I've seen the light.

[Shotglass]

My parents are Christians. When I was a little kid, they told me there was a god. They told me he saw everything, they told me he would find out if I did bad things. They told me people who do bad things go to hell.
They never told they couldn't be sure.

For half my life, I've had my doubts about the way my parents raised me. I disagreed with a lot of their views, some of which were so twisted it made me sick to hear about them. I lost faith in my parents, and I turned to religion to see which of the things I learned were in fact true. I read the bible, and I tried to follow it rigorously. I even started taking part in loads of discussion here in the PRSI forum, mostly just desperately defending my own way of thinking.

Needless to say, after a while, I started doubting what people at church told me, too. I looked at the people around me and saw that they, too, were desperately clinging to something they had created in their minds, far from anything that was actually in the bible, but of course very comforting for them with their almost always somewhat messed up lives.

With what faith I had left, I started talking to atheist friends about religion. I had some very interesting conversations with very interesting people, and I sure learned a thing or two about metaphysics. But I also learned that if there was anything supernatural in this world, it was nothing like what any of the major religions make it out to be.

At this point, the bible started making sense to me. I read it through the eyes of what I believed its author to be - a manipulative political masterminds, pulling the strings to set up an ever-humble, ever-obedient, easy-to-govern crowd that would exist for thousands of years, making the lives of the wicked a million times easier.

I learned a lot in the last years. I'm happy to be able to call myself an atheist without feeling like someone will strike me dead the next second. But that's pretty much the only thing I'm happy about. I'm beginning to realize what a great life I could have had if my parents weren't religious. I feel so cheated, so robbed. Like someone took something away from me that I didn't even know I had.

Most of all, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I wasted so much time believing in something that I created myself. I am ashamed that I was so delusional I thought everything was controlled by some divine power without ever having any evidence of its existence. And I don't mean hard evidence - I have none whatsoever! Last but not least, I am ashamed of the traces I've left all over this forum, spraying my delusional thinking on the walls and in skunk's face...

I'm sorry, people. Will you welcome me into the good people club now?

[hayduke]

Welcome indeed. Never a better time to begin to build your legacy. That, in my opinion is the only way we continue to "exist" after death. Unless people make nice paintings or bronze statues of you. One's legacy needn't be grandiose, but passing knowledge on to others and supporting the well being of many is something we can all do. And we don't need a god to do it.

[Cleverboy]

Most of all, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I wasted so much time believing in something that I created myself. I am ashamed that I was so delusional I thought everything was controlled by some divine power without ever having any evidence of its existence. And I don't mean hard evidence - I have none whatsoever! Last but not least, I am ashamed of the traces I've left all over this forum, spraying my delusional thinking on the walls and in skunk's face... You have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be ashamed about. The God concept is a natural aspect of our evolutionary progress as a species. You should be no more "ashamed" of believing in God, than you should be ashamed that your body grew an appendix. Don't be an "atheist", be a "naturalist". Don't define your beliefs simply by what you DON'T believe, simply because you previously thought inside of that context. What you believe is a much more powerful place to live, than from what you do not believe in. This is my personal opinion.

GOD is an ideological meme in the psychic supermind of humanity, spread virally by the morphogenetic field reverberating across our genotype as a successful epigenetic paramutation since the dawn of modern man. MORALITY is a reciprocal memetic device and counter-anthropological distinction that serves as both egg and offspring to the god concept. RELIGION is a by-product of morality and self-awareness, comprised of the recurring metanarratives in oral tradition from Mithras to Muhammad, springing from the deific fruit of our morphogenetic resonance. These powerful distinctions allowed the Homo sapien to persist the behavioral constructs that in turn enabled it to surplant the godless Homo neanderthalensis, evolve, and prosper as the dominant humanoid lifeform of this planet. ATHEISM is the nascent, entropic self-actualization of man, predicated on the dissolution of the god-concept, eventually leading to the culmination of Homo sapien dominance, the total extinction of mankind, and the evolutionary opening for a new parabiologically areligious species of human life.

You have a warm piece of meat that makes you think your thoughts revolve around some vague concept called "truth". Once you realize that the very matter you use to percieve may well influence your perception of ultimate reality, you'll take a much more humble view of any concept we arbitrarily label "God" or "Truth". It's ALL RELATIVE. And we're ALL HUMAN.

Peace,
~ CB

[skunk]

You are welcome any time, but I can't guarantee to be a good person. :)

I will try, however.

[madfresh]

GOD is an ideological meme in the psychic supermind of humanity, spread virally by the morphogenetic field reverberating across our genotype as a successful epigenetic paramutation since the dawn of modern man. MORALITY is a reciprocal memetic device and counter-anthropological distinction that serves as both egg and offspring to the god concept. RELIGION is a by-product of morality and self-awareness, comprised of the recurring metanarratives in oral tradition from Mithras to Muhammad, springing from the deific fruit of our morphogenetic resonance. These powerful distinctions allowed the Homo sapien to persist the behavioral constructs that in turn enabled it to surplant the godless Homo neanderthalensis, evolve, and prosper as the dominant humanoid lifeform of this planet. ATHEISM is the nascent, entropic self-actualization of man, predicated on the dissolution of the god-concept, eventually leading to the culmination of Homo sapien dominance, the total extinction of mankind, and the evolutionary opening for a new parabiologically areligious species of human life

link/source?

[CalBoy]

I'm sorry, people. Will you welcome me into the good people club now?

We welcome you with open arms. :)

Be aware, however, that you have chosen to be a part of one of the most persecuted groups that has ever existed in any space at any time.

As long as you are the best that you can be, you will do your new title a great honor. :)

[iJohnHenry]

You are welcome any time, but I can't guarantee to be a good person. :)

I will try, however.

That's gonna smart!! ;)

Be aware, however, that you have chosen to be a part of one of the most persecuted groups that has ever existed in any space at any time.


OH??? I don't get a Gay vibe with his post, just general confusion that any thinking person arrives at, sooner or later.

:p

[CalBoy]

OH??? I don't get a Gay vibe with his post, just general confusion that any thinking person arrives at, sooner or later.

:p

:p

Seriously though, a poll of Americans last year found that more would prefer a gay president to an atheist president, so if it's not one, it's the other. :p

[Cleverboy]

link/source? My own mindless ramblings.
Dubito ergo cogito, cogito ergo sum.

~ CB

[iJohnHenry]

I got a 14 in my Latin final, so I'll pass on this one.

[CalBoy]

I got a 14 in my Latin final, so I'll pass on this one.

I believe it's something along the lines of "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am."

[iJohnHenry]

A good credo, to be sure. :cool:

[SMM]

< ... snip ... >

Most of all, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I wasted so much time believing in something that I created myself. I am ashamed that I was so delusional I thought everything was controlled by some divine power without ever having any evidence of its existence. And I don't mean hard evidence - I have none whatsoever! Last but not least, I am ashamed of the traces I've left all over this forum, spraying my delusional thinking on the walls and in skunk's face...

< ... snip ... >



Most thoughtful people go through periods of metamorphosis during their life.

I was a choirboy, alterboy, catholic school, holy terror from age 7 up to puberty. However, I would sin all day and say my prayers each night. My mother was often getting getting calls, from other parents, complaining that their kids could not sleep and were crying, because I had convinced them they were going to hell for not being catholic. Then I was kicked out of school and the catholic pretty much went bye-bye.

Then a major change happened in my life. We picked two hippies from SF, who were hitching up to Canada. We ended up spending the entire evening on the beach, in front of a nice warm fire and rapping about life. This was the 'summer of love' and these were real hippies, not just long haired drug users. For the first time in my young life, I learned that opening your mind up to thought was truly a wonderful experience. I wanted to cast off the old person was and explore new ideas and the wonderful world I was part of. I have gone through many other changes and adjustments over the years, but this has always remained constant.

I think you will in time come to terms with this and just see it as part of your personal evolution. Ken Kesey used to say that each of our lives is our own personal movie. I always liked that analogy. I wish you well as yours unfolds.

[LethalWolfe]

I'm sorry, people. Will you welcome me into the good people club now?
Nice to see that you've gone from a judgmental Christian into a judgmental atheist.;)


Lethal

[Grey Beard]

And for an abridged version, the answer is 42.

KGB

[Prof.]

Nice to see that you've gone from a judgmental Christian into a judgmental atheist.;)


Lethal
That's the problem with Christians tho; they judge other ppl when the bible clearly states "Thou shalt not judge." I'm a Christian and I must say, we are a bunch of hypocrites.

On a side note, I don't believe God is a person. I believe God is the energy that surrounds us.

[LethalWolfe]

That's the problem with Christians tho; they judge other ppl when the bible clearly states "Thou shalt not judge." I'm a Christian and I must say, we are a bunch of hypocrites.
Just 'cause yer a hypocrite doesn't mean that every Christian is.;) I've known narrow minded Bible thumpers as well as congregations that actively courted and supported their local gay community. Making sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people doesn't promote global harmony.:)


Lethal

[Badandy]

That's the problem with Christians tho; they judge other ppl when the bible clearly states "Thou shalt not judge." I'm a Christian and I must say, we are a bunch of hypocrites.

On a side note, I don't believe God is a person. I believe God is the energy that surrounds us.

