For all the ex-religious.

[Maestro]

I don't know, I have a harder and harder time reconciling faith with logic. More and more I find myself wondering if there is a God. There are so many who are convinced of God's existence because of miracles or some other chance occurrence. Miracles are statistically irrelevant, to paraphrase Dr. Manhattan. I just can't bring myself to base any view of mine off of a single instance. My parents never really have been regular churchgoers, so I haven't really been given a decent apologetic explanation as to why there definitely is a God.

I've heard The Summit is a great place for finding logical arguments in favor, instead of the usual circular party line "God exists because the Bible says he does, and vice versa." I might attend, just to see if it can convince me. I kind of like the idea of a higher power, I find the idea of this being all there is disturbing in some way I can't quite articulate.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Angels and Demons- good book. I liked it better than the Da Vinci Code.

Jehova's witnesses regularly come 'round here and hand out copies of the watchtower, wether you want them to or not. I usually enjoy them more than I did the Da Vinci Code.

Sorry- OT, but I can't resist an opportunity to bash that piece of shit that masquerades as literature.

 

[Tagaziel]

Nobody likes to know their existence is irrelevant, as there is no afterlife in which we can continue to be.

My advice? Worship nature. I consider it the only thing worthy of bending my neck to, as after all, we are all just drops of water in the ocean of the universe. This really puts all of this incessant human bickering in perspective.

I also find comfort in the thought that there is no abstract higher being that will judge me based on whether or not I read a fantasy book or refrained from wearing mixed fibre clothes.

 

[JDM Accord]

Not to mention the cover up committed by the pope himself. The infallible holiest of holies. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10332336

Jesus is the holiest of holies, not the pope. Also, Catholics only believe that the pope is infallible when he is speaking on matters of faith.

 

[Eejit]

Not to mention the cover up committed by the pope himself. The infallible holiest of holies. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=10332336

It's only really the coverup by Church authorities that seperates the Catholic abuse scandal from all the other sexual abuses by ministers of other faiths and denominations. Child molestation itself isn't limited to any one religion.

 

[Tyguy]

Child molestation itself isn't limited to any one religion.

That's because religion is fair.

 

[Noodle]

I don't know, I have a harder and harder time reconciling faith with logic. My parents never really have been regular churchgoers, so I haven't really been given a decent apologetic explanation as to why there definitely is a God.

I've heard The Summit is a great place for finding logical arguments in favor, instead of the usual circular party line "God exists because the Bible says he does, and vice versa." I might attend, just to see if it can convince me. I kind of like the idea of a higher power, I find the idea of this being all there is disturbing in some way I can't quite articulate.

One way of looking at it is this: Logic explains reality, God explains logic. Or rather, God created a universe that obeys the laws of our system of logic.

Evolution disproves Adam and Eve, so god created Evolution. It's a progressive cyclical thing.

That's also why I sort of prefer a mixture of Deism and Christianity.


Also, I'd rather be Christian and turn out wrong than be Atheist and turn out wrong. Just sayin', although if you basically aren't a dick in life, being an atheist shouldn't damn you forever.

 

[lord_raken]

One way of looking at it is this: Logic explains reality, God explains logic. Or rather, God created a universe that obeys the laws of our system of logic.

Evolution disproves Adam and Eve, so god created Evolution. It's a progressive cyclical thing.

That's also why I sort of prefer a mixture of Deism and Christianity.


Also, I'd rather be Christian and turn out wrong than be Atheist and turn out wrong. Just sayin', although if you basically aren't a dick in life, being an atheist shouldn't damn you forever.

As we mature as a species so does out understanding and the answers that satisfied our ancestors not longer satisfy us. However, the stories like those in Genesis take on new meaning. Instead of being a depiction of the creation of the universe it become a metaphor for children growing up to shoulder the responsibility of their actions.

I also find it amusing that both Atheists and fundamentalists take a literalistic and legalistic interpretation of the Bible and other holly texts, while the moderates take a much more informed interoperation.

