Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Jan Ardena]

It really isn't. It's a fallacy in an attempt to smear atheism and atheists while also rendering all arguments against his claims invalid by ad hominem. (ie "Why should I answer questions from people who don't really believe what they say they believe?") And it's hypocritical, since Jan spends the vast majority of his time here at sciforums trashing other worldviews and implicating the people who hold them as insincere, deceitful, and stupid.

I shouldn't have to tell you this, but the amount of time one spends speaking against something they don't believe in does not mean they secretly believe in it. By that logic, activists of any kind--be they for civil right, animal rights, or human rights--are all in actuality cruel bigots and oppressors. Obviously, that's a stupid thing to infer, and Jan is only doing it because he has no other recourse. His arguments have failed him at every turn, and he's resorted to ducking me (I posted my post three times for him, and I've yet to get a response; that's not an accident. He can't answer the questions I've posed to him, and, like the intellectual coward he is, he'd rather run than face the music).

If you're looking for substance, you're barking up the wrong tree with Jan.

Are you implying that wegs is not intelligent enough to draw her own conclusion?
That she needs the assistence of super Balerion to guide her life?
Isn't this just an attempt to indoctrinate her, by doing her thinking for her?
Shouldn't you be banned for this type of behaviour?

jan.

 

[(Q)]

My belief in God did not come about by joining some group or reading some scripture, and my family isn't religious. I didn't have to go to church as a kid, to learn about God.

It depends on how you understand God. Unfortunately, your worldview situation phrohibits you from open-mindedly studying scriptures to see if there is any validity in the concept of God. This not much different to the evangelical Christian groups who forbid their members from looking at other scriptures to increase their understanding of God, in case it shows up there own lack of understanding.

Your idea of God stems from the evangelical christian tradition, it is little wonder you have little or no understanding of the nature, and character of God. I'd like to give more explanation of the attributes of God, as defined in the scriptures.

It would appear you have a contradiction there, Jan.

 

[(Q)]

I have reason to believe you were'nt much of a theist.

That's called invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[wegs]

@ Balerion; I'm on my phone so will be brief but will elaborate, later as to your comments about Jan. I will leave you with this thought, though. Do you believe that Jan is deliberately obstinate or is it a matter of simply not agreeing, and all comments from Jan seem offensive. I genuinely ask because I don't see Jan as trashing others' views, rather I see him as conveying points like you, me or anyone else. I agree with your overall premise but not sure Jan is at all sinister as you might think, Balerion.
Food for thought.

@ Billy; why do you feel people pray?

For those who pray for others, do you feel "God" intervenes and alters the course of destiny, through your prayer request? Or...is prayer more of a personal connection to God, for you? Both?

 

[(Q)]

we're moving into the Christmas season. You don't have to be such a hater.

Uh, just because folks don't agree with your irrational beliefs does not make them haters. Of course, that is what your religion teaches you, which is why it is a hate cult and has caused so much conflict in the world.

 

[Billy T]

@ Billy; why do you feel people pray?

Most out of their believe in god and his powers to act on the course of their lives, but some out of fear of the current danger. As an agnostic I prayed that way once. I was out of sight of land in small sail boat at night when I heard a hissing sound above me. I looked up and saw "St. Elmos's fire" at the top of the aluminum mast. I knew immediately that I was in an intense electric field with a lightning strike to the mast, which was electrically connected to the metal keel, was highly probable. I also knew that even though the current of the bolt would probably stay confined to that path, that the dB/dt induced currents in my body could kill me.

As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes when incoming mortar shells are falling near-by." I was not even an atheist - just a doubling agnostic. You can bet your bottom dollar I was praying as hard and as sincerely as the Pope does for a minute or so until the hissing stopped. Pascal's wager applies to "desperation prayers" as well as to the chances of an after life. Everyone knows that even though few know Pascal's wager.

More on important poems, including one that casts doubt on any after life, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3114965&viewfull=1#post3114965

I.e. - live a good, useful life - that for itself, as that may be all there is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It would appear you have a contradiction there, Jan.

