Common Folk

seamus

^^
Ah yes, it's getting better. Coronation Street has a storyline involving two young (and hot!) lesbians who are part of a bible choir group. When the pastor finds out about it, he lands into their house to discuss it with them and tells them that it's OK to have these feelings, provided that you never, ever act on them.

My wife was shocked, thinking that he must be some mad bible-thumper. I explained to her that's exactly what the bible says and what pretty much every single Christian sect believes.

I think I'll get her de-converted eventually.

Mark Hamill

Bduffman wrote: »

They still call themselves catholic!!

What really annoys me is when people get insulted when you point out to them that they are, in fact, not catholic. They seem to think catholic has no defined meaning and are completely resistant to the idea that its certain beliefs about god and Jesus that make you catholics, not just whether or not you like the label.
The amount of times I've told people that they are closer to protestant or christain (or, in a lot of cases, just deist) when they point out they dont follow the pope only for them to outright deny that the vatican has anything to do with catholicism is unreal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Common as... wrote: »

1. Would you agree that when it comes to religion most of the young Irish (under 40) are chatholic but cos they got bigger fish to fry; shopping, sport, women, men, T.V. drinking and so on, they ain't bothered about the whole thing and just kinda go with the flow when it comes to religion?

Assuming you meant Catholic then I think you are right, there is a lot of this. Many people do not have faith and are simply therefore indifferent to it rather than opposed to it.

It is worth noting however that there are also people who think religion is a good thing even if they do not believe it themselves. These are the people who Daniel Dennett refers to those who “believe in belief”.

What he says he means by this are people who do not believe in god or any religion themselves, go through life without thinking there is such a being, but for some reason think that it is a good thing that OTHER people are believing it. Despite thinking it all poppy cock themselves, they will actually defend religion as being a good thing and will defend it against attacks from Atheists etc.

I would love to see a study done to ascertain how many such people exist in Ireland. Personally at this time I would not be surprised to find it is a significant % of our population but this is just my personal feeling.

Common as... wrote: »

I believe in a Being, Thing, God, Higher power call it what you like; that is uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans. As for the bible and religions well I would need some really strong evidence in order to believe any of that.

I am not sure I can relate to or understand your point of view here.

For me the bit you believe is the most outrageous part and is entirely devoid of any supporting evidence. WERE it to be true, all the other things become that bit much more credible. I would still need evidence for them of course, but the existence of an all powerful immense being that has the power to make them occur instantly adds credibility to the likelihood of them being true.

For example if a Christian were to tell me that there exists a magical powerful being Satan who can make snakes talk and it did so and spoke to Adam and Eve as a snake, then this would be amazing stuff and I would need evidence for all of it.

If they prove Satan exists and does have this power, then I would still need evidence that a snake was made to talk to the people in question, however having accepted the base premise that it could happen and the being capable of making it happen exists, I would have a LOT less difficulty in establishing the event to be true.

So why you think you can accept the base premise on literally no evidence, but THEN say you need strong evidence to accept the rest... simply makes no sense to me whatsoever on any level. It is as if you have drawn a line in the sand for yourself and said "I will be skeptical of everything to the right of this line, but everything to the left is A-OK with me despite being devoid of ANY support whatsoever".

Or in short: Wanting strong evidence to believe the Bible I can understand. Somehow not wanting that strong evidence to believe in an all powerful being I do not.

keppler

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is worth noting however that there are also people who think religion is a good thing even if they do not believe it themselves. These are the people who Daniel Dennett refers to those who “believe in belief”.

What he says he means by this are people who do not believe in god or any religion themselves, go through life without thinking there is such a being, but for some reason think that it is a good thing that OTHER people are believing it. Despite thinking it all poppy cock themselves, they will actually defend religion as being a good thing and will defend it against attacks from Atheists etc.