 

[Eejit]

I also find it amusing that both Atheists and fundamentalists take a literalistic and legalistic interpretation of the Bible and other holly texts, while the moderates take a much more informed interoperation.

How so? They're simply trying to resolve the bullshit of religion with a modicum of logic and skepticism. The religious fundamentalists embrace the religious nonsense in its entirety while atheists are wholly skeptical and logical about it, the 'moderate theists' are just trying to get by in the middle.

 

[Krynn72]

Just because I dont have anywhere else to post this...

I drove by a church today, and their sign said

Atheism is a non-profit organization

I don't get what they're trying to say.

 

[CptStern]

religion is for profit? he's admitting religion is a money making scam like a pyramid scheme?

Also, I'd rather be Christian and turn out wrong than be Atheist and turn out wrong. Just sayin', although if you basically aren't a dick in life, being an atheist shouldn't damn you forever.

I tend to be more realistic in that I'd rather take a chance with an unproven unknown then waste my life on the off chance there's a personal supreme being watching my every move. we're both taking chances however I dont have to actively do anything except live a moral life while you're going through the motions and ending up in the same place I am ...that is, if that hell of an illogical hunch is true. so in both scenarios I/atheists win If I dont do anything and there's no god, I dont lose out. if I dont do anything and there is a god then as long as I've lived a moral life I'm saved ...going through the motions (church, worship) seems a little like brown nosing god to me and on top of that it doesnt get you a better seat than a non-believer like me

 

[Noodle]

I tend to be more realistic in that I'd rather take a chance with an unproven unknown then waste my life on the off chance there's a personal supreme being watching my every move. we're both taking chances however I dont have to actively do anything except live a moral life while you're going through the motions and ending up in the same place I am ...that is, if that hell of an illogical hunch is true. so in both scenarios I/atheists win If I dont do anything and there's no god, I dont lose out. if I dont do anything and there is a god then as long as I've lived a moral life I'm saved ...going through the motions (church, worship) seems a little like brown nosing god to me and on top of that it doesnt get you a better seat than a non-believer like me

Except I don't go through those motions. I pray, but I use that more as a form of meditation than anything else. And I don't attend church regularly (it's been maybe two years?), but every church I've been to was more about having a sense of community and support from others than it was about obeying a religious law. (Granted, that aspect of it is mostly throughout protestant denominations.) Most church-attending Christians thoroughly enjoy the church-going, regardless of it being required or not. Especially when I was younger, church cookouts were always fun (and delicious).

Also, that isn't the reason I believe in God, although it might be if I wasn't one to believe virtuous atheists were fine in God's view.


Another reason for church is, like prayer, to have a sort of meditative peace of mind. It's a comfort zone for a lot of people where you are usually ensured some peace from the rest of life. I know a lot people who are kept sane (relatively) by that type of stuff.

Long story short, religious law is not the primary reason the majority of protestants attend Church nowadays.


Regardless, I know a lot of religious people who would have otherwise ended up with... a steadier sense of morality. I don't mean the no-drinking, no-sex type of morality, just a general sense of not being a dick. I'd rather a less-than-individualistic person have moderate Christian morals than no morals at all.

That was longer than I expected...

 

[Rizzo]

What makes you think you're safe from the eternal hell fire just becouse you have some morals? Who's to say that's enough? Who's even to say they are correct? You're nice to everyone? Sorry, god wanted you to be a jerk to the jews for they killed his son. Sorry America. You're all ****ed. You all pretty much sin just by thinking bad thoughts. Becouse Gods a dick like that. You're ****ed. WE ARE ALL ****ED! So enjoy it while it lasts boys.

 

[Mogi67]

religion is for profit? he's admitting religion is a money making scam like a pyramid scheme?