How so ?

jan.

 

[(Q)]

How so ?

You have got to be joking. It's bolded, Jan. Duh.

 

[Jan Ardena]

You have got to be joking. It's bolded, Jan. Duh.

Are you going to answer or not?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Okay, so if after some time you came to the conclusion that God is unlikely to exist due to lack of evidence, what was it you believed in? And are you implying that what you believed is the same as what everyone else who believes in God, believes?

You are reading unwarranted conclusions in to what I have said. At no point have I said that I have concluded "that God is unlikely to exist".
Having pared God back to the notion of "first cause", I.e. free from any religious clothing, that is what I believed in after no longer considering myself religious.
Is this what everyone else believes in as "God" (once they remove his religious clothing)? No idea.
If you therefore want to say that I only ever believed in "my idea" of God then tell me how it is logically possible to believe in anything, or even to have a notion of something, that is not also one's own idea.

But as you know I no longer hold that belief. But that is not the same as believing that god does not exist.

But if you believed in God, how can you now not believe in God?

For the reasons already given.

Unless it was an idea of God you believed in...

and for you to continue to press this line of argument you will have to explain the difference you see between believing in god and believing in one's idea of god, and how it is logically possible to believe in something that one has no idea of?

...one which requires materialistic processes to determine it's validity? In which case an argument can easily be made to show that you never believed in God, but an idea of God which was concocted, first by your church, and accepted by your parents.

Sure, if you cherry pick from what I have previously stated you could indeed make such an argument. At no point while I believed did I require materialistic processes to validate it... That is your further unwarranted assumption from what I have written.

Again, do you think that your idea of God, and reasons to believe in that God, is the same as everyone else's, and to add, does that God corroberate with the God in the scriptures?

Does "God as first cause" corroborate with the god in the scriptures?
As for reasons to believe - I was indoctrinated into a religion and it made sense to believe in god. Did I believe for the same reasons as everyone else? I very much doubt it.

From yourself.

It would be a matter of perspective. Am I separate from the universe?

Yes you can, but that doesn't explain how you can believe in God, not just believe He exists, but believe IN HIM, then not believe in Him based on puny speculative reasoning and information (by comparison to believing in God). I'm just suggesting that you were fed the wrong information, followed up on it, and came away from it, meaning you believed in an idea, not God.

And you'd be wrong.
I believed IN God.
Now I do not.
You may not accept the reasoning. You may consider it "puny" but if God exists it is surely what He gave me to work with.
Was I told wrong information? Wrong information about what? Who has the right information? How do I know that it is the right information? At some point you have to trust someone... And I trust myself. Do you not trust yourself?

The question still remains :what was it they believed in?
If you wish to make the priori assumption that all belief in God is, and can only be delusional, such that every person in the history of the world who believe(d) in God is delusional because of your own experience, ...

The difference here, jan, as you are undoubtedly aware, is that I do not make such an a priori assumption, and nothing I have written implies as much. Whereas your comments DID make the implication, and you continue to do so.

Yet every two-bit explicit atheist cites the notion that it is possible to believe in the atheist philosophy of darwinism, because the Catholic church claims that it does. (lighthearted poke)

You've lost me, I'm afraid... Poke at what? What does this have to do with the discussion in hand?

I apreciate that it is not as simple as that, which is why I'm trying build up a picture of what you believed.
You say you believed in God, but you remained separate to God.

Again, I have never stated nor implied this aspect. I am not sure why you continue to make such unwarranted assumptions?

You were prepared to believe in Him on your terms, on the condition that He tick all the boxes of enquiry. He didn't, so you stopped.

Not at all. I believed in Him as being the "first cause" with no terms whatsoever. I have yet to garner any further understanding of what god might be beyond that, from a source that I trust... those sources being god Himself (if he exists) and myself. If at any stage I ask the question "and why should I trust you/the source?" and all you can offer is a cyclical argument then it is of little use in such an important question.

