Losing my religion.
 

Thanks to REM for the unoriginal title.

Most of you know that I lost my sister some months back to a very small cyst at the base of her brain. This event, for some bizarre reason, strengthened my belief in a higher power, specifically, God.

But now that I've had time to think about it...

I think juju said it best when he said "religion is a bunch of fucking bunk". I might have gotten the words wrong, but its close enough. I am sick of being told that my sister's death was part of God's plan, and I'm appalled when I get accused of "presuming to question God" when I want to know where exactly it fits in with his little "plan".

In the past, when I engaged in debate over religion, I found myself defending the people. I could not understand the venom felt toward christians in general. I tried not to be an asshole about my beliefs. Surely most other christians behave the same way. Boy was I wrong.

When I found myself questioning my beliefs, rather than the nurturing and support I might hope for from fellow christians, I found judgement and scorn. Since when do christians get to preach the teachings of the bible but not follow it? "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone", anyone?

But I guess that's neither here nor there at this point. Whit challenged my beliefs once, and I did a terrible job explaining them, because they were not well fleshed out. I think I have got it figured out now.

There is no God. God has no "Plan".

Christians are a bunch of people who excuse their poor behaviour and attitudes by claiming divine forgiveness documented in a book which tells them to behave exactly the opposite of the way they do.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course. There are christians out there who truly are humble, and model their lives after the Jesus', as depicted in the new testament. But they are not nearly as common as I once believed. But I still think they are wrong.

It was really hard to admit this all to myself, and it was even harder to write (type) it and post it for the world to see. But I am glad I did. I feel better now.

~James

No argument here.

Plenty below.

I can identify, except that there was no triggering moment in my life which brought me to my conclusions.. mine were born of simple logic and observation applied over many years. I was raised in Mormon central, so I was rarely exposed o the possibility that God is merely a creation of man, but by the time I was about 15, I had severe doubts, and by 20 I had concluded that "God" is a pretty name for what amounts to little more than a mental crutch.

Of course, I respect others' rights to their own conclusions on the existence of $diety, whether they conflict with mine or not, as long as they don't try to ram them down my throat.

Be careful, Perth. Your risking whiplash or at least ping pong syndrome.
Like any large group of people, except maybe Libertarians, there are all kinds. Some good, some bad, some ugly and shouldn't be painted with a broad brush. Being a Christian is a personal choice of faith and I think your mistake was thinking that all Christians proscribe to a certain lifestyle.
Certainly many of the southern slave owners considered themselves good Christians. So did the abolitionists.:)

Thats why I say there are exceptions to the rule. There are, and I have met some of them. But I am coming to the realisation that the vast majority of christians i know (that is an important distinction, and I should have made it in the first place) are assholes. And they think its okay to be an asshole, because, like the bumper sticker says, "Chritians aren't perfect, just forgiven" (my blood boils any time I see that sticker).

I would not be of this opinion if people the fundies would realise that when Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", he was talking to them. Thats the problem. Religion is a crutch and a shield to too many people. And I cannot defend that attitude any more.

Yes, there are wonderful people that believe in God. Its too bad they don't have more influence.

~James

Pastrami's post reminded me of this, posted on metafilter today.

I think this is much the same as seeing the Virgin Mary on a fencepost, but its an interesting idea, nonetheless.

~James

Perth - I'm with ya. I don't believe in God and the Bible anymore either. Mine was not one defining moment. I was raised Baptist but my parents taught me to question everything. They told me that until I was 18 I needed to attend Church, but that after that - and during Church - I should question everything and decide what is right for me. I just saw while growing up so many hypocrites and really disgusting non-christian like attitudes in the church that organized religion in general leaves a bad taste in my mouth. (I also just had someone from work say "Well George W. Bush believes in God - so he's who I'm gonna vote for.") WTF?

I am an extreme believer in Karma - what you do to others will come back to you. (And if its bad - it will bite you in your ass.) I don't see it is a sad thing loosing my religion. I see it as an awakening.

