quote:

---

Interesting and very cool! I should write a companion piece for this. We could put them both together and publish them as one article.

---

I would interested in reading such an article, if you did ever publish one.

--David
Atheist and Humanist.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Why feel sad for him? (her?) He sounds plenty happier now that he is sure of his belief. I can feel happy for people who find religion and are happier for it. Why can you not feel happy for he who loses it and is happier for it?

Megabyte: If you're community is that intolerant it makes me worry for you for more reasons than simply the one you mentioned All I can say is hang in there. Come college you'll be fine. I've been an atheist all my life. And, growing up in a college town, I've never had any trouble at all with people being perfectly accepting of my belief. And in fact, a large portion of the people I've met were fellow atheists. That or people who payed lip service to one religion or another out of habit, but if pressed were really agnostic.

Religion never made sense to me. Most of the things you've described I've felt and recognized since day one. All of the worlds religions contain a great number of contradictions. If you take them as a whole, religion itself is one big contradiction. The only belief I know of that doesn't contradict itself is one in the universe's natural laws, sans god or any supernatural power.

The catch though, is that we do not know all of the universe's natural laws. And some of our guesses at them don't work all that well yet. Means you get to live with a lot of doubt.

The saving grace is that a belief in natural laws that are discoverable by science allows for this doubt, in fact it encourages it.

Is the belief, in part, faith based? Yeah, I have to admit it is. I have faith that the universe has natural laws, and that we can discover said laws through science. And, just as with people who have faith in one god or another, that just feels true to me.

However, the things science has thus far unearthed serve as strong rational reasons for my belief. And they are, as a whole, a hell of a lot more consistent than any of the worlds religions. And unbelievably more consistent than the world's religions as a whole.

So, while my belief is currently based a little on faith, there is hope that it will one day not need that. And the more science discovers of the world the less it is shored up by faith, and the more it is supported by reason. Which is something no religion can offer.

Hmm... didn't mean to go off on that. Oh well. I guess my conclusion would be: don't worry megabyte, you are very much not alone. And welcome to the faith of reason
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
Cheers Megabyte!

Your story is close to mine, though I was a bit older and I'm not quite as sure of the response of my family if I were to tell them.

All I would recommend is that you don't lie. If asked point blank, tell your family. But don't offer the information. I think waiting until you go to college or move out, at least, is the right way to go.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I have neuroticism and conflicts in my relationship with God, the same as I do with my husband and my children, because to me He's real, and to him I'm real, and our relationship can be complicated.

There was a time I resisted everything that was not rational because life seemed to painful otherwise. It's probably weird that I think of "Fortress around your heart" as a song about Jesus.

quote:

---

There were times you thought or even wished that I was dead...Then let me build a bridge, forever fill the chasm, and let me set the battlements on fire.

---

 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Welcome to the club!

It gets a lot easier when you get a little older and realize that you don't have to give a rip what other people think
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

It gets a lot easier when you get a little older and realize that you don't have to give a rip what other people think

---

quote:

---

What moral use is a book whose moral message depends entirely on what you want it to mean? What you already believe is right? It's not a very good justification, since it can justify anything if you use it from the right angle.

---

quote:

---

My moral concepts were totally unrelated to those of Christ or Paul or the Old Testament God anyway, just the same way most of our moral concepts aren't...

...My point with that last bit is that, really, I'm not turned evil now. My beliefs in right and wrong, good and evil, still stand. They just... don't need a god to support them. They still work just fine without it.

---

quote:

---

I haven't turned into a Godless heathen, running rampant in the streets and laughing at the plight of the wicked. Wait, hold on. Yeah, I have.

---

Being able to laugh at oneself is an important component to any well-rounded individual.


 

---

Posted by Andrew W (Member # 4172) on :
 
oh yeah, p.s. it sounds like you're surrounded by numpty mofo (is that too close to swearing?) religious people, excluding your family of course, who have reasonable justification for being worried about the end path of the immortal soul they believe you have, - but a place where any particular random stranger, on finding out you were an atheist would range from "being thought at least mildly ill of, if not treated incredibly negatively"

I geniunely cannot think of a single place in England where that would be the case.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
Andrew W: I can't speak for 0Megabyte, but I'll be happy to relate my similar situation.

My old way of thinking was "God has rules about what is right and what is wrong, and we should follow those rules because God said to."

This became something more along the lines of, "In order for society to function, people must behave in certain ways. There is no Platonic Good which must be followed, nor Evil which must be avoided. There is no need for a divine set of rules.

There are ways of acting which benefit myself and others, and I should strongly consider acting in those ways in order to bring myself and those around me the most positive life possible. I should likewise encourage others to act in similar ways, for the greater benefit of all."
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew W:
I geniunely cannot think of a single place in England where that would be the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

It gets a lot easier when you get a little older and realize that you don't have to give a rip what other people think

---

In moderation.

---

I don't know, Mormons don't seem very moderate in this regard.

France has been quite Atheist friendly for a good long while, at least it seems so to me. Fundamentalist Christians feel persecuted quite often as well. Not enjoying cultural dominance is not the same as being persecuted.
 

---

Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
 
Atheists get to have the most entertaining answers to metaphysical questions:

quote:

---

There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

---

quote:

---

Atheists get to have the most entertaining answers to metaphysical questions:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Atheists get to have the most entertaining answers to metaphysical questions:

---

Only the humorous atheists. Dawkins and Harris don't have many entertaining answers, though Dawkins does like to quote Adams.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
At the risk of sounding smug, I am so grateful that my parents had no religious "expectations" of me or my siblings. They raised us to find our own path and then supported whatever that was.

---

If I ever end up having my own family, that's what I plan on doing. I'll explain to them what I think, but they won't get any force from me.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Responses:

CMC: "God doesn't have to be what someone else thinks it is...

You can still see things honestly with God in your life.

I don't hate you, I just feel sad for you."

Your first sentence seems to understand slightly.

The thing that I don't think God is, is real.

And the reason I can't see things honestly with God there is because, deep down, I belive he's not real, and to use God in any way would be inherently dishonest. For me to say it would be a lie.

As for feeling sad for me... don't. I wasn't broken up when I realized for certain that Santa Claus isn't real, either. I just went "oh! I kinda already figured. Hmm, that settles it, cool. What interesting information on how that idea came to be!"

Of course, sure God might exist. But so might Santa Claus and the celestial teapot orbiting Jupiter. You can't absolutely disprove them, after all.

But I'm reasonably certain that none of them are real. But for any of them, give me some proof and I'll go, "hmm, really? I can't argue with that! Cool."

It's quite nice, though, not worrying about it anymore. My mind doesn't get caught up in stupid nonsensical things that don't make sense, and that I know don't make sense... because I can recognize that they're meaningless and spend my time on other thoughts.

Tatiana:

"Interesting and very cool! I should write a companion piece for this. We could put them both together and publish them as one article. "

That would require me to be a better writer, though, I'm sure.

Alcon:

" If you're community is that intolerant it makes me worry for you for more reasons than simply the one you mentioned "

To make it clear: It's not like I live in Texas, or in the Bible Belt.

However, I live in Spokane, and as others have said, it's pretty darn conservative.

As for the general public, sure there are others that have my views. But based on a combination of the beliefs most people tend to possess here, and random chance, I don't dare just mention it to a stranger, because, well, Christians don't react well, at least not conservative Christians.

It's not so much that I go out anyway, it's that I know how people were when I was a Christian, and it's too much of a hassle to go out and take that risk with every new person I meet.

As it is, btw, I've been in college, and will probably be moving away within the next year or two when I'm done with my BA, probably on film, the thing I find myself most passionate about.

I'm not a young kid, I could support myself if I wished, but instead I go to college.

At least, I'm not a young kid anymore, but when I started here a few years back I was!

"However, the things science has thus far unearthed serve as strong rational reasons for my belief. And they are, as a whole, a hell of a lot more consistent than any of the worlds religions. And unbelievably more consistent than the world's religions as a whole."

Yes. Isn't that the truth?

The thing about religion, everyone recognizes how silly other peoples' beliefs are. However, when it comes to theirs, even if they're just as silly, many refuse to see it. When you hear about some random tribe's beliefs in witches that have extra organs in their bodies which fly out and wreak havoc at night, it's hard not to smile. For a Christian, hearing, say, that a literally fatherless man, who also happens to be his own father, floated up into heaven bodily... a Christian won't look at that as odd at all. But any other religion would.

It's like people turn off... no, people DO turn off their rational abilities when it comes to these beliefs they were taught as children. I know I did!

Pooka: "I have neuroticism and conflicts in my relationship with God, the same as I do with my husband and my children, because to me He's real, and to him I'm real, and our relationship can be complicated."

Eh? You mean your relationship with your husband, or with God?

Because, it's so strange how, now that I accepted what I felt was true, how nonsensical that seems to me all of a sudden.

Or maybe I'm just confused? ???

Andrew: "Almost anything of sufficient complexity or length could be read in many different ways, and understood to mean many different things. It's just the nature of the written word."

Perhaps. At least if you throw in a bunch of books of different sources, from people who have differing and contradictory beliefs that happens. It's hard to interpret Moby Dick in as many ways as, say, the Bible.

The problem is, trying to gain any moral knowledge from the Bible is not going to go well. If you read the whole thing, you'll see a dozen competing moralities.

Of course, the Ten Commandments? They weren't for us. By "Thou shalt not kill". it meant, "Thou shalt not kill Jews, but the heathens? Have at it."

That was a matter of course, and so obvious to them they didn't bother to say it, as it was a basic assumption. My how times have changed.