Okay, this is interesting.
Why was there no question about your belief?

Possibly because I was intellectually lazy, and/or lacked the faculty or bravery to challenge what I may have perceived as oddities for which I would have liked answers to.

Did you realise that God was the origin of everything in nature?

Not "realise" but "believed".

So your reason for doubting God was kick-started because of your disillusionment of religion (s)?
What did that have to do with God?

Because, as I have explained, religions put god in clothes, and each religion provides different clothes for what should surely be a universal.
I questioned the validity of the clothing that my religion was giving god, and thus stripped away the clothing.
What I was left with was the universal... I.e. the "creator" / "initial cause".
Anything beyond that is clothing, whether provided by religions or by individual interpretation of scriptures, even assuming scriptures can be trusted... which requires, at some stage, a cyclical argument... "Believe to believe" etc.

So, left with the universal, I eventually reasoned there being no purpose to believing, as the purpose was merely another layer of clothing.

But I'm sure you'll read into this any number of implications that aren't actually there (have an LG-:shrug: for your troubles, though).

 

[wynn]

That's called invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy.

No bachelor is married. <-- That's called invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy!

 

[wynn]

If you wish to make they priori assumption that belief in God is and can only ever be a permanent state, such that those who claim to have been theist but now atheist were never really believers to begin with, then this is an assumption that you're going to struggle to support given the testimony of those that have been through that change. Feel free to try, though.

You seem to think that the personal testimony of a person is the deciding source of information as to whether we are to believe that said person was or is a believer or not.

Note that it is only in the case of religion that you would apply this kind of criterion; in all others, you prefer or demand corroboration from other sources.

For example, if someone claims to be a very good car mechanic, you're not just going to take their word for it. Instead, you'll check their reputation with people who have had their cars repaired by that mechanic, you'll check with other mechanics, you'll apply what you have so far learned about car repair and what makes a good mechanic and what doesn't, and such.

But when it comes to religion, many people throw their common sense out of the window ...

But you can not simply claim that because someone no longer believes then they never really believed without supporting that claim.

All we need to do is get information from them as to what they have done in the name of that supposed belief, what they have thought about their beliefs, etc. And in all the cases I have seen, I would describe those people as having a rather rudimentary and selfish (even if strong and detailed) belief in God. And that kind of belief isn't particularly stable; from there, people either advance and develop a more reliable belief in God, or they abandon belief in God altogether.

But up to then I most certainly did.

And that guy down the street is a good car mechanic, and I better take his word for it!

I understand that you'll probably find my approach offensive or evasive. But I'm just applying common sense.

If belief in God would indeed be something entirely private, something entirely subjective, then yes, then a person's testimony should be the authoritative source on said person's belief in God.

But as long as belief in God has a social, objective component, the usual criteria of interpersonal corroboration are to be taken into consideration.

 

[Robittybob1]

So much good stuff in this thread, shame I haven't got the time to study it in full. But isn't Billy a living mystery. Solve him and you will be OK.

 

[wegs]

Most out of their believe in god and his powers to act on the course of their lives, but some out of fear of the current danger. As an agnostic I prayed that way once. I was out of sight of land in small sail boat at night when I heard a hissing sound above me. I looked up and saw "St. Elmos's fire" at the top of the aluminum mast. I knew immediately that I was in an intense electric field with a lightning strike to the mast, which was electrically connected to the metal keel, was highly probable. I also knew that even though the current of the bolt would probably stay confined to that path, that the dB/dt induced currents in my body could kill me.

As they say: "There are no atheists in fox holes when incoming mortar shells are falling near-by." I was not even an atheist - just a doubling agnostic. You can bet your bottom dollar I was praying as hard and as sincerely as the Pope does for a minute or so until the hissing stopped. Pascal's wager applies to "desperation prayers" as well as to the chances of an after life. Everyone knows that even though few know Pascal's wager.