So you're a Christian who doesn't believe in God as an omnipotent being or in Christ as God's son?

[Queso]

That Yurp is full of them damn atheists!! Nucularize 'em Mr President :p

[solvs]

You are welcome to your beliefs, one way or the other, but just remember that god doesn't have to come from a book, let alone your parents book.

[skunk]

You have a warm piece of meat that makes you think your thoughtsProbably the most sensible part of your post... :)

But seriously, the second quotation, wherever it is from, is a very roundabout way of saying not very much. The only connection you need to make is that, since people began to think, they have noticed that they individually occupy but a small interval in the passage of time, ergo there is something greater than they. Formalising this realisation into "God" is merely a refuge from mortality.These powerful distinctions allowed the Homo sapien to persist the behavioral constructs that in turn enabled it to surplant the godless Homo neanderthalensis, evolve, and prosper as the dominant humanoid lifeform of this planet.Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens are both sub-groups of Homo sapiens, and there is ample evidence that Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis had religion too, so the distinction your author draws is false.

(And it's "supplant" not "surplant"...)

[skunk]

So you're a Christian who doesn't believe in God as an omnipotent being or in Christ as God's son?There is no inconsistency in believing that the principles taught by the rabbi Jesus are an excellent guide for a good life, while at the same time not believing all the hierarchical legitimisation mechanisms tacked onto the story by the organisation freaks who followed and wished to lay claim to sole ownership of Jesus' truth.

[Blue Velvet]

There is no inconsistency in believing that the principles taught by the rabbi Jesus are an excellent guide for a good life, while at the same time not believing all the hierarchical legitimisation mechanisms tacked onto the story by the organisation freaks who followed and wished to lay claim to sole ownership of Jesus' truth.


Quoted for truth. I loves me some skunk. ;)

[Much Ado]

I loves me some skunk. ;)

That Demi-God you quoted isn't bad either, is he?

[Shotglass]

CalBoy, I am in the process of realizing that. Luckily, this isn't the US.
iJohnHenry, a 14 in Latin is the second best grade you can get in these parts.
SMM, I absolutely agree with what you say. Still, right now I'm a bit angry at myself and my parents, so the getting over part will probably take its sweet time.
LethalWolfe, I will admit being a Judgy von Holierthanthou in the past, but how am I a judgmental atheist?
solvs, I like the saying "I like God, he's cool. But his fanclub is pissing me off". Thanks for reminding me though, but I think I'll stick with atheism for now.

[Prof.]

Just 'cause yer a hypocrite doesn't mean that every Christian is.;)
I'm a non-practicing Christian therefore i am not a hypocrite (on a religious level). In fact, I don't classify myself as christian even tho i was baptized christian.

Can you get UN-baptized? I have to look into that.

So you're a Christian who doesn't believe in God as an omnipotent being or in Christ as God's son?
I believe in A god but not the christian god

[juanm]

Can you get UN-baptized? I have to look into that.


It's called apostasy, and it's a real hell to get it done! :p

[ham_man]

LethalWolfe, I will admit being a Judgy von Holierthanthou in the past, but how am I a judgmental atheist?
You said that you were "ashamed" of your "delusional" Christian past, which implies that there is something inherently wrong or negative in being a Christian, which is a judgement (false, if you ask me) that you have made based on your own unique experience. You are basically accusing all Christians of partaking in something they shouldn't be and consequently passing judgement on their character, which is no better than the Bible thumping evangelists this board loves to hate.

[Shotglass]

Thanks, Ham man. Let me just say that I don't really want to pass judgement, it's just that I'm judging myself and being a little generalizing.

[CalBoy]

CalBoy, I am in the process of realizing that. Luckily, this isn't the US.

Great fortune indeed. ;)

Still, right now I'm a bit angry at myself and my parents, so the getting over part will probably take its sweet time.

You shouldn't be angry, you should feel a sense of understanding. As much as you disagree with your parents, they most likely acted in the way they felt was the best for their child. Don't fault them for that.

If they are unwilling to accept you as who you are, however, then you can find fault in that.

I like the saying "I like God, he's cool. But his fanclub is pissing me off". Thanks for reminding me though, but I think I'll stick with atheism for now.

Hmmm...that's a curious remark. Are you sure you've chosen your path wisely, or have you chosen the path you thought was the most traveled for those in your shoes?

If you have come to the conclusion that you are an atheist, you would likely not use the phrase "for now." All the atheists I know (myself included) arrive at the conclusion after thinking about it long and hard. It is an intellectual exercise of the greatest caliber; perhaps until you have invested that time, you should be prepared to explore other avenues, including agnosticism (which seems like it would fit you better).

[solvs]

Agnosticism sounds more like what you mean to me too. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a god. Ok, that's simplistic and there are all sorts of variations from the strong non believer who's sure there can't be any kind of god to someone who just rejects organized religion as it stands. And everything in between. Agnosticism means you aren't sure. Means you're open to the idea, even if the ideas presented to you don't work (see his fanclub), but can't say for sure either way. If you just don't believe there's a god in the way it's been presented to you, I don't blame you, I reject my upbringing as well. But if you're open to the idea of god, even as concept or as representation of natural force/consciousness, that could be agnosticism. Or Taoism. That's another good one. You don't really have to do much or believe, really, anything.

[Shotglass]

Yes, agnosticism is more likely my kind of religious view. I want to get to a point where I simply don't care about this kind of thing. But right now, I'm still a bit radical about it.

[yetanotherdave]

You said that you were "ashamed" of your "delusional" Christian past, which implies that there is something inherently wrong or negative in being a Christian, which is a judgement (false, if you ask me) that you have made based on your own unique experience. You are basically accusing all Christians of partaking in something they shouldn't be and consequently passing judgement on their character, which is no better than the Bible thumping evangelists this board loves to hate.

So much wrong with this.
I also have a delusional christian past. I believed in something I no longer believe to be true, for reasons that are flawed. It is the flawed reasons for believing it that make it deliusional, more than the belief itself*. For some people, there is comfot and hope in a belief, for others the belief comes out of fear and upbringing.

*not that the belief itself wasn't ******* crazy, but that's what was force fed to me from birth, and a 4 year old can't be held responsible for adopting the beliefs of his parents.

[aLoC]

At this point, the bible started making sense to me. I read it through the eyes of what I believed its author to be - a manipulative political masterminds, pulling the strings to set up an ever-humble, ever-obedient, easy-to-govern crowd that would exist for thousands of years, making the lives of the wicked a million times easier.

I don't believe in religion myself, but neither do I see the bible as some sort of malign tool to control the masses.

People have a deep need to understand right and wrong, the world around them, and their place in the universe -- religions are just early tries at this kind of explanation.

[Queso]

I don't believe in religion myself, but neither do I see the bible as some sort of malign tool to control the masses.

People have a deep need to understand right and wrong, the world around them, and their place in the universe -- religions are just early tries at this kind of explanation.
Unfortunately though, the world they explain is a snapshot in time, yet once the masses adopt the snapshot as the "Word of (the) God(s)" a battle starts whenever inevitable social change crosses the words in the text. I've made the parallel before between The Bible and a telephone directory. The indicators within become less relevant as time moves on, however accurate they start off as.

This is why I view scientific method as far superior to religion. It constantly evaluates and incorporates new knowledge and thinking.

[skunk]

Unfortunately though, the world they explain is a snapshot in time, yet once the masses adopt the snapshot as the "Word of (the) God(s)" a battle starts whenever inevitable social change crosses the words in the text.In polytheistic societies, religion was not so much about teaching right and wrong as about dealing with natural forces, reflecting the hierarchies of real life and following the rituals of due process in order to mitigate the vagaries of fortune,.

[Cleverboy]

But seriously, the second quotation, wherever it is from, is a very roundabout way of saying not very much. Meh. Untutored, I entirely agree... but I think it says a lot. Whether it sounds "agreeable", is to me a large and significant question... to which I honeslty believe most people would answer "no". Its predicated on a dichotomy. That religion is both necessary in function and yet fundamentally irrelevant in detail.
The only connection you need to make is that, since people began to think, they have noticed that they individually occupy but a small interval in the passage of time, ergo there is something greater than they. Formalising this realisation into "God" is merely a refuge from mortality. Not at all. I disagree strongly that it is a "refuge from mortality" that necessitates the formalization of ones acknowledgement of God. Submitted for your consideration... we, as human beings are still struggling to understand the very nature of reality. Inside of that context, we have no greater quality to our "mortality" whether one believes in God or not (moreover, we're only talking in averages and unnerving generalities... for some, religion is the greatest metaphor ever told in understanding... not escaping... our mortality).

The only real question is whether the "God" concept helps YOU to lead a more fulfilling life than you otherwise would. Everything else just seems like an exercise in futility. It is a painful FACT that most human beings continually fail to understand the difference between FACT and INTERPRETATION. We are pattern finding creatures. Our perceptions comprise and endless string of lacunae. Its one of the founding precepts behind slight of hand and performance magic.
Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens are both sub-groups of Homo sapiens, and there is ample evidence that Homo sapiens Neanderthalensis had religion too, so the distinction your author draws is false. Yeah. Untutored. Definitely. I was anxious to draw the conclusion that atheism would lead to robots destroying the world... in some kind of linear way. Terribly silly, I know. :D
(And it's "supplant" not "surplant"...) Noted. I'm pretty certain there is at least one made-up word in there.