"hat's why the Catholic Church holds to the theory of Authority, which allows the maintenance of a consistent, though gradually and constantly improving, understanding and interpretation of the Bible"

You assume the Catholic Church has any special knowledge or expertise. The Bible's views are contradictory, there's no way around that detail. And the Catholic Church is not by far the only church, any many, many others view the Church as completely wrong.

With no less evidence to support them, either!

Anyway:

"It's nitpicking, but "most of our moral concepts aren't" seems like you're trying to speak for people beyond just yourself, who you couldn't possibly have any knowledge of what people's moral concepts are to do with."

We find slavery abhorrent, in any explixit form.

The Bible says nothing anti-slavery whatsoever. In fact, some of the contradictory moralities explicitly like it. Others can be interpreted, perhaps, to mean we shouldn't have slaves, but it requires someone who already believes that to interpret it that way.

That's the sort of thing I mean.

And as Javert said, in response to your other post: Welcome to America!

kmboots: "Megabyte, do you want to move in with me and Strider? "

*blinks* While I appreciate it, I don't think that's necessary... I'm a college student and everything, I'm 20 years old, and it would be a hassle anyway. Thank you, though.


SC Carver: "I hope to someday reach the same level of peace with my beliefs as Omegabyte has described. "

Heh. Well, I do notice that there's no more turmoil. When telling other people in person, it can be sometimes hard to give them an adaquete answer.

But there's no internal questions. No more internal dichotomy. I have plenty of emotional stuff in other areas. But in religion, it's totally gone.

It's like... one time, I spoke to a bunch of Mormon missionairies, several times over a week. In the end, after all the complicated converstions about religion, God and the Mormon faith, and how important it was for me (to them) to see their views... well, I finally realized 'you know, I don't need this stress. This stress, this worry, this attempt of theirs to make me feel guilty and wrong and warn me of turmoil... I don't need it!' was a very uplifting feeling. Discarding unnecessary emotional baggage, acrued over several rather intense days of conversation.

The same sort of thing happened in general with God in general.

Or, to be more accurate.. due to the timing of the event, it discarded most of the baggage period, of religion entirely. I realized it was unnecessary and too complicating, emotionally. And when I finally discarded religion, I realized... I'd already thrown it all away, at that and other times. Nothing had been left of it but my desire to believe.


Anyway... thank you, and I havent' gotten to all your responses yet, sorry!
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 

quote:

---

As it is, btw, I've been in college, and will probably be moving away within the next year or two when I'm done with my BA, probably on film, the thing I find myself most passionate about.

---

Oh cool. I really had no idea, so I guessed if you were living at home (which it sounds like you are..?) you weren't at college. Wrong guess obviously.

Well, when you do move out, just head to a less conservative area. Which if you're going into the film industry you're pretty much set, least ways from what I've heard about it. Good luck!
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Yes. Precisely, Alcon.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 
I had a similar experience to 0meg, though it was more gradual I think. I'd spent several years contemplating the nature of God and spirituality, prayed a number of times (and in a number of manners) and eventually tired of what seemed like a futile exercise.

I gave it little thought for a few years and when I came back to the subject, I did so from a more critical perspective. I evaluated, in as much depth as I could manage, the histories of religions. I compared their doctrines, their practices, and their evidentiary claims.

I came to a few conclusions:

* There was no way to verify any religion's evidentiary claims. Mormons, for instance, suggest that a sincere prayer will evoke an unmistakable and distinct response which indicates the truth of their doctrine. I never received such a response, but even if I had, how could I determine that the response originated from outside myself? If I could determine that, how would I determine that the source was benevolent? How would I determine that the source, if benevolent, was the God that Mormons worship? I'm not picking on Mormons here. This same problem exists for many religions.

* The major religious organizations seemed to be obvious artifices of human origin. They did not seem consistent with the character of the God(s) which they preach of. They are ostentatious and overly ritualized, with much more pomp and circumstance than should be necessary for man to commune with his maker(s) and understand the purpose of this life.

* I found a strong sentiment that information that contradicts the doctrine of a religion should be avoided by the practitioners of that religion because of the possibility that their faith may be weakened. The idea that one should not evaluate new information because it may cause someone to decide that their previous position was incorrect is abhorrent to me, particularly when these institutions spend a great deal of their time trying to present new information to people with the intent that a conversion will result.

* I found that the strongest correlation between individual circumstances and religion was geographic/familial. Mormons usually have Mormon parents. Catholics usually have Catholic parents, etc. People don't evaluate everything and settle on the best choice, they claim to evaluate everything and settle on what their family, culture, and upbringing predict they will settle on. There are exceptions to this rule, but those are the minority absent heavy proselyting efforts.

* I also learned a lot about what the human brain is capable of. I learned about the various ways in which we come to believe things and the processes by which we tend to resist contradictory evidence and view neutral data as supporting our existing beliefs. It's a bit disconcerting how mailable our concept of reality can be and how commonly that concept can be demonstrably false. Given that, I became biased heavily in favor of accepting those things which are demonstrably true.

As these and other ideas gelled, I just gave up on religion all together. I decided that if there was a just and benevolent creator God up there somewhere then I owe him thanks for giving me this brain and some responsibility for the conclusions that it has reached. If he wants to reach me, he knows how to do it.

In the mean time, I don't make any provision in my life for God. I just treat people well and hope the favor is returned. I've achieved a remarkable peace since I settled into this position. I wonder if it's the same peace that a religious person feels when they "give in" to the other side of the conflict that I had experienced.

[ August 17, 2007, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"If he wants to reach me, he knows how to do it."

Yes, precisely.

I'd not mind at all if God did reach me. He certainly could, if he was God. But... I can't assume he exists anymore than I can Santa Claus.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

I'd not mind at all if God did reach me. He certainly could, if he was God. But... I can't assume he exists anymore than I can Santa Claus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Besides, I can't possibly spend hours on every religion's "get in touch with God" ceremony and still have time to go to work and raise a family, so I'm not inclined to give any one approach a disproportionate amount of my time.

---

If you never sacrifice a fatted lamb to mighty Zeus, you'll never gain his strength in battle.

I'll feel bad for you when your lack of faith allows the armies of Poseidon to overwhelm your shores
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:
Besides, I can't possibly spend hours on every religion's "get in touch with God" ceremony and still have time to go to work and raise a family, so I'm not inclined to give any one approach a disproportionate amount of my time.

---

If you never sacrifice a fatted lamb to mighty Zeus, you'll never gain his strength in battle.

I'll feel bad for you when your lack of faith allows the armies of Poseidon to overwhelm your shores

---

I sacrificed a fatted mosquito to Zeus once. No strength, but I did get a really nifty hat.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Ha! A nifty hat would be more than enough, though, don'tcha think?
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Depends. If it was handed to me by a missionary door to door, I'd write it off as coincidence. On the other hand if it appeared out of thin air in front of me to a little trumpet fan fare...


...I'd probably wonder exactly what I'd eaten that day and how'd I'd ended up on acid.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 
If it just appeared on my head from nowhere in response to a prayer? Um...yeah, that might just do it.
 

---

Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
 
I'm going to start warshipping Mars I think, with all this Zeus talk.* I mean, he's got the most famous Holst piece; also, he's "the Avenger" and any god that hangs out with Mrs. Peel is all right by me. *rimshot*

Personally, my parents when pressed would say Lutheran but we didn't go to church, so I guess it was just natural for me to not really believe. The only time I tried to read the Bible I got bored very quickly and switched to Heinlein.

I went to church with a friend once (Christian, though I don't specifically remember which branch). I thought it was fun in a cultish sort of way. Chanting all kinds of things and having this guy preach to you. I wouldn't want to do it regularly though, as it seems it would lose some of its charm.

*I know, Roman gods != Greek Gods.

Edit:

quote:

---

On the other hand if it appeared out of thin air in front of me to a little trumpet fan fare...

---

quote:

---

Alcon...

I could feel that way - but it's not what I actually feel inside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmc:
I've got a question after skimming through this:

Does believing in God (as we're calling whatever it is) here mean that you HAVE to ascribe to a particular religion? Couldn't you just believe and leave all the ritual behind?

That's sort of what I do...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cmc:
I've got a question after skimming through this:

Does believing in God (as we're calling whatever it is) here mean that you HAVE to ascribe to a particular religion? Couldn't you just believe and leave all the ritual behind?

That's sort of what I do...

---

The way I figure it, if there is a God but no corresponding correct religion, he already knows that there's no evidence for him, so he won't mind that I don't believe in him.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 

quote:

---

But there's no internal questions. No more internal dichotomy. I have plenty of emotional stuff in other areas. But in religion, it's totally gone.

---

quote:

---

I just can't imagine how it can be so easy, so freeing, for so many of you.

---

I had never been committed to religious explanations of purpose and promises of reward/everlasting life/etc. Having never put any real stock in that, the final conclusion that there was nothing to it wasn't distressing. The freedom I felt was, I think, primarily from the "what do all these religious people know that I don't?" feeling that I had. After concluding that the answer was "nothing", the conflict went away and I felt... free.

[ August 17, 2007, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
Well, a certain comfort with the idea of nothing after death helps. I for one am kinda looking forward to just going to sleep and never waking up in about 60 - 80 years (hopefully not sooner, but so be it if it is).

Also a comfort with doubt. And the fact that I feel like I have a purpose, not based on any sort of god or divine. The purpose is one I've given myself and involves what I want to do with my life (see humanity off into space, in one way or another).