More on important poems, including one that casts doubt on any after life, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ce-believers&p=3114965&viewfull=1#post3114965

I.e. - live a good, useful life - that for itself, as that may be all there is.

Lol I see.

Well, there's nothing to fear if one doesn't believe in hell. I don't believe in heaven or hell, and never did.
Maybe the concept of eternity, but not based on anything remotely linked to morality deciding one's eternal "fate." And if an eternal after life exists, I personally don't believe my prayers or anyone else's said for me ...will help me to arrive there.

 

[wynn]

Well can you please just give me a clue in one such religion then?

For example, from a tradition within the Gaudiya Vaisnava religion:

/.../
In order to intelligently apply the sixfold loving reciprocations mentioned in the previous verse, one must select proper persons with careful discrimination. Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī therefore advises that we should meet with the Vaiṣṇavas in an appropriate way, according to their particular status. In this verse he tells us how to deal with three types of devotees — the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The kaniṣṭha-adhikārī is a neophyte who has received the hari-nāma initiation from the spiritual master and is trying to chant the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. One should respect such a person within his mind as a kaniṣṭha-vaiṣṇava. A madhyama-adhikārī has received spiritual initiation from the spiritual master and has been fully engaged by him in the transcendental loving service of the Lord. The madhyama-adhikārī should be considered to be situated midway in devotional service. The uttama-adhikārī, or highest devotee, is one who is very advanced in devotional service. An uttama-adhikārī is not interested in blaspheming others, his heart is completely clean, and he has attained the realized state of unalloyed Kṛṣṇa consciousness. According to Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī, the association and service of such a mahā-bhāgavata, or perfect Vaiṣṇava, are most desirable.
/.../
One should not remain a kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, one who is situated on the lowest platform of devotional service and is interested only in worshiping the Deity in the temple. Such a devotee is described in the Eleventh Canto of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.47):
"A person who is very faithfully engaged in the worship of the Deity in the temple, but who does not know how to behave toward devotees or people in general is called a prākṛta-bhakta, or kaniṣṭha-adhikāri."

One therefore has to raise himself from the position of kaniṣṭha-adhikārī to the platform of madhyama-adhikārī. The madhyama-adhikārī is described in Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.46) in this way:
"The madhyama-adhikārī is a devotee who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the highest object of love, makes friends with the Lord's devotees, is merciful to the ignorant and avoids those who are envious by nature."

This is the way to cultivate devotional service properly; therefore in this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī has advised us how to treat various devotees. We can see from practical experience that there are different types of Vaiṣṇavas. The prākṛta-sahajiyās generally chant the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, yet they are attached to women, money and intoxication. Although such persons may chant the holy name of the Lord, they are not yet properly purified. Such people should be respected within one's mind, but their association should be avoided. Those who are innocent but simply carried away by bad association should be shown favor if they are eager to receive proper instructions from pure devotees, but those neophyte devotees who are actually initiated by the bona fide spiritual master and are seriously engaged in carrying out the orders of the spiritual master should be offered respectful obeisances.

In this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement a chance is given to everyone without discrimination of caste, creed or color. Everyone is invited to join this movement, sit with us, take prasāda and hear about Kṛṣṇa. When we see that someone is actually interested in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and wants to be initiated, we accept him as a disciple for the chanting of the holy name of the Lord. When a neophyte devotee is actually initiated and engaged in devotional service by the orders of the spiritual master, he should be accepted immediately as a bona fide Vaiṣṇava, and obeisances should be offered unto him. Out of many such Vaiṣṇavas, one may be found to be very seriously engaged in the service of the Lord and strictly following all the regulative principles, chanting the prescribed number of rounds on japa beads and always thinking of how to expand the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Such a Vaiṣṇava should be accepted as an uttama-adhikārī, a highly advanced devotee, and his association should always be sought.
The process by which a devotee becomes attached to Kṛṣṇa is described in Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Antya 4.192):
"At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders to the service of the Lord, Kṛṣṇa accepts him to be as good as He Himself."


