end up being Verdance saying they like Dark Chocolate Reeses, while a whole bunch of people are telling Verdance why they do not like Dark Chocolate Reeses and why they like Oreo Reeses. Seems a bit unbalanced and might make Verdance feel ganged up on. Other Dark Chocolate lovers might feel Verdance is being unfairly ganged up on, and then join in. Now a thread that was meant to discuss Oreo Reeses, is focused on discussing Dark Chocolate Reeses, when there is also a whole host of other flavor Reeses out there that can be discusses too, and this thread just happen to want to discuss Oreo Reese’s. (Minor pre-empt, just because the analogy is regarding all Reese’s, does not mean I am treating atheism as a religion. My perspective, and I feel it is very much supported, is it is not a religion)

So now that I explained why I kept my response to Verdance vague at that time, why I felt it would devolve, and why I feel that devolution could cause problems, I have explained below why “not all christians” is harmful to trauma survivors as well as included the link to the video.
 

I will close out this post with saying I do understand why Verdance said what they said and why. I also understand why you reached out to me, and why you want a PM forum to discuss that further. I really do. But I will put to you the same challenge I put to Verdance. Do you understand me? Do you understand my perspective? Not asking you to leave your religion, but coming onto an atheist discussion thread, have you come to build your understanding of the atheist experience?

5 hours ago, Verdance said:

Good point

sorry for taking up the thread

@Verdance I have finished updating my post. Please check it out when you have an opportunity. I do have replies to your other post, but my intention was to expound on some very common misunderstandings about science. Further it would not be very fair play for me to respond to your claims when I already asked that such digression not be the point of the thread. I am happy and have no problem with discourse in both directions but not when it devolves as such. I would explain further, but I already wrote what my issue was in the prior post and you replied, so since I tend to over explain, I am trying to practice restraint in that capacity lol. 

I do hope and request that you please genuinely read what I wrote, and give some of the videos a watch. Again not trying to pull you away from your religion. I do understand that depending on your belief structure, simply watching or entertaining something counter to your belief is considered sinful. If that is the case, then I doubt you will give them a chance, and I guess I respect that but please know I did go through a lot of effort today to put together that information and link those videos. It is difficult to entertain another person’s perspective such as on religion, if they will not in good faith really learn and consider the opposing side. 

That is why I kept hammering away about trying to understand an atheist’s perspective. Not to turn you into one. I understand your perspective. I grew up in it to a degree. I have studied your holy book. My question for you, is do you understand my perspective? And if you don’t, why not learn a bit? Also included a TLDR for my earlier post below:

1. The improbability number does not take into account how probability actually works and also has an inherent bias. 

2. Big bang is not a bang, it is dense high temperature expanding. It did not start from nothingness as nothing does not exist. We do not know what was before observable time because how does one talk about before time? 

3. Evolution is an incremental process over a huge time frame. We are not the end goal. Evolution is not random but it is not guided. It is when a mutation occurs in a species that is either advantageous or deleterious based on the environment. A mutation that is advantageous in one environment is deleterious in another environment. 

4. Natural things can come into existence without a cause. 

4 minutes ago, Verdance said:

The point about bananas being bred to be easier for humans to eat displays intelligent design, though. 

 

Hasn’t happened yet, so… 

the Bible doesn’t just reference real world places, it is intertwined with two thirds of the history of the world. 

also revelation is insane, there’s so much metaphor in there that i haven’t thoroughly studied.

Daniel Chapter Nine is a great example of perfectly fulfilled prophecy.

A major part of apologetics revolves around the proof of the Bible. The difference is that LotR is fiction, and I believe the Bible is not. Most of the first half is historical nonfiction, and the second half is mainly theology. Telling me to have a conversation about my faith without the Bible is like telling you to have a conversation about science without any knowledge of science. Sola Scriptura. 
 

The point about banana’s is it was said to be proof of god because of its innate nature to work so well for us to imply it was created for us. The thing is, it was, by us. Not god. I am still working on the other points but I have finished the banana, eye, and beetle. I will tag you once I have finished the others.

Regarding for final comment about apologetics, this gets back to what I have explained three times now and I am concerned will devolve into. This is not the Verdance states their personal religious beliefs and atheists respond thread. This is the atheist discussion thread. You are totally allowed to have your beliefs and respect them. However not in a single one of your posts have you asked or attempted to learn about the experience of atheists. You have only commented on your own. if you would like to discuss your beliefs and I go and list why I disagree with every single one of them, you can certainly PM me and I will be happy to, but that is not the purpose of this thread. Thank you!

13 minutes ago, Honors cognitive shadow said:

 

Also idk is it just me but I feel like if someone were to convince me to be religion they would need to do it without the use of the Bible bc I feel like that’s like if I said “oh yeah middle earth is real, how do I know? Oh well in the fellowship of the ring chapter 12 it states…”

I will update my prior post once I have the chance to put together everything, but to build on this, you are referencing an fallacy regarding using a claim as evidence for a claim. The bible is the claim, it can not by definition be used to prove itself. Further its reference to real locations also cannot be used to prove itself as the existence of the locations themselves have nothing to do with the supernatural claims made. The common  example given, much like your lord of the rings reference is Spider-man. It takes place in New York, a real place that exists and can be referenced and yet Spider-man does not exist. Another example I personally like is the Illiad and the Odessey. It is because of them that Troy was found yet it is not proof that Poseidan, cyclops, or giant sea monsters exist (which is what keeps Odysseus from getting home).