First of all, where the fuck have you been? I even asked where you were in my user title a few weeks back.

I personally am sorry to hear about this. But, no one can be right when it comes to "Does God exist?", so if you are at peace, then it's all good.

I firmly believe in God, though I am not a Christian. I think of Christianity in the same way that I do Communism: nice in theory, bad in practice.

I've also been wondering what's been up with you, buddy. Long time no see your pixels. Welcome back!

As far as the thread topic goes ... I've been thinking about this and don't want to come off sounding preachy. It's not what you need to find your way through your life events.

Short answer is don't close any doors. Try being spiritual instead of religious for a while, see how it goes for you.

There are many paths to spirit. Some follow conventional beliefs, others esoteric. Some find spiritual fulfillment in the laugh of a child, or the fall of rain, or the light of the new moon, or in silence.

Blessings.

Exactly...for example, I worship Cadbury, as they make the greatest beverage known to man--Dr. Pepper.

Let me make something perfectly clear.

My original role was that of controlling you retards through guilt embarrassment and the kings' whims. Not having a real gov't and endless agencies to spy on, tax and arrest you fools makes it pretty tough to grow a society. What was I supposed to do, send a ufo to look over you? No, some genius came up with the bible.

I was on vacation when the bible was sent up for review and approval. My underlings signed off on it. There's a lot of great stories in the bible but after you all invented TV, I knew it was all but finished.

There is a god and he has a plan. Just not the plan most folks think of or can understand.

I needed some time away from the cellar. :) Sorry, and its nice to be missed. Just needed to clear my head. I have been thinking about this post for a while, and I need to go away so I could make sure I was clear on my feelings.

Wolf, I appreciate distinction betwen spirituality and christian faith. I guess I still believe that while Jesus may not have been holy, he was a wise and humble man. People could do worse than following his teachings. But I do mena follow. Not "I believe in Jesus, so I'm going to heaven and you're going to hell. Nyah nyah".

I believe there is room for spirituality in every life. How you choose to fulfill that, or not to, is up to you. Myself? I don't want to be told anymore. I do have some bitterness toward christians, and much of that is likely misplaced. I will work on that, because I do not want to be bitter. But I will never allow myself to be told what to believe again.

And yeah, Dr. Pepper is the greatest beverage known to man. Unless you count beer. Especially if that beer is a nice red colour.

      Perth! It's good to see you back, you've been missed.

      I'd like to take something Syc said a step farther, in a different direction and offer a counterpoint everyone else.       Here's the rub on that. If you choose to believe there is no god then you are basing your opinion off faith every bit as much as any christian. The same is true of all religions. Whether you choose to believe it's true or choose to believe it's false. I'm sure you remember my thoughts on faith? Actually, I guess I never went into it that much.
      The problem with faith is that you are choosing to treat an opinion as a fact. We don't know who, if anyone, has got it right. You can choose to follow a path provided or form a hybrid of several to make your own. Whatever path you choose it's a choice based on what you want to believe, not what you know. It still comes back to faith.
      Consider this though, you don't have to have an opinion. You can admit ignorance of the hereafter and the grand scheme of things outright. You can drop the idea of any form of cosmic balance or universal justice at will. The really amazing part? It won't change a damn thing.
      You can apply your experiences directly to decide if something is good or bad, with no old book to advise you. No need to reference anything beyond your own point of view and the point of view of people you consider intelligent and/or insightful.
      Look to your own road for guidance. Instead of walking in the moral path of a man you consider great, seek out where he was going. Look for the wisdom in the words of others, but value the wisdom as it applies to you.
      You say you "lost" your religion. See the gain, you are more free now than you have ever been. Breathe the air for a bit before you start believing something else you can't prove. Like "There is no God." Try instead, "If there's a god, why should I care?"

"You gotta work out your own salvation"--The The

Recommended reading
 

I'd recommend reading the series Conversations With God by Neale Donald Walsch. Some good thoughts in there and more in line with what I believe.