Add to all of this a cheerful acceptance of the idea that humanity just is. We're not anything more special than any other brand of life, save for the things we've managed to accomplish. Our only purpose in existing is existence itself -- that and reproducing so that humanity as a whole continues existing and evolving.

*shrug* I guess some people would find all these concepts discomforting, but they all make sense to me and frankly I find comfort and happiness in them. I really, honestly don't fear death with out an afterlife. Or death at all. The idea of nothing after you die, it's kinda comforting actually. It's just going to sleep, with out having to worry about anything ever again. I like sleep

And here's the other thing: if there truly is a benevolent god somewhere out there, much like what many Christians believe in, is he really gonna hold it against me that I just couldn't believe in him? Honestly, if he's a truly omniscient and benevolent god I can't see him holding my non-belief against me if I other wise live a basically good life. And if he's not a benevolent god, well, I'm screwed anyway. As are we all.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Religion frustrates me. It has beautiful aspects to it, such as great music, moral values, but it gets tainted and corrupted by people who twist it for their own gain and fill it with rules and the like which make no sense to me.
I don't have a real sort of religion, but i believe in something, it just wouldn't make sense t other people.

When I lost my religion as a teenager, I felt pretty free.The religion I was born in constricted me and made me feel trapped. I finally had the freedom to expand my horizons a bit.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I'm perfectly fine with accepting these concepts as reality. But that acceptance doesn't make the worry go away.

"I like sleep "

So do I. But I also like knowing I'm going to wake back up.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I fear I will never find my purpose in this world. I fear I have no purpose.

---

To get past this, you have to realize that your purpose is your own. You choose your purpose. On one hand, this is harder than the status quo; no one's going to come up and give you meaning. On the other, it's remarkably liberating to realize that you can decide for yourself what you think is most valuable, and don't have to feel guilty about it.

That said, the idea of oblivion after death scares me. But it scares me. And part of the point of oblivion is that there's not going to be any of me left to mind not being around; at the very point at which I'd encounter the horror of nothingness, I'd be unable to experience stuff. So I try not to worry about it, since it's almost definitionally irrelevant.
 

---

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
I say I believe in God. Sometimes I ask myself, "do I really believe?" It's a complicated question. I have my doubts, in fact, people who believe with certainty that they know one way or the other seem almost a little insane to me. How can you not have some doubts no matter which side of the fence you're on?

But these are the things I do know: when I need or want something desperately in my life my first instinct is to pray for it, and I wouldn't bother if I didn't think there was some value in doing so. I also know that if I ever do reach the conclusion that I no longer believe in God, the prospect of a world without a meaning or a purpose, and no existence after death, doesn't actually bother me. I don't need a reason to exist, I just do. And if death is just the complete end of existence, it's not like not existing will be unpleasant. Think of all those eons of not existing that we experienced before we were born! In fact, sometimes it's the idea of an afterlife that scares me a little. Even if it's Heaven, have you ever really thought about living for ever.... and ever... and ever... and knowing that you'll ALWAYS exist, even if you grow tired of it all?! Sometimes when I lie in my bed at night I really think about the concept of eternity and it's a little bit unsettling. However, I tell myself that if Heaven is real, existence there is so perfect that one never grows tired of it or wants it to end, and it's just that my human mind can't conceive of it now. Here's hoping I'm right!
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"t's been about four years since I finally realized I no longer believed in any kind of god. It hasn't really made things any easier for me. I'm not less stressed."

Normal things are just as stressing, to be sure. Just... no stress from religion on my end. No worries about God or what God wants or anything.

" I don't feel free or enlightened. I don't have any fewer questions about the world or life or existence."

I still have tons of questions. However, they aren't about religious things, but about the concrete. "How does the sun do x?" That kind of thing. And if there are no answers, well, I'll be patient.

"If anything, I am now more stressed, more worried, less certain in what I believe. I'm not by any means a total nervous wreck, but I do spend a significant amount of time nearly every day contemplating just what it means to exist in a world where there is no God. It's essentially incomprehensible for me."

To exist in a world where there is no God isn't too hard. Just look around! That's the world with no God. A universe that acts exactly as it should if it was completely neutral to our existence, our sufferings and our joys.

We just are. The chances of you existing were unbelievably low... but you did come into existence, since the chance was not zero. You don't have to do anything special in such a world.

Just exist, and enjoy the fact that it was you that came into existence, and not one of a million other potential people that did.

In other words, congradulations! You won the lottery! You can do as you will, do as you enjoy, so go and do that and enjoy that.

"I fear I will never find my purpose in this world. I fear I have no purpose. I fear I will lose everything I cherish. I fear death. I fear nonexistence."

There is no intrinsic purpose. But that's okay. I'd rather not have a purpose assigned to me by an outside agency anyway.

Choose what you want to do with your time, and do it. The time is yours to do with as you please, yes?

In this world where the universe doesn't care, nothing will ever last forever. Entropy will eventually rule the day, and, in the far future, there will be nothing but nearly static void.

The fact is, you live now, you exist. You won't always, but you do now. Chances were you wouldn't have existed at all, but you get to. Clutch it tightly. But you won't have a choice when you lose it. You have a choice of what to do now, though.

As for nonexistence... you didn't exist for billions of years. That wasn't so bad, was it? This will just be that again, and once again, not so bad.

"The probable nonexistence of God has done little but complicate my life. Not that I would willingly go back to believing now. I do take some comfort in having come to this realization.

I just can't imagine how it can be so easy, so freeing, for so many of you. "

eh. You get used to it.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Tom and 0Mb:

I hear your words, and they certainly make plenty of sense. I've mostly heard and thought it all before (and continue to do so). It still doesn't make the fear go away. I'm fairly sure it will fade eventually. Or I'll get used to it anyway. Even now, through it all, I am still living my life. I love my life. I love living.

"That said, the idea of oblivion after death scares me. But it scares me. And part of the point of oblivion is that there's not going to be any of me left to mind not being around; at the very point at which I'd encounter the horror of nothingness, I'd be unable to experience stuff. So I try not to worry about it, since it's almost definitionally irrelevant."

I like that. A lot. It actually helps. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
 
When it comes to oblivion, there's literally nothing to fear.
 

---

Posted by Ikemook (Member # 9973) on :
 
Rollainm,

I went through a lot of the same feelings you're having now, until I finally realized what was wrong. It took 3 or so years for me to finally embrace life without God/Gods. So it might take a while.

So, in addition to TomDs and 0Megs excellent advice, here are some bits of thought of mine.

First, something one of my professors told me. It was actually concerning an ethnographic research project I was planning; specifically, I was designing questions for interviews. To paraphrase, he said that at some point I had to stop theorizing and trying to work out what questions to ask, and just start asking them. I could revise the questions along the way.

It was helpful advice, both for my research and for my personal "issues." There came a point where I was at the bottom of what I know as the existential hole, where all my doubt and anxiety had reduced me to feeling completely purposeless. At that point, oddly enough, I just got tired of it all, and decided to pick a direction, pick a purpose, and go for it. If it didn't work out, I'd learn from it, accept the consequences, and pick a new one. This worked rather well, over time, as it got me going again.

So, if all else fails, choose and act. Pick something that seems to make your life meaningful, and go for it. If it doesn't work out, accept the consequences and pick something else.

=================

The other bit is more philosophical, and involves a strange realization I had that helped me get over my fear. I *think* this is very similar to what TomD said.

When faced with the reality of the lack of intrinsic meaning and purpose to life, I had a choice. I could approach my life positively, imbuing it with meaning. Or I could approach it negatively, and not. The key here is that either option is a choice that I make. Thus, to see my life as purposeless is not so much to see it "as it is," but to choose to not imbue it with meaning. In other words, if my life is meaningless, it is because I chose (albeit without realizing it ^_~) to see it as meaningless.

For me, this was a very profound observation. If I desired for my life to have meaning, I needed to first change my perspective. To begin to interpret my life in a way that imbued it with meaning.

This wasn't necessarily any easier to accept, at least at first. But I found that it helped me realize that I was responsible for the meaning in my life, and that any lack of meaning or purpose must be addressed by myself. If I want my life to have meaning, I need to do things and view things in a manner that gives my life meaning.

When I finally changed my perspective, things became much better, and my fear and anxiety over a perceived lack of purpose gradually disappeared.

=================

Also, might I suggest a book. David Cortesi's Secular Wholeness, A Skeptic's Path to a Richer Life. It's a very interesting and easy-to-read book with suggestions and thoughts on how to make life meaningful. It's focused on basic things: basic ethical codes, relationships, etc, and has some good suggestions. Not a very philosophical book, and very easy to read. I found it to be useful, and recommend it for people who are having this kind of trouble.

--David
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Thanks David. This is encouraging. What is most encouraging of all, though, is simply the reassurance that others have gone through a similar phase in their lives and come out the other end relatively unharmed. I know I'm not unique in this respect, but it's always comforting to hear it from others.

Your book recommendation is noted. However, it's quite possible that by the time I get to it I won't need it anymore (hopefully anyway ). I've just begun what I hope will be a very rewarding self study of philosophy, and there are quite a few books on my list that I'm intent on getting through before even looking at anything else.
 

---

Posted by Ikemook (Member # 9973) on :
 

quote:

---

Your book recommendation is noted. However, it's quite possible that by the time I get to it I won't need it anymore (hopefully anyway [Smile] ). I've just begun what I hope will be a very rewarding self study of philosophy, and there are quite a few books on my list that I'm intent on getting through before even looking at anything else.