10 hours ago, Verdance said:

I think that there are far more logical leaps to make assuming that incredibly complex organisms simply came into existence through evolution by accident, creating things like complex protein systems in the immune systems, functioning organs like eyes which cannot be simplified to a point where they could just appear by accident, or other similar mechanisms with many moving parts. The bombardier beetle is a classic example that many theologians use to support intelligent design. 

I also don’t believe that religion can or should be conclusively proven. There’s necessity for an amount of faith in things not seen needed in my beliefs, which conclusive proof would undermine.

So this is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding evolution and physics. The "improbability" number is taken out of context and does not mean what you think it means. The big bang is not a bang. Evolution most definitely does not function the way you think it does and there is a particle or element that exists without a cause. These and many more are concepts that are grossly misrepresented and misunderstood. Later today when I have the time to put it all together, I will explain all of it in much more detail as well as provide links to accredited physicists and biologists that explain the concepts far better than I will. 

Editing as I go along (also going to put the videos in spoilers so this whole post doesn’t become unwieldy):

How “improbable” the universe is

The 1 in 10(I do not know how to make an exponent on this website, so it would be 123) number claiming that the universe needing finely tuned constraints otherwise it would statistically be impossible to form is misunderstood and problematic for multiple reasons. First and foremost it is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding probability. The probability for the universe to form as it has is 100 percent. Because it has already occured. It has happened. Just like the probability I would type this sentence the way I am is 100 percent, because I just typed it. It further assumes of these supposed 26 physical constants, which have not been proven mind you, must have precisely one value in order that life exists. It could be a range. It could be the multiverse theory, with an infinite number of universes. We also only know the circumstances to produce life as we know it. We have no idea what other circumstances could produce life in a manner we do not know. We are not the end goal. Survivorship bias is when we assume the universe appears ordered for us because we can only exist in that structure for life. It is the puddle in the pothole marveling at how well designed the pothole was to fit itself, when the puddle fits the pothole.   

Big Bang is not a bang but an expansion with no center

Basically what the title says. Bang is a misnomer that was coined. There was a high dense and temperature state. The universe has expanded from that state. There isn’t an origin to the universe as in a location where it all started and flowed out from. It seems very counterintuitive, but a better analogy would be a balloon. We are not in the center of the ballon. We are on a random spot on the outside of it. That is the entire universe. Everywhere is expanding. Define a center of the outside of a sphere as it expands. Not to say the universe is a sphere, just that it’s the closest analogy to what is happening, and that is not even a perfect analogy. Neither is the dense state the “Start” of the universe and there was nothing before it. All we know is how to go back to as far as the first observable Plank Time. That does not mean there was nothing before that mark. The very concept of nothing is faulty. There is nothing. You literally cannot point to nothing. Nothing does not exist lol. The minute you say “this is nothing” it is something. Just because we do not have the terminology or the means to observe something yet, does not mean there was nothing.

Evolution and the Bombardier Beetle (also eyes and bananas!)

The Bombardier Beetle is just the latest in a series of examples that fall prey to the argument of incredulity. Basically because something is hard to understand, or not understood yet, then god. First it was a banana. That due to how it fits into the human hand perfectly, has a natural biodegradable wrapper, and tastes so good, it had to be designed. And in the banana’s case, it was, by humans. The original banana is very small, absolutely full of seeds, and rather bitter. Humans bred bananas over time into what they are today. Which actually branches off into another interesting factoid. A common reference for belief in god is because you cannot express it to someone who has never experienced it, and coffee is used as an example. If coffee ceased to exist, and a person had never had coffee, how would you convey to the person the taste of coffee? Thing is, we already do that. I highly doubt anyone in this thread has ever had a Big Mike banana, but it is highly likely every single one of us knows how it tastes. We humans have bred bananas to essentially be clones of themselves. It makes them easier to mass produce. The problem is due to a lack of genetic diversity, any pathogen or insect could evolve past its defenses and wipe it out. Which happened with the Big Mike banana. They used to be the main banana produced, sold and consumed. Till it got wiped out years ago. So how do we know how it tastes? Because artificial banana flavoring in all sorts of candies and baking recipes are mimicking that banana. Since it was the main one produced at the time, all the flavors for banana were made to be like it. The recipe never changed. That is why when you have banana flavored candy, you don’t think it actually tastes like a real banana. Because it does not taste like today’s breed of banana. It tastes like the Big Mike.

After writing about bananas, I am realizing how long this post is going to get lol, so I am going to try and be a bit briefer with my explanations and rely more on the videos. The eye is easy because it started out with photoreceptors that just distinguished light and dark. This was for bottom feeders to avoid predators that swam above them. When there is a shadow, hide, when there is light, safe. As the eye began to evolve to see vague shapes, that is advantageous to discern motion. Interestingly if you have poor vision and a bug is buzzing around, take off your glasses. The blurry vision will pick up the movement a lot easier than the focused vision. Then you can put your glasses back on to focus on the target and strike! Which is why binocular vision evolved. I have included an infographic that shows the progression as well as the first video in the second spoiler tag explains not only the beetle but the eye as well. 