Funny you should mention this, I dont have many atheist friends/family but a few weeks ago I was having a discussion about religion with a close friend. His views on religion were exactly as you say above..... 'I think its a load of codswollop myself but I think its a good thing for some people to believe'.
Just out of a matter of interest did Dennet go into why he thought people hold this idea?......I ask this because when I questioned my friend further about why he thought it was good for some people to believe, he could'nt really explain his reasoning! However I did notice that in giving alot of his reasons (that actually explained nothing) he used the fact that his parents and siblings were religious.............I guess the point im getting at is maybe these people are only trying in some way or other to defend the beliefs of their loved ones who still believe?
Do you know the name of Dennets book which he talks about this 'belief in belief'......Maybe I could equip myself better for next time?

nozzferrahhtoo

He did and there are many talks from him onYou tube explaining his thought process but he says himself he wants to research more into why people are like that.

In fact he was coupling the talks in question with information on a project he is engaging in where he wants to meet… entirely in secret with full confidentiality…non-believing Pastors, priests and other religious teachers etc from each of the major religions to survey them as to why they stick to doing what they do in absence of belief.

Thus far he is of course finding the common answer is “Well I simply do not know what else to do now, this is my career” but he is hopefully going to normalise for that one and glean some decent answers.

Other common answers are pretty similar to the arguments Theists make when they stop arguing that religion is true… but that religion is useful in some way. Claims that they think it inspires people to do good deeds, or produce beautiful art and common fallacies like this.

I myself suspect there are many that think they themselves are perfectly moral people, but are afraid of what the morality of many may become if they abandoned beliefs in god. When you have people like Dinesh D’Souza openly admitting that he could not think of a single reason to do something even as simple as give his seat to an old woman on a bus if it was not for his Christian beliefs… you can understand why some people might hold such a fear.

As for which book it is, I think this part is a work in progress and is to be a subject of coming books. The You tube talks I saw were recent and it has not been in any of his books I have read so far.

Undergod

My stance on that is that religion is capable of doing good, and it can have many benefits for individuals and for societies, but that still doesn't make it true.

Goduznt Xzst

reminds of a nearly two year old thread:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58451331

My opinions from that thread are the same now.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

People who's lot in life will never greatly increase for their generation and most likely that of their childrens need some sort of quantifiable Raison d'être. Christianity gives them tasks and goals that are achieveable without means and that promises them that they will get a reward post humously, a chance at a better existence, something food and shelter and education will never give them.

Much like the way parents get their children to behave before Christmas by saying Santa doesn't give presents to naughty children. It works the same way, you promise a person something to stroke their selfish desires and they will act altruistically to attain it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

My stance on that is that religion is capable of doing good, and it can have many benefits for individuals and for societies, but that still doesn't make it true.

I am not sure it is capable of any such thing alas. I think people will do good things and then give the credit to religion in retrospect.

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

Charity, self sacrifice, defending ideals, care for fellow man… all these things happen completely in the absence of religion all the time.

This would indicate that religion is entirely superfluous and I put it out there that if something is 100% superfluous to do good then it must only do one bad thing in order to be in negative equity and hence worth disposing of.

How many bad things can we ascribe to it? I doubt it would be just 1.

Undergod

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure it is capable of any such thing alas. I think people will do good things and then give the credit to religion in retrospect.

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

Charity, self sacrifice, defending ideals, care for fellow man… all these things happen completely in the absence of religion all the time.

This would indicate that religion is entirely superfluous and I put it out there that if something is 100% superfluous to do good then it must only do one bad thing in order to be in negative equity and hence worth disposing of.

How many bad things can we ascribe to it? I doubt it would be just 1.

Okay, and most of the bad things I can think of that have been carried out by religious organizations or religious people, have been carried out by atheist and secular people. There are obviously a few exceptions for specifically religious punishments, but they have parallels to non-religious acts. People of all ideologies commit atrocities; It's not really that relevant.

Goduznt Xzst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The reason I think this is that no causal link has been shown between religion and any good deed that has not also been performed by someone in the complete absence of religion.

I disagree. What motivates the Irreligious to help others?

Everything that motivates the irreligious, also motivates the religious, except for the clincher...

Religion also feeds the selfish desires of believers while being able to give them tangibly nothing. This is the perfect motivator for altruistic acts.

They are being promised an eternity of existence, a secular society can't compete with that.

mikhail

How many people do you know who act like they genuinely believe there's an eternal, blissful afterlife? Really?