I tend to be more realistic in that I'd rather take a chance with an unproven unknown then waste my life on the off chance there's a personal supreme being watching my every move. we're both taking chances however I dont have to actively do anything except live a moral life while you're going through the motions and ending up in the same place I am ...that is, if that hell of an illogical hunch is true. so in both scenarios I/atheists win If I dont do anything and there's no god, I dont lose out. if I dont do anything and there is a god then as long as I've lived a moral life I'm saved ...going through the motions (church, worship) seems a little like brown nosing god to me and on top of that it doesnt get you a better seat than a non-believer like me

People who believe in God and pursue their faith genuinely aren't doing so because of Pascal's wager, nor for them is their faith a matter of going through the motions. The point of church or worshiping God isn't so one can escape oblivion when they die, the point of Christian worship is to enter into a state where the believer can commune with the divine. In Christian theology, heaven is not a place where everything is happy and one gets everything he wants, it's a state of being in complete union with God. If you are an atheist, you would likely not be interested in such a thing.

 

[CptStern]

I'm catholic by birth, went to a catholic highschool and studied theology. catholic theology pretty much says I'm saved. believing in jebus isnt a pre-requisite as only the worst of the worst, the irredeemable go to hell; like jeffery dahmer or george bush. everyone else gets sent to heaven and/or purgatory

 

[CptStern]

Except I don't go through those motions. I pray, but I use that more as a form of meditation than anything else. And I don't attend church regularly (it's been maybe two years?), but every church I've been to was more about having a sense of community and support from others than it was about obeying a religious law. (Granted, that aspect of it is mostly throughout protestant denominations.) Most church-attending Christians thoroughly enjoy the church-going, regardless of it being required or not. Especially when I was younger, church cookouts were always fun (and delicious).

Also, that isn't the reason I believe in God, although it might be if I wasn't one to believe virtuous atheists were fine in God's view.


Another reason for church is, like prayer, to have a sort of meditative peace of mind. It's a comfort zone for a lot of people where you are usually ensured some peace from the rest of life. I know a lot people who are kept sane (relatively) by that type of stuff.

Long story short, religious law is not the primary reason the majority of protestants attend Church nowadays.


Regardless, I know a lot of religious people who would have otherwise ended up with... a steadier sense of morality. I don't mean the no-drinking, no-sex type of morality, just a general sense of not being a dick. I'd rather a less-than-individualistic person have moderate Christian morals than no morals at all.

That was longer than I expected...

it seems to me that you're creating your "religion" as you go along. you're not actively following the religion but rather the spirit of what the religion means to you. this is somewhat disingenous because you're kind of cherry picking what parts you like and discarding those you dont. I dont think there's anything too wrong about that except in a fundamental way but that's due to the contradictory nature of the source material


in any event I'm still not going to hell

 

[Mogi67]

I'm catholic by birth, went to a catholic highschool and studied theology. catholic theology pretty much says I'm saved. believing in jebus isnt a pre-requisite as only the worst of the worst, the irredeemable go to hell; like jeffery dahmer or george bush. everyone else gets sent to heaven and/or purgatory

If you're going by Catholic theology, then you must take mortal sins into account, which threaten your relationship with God if you do not seek redemption. The church fathers believed it was possible to lose salvation after baptism if you deny Christ.

 

[Rizzo]

Pretty sure you are Stern. Don't feel bad. Im pretty sure we all are.
Also, how is anything Noodle does different from what everyone else has done ever?

I mean, just that there's different versions of Christianity should be enough to tell you that someone has been tampering with the source material.

 

[CptStern]

If you're going by Catholic theology, then you must take mortal sins into account, which threaten your relationship with God if you do not seek redemption. The church fathers believed it was possible to lose salvation after baptism if you deny Christ.

two words: deathbed confession


also as I understand it you fall from a state of grace. it's not an automatic loss of eternal salvation, you're still a member of the church. you'd need to commit a further mortal sin to get sent to hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Roman_Catholicism

 

[Mogi67]

two words: deathbed confession


also as I understand it you fall from a state of grace. it's not an automatic loss of eternal salvation, you're still a member of the church. you'd need to commit a further mortal sin to get sent to hell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_sin#Roman_Catholicism

Well excommunication is different from damnation, of course. But I don't understand why you would undergo a confession on your deathbed if you've spent your whole life rejecting Christ. The entire sacrament is built upon penitence. I mean, if you did so sincerely to confess then whatever but if you're just doing it to have everything in order then it would be a profanation.