Regarding the beetle, again it is incremental changes. We have a volatile chemical in our body too! Hydrochloric acid to digest food! All the elements to produce the system and the chemicals are perfectly natural, are capable of existing in the beetle, as well as in its ancestors in varying capacities that over time produced the structure we see today. We are dealing with a time scale that is very very very vast. 

Things can exist without a cause and other funky physics!

The Kalam cosmological argument asserts that everything that began to exist had a cause. Dr Blitz in the video below explains that based on our current understanding of physics, a spontaneous event without a cause does in fact exist. 

3 hours ago, Verdance said:

I’m going to leave this thread very quickly cause that’s a little rude/insensitive 

So first and foremost, I respect your decision to leave the thread. I hope my response will not be construed as anything other than an explanation and clarification. This was exactly what I was referring to in my last reply to you. You stated a claim. That claim does not work for coderdragon nor myself. @CoderDrag0n8’s response was a refutation of your claim. Not of yourself.

I understand that reasoning works for you, and that is great! I am happy for you! I am sure there is a scripture out there that when interpreted a certain way supports that. Or a figure of religious authority in your life said it in reference to something else. Or there may even be a scripture that literally says word for word verbatim what you said. But none of that changes the reason that @CoderDrag0n8 does not believe it.

I could expound on that reasoning but that will go back to my earlier post about how I feel regarding apologetics. I would rather not repeat, so if you are so inclined please go back and give it a read. Totally optional of course. At the end of the day though, when you state as a christian, or a christian would say, you are making a claim based on your understanding,  of your parish, of your region, of your denomination, of your religion. We could very realistically move just a bit to the next church over, in the same religion, of the same denomination, of the same rough region, but get a completely different answer from that christian. There are roughly 45,000 denominations of christianity world wide. And there is a whole lot they disagree on. That is an issue for me. And I know most of the apologetic responses to that exact statement. I also know the responses to those apologetics. And so on and so forth. Round and round we go.

I understand your position. I understand why you wrote what you did, and I understand why you are choosing to leave this thread. I respect where you are coming from and wish you well. I just hope you take the time to visit the link I posted at the top of the thread, and give some of the YouTubers I posted a shot. I know I messed up with some of the links, I apologize for that, but if you google the names you should find them pretty easily. I ask that not to pull you away from your beliefs, or change your mind, but to show other perspectives and build understanding. Thank you!

On 4/17/2026 at 9:10 AM, Denissimo said:

Hello. I am an Atheist. 
I live as a nihilist and an absurdist. Screw all meaning, I suppose, yet revel in it all the same.
Initially a Christian. Hopped around religions for a bit, trying to find one I thought made sense.
 

  Reveal hidden contents

I empathise with Sazed in this manner, I suppose.

Buddhist for a while. Converted to Islam for an on-of 2 month duration. A dozen smaller religions entangled into the bunch as well.

How does everyone else here handle death? Being: What are your beliefs regarding it, which I believe are unto themselves a coping mechanism somewhat, and if you believe in eternal oblivion, how do you cope?

Thank you for asking this question! Regarding myself, I am very happy living my life with my wife, going on our little adventures, traveling, playing video games, reading books, and hanging out with our friends. I most definitely do not want to die. Maybe when I am much older I will look forward to the experience, but right now I would very much rather live. That does not mean there has to be an afterlife for this life to have meaning for me. I derive plenty of meaning from it all by myself lol. It matters to me because it’s all we have. So I want to make this count. And I feel i have, and will continue to do so. There is nothing eternal about my oblivion lol. 

On 3/10/2026 at 10:58 AM, Hmmm lies said:

Background post cause why not I guess

My mother is Christian, while my father was raised Jewish, but is atheist himself. (Because of this, our family celebrates twice the holidays. Pretty nice actually.) My mother isn't super into Christianity, but my paternal grandparents are still very religious.

I (for whatever reason), went to a Jewish preschool, and they would sometimes tell the story of Passover. I didn't think much of it at the time. It wasn't until I was actually celebrating Passover at my grandparents that I really thought about it (I was probably like 5-7). That was when I was like "Wait... do they actually believe this? Why?" In my mind, it simply did not conform with rational logic. I knew that magic wasn't real, I knew about the concept of gods as a trope. (I had previously learned about the myth of Hades and Persephone, but had assumed that things like that wouldn't be believed anymore, because of scientific knowledge we know now.) So why did they believe that the river could turn to blood, or that a burning bush would speak, or that the Red Sea could part? I simply couldn't comprehend that.

I then assumed, for a little while, that religious belief was a fringe, but still existing phenomenon. After all, my grandparents were old, and I hadn't heard anyone outside of my preschool or my grandparents believing these stories. I, at the time, did not know Easter and Christmas were religious holidays. Eventually though, I found that while my grandparents were more religious than the average person, a huge majority of people were religious.