~ CB

[skunk]

Meh. Untutored, I entirely agree... I removed the word "untutored" from my post several hours ago. Do not feel you have to reinstate it... ;)
Inside of that context, we have no greater quality to our "mortality" whether one believes in God or not (moreover, we're only talking in averages and unnerving generalities... for some, religion is the greatest metaphor ever told in understanding... not escaping... our mortality).Most religions include some concept of survival after death, do they not?

[imac/cheese]

...At this point, the bible started making sense to me. I read it through the eyes of what I believed its author to be - a manipulative political masterminds, pulling the strings to set up an ever-humble, ever-obedient, easy-to-govern crowd that would exist for thousands of years, making the lives of the wicked a million times easier...

In general, the majority of the attributed authors of the bible were not political masterminds in anyway. Especially when you look at the New Testament. The books were written by a tax collector, some fishermen, a tentmaker who spent the majority of his writing days in prison, the brother of Jesus, a devout follower of Jesus, and a doctor. The Old Testament was written mostly by prophets who often were shunned or reviled by the people they were speaking to. Daniel spent his entire life in exile in Babylon. David was probably the most politically powerful as a King and he wrote a bunch of songs to praise the Lord. His son Solomon also wrote songs and proverbs. The Law was written down by Moses, who was an orphan and grew up in a foreign land and then became the leader of the jewish people.

Of course we are not sure these people actually wrote these books but I really don't see the political mastermind side of the writings. I am sorry you have such a bad taste for Christanity and the Bible. It saddens me that your experiences in your church and family have been so hurtful to you.

[Cleverboy]

Do not feel you have to reinstate it... ;)Ah, must have stuck in my head while I was on the go. :)Most religions include some concept of survival after death, do they not?Therein lies the pickle. I believe the issue of "surving after death" is less about "escaping" mortality and more about imbuing life with a driving sense of purpose. In such a case, mortality is merely the threshold that upon reaching, our lives are finally judged. You can see it in the struggle of the character "Maggie" in the excellent movie "Million Dollar Baby". Earlier in the film, you see here struggling with her grasp on religion:
Father Horvak: What's confusing you this week?
Frankie Dunn: Oh, it's the same old "one God-three God" thing.
Father Horvak: Frankie, most people figure out by kindergarten it's about faith.
Frankie Dunn: Is it sort of like Snap Crackle and Pop, all rolled into one big box?
Father Horvak: You're standing outside my church, comparing God to Rice Krispies? And in the end, she arrives at that primal question that defines that burning question we all want to know. She finds her answer in a washed up old trainer who'd given up on himself, and at least for a moment, made him believe in something again.
Maggie Fitzgerald: They took my leg, boss.
Frankie Dunn: It's gonna be allright, you hear?
Maggie Fitzgerald: I always hear your voice, boss.Mr.Scrap�: I found you a fighter and you made her the best fighter she could be.
Frankie�: And I killed her.
Mr. Scrap: Don't say that.
Mr. Scrap�: Maggie walked through that door with nothing but guts no chance in the world of being what she needed to be. A year and a half later,she's fighting for the championship of the world. You did that.
Mr. Scrap�: People die every day, Frankie mopping floors, washing dishes. And you know what their last thought is? I never got my shot. Because of you, Maggie got her shot. If she dies today, you know what her last thought will be? "l think I did all right." I know I could rest with that.

In Buddhism, for instance, reincarnation and not merely mortality, services as the essential mechanism for karmic retribution (causal relationships and determinism). Personally, I enjoy the metaphors of "heaven and hell" better inside Buddhism, where such concepts persist in each and every moment of life as a state of consciousness. In that way, I feel religion more efficiently serves as the steward of each of our life's relative purpose.

Whether its karma, unifying theory or morphic resonance, I think its all part of the same intention toward ferreting out meaning, universal connection, and a basic linear narrative... the three primary components in the quest for deity. If we truly believed that life were absolutely... tragically random... we wouldn't work so hard at science. Instead we go on believing that "God" doesn't play dice with the Universe.

~ CB

[skunk]

In such a case, mortality is merely the threshold that upon reaching, our lives are finally judged. You can see it in the struggle of the character "Maggie" in the excellent movie "Million Dollar Baby". Not having seen the film, I am not in a position to judge, and I fear that your abridged excerpts do not illuminate its relevance for me either.

Whether its karma, unifying theory or morphic resonance, I think its all part of the same intention toward ferreting out meaning, universal connection, and a basic linear narrative... the three primary components in the quest for deity. If we truly believed that life were absolutely... tragically random... we wouldn't work so hard at science. Instead we go on believing that "God" doesn't play dice with the Universe.Speak for yourself. As for myself, I believe that any meaning or "linear narrative" comes from whatever we are able to abandon, rather than from that to which we cling. Since everything and anything is possible, any perceived pattern is necessarily subtractive.

[Cleverboy]

Speak for yourself. As for myself, I believe that any meaning or "linear narrative" comes from whatever we are able to abandon, rather than from that to which we cling. Since everything and anything is possible, any perceived pattern is necessarily subtractive. So, when a little girl looks up at a cloud, and says it is a horse, would you judge that she has in fact diminished the reality of the actual atmospheric phenomena she's witnessing?

I think you have a commendable perspective, but I'm afraid, given the human experience, that the fanciful, whether symbol or metaphorical narrative only serves to enforce memory, meaning and measurement in most adults... long after their fanciful metaphor has been exposed for dry science. It's what has given us constellations, arithmetic, and even the most basic elements of language. The human mind is wholly incapable of comprehending the infinite storm of data that comprises reality. As much as we might like to think otherwise, existence is an enduring exercise in abstraction. The ONLY key, is that we freely acknowledge it.

~ CB

[skunk]

So, when a little girl looks up at a cloud, and says it is a horse, would you judge that she has in fact diminished the reality of the actual atmospheric phenomena she's witnessing?No, but she has arrived at that image through subtraction.

I think you are misreading my post if you believe I am disagreeing with you. Finding the essence of anything is a process of subtraction, too.

[mithrilfox]

The very thing you are saying that you have seen the light from and escaped, many, many others are seeing the light there and entering in.

I was raised all my life in a very agnostic home. We didn't ever talk about God, and any mention of church life or Christianity was met by my mother's refusal to discuss it. She wasn't opposed at all, she just didn't like the idea of sac religious talk in the house, though she would never say it like that. If my dad used any cussing with God or Jesus in it, my mom would occasionally get a bit upset, and it would get dropped after a few seconds. Other than that, no religious discussion... ever.

Now here I am, approaching 30, and I am the only Christian in my near or extended family (to my knowledge). I've been a Christian since I was 18, the whole "conversion" process taking around two full years. Can't claim I haven't had a single doubt ever, I think anyone who says so is probably lying. But then again, I believe any atheist who says they NEVER doubt that maybe God or a god does exist is probably lying, though I won't accuse any single individual to their face, since I can't know any one individual's thoughts and feelings.

I can say this. When I had just become a Christian, I was still using some anti-depressants that my doctor prescribed for me. Aside from seriously affecting my appetite (as in: none), it just made me ... strange. I felt like I was on a perpetual high ... but not in a good way. I would drive recklessly fast, and not really even realize it. I mean, I realized it, but I just wouldn't change my behavior. I would talk to people and tell them my feelings regardless of how well I knew them, and that's weird too (... I guess I'm doing that here! :eek:)

Now that I quit those meds a long time ago, I continue to go through my near bipolar episodes. High episodes put me on the top of the world, low episodes leave me feeling useless and worthless, and all alone. My wife is there to see me through it all, but it doesn't matter... when I'm in a low, NO ONE can help me. That's how I feel.

But I realized that my feelings don't dictate my life. If they did, I've have one very messed up life, all because of chemical imbalances in my brain and the rest of my body. Instead, I choose to continue to do what I know I should do. I go to church, even when I feel nothing. I pray, even when I feel nothing. I fellowship even when I don't want to, because it's good. If I didn't, I'd just let my emotions turn me and pull me where they will. I can't do that.

Now, I can commit my life to leaving the church and my faith because of a low. Lord knows I've thought it a thousand times. But then, I would doubt that commitment. I would have to again ignore those times when I feel differently, except this time I'd be doing the exact opposite -- not praying when I feel I should, not giving thanks when I deep down know I ought to do so. And ultimately, if it isn't because God is my Father, and Jesus my Savior, than why am I doing it? Am I doing it to please others? Then I am not a Christian. Am I doing it solely cause it's how I was raised and all I know? Then I am not a Christian. Am I doing it mainly because I'm scared of not doing it? Then maybe I am not a Christian.

But that's God's choice. I believe he has chosen me before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:3-5), and that he has prepared good things for me... I believe he works all things for my [ultimate] good (Romans 8:28).

What comes of my faith is yet to be seen. I believe firmly in the gospel, and that was something I walked to, not away from. But I was not raised in it.

As for your comments, they're just ... way out there, if you don't mind me saying so. Like this one:


At this point, the bible started making sense to me. I read it through the eyes of what I believed its author to be - a manipulative political masterminds, pulling the strings to set up an ever-humble, ever-obedient, easy-to-govern crowd that would exist for thousands of years, making the lives of the wicked a million times easier.