 

[CptStern]

I'm sure deathbed confession has made many a catholic. I'm also willing to bet god isnt that much of a dick cuz he's bound to have seen this time and time again. so I have to spend a few more weeks in purgatory. big whup

I'm also making peace with the jewish god (not jebus), the little fat asian dude, the crazy kill everybody dude, and the flying mass of pasta and meatballs thingy

 

[staticprimer]

Just because I dont have anywhere else to post this...

I drove by a church today, and their sign said



I don't get what they're trying to say.

I think they were trying to say "Atheism is a non-prophet organization," which would have been pretty funny if they had spelled prophet right.

 

[Tyguy]

People who believe in God and pursue their faith genuinely aren't doing so because of Pascal's wager, nor for them is their faith a matter of going through the motions.

Gotta admit, it's a pretty good deterrent...

In Christian theology, heaven is not a place where everything is happy and one gets everything he wants, it's a state of being in complete union with God.

My heaven has boobies, cannabis, and painkillers. God's there but he's like the passed out guy at the party that everybody draws on.

If you are an atheist, you would likely not be interested in such a thing.

If such a thing existed those damn atheists would be VERY interested.

 

[Unfocused]

I'm catholic by birth, went to a catholic highschool and studied theology. catholic theology pretty much says I'm saved. believing in jebus isnt a pre-requisite as only the worst of the worst, the irredeemable go to hell

Is that so? I thought being moral is not enough, you have to actually believe in God.

Someone (I don't remember who) said that it's better to believe in God than not, because it's worth risking sacrificing some time for the possibility of salvation, when you can also be eternally damned, which would be infinitely worse.

The problem with that is - just because I declare that I believe does not mean I can convince myself to do so.

As for the deathbed confession - if you die suddenly, there's no time for that.

 

[Krynn72]

I love it when people say they believe in god because of the "better safe than sorry" reason. As if you have a choice in what you believe, and that saying you believe in God when really you didn't would fly when you got to heaven.

 

[Mogi67]

Gotta admit, it's a pretty good deterrent...



My heaven has boobies, cannabis, and painkillers. God's there but he's like the passed out guy at the party that everybody draws on.



If such a thing existed those damn atheists would be VERY interested.

Fair enough, but that's not the type of afterlife which is presented by Christianity.

Is that so? I thought being moral is not enough, you have to actually believe in God.

Someone (I don't remember who) said that it's better to believe in God than not, because it's worth risking sacrificing some time for the possibility of salvation, when you can also be eternally damned, which would be infinitely worse.

The problem with that is - just because I declare that I believe does not mean I can convince myself to do so.

As for the deathbed confession - if you die suddenly, there's no time for that.

Catholicism does not teach a salvation through morality, it would render Christ purposeless.

I'm sure deathbed confession has made many a catholic. I'm also willing to bet god isnt that much of a dick cuz he's bound to have seen this time and time again. so I have to spend a few more weeks in purgatory. big whup

I'm also making peace with the jewish god (not jebus), the little fat asian dude, the crazy kill everybody dude, and the flying mass of pasta and meatballs thingy

I didn't say deathbed confession isn't efficacious. The point is that if it is done without faith or without a genuine sense of penitence or contrition then it's fruitless. A person can't truly ask for forgiveness sincerely if they're not sorry. The sacraments presuppose faith. I'm not saying you're going to hell, Stern, or anything of the sort. It's just that if one is going to argue salvation from the Catholic theology perspective then one needs to take things into account.

 

[lord_raken]

How so? They're simply trying to resolve the bullshit of religion with a modicum of logic and skepticism. The religious fundamentalists embrace the religious nonsense in its entirety while atheists are wholly skeptical and logical about it, the 'moderate theists' are just trying to get by in the middle.