---

quote:

---

Now, it is OK to use a personified God simply as a means of relating to him and discussing him; a metaphor. His true nature is so incomprehensible, that we really have no choice. The problem comes in when you start to believe that the metaphor truly is God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
My moral concepts were totally unrelated to those of Christ or Paul or the Old Testament God anyway, just the same way most of our moral concepts aren't.

---

You didn't elaborate on your moral concepts, but one of mine, as an atheist, is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, which is very biblical. I also very much agree with the one-law-above-all-others philosophy, "love thy neighbor as thyself." I think that was quoting Jesus from the New Testament. I don't believe in the divinity of Christ or the concept of a god, but I do agree with some of their basic moral concepts, and believe those concepts existed before Judeo-Christian religions.

I also believe that the main purpose of my life here is to be happy overall and create happiness in others. I think that's a zen buddhist philosophy, but I don't know anything about buddhism. If believing in a religion leads to greater happiness for some people than not, then I'm all for it. More happiness means less stress and generally a longer life, all other factors being equal. I think religion can lead to that kind of happiness for people. It gets people off of drugs and alcohol. It provides a support network for the poor, the lonely, the sick and the dying. It has a wonderful mechanism for dealing with death. All of these things can reduce stress.

It's funny that you mentioned Carl Sagan and his tools for rationalism, because I don't think he was an atheist, and he talks about that in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He was a skeptic, though, and not a strong believer in conventional religion.
 

---

Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
0Megabyte, first off.

DUDE, I live in Spokane too, I totally know what you're talking about! I didn't realize there were other Spokanites on this board. That just fills me with joy!

Second, I think religion has too much of a social aspect to be of any use. Conform or be ostracized!

Joseph Campbell describes universal mythology themes and symbols that occur in every religion across the world. Have you read The Power of Myth? It's fascinating, and enlightening, I can lend it to you.

/thumping

My own beliefs at this point I've labeled as:
Agnostic With Judeo-Christian Tendencies

I've decided that there are certain "principles" that are shared by various religions, and certain natural laws that can be used as such (Action has a reaction, for one). I'll never forget when I was told I was going to hell for being Jewish, and that's when this whole investigation started really.

Remember the thread on Missionaries? Eyeahhh, that's related.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Steve/BlueWizard: For some of us its the making God into an incomprehensible being that can be whatever the user wants Him to be that makes Him utterly useless.

But I can agree with you that belief becomes dangerous when folks think other's need to get with the program and accept their version of the truth even if they don't want to.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
BlueWizard, your description of God is not far from mine.

quote:

---

Now, it is OK to use a personified God simply as a means of relating to him and discussing him; a metaphor. His true nature is so incomprehensible, that we really have no choice. The problem comes in when you start to believe that the metaphor truly is God.

---

Exactly.

---

I've never understood this. The more I try the less I get it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think the idea is that it enables you to live your life exactly as if there were no God, but to claim otherwise. *ducks*
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
The idea is that God is infinite and uncomprehensible and so we have to understand God by use of metaphor - in small bite-size pieces. We understand what parts of the idea that we can.

We also try to live in relationship with this infinite and uncomprensible. So we use ideas like Father or Lord, for example. More often these days we are likely to use Mother or Creator or Friend.

The problem, as Steve points out, is when we start to believe that the metaphor we use to imaging one part of an infinite concept is the reality.

I don't see how this enables one to act as if there were no God.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 

quote:

---

The idea is that God is infinite and uncomprehensible and so we have to understand God by use of metaphor - in small bite-size pieces. We understand what parts of the idea that we can.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Which conculsion? That the infinite can't be completely understood? That we understand the various bits that we can? Or that it exists at all?

The first two seem self-evident to me. The last is faith.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius:
this while reading your post and the trumpet hit at exactly the same time as I read the word trumpet. Coincidence? I think not.

---

The thing is, God does have a sense of humor, and he likes making little jokes like that. So I totally can believe it might have been a tiny message to you that someone is listening and cares. On the other hand it might have been just coincidence.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't see how this enables one to act as if there were no God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tatiana:
The thing is, God does have a sense of humor, and he likes making little jokes like that. So I totally can believe it might have been a tiny message to you that someone is listening and cares. On the other hand it might have been just coincidence.

---

quote:

---

The evil, vindictive bastard who was so insecure he'd throw people into eternal torment because their honest attempts to believe in him were inaccurate? I never believed in such a being anyway.

---

quote:

---

But I can be honest about it now. The Bible could be used to support my views if I cherry-picked verses, sure, but if you cherry-picked another way, you could support slavery, the annihilation of all people other than your specific group of Christian faithful, and all sorts of other evils.

---

quote:

---

What moral use is a book whose moral message depends entirely on what you want it to mean?

---

I would say that that depends more on the person reading it, than the book itself.

quote:

---

That's my observation. I could be wrong. But the purpose of mentioning that is to show my realization, true or not, that my morals aren't based on it.

---

quote:

---

As for the general public, sure there are others that have my views. But based on a combination of the beliefs most people tend to possess here, and random chance, I don't dare just mention it to a stranger, because, well, Christians don't react well, at least not conservative Christians.

---

quote:

---

It's not so much that I go out anyway, it's that I know how people were when I was a Christian, and it's too much of a hassle to go out and take that risk with every new person I meet.

---

How do you introduce yourself to people? I hardly ever say "Hi, I'm Nathan, and I'm a christian. Conservative too."

Be prepared, this next part is a sentence that I can't find a way to soften at all. Sorry. I'm really not angry, I'm not trying to be hurtful, and this can really be taken the wrong way.

Okay, here goes.

It seems that every person in Spokane has a problem with your atheism.

Or, perhaps it is not the people of Spokane that are causing your discomfort. Maybe, you aren't quite as happy and contented as you think you are.

I could easily be wrong, but I know with me, personally, I sometimes project my insecurities into other people's 'opinions' of me. Maybe you're doing that too.

Or perhaps I'm totally reading into this too much, and have just made a completely unecessariliy offensive comment.

quote:

---

The thing about religion, everyone recognizes how silly other peoples' beliefs are. However, when it comes to theirs, even if they're just as silly, many refuse to see it.

---

quote:

---

It's like people turn off... no, people DO turn off their rational abilities when it comes to these beliefs they were taught as children. I know I did!

---

quote:

---

The problem is, trying to gain any moral knowledge from the Bible is not going to go well. If you read the whole thing, you'll see a dozen competing moralities.

Of course, the Ten Commandments? They weren't for us. By "Thou shalt not kill". it meant, "Thou shalt not kill Jews, but the heathens? Have at it."

---

I find that you are either being diliberately obtuse, or you have little real understanding of the Bible, perhaps due to a personal bias, perhaps due to an inablitity to read beyond a literal interpretation of text.

I know you don't believe the Bible, so understanding it is of little importance to you, but if you're going to go around quoting it, however roundabout you are about it, it's preferable you study it a little bit more.

The killing thing... It's rather uncomplicated. There was a whole letter of the law vs. spirit of the law mentality (Please ignore the terminology, I'll explain it in a very uncomplicated manner.) mentioned in at least one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), where Jesus pretty much showed how intent mattered. If you so much as hate your brother, you've committed murder. That kind of thing. You may kill by accident, or in self-defense, and it's not murder, but you could hate a person, and it is murder.

In the old testament, I believe God told them to take the promise land, and he did tell them to kill people. So, generally, killing whatever gentiles hung around the area wasn't sinning, as God told them to do it, and they killed for him. Their intent was to serve God. And, they never were pro-actively hunting all the non-christians. They didn't start a crusade across Europe and Asia and kill everybody. At the very least, it was frowned upon by God.

Perhaps I learned a different 'angle' of it than you did, with different cherry-picked verses, but the Bible seems rather consistent to me. I don't have to warp it to get it to make sense to me, and it truly is the word of God, to me.

And for all those people eagerly clicking their quote buttons so that they can put in bold the words 'to me' every time I use them, you must not be very familiar with my posts, as I consistently put 'to me' in there on purpose, to show that this is *my* particular experience. To me -- Two words that serve to limit a lot of presumption.

You may now quote all of the inadvertantly presumpteous statements in my post, to show me how I didn't use the words 'to me'.

And, please, nobody search the Bible trying to find two contradictory statements for me to 'explain'. Though flattered that your admiration of my explanation of the 'thou shalt not kill' has promted you to ask for another explanation, I'd prefer not to continue along that line of questioning.

It's so easy to find them, too. We are told to live our lives, letting our light shine like a city on a hill, but we are also told to hide our good deeds, lest we embarass those we help.

In Proverbs, we are told not to argue with fools, for it's a waste of our time, and in the next verse we are told to set fools straight, or they will have a swelled head. Two contradictory statements were put next to each other for a reason, and through those verses we are to extract an interpretation. I don't think it was sloppy writing. And, because I believe that the Bible was written entirely by God, I don't think any of his contradictions are unintentional.

And finding them is just a matter of... Picking cherries.

quote:

---

It's like... one time, I spoke to a bunch of Mormon missionairies, several times over a week. In the end, after all the complicated converstions about religion, God and the Mormon faith, and how important it was for me (to them) to see their views... well, I finally realized 'you know, I don't need this stress. This stress, this worry, this attempt of theirs to make me feel guilty and wrong and warn me of turmoil... I don't need it!' was a very uplifting feeling. Discarding unnecessary emotional baggage, acrued over several rather intense days of conversation.

---

quote:

---

The way I figure it, if there is a God but no corresponding correct religion, he already knows that there's no evidence for him, so he won't mind that I don't believe in him.