It was then, or perhaps earlier that I learned about the term "atheist" and applied it to myself.

I was never particularly 'hostile' to religion, even if I did look down on it a little, I figured it wasn't hurting anyone. I'm not sure how I managed to dodge the knowledge of the existence of the Crusades or anything for so long, but when I was around 11-13, I learned that many Christians were homophobic.

Homophobia was something I was wondering about. Previously, I assumed that people just didn't know about/understand the concept of gay people, and that was why they did things like use "gay" as an insult. Still, I was wondering, so I did a Google search. And I was surprised to see that Christianity seemed to be the number one thing mentioned. (It was later I would learn the same was true for the other Abrahamic religions) And then that kinda got me down a whole rabbit hole, and I developed an antitheist attitude from learning about so many issues with religion all at the same time.

And uh yeah there's the story. I surprisingly don't have any religious trauma, but I know some people who do.

Any questions?

I am glad you have not experienced trauma during your journey. Unfortunately it can be a hard for people coming to terms with their sexuality, their religion, and their family. I hope for the people you know who have gone through religious trauma, that they were able to receive support. If not, the link I posted at the start of the thread might help and I can see about pulling up additional resources. I do find it sadly ironic that gay used to mean happy. I have a number of friends from the whole spectrum of lgbtqia2s+ and when they are seen and treated with respect, they are very happy. It's a shame that people have to add negativity in an effort to exclude and alienate. 

10 hours ago, Through The Living Grass said:

As a christian, if someone says they’re a christian and they force their beliefs on someone, they havent opened their bible. There’s a funny story about sticks and eyeballs that Jesus once told…

but yeah. Religion should make the self better, and the self should make the others better.

When a religion causes harm to the self but conceals or downplays that in any way, thats a cult. 

Hi @Through The Living Grass! I do appreciate your contribution but I think there are some things that do need to be discussed as result. As this is an atheist discussion thread, I will explain your post through the lense of an atheist (at least this one). You just made a claim espousing your own religion. I respect your belief in your religion. I wish you all the joy and goodness there is to be as you experience and worship your religion. The thing is though, as an atheist (as myself) I disagree with your claim. I have many reasons (and to me quite valid ones) as to why I disagree with your claim.

The most well known and commonly bandied around is the no true Scotman fallacy. But that is not even the main reason for me. My main reasons have a whole lot to do with reading the bible as you indicate. I have read the bible extensively. Now I could explain my reasoning, but I have a pretty good feeling you associate your religion with your identity. And if that is the case, that is totally ok, and again I wish you all the good with that. But that is not so with myself as an atheist. I am concerned that by explaining why your claim does not hold water with me, it will be perceived as attacking your religion, and thereby attacking you. Which I most definitely do not want to do!

As I wrote in my initial post, and then reiterated later in the thread, I meant for this to be a place for atheists to know they are not alone and provide those who are deconstructing resources to do so. Your claim for instance, though I know was meant with openness and support, can actually be very damaging to those going through deconstruction. I do not mean by trying to lead them back to religion, but for very real, and very harmful reasons. I am hesitant to say them here as again, I do not want anyone to feel attacked. All I will say is there was a link I posted at the start of the thread that helps people recover from religion, and it explains that form of harm. If you would like to know more about what I am referring to, I encourage you to check it out and learn more.

Getting back to your post, you are certainly free to post whatever you wish (within reason) and I cannot nor would I want to stop you. However, I can say what I hope will happen. I hope you will take this opportunity to try to learn more about and understand more about atheism. Although there may be some random religion in the some random spot on the planet that I may not have heard of, I can reasonably assure you I have heard of most religions, their arguments, and they do not hold water for me. And what I mean by saying do not hold water, I mean I heard their claims, researched it, and dismissed it based on evidence or lack thereof. I can also say that although it won’t be everyone, a good number of atheists have probably done the same. So it would be reasonable to a degree to conclude I have heard your version of religion, your reasons for believing your religion, and I have not found good cause to agree. I would much rather on an atheist discussion thread, discuss people’s versions of atheism and give them a place to open up about it. Just like there is a lds discussion thread, and a jewish thread, I thought it would be nice for there to be an Atheist thread. 

So at the risk of repeating myself hoping for clarity and probably just muddying the waters further, I hope you will take this chance to learn more about atheism. Not to get you to leave your religion, but to find out something potentially new. Thank you!

11 hours ago, Hmmm lies said:

So, there are a lot of things I have to say, but so many have already been said, or will be said. So I'm going to share one of my especially controversial viewpoints.

A common argument I see is that religious beliefs are fine, so long as people don't try to force them on others. (I'm going to use not being gay as my example, feel free to replace it with anything in your mind) So like it's fine for a person to believe they shouldn't be gay, but not for them to try and force other people not to be gay. However, there's a few issues with this in my opinion. First, what constitutes forcing beliefs on others? Religion is often passed down in families, and the children will typically end up taking on their parents religion. It's not because they looked at all the options and chose what worked for them best, it's because this is what their parents said.