Actually, evolution is pretty much considered a fact by scientists nowadays.

But that doesn't make it true, only the best bet with the knowledge they have. Tomorrow may change that.:)

Uhhhhh, no. Not believing in God is not faith. It's not as if both sides have no scientific support and therefore believing or following either is an act of faith. Those supporting evolution have a far greater scientific backing than those supporting creationism, for example (perhaps because evolution actually happened, and Creation is Bull Shit?). I would argue that it's not "Faith" in the Christian sense if one has actually turned on their brain to think about/question it, like so many Christians do not.

That's a puzzling statement. Sure, tommorrow may see gravity reverse itself, but my best bet is that it won't.

There's some good info here and here on the subject.

Yeah, it seems that OnyxCougar broadened Whit's definition beyond what he meant to say. Not believing in something is the opposite of faith.

But, you know, there are these atheists that run around saying they're "100% positive" there is no God. That's also bologna, and they should be slapped in the face for saying that. They've gone from one extreme to the other! I believe that's what Whit was getting at.

Nah, I think I've been drifting this direction for quite some time. Its not like this a sudden shift. I spent a great deal of time questioning why I believed in God, and in the end, the answers weren't good enough.

What it boiled down to was this:

I believed in God because I had always believed in him.

Not the rock-solid foundation one might hope for. So I asked myself why I had always believed in him. That answer made just about as much sense.

Because I wanted to believe. It gave an order to things I couldn't otherwise explain.

Let that one sink in. I believed in comething I couldn't explain to explain things I couldn't explain. So theres my foundation. And lets not assume that I took those answers, accepted them, and bolted out to announce my newly-acquired atheism. You don't rush to conclusions when your soul is on the line. :)

Conclusion: I don't believe in God. Am I right? Fuck, I don't know. Neither does anyone else, despite their protestations. But at least I am happy with my choice. And make no mistake, I am happy with it. There is a certain amount of freedom of thought that until now I have denied myself. I kind of like the freedom.

I suppose faith in God can be freeing as well, depending on your attitude and situation. But now that I see it from this side, I find religion to generally be limiting, constrictive and somewhat opppressive. But thats just my experience.

Obviously you've got to find your own way, anything else is a copout.

The attitude, seen in some christians, that you are describing, I can do whatever I want because I've been saved so all my actions are justified, is considered, I'm gonna use a bad word here, heresy in Orthodox Christian circles. Faith vs works was a big ongoing argument in the early Church and continues to challenge the individual. Early philosophers spent a lot of paper talking about righteous pagans etc... because of the great intellectual debt owed to non-Christian Greeks. Ideally, we have some combination of those attributes, but for the Catholic Christian especially in protestant America its sometimes easier to blend in than to make the necessary distinction. Anyway, good luck figuring out your path. g

Boy, you can sure tell the Pagan and mostly Pagan around these parts, can't you? :)

Wolf has hit the proverbial nail on its metaphoric little head, Perth. Do not confuse religion with spirituality. You can experience spirituality through participation in a religion, but it is scarcely a requirement that you do so.

Getting in touch with what you feel is the first step. The second step is understanding why you feel it. The third step is trying to experience the things that make you feel what you want to feel as often as you can.

The last step is using those feelings to search for meaning about you, your life, your universe. Somewhere along that path of discovery, you realize that you are participating in spiritual experiences.

It really doesn't matter what the source of spirit and, by association, spiritual experience, is. The only thing that matters is that you have them, own them and work to understand them. Otherwise, you're just drifting around, waiting for the end to come. Where's the fun in that?