Do you really, honestly believe that? I really can't believe that you've really done the research if you believe that, because it's just not a plausible conclusion to all of the evidence. There's a mountain of information that would make that position just impossible to defend, but if you do believe it, would you mind providing the reasons you came to believe it? I know you may not feel like doing so, but it's just such an "out there" belief that I'm curious where you would get that notion.

Additionally, there are many very respectful atheist/agnostic theologians (yeah, imagine that) and historians who would very vehemently oppose that misguided view. I apologize for the strong language, such as "misguided" and "way out there," but it really is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.

[Shotglass]

Do you really, honestly believe that? I really can't believe that you've really done the research if you believe that, because it's just not a plausible conclusion to all of the evidence. There's a mountain of information that would make that position just impossible to defend, but if you do believe it, would you mind providing the reasons you came to believe it? I know you may not feel like doing so, but it's just such an "out there" belief that I'm curious where you would get that notion.

Additionally, there are many very respectful atheist/agnostic theologians (yeah, imagine that) and historians who would very vehemently oppose that misguided view. I apologize for the strong language, such as "misguided" and "way out there," but it really is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.
Thank you for the lengthy reply.

I believe the Old Testament was written by men to manipulate others. Think about it this way: You set up a clear guideline of good vs. evil, telling people exactly what to do and what not to do. You tell them that there is a divine being behind those rules, meaning it is virtually impossible to break them without horrible consequence. Since you need to cover up the lack of consequence during life, you create the final judgement thing (from NT, but whatever). Now, for people to follow the rules in the long run, you need to do more than scare them. So tell them the enforcer of the rules is actually a pretty cool guy. Tell them there might be some bad ***** flying around, but he's still cool. The Book of Job is a perfect example for why I felt tricked when I read the NT. According to Job's story, you never ever (ever!) have a reason to doubt the existence of God. Well, that was easy.

My problem with the Bible was that there was always an answer for everything. The whole thing, when you looked at it, made no sense at all (to me, at least), but when I questioned any of it, people at church for example could always give me an answer. Most of these times, I was less happy with the answer than I would have been without one.
It's a thought through book, I'll give you that. But in my opinion, it is also possible that someone thought it through very well so to manipulate others.

[mithrilfox]

Thank you for the lengthy reply.

I believe the Old Testament was written by men to manipulate others. Think about it this way: You set up a clear guideline of good vs. evil, telling people exactly what to do and what not to do. You tell them that there is a divine being behind those rules, meaning it is virtually impossible to break them without horrible consequence. Since you need to cover up the lack of consequence during life, you create the final judgement thing (from NT, but whatever). Now, for people to follow the rules in the long run, you need to do more than scare them. So tell them the enforcer of the rules is actually a pretty cool guy. Tell them there might be some bad ***** flying around, but he's still cool. The Book of Job is a perfect example for why I felt tricked when I read the NT. According to Job's story, you never ever (ever!) have a reason to doubt the existence of God. Well, that was easy.

So who are these people who are able to orchestrate the writing of this book over many centuries and over several continents, crossing cultural and language boundaries, and all for what? Who are they controlling and why? What does it benefit them? How were they able to continue to communicate with each other through hundreds of years, different cultures and languages, and radically different backgrounds?

I don't mean to sound rude, but that makes completely no sense. The supposedly involved parties have no way to even know if what they are doing is working, and if it was working, it wouldn't be working the way they want in their own lifetime, and not even in their grandchildrens' lifetime, and under a radically different government and in a different culture, and even in a different place to some extent. Who would waste their life doing something like that, and for what purpose? They have nothing to gain, and there is no overarching organization in charge.


My problem with the Bible was that there was always an answer for everything.

That's a bad thing?

The whole thing, when you looked at it, made no sense at all (to me, at least), but when I questioned any of it, people at church for example could always give me an answer. Most of these times, I was less happy with the answer than I would have been without one.

As a Christian, I often cringe at the answers I hear people give. Encouraged to always have an answer, people who have nothing to say open their mouth and make it obvious. I've heard so many bad answers to things that I get discouraged at times. But this is to be expected. Young Christians, naive Christians, Christians with little knowledge of the Bible are often being put in places where they have to give an answer, or at least feel like they do. Do skeptics give them the benefit of a doubt and allow them to graciously say they don't know? Not usually, so the pressure is always on. And besides, people get full of themselves and don't know how to say, "I don't know."


It's a thought through book, I'll give you that. But in my opinion, it is also possible that someone thought it through very well so to manipulate others.

So who thought it through? Everyone who participated in the writing of it has long died (if you don't believe in the Holy Spirit), and was long dead even when later writers started writing. In fact, many of the writers did not know at any point during their lifetime that their writings were going to be placed within the canon of Scripture (Bible). In fact, most of the writings were written for particular purposes by people who gave no indication that they thought their works would last beyond the intended destination and use.

So who is guiding it all? The Roman Catholic Church did not compile the OT, and despite its claims, it did not decide the canon of Scripture. The canon of Scripture was decided by general consensus of all those who were using the writings of apostles or apostle's disciples/assistants for the edification of the church. Some were not accepted, such as Paul's letter to the Laodiceans (referred to in another book of the Bible). When the council convened to decide which books would be included, there wasn't a lot of work to be done... it was more similar to a ceremony recognizing the books rather than deciding them. They were simplify ratifying what the majority of churches were already using for their own spiritual edification.

[iJohnHenry]

That's a bad thing?

It is when it is open to "interpretation" by mere mortals.

[skunk]

So who are these people who are able to orchestrate the writing of this book over many centuries and over several continents, crossing cultural and language boundaries, and all for what? Who are they controlling and why? What does it benefit them? How were they able to continue to communicate with each other through hundreds of years, different cultures and languages, and radically different backgrounds? It is perfectly possible that the whole of the Torah was written during the captivity in Babylon in order to fabricate a narrative which would give support to a claim to reoccupy those lands appropriated before the exile and reestablish the ruling families and priesthood. For a people asserting divine prerogative, their god certainly went through a lot of changes, from a god of the high places to an omnipotent being, from second fiddle to Hadad to Father of All. It would come as no surprise to learn that propaganda was an important ingredient in the Old Testament as in the New.
As a Christian, I often cringe at the answers I hear people give. Encouraged to always have an answer, people who have nothing to say open their mouth and make it obvious. I've heard so many bad answers to things that I get discouraged at times. But this is to be expected. Young Christians, naive Christians, Christians with little knowledge of the Bible are often being put in places where they have to give an answer, or at least feel like they do. Do skeptics give them the benefit of a doubt and allow them to graciously say they don't know? Not usually, so the pressure is always on. And besides, people get full of themselves and don't know how to say, "I don't know."Isn't condescension on this scale rather frowned upon in your circles? If it isn't, it certainly should be.

[iSaint]

I've become apathetic. I'm too lazy to read all these posts! :p But, I get the gist of the situation. I churched myself out after 20+ years of searching meaning of life and my place in it. The denomination I was involved in, Episcopal USA, seems to me to be one of the more accepting / non-judgmental / open-for-interpretation organizations. A lot of good came out of my experiences, but a lot of arrogant and controlling people pushed me away. No one has contacted me to return, so I guess that would sum it up.

Now I just read a lot of great fiction!

[skunk]

Now I just read a lot of great fiction!Some things never change... :D

[mithrilfox]

It is perfectly possible that the whole of the Torah was written during the captivity in Babylon in order to fabricate a narrative which would give support to a claim to reoccupy those lands appropriated before the exile and reestablish the ruling families and priesthood. For a people asserting divine prerogative, their god certainly went through a lot of changes, from a god of the high places to an omnipotent being, from second fiddle to Hadad to Father of All. It would come as no surprise to learn that propaganda was an important ingredient in the Old Testament as in the New.


I think it's essentially an impossible position to defend. It's my opinion. I have no formal training, but from my who knows how many hours of self-directed study on history, biblical history, and the reading I've done from experts, that appears to be a near impossibility. There's too much that needs to be explained that cannot be to hold that position.

Also, the "God is always changing" position is understandable, but uninformed. God revealed himself over time, and as he reveals more of himself, we ought not to just jump at it as a contradiction. Some people say that the OT God is a god of wrath, and the NT god a god of love. Very uninformed position. God still punishes and kills people in the NT, and God expresses great shows of mercy and grace in the OT.

Besides, why does God have to be forced into an either-or situation, when he is both? He is not merely loving, nor merely wrathful, but both. How about you? Are you loving or wrathful/vengeful/angry? I imagine that you express both emotions regularly, whether you show it or not is a different matter.

People could look at me and say, Fox, are you into Macs or videograpy? I'd say, both. No one would question that. If I said I get very angry at people who make fun of mentally ill people, does that mean that I can't also be happy and joyful with people who help others in need? I don't like it when people try to force me into only one or two small molds, and don't let me be myself. It happens a lot where I live, because I am a "foreigner," and so people try to make me fit the typically "white English-speaking foreigner" mold. I don't like it at all.

In the same way, God is not pleased when we attempt to do the same to him, except unlike me, it does not "disturb" God or make him lose his cool at any point.