---

The christian God believes otherwise. Biblically, man is without excuse, having seen creation. Creation is the proof that there is God.
Just felt like nitpicking. Now somebody can nitpick how I didn't remember the entire verse... It's the first one in the Romans Road.

Anyway, I don't really have a point to this point. I just felt like dissenting.

If you really *are* happy, then I'm delighted for you, if not a tad bit worried that you've doomed yourself to eternal damnation.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

The christian God believes otherwise. Biblically, man is without excuse, having seen creation. Creation is the proof that there is God.
Just felt like nitpicking. Now somebody can nitpick how I didn't remember the entire verse... It's the first one in the Romans Road.

---

I'm just going to nitpick that calling it "creation" is circular logic. Prove to me that it was created, and I'll be more than happy to call it a creation.

But you're welcome to your opinion and I have no particular desire to change your mind. Cheers.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

I like to think that God loves coin flips to come up heads, but that he jokes with us by only making that happen half the time.

---

quote:

---

When I am aware of the divinity of every person I encounter; when I am reminded that I am a beloved child of God; most of all, when I remember to be grateful.

---

quote:

---

Creation is the proof that there is God.

---

quote:

---

If you really *are* happy, then I'm delighted for you, if not a tad bit worried that you've doomed yourself to eternal damnation.

---

quote:

---

If you really *are* happy, then I'm delighted for you, if not a tad bit worried that you've doomed yourself to eternal damnation.

---

If he's doomed himself to eternal damnation at the hands of god for simply not believing in him, then we're all screwed any way, cause that ain't no benevolent god! That is a god I want nothing to do with.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
For the record, I don't think anyone is doomed to "damnation". I think that we can choose to separate ourselves from God, but I think we have every opportunity for reconciliation.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
I know this isn't intentional, at least from most religious folks, but sometimes I can't help feeling just a tad offended when it's ever implied that I chose to abandon God, as if only a stubborn, self-centered, ignorant fool would ever make such a grave error.
 

---

Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
 
It's interesting to me that Christians always talk about being free from there sins, that Christianity has freed them. The other side says the same thing, believing there is no God has freed them. To me, Christianity never made me feel free. I always felt guilty I was not living up to expectations.

As far as eternal damnation, as I said in my earlier post, God never answered my prayers, he never changed my heart. Even though I earnestly tried seek him for years, I still love my favorite little sins and am I honest enough myself to know I am going to continue to do them. According to the Bible if I am saved then I my heart should change and it hasn’t. So that would make me one of the unchosen majority doomed to eternal separation from God, and the way I look at it, if the Bible is right I will be doomed, if its wrong then when I die nothing will happen, given the choice I'll take the later. ( I know Christians will say I have turned my back on God, not the other way around)

Now that I have come to the realization the Bible isn't God inspired truth it hasn't really changed me. I still believe in treating people the way I want to be treated, not becuase God told me to, but becuase it is the right thing to do. I still believe in all the great morals the Bible teaches, who cares where they come from, they are still a good way to live your life. I just don’t believe there is this all powerful being who cares about me has a plan for my life. It’s a nice fairy tale, but I haven’t seen any evidence for it. Besides its hard enough to figure out what I want to do with my life without trying to figure out what God wants me to do with it.

I’m going to bed, I’ll check back in tomorrow to see what direction this thread is going.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I support everyone in their own beliefs and their own journeys. I was going to try to tell my story in this thread too, as I said in my first post, a story of how I found freedom going the other direction, but now that I think about it, I think I won't. I think this should be the thread where the people who feel freed from God can feel the love and support.

I love and support you all! May you find joy in your path, wherever your path may take you!
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
rollainm, I wasn't clear. People abandon God (or whatever they choose to call it - Love, creative energy, spirit, life force) for many reasons. Hurt, despair, pride, laziness, apathy, shame, anger. Sometimes for a while, sometimes forever. Shutting oneself off from the divine, whether that means God or not, is "hell" as far as I am concerned.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
How can you abandon something you have never known in the first place. I can't very well have been said to abandon people living on Jupiter's moons. Am I supposed to write them all penpal letters and build a rocket to launch them up into space, just to make sure the Jupiter people aren't feeling bad that I've chosen to turn my back on them?
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
rollainm, I wasn't clear. People abandon God (or whatever they choose to call it - Love, creative energy, spirit, life force) for many reasons. Hurt, despair, pride, laziness, apathy, shame, anger. Sometimes for a while, sometimes forever. Shutting oneself off from the divine, whether that means God or not, is "hell" as far as I am concerned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
See my opinion is this:
It's in your best interest to believe in God because a) If there is a God you win and b) If there isn't a God, you didn't really lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
See my opinion is this:
It's in your best interest to believe in God because a) If there is a God you win and b) If there isn't a God, you didn't really lose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Earendil:

Oh, you live here in Spokane as well, then? How interesting, and very cool!

So my perspective is not just my imagination then? Outside of college, it doesn't seem a good idea to mention my beliefs. Hmm.

Johnny:

" I think religion can lead to that kind of happiness for people. It gets people off of drugs and alcohol. It provides a support network for the poor, the lonely, the sick and the dying. It has a wonderful mechanism for dealing with death. All of these things can reduce stress."


Yet. The problem is, and this is a big problem, I'm not fond of lies and delusions, regardless of their positive values.

The fact is, to have a mindset that will value believing something without any evidence, which in some cases makes believing without any evidence a virtue, that makes people ignore evidence and go only with what they wish to be true... that sort of mindset is the most dangerous thing in the world, and the cause of far too much evil to count.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rollainm:

quote:

---

But there's no internal questions. No more internal dichotomy. I have plenty of emotional stuff in other areas. But in religion, it's totally gone.

---

I'm happy for you. Really, I am. But I'm also quite envious, to be perfectly honest.

It's been about four years since I finally realized I no longer believed in any kind of god. It hasn't really made things any easier for me. I'm not less stressed. I don't feel free or enlightened. I don't have any fewer questions about the world or life or existence. If anything, I am now more stressed, more worried, less certain in what I believe. I'm not by any means a total nervous wreck, but I do spend a significant amount of time nearly every day contemplating just what it means to exist in a world where there is no God. It's essentially incomprehensible for me. I fear I will never find my purpose in this world. I fear I have no purpose. I fear I will lose everything I cherish. I fear death. I fear nonexistence.

The probable nonexistence of God has done little but complicate my life. Not that I would willingly go back to believing now. I do take some comfort in having come to this realization.

I just can't imagine how it can be so easy, so freeing, for so many of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alcon:
Well, a certain comfort with the idea of nothing after death helps.

---

quote:

---

.......
the fact that I feel like I have a purpose, not based on any sort of god or divine. The purpose is one I've given myself and involves what I want to do with my life (see humanity off into space, in one way or another).

---

I love hearing the self-purposing people do when they can choose for themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rollainm:
The latter mostly (I suppose my rhetoric should have been more obvious -obviously we’re going to have a disconnect where faith is concerned), but also the confidence in the idea that God is so incomprehensible that that he can only be understood metaphorically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Tom, more when I have more time, but, yes, I behave differently than I would without God. At least, I think I do. Certainly, I behave better when I am more conscious of God. When I am aware of the divinity of every person I encounter; when I am reminded that I am a beloved child of God; most of all, when I remember to be grateful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:

The Christians who burned witches in Salem?

---

As a tiny nitpick, I'm pretty sure no one was burned at Salem. Most of the victims were hung, although at least one guy was killed by having stones piled on top of his chest.
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
I've been reading this thread since it started, I can definitely say it's brought me some comfort and understanding. I've been "on the fence" about God for a few years now, and I've definitely rejected most interpretations of him. Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.

Is there some religion that fits this interpretation of God?
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Some aspects of Taoism, to some degree, seem to agree with you. Not all, by any means.

In general, I'd have to say that the more murdering of members of other religions that is done in the name of a particular religion, the more full of bull it is. Generally speaking, of course. What goes around, comes around, to some degree. Also, I'd say that the more the members of a particular religion tend to willfully violate the spirit of the law for solely religious purposes, the more full of bull it is.

Of course you can tell, I have little patience with theocracy.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Well...sure, Launchywiggin.

I call this life, this interconnectedness, this incomprehensible idea, Father, Mother, Creator, God. I am in relationship with this idea through Jesus Christ, who I believe was an incarnation of this idea. And through the Holy Spirit, who is this spark of this idea that is present in all of us.

Now, as we have clearly seen, the trappings of religion, can often hinder rather than help that relationship. I think that people, though, are better in communion with one another. Whether organized religion can serve this person depends on the person and the community.

Also, you might want to take a look at Buddhism.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
One of the great things I've found about Atheism is that you can take all the good things you learned in Sunday School, throw out all the bad things which so many Christians practice, and incorporate the good from other belief systems without "turning your back on God" or believing heretical ideas.

There's also no incentive to see people of other faiths as a different tribe to do battle with. Beliefs are just beliefs to an atheist. They don't have to be defining group characteristics intended to set you apart from your neighbors.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I agree that too often religion is used to separate us from our neighbors. I don't believe that it has to be this way. At it's best, religion reminds us that we are all neighbors, family.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I think the basic teaching of many religions is that followers are radically different from non-believers. The idea of God's chosen people against the world filled with darkness and sin. This leads to all sorts of nasty ideas like killing off your enemies, setting up your own rules as requirements for all people, feeling sorry for those poor people who don't believe what you do, preventing those of different beliefs from coming into power, judging the group before the individual and so on.