And then my even more radical opinion: Even keeping one's beliefs to oneself is harmful. For example, if someone is attracted to their own gender, but choosing not to act on these desires, I think they're harming themselves. They're depriving themself of joy for (in my opinion) no reason.

This is pretty barebones, but it's late and I'm tired, y'all can ask for any more insights or clarification if you wish.

Thank you for sharing @Hmmm lies!

11 hours ago, Through The Living Coder said:

My personal opinion is this:

There are 3 types of religons. Toxic religons, Religons, and Cults.

A religon can be a Toxic Cult, but I digress.

A Toxic Religon is one that forces their beliefs on others. I find this to be bad, and well, Toxic.

A Cult is a harmful religon that harms the practicioner. If a person is gay, and their religon condems gays, I think an arguement could be made that, under these definitions, it would be a cult.

And a Toxic Cult is the worst possible one, as it forces harmful beliefs.

An example of a Toxic religon is Theoretical Christianity. (I say theoretical because in practice, christianity can be harmful but oh god am I not going down that rabbit hole on the Fansite of a mormon author) Theoretical Christianity teaches many good things. I love my neighbors. I shal not steal. But it tries to force it's beliefs on others, which makes it Toxic.

This is all very controversal, too.

Thank you also for sharing @Through The Living Coder!

On 3/2/2026 at 10:37 AM, Hmmm lies said:

Hmmm? I mean, I don't intend on giving my multi-paragraph essay any time soon, just cause of how much stuff I have to do, so post here all you want, but I'll look at this. (am autistic)

...

Yeah this seems legit, I believe it. Neurodivergence often puts me at odds with societal norms, and religion is a pretty big societal norm.

That "mentalizing" thing seems right. (do you mean lower sensitivity to social pressures?) I remember being like 6 or 7 years old at Passover, I think, and just thinking "wait do they actually believe this? But like... none of this is possible, right?" This was pretty much the first thing I can remember of me thinking about religion critically.

No problem @Hmmm lies! I didn’t want to turn this thread into about me, so I wanted to leave space for you to however and whenever you feel you are ready to contribute. Basically I didn’t want to change the subject and you feel like I shut you down. But then again I do tend to over explain myself in an effort to avoid misunderstandings, and then get misunderstood anyway so I guess what can you do right? Lol

I believe what was meant by higher sensitivity is a higher rate of resistance or reaction. So for instance, you might say someone with an allergy to cat hair might have a higher sensitivity to cat hair. The skin breaks out, and wheezing occurs. I think it means a lower sensitivity could mean a higher rate of adoption or acceptance of perceived social mores. 

On 3/2/2026 at 8:13 PM, Through The Living Coder said:

Im adhd and ocd

hisssssssssssss

Thank you for your contribution @Through The Living Coder!

So again in an effort to not have this be about me speaking about my own atheistism, I will share my sister-in-law’s story (that she gave me permission to share)

My sister-in-law is autistic. She told me that her mother said to her when she was younger that “honor thy father and mother” meant that if she lied to her mother, she would go to hell. My sister-in-law took this literally and thought that if she potentially lied to her mother (lie of omission, white lie, or even the truth but could be perceived as a lie) the ground would literally open up and drag her down to hell. So as result she told her mother everything. And I do mean EVERYTHING. Even down to forgetting to brush her teeth at a specific time. Her mother got annoyed with all the specificity and would snap at her. Then one day, my sister-in-law didn’t have a chance to “confess” to her mother and fully expected to be dragged down to hell in that moment, only to realize nothing happened. This confused her, and made her begin to question what else her mother would say regarding religion. Thankfully she is now living with myself and my wife, but that is just once instance that she confided in us regarding her mother and religion.

I would like to leave space for @Hmmm lies to reply whenever and however she wishes, but in the meantime I saw an interesting reel that I thought to share.

Basically the reel says that neurodivent individuals are less likely to be religious due to less "mentalizing", a preference for logic over faith, and a higher sensitivity to social pressures. Out of curiosity I looked into it and it seems there is a study that backs the claim. To be clear neither myself nor the study are claiming that if you are neurodivergent, you are automatically not religious. Just there seems a potential disposition towards being irreligous. 

I myself am AuDHD and its rings true to myself, but I am not representative of all neurodivergence nor all irreligous individuals. So I was just curious if any other atheists who may also be neurodivergent (if comfortable with sharing) had any thoughts or lived in experiences. I have plenty of my own but wanted to hear others out first.

On 2/21/2026 at 1:20 AM, CoderDrag0n8 said:

That was a good explanation! I did not know that was an old and popular issue, lol. I just found a funny athiest meme and was like 'I know where to share this!'

But please, tell me more *leans in*

No problem and like I said always happy to spread knowledge. For the sake of brevity I will attempt to focus primarily on that particular quote and try to keep things relatively high level. I do not want to strawman anyone’s beliefs, but if I fully delve into it, I will be writing this forever lol.

At the end of the day though, you do not have to know anything about apologetics nor agree with my view of them to be an atheist. I could have not written a reply or any of this and your understanding/view is completely valid. You could not care about a single thing I wrote and I would be completely fine and supportive of that. Finally all I wrote is not what every atheist thinks. It is just what I think as an atheist based on what I have seen and read. Hope this post has been in some way helpful! 

