Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Such as?
So, you say I have a lot at stake and then state that I'm the one that needs to explain what you said? :scratchin:
I've read through the thread since I logged out last night, and thanks to all who have taken the time to post about this topic. Leaving a religion is hard enough, but coming to terms with the fact that maybe you never really believed in a god all along (despite following a religion) is very sobering, to say the least. (thanks, Jan, for getting me to think about that, yesterday) Your question has been swirling in my mind, ever since you posted it. I have a tendency and it is a bad one, to ignore what I don't want to review about myself, life, etc. That question, I can't ignore. For it's not about the Bible, Christianity, and religion, and all the rest. It boils down to...did I ever really believe what I thought I did, all these years? Or was I merely in love with the idea of ''a god?'' That is where I'm at, and to wynn's point...do I feel this way, simply because I have such a bad taste in my mouth over Christianity? So, to use a hackneyed phrase, but one that suits ...'this is where the rubber meets the road' for me, now.
@ wynn, you presented some very insightful comments, especially relating to how my view of God and/or religion may have been solely shaped by my experiences in practicing Christianity. You've given me a lot to mull over, and I appreciate not only your candor, but you reaching out to me at all, as you have. Consistently. And I'm going to the bookstore today, to see if they have that book you recommended.
I'm heading out for a bit shortly, but will come back to your comments, and others here who have been just as open and thoughtful, with their ideas, thoughts, and opinions. A lot has been posted, and I need ample time to properly reciprocate.
Thx, everyone.
@ wynn, you presented some very insightful comments, especially relating to how my view of God and/or religion may have been solely shaped by my experiences in practicing Christianity. You've given me a lot to mull over, and I appreciate not only your candor, but you reaching out to me at all, as you have. Consistently. And I'm going to the bookstore today, to see if they have that book you recommended.
I'm heading out for a bit shortly, but will come back to your comments, and others here who have been just as open and thoughtful, with their ideas, thoughts, and opinions. A lot has been posted, and I need ample time to properly reciprocate.
Thx, everyone.
okay, thanks. yeah, that makes sense.
@ Billy T--Just a general comment as it relates to your commenting to Jan about evolution (w/respect to brain function), because it caught my eye. (and others who have poked at Jan over this)
Jan has merely come to believe something entirely different about how God/a god created the universe and its inhabitants. If one believes the Genesis 'version' of creation, for example, then that obviously opposes evolution. I still believe one can be a theist and a ''Darwinist,'' but ...if one follows Christianity and the Bible in a literal sense, there may naturally be some challenges to believing in evolution. But, if one doesn't take the Bible literally, and cherry picks through it as to what suits his/her worldview...then, Christianity isn't what you're following, in the end. But, that's neither here nor there, for this post.
I just wanted to offer this, because I think Jan has been viewed in somewhat of an unfair light. (relating to his thoughts on evolution)
Likewise, for an atheist... if ''God'' doesn't enter the equation at all, evolution becomes the only option to explaining the origin of man, etc...Jan seems to be interested in science, but evolution isn't his 'only option.' I'm just saying that at the end of the day, Jan will continue to think what he does, but it's no reason to chastise him for it.
Having said that, people who don't believe what theists may believe about the origin of man, don't want to be chastised, either. That's where I think the conflict comes in. They are two completely different schools of thought -- one is simply from a religious/spiritual view, and the other is not.
I was not "poking at Jan" only making an observation, even Jan probably agrees with. I.e. I said in post 1038:
"I see you have no interest in learning more about how the brain may work as well as about the strong EVIDENCE supporting evolution."
I might now add there are fields of knowledge, with strong supporting evidence, I have no interest in.
On evolution we have evidence that a mammal can evolve into a new smaller species (can not breed with original it evolved from) in only 8000 years! But that requires extreme selection pressure conditions for all the 8000 years. - Mainly at least half of all born dying by starvations as not as well adapted to their new environment as slightly smaller and slightly differently formed, (mostly more and longer facial hair / whisker sensors, to run thru space between rocks in the dark while searching for the rare eatable grass.) brothers and sisters. Here is old post (from 2009) found at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...evolution-II&p=2205207&viewfull=1#post2205207
-------
There are approximately 40 little animals, called Preá in Portuguese, living on tiny island called Moleques do Sul, which is about 8 km separated for a much larger Island called Florianopolis that have been studied by Pontifica Universidade Católic under leadership of Sandro Bonatto.
About 8000 years ago, these two islands were one as the sea level was much lower. The tiny island is about the size of a football field and mainly rocks. But has some grass on ~10% of it.