      Thanks for clarifying that for me Juju.
      I believe I touched on this in the thread Perth referenced before but since there's a lot of people here that weren't around back then...       It's kinda like Dave said in the Arnie thread, (I'm not going to quote it exact, just ballpark it) unless you're clairvoyant you don't know the future. Still, I think we can reasonably expect gravity to continue and the sun to rise. I just don't think that's faith.
      In the case of the Theory of Evolution, I expect it did occur. I do not, however, know for sure it did. Also I expect it'll continue to be the "Theory" of Evolution until the missing link is found. Notice that there is discussion of evolution and the Theory of evolution. This is because we can prove scientifically that living stuff evolves. They just haven't met the standard the scientific theory demands to be considered proof that we came from a specific creature. I think the line between evolution and the Theory of evolution gets blurred often. They are related, they are not however, the same. Perhaps the problem is that the Theory of Evolution should be more properly called the Theory of Human Evolution. Of course if living creatures evolve, and humans are living creatures...

      Isn't it interesting that the first three steps can be done chemically? In a bar for example? Granted the very important last step didn't get quoted here. But I wanted to point out that pure hedonism can seem spiritual. I think maybe this is why. Of course, without the last step it's all empty spiritual calories, but hey the last parts the hard one. We are, after all, largely a culture of momentary gratification. Makes barflys and druggies make a little more sense, eh?

Are you suggesting I find myself in a bar? Because if so, thats the best idea I've heard in weeks.

"Hey honey! I'm headed to the bar. For spiritual growth!"

I can't wait. :)

I think we need to define our terms here, because you're starting to confuse me a little.

<u>Evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas.

<u>Theory of Evolution</u>: The mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Mutation, genetic drift, natural selection, founder effect, gene flow, etc.

<u>Common Descent</u>: The theory that all life arose from one common ancestor (some believe that this, too, is a fact).

These ideas are all seperate, but linked.

The idea that humans, apes and monkeys all share a common ancestor is born of the above concepts. But finding yet another predecessor of man is unlikely to prove the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

There isn't really a "missing link" anymore, as far as I know. I've looked at the fossils of the transitional species, and it seems to be a pretty clear gradual transformation to me.

Prove it.

You can't. Nobody can. That's why Evolutionary theory is as valid as creation ideology.


Evolutionary Theory is a great theory, and one day we may have enough evidence to PROVE it is correct. Until that time, scientists have to qualify remarks with words like "suggests" and "may have been" and "could be caused by".

Now. If we can agree that Evolution is NOT fact, merely a good theory, why is it that most scientists take it as fact, and teach it in our schools?

My thing is this: Until it is proven as fact, I have to take that explanation on scientific guesswork. I have to take it on faith. Doesn't that make The theory of Evolution a religion?

You're asking me to believe events of billions and trillions of years ago happened in just the right way, and we were created by chance...an infinitesmally small percentage...considered to be nil by most people, evolving out of a primordial soup of nutrients. An event that we cannot recreate with all of our technology, even if we mix the right chemicals together and apply energy.

That's faith.

Therefore, Evolutionary Theory is a religion that we are teaching every child, starting from Elementary school. It is not taught as "this is what we think". It is taught as fact. This is what happened. 80 years ago, it was illegal to teach Evolutionary Theory in schools, now it's considered fact. Unprovable, unobservable fact.

And the taxpayers are paying for it. But try to teach religion (specifically Christianity or other religious creation myths), even as a different "theory" and people get all up in arms about religion in schools.

Just think about it. I'm not saying I am a Creationist. I'm also not saying I'm an evolutionist. I'm saying that until we have PROOF either way, we should not be teaching it as fact to our children.

I suppose you mean "Believing fervently there is no God", rather than "NOT believing in any God". If you switch it around, what terminology would you use if you have no faith either way? I would say "not believing in any god" is the no faith position.No, Evolution is fact. The theory of natural selection is theory. The word theory implies a lack of faith and an invitation to challenge.
Natural selection is supported by available evidence, and could be disproved, but myths require blind faith. There is a considerable qualitative difference.

Be careful about confusing the noun(faith) with the transitive verb(faith). That leads to all kinds of misunderstanding.:)

When I went to school all those things WERE taught as theories, especially everything before monkeys. Has that changed?