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

Okay, and most of the bad things I can think of that have been carried out by religious organizations or religious people, have been carried out by atheist and secular people. There are obviously a few exceptions for specifically religious punishments, but they have parallels to non-religious acts. People of all ideologies commit atrocities; It's not really that relevant.

Exactly, now you are with me! It is not relevant at all.

What is relevant is to list the good and bad things that can directly lead from each. In other words look at causation and not correlation.

Instead of asking the wrong question, as to whether atheists or theists do good or bad things... ask yourself is there any causal link between either of them and the performance of good and bad things.

Thus far I have found no causal pathway between “I do not believe your claim that there is a non-human intelligence responsible for creating the universe” and any action at all, good or bad.

This is NOT true of religion however and I can give you many causal links between belief in a given religious concept and resulting bad actions that would not be performable or justifiable in the absence of the base belief.

nozzferrahhtoo

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I disagree. What motivates the Irreligious to help others?

Gold is precious because it is rare. So is life if you do not believe in an eternal after life.

What motivates the irreligious to help each other therefore? The knowledge that this is the only life that matters and “each other” is the only thing we have to help us get through it.

The knowledge that this is the only life we have and that those around us are the only ones we have to share it with is an exceptionally powerful motivator for helping others. Helping others means not only that you are helping them, but helps build a world where that is the kind of act that is perpetrated and thus we too benefit as that is more often than not the kind of world we wish to live in ourselves.

nozzferrahhtoo

mikhail wrote: »

How many people do you know who act like they genuinely believe there's an eternal, blissful afterlife? Really?

I have met more, and communicated with more, than I care to. However you are right, such people are severely in the minority. I think there are many that like to think they believe it, and they feel smart because they know the cliche arguments for it, but rarely do you meet people who actually act like they seriously do believe.

But of course this is entirely dependant on our own expectations of what a true believer would act like. We have to assume that that impression is correct.

Undergod

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Instead of asking the wrong question, as to whether atheists or theists do good or bad things... ask yourself is there any causal link between either of them and the performance of good and bad things.

I was never asking that question.

The benefits of religion I mentioned are (as I see it) include that it can be a unifying force in a community, and that it can provide great comfort to individuals. This is true of any ideology, of course, but it's not true of the absence of ideology.

Of course, as I say, none of this makes it true.

nozzferrahhtoo

Undergod wrote: »

I was never asking that question.

I am sorry, i am in danger of seeing patronising now and i really do not want to come accross that way but i know you were not asking that question. Maybe it is my bad that I did not phrase it better, but I apologise if I left that impression with you.

The point I am making is that unless you can show that such a unifying effect happens only within the presence of religion and not in the absence of it then we are still talking of something superfluous.

The avenue of thought you need to explore is whether this sort of behaviour happens "anyway".... and is retrospectively assigned to religion.

Common as...

[PHP][/PHP]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure I can relate to or understand your point of view here.

For me the bit you believe is the most outrageous part and is entirely devoid of any supporting evidence. WERE it to be true, all the other things become that bit much more credible. I would still need evidence for them of course, but the existence of an all powerful immense being that has the power to make them occur instantly adds credibility to the likelihood of them being true.

For example if a Christian were to tell me that there exists a magical powerful being Satan who can make snakes talk and it did so and spoke to Adam and Eve as a snake, then this would be amazing stuff and I would need evidence for all of it.

If they prove Satan exists and does have this power, then I would still need evidence that a snake was made to talk to the people in question, however having accepted the base premise that it could happen and the being capable of making it happen exists, I would have a LOT less difficulty in establishing the event to be true.

So why you think you can accept the base premise on literally no evidence, but THEN say you need strong evidence to accept the rest... simply makes no sense to me whatsoever on any level. It is as if you have drawn a line in the sand for yourself and said "I will be skeptical of everything to the right of this line, but everything to the left is A-OK with me despite being devoid of ANY support whatsoever".

Or in short: Wanting strong evidence to believe the Bible I can understand. Somehow not wanting that strong evidence to believe in an all powerful being I do not.

