Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Magical Realist]

Can you imagine that in the 21st century, at the peak of technological capability, that science cannot tell us what dark matter is? Or dark energy? Or how the bb came into existence? Or how the physics laws and constants are upheld? Yet we are expected to abandon our beloved churches,

Right..just look at all the religious faithful desperately clinging to their myth of skydaddy because of dark matter, dark energy, and the Big Bang. God has been consigned to the farthest outskirts of astronomical spacetime, waiting for the next gap in scientific theory from which to stick up his hoary white head and weakly proclaim: "I'm still here. Somewhere.."

 

[dumbest man on earth]

You chose your user name well, and an apter one you could not have picked.
Yes you did say "Sheople are not REALLY anything!" Well done for actually noticing that, go to the top of the class. It is not necessary for you to understand things in order to argue about them. Ah! But it does, simply because by default you're not individual if you're in a group, following a group mentality. Sheep follow a shepherd/master/leader/messiah. Individuals are loners. Did the actual meaning of group* and individual** get mixed up in your head. Oh wait of course they did!
I really really would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be offensive to your intelligence.
It seems you think, you've hit the target. Whereas you simply called whatever you hit the target. Come on what's really on your mind, if you will forgive the overstatement?


*Group: a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together:

** Individual: a single human being as distinct from a group:

geeser, like Mazulu, you fail to answer any questions - but still manage to utter delusional tripe.

Are not groups of people composed of individual human beings?

How could you, geeser, : 1.) - fake enough respect for anyone but yourself, to take them seriously? ;
2.) - how could you possibly offend any intelligence that you seem to feel that I do not possess in the first place?

gesser, is your seemingly puerile, inane and constant "Ego-Pleasing Mental Masturbation" a form of exercise for you?!?! And is that not an exercise in futility?

geeser, again, you can "play" with yourself as long as you want to - that is your problem to figure out!

Me, I do not play "Mental Hopscotch" period.

To you and any other individual members belonging to your "group" of like minded ovine, I say...

...MEH!!!

 

[wegs]

You are playing peace keeper?:huh:

I thought that atheists were using the authority of science to destroy all religion as being just for stupid people. Atheism is clearly not about making personal decisions about one's own spiritual life, it's about ridiculing people of faith. I don't think there should be any peace, not while atheists denigrate and disparage all religion.

I used to think similarly about atheism and agnosticism. But when I started moving away from religion a few years back, I started researching things on my own...different belief systems and atheism. During that time, I kept my feelings about what I was feeling to myself because I didn't want well meaning friends, on either side, atheist or Christian to talk me into or out of anything.

Of my atheist friends, including my boyfriend, they don't mock religion. In fact, my boyfriend understands it and thinks if it causes good to come from it, so be it. But, they are good people with kind hearts. They simply don't believe in God. Or the concept of God. There is a misconception amongst believers that they are the problem in the world, with their anti religious agendas.

Of course, there are probably radical atheists who can't stand anything having to do with religion and go out of their way to mock it or degrade it in some way. But that isn't atheism. That's a group of jerks doing bad things who attach an agenda to it.

Likewise, every religious person one meets sure the heck isn't kind and generous. But, many are. Religion however, in my opinion, doesn't allow for freedom of thought and causes division. And the question becomes...for what? Religion ...the one I left behind...teaches that God needs defending. Think about that.

God...if he exists...and created the universe...needs defending? Lol

Forget everything else we know about religion, that just has never made sense to me. Or is it really that people feel good about defending God, and perhaps they will gain favor in his eyes?

Some faiths preach that it's necessary to evangelize to support your belief. Why? I must make sure others know that my version of God is well...the right one? For me, it was a slow gradual fading. As I started asking questions of religion, the less answers I received. Now, one can still be spiritual and not "religious," but I came from the religious camp. And honestly? I lived (and loved) my faith for many years. I can't say that I had a horrible experience that turned me off to it. On the contrary, I have had to part with something I loved, but to not...would mean I'd have to keep justifying non truths, and I couldn't anymore.

If God exists, he is unfathomable and to me, since there are so many versions of him in different religions, it tells me that simply put...no one knows who or what he is...IF he is.