The tricky part of that is not letting the tools become the experience. Shamen and other seekers and practitioners have used substances to obtain insight for millenia. However, if you start making the substance the thing rather than what you learn while using the substance, you are going to miss the goal.

As a recovering drunkard, I think I can speak of this with some certainty. It was only after I stopped drinking that I truly was able to absorb the lessons I learned while being loaded, because when I was a drunk, there was no persepective.

Strangely, not everything I learned from being drunk was bad, believe it or not.

That isn't rephrasing, that's redefining. That's using a definition that no scientist would recognise, let alone accept. But if we use that shorthand, then of course all of that isn't fact, as I stated before.

Evolution, the change of species over time, is an observed fact, verified experimentally.

Natural selection, or "bacterial and other microorganisms ... evolved and changed enough to create aquatic lifeforms, which evolved to amphibians, which evolved to whatever, to whatever, ad infinitem, basically life, as we know it" is a theory explaining an evolutionary process, not a fact, but is a theory based on available evidence.

Abiogenesis, or "creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured"creation of amino acids and other enzymes in a "primordial soup" from whence bacterial and other microorganisms spontaneously occured is likewise a theory. Experiments verify the aminos and enzymes, but no life has been experimentally created.

The big bang theory is also a theory. New data is always coming in, which causes the theory to be adjusted.

THAT is not provable. Therefore it is NOT a fact. Period.

Nothing is provable in science. Only disprovable. And when I pointed out the distinction between evolution and natural selection in the other post, I stated that the natural selection part was not a fact. So obviously evolution + natural selection + abiogenesis + big bang is not a fact.
There's a difference between not believing in any god, and believing there is no God. The former implies no faith, the latter implies faith.

Webster:
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

You speak of 2, b, 1 ? That makes it faith not religion.

Both are a belief, and therefore require faith. See webster post by Bruce.




Exactly. So if it's not a fact, why present it that way, TO THE EXCLUSION of every other possibility? Why not ALSO teach the creation theories of different religious belief systems as well?

Separation of church and state.

3 is different than 2b1 and 2b2 that's why it's not 2c1.

BTW, I have faith in Webster's but I don't worship it. It's not a religion.

The state of textbooks is indeed deplorable. See Richard Feynman's autobiographies for his experiences in the approval process. But putting inaccuracies aside:
The "best guess" sentence applies to ALL of science, not just natural selection. A general science book ought to describe the scientific method, and state that all scientific statements can be divided into two piles: data and theories. Data comes from experiments. Theories provide a framework that ties together data from past experiments, in an attempt to predict the results of future experiments. No explanation is fact. there's nothing special about natural selection in this area.Because it's a science class, not a comparative religions class. Creationism was not arrived at by the scientific method. It is not supported by any experimental data. It is, in fact, impervious to experiment. All contrary evidence is ignored as God trying to test people's faith.
It is impossible to rule out a magical being who fakes the evidence, but it is also scientifically meaningless, and therefore worthless as science. If belief in it helps you spiritually, then I have no problems with that. But it is not science.No more or less than any other scientific theory. Are you advocating the removal of science classes from public schools, based on the fact that science honestly admits that it is not 100% proven? Or are you only worried about science that doesn't agree with current interpretation of your religion?

OK, I've pointed out the difference twice, so I'll ask instead. How would YOU phrase a position that requires no faith? Or do you deny that people without religious faith exist?

I think you've got it backwards. The Theory does not contain the science, the science contains the Theory which grew out of the discoveries of science. The Theory is just scientists speculating on how to connect the dots. The Theory is changing constantly as more and more dots are established. Quite often the dots change also, when new discoveries shown the conclusions of the past are invalid. That's what science is all about, certainly not faith or religion. And science is what should be taught in schools. not faith or religion.