Dīkṣā, or spiritual initiation, is explained in the Bhakti-sandarbha (868) by Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī:
"By dīkṣā one gradually becomes disinterested in material enjoyment and gradually becomes interested in spiritual life."

We have seen many practical examples of this, especially in Europe and America. Many students who come to us from rich and respectable families quickly lose all interest in material enjoyment and become very eager to enter into spiritual life. Although they come from very wealthy families, many of them accept living conditions that are not very comfortable. Indeed, for Kṛṣṇa's sake they are prepared to accept any living condition as long as they can live in the temple and associate with the Vaiṣṇavas. When one becomes so disinterested in material enjoyment, he becomes fit for initiation by the spiritual master. For the advancement of spiritual life Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (6.1.13) prescribes: tapasā brahmacaryeṇa śamena ca damena ca. When a person is serious about accepting dīkṣā, he must be prepared to practice austerity, celibacy and control of the mind and body. If one is so prepared and is desirous of receiving spiritual enlightenment (divyaḿ jñānam), he is fit for being initiated. Divyaḿ jñānam is technically called tad-vijñāna, or knowledge about the Supreme. Tad-vijñānārthaḿ sa gurum evābhigacchet: [MU 1.2.12] when one is interested in the transcendental subject matter of the Absolute Truth, he should be initiated. Such a person should approach a spiritual master in order to take dīkṣā. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.3.21) also prescribes: tasmād guruḿ prapadyeta jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam. "When one is actually interested in the transcendental science of the Absolute Truth, he should approach a spiritual master."
One should not accept a spiritual master without following his instructions. Nor should one accept a spiritual master just to make a fashionable show of spiritual life. One must be jijñāsu, very much inquisitive to learn from the bona fide spiritual master. The inquiries one makes should strictly pertain to transcendental science (jijñāsuḥ śreya uttamam). The word uttamam refers to that which is above material knowledge. Tama means "the darkness of this material world," and ut means "transcendental." Generally people are very interested in inquiring about mundane subject matters, but when one has lost such interest and is simply interested in transcendental subject matters, he is quite fit for being initiated. When one is actually initiated by the bona fide spiritual master and when he seriously engages in the service of the Lord, he should be accepted as a madhyama-adhikārī.

The chanting of the holy names of Kṛṣṇa is so sublime that if one chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra offenselessly, carefully avoiding the ten offenses, he can certainly be gradually elevated to the point of understanding that there is no difference between the holy name of the Lord and the Lord Himself. One who has reached such an understanding should be very much respected by neophyte devotees. One should know for certain that without chanting the holy name of the Lord offenselessly, one cannot be a proper candidate for advancement in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 22.69) it is said:

"One whose faith is soft and pliable is called a neophyte, but by gradually following the process, he will rise to the platform of a first-class devotee." Everyone begins his devotional life from the neophyte stage, but if one properly finishes chanting the prescribed number of rounds of harināma, he is elevated step by step to the highest platform, uttama-adhikārī. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement prescribes sixteen rounds daily because people in the Western countries cannot concentrate for long periods while chanting on beads. Therefore the minimum number of rounds is prescribed. However, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura used to say that unless one chants at least sixty-four rounds of japa (one hundred thousand names), he is considered fallen (patita). According to his calculation, practically every one of us is fallen, but because we are trying to serve the Supreme Lord with all seriousness and without duplicity, we can expect the mercy of Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, who is famous as patita-pāvana, the deliverer of the fallen.