As for the term "propaganda," it's a loaded word. I use it occasionally, but it is never used in a good way. It's hard to imagine that a group of relatively unknown men, who (excepting Paul) have no citizenship with the empire that rules over them with an iron fist, would for some reason attempt to control a portion of the population in such a way that gives them no additional power or security, but puts them all at greater risk, resulting in the deaths of many of those that they are "controlling," including themselves.

Many of the writers of the NT met an untimely demise or other persecution at the hands of the ruling Jewish leaders of the time, or by the overarching ruling Roman Empire. Trust me, they had very little worldly power or prestige or money to gain, and in fact didn't gain much at all. Why would they write verses telling them to obey and submit to the government, and yet the ruling government hated them and saw them as a rebellious force?

Who are these men working for, and what do they want? It doesn't make sense unless you simply accept that they really believed what they were writing, that they were serving the god that they believed was their Lord and Savior. Why else would they die for a lie that gained them and their followers "nothing" in this life?

** By nothing, I mean to say that apart from their religious "experiences" and faith, they had really little or not material or worldly gain, whether possessions, money, power, or fame. Of those who became famous, such as Apostle Paul and Peter, they were persecuted and executed, and we still today teach countless sermons about their sinfulness and errors (as well as their obedience). But from a worldly perspective, they aren't here even to enjoy that, are they? So why would they do it?

[floyde]

Also, the "God is always changing" position is understandable, but uninformed. God revealed himself over time, and as he reveals more of himself, we ought not to just jump at it as a contradiction. Some people say that the OT God is a god of wrath, and the NT god a god of love. Very uninformed position. God still punishes and kills people in the NT, and God expresses great shows of mercy and grace in the OT.

Besides, why does God have to be forced into an either-or situation, when he is both? He is not merely loving, nor merely wrathful, but both. How about you? Are you loving or wrathful/vengeful/angry? I imagine that you express both emotions regularly, whether you show it or not is a different matter.

People could look at me and say, Fox, are you into Macs or videograpy? I'd say, both. No one would question that. If I said I get very angry at people who make fun of mentally ill people, does that mean that I can't also be happy and joyful with people who help others in need? I don't like it when people try to force me into only one or two small molds, and don't let me be myself. It happens a lot where I live, because I am a "foreigner," and so people try to make me fit the typically "white English-speaking foreigner" mold. I don't like it at all.

In the same way, God is not pleased when we attempt to do the same to him, except unlike me, it does not "disturb" God or make him lose his cool at any point.

...


I'm sorry mithrilfox, I don't mean to pick on you, but this is exactly what I don't like about religion. Where do you get this from? How do you claim to know what pleases or displeases God? He's obviously not here to state his will, and The Bible is as vague as uncertainty itself. There's not enough info on your scripture for you to know that God dislikes being forced into molds or that he never loses his cool (in fact, he's been known to lose his cool many times). You could ask 100 Christians to explain why God appears to be contradictory, and they would all be able to come up with an answer. All the answers would be as passionate as yours, but they would also be completely different. They'd be different because they aren't really answers, they're actually excuses, and as such they don't need to adhere to logic or have any significant basis other than your opinion.

God can't be both, remember that he's supposed to be "perfect". So we can be both wrathful and loving due to our imperfection, but I would expect a lot more from an omnipotent God. Also, God is not claimed to be just "loving", but rather "all loving", which implies he's incapable of hate.

You need to use your imagination a bit more to understand why your scripture could've been written as a tool for manipulation. Just think about L. Ron Hubbard and all his wonderful "literature". Give scientologists another 2 thousand years and you'll hear people claiming that "Dianetics" are too complex and unexplainable to be just nonsense science fiction.

[cycocelica]

Some things never change... :D

I read nothing but this and instantly laughed out loud.

I hope I understood you right :D

[skunk]

I think it's essentially an impossible position to defend. It's my opinion. I have no formal training, but from my who knows how many hours of self-directed study on history, biblical history, and the reading I've done from experts, that appears to be a near impossibility. There's too much that needs to be explained that cannot be to hold that position.Unfortunately, all those "who knows how many hours of self-directed study on history, biblical history, and the reading I've done from experts" do not appear to have equipped you to give a single cogent reason for your opinion. Please come back when you have something to offer.
Also, the "God is always changing" position is understandable, but uninformed. God revealed himself over time, and as he reveals more of himself, we ought not to just jump at it as a contradiction."God is always changing" because scribes referring to old chronicles were engaged in writing a revisionist history to validate their outrageous claim to be the priesthood of a people chosen by their deity to occupy the lands of others. Some things change very little over the millennia.

[Shotglass]

Mithrilfox, you have to understand that from my point of view, it's perfectly possible that Paul never existed. In fact, if I remember correctly, there is little historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ himself outside the bible.
Maybe there is, but I don't think anyone can prove people like Moses actually existed. When I say 'made up', I mean it.

[iSaint]

I read nothing but this and instantly laughed out loud.

I hope I understood you right :D

I did as well... :p

[Cleverboy]

I think you are misreading my post if you believe I am disagreeing with you. Finding the essence of anything is a process of subtraction, too. I'm reinvesting in deeper reading of these posts. These topics certainly have a lot to consider about in them.

~ CB

[mithrilfox]

I'm sorry mithrilfox, I don't mean to pick on you, but this is exactly what I don't like about religion. Where do you get this from? How do you claim to know what pleases or displeases God? He's obviously not here to state his will, and The Bible is as vague as uncertainty itself. There's not enough info on your scripture for you to know that God dislikes being forced into molds or that he never loses his cool (in fact, he's been known to lose his cool many times). You could ask 100 Christians to explain why God appears to be contradictory, and they would all be able to come up with an answer. All the answers would be as passionate as yours, but they would also be completely different. They'd be different because they aren't really answers, they're actually excuses, and as such they don't need to adhere to logic or have any significant basis other than your opinion.

God can't be both, remember that he's supposed to be "perfect". So we can be both wrathful and loving due to our imperfection, but I would expect a lot more from an omnipotent God. Also, God is not claimed to be just "loving", but rather "all loving", which implies he's incapable of hate.

You need to use your imagination a bit more to understand why your scripture could've been written as a tool for manipulation. Just think about L. Ron Hubbard and all his wonderful "literature". Give scientologists another 2 thousand years and you'll hear people claiming that "Dianetics" are too complex and unexplainable to be just nonsense science fiction.

If you ask 100 Christians to give an answer, you will NEVER get 100 "very different" answers. That's just never, ever going to happen. You may get a few "very different" answers, depending on how you interpret that, and the rest will vary slightly or none at all. Have you actually asked 100 Christians the same question and gotten 100 "very different" answers? I would refuse to believe it. Give it a try, it won't ever happen.

It has LONG been known and well-agreed even among the majority of anyone who calls themselves a Christian and believes the Bible that God is both loving and wrathful; these are NOT contradictory at all. Are you aware of current Christian thought on how these two very present aspects of God's character meld to form a very simple and concrete view of God? It's not difficult to understand at all.

Are you a parent? Do you love your children, or do your discipline them? Can you do both? Now extrapolate that out into the being of the eternal God who created and owns all things. Do you think a person can have hatred for something, and yet love something else? Do you think a person can hate what you are doing, and yet love you? Consider these, and then you may realize how this works.

I gotta tell you, I love my wife, but occasionally something she does really irks me. There are little things she does occasionally that make me very frustrated, and I can get angry at those behaviors. Would you say that in those moments of anger, my love for her is completely gone? Am I going from hating her to loving her and back again? I don't think so.

-----

Too many people have already closed their mind before they have discussions with me. I learned a long time ago to cut off communication with those who will only put wear and tear on my wrists. If you want to discuss this further, I'm willing, but we have to be willing to hear each other out, give each other the benefit of a doubt, and refrain from accusatory statements barring no significant proof.

One clear indication of an individual who is not here to discuss but to speak his mind in order to illuminate all of us with his glowing intelligence is that he doesn't ask any real questions. He only speaks his version of the facts with a bit of force. He pre-judges people based on strawman molds that he has discovered or made for himself. He attacks people based on the simplest version of an argument that exists, not on what the person is truly arguing. Such people I *will* cut off from discussion. We have no relationship, and to receive such abuse and waste my wrists on typing replies is an exercise is futility.

I don't believe you are such a person, since you started by giving a bit of an apology for speaking strongly. But just to let you know, I've done this a thousand times, and I've learned what produces anything worthwhile. That's why a user like "skunk" goes straight to my ignore list.

[mithrilfox]

Mithrilfox, you have to understand that from my point of view, it's perfectly possible that Paul never existed. In fact, if I remember correctly, there is little historical evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ himself outside the bible.
Maybe there is, but I don't think anyone can prove people like Moses actually existed. When I say 'made up', I mean it.

I understand that.

However, it's still impossible, IMO, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is one big hoax to manipulate and control. There is just absolutely no evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence to suggest (very strongly) otherwise.

However, the Bible itself is very "historical." We know this because it differs from all other purely "religious" or "mythical" writing in that it speaks of real people, real times and dates, real numbers, and real locations. Even when history books told us that kings or rulers from the Bible were made up, they were later discovered to be historical, and the accusations had to be dropped... at least for those areas.