Edit: Sorry, re-read your intro post, so all of what I said above but can switch atheist to agnostic if you feel that fits you better. Thanks!

58 minutes ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

To that second paragraph, I know none of the words, lol.

So apologetics is the argument or justification for a thing, usually a religious doctrine. The quote you referenced is a rather old and popular issue with religion and there have been various apologetics in response to it, with their own issues as well. My issue with apologetics is it always feels like they recognize there is a problem, but then try and come up with all these "buts", "ands", and "ifs" in an effort to validate it and thereby "make it ok". For myself, the lengths some apologetics go through makes me very uncomfortable and in some cases makes the whole thing 100 times worse. I only mentioned it because I thought that was what you were referring to by bringing up that quote. I could explain more if you like but I'll spoiler it and keep to only this instance so as not to go off on a tangent and only if you are curious. Thank you for asking!

Edit: hopefully I did an ok job explaining. If anything was confusing or overly vague, please feel free to ask

On 2/19/2026 at 12:40 PM, pureintonation said:

I’d rather just shoot the dart than confess my sins to a guy in a closet or actually keep Shabbat properly or do first communion or kneel on a prayer mat. Or read the same thousand year old text year after year to find a new interpretation of it. Or whatever else there is. The outcome will be the same probably. Unless the thing in question depends on my actions haha

which also confused me as a kid… sometimes my family would pray that I get a good grade on a test. Like I think that’s on me, guys..

Although multiple studies seem to say prayer overall has no statistical effect on the success of a thing, interestingly two studies have found that prayer can actually have a deleterious effect. One study involved individuals receiving the same heart surgery, and the other study involved recovering alcoholics. Both broke the participants into three groups. Those that were prayed for and knew they were being prayed for, those that were prayed for and did not know they were being prayed for, and those who were not prayed for and knew they were not being prayed for. Those that were prayed for, and knew they were being prayed for did statistically worse. It was theorized that by knowing they were being prayed for, the participants either worried that their condition was worse off than it was, or felt anxiety that they had to get better or else it meant god wanted them to fail/die. They then thereby faired worse. So actually if your parents wanted to help you psychologically, it potentially would have been better for them to not tell you they prayed for you at all. 

19 hours ago, CoderDrag0n8 said:

I will say, that I have always kinda had this...

Personal resentment towards religion, ya know? I don't believe in it, and I think people should be allowed to believe in it, but like...

Some religions are just toxic, ya know? There is this great quote, it goes something along the lines of, American Indian: "So if I never knew about Jesus or sin, and had no way of knowing, I wouldn't go to hell?" Pastor: "Yes." American Indian: "Then why, oh why, did you tell me?" (Paraphrased).

I think most religions are fine, but I also think if it tries to convert you, it is kinda toxic.

edit: found the image, it was an intuit hunter, not a Native American, sorry.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Apologetics always leave me with a skevy and unsettled sensation. To me at its base, if an issue arises, shouldn’t the level of hoop jumping to validate it raise some red flags for all those involved? I get not throwing out the baby with the bathwater, but there are some apologetics that I find full on horrifying, with C.S. Lewis being amongst the worse offender. 

7 hours ago, Rynturning_Light said:

I'd like to spew one of the funnier interactions I've had living as an atheist in the bible belt

Cause I find it funny upon reflection and maybe yall can relate in someway:

(Spoiler for length, kinda)

  Reveal hidden contents

When I was younger (maybe like 9-10) and living in rural Arkansas, I was one of the very few atheists at my school (realistically, one of the only ones). One day when we were all at lunch, some of the other kids were talking about their beliefs in Christianity and bible stories and the like.

Well, one of them decided that they needed another opinion and turn to me to provide that. With no prior warning, I was asked the question "what do you think about [bible story that I do not remember which was being discussed]?"

Obviously, I don't think about any of it, because I don't believe in any of it, so I gave the reply "oh, I don't really believe in that stuff."

One of the boys sitting across from me was shocked by this information, and upon being graced by my neutral response leaned forward on the table, looked me dead in the eyes, and exasperatedly asked me the question

"Do you worship Satan?!?"

 

Yup, younger me was shocked and confused and kind of concerned. Upon reflection and moving out of that rural area, I find this extremely hilarious and wish I had the confidence to tell him "yes."

 

Oh I can definitely relate. I do not live anywhere near the bible belt, but I have had two similar experiences.

7 hours ago, Akimikoisthecutest said:

HA! That is exactly what me and my friends do. Saying we were satanists almost got us kidnapped tho

7 hours ago, Rynturning_Light said:

...Wat lol

(Also, slightly related, the actual satire organization the Church of Satan is a really good company and people should give them more love)

They are an incredible organization! They also show atheists can be from all walks of life. I have included a whole list of people from various background that are all atheists below! (I will add links to their content later. It’s a lot to page through lol)

Aron Ra was a member of the church of latter day saints and is now an atheist and a member of the Satanic Temple. 