The reminders that we're all friends and family I would include in the good things that can be taken from religion, absolutely.

I think the very foundation of most organized religion includes a strong us vs. them mentality which is awesome for warring tribes fighting for fertile land, but terrible for a highly connected and crowded modern world.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I don't think it is a basic teaching of religion; I think it is a part of human nature. The easiest way to establish our own identity is to determine who we are not. Just look at any group of teenagers. We do this with all sorts of characteristics as well as religion. Geography, income, beauty, education, language, race, age, social class.

We look for people to whom we can feel superior.
"I may be poor, but at least I'm not black, gay, Catholic, fat... We claim ourselves as "in" by deciding someone else is "out".

And when people are insecure, when life isn't great, this tendency gets more pronounced.

This brings me back to what I was saying in the Dawkins thread. Religion, when it is healthy, is concerned with how we act toward each other - especially those we consider as "not us". (See Good Samaritan). Religion that is concerned with who believes what is religion that is on the wrong path. That has been co-opted by our own worse natures. And it is a powerful tool when used this way. But, I believe, religious strife is rarely purely about religion. The conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, is about class and privilege and economy and generations of hatred and revenge. It isn't about the doctrine of transubstantiation.
 

---

Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:


This brings me back to what I was saying in the Dawkins thread. Religion, when it is healthy, is concerned with how we act toward each other - especially those we consider as "not us". (See Good Samaritan). Religion that is concerned with who believes what is religion that is on the wrong path. That has been co-opted by our own worse natures. And it is a powerful tool when used this way. But, I believe, religious strife is rarely purely about religion. The conflict in Northern Ireland, for example, is about class and privilege and economy and generations of hatred and revenge. It isn't about the doctrine of transubstantiation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Well, if we are looking at scripture, we need to remember that, while inspired, it is written by humans. It is a human record of our relationship with the Divine. We see through a human lens.

You certainly haven't offended me.

Again, I am concerned that this thread has taken a turn that the OP may not like, if you want it "back", I'll back off.

I also want to make clear that I don't have any interest in "converting" anyone. I would like to clarify what I think about religion and what I think it should and can be, but I know that it too often isn't this and that it isn't right for everyone.

---

It's wonderful to hear you say that.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
"Again, I am concerned that this thread has taken a turn that the OP may not like, if you want it "back", I'll back off."

Watching threads slowly evolve and move on to different subjects is one of the greatest joys of a good forum.

Why would I want you to stop...?
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

When I am aware of the divinity of every person I encounter; when I am reminded that I am a beloved child of God; most of all, when I remember to be grateful.

---

Do you treat people better, believing them to be divine children of God, than you would if you believed that they were human?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
What is the difference?

But yes, when I recall that God loves them and that I should, I treat them better.

---

quote:

---

Megabyte said:

quote:

---

I threw out every single other supernatural belief as the obvious bunk it was (psychic phenomena, ghosts, vampires, UFOs, all of it) it was only a matter of time before I finally allowed myself to look at religion in the same manner.

---

---

quote:

---

Alcon said:

quote:

---

Is the belief, in part, faith based? Yeah, I have to admit it is. I have faith that the universe has natural laws, and that we can discover said laws through science. And, just as with people who have faith in one god or another, that just feels true to me.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

Atheists get to have the most entertaining answers to metaphysical questions:

---

Only the humorous atheists. Dawkins and Harris don't have many entertaining answers, though Dawkins does like to quote Adams.

---

Depends on your individual sense of humor, too.

---

quote:

---

Tom said:

quote:

---

That said, the idea of oblivion after death scares me. But it scares me. And part of the point of oblivion is that there's not going to be any of me left to mind not being around; at the very point at which I'd encounter the horror of nothingness, I'd be unable to experience stuff. So I try not to worry about it, since it's almost definitionally irrelevant.

---

---

quote:

---

Ikemook said:

quote:

---

When faced with the reality of the lack of intrinsic meaning and purpose to life, I had a choice. I could approach my life positively, imbuing it with meaning. Or I could approach it negatively, and not. The key here is that either option is a choice that I make. Thus, to see my life as purposeless is not so much to see it "as it is," but to choose to not imbue it with meaning. In other words, if my life is meaningless, it is because I chose (albeit without realizing it ^_~) to see it as meaningless.

For me, this was a very profound observation. If I desired for my life to have meaning, I needed to first change my perspective. To begin to interpret my life in a way that imbued it with meaning.

This wasn't necessarily any easier to accept, at least at first. But I found that it helped me realize that I was responsible for the meaning in my life, and that any lack of meaning or purpose must be addressed by myself. If I want my life to have meaning, I need to do things and view things in a manner that gives my life meaning.

---

---

quote:

---

JohnnyNotSoBravo said:

quote:

---

It's funny that you mentioned Carl Sagan and his tools for rationalism, because I don't think he was an atheist, and he talks about that in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He was a skeptic, though, and not a strong believer in conventional religion.

---

---

quote:

---

Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

---

quote:

---

Soap said:

quote:

---

It's in your best interest to believe in God because a) If there is a God you win and b) If there isn't a God, you didn't really lose.

---

---

quote:

---

Launchywiggin said:

quote:

---

Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.

---

---

quote:

---

A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.

---

quote:

---

Sterling said:

quote:

---

I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"

---

---

quote:

---

I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"

---

quote:

---

How do you do it Tom(i'm singling you out because you're the only person in this thread that I know views those concepts similarly to me)? I know it comes down to looking at it one way scientifically, but treating it a different way practically in our day to day life, but it's baffling sometimes. What does choice even mean if you're just along for the ride(yes, there isn't a "you" that's along for the ride, but there's definitely a subjective experience of "me" that I can't seem to shake!)?

---

We are biologically programmed to believe in choice.

That flip answer aside, I think (as I've said elsewhere) that it boils down to context: the "self" is enough of a gestalt that free will is not merely an illusion; in fact, I would argue that the fiction of free will is a necessary component of the fiction of the self, and since the fiction of the self is a necessary prerequisite for a self-image, it is necessary for us to believe in free will in order to think of ourselves as sentient beings.

And as Descartes pointed out, it's pretty hard not to think of yourself as a sentient being.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Question is:

What evidence is there for a soul?

And when does it enter the human body? How could you tell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:

kmbboots, you would call yourself a christian right? I think I'm recalling correctly. I have a good idea of your religious views, which seem far from your average christian, but you still associate yourself with the christian faith right? I kind of don't understand why. Why haven't you converted to something like Buddhism? Or why have A religion at all? Your ideas seem to mesh with the new agey spiritual crowd. I'm curious. It seems weird to me that you'd retain that bond with christianity. Retain is an assumption though to, you might have discovered a connection to it, which would baffle me even more. That said, if everyone in the world had to be religious, I'd wish they shared your religious world view.

---

quote:

---

That the example and teachings of Jesus are a darn good path to be in relationship ... with each other.

---

I can definitely agree with the above statement.

*digs out his "Atheists for Jesus" t-shirt*

Well, except when he gets a little weird.
 

---

Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
 
We have had at least one say it was a great relief to give up on God, because it made life simpler, and at least one say it was a great relief to believe in Him, because it made life simpler.

But what really makes life simpler is to give up on the principle of noncontradiction. Ever since I realized that I can accept opposite statements as both true, there are no more complicated religious problems (or any other kind). No more being upset by agreement or lack of agreement between ancient sources; I believe the ones I want, and be damned to the consequences.

No more needing to convince other people their beliefs aren't rational; I can believe I'm superior simply because I choose to!

It makes me lonely, because not everybody is as cool as I am, but I'm used to it now.

Qaz1

[ August 20, 2007, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
 

---

Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
 
That sounds interesting, Qaz, but I found a way that makes me feel even freer. I stopped spinning the way I spoke of other people's beliefs in my mind.

For example, I no longer needed to frame the war in Iraq as "Dubya murdering US soldiers" to disagree with it; I could just say it was wrong.

If two ancient peoples (say, Jews and Greeks, or early Christians and Buddhists, or what have you) agreed on things, I didn't need to spin this as a refutation of those beliefs (why would having more people believe something make it untrue?) or as confirmation of those beliefs (if everybody believes something, it can still be wrong). All it means is they agreed on something.

This has been explored by others who have a little more to say. One source is the book Radical Honesty, largely about personal relationships, but also about not believing the stories we tell ourselves about others (such as that atheists, or theists, are pitiful because they don't agree with me). Another is Nonviolent Communication, which actually *honors* the people one has conflict with. But probably the best source is dear old logic itself. I could spin others' beliefs as much as I want, but it's irrelevant; the beliefs are still there, no more false than they were before I started spinning them.

It doesn't actually make me feel any more comfortable, but it does free me from a lot of effort convincing myself of things.

Qaz2
 

---

Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
 
You just had to go and make things all complicated, didn't you?

I feel much freer now that I spin people's beliefs any way I want. It makes the world a *lot* simpler if I tell myself there's no grain of truth in belief systems that make me uncomfortable.

Qaz3
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Anything in those books about talking to yourself in order to spin a straw man? Pro or con?
 

---

Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
 
Straw man: making up an easily refuted or ridiculed position (in your case, "talking to yourself to spin a straw man"), conflating it with actual positions people have taken, then attacking it in lieu of those positions. Some books consider that to be unsound.

[ August 20, 2007, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I just got a book about being a nutcase, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.


Neither have I
 

---

Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
I used to be insane, but we're better now.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Btw, Ear, you said you live in Spokane, didn't you?
 

---

Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
 
Yes indeed!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I'm so sorry.
 