Because fundamentalists and Atheists fail to take into account the cultural context in which the Bible was written. That society and world view is very different from what we have today. To find the good stuff you have to dissect the cultural context and dig out the meaning.

The part where Jesus says "If a man looks at a woman in lust he has already committed adultery." does not mean that everytime you think "naughty" thoughts you are guilty of adultery. The application was toward married men and basically said: "Hey, if you are happily married you have no reason to be imagining yourself with another woman." Us attached youngling have every right to imagine women we see naked, its not very nice or respectful but its not a "sin."

We no longer keep slaves, have multiple wives, or stone our children when they disobey. We can eat whatever we like (BACON!!!!!!), and we no longer stone adulterers. All that was part of the culture of the times, but its not part of our culture.

Christianity boils down two two things: Love God and love others like yourself. Pretty basic right? You don't even have to believe in the 7 day creation to be a Christian.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Sounds like we've got a heretic on our hands!

 

[Sheepo]

Christianity boils down two two things: Love God and love others like yourself. Pretty basic right? You don't even have to believe in the 7 day creation to be a Christian.

The amount of Christians that actually practice this way is insanely low.

 

[Mogi67]

Christianity boils down two two things: Love God and love others like yourself. Pretty basic right? You don't even have to believe in the 7 day creation to be a Christian.

Indeed, context is everything. Most people don't realize that the Genesis creation account wasn't meant to be a historical treatise but to instruct the people about theological truths. It had similarities with other well known creation myths of the time, like the Babylonian Enuma Elish, which the Israelites would have been familiar with. Scholars think it was written to show the supremacy of YHWH over the pagan pantheon.

The amount of Christians that actually practice this way is insanely low.

Exactly, which is why there are 35,000 different denominations of Christianity,lolz.

 

[Viperidae]

The amount of Christians that actually practice this way is insanely low.

Says the guy living in North America.

 

[Shift]

It makes me laugh when people say they believe in science not faith when science generally just describes things and doesn't explain them, more often than not when science delves into matters of the universe all it tends to do is create a whole array of other questions.

And yes Christianity is based solely on the belief in God and the belief that Jesus died for for humanity, like cleansing them for their sins, whether people choose to take it beyond that is entirely up to them but I don't know why they are bothering lol.

And anyone who believes in what Richard Dawkins is saying is quite frankily a moron. Read 'Who Made God?' by Edgar Andrews. Pretty much destroys most of his main arguments.

 

[Noodle]

it seems to me that you're creating your "religion" as you go along. you're not actively following the religion but rather the spirit of what the religion means to you. this is somewhat disingenous because you're kind of cherry picking what parts you like and discarding those you dont. I dont think there's anything too wrong about that except in a fundamental way but that's due to the contradictory nature of the source material

I think the contradictory nature is due to inconsistency in the interpretations of the various writers and translators, as well as the differences in taking things literally or figuraticely, but the general ideas that survive through that (God is important, don't be a dick to God or other people) are what I put emphasis on. Most major religions in the world have some variation of that overall theme. I just came to that through Christianity.

I'm catholic by birth, went to a catholic highschool and studied theology.

This would explain your atheism. I doubt God intended his followers to form a hierarchical religious government of their own like such.

Because fundamentalists and Atheists fail to take into account the cultural context in which the Bible was written. That society and world view is very different from what we have today. To find the good stuff you have to dissect the cultural context and dig out the meaning.

Christianity boils down two two things: Love God and love others like yourself. Pretty basic right? You don't even have to believe in the 7 day creation to be a Christian.

Also, this^.


It should also be noted for future reference that I lean more towards Jesus Christ the Philosopher rather than Zombie Jesus, who seems to be more important among modern fundamentalists. He was a martyr, sure, but that was just a result of his philosophy, not the creation of it.

 

[The Monkey]

Because fundamentalists and Atheists fail to take into account the cultural context in which the Bible was written. That society and world view is very different from what we have today. To find the good stuff you have to dissect the cultural context and dig out the meaning.