Forrest Valkai was a pagan and is now an atheist. He also has what he calls smilihism or positive nihilism. He has never had a bad day lol

https://youtube.com/@valkailabs?si=6ZsPQqllL-YslY9F

Erika Gutsick Gibbon finds beauty in being a gentle and modern ape

https://youtube.com/@gutsickgibbon?si=NMLuL8V8O2v95eDx

John Gleason aka Godless Engineer was a member of the church of latter day saints and is now an atheist. 

https://youtube.com/@godlessengineer?si=53nFeWpZupXfpPvc

Matt Dilahunty was a baptist and is now an atheist.

https://youtube.com/@sansdeity?si=J67OvAdzyYl5zShx

Promise Backlund was an evangelical and is now an atheist. 

https://youtube.com/@eve_wasframed?si=LUUchgxOF_Hr2x7C

Arden Hart is trans and a secular humanist

https://youtube.com/@theardenhart?si=kYJV5wTLSAcXN7ug

Owen Morgan was a jehova’s witness and is now an atheist.

https://youtube.com/@owenmorgantelltale?si=Kp46NiGIYVRy54gO

Taylor Skeptical Heretic was a christian and is now an atheist.

https://youtube.com/@skeptical_heretic?si=Z6uvgyjsOqc1cSeu

Justin DZ was a evangelical pastor and is now an atheist

https://youtube.com/@dzdebates?si=_6XFObd4KWs-3wpM

Luxander Moss is trans (the bio did not identify their pronouns) and an atheist.

https://youtube.com/@luxandermoss?si=hDLP748g-ObOzYP4

Aaron is a physicist and is an atheist (the way he explains physics is incredibly interesting!) 

https://youtube.com/@aaronadair?si=rWigvB1rvmiKWWkl

(I have more but don't want this post to go on forever. I will add some trans atheists as well shortly and then call it.)

Perhaps making a general post might be the best way to clear the air.

First and foremost, thank you to everyone that has contributed to this thread. I appreciate all your lived in experiences and your willingness to share. I love to hear about your understanding of your atheism and what it means to you. Treamayne's definition is but one of many possible definitions. If it does not ring true to you, that is completely valid and okay! Please do not feel the need to type yourselves as a specific box of atheist when you post. If you would like to and it is resonant to you, please feel free to! I always appreciate additional information and knowledge but I hope no one is feeling limited by it. My aim in this thread is to be inclusive to all sorts of atheism and personal definitions of atheism that are all true and valid. My goal is to build community and provide resources to those who are deconstructing, regardless how that manifests for the individual. The questions were meant to be a springing off point that are all totally and completely optional! Please only post what you feel comfortable posting! Also feel free to spoiler tag it if that works better for you. Anyone can answer one, some, all or none as it pleases them!

I thought as a fun exercise people could share a scientific discovery or field that excites them. Did you all know that in every solar system we have discovered there is a super earth? We are the only solar system lacking one! That could mean there is an actual 9th planet way out there we have not discovered yet! Or there are a host of other possibilities! Fusion is not only possible, but it has been done and produces more energy than what it took to start the reaction! It's a long way from scalability but that is amazing! We have produced a robot the size of a grain of rice that can destroy gall stones! I could go on and on lol. But this too like this entire post is completely optional!

Just remember your journey as an atheist regardless how or why you came to be one is valued and valid!

Hopefully that clarified things. Thanks again to all that have posted and those that will hopefully post. Even if this thread ends at this, I appreciate everyone and their thoughts. Thank you!

17 hours ago, Treamayne said:

For anybody who may be curious - Atheism definitions:
(I, personally, find the nuance in the definitions interesting, becuase so many lump us all into one bucket, as if Faith is allowed to have many paths and beliefs, but the absence of faith is just one lump group - and I reject that hypothesis)

Because it is tangentially related - Agnosticism: 

 

I once had to describe in an exam, in Korean, to a teacher what the difference was between Atheism and Agnosticism because Korean does not differentiate between the two (the only word they have literally translates as "not-god belief person"). 

Hope that helps

Thank you for that information and your experience @Treamayne. I was hoping by including “what atheism means to you”, individuals could share their views on atheism and how they define their atheism as we are not a monolith. 

If you are comfortable sharing, what is a little of your background, how did it or didn’t lead you to being atheist, and what is atheism for you? Also if you like, share a fun scientific fact or discovery that excites you. Thank you for sharing! 

I thought it would be a good idea to give atheists a place to discuss (if comfortable) a little of our background, what brought us to atheism, why we are atheists and what atheism means to us.  I also think for fun, anyone could share a scientific discovery or interest that excites them. I would like this thread to give atheists a sense of community and to anyone who is currently deconstructing resources to help and show they are not alone. I understand there are probably not many atheists on here, and this thread may only last as long as my own post, but I figured it couldn’t hurt to try anyway.

So I will go first. I was raised Catholic, went to a Catholic Elementary School and a Franciscan High school. I was baptized, took first communion,  and was confirmed. So what led me to atheism? I have always been insatiably curious and loved to learn new things. For me, the greatest goal for a teacher or parent is to see their child exceed them. Be more, greater, go farther. For me, the unexamined life is not worth living. You cannot learn and understand others without knowledge and you cannot gain knowledge without questions. It never quite sat well with me that religion sought to silence those questions. As I learned more, my issues with religion overall also grew till I have found it to be harmful, and do not see a need for it at all. That is why I am an atheist.