But I have a feeling, he doesn't need defending. He doesn't need a book of bizarre fables to coax people into believing in him. And I speak from a Christian perspective as that is what I followed to support by belief in God, but all religions end up with the same problem. And the problem is...what is truth? Is their truth...the Truth? How can it be when other faiths claim to be Truth?

And the grim reality of many religions, is they are intrusive. Some religions are always looking for new "recruits" and telling people to pray and chastising and judging people based on a set of moral rules that they deem appropriate for all. So yeah, if religion kept to itself ...it would be ok. If people want to believe non truths or speculative truths, so be it as long as they don't intrude those values upon others. But, we all know...religion doesn't stay quiet. So, if atheists are angry at all, it's because of the intrusion, subtle to blatant, of religion.

I could go on and on. But atheism isn't about hating religion or even God. It is merely about honoring humanity instead of a Deity. It's about serving humanity instead of a Deity.
And most importantly...it's about keepin' it real.

So, expand thy horizons...

 

[Mazulu]

I used to think similarly about atheism and agnosticism. But when I started moving away from religion a few years back, I started researching things on my own...different belief systems and atheism. During that time, I kept my feelings about what I was feeling to myself because I didn't want well meaning friends, on either side, atheist or Christian to talk me into or out of anything.

Of my atheist friends, including my boyfriend, they don't mock religion. In fact, my boyfriend understands it and thinks if it causes good to come from it, so be it. But, they are good people with kind hearts. They simply don't believe in God. Or the concept of God. There is a misconception amongst believers that they are the problem in the world, with their anti religious agendas.

Of course, there are probably radical atheists who can't stand anything having to do with religion and go out of their way to mock it or degrade it in some way. But that isn't atheism. That's a group of jerks doing bad things who attach an agenda to it.

Likewise, every religious person one meets sure the heck isn't kind and generous. But, many are. Religion however, in my opinion, doesn't allow for freedom of thought and causes division. And the question becomes...for what? Religion ...the one I left behind...teaches that God needs defending. Think about that.

God...if he exists...and created the universe...needs defending? Lol

Forget everything else we know about religion, that just has never made sense to me. Or is it really that people feel good about defending God, and perhaps they will gain favor in his eyes?

Some faiths preach that it's necessary to evangelize to support your belief. Why? I must make sure others know that my version of God is well...the right one? For me, it was a slow gradual fading. As I started asking questions of religion, the less answers I received. Now, one can still be spiritual and not "religious," but I came from the religious camp. And honestly? I lived (and loved) my faith for many years. I can't say that I had a horrible experience that turned me off to it. On the contrary, I have had to part with something I loved, but to not...would mean I'd have to keep justifying non truths, and I couldn't anymore.

If God exists, he is unfathomable and to me, since there are so many versions of him in different religions, it tells me that simply put...no one knows who or what he is...IF he is.

But I have a feeling, he doesn't need defending. He doesn't need a book of bizarre fables to coax people into believing in him. And I speak from a Christian perspective as that is what I followed to support by belief in God, but all religions end up with the same problem. And the problem is...what is truth? Is their truth...the Truth? How can it be when other faiths claim to be Truth?

And the grim reality of many religions, is they are intrusive. Some religions are always looking for new "recruits" and telling people to pray and chastising and judging people based on a set of moral rules that they deem appropriate for all. So yeah, if religion kept to itself ...it would be ok. If people want to believe non truths or speculative truths, so be it as long as they don't intrude those values upon others. But, we all know...religion doesn't stay quiet. So, if atheists are angry at all, it's because of the intrusion, subtle to blatant, of religion.

I could go on and on. But atheism isn't about hating religion or even God. It is merely about honoring humanity instead of a Deity. It's about serving humanity instead of a Deity.
And most importantly...it's about keepin' it real.

So, expand thy horizons...

wegs,
If all atheists were like you, then there wouldn't be a problem. The reality of it is, you and your boyfriend are the only atheists who are not hostile towards religion.