P.S. Why the intense hatred for the Bible when these discussions come up? I've seen numerous discussions on lots of things, but few things bring up such hateful words from many other people. Why do you think that is? Do you feel hate towards the Bible because of your experiences?

[mithrilfox]

Unfortunately, all those "who knows how many hours of self-directed study on history, biblical history, and the reading I've done from experts" do not appear to have equipped you to give a single cogent reason for your opinion. Please come back when you have something to offer.


Rather than ask for something, you just presumptuous assume that I lack it. You are now on my ignore list because I do not believe you are to have a good discussion, but merely to stand as superior judge. We cannot have a good discussion under these conditions, and further typing is a waste of my time and wrists.

You've already been added to my ignore list...

[.Andy]

That's why a user like "skunk" goes straight to my ignore list.

You are now on my ignore list

You've already been added to my ignore list...

We get the point. You're a fan of the ignore list.

[iJohnHenry]

Intellectual thugs abound around these parts, but I would hesitate to put them on any so-called ignore list. (I know it exists, but to use it is to render the flow of a thread almost unreadable.)

[Iscariot]

and mountains of evidence to suggest (very strongly) otherwise.

Then give us some mountains.

[CalBoy]

Then give us some mountains.

No no, they must be both loving and wrathful mountains!

[.Andy]

No no, they must be both loving and wrathful mountains!
Nothing says I love you like drowning everyone in the world. Mount Ararat represent.

[redwarrior]

Then give us some mountains.
Mountains worth climbing (+ pics, or i'm adding you to my ignore list! ;))

[Iscariot]

Mountains worth climbing (+ pics, or i'm adding you to my ignore list! ;))

Never fear my love, that's exactly what I'm doing two weekends from now.

[CalBoy]

Nothing says I love you like drowning everyone in the world. Mount Ararat represent.

Word up.

I'm glad that should god ever decide to strike down this gay atheist with his loving wrath, I'll still be able to swim. :p

[skunk]

That's why a user like "skunk" goes straight to my ignore list.Safer than trying to come up with an answer, isn't it?

[blackfox]

I understand that.

However, it's still impossible, IMO, to come to the conclusion that the Bible is one big hoax to manipulate and control. There is just absolutely no evidence to support it, and mountains of evidence to suggest (very strongly) otherwise.

However, the Bible itself is very "historical." We know this because it differs from all other purely "religious" or "mythical" writing in that it speaks of real people, real times and dates, real numbers, and real locations. Even when history books told us that kings or rulers from the Bible were made up, they were later discovered to be historical, and the accusations had to be dropped... at least for those areas.

P.S. Why the intense hatred for the Bible when these discussions come up? I've seen numerous discussions on lots of things, but few things bring up such hateful words from many other people. Why do you think that is? Do you feel hate towards the Bible because of your experiences?

I would stop short of saying the bible is a hoax - but I would also say that it is not the word of God. There is not enough evidence to support either claim.

As for the Bible being "historical" - well, I can write a book today and include real people as characters, and real places as locales - that does not make my characterization of them, or the story I place them in legitimate or truthful.

Personally, I think the Bible is a great book - full of insightful philosophical ruminations on the human condition. It is not the end-all-be-all, however - and it is certainly not to be taken literally. I found Aesops Fables to be insightful too - I am certainly not worshiping that text.

What you might perceive as hatred towards the Bible is the fact that many do not see it as you might - that while it contains great wisdom, it was also written by a multitude of humans in ancient times - and reflects prejudices and inconsistencies that are anathema to modern critical thinking.

If you have certainty in your faith - then fine. Just don't expect others to fall in line to that. Faith in some sense is antithetical to logic - and you can hardly expect people to accept what you believe on faith either. If you have faith, then that is the crucible you must bear. You must also be open to the possibility that you are deluded. I don't mean to imply that you are - only that a religious conviction, w/o concrete evidence is remarkably similar to believing in anything w/o concrete evidence - be it the tooth fairy, that your life will magically turn out great, or supply-side economics.

I hope I was not disrespectful.

[.Andy]

Top post blackfox.

[obeygiant]

Most of all, I am ashamed. I am ashamed that I wasted so much time believing in something that I created myself. I am ashamed that I was so delusional I thought everything was controlled by some divine power without ever having any evidence of its existence. And I don't mean hard evidence - I have none whatsoever! Last but not least, I am ashamed of the traces I've left all over this forum, spraying my delusional thinking on the walls and in skunk's face...

I'm sorry, people. Will you welcome me into the good people club now?


Welcome to the land of atheism! A question though. In all those years of being a christian and worshiping and praying to god or jesus do find there is now a vacuum where religion once resided? Do you think to pray out of habit and then realize that you don't do that anymore?

BTW, Why would think atheists are in charge of the "good people club"?

[mithrilfox]

I hope I was not disrespectful.

Not at all, I respect your candor and ... well, respectfulness. :)

I understand why and how many people don't come to an understanding of the Bible as factual truth from the all-encompassing God. That is the major step that, in my worldview, requires the quickening (enlightening) of the Holy Spirit; it is not a behavior that humans are truly capable of apart from God's special hand in the work. That's another debate for another time, though.

What I find very disrespectful is any sort of vicious attack, or underhanded sarcastic attacks, or blatantly uninformed prejudices that continue to be put forward only because people choose to hate, or choose to think they are in the know without having done the studies.

People have asked for the "mountains of evidence." I have given them so many times, my wrists are bordering on carpel tunnel! Just not here... If anyone is truly interested, it's not hard to find the evidence. A simple Google search suffices. Anyone expecting me to start from ground zero and lay out the whole thing for them is going to be disappointed. I wish I had both the time and the wrist-power to do that on every one of these forums. It is just really discouraging, and a horribly bad feeling, to spend an hour typing up something long and detailed, and yet see people shrug it off or even kick it like it's nothing.

Here's a couple links that might help people who are genuinely interested. I cannot guarantee everything will fit anyone's particular standards of scholarship, but do give it a shot if you desire:

A "liberal" source by any conservative Christian's definition:
Wikipedia Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_history)

Notice this statement: Almost all scholars agree, however, that a historical figure named Jesus taught throughout the Galilean countryside c. 30 CE, was believed by his followers to have performed supernatural acts, and was sentenced to death by the Romans possibly for insurrection.

It's generally only uninformed "laymen" who are running around proclaiming that there never was any man named "Jesus" and that it's "all made up" to "control the masses." Ridiculous, if you ask me. I say that based on the evidence.

The Case for Christianity (http://www.answering-islam.org/Case/case1.html)

Very basic and limited information about the wealth of evidence for the accuracy of the Bible. Compared to other works, there is just an unbelievable amount of manuscripts to prove that the Bible is without a doubt the most reliable ancient writing. Claims that it has been "changed and changed" throughout history cannot be true, because the scriptures held by the reigning Catholic church were not the same held by the disputing Orthodox church, or the Coptic church, or those scrolls found centuries later by archeologists. If the Catholic church had changed them, as some claim, how did they sneak in and change EVERYONE ELSES' manuscripts, as well as manuscripts not yet discovered?

A very conservative perspective on the Bible as the Word of God:
Got Questions (http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html)

*KEY POINT: Remember that all sorts of strange and awkward methods have been invented to defend anything and everything that gets attacked. Listen to how anyone will defend someone, and you will find smart defenses and stupid defenses, clever ones and ridiculous ones. Likewise, just because some bad examples of Bible defenses exist says nothing about the Bible other than that some people defended it poorly.

Attacking the Bible based on silly beliefs used to defend it in the past is just as silly as rejecting science because some scientists once posited the notion of Spontaneous Generation. Scientists today do not need to "explain themselves" nor defend science against Spontaneous Generation because it was an old and mistaken notion that has passed. Even if a few scientists still held it, most intelligent people would disregard the few and still look to the many.

----

And one more thing. People who get burned by a church often give very bad reasons for their behavior afterwards. "I quit going to church because of all those hypocrites." "I quit going to church because the pastor was sleeping around and no one cared." "I quit going because someone accused me of sinning because I wore pants instead of a skirt."

Hey, compare it to these statements I'm about to make, and see how silly that is:

"I quit eating at restaurants because one restaurant I went to had dirty silverware."
"I quit going to hotels because one hotel had a really rude cleaning lady."
"I quit going to school because one of my classmates says he studies hard but he doesn't. Hypocrite!"
"I quit going to work because it wasn't always as fun as I wanted it to be."

If a church is really not a good place to be because of widespread sin, extremely pushy or dangerously manipulative leaders, or any other relational reason, then you might have to make the difficult decision to find a new church. But leaving ALL churches for that is not a good reason, and you probably are leaving the church as a whole because of some deeper reason. Anyone ever told you that they don't wanna buy a Mac cause one guy with a Mac was rude to him? I've heard that once or twice in my life, and it is truly ridiculous.

OK, I've put enough wear and tear on my wrists, and used more than enough time. But will ANYONE really read even one link, or even read this whole thing? <sigh> :confused:

[.Andy]

But will ANYONE really read even one link, or even read this whole thing? <sigh> :confused:
I'm happy to read you posts and I always read peoples links. Frankly I've ended up banging my head in the first few paragraphs of 'gotquestions.org'.