---

Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

I somewhat fear that without the possibility of that soul, there is a part of me that would clamor to be heard saying "Well, if a hundred years from now, no one is going to know the difference... Why shouldn't I make *this* particular lump of clay as happy as possible by whatever means are available before I return to meaningless carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and iron, and never mind the 'feelings' of others?"

---

There's already that part of you. You just use your belief in the soul as just another reason to reject it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:
well, I think because it's about understanding that to be truly happy you have to take into account how you treat other people. The happiness you spread as well as the happiness you have. And when you understand that other people have the same feelings and desires and experiences of being alive that you do, you can't ignore that anymore. The seed is there, and we can't remain ignorant of it. And I'm glad for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 0Megabyte:
Watching threads slowly evolve and move on to different subjects is one of the greatest joys of a good forum.

Why would I want you to stop...?

---

 

---

Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
 
Before I say anything else, let me apologize for posting in the first place. I realize now that it was quite rude to post in a thread for the discussion of the happiness and joy that has come from atheism.

That being said, I *do* want to follow through and elaborate.

So. If you'd rather forget everything I said, and forget that I'd ever posted my rude post, I'd advise you to skip over the following.

For those of you who are eagerly awaiting my explanations, you may read.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Creation is the proof that there is God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you really *are* happy, then I'm delighted for you, if not a tad bit worried that you've doomed yourself to eternal damnation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such bold statements really do demand elaboration. Please please explain how you can justify this kind of judgment.

---

quote:

---

Sometimes it does.

Other times they speak of killing you, or at least gloating at the thought that you will suffer eternal torment after you die.

Can you really tell me that they're less Christian?

Are they less Christian than the Christians who burned down the Great Library of Alexandria?

The Christians who burned witches in Salem?

Perhaps they're a different kind of Christian than you, but who am I or you to disagree with them with their self-labeling?

---

quote:

---

"Or perhaps I'm totally reading into this too much, and have just made a completely unecessariliy offensive comment"

Don't worry about it, I forgive you.

---

Thanks.

quote:

---

posted August 19, 2007 06:06 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know you haven't met me, so that means that, at the very most, every religious person minus one feels that way."

Forgive me for being nitpicky, but as I said, "many refuse to see it."

That's many, not all. That's many, not even necessarily the majority.

---

quote:

---

The thing about religion, everyone recognizes how silly other peoples' beliefs are. However, when it comes to theirs, even if they're just as silly, many refuse to see it. When you hear about some random tribe's beliefs in witches that have extra organs in their bodies which fly out and wreak havoc at night, it's hard not to smile. For a Christian, hearing, say, that a literally fatherless man, who also happens to be his own father, floated up into heaven bodily... a Christian won't look at that as odd at all. But any other religion would.

---

quote:

---

Christian interpretation aside, the early Jews interpreted the words meant for them rather differently than you do.

---

quote:

---

Or did you even know that the two creation stories are two stylistically different stories, written at different times during the history of the Jewish faith? That Joshua and Judges represent two nearly contradictory descriptions of the period of Hebrew history that both of them cover?

How about the very fascinating differences in the Gospels, the purposes of Mark, the first Gospel writer, and of Matthew and Luke, the other Synoptic writers, and the very huge differences between theirs and John's accounts?

---

quote:

---

The intruiging differences between the descriptions of Paul's conversion in Paul's letters, that is, the genuine ones of his written by him, and the late-written Acts of the Apostles by Luke, which shows a very different story?

---

quote:

---

Paul's description of certain events which, in his account, were not at all harmonious, but which in Acts was spoken of as a wonderful pleasant get together?

How about a hundred other things, all of which I could go into in vastly more detail than I am here and now?

---

quote:

---

Yet in this world there is no evidence of a god of any sort, neither Thor nor Zeus nor Yahweh.

---

quote:

---

I just want to know one way or the other whether he actually exists or not. I want to be convinced of my beliefs, not constantly doubting them or having to question them because of inconsistencies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
But I am not very happy with him right now. I don't understand how I can beg and plead and cry out for his help, intervention, or even just comfort and be met with silence every time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
But I am not very happy with him right now. I don't understand how I can beg and plead and cry out for his help, intervention, or even just comfort and be met with silence every time.

---

There is a simple explanation for this, which fits all the known facts and requires no special pleading. Conceivably, your life would be easier if you didn't constantly have to quarrel with an entity that is, at best, ignoring you. Moreover, as you must know, "wanting to believe" is not a good reason for actually doing so.

---

quote:

---

kmbboots and BlackBlade, thank you for the offers, and I just may take you up on it. Not now, though, thinking too much makes me want to cry, and I hate to cry at work. Ick.

---

quote:

---

Whether there is a God or not, I know that not believing in him isn't going to change my life for the better--the things that suck are still going to suck.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Katarain:
Whether there is a God or not, I know that not believing in him isn't going to change my life for the better--the things that suck are still going to suck.

---

But one of the things you mentioned as sucking was that when you ask for help from your god, it doesn't reply. Clearly, you can make that part stop hurting.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
This is going to be fun.


"While you did say that many refuse to see their beliefs as silly, you did say that everyone sees how silly other beliefs systems are. I can think of several belief systems that I respect and don't think of as silly. So, not to be nitpicky, but that would still be everyone minus one, at most. You are also assuming that any other religion views Christianity as silly, and while I can't speak for them, I'd assume that there had to be at least one out there somewhere that didn't see it that way."

You can think of several, you say. While I cannot read your mind, would it be too far off to say that you do NOT think EVERY other possible religious faith that some people in the world hold are respectable?

Perhaps silly was the wrong word: You think them wrong, or at least some of them wrong.

"Such bold statements really do demand some elaboration."

Perhaps it does. This is going to be the part to take awhile, surely.

"I have no idea which two 'creation' stories you're referring to,"

Eh? Really? Forgive my surprise, but while I'm not a particularly learned scholar, this is the basics.

Let me explain:

First of all, the Book of Genesis is a collection of a bunch of different separate stories, which were not all written at the same time, naturally.

Further, the main theory I've been studying with, the documentary hypothesis, suggests that there are four main sources of words from the Old Testament, the Priestly sources, which focus on the legalistic and ritual aspects of the Israelite religion, along with genealogies, dates, and a rather precise style, the Yahwist sources, which are the works that utilize the name Yahweh for God, give Him an anthropomorphic portrayal, and is probably the majority of the storyline aspect of the Old Testament (since the Yahwists were the portion of the Hebrews who ended up becoming the Jews, and weren't annihilated outright by Assyria earlier on)

Then there are the Elohist sources, which tend to use Elohim as God's name. They're less anthropomorphic depiction of God is evident. Then there were the Deuteronomist texts, which focus on the nature of the Mosaic Covenant, and tends to interpret historical events in the light of God's will (we won because Yahweh was pleased, we lost because we sinned, etc). A large chunk, from Joshua - 2 Kings, is figured to have at least been primarily done or influenced by this source.

This isn't, as far as I know, a completely perfect theory yet or anything like that, but it is quite useful, and explains a lot of things about the text.

Anyway, back to Genesis!

The two Genesis creation stories, are, back to back, Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a, then Genesis 2:4b - onward.

The first one is believed to have been from a Priestly source, but the fact is, even reading it shows a particularly different style than what is to come later.

The God portrayed in this first story is transcendent, beyond the world, full of grandeur and greatness, who can create everything with a word, and seems to lack physical form. This is the "And God said let there be light" version of creation.

You've read it, I'm sure, so I won't go into thourough detail. But a key point is the creation of humanity, which, if you read the words as they are, state that God made mankind, without any hint about separation or fall, and made them BOTH in the image and likeness of God.

Not, as in the next story, mind, Male first, then female later at a different time, in the likeness of the man which God fashioned.

Further, the justification of the Sabbath given here, that on the seventh day God rested, is... a significantly different justification than the one given in Deuteronomy, where it gives it as a reason to remember Israel's escape from Egypt ( Deut. 5:12 - 15)

Now on the to second Creation story!

This second one, remember, from Genesis 2:4b onward, was a Yahwist story, and shows a much more anthropomorphic God, which goes down to the Earth seemingly personally (from the text as written) and seemingly works with his very hands to fashion, for example, the clay of Adam, the first man (who was created, in this passage, not simultaneously with Eve but before her) or God giving his literal breath to Adam to bring him to life. Further, the order of creation is different, with mankind, not the culmination of life, but with Adam being created before the animals, which God then fashioned, with a rather limited forsight, as an attempt, in the text, to be a partner for Adam.

Only after Adam names them all and finds himself still lonely does God get the great idea of creating a second human, which he does from Adam's rib, supposedly.

This is a radically different story, and the God is a completely different character with utterly different characteristics, much more in line with the sorts of gods other cultures possessed in their stories. (Read Gilgamesh near the same time you read this Genesis story and many later ones. You'll notice the similarities in the nature of the entities!)

Then the story goes on, with the serpent, leaving Eden, Cain and Abel (who mysteriously have a bunch of people inferred to be aroudn them, as when Cain complains that his mark will cause everyone to hurt him, essentially)

These, anyway, are different stories, written by different people, probably at different times, with different ideas of what God is. This order and whatnot is an editing job, pure and simple, and from what I've read, most likely done by the exiled Jews in Babylon before they were sent back home by Persia.

If you forgive me a tangent a moment, let me point out some other interesting tidbits that you should be interested in:

Genesis includes two different variations of Jacob's encounter with God, the one where his name is changed to Israel. The first is the famous one where he wrestles with a figure, either God or an angel, and wins (Gen 32:22-32) and the second one, which is said to take place in a different location, God calls himself a different name, El Shaddai, and announces, presumably for the first time, that Jacob will be called Israel. (Gen. 35:9-15) Note that this story is done as if the previous story didn't exist. More editing work.