The part where Jesus says "If a man looks at a woman in lust he has already committed adultery." does not mean that everytime you think "naughty" thoughts you are guilty of adultery. The application was toward married men and basically said: "Hey, if you are happily married you have no reason to be imagining yourself with another woman." Us attached youngling have every right to imagine women we see naked, its not very nice or respectful but its not a "sin."

We no longer keep slaves, have multiple wives, or stone our children when they disobey. We can eat whatever we like (BACON!!!!!!), and we no longer stone adulterers. All that was part of the culture of the times, but its not part of our culture.

Christianity boils down two two things: Love God and love others like yourself. Pretty basic right? You don't even have to believe in the 7 day creation to be a Christian.

If the Bible is the word of God, surely it should've stood the test of time?

 

[Noodle]

If the Bible is the word of God, surely it should've stood the test of time?

God gave gave humanity free will, and I think that included the ability to mess with his words in translation, although I doubt that it messed with the overall scheme of things.

 

[PvtRyan]

It makes me laugh when people say they believe in science not faith when science generally just describes things and doesn't explain them, more often than not when science delves into matters of the universe all it tends to do is create a whole array of other questions.

Anyone who talks about "believing in science" is an idiot. There is nothing to believe and if you think there is, you've missed the point entirely.

That said, I'm not sure how science doesn't explain things (give a definition of 'explaining') and how faith does.

And anyone who believes in what Richard Dawkins is saying is quite frankily a moron. Read 'Who Made God?' by Edgar Andrews. Pretty much destroys most of his main arguments.

I googled him, and he's a creationist, president of some gathering of loony creationists (pleonasm). Really now, or are you just trolling?

 

[Shift]

Oh man I take it back, there's so much hatred of the subject on here, forgot where I was for a second.

 

[PvtRyan]

Hatred?

 

[Mogi67]

Anyone who talks about "believing in science" is an idiot. There is nothing to believe and if you think there is, you've missed the point entirely.

That said, I'm not sure how science doesn't explain things (give a definition of 'explaining') and how faith does.



I googled him, and he's a creationist, president of some gathering of loony creationists (pleonasm). Really now, or are you just trolling?

To play devil's advocate, don't atheists ironically lead an existence essentially based on faith? Much of knowledge is held through belief - trust is placed in the research and studies of scientists and specialists. It's common for people to place faith in concepts or ideals which do not expressly exist in reality, having certainty about things, like how liberal democracy is better than slavery.

Science is a field that should hold nothing greater than discovering truth or knowledge, yet today science is led to support trends in intellectual thought, one of which is the destruction of religion due to a supposed lack of rationality. But due to the scientific understanding of the world being based on a self-proclaimed entirety of reason there follows with it a presumption that one can find a source for the proof of life merely by reasoning. What I mean by this is that the "enlightened" humans of the world can now prove to others that it is "objectively good" to do certain things, like search for truth, for example.

Well, why should a thing be clearly good, especially without faith in the fact that it is good? This is the problem with the objectivity that comes along with the modern scientific understanding of life, it bases its claims on nothing to an extent. It's based on presupposed knowledge and a trust that this knowledge is true. Therefore, science cannot function without faith (though the same could be said of reason): faith is what drives humans to understand (or hope) that what they speak of is correct, and without this base of faith, perhaps nothing can stand. This is not to say that science should be discredited, but perhaps the "rationally" centered outlooks of modernism may not be all that rational to begin with.

 

[Acepilotf14]

To play devil's advocate, don't atheists ironically lead an existence essentially based on faith?

Atheists lead an existence based on skepticism. The scientific method is the main proponent of this; if a result cannot be re-done, then it cannot be proven. There is no faith involved. Faith is believing in something with only partial or no proof. All of science exists on the base of proof. If something cannot be replicated or proven, it doesn't deserve a place in books.

There's always the chance that all scientists are lying to us and in cahoots with this secret plan made by Satan to beat God once and for all, but if he can do that I think Satan is probably the better man.