When Śrīla Satyarāja Khān, a great devotee of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, asked the Lord how a Vaiṣṇava could be recognized, the Lord replied:
"If one hears a person say even once the word 'Kṛṣṇa,' that person should be accepted as the best man out of the common group." (Cc. Madhya 15.106) Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu continued:
"One who is interested in chanting the holy name of Kṛṣṇa or who by practice likes to chant Kṛṣṇa's names should be accepted as a Vaiṣṇava and offered respects as such, at least within one's mind." (Cc. Madhya 15.111) One of our friends, a famous English musician, has become attracted to chanting the holy names of Kṛṣṇa, and even in his records he has several times mentioned the holy name of Kṛṣṇa. At his home he offers respect to pictures of Kṛṣṇa and also to the preachers of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. In all regards, he has a very high estimation for Kṛṣṇa's name and Kṛṣṇa's activities; therefore we offer respects to him without reservation, for we are actually seeing that this gentleman is advancing gradually in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Such a person should always be shown respect. The conclusion is that anyone who is trying to advance in Kṛṣṇa consciousness by regularly chanting the holy name should always be respected by Vaiṣṇavas. On the other hand, we have witnessed that some of our contemporaries who are supposed to be great preachers have gradually fallen into the material conception of life because they have failed to chant the holy name of the Lord.

While giving instructions to Sanātana Gosvāmī, Lord Caitanya Mahāprabhu divided devotional service into three categories.
"A person whose conclusive knowledge of the śāstras is not very strong but who has developed firm faith in chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra and who is also undeterred in the execution of his prescribed devotional service should be considered a madhyama-adhikārī. Such a person is very fortunate." (Cc. Madhya 22.67) A madhyama-adhikārī is a śraddhāvān, a staunchly faithful person, and he is actually a candidate for further advancement in devotional service. Therefore in the Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 22.64) it is said:

"One becomes qualified as a devotee on the elementary platform, the intermediate platform and the highest platform of devotional service according to the development of his śraddhā [faith]." Again in Caitanya-caritāmṛta (Madhya 22.62) it is said:

" 'By rendering transcendental service to Kṛṣṇa, one automatically performs all subsidiary activities.' This confident, firm faith, favorable to the discharge of devotional service, is called śraddhā." Śraddhā, faith in Kṛṣṇa, is the beginning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Faith means strong faith. The words of Bhagavad-gītā are authoritative instructions for faithful men, and whatever Kṛṣṇa says in Bhagavad-gītā is to be accepted as it is, without interpretation. This was the way Arjuna accepted Bhagavad-gītā. After hearing Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna told Kṛṣṇa: sarvam etad ṛtaḿ manye yan māḿ vadasi keśava. "O Kṛṣṇa, I totally accept as truth all that You have told me." (Bg. 10.14)
This is the correct way of understanding Bhagavad-gītā, and this is called śraddhā. It is not that one accepts a portion of Bhagavad-gītā according to his own whimsical interpretations and then rejects another portion. This is not śraddhā. Śraddhā means accepting the instructions of Bhagavad-gītā in their totality, especially the last instruction: sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaḿ śaraṇaḿ vraja. "Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me." (Bg. 18.66) When one becomes completely faithful in regard to this instruction, one's strong faith becomes the basis for advancing in spiritual life.

When one fully engages in chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra, he gradually realizes his own spiritual identity. Unless one faithfully chants the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, Kṛṣṇa does not reveal Himself: sevonmukhe hi jihvādau svayam eva sphuraty adaḥ. (Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu 1.2.234) We cannot realize the Supreme Personality of Godhead by any artificial means. We must engage faithfully in the service of the Lord. Such service begins with the tongue (sevonmukhe hi jihvādau), which means that we should always chant the holy names of the Lord and accept kṛṣṇa-prasāda. We should not chant or accept anything else. When this process is faithfully followed, the Supreme Lord reveals Himself to the devotee.

When a person realizes himself to be an eternal servitor of Kṛṣṇa, he loses interest in everything but Kṛṣṇa's service. Always thinking of Kṛṣṇa, devising means by which to spread the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, he understands that his only business is in spreading the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement all over the world. Such a person is to be recognized as an uttama-adhikārī, and his association should be immediately accepted according to the six processes (dadāti pratigṛhṇāti, etc.). Indeed, the advanced uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava devotee should be accepted as a spiritual master. Everything one possesses should be offered to him, for it is enjoined that one should deliver whatever he has to the spiritual master. The brahmacārī in particular is supposed to beg alms from others and offer them to the spiritual master. However, one should not imitate the behavior of an advanced devotee or mahā-bhāgavata without being self-realized, for by such imitation one will eventually become degraded.