In order to answer these questions [is the bible the divine word of of god?] we must look at both the internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word. The internal evidences are those things internal to the Bible itself that testify of its divine origin.

There can be no doubt about the fact that the Bible does claim to be the very Word of God. This is clearly seen in verses like 2 Timothy 3:15-17, which say, “. . .from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
You can't use the bible to prove that the bible is true and the word of god. Self-reference is ridiculous.

Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1500 years, by more that 40 authors (who came from many walks of life), the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction.
I'm not sure that the person who wrote this has ever read the bible. Here's a quick google-found list of contradictions; http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those done by Nostradamus, the biblical prophecies are extremely detailed and have never failed to come true.
Awesome. Even better than Nostradamus. I wish the Lottery numbers were in there somewhere. Perhaps they ARE! *scurries off to find bible*

This authority and power are best seen in the way countless lives have been transformed by reading the Bible. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals have been set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats have been transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners are rebuked by it, and hate has been turned to love by reading it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.
READ THE BIBLE AND BE CURED YOU DEADBEAT DERELICT DRUG ADDICT HARDENED CRIMINAL HOMOSEXUALS.

Perhaps it would serve us well to lay out in the broadest terms of what the case for Christianity consists. My argument will consist of defending three premises[3]:

The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.
Conclusion: Since the Bible is the Word of God, then Christianity is true.[4]
It is important to notice that the argument is not circular.
Hand up whose head didn't explode on this one!

Why would think atheists are in charge of the "good people club"?
Seconding this. Atheists are by no means better people than anyone. Except when it comes to rock music.

[Shotglass]

mithrilfox: The fact that the bible mentions historical dates does not mean it is itself historical. There are loads of fictional books out there that are based on history. Also, I've been looking for those mountains of evidence my whole Christian life, and even my pastor couldn't help me.

About the good people club: My comment was a sidestab, since many religious people think of atheists as evil-spirited, unhuman demons (I exaggerate). In my experience, Christians are very concerned with being good people, but fail miserably because of their religion. I'm talking about things like xenophobia, intolerance and hate, even.

[Gelfin]

The Bible is a basically reliable and trustworthy document of history.
On the basis of this we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Jesus Christ teaches that the Bible is the very Word of God.
Conclusion: Since the Bible is the Word of God, then Christianity is true.

http://www.ozyandmillie.org/comics/om20070119.gif

In all those years of being a christian and worshiping and praying to god or jesus do find there is now a vacuum where religion once resided?

I cannot speak for the OP, obviously. I know this is what believers tend to imagine happens when you stop believing in God, but speaking from the other side of that transition, I must say the effect on me was precisely the opposite.

The world seemed a more amazing place once I stopped comparing it to notional supernatural wonders I could really only talk about and take on faith. Realizing that this world matters as more than just a test of my worthiness to get into some other world was, if you'll forgive the expression, something of a revelatory experience.

So, a little less like introducing a spiritual void and a little more like unblocking my spiritual sinuses.

[floyde]

If you ask 100 Christians to give an answer, you will NEVER get 100 "very different" answers. That's just never, ever going to happen. You may get a few "very different" answers, depending on how you interpret that, and the rest will vary slightly or none at all. Have you actually asked 100 Christians the same question and gotten 100 "very different" answers? I would refuse to believe it. Give it a try, it won't ever happen.
...


No, you're right, I've never done the experiment. It was an exaggeration meant to make you consider how your response sounded to me or how it would sound to other atheists. I should've stated that it was just something to think about. What I actually meant is that such a question can be answered with nothing more than a personal opinion since it is logically inconsistent and the bible does not offer a formal explanation.

I clicked your Case for Christianity link, but I'm sorry to say that I find the arguments to be very unconvincing and often silly (I'm sorry to say it this way, but that's how I found them). Let's look at this one for example:

Following closely in line with the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument is what I have come to call the "Sages Argument." I encountered this argument in the interesting book by Peter Kreeft entitled Between Heaven and Hell.[17] Consider these two factors: some people have claimed to be God, most have not; some people are regarded as sages (i.e., they possessed great wisdom), most are not. There are four possible combinations of these categories. First, there are those who have not claimed to be God and are not regarded as sages. This is most people who have ever lived. Second, there are those who have not claimed to be God but are regarded as sages. Examples would be peoples such as Moses, Socrates, and Confucius. Third, there are those who have claimed to be God but are not regarded as being sages. These people have been generally regarded as insane. David Koresh would be an example. Fourth, there are those who have claimed to be God and are regarded as sages. Only one person in history fits this category; viz., Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, in a similar fashion as the Lord, Liar, Lunatic argument, the person of Jesus Christ imposes Himself upon us and forces us to a decision about who we think He is. The most reasonable explanation that accounts for the evidence is that Jesus is who He claimed to be, i.e., God.

Take the previous argument. Now substitute the name 'Jesus' with the name of any random person in history. Let's assume for a moment that the person you chose also fits in the sage/claimed to be God category (he doesn't really have to, let's just make the assumption for now)... Now be honest with yourself, if someone came to you with this argument saying that some person (who is not Jesus) is without question God because he fits perfectly in the sage/claimed to be God square, would you be even slightly convinced? Can you say with all honesty that you wouldn't even chuckle a bit at the thought of that idea? I don't mean to offend you with this, I am simply asking you to answer those questions honestly, though you might disagree with me.

Now let's look at other possible scenarios that the author missed:
119781

Please note also that being a sage has never been considered as a sign of divinity but simply as a sign of superior intellect or knowledge.

I apologize if you find this post offensive, I'm merely trying to state my opinion to you.

*Edit: First drawing should read "Followers 'only' thought he was a sage".

[Virgil-TB2]

You have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be ashamed about. The God concept is a natural aspect of our evolutionary progress as a species. You should be no more "ashamed" of believing in God, than you should be ashamed that your body grew an appendix. Don't be an "atheist", be a "naturalist". Don't define your beliefs simply by what you DON'T believe, ...Agreed that this person has nothing to be ashamed of but I find (the highlighted part of) your statement to be (slightly) offensive.

Ironically, you are advising the guy not to be negative, but doing that by disrespecting all atheists. I think from other stuff of yours that I have read that you probably didn't mean it that way, but I wanted to point out that I don't like to be described in that way.

I'm also aware that it's one of my own failings to lump people into groups and categories like that so (I think we all do), so it's not the biggest deal in the world, but atheists are not negative nay-sayers, and don't live their lives defining things in the negative as is implied by your remark. Real atheists are closer to what you are calling a "naturalist." We look at things in a logical "real-world" kind of way that echews magical thinking and emotional/religious points of view.

If I really did define myself and the world through a negative viewpoint, I wouldn't be able to call myself rational and therefore couldn't really be an atheist. That kind of thinking is more the purview of religious thought.

Thanks :)

[WinterMute]

I'm an atheist, it neither defines me nor shames me, I live in a world without god or purpose beyond the reproductory.

Contrary to some opinions most atheists, having discounted the big guy in the sky as a viable or believable proposition, do not then spend their time agonising over the decision. There is no god, religion is a benign (and often very comforting) delusion and I don't need it.

Next.

[Virgil-TB2]

The very thing you are saying that you have seen the light from and escaped, many, many others are seeing the light there and entering in. ...So, ...

by your own description you are a person with a history of emotional problems, and brain chemistry problems. Your post clearly shows that you have a very hazy idea of logic and what constitutes "evidence" as opposed to opinion, and you seem to believe in magical beings that guide your day to day actions.


Exactly why is it that should I believe you ? :confused:

.

[Virgil-TB2]

... I understand why and how many people don't come to an understanding of the Bible as factual truth from the all-encompassing God. That is the major step that, in my worldview, requires the quickening (enlightening) of the Holy Spirit; it is not a behavior that humans are truly capable of apart from God's special hand in the work. That's another debate for another time, though....Wow. Just wow. :eek:

So why are we even bothering to read your long-winded "arguments" if you just admitted that we won't be able to understand them in any kind of logical way, but instead requires a special state of mind induced in us by the supreme being of your religion?

Either argue an argument, (using your "mountains of evidence" no doubt), or claim magical thinking. You can't have it both ways, and it's disingenuous and well ... stupid, to do otherwise.

I have found there is not much percentage in arguing with "teh stupids." ;)

Personally, I have much more respect for those that simply claim magical thinking. At least it's a honest position to take as opposed to the ridiculous idea of thinking that there is a logical basis or support for religion.

.

[skunk]

I feel so liberated. Being ignored by mithrilfox, I can exercise my intellectual thuggery (thanks for that, iJohnHenry) without worrying about upsetting anyone. Look out, world!

[Macky-Mac]

I'm an atheist, it neither defines me nor shames me, I live in a world without god or purpose beyond the reproductory....

what? drinking and football count for nothing in your world?? :eek::rolleyes:

[Shotglass]

I don't really see a vacuum in my life, mithrilfox. In fact, I feel free. Free as a bird. Seriously, life is awesome right now. It's like nothing I've ever felt before. I am truly happy. Not church happy.

[.Andy]

I feel so liberated. Being ignored by mithrilfox, I can exercise my intellectual thuggery (thanks for that, iJohnHenry) without worrying about upsetting anyone. Look out, world!
Rain down hell from your ivory tower skunk (careful not to spill your latte).