More interestingly, there are essentially three repititons of one particular story in Genesis about Abraham:

Basically, the kind of story where Abraham and his wife, while wandering, go to some kingdom, and Abraham worries the king of whichever country will seize his wife, so pretends they're siblings, plays a trick, gets away with riches, etc. Happens three times, in very, very similar stories that almost certainly weren't all historical events. Gen. 12:10-20, Gen. 20:1-18, and Gen. 26:1-14. Granted ,the third one happens to Isaac, son of Abraham, but the stories are just too similar to be a coincidence.

Further, the Noah's Ark story is, in fact, two readily recognized accounts spliced together by editors, which tell independant stories which do not require the other text to be made sense of, and in fact differ on some details.

I have no intent of typing up the entire story, as I have in front of my eyes, as my hands would cramp. But they're different in significant as well as minor details.

Anyway, there are other examples of this sort of interesting thing. It's interesting because these are redundant or contradictory stories, and stories they are, not actual historical events. They were all just edited together. And not the most perfectly in some cases, either.


" and, excuse me if I take the text too literally, but, Joshua took place while Joshua was alive, and Judges took place after. To only possible overlapping I see would be that period before the judges, and after Joshua died. Like, Judges says he was buried in so-and-so place, and Joshua says that he was buried in another so-and-so place. That kind of thing; the kind of thing upon much doctrinal importance is placed, I'm sure"

Um... no. That's not the difference at all. The difference is much bigger, and the two books imply a very different situation, with very different historical connotations.

Your sarcasm belies the point that you haven't studied the differences, or at least haven't noticed them, as much as I have. Luckily, I have the aid of others, and the hard-gleaned information of many other people to rely on. I didn't discover anything myself, but at least I know what others have discovered.

First, anyway, as to Joshua, the first book of the Deuteronomic History:

Joshua depicts the Hebrew conquest of Canaan as vastly different than Judges, and the rest of the more historical documents, do.

First of all, it shows a direct military conflict, as the Hebrews move in, kill everyone in their way, and conquer pretty much everythin gin their path, and end rather victoriously.

The first part of Joshua depicts, essentially, the conquest of Canaan as rapid and completely successful, though later parts do concede some parts of the country aren't conquered.

However, Judges, and archeological evidence, depict a radically different story. For one, the Hebrews did not come in a single wave, destroying everything in their path in monumental holy war, as depicted in Joshua. Judges describes a Holy Land where the Hebrews are scattered smallish tribes, not united but separate, spread among many Canaanite tribes living concurrently, which they clearly weren't able to conquer.

Judges describes the Hebrews as much, much less successful. Instead of immediately forming a kingdom, or even a contiguous area of local control, they were all scattered, divided, leaderless, living among the Canaanite cities and kingdoms, and only slowly, after centuries and centuries, growing strong enough to overcome them.

There is a lot more, and other examples of the differences, but, again, I don't have all day to list them all.


"Perhaps you meant Kings and Chronicles? Asa's reign?"

Nope. See above.


"The gospels... hmmm. I'm still going to need some elaboration. What was the big conflict? Matthew gave the geneology of Joseph, and Luke gave Mary's? Or that they all had different inscriptions written on Jesus's cross (Here is Jesus; here is Jesus, King of the jews; Here is Jesus of the Nazarine, King of the jews)"

Oh, there are much bigger things than thatin the texts! Do you mind if I handle the New Testament in a later post, as I am running out of time to check up on my information?


"Perhaps it was when Luke specified that it was that poor soldier's left ear... Or was it the right ear?"

Such sarcastic words belie and belittle the very real differences between Gospels.

Are you really that blind to the words of the Gospels that you think the only questions are silly things like that?


"Matthew quoted Hebrew scriptures for the Jewish community, Luke didn't... John emphasized God's being 100% man, Mark's emphasized his being 100% God. True, all four gospel emphasized different things, however, I've never seen a real conflict... "

Maybe in the same manner that a Trekkie can see no real conflict between the contradicting storylines of Star Trek...


"Oh yeah... How many fish and loaves did the boy really bring? How many people were there present? Where were the beattitudes given? Because it's impossible that Jesus would do or say the same thing more than once. "

Heh. Forgive me for responding to sarcasm with sarcasm, but I'll be dealing with the New Testament later.

But, showing you my words on the Old Testament, I hope you'll be able to wait patiently.

And by the way, the thing you think I mean in Acts is not at all the thing I mean.

You really don't know, do you?

But your sarcasm simply shows your ignorance. What a pity.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Anyway, when fans of television shows or books find contradictions, and then work hard and go through complicated mental gymnastics to create a reasoning or a point of view from which two absolutely contradictory statements in the texts or films are, in fact, not contradictory at all, it's called fan-wanking.

I don't see why the same term doesn't apply to those who do the same thing to the Bible... except, of course, the fact that fan-wankers of the Bible are much more powerful.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Your sarcasm belies the point that you haven't studied the differences, or at least haven't noticed them, as much as I have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:

quote:

---

JohnnyNotSoBravo said:

quote:

---

It's funny that you mentioned Carl Sagan and his tools for rationalism, because I don't think he was an atheist, and he talks about that in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. He was a skeptic, though, and not a strong believer in conventional religion.

---

---

here's some text from wikipedia about Carl Sagan's religious beliefs:

quote:

---

Sagan wrote frequently about religion and the relationship between religion and science, expressing his skepticism about many conventional conceptualizations of God. Sagan once stated, for instance, that "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

---

From what I know of him I think atheist is probably the best description of his beliefs. His "god" doesn't seem to be any different than Einstien's "god", which they really just meant as "nature" or "the laws that tie the universe together". It was more about a connection with the universe, not any belief in a deity or creator.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Launchywiggin:
I've been reading this thread since it started, I can definitely say it's brought me some comfort and understanding. I've been "on the fence" about God for a few years now, and I've definitely rejected most interpretations of him. Now, when I think of things that are sacred, holy, or divine, I think of the relationships we have with other people here on earth. The interconnected-ness of all living things is what God is. The magic of "life" and the underlying energy in all things beautiful. Those are things that can't be explained by science.

Is there some religion that fits this interpretation of God?

---

quote:

---

Omega point is a term invented by French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin to describe the ultimate maximum level of complexity-consciousness, considered by him the aim towards which consciousness evolves. Rather than divinity being found "in the heavens" he held that evolution was a process converging toward a "final unity", identical with the Eschaton and with God. According to Teilhard and the Russian scholar and biologist Vladimir Vernadsky (author of The Geosphere 1924 and The Biosphere 1926), the planet is in a transformative process, metamorphosing from the biosphere into the noosphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Juxtapose:
I've heard it said that everyone was "dead" for several billion years before they were born, and no one seems much bothered by it. Tongue-in-cheek as it is, it's a perspective that's given me comfort now and again.

---

I really like that, thanks.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that Nathan2006 is not an orthodox Jew. I also don't think he's older than Megabyte.
 

---

Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
 

quote:

---

From the short summary at wiki of Sagan's beliefs, Sagan seems like a pantheist more than an atheist.

---

quote:

---

It is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented or personified in the theological principle of an abstract 'god'. However, it is important to understand that Pantheists do not believe in a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind, the key feature which distinguishes them from panentheists and pandeists

---

quote:

---

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheists are commonly assumed to be irreligious, some religions have been characterized as atheistic because of their lack of belief in a personal god

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
I'm pretty sure that Nathan2006 is not an orthodox Jew. I also don't think he's older than Megabyte.

---

I am entirely certain that he's not Jewish at all. (Seriously, Tom, the NT references weren't a give-away?) And he's college age.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
Perhaps Tom was being facetious?
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Anyway, I'm back!

kmboots, I understand. The Bible criticism stuff doesn't need to end wit hthe conclusion that there's no God, after all.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Yes, but the thing with kmb is that there is no possible way for her to reach that conclusion, because she has chosen to believe.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
One of the things I've realized that I enjoy about being an atheist is that I don't have to try to fit new information into my current world view. I can expand my world view to include new information.

I also get to change my mind whenever something makes more sense, and I get to explain my views based on how I feel about them, rather than trying to figure out how my personal views fit into a pre-established paradigm which I refuse to deviate from. Nobody spits me out if I feel lukewarm about something
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyCow:
One of the things I've realized that I enjoy about being an atheist is that I don't have to try to fit new information into my current world view. I can expand my world view to include new information.

---

The moments of the expanding-worldview feeling are good ones
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
MightyCow, this is not exclusive to atheists. Lots of new stuff can fit into a world view that includes an infinite God. World views only have to be small when our idea of God is too small.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
kmbboots: I actually used to have an expanding view of God when I was religious. Eventually it expanded so far I realized that if there was a God, it was just a prime-mover or hands-free observer, so it was pointless to worship it, and meaningless in terms of social or moral obligations.

If God doesn't do anything, and there's no evidence He exists, I didn't see any reason to believe, and particularly no reason to worship or follow dogma which was attributed to such a figure by other people.
 

---

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Strider:
for instance, i would have no problem calling myself a pantheist under that definition, depending on how the word god was being used. If you want to take the universe, the laws it functions by, and all the matter within it and how it connects and interrelates and put it under the umbrella term "god", i have no problem with the use of that word. Though it does cause some confusion with the commonly accepted use.

---