To tell you the truth, I am still a Spiritualist and a Theosphist. To me, conscoiusness is something special, consciousness is truly magical and amazing. I do want to get to the bottom of that rat I read about in the other article that had brain activity while it's heart was in cardiac arrest. I do suspect that consciousness is something that exists beyond the material world, something that is directed into the brain and caged there in. If it were not so, then what is it that is really experiencing our lives?

And why can't we build consciousness on a chip?

 

[Mazulu]

Me, I do not play "Mental Hopscotch" period.

Because you have no mental legs. You have no mental agility or ability.

 

[wegs]

I hear you. For someone like me, that followed a faith life for so long, I have to be mindful to not let myself preach against religion, as another "brand" of religion. Religion doesn't offend me and I understand why many support it. With effort and a desire to understand one another, we can peacefully coexist.
I think so, anyways.

 

[paddoboy]

I hear you. For someone like me, that followed a faith life for so long, I have to be mindful to not let myself preach against religion, as another "brand" of religion. Religion doesn't offend me and I understand why many support it. With effort and a desire to understand one another, we can peacefully coexist.
I think so, anyways.

"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind"
Albert Einstein:


"Like other great scientists he does not fit the boxes in which popular polemicists like to pigeonhole him. It is clear for example that he had respect for the religious values enshrined within Judaic and Christian traditions... but what he understood by religion was something far more subtle than what is usually meant by the word in popular discussion", said John Brook from the Oxford University, leading expert on Albert Einstein.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scie...Religion-Without-Science-is-Blind-85550.shtml

 

[wynn]

Typical ad hom attack hurled by one who has nothing of substance to say..

If you yourself are unable to exemplify the effectiveness of ideas and approaches that you promote and praise, it is far from redundant to point this out.

 

[wynn]

With effort and a desire to understand one another, we can peacefully coexist.

Actually, I think that minding our own business may be a lot more effective than trying to understand one another.

 

[paddoboy]

wegs,
If all atheists were like you, then there wouldn't be a problem. The reality of it is, you and your boyfriend are the only atheists who are not hostile towards religion.

She aint an Atheist Mazulu.......

With the comment re Atheists and their hostility towards for religion, it is not altogether true, and when it is true, it actually goes both ways....
Check out Carl Sagan and some of his lectures....
Then check out the derisive abrasive attitude of Richard Dawkins towards believers, but like I said, it does go both ways and maybe Dawkins has had his fill of evangilistic style preachers and religious zealots acting the same way towards him.

 

[paddoboy]

Actually, I think that minding our own business may be a lot more effective than trying to understand one another.

In my relationship with my better half, who is a Christian in the truest meaning of the word, and my general love of cosmology, and Astrophysics, and being somewhat Agnostic in my general views, we tolerate each others beliefs [or lack thereof] and have done for 35 years.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

Didn't you recently say you're not advocating the Fundamentalist position?

I'm saying that in order to grasp the fullness of anything, one has to first accept what is being displayed.

It's just a myth, Jan.

I'd ask how you know, but it would be a waste of time.

All of this is beliefs and claims. In this regard your position is no different. To that you're adding your belief that the text is to be read literally.

Let's not worry about ''beliefs and claims'' and just talk about the words on the page.

All of it is religion. Certainly you are expressing a view that indicates that you are bound to the Anabaptist religion. But objectivity is another thing!

Actually, the way we live our lives , how we pursue our goals, the little rituals, the limits we gladly place on oursleves, how we love, eat, dress, all form part of our personal religion. Religion is but a way of life.

But fundamentalism is highly dogmatic. Declaring literal interpretation to be the only valid belief is particularly dogmatic.

Taking something literally in a bid to gain an accurate comprehension of that thing is not fundamentalism.
Are you a fundamentalist if you follow a map, or directions?

That's quite subjective. Many people practice their religion outside of the church that founded it . . . you for example.

I'm only going of what weg's said regarding her experience with Christianity. :shrug:

So, God, spirituality, religion, are so simple one can explain it all without looking into them?

It strikes me that fundamentalism simplifies these concepts more than orthodoxy. Once you've blanketed all dogma with the additional constraint of fundamentalism, it reduces belief to blind faith in the literal interpretation of the text.