I didn't say all powerful immense being,I said, something that in uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans.
I try and explain. I live in the universe,the land of space and time. Im able to understand space, both the things in space and empty space.
I cannot comprehend no-space or no-thing.
You could say the same about time, I can comprehend time to a certain extent, in that I can look back in time,It can be measured and so on.
But I cannot compredend no-time.
Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

I've a question.
Lets say that you have two young children, Ricky and Danny, and you have just got a new job in the science Lab at the local college. So you need to employ a child minder to look afer Ricky and Danny.
Two suitable canditates emerge but they are equal in every way and you can't decide which one is the best. So you let the decission rest on their answer to following question.
How do you think the universe came into being?
Canditate A's answer: I believe something uncomprehensible to humans created the universe.
Canditate B's answer: I believe the Bible word for word.
Which one would you chose?

Turtwig

Common as... wrote: »

[PHP][/PHP]
I didn't say all powerful immense being,I said, something that in uncomprehensible to myself and all other humans.
I try and explain. I live in the universe,the land of space and time. Im able to understand space, both the things in space and empty space.
I cannot comprehend no-space or no-thing.
You could say the same about time, I can comprehend time to a certain extent, in that I can look back in time,It can be measured and so on.
But I cannot compredend no-time.
Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

I've a question.
Lets say that you have two young children, Ricky and Danny, and you have just got a new job in the science Lab at the local college. So you need to employ a child minder to look afer Ricky and Danny.
Two suitable canditates emerge but they are equal in every way and you can't decide which one is the best. So you let the decission rest on their answer to following question.
How do you think the universe came into being?
Canditate A's answer: I believe something uncomprehensible to humans created the universe.
Canditate B's answer: I believe the Bible word for word.
Which one would you chose?

Firstly, us humans are out of depth when it comes to everything about this universe not just its origin. You don't understand time, even if you think you do. I'll bet you barely even appreciate or know what a day on earth actually is, or for that matter a year.

I would hire both with the stipulation that they cannot some discuss their philosophies infront of the kids. I would install some naked micro web cameras in every room in my house, ensure there is a plentiful supply of alcohol wait patiently for the kids bedtime and then watch the two candidates fight to the death! Muhahaha.

Common as...

Ok then, I have a very limited understanding of both space and time.

liked the Vids, thanks.

Turtwig

Common as... wrote: »

Ok then, I have a very limited understanding of both space and time.

liked the Vids, thanks.

Yeah it's a bit of a cliche at this stage but if you think you understand modern physics then obviously you don't understand it. I'm pretty sure that applies for most branches of modern science too reality is much weirder than our intuitions would tell us.

Improbable

I'll just add that the measurements in a lot of modern science are simply beyond us biologically speaking. Speeds like the speed of light, evolutionary timescales, the size of protons and neutrons are all things which our brains have simply not evolved to understand because we don't live in that world so to speak. We perceive time and distance in a very narrow range. We don't need to be able to comprehend something going at 300 million meters per second because it doesn't really affect us as much as say a cheetah running at 60 kilometers an hour after us. The same goes for distance.

Same goes for time. We can understand a second, a minute, an hour. When it gets to a decade, it gets a little harder to really comprehend the amount of time that that is. And harder again at a century and harder than that at a millenium. Then when you consider the fact that evolutionary change that we talk about in layman conversations takes place over millions upon millions of years, its understandable that we can't truly comprehend that. It also goes in the other direction. We can all learn what the diameter of a proton is but we don't REALLY understand how small it is because it doesn't affect us on a day to day basis whereas something like "the distance between me and that vicious killer animal is about 10 meters" is something that does affect us much more.

As Malty said, modern science is much weirder than our intuitions would tell us and the point of that I think is that modern science isn't inherently weird, it's simply the fact that we use science to explain concepts that are sometimes outside of our range of meaningful experience.

Goduznt Xzst

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The knowledge that this is the only life we have and that those around us are the only ones we have to share it with is an exceptionally powerful motivator for helping others. Helping others means not only that you are helping them, but helps build a world where that is the kind of act that is perpetrated and thus we too benefit as that is more often than not the kind of world we wish to live in ourselves.