[skunk]

Rain down hell from your ivory tower skunk (careful not to spill your latte).Out of respect for African wildlife, my tower is now constructed of ivory-coloured plastic.

[.Andy]

Out of respect for African wildlife, my tower is now constructed of ivory-coloured plastic.
Well it's very well done! I couldn't tell the difference from my vantage. I simply must get the name of your exterior designer....

[Queso]

Out of respect for African wildlife, my tower is now constructed of ivory-coloured plastic.
Damn you man!! Don't you know you've just funded Big Oil with your non-biodegradable construction!!?!?


;-)

[Metatron]

I love it...

Stupid until the end...

And if I am wrong...no big deal. Lived a caring, loving, giving, and faithful life with no regrets.

But I am right, your regret will be your exisitance.

Why some people fight so hard to feel liberated from their deity and chained to their neighbors vote, I will never know.

[skunk]

I'm not entirely sure I catch your drift... :confused:

[Queso]

But I am right, your regret will be your exisitance.
I'm going to respond as if you've missed the word if out there.

Forcing yourself to believe in a deity just for the possibility of after-death reward is dishonesty of the highest level. That would be the mark of someone with absolutely no courage of their convictions, not even within the confines of their own mind.

[it5five]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[iJohnHenry]

There is no god, religion is a benign (and often very comforting) delusion and I don't need it.

I would chose to put that in this manner, "There is no god, religion is a comforting (and not always benign) delusion and I don't need it."

I can exercise my intellectual thuggery (thanks for that, iJohnHenry) without worrying about upsetting anyone.

However would you reach that conclusion, unless your neck was getting red?? I did not point any appendages at anyone.

:D

[mithrilfox]

Wow. Just wow. :eek:

So why are we even bothering to read your long-winded "arguments" if you just admitted that we won't be able to understand them in any kind of logical way, but instead requires a special state of mind induced in us by the supreme being of your religion?


I don't appreciate the wording of your statement, but I understand what you're asking.

It's simple. God chooses to use such methods as his means to accomplish his goals. Everyone chooses how to do it. Just because you see me grab a hammer, hold it in my hand, bring it down onto the nail, and repeat, doesn't reduce the necessity of each step. You can't skip it all and say, "The hammer is doing fine on it's own," or that I can do it without the hammer.

God chooses to use his people, and he works through them. It's an honor and a joy... most of the time ;). Note the use of phrases such as "vessels of honor" and "messenger," "good news," as well as other statements.

It is a fruitless debate to have if the Holy Spirit will not be making the change, but I cannot know when and where he chooses to move. I can get a pretty good idea after a discussion has gotten underway whether or not my efforts seem to be useful, and I must, taking all of the Bible's advice into account, make the best decision on how to spend my time. That's way I have a policy not to spend time posting replies (or even reading the replies) of any who come across to me as extremely rude, condescending, closed-minded, or arrogantly vicious. I can take a little of any and all of those things, but if the individual is just trying to force-feed me their predetermined lines based on how they've judged me before the discussion, I don't want to hear it. Who would? Waste of time and effort if you ask me.

However, even if someone is pretty set in their ways, they can be very polite, approachable, and easy to talk to. They can make good conversation even if they are pretty determined not to change.

By Virgil:
by your own description you are a person with a history of emotional problems, and brain chemistry problems. Your post clearly shows that you have a very hazy idea of logic and what constitutes "evidence" as opposed to opinion, and you seem to believe in magical beings that guide your day to day actions.

Hehe... I wouldn't say that AT ALL. I think I've given you the wrong impression, or you misunderstood. I'm discussing the natural reality that we all face with the various chemical imbalances that set us off to do things we shouldn't do, or feel like doing things we shouldn't do. Maybe you don't see them as "imbalances," but I think they are. My reasoning is that we were never "meant" to feel that way.

And I don't believe in "magical beings," for two reasons. One, "magical" is completely the wrong word to use; in context, it's a bit rude and condescending, used to make the belief look excessively ridiculous. Second, "beings" is probably not appropriate either, since God is one (though he is one in the sense of the Trinity). Typically, we do not refer to God in the plural, and it is virtually never done in the Scriptures.

My post indicates nothing of my idea of "logic," but only my idea of where logic plays its role. Logic is not the ultimate end-all to everything. Logic is not the measuring stick by which all things in the universe are measured. Do you operate in your relationships with friends and loved ones using pure logic? If so, good luck pal, you're gonna have a lot of trouble. You can extrapolate logic out to say, "giving my wife an unexpected give becomes logical in the sense that it makes her happy, and that's a reasonable thing to do." OK, if you continue to extrapolate logic out that far, I can show how it is completely logical to believe in a supreme being.

Actually, it has been done... numerous times and in numerous ways. You are smart, you can find those resources, so I won't re-invent the wheel.

[Queso]

Just because you see me grab a hammer, hold it in my hand, bring it down onto the nail, and repeat, doesn't reduce the necessity of each step. You can't skip it all and say, "The hammer is doing fine on it's own," or that I can do it without the hammer.
I missed the bit where hammers became sentient lifeforms capable of guiding their own decisions :confused:

[skunk]

However would you reach that conclusion, unless your neck was getting red?? I did not point any appendages at anyone.Perhaps because your "Intellectual thugs abound around these parts, but I would hesitate to put them on any so-called ignore list" comment followed mithrilfox's announcement that he had put me on his ignore list. 2+2=4.

[.Andy]

I missed the bit where hammers became sentient lifeforms capable of guiding their own decisions :confused:
Hammers can achieve anything once they accept god into their heads.

[mactastic]

Nevermind... images aren't workin' for me...

[mithrilfox]

EDIT: Nevermind.

Definitely one of the smartest posters here. :) Seriously, no sarcasm, it's so smart not to even bother wasting the time.

[CalBoy]

Definitely one of the smartest posters here. :) Seriously, no sarcasm, it's so smart not to even bother wasting the time.

So then you admit that discussing things rationally and logically with you is a waste of time? :confused:

[solvs]

While I have had my problems with certain things, and even people, here, and sometimes I think we are a little harsh on religion in general (maybe more of those *not all religious people are crazy sidenotes might come in handy... we respect followers of Islam as such) I've noticed that no one has ever jumped on my religious belief here. Well, ok, actually they have, but they were other religious people. So when I see people come in here with the persecution complex (no pun intended) makes the tin foil hat part of me wonder if they didn't have that already. You're already in charge of practically everything. Your beliefs already affect the rest of us. What more do you want?

[Iscariot]

What more do you want?

I don't think you've ever written anything that cries out for a witty response more than that. I am not your monkey, sir. I am not at your beck and call, available to crack wise when you leave an opening.

Good day to you!

[solvs]

That's ok, that works just fine. :)

Anyone else want a crack at it, it does deserve a witty/sarcastic response.

[iJohnHenry]

Perhaps because your "Intellectual thugs abound around these parts, but I would hesitate to put them on any so-called ignore list" comment followed mithrilfox's announcement that he had put me on his ignore list. 2+2=4.

Ah, deductive reasoning. ;)

I may call you on that in another thread, sometime. :D

That's ok, that works just fine. :)

Anyone else want a crack at it, it does deserve a witty/sarcastic response.

I don't do requests.

(How's that??)

[obeygiant]

Atheism Is A Non-prophet Organization.

also can atheists get insurance against acts of god?

:D

[iJohnHenry]

Yes.

If you are willing to pay a 5% premium to value, for a virtually non-existent occurrence, most insurance companies will be happy to take your money.

[mithrilfox]

So then you admit that discussing things rationally and logically with you is a waste of time? :confused:

No, but comments like the one you just made make it clear that ignoring such threads is a good idea. Too much antagonism, personal attacks, presumption, judging, and everything else bad.

I'm going to bow out of this thread entirely.

[Anuba]

I've seen the light, and there was Fred Phelps beckoning me to join his fold. :eek:

[skunk]

No, but comments like the one you just made make it clear that ignoring such threads is a good idea. Too much antagonism, personal attacks, presumption, judging, and everything else bad.

I'm going to bow out of this thread entirely.Mind the door doesn't... <slam - ouch> ...oh, never mind.

[Queso]

also can atheists get insurance against acts of god?

:D
Could an atheist sue an insurance company to get them to prove the existence of god or pay up? :D

[Macky-Mac]

Could an atheist sue an insurance company to get them to prove the existence of god or pay up? :D

one would have to assume that an atheist would never admit to having damages resulting from an act of god and so the atheist would never sue in the first place :D

[solvs]

Just don't tell your teacher:

Ohio board votes to ax teacher accused of branding (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/ap_on_re_us/teacher_bible)

The school board of a small central Ohio community voted unanimously Friday to fire a teacher accused of preaching his Christian beliefs despite staff complaints and using a device to burn the image of a cross on students' arms.

School board members voted 5-0 to fire Mount Vernon Middle School science teacher John Freshwater.
At least they all voted to fire him, but does it bother anyone else that he somehow got to be a science teacher?

[Sesshi]

I'm with mithrilfox on this one on the fundamental tone of his posts, if not in the workings of God. Many of you may regard him as misguided but at the same time I would wonder where the real convictions for your denial of faith comes from.

I probably ought to mention that I'm an atheist.