Now what does atheism mean for me. It means there is no convincing evidence for the existence of a deity or the supernatural. The claims made by various religions do not hold up to my criteria for evidence. I base my morals on empathy, and if I had to codify them I would lean toward the structure of Matt Dillahunty. Morals are an evolutionary trait that we can agree on subjectively, and then measure objectively.

I am really excited about the recent developments and discoveries in abiogenesis. To think that RNA can self assemble and potentially lead to the building blocks of life is amazing!

Finally below is a great website with resources for anyone deconstructing from their religion. Thank you!

www.recoveringfromreligion.org

42 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

I did not see this before, it is a much better topic than the niche issue of the reformation, so I will address it.

First, on the matter of other commenters like @pureintonation@Pathfinder and their dismissal of the idea of willful belief. I understand how the Christian world view interacts with this a bit better than most since it was made a focal point during a sermon I attended: It is, in that mysterious and divine way, somehow better for a believer to hold to faith against evidence than to hold it because of evidence. This is the essence of the valuing of faith in itself. Faith is not meant to be free from doubt, but instead it is meant to be a struggle that somehow ennobles the believer to go through. Why does God want believers who suffer from doubt? I have never heard a great answer. If this seems incomprehensible, compare it to the concept of having faith in the virtue of a person. If a father is caught in a lie by his son, the son cannot rely on the evidence to believe his father is an honest man anymore. The son must use faith in order to believe despite that evidence in his father's virtue. With God, the issue is not to have faith in God's virtue alone, but also to have faith in God's existence AND virtue.

Now, for my own response: I have my own concept of God. It is not much anything like the Christian God. But also, this concept of God is not unlike pantheism, such that "the sum of all things as they ever are" could be another way to refer to God in my concept. However, I see it as important to living a good life to deny the concept of life after death, and this is impossible to reconcile with Christians.

Not sure why you are saying I am dismissing anything. @Mattel inquired to those who do not believe in the Christian god, as to why. I said why. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your father lying to you this time, versus all the other times he either told you the truth or also lied is a claim that can be looked into. Evidence for this time being an exception to the rule, or that lying is common to him can also be demonstrated. The extent of evidence to determine whether or not your father is a lier is leagues different than the supernatural. Belief can be in both true things and false things. I try to base my beliefs on evidence. I have not found convincing evidence for god. If it is convincing to you, I am happy for you. But it is not for me.

Same for pantheism. I am happy that it gives you peace and joy in your life. I am not convinced. I replied to explain why I am an atheist. If you want me to explain why I am not a pantheist, I will be happy to, but I thought the point was not to necessarily debate. I wish you well in your beliefs! 

8 hours ago, Mattel said:

I have a question for those who aren’t Christians (asking as a Christian FYI): what is the main reason that you don’t want to believe in God?

 

I believe everyone believes what they do for a reason and I’m just curious what those are

Building on what @pureintonation stated regarding “want”. Stating it that way can in a form imply that belief in god is a default state everyone has, and to not believe in god is to actively chose not to. I understand that is true from your perspective, but it is not from mine. From my perspective we are all born atheist. We have to be taught religion. That is why the religion individuals belong to tends to depend on where you are born and what your parents are. 

Now as to why I am atheist. I mentioned it in a prior post but I will elaborate here. You do not choose what you believe. You are convinced. Just like if an individual was sat in a room with a gun to their head, and told to believe the sky is green. They can lie and say the sky is green, but they do not believe it. Even to save their own life. But if they are convinced through various means, then they do genuinely believe it. So I believe there is no convincing evidence for any god existing. It is not a want. It is a statement based on the preponderance of evidence.

2 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

That actually is often the way to “convince” someone of the validity of your morality. The essence of religion is faith, it lies in believing that God(or gods, etc.) is real. And conversion most often consists of convincing the convert that both: God is real, and the converters (don’t have a great universal term for this) are his representatives.

The reason I brought this up, is because it was mentioned in this thread that how does an atheist convince others to follow their morality. Basically an argument from authority. How does the atheist claim that what they think “ought” to be done. Religion’s typical response is, there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good entity that is morality and defines morality. That entity says this thing or that thing is or is not moral. There is your objective morality. But from the perspective of the individual trying to be convinced, they have no reason to believe one religion’s deity over any other religion’s deity except what the person who is trying to convince them says. Basically the individual espousing the religion has no greater “authority” to draw on, than any atheist. They run into the exact same issue. Why do you get to tell me what to do? Referencing someone else’s authority that you cannot in any tangible way enforce (direct from the horses mouth as it were) returns the buck right back to the person saying it. 

Now I started my original post saying I am not debating any religions veracity. I am an atheist. I do not believe any such deity exists. My reason is I believe there is no convincing evidence for god. So from the perspective of an atheist, who has no cause to believe any claims the individual espousing the religion is true, has no reason to give the religious individual’s morality any more credence than anyone else’s. And further has no greater reason to listen to or follow it than anyone else’s.