That's a very western ideal you have there and doesn't translate well to the 3rd world. People living below the threshold of basic human needs don't have the western luxury of time to twiddle their thumbs in front of their laptops, sipping their lattes, thinking "what can I do to make the world a better place"

For individuals trapped in a perpetual vicious cycle of absolute poverty (e.g: a third of the human population) your mantra doesn't work.
They will not escape their misery in their lifetime, and will probably raise children into this same misery. Your platitudes of "helping others, helps ourselves" means nothing to these people.

Religion, for these people, is the only motivating factor that works. You lie to them and promise them the gift of a better existence posthumously, and it will motivate them to help others. For these people, Religion gives them the one thing a secular society currently can't, hope.

A quasi promise that their good deeds may or may not be returned to them, or maybe their children, is not a great motivator. But a guarantee that some Deity is keeping an eye on you and will give you a better existence for your life now, which is merely a test, is.

Listen, I'm not saying it's right or decent. But history has proven that Religion can easily be wielded to control peoples actions. It is currently being used to motivate people to help others.

I would prefer that humanity could offer these people a tangible solution to their misery, but currently we can't or won't. So until that time they need the hope that Religion can give.

nozzferrahhtoo

Common as... wrote: »

Because the universe does exist and us humans are so out of our depth when it comes to understanding how the universe came into being, I believe that something beyond human comprehension brought it into being.

Fair enough but this is really is nothing more than an overly complicated way of saying "There is still a lot of stuff we do not understand", a statement which will get little or no argument from people on this forum.

The language you wrap that statement up in however gives the impression, however unfounded, that you are attaching some level of metaphysics to it that is not warranted, suggesting in subtle ways attributes to that lack of understanding that ring a little familiar to those of us here who hear theists do the same thing all the time.

In short, if all you are saying is that we do not understand a lot of things then that is great, but my advice would be to reappraise the language you choose to say that as it is in massive danger of being misinterpreted and taken up wrong on a forum such as this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Religion, for these people, is the only motivating factor that works. You lie to them and promise them the gift of a better existence posthumously, and it will motivate them to help others.

I do not agree with any of the tragic picture you paint here. In fact in the most abject poverty you still find people supporting each other and not just themselves. It is all they can do.

Maybe lying to people works to motivate them but it is not something you will catch me doing. Doing the right thing is still doing the right thing, even if it fails. Nothing about me would allow me to lie to people simply because I think the results of their actions having been lied to would be beneficial.

It sounds good on paper what you are saying... lie to them... get good things to happen. Yay us. On many levels it is purely wrong however.

Firstly it is treating them like children and with zero Human Dignity. We lie to them in order to manipulate them for our good rather than just theirs.

Secondly lies beget lies and it is rarely so simple as to tell a white lie and get good results which is the ideal portrayed in your post. When the lies are questioned more lies have to be piled on to hold their credulity and this rarely ends and is an ongoing process. Further different people tell different lies, and they both disseminate with the result of different sects opening up each believing the other is wrong and because none of these lies actually have any evidence going for them there is no opportunity for discourse. Where there is no discourse there is violence.

Thirdly when you open people up to such credulity, other lies get to slip in too. In countries such as the ones you list there are lies circulating such as the rape of a virgin cures HIV/AIDS. The blame for this does not lie simply at the feet of the people who spread that lie, but also at the feet of those that through their own lies, however well intentioned, created an atmosphere of such credulity in the first place.

Finally giving them hope in religion now does not help them in the future. Religion is not just a lie now, but it stultifies further progress and questioning. I can not justify giving people hope now if it, even in any small way, delays good and effective resolutions later. It is giving people false consolation in the present at the cost of condemning future people to the same suffering.

Technique

Atheism and morality

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous research on atheists and morality, and concluded that the more atheists and agnostics there are in a society, the more moral it is. Such findings included the following:[120][121]

• In the U.S. states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious U.S. states, the murder rate is higher than average.
• Only 0.2% of U.S. prisoners are atheists.
• Atheists are more tolerant towards women's and homosexuals' rights.
• Atheism and secularism correlate with high levels of education, and low levels of racial prejudice.
• Atheists beat their children less often than others, and more often encourage them to think independently.
• In Sweden, the most secular country in the world according to Zuckerman, the charitable aid given is the highest as a proportion of GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Common as...