What can I tell ya, Aqueos?
Let's put it in simplistic terms you may easily grasp. Let's say you've never had any sexual contact with someone, but your response to sexual stimulation (in the form of magazines, films) is very responsive.
Upon being asked to explain what sexual intercourse is like, would your explanation differ to that of someone who has experienced the actual act?


jan.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Because you have no mental legs. You have no mental agility or ability.

Mazulu, so...you're still attempting to "pick a fight"?

MEH!!!

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Oh well. People don't always mean what they say, nor do they always say what they mean. There's reason to believe that some of the people who claim to believe in TOE, make this claim for the sake of protecting their self-image within a particular community, not because they would really believe it (or even know much what it is about). Possibly this is even more likely if a person's theism is rather tentative to begin with.

There is that. Going against societal trends can prove problematic if you want to progress in that particular society, and the explicit's are most certainly ratcheting up the oven temperature. But that wasn't the barrier I was referring to.
Once the idea that darwinian evolution could be the tool that God used to kick start life, then all scriptures are off the table. It renders every single one, wrong, and everything and everyone that is connected to them.

The Pope's job is to deliver the gospel of Christ to his congregation. How is this possible if he contradicts Christ. Christ agrees with genesis, Christ agrees that faith can move mountains,.
Christ makes no mention of his Father knocking out a cell and leaving the rest to nature In fact I don't think Christ pays any kind of homage to natural processes.. There is no way on God's earth that the Pope can deliver the message of Christ whilst wholeheartedly believing in the darwinian process of life, lest he changes it, to accommodate it. Once you change it, it becomes corrupt.

While on principle, I agree that theism and TOE are mutually exclusive, going by this standard then, for example, most people who claim to be Christians, aren't theists either, given that there is a number of beliefs and activities they hold and engage in that are also barriers to theism (such as hunting for sport, having sex when they don't want to have children, drinking alcohol, supporting abortion and the death penalty).

These activities you mention are not anti-theistic, they're anti-ourselves. They diminish the mind and body making it difficult to cultivate higher knowledge. We become addicted to them because we get some kind of satisfaction. This is not the best way to think clearly. So while these activities may not a good Christian make, because they have fallen from the standard of becoming Christ-conscious, it does not mean one does not believe in God.

Personally, I have nothing against raising the bar for who is to be considered a "theist" and who not, but by such heightenedstandards, we're left with perhaps only a handful of theists in the whole world.

Don't be taken by these tricksters. I'm not considering who is and isn't a theist.
These tricksters are saying that God can be anything you want Him to be, and as there is no standard of what God is (because He doesn't exist), who are you to say who is and who isn't a theist. Well, a theist is a person who believes in God, and God is described Himself in the scriptures, so there is the standard. If God for you is the FSM, then your an atheist, pure and simple.

jan.

 

[wegs]

The truth is Jan, you aren't any closer to knowing with certainty the "truth" than I am.

Religion in my eyes, is nothing but an illusion. Not so much in what it preaches as much it teaches that people need it to live well.

 

[wynn]

The truth is Jan, you aren't any closer to knowing with certainty the "truth" than I am.

Oh, the irony ...

 

[wynn]

wynn,

There is that. Going against societal trends can prove problematic if you want to progress in that particular society, and the explicit's are most certainly ratcheting up the oven temperature. But that wasn't the barrier I was referring to.
Once the idea that darwinian evolution could be the tool that God used to kick start life, then all scriptures are off the table. It renders every single one, wrong, and everything and everyone that is connected to them.

The Pope's job is to deliver the gospel of Christ to his congregation. How is this possible if he contradicts Christ. Christ agrees with genesis, Christ agrees that faith can move mountains,.
Christ makes no mention of his Father knocking out a cell and leaving the rest to nature In fact I don't think Christ pays any kind of homage to natural processes.. There is no way on God's earth that the Pope can deliver the message of Christ whilst wholeheartedly believing in the darwinian process of life, lest he changes it, to accommodate it. Once you change it, it becomes corrupt.

These activities you mention are not anti-theistic, they're anti-ourselves. They diminish the mind and body making it difficult to cultivate higher knowledge. We become addicted to them because we get some kind of satisfaction. This is not the best way to think clearly. So while these activities may not a good Christian make, because they have fallen from the standard of becoming Christ-conscious, it does not mean one does not believe in God.