In this verse Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī advises the devotee to be intelligent enough to distinguish between the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī. The devotee should also know his own position and should not try to imitate a devotee situated on a higher platform. Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has given some practical hints to the effect that an uttama-adhikārī Vaiṣṇava can be recognized by his ability to convert many fallen souls to Vaiṣṇavism. One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikārī. A neophyte Vaiṣṇava or a Vaiṣṇava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikārī as a spiritual master.
http://vedabase.net/noi/5/en

So here they distinguish between three levels of devotees the kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, madhyama-adhikārī and uttama-adhikārī, and describe the differences between them.

For further elucidation, also see this.


Now, one may agree with those distinctions or not, consider them objective or not: my point is that within religions, there exist criteria to judge how advanced a person is or isn't. It is only secularists who try to present religious peeople as one uniform group, with no internal distinctions and levels.

When we read stories of deconversion, what those deconverts usually describe as their past beliefs and practices tends to fit into a low category of religiosity within their past religion.

The issue is perhaps made to seem less transparent and less complex in religions which don't have much sense of internal hierarchy, like some mainstream Christian churches that try to be very egalitarian.

 

[Robittybob1]

Lol I see.

Well, there's nothing to fear if one doesn't believe in hell. I don't believe in heaven or hell, and never did.
Maybe the concept of eternity, but not based on anything remotely linked to morality deciding one's eternal "fate." And if an eternal after life exists, I personally don't believe my prayers or anyone else's said for me ...will help me to arrive there.

Hop in the dinghy with him and you'll know what Hell could have been like.

 

[wegs]

Hop in the dinghy with him and you'll know what Hell could have been like.

No, I won't. If god exists...and he is merciful...why the need for hell?
Contradiction upon contradiction...well wegs, you see it's like this....
I've heard it all, brutha.

If you believe it, that is your choice.

We all have a choice, I guess.

 

[arauca]

No, I won't. If god exists...and he is merciful...why the need for hell?
Contradiction upon contradiction...well wegs, you see it's like this....
I've heard it all, brutha.

If you believe it, that is your choice.

We all have a choice, I guess.

Contradiction of what God have set man free and give him some guidance for living in pace , but we make our own choice, then we screw around and things don't go our way, then we ask , were are you God , why did you let me do that .... What we are a bunch or irresponsible creature , and at the end we blame God , and to get rid of our guild and justify our behavior , we end up by saying there is no God.

 

[wegs]

Contradiction of what God have set man free and give him some guidance for living in pace , but we make our own choice, then we screw around and things don't go our way, then we ask , were are you God , why did you let me do that .... What we are a bunch or irresponsible creature , and at the end we blame God , and to get rid of our guild and justify our behavior , we end up by saying there is no God.

Where was God when all those young boys were being molested by priests? Where was God when women have been raped by religious leaders in their congregation? Where was God during the holocaust?

I'm sure those boys prayed as they were taught. I'm sure those women prayed as they were taught. The people imprisoned in the concentration camps were very religious. But where was God?

Where is this god who sits by and lets atrocity after atrocity happen?

What good are prayers if he cherry picks those he wishes to answer?

Or could it be he may not exist at all? To me, and I only speak for me...THAT is far more comforting than thinking he does...and is indifferent to our difficulties.

 

[Robittybob1]

No, I won't. If god exists...and he is merciful...why the need for hell?
Contradiction upon contradiction...well wegs, you see it's like this....
I've heard it all, brutha.

If you believe it, that is your choice.

We all have a choice, I guess.

Did you get what I meant? Hell would have been inside the liferaft. You probably did. BCS threat has posts for you too.