These Preá are so inbreed that DNA tests (type used in Brazil to determine disputed paternity, at least) cannot determine any differences. They are about half the size of the main island animals they evolved from during 8000 years of separation. Smaller size was favored by selection because of the very limited food supply. They are the only mammals on the tiny island and have no predators. - I.e. population is limited only by the lack of food for more than 40 but probably has been slightly increasing as they evolved to be ever smaller each 1000 years. (Probably no more than 20 of them lived after the connection to the main island was cut off 8000 years ago by the melting ice.)
They are now a new species (Cavia Intermedia) but closely related to Cavia Magna of the main island. They are about the size and shape of a small rat, but with a face that looks much like a monkey, or even human, and fur covered (except the feet) with no tail. Head and back fur is brown and belly fur is whitish grey.
Until they were discovered it was not thought by experts that a population of only 40 animals max could survive for thousands of years. They have, no doubt, lived all that time on the edge of extinction and practiced incestual mating with no ill effects, at least for the last 6000 or 7000 years. They are all now genetic identical. The ill effected off springs of inbreeding were selected out long ago as all live hungry on the edge of extinction at least in the mild winters. (Perhaps, like bears, they store fat during the summers - just my guess, not mentioned in the paper.)
Their tiny island is part of a state park, now with special protection - only qualified researchers can legally visit, but some fishing boats do at times. The great fear is that one will leave a cat on the island. - Then this recently evolved new species will go extinct.
There is a photo of one being held, belly up, easily in the palm of a hand on page A14 of the Folio de Paulo of 18 March 2009. It longer uploads, Here are some from a Google search:
Note the relatively powerful hid legs and "air born" "running." Those strong legs evolved for hoping / jumping over the rocks on 90+% of their tiny island.
These preá are sooo cute, with their little quasi-human quasi-monkey faces* peering out from great spread of surrounding facial hair. I bet they would make great pets. For protection of the species I hope some of the researchers think so also and steal a few for breading on the mainland and eventual sale as pets, before some fisherman's cat eats them all in less than a month.
-----------Note added in Sept 2013: Footnote below was based on the March 2009 newspaper photo. Perhaps some the flat hairless face was more due to lack of food for development than genes.
*The mostly hair free face is about the size of a lady's thumb nail, with no "snout." The eyes are slightly slanted, like an oriental's. If the nose has two opening, they are very close together. In photo the nearly flat nose and mouth look like an inverted T in a pink skin completely hairless area. I cannot be sure from the photo, but they appear to have only three strong toes. They are at the end of a a relatively long foot in the hind legs. - sort of like a rabbit's foot. I bet they do a lot of leaping hops over the rocks more than walking. The forelimbs are only half as large. They must have ears, but they are lost in the facial hair which makes their tiny heads appear to be almost as wide as their bodies. - No neck is visible.
Some of the above is also at: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...volution-III&p=2672082&viewfull=1#post2672082 with posts at least to 581 discussions with earlier "anti-evolutionists" worth reading.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, didn't mean to imply YOU poke, but others ''poke''. My wording could have been chosen better, sorry.
That said...from the exchanges I've had with Jan in his ''Darwinist'' thread, it doesn't seem like he sees (enough?) evidence for Darwin's theory. I don't know if Jan completely rejects the idea of the theory in its totality, or just some aspects of it...and if either is solely based on not trusting the evidence that has been presented, and/or on religious premise, alone. I'm just going from memory, as to the dialogue in his Darwinist thread.
Read this recently, it is interesting. Sad.
Title is slightly misleading.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/
Title is slightly misleading.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...d-not-allow-atheists-to-graduate-high-school/
Do your best to bring God to me, I await His arrival, but I won't be holding my breath. LOL.
It sounded like you were hiding and ready to blast him with the double barrel shotgun.
Your sentence "Do your best to bring God to me, I await His arrival, but I won't be holding my breath" to me is one of the greatest prayers of all times.
God will have heard that call. It might take a day or maybe 60 years for the call to be answered but when it does you will recall the day you wrote "Do your best to bring God to me, I await His arrival .... I just hope for your sake the bit where you say "but I won't be holding my breath" is not the physical state you are in the time it happens.
God come quick.
In other words, you will do nothing and no God will show up. As I suspected, another worthless claim from a deluded believer.
LOL. You can't fight what doesn't exist.
here's a solution.
For the theists.
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God.
Or for the Atheists:
I, _______, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge these duties; So help me God if he exists.
It doesn't matter what I think, YOU are the one claiming you can bring God to me, so put your money where your mouth is and produce your God or shut the fuck up.