Don't be taken by these tricksters. I'm not considering who is and isn't a theist.
These tricksters are saying that God can be anything you want Him to be, and as there is no standard of what God is (because He doesn't exist), who are you to say who is and who isn't a theist. Well, a theist is a person who believes in God, and God is described Himself in the scriptures, so there is the standard. If God for you is the FSM, then your an atheist, pure and simple.

jan.

Se another post of mine here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3111889&highlight=#post3111889

 

[wegs]

I've tolerated your points Wynn but you do the very thing you chastise me of doing. I speak as to my view of things now. Thats all. You post however as though I'm in error. lol You don't know the truth with certainty anymore than me.

You post a few posts up that we should mind our own business yet you don't when it comes to telling me how wrong I am.

Maybe you should practice what you preach and mind your own business.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The truth is Jan, you aren't any closer to knowing with certainty the "truth" than I am.

Religion in my eyes, is nothing but an illusion. Not so much in what it preaches as much it teaches that people need it to live well.

Maybe I'm not wegs, but how do you know this is the truth.
What is your critea?

jan.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I'm saying that in order to grasp the fullness of anything, one has to first accept what is being displayed.

A lot of things are displayed: all texts ever written, all cultural artifacts, and the many ways nature has recorded much of that fullness. Fundamentalism presumes a literal interpretation of the Bible which rejects a lot of that fullness.

I'd ask how you know, [Genesis is a myth] but it would be a waste of time.

Maybe. But it offers lively discussion for those who take interest in such things. How do we know? First, it's self evident. Second, it retells the Creation Myth of precessor cults (Acadian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Ugaritic, Persian and Egyptian). In short there are more ways to know it than there are to not know it.

Let's worry about ''beliefs and claims'' and just talk about the words on the page.

That's couched as a belief, one that gives credibility to the myth. You don't wish to discuss the origins of those words? Isn't that type of inquiry the thing that leads to the fullness you mention above?

Actually, the way we live our lives , how we pursue our goals, the little rituals, the limits we gladly place on oursleves, how we love, eat, dress, all form part of our personal religion. Religion is but a way of life.

The plain word for that would be something along the lines of "lifestyle". Religion in its plain meaning is (Googling here) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

Taking something literally in a bid to gain an accurate comprehension of that thing is not fundamentalism.

That's the premise of fundamentalism to justify the rejection of the fuller meanings I mention above. Again, Google: a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.

Are you a fundamentalist if you follow a map, or directions?

You're espousing Fundamentalism just in the plain meaning of the word.

I'm only going of what weg's said regarding her experience with Christianity. :shrug:

You commented on her leaving the Catholic Church and I reminded you that the Fundies did that long ago. It's really the same thing, just that you've embraced Biblical literalism that the Orthodox religions have long since abandoned.

What can I tell ya, Aqueos? Let's put it in simplistic terms you may easily grasp. Let's say you've never had any sexual contact with someone, but your response to sexual stimulation (in the form of magazines, films) is very responsive.

That would characterize teens pretty well and perhaps severely disabled people. But OK.

Upon being asked to explain what sexual intercourse is like, would your explanation differ to that of someone who has experienced the actual act?

This is in reference to having "a religious experience" of some kind. In the faith-healing televangelist performances you see this dramatized. It presumes, though, that non-religious people are virgins of some sort which is a bad stereotype. I can attest to that rush of ecstacy upon first discovering the worlds revealed through high powered microscopes and telescopes, and when in the presence of huge forces of nature - a volcano, earthquakes, massive surf or waterfalls. Ancient rock formations and thick lush vegetation inhabited by wild animals seen backpacking is another powerful ecstatic force. The difference is, for all of the shivers these experiences may give me, I don't cross into animism, and certainly form no links that might lead to a God hypothesis. But of course I understand how religious people are tempted to do that and how/why they are unable to resist. I don't how know to compare this to the way a person deals with sexual ecstacy, other than to attempt an analogy about the morning after. I'm certainly not making a conquest of it and packing my bags. I'm just getting to know her better. After all, it's only natural.