Technique wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

so now we know

recedite

farna_boy wrote: »

Just an FYI.

What you are talking about here is Roman Catholics. The term "Catholic" also applies to the Eastern Orthodox churches, Anglicans and some Lutherans as far as I can tell.

The "catholic church" only refers to the RCC though (I don't know why).

Just for the laugh, try inserting the word Roman when in casual conversation with people who don't know you that well. The awkward pause and stunned staring is similar (I would imagine) to the effect of taking off your coat to reveal an orange sash proudly displayed.
Works best with a nice rrrolling R :pac:

Turtwig

Technique wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Ahh but you see theists will just go Ooooh what about Hitler and Stalin. And sponsoredwalk I am not JC so please don't take this post as means of me wanting it to be debunked.;)

Common as...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Fair enough but this is really is nothing more than an overly complicated way of saying "There is still a lot of stuff we do not understand", a statement which will get little or no argument from people on this forum.

The language you wrap that statement up in however gives the impression, however unfounded, that you are attaching some level of metaphysics to it that is not warranted, suggesting in subtle ways attributes to that lack of understanding that ring a little familiar to those of us here who hear theists do the same thing all the time.

In short, if all you are saying is that we do not understand a lot of things then that is great, but my advice would be to reappraise the language you choose to say that as it is in massive danger of being misinterpreted and taken up wrong on a forum such as this.

I don't know anything about metaphysics I was just trying to explain my views.:)
Anyways I think I've got a better understanding of atheism and where atheist are coming from.Now I would give a differant answer to the question, does God exist.

Atheist; I don't know, and I hold out very little hope

Me; I don't know, but I hold out a great deal of hope

Pain and suffering
So for all the talk about lack of evidence, im beginning to think that much of the divide between many believers and non believers lies in your attitude to the pain thats in the world.

Nobody can escape the fact that there's a lot of pain suffering and unfairness in the world and i've seen from other threads that this is a big factor in the views of atheist.Yet this same pain that I see and sometimes feel never influences me in the way it does atheist.This is what im trying to get my head around.

I may be incorrect here but im assuming an atheist will say, if a deity is capable of creating the universe why did this same deity not make it painless.
To this I would say I do not know, just as I don't even know if a deity exists in the first place.

But I hold out the very strong possiblity that a deity ceated the universe thus created life thus created pain and life is evolving forward with aim of overcoming this pain.

So why did I come to such a notion.

Once again I don't know for sure.

But my gut feeling is that on some level Ive been considering the meaning of life all my life. So it wouldn't be a single event or piece of evidence but more a large number of events, life situations etc that brought me to where im at, to try and talk my way through it might take years.

Improbable

Common as... wrote: »

Atheist; I don't know, and I hold out very little hope

Agnostic Atheism

Common as... wrote: »

Me; I don't know, but I hold out a great deal of hope

Agnostic Theism

Common as... wrote: »

So for all the talk about lack of evidence, im beginning to think that much of the divide between many believers and non believers lies in your attitude to the pain thats in the world.

Nobody can escape the fact that there's a lot of pain suffering and unfairness in the world and i've seen from other threads that this is a big factor in the views of atheist.Yet this same pain that I see and sometimes feel never influences me in the way it does atheist.This is what im trying to get my head around.

I may be incorrect here but im assuming an atheist will say, if a deity is capable of creating the universe why did this same deity not make it painless.
To this I would say I do not know, just as I don't even know if a deity exists in the first place.

But I hold out the very strong possiblity that a deity ceated the universe thus created life thus created pain and life is evolving forward with aim of overcoming this pain.

So why did I come to such a notion.

Once again I don't know for sure.

But my gut feeling is that on some level Ive been considering the meaning of life all my life. So it wouldn't be a single event or piece of evidence but more a large number of events, life situations etc that brought me to where im at, to try and talk my way through it might take years.

Mmm, no not really. Actually, not at all. Suffering and/or happiness does not affect my thoughts either way on the issue. My personal reason for my atheism is based purely in reasoning.

I don't believe in unicorns because it's illogical to do so. Not because I think that unicorns would go around killing people or anything like that.

Same thing applies to god.