Websters again:
Main Entry: 1ag·nos·tic
Pronunciation: ag-'näs-tik, &g-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek agnOstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnOstos known, from gignOskein to know -- more at KNOW
Date: 1869
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Is this a religion?

Indeed. One can have faith that there is no god. But what if one doesn't have faith that there is or isn't a god? I can guess that a throw of a die will be more than two, but I have no faith. Likewise, I don't belive in any gods, but I have no faith.

Unless we start using some pretty broad (bordering on meaningless) definitions of faith.

That is just as true (or false) of all theories in science. But natural selection is one of the few that religious people try to claim is just a guess, and separate it from other theories.

Onyx, please, for the love of God, stop talking. Everything you've said since my last post is completely wrong. You have so many things wrong it's crazy. Let me go back and we can break it down into little pieces. Then we can evaluate the truth value of each piece individually.

Well like I said before, to me it was. Of course some of the "dots" I was taught have since been disproven, which is the nature of science. But, I was taught that too.
I think much of that has more to do with the teacher(s) rather than the textbook.

Before I reply to everything else, could you tell me which parts of my "definitions" post you agree and disagree with? Can we at least define our terms?

I'd like to add a few more definitions:

<u>theory</u>: an empirically verifiable proposition that seeks to explain some portion of reality. It must be expressed in a way that can be tested. In other words, the theory must be falsifiable using data obtained during some form of observation.

This is obviously completely separate from a "guess". To 'guess' means to assume without sufficient information. If you've empirically verified something numerous times, then obviously you're basing your proposition on some information.

<u>scientific fact</u>: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final)

Summation
 

A misconception that OnyxCougar seems to be under is that children should only be taught proven facts in a science class. That is not true. Children should be taught science in a science class. Natural selection is science, creationism is not.

In many science books, the evolution of atomic theory is described in detail. Several different models are provided, in order, showing how the new models supplant, refute, or provide alternatives to other models. But they are all scientific models. If a supportable alternate theory of the evolutionary process were to gain currency, then it should be put alongside natural selection in the textbooks. But "it was magic and you can't prove it wasn't" is not a scientific theory.

This is blatantly wrong on it's face. Please peruse talkorigins.org for overwhelming evidence that evolution occurs. Also, I suspect that you might be using a definition of 'evolution' other than the one I stated.


There is evidence aplenty. I shouldn't even have to link to it. All you need to do is look.
We don't agree. In fact, nearly all scientists view evolution as a fact. That you think they think this way merely because of guesswork shows that you have a deep misunderstanding of how science works. In science, propositions must be empirically verifiable and falsifiable.

I will post this link again, because you obviously didn't read it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Your answer is under the sub-heading "<i>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.</i>"

Oooo, 'Period'! I guess that clinches it then, doesn't it?

What are you talking about? The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. It isn't in the definition I stated at all. It seems that you either didn't see my proposed definitions, or you completly ignored them. I'll state it again:<blockquote><u>evolution</u>: a change in allele frequencies over time. Populations change in their genetic makeup as time passes. This is a fact. This is why the makers of roach motels have to keep changing the type of poison they put in their traps. It's also why we have chihuahuas. </blockquote>That, and <i>nothing more</i> is evolution.

I'm stunned. How can you say that "Not believing" is "Believing"?

Look at what you wrote. "Not believing" [...] "1. Confident belief". Do you see the contradiction?

Okay. I haven't finished the rest of the thread, but I'm going to respond to this real quick.

I can't prove what? That I suspect that Creation is bullshit? Why yes, I can, by saying just that. So, I don't want to be mean, but why don't you read what I fucking write next time, mmmmmmkay? I didn't say it most certainly was; I said tht perhaps it is.

Do you really think I would make such an assertion if I couldn't back it up? After reading how I tear into retards like LUVBUGZ over that very same thing? My posts come under an extra amount of scrutiny because I am an asshole, and everyone loves to be an asshole to an asshole. Do you really think I don't know this, and double-check what I write? You won't ever nail me that easily. Try again.