Category: philosophy/religion topics
First off, I'm not pretending to speak for all secular humanists. I don't claim to have the be all end all of secular humanism. And, I don't intend on playing at the No True Scottsman fallacy either. So, any other nontheists / secular humanists should also answer questions posed here, more voices would be better.
So, theists of all stripes, but especially orthodox / evangelical / fundamentalist theists: Those of you who are afraid of the "slippery slope" or "being wishy-washy".
Ask away. Ask us nontheists / secular humanists anything you want to. Find out for yourselves if what they have taught you about us is in facft correct.
Many of you on here talk about how we nontheists don't give you a proper hearing, don't respect your beliefs, and so on. What could possibly be the higher form of respect than to open ourselves up to your questions? Not only might your questions cause us to examine ourselves, but you just might learn something new, something that could help you engage with your friendly neighborhood humanists that you know in real life.
I'm extending the invitation to you people of faith in particular. Not because I have the answers, though I will do my personal best and try to cite sources. But you on this site constantly ask to be respected for your beliefs. What higher form of respect is there than to open ourselves up to your questions?
This is put on the Philosophy / Religion board in order to facilitate an orderly civil interaction. You won't have us calling you haters, and it'll be appreciated that the opposite be also true, that you not start by assuming we are immoral self-centered hedonistic pigs.
So, I'm presenting on here the genuine respect I've seen you requesting for years. Not just rolling over and playing dead pseudo respect.
So: Are you ready, people of faith? Jump on in.
Leo
Well, Leo, I am not a member of one of your "especially" targetted groups, as I am neither Orthadox, Evangellical or especially fundimentalist, but I am LDS - A (mormon if you prefer the misnomer) and I represent a culture and belief which in many ways stands apart from Christianity as the masses perceive it. So here we go . Perhaps the best place to start is, what exactly IS a secular humanist, and what differentiates it from atheism? I sort of got a vague Idea from your other topic, but clarification never hurts.
Also, what is your belief as a secular humanist regarding the meaning of our existence? What is our ultimate purpose for being? I'm not asking to be cheeky, but to gain perspective, as this is one of the great questions we humans have pondered from time immemorial. Even among theists - heck, even among Christians that answer differs.
BG, you're the first theist to have the intellectual courage to speak up. I don't know what,
if anything, the LDS Church has to say about us. I'll take your questions one at a time,
and where it is my opinion, I will state as much.
As a collective, I don't really think we have much to say about any group, religious or not. Save perhaps the fundimentalist "Mormons" who have been denounced as a clear and separate religion from ours. As for myself, I'm always willing to live and let live. theology and philosophy are a vast ocean with many interpretations and differing viewpoints. There's so much out there that rarely do I feel the need to discount any of it. Only when beliefs cause actual harm to one's self or others, or when one's arrogance or certainty causes them to shoot their mouths off and belittle the beliefs of others do I take issue. Luckily there is only a vocal minority on this site who fit that catagory. All that said, I am interested in hearing what you believe. Before I joined the LDS church and became a Christian, I was a very ponderous agnaustic interested in all aspects of being and belief. That has not gone away just because I have accepted the church. I still have a tendancy to question, even aspects of my own faith, and to keep an open mind about the beleifs of others.
The difference between atheism and secular humanism:
Atheism is a definition, humanism is a moral philosophy. Atheism is a label defining a lack
of belief in the supernatural. A bit of an oversimplification, but it fits: theists deal in
possibility while atheists usually deal in probability.
By definition, not all atheists are schooled in rational inquiry and skepticism: I can think of
a couple on this site like that. And not all atheists are humanists.
So, then, what is humanism? Humanism broadly defined as a moral philosophy that places
the wellfare of human beings above creeds, ideologies and dogmas. This is the broadest
definition, and covers both theistic (religious) and secular humanists.
What makes secular humamists different is using contemporary analysis and scientific
inquiry to establish a moral framework. So a religious humanist would support gay and
women's rights, as a way to reflect God's love. A secular humanist will do so based on
what we know now. A famous 19th-century secular humanist moral philosopher David
Hume summed up his moral philosophy by stating the common goal as the most
happiness possible for the greatest number of people. Happiness as includes honor and
dignity: not just the hedonist happiness of the satisfied pig.
Both faitbbb-based and secular humanists face static from orthodox theists, due to the
nature of orthodoxy, which places as preeminence dogma and ideology. That doesn't
necessarily imply that they are not humanitarian: they are, insofar as that
humanitarianism falls within the framework of their faith system.
I hope this functions as a starting point.
as someone who is no longer an atheist, I figured I'd speak up and say that, when I was, the main thing that differed between religious people and I, was the fact that they primarily seemed to look forward to an afterlife, whereas I was, and am still, focused on the present here and now.
I've done some growing up, if you will, and I'm no longer willing to act like I know what happens to people once they die.
What is the meaning of our existence?
All I can do is give my opinion.
First, without gods and ghosts, existence merely exists, apart from meaning.
My opinion as a humanist? Human beings bring meaning to our own life. Most of our brain
activity is spent on relational activities. Building, maintaining, and sometimes severing
relationships. You can read all about that in evolutionary biology and evolutionary
psychology, as well as cultural anthropology and studies done on other primate studies.
Even above the magnificent engineering of the spacecraft, skyscraper and cathedral. Most
transcendent of all is the idea of society, with all its relationship intricacies. I am not a
universalist, for a couple of reasons. Human beings and other primates are tribal
exclusivists. In fact, no animal shows any universalist tendencies at all. Nods to
universalism among humans is usually couched inside the exclusivity of orthodoxy,
something we can explore later if anyone is curious.
But our tribalism gets played out in some very sophisticated ways.
Anyway, many humanists are universalists, many are not. The universalists are the ones
who have brought out the anger and fear of the orthodox adherents of the Abrahamic
Yahweh religions. Nothing terrifies tribalists like the agirophobia-producing dismantling of
tribal boundaries.
All I would say to the fundamentalist is you have nothing to fear. Human beings and other
primates are tribal species, and thus, universalism is technically logically impossible. this
is, of course, my opinion as a humanist who is not a Universalist. I believe I have sound,
scientific, evolutionary, and anthropological evidence to back me on this. I know
Universalists, however, who believe that universalism is a higher aim of some sort. I'm
still unclear as to how they intend for us to get there. Even the wisdom of the late
President Ronald Ragan, who stated the following,"nothing would unite humanity like the
arrival of aliens from outer space."himself acknowledges human tribalism. After all, we
would then be functioning as a tribe, a human tribe. universalism or the lack there of is
one of many places where Humanist disagree. Not all secular humanist use rational
inquiry as a basis to attain morale Eddie. Their different schools of thought in humanism,
just as there are different Christianity's, different Islam's, and different Judaism's.
With us secular humanists, though, nothing is inerrant or divine. What that means is that
everything is subject to improvements based on knowledge. What that does not mean is
that "anything goes ". The latter fallacy is common among evangelical Christians, who
claimed that for us humanists, we have no compass. I hope I have been able to explain
here how we do in fact have a compass, and in many ways it is very similar to many
theists.
The curious may wish to check out the book "good without God: what over 1 billion
nonreligious people do believe."
Anyway, I hope I have stated plainly answers to your questions. I also hope sincerely that
I have been able to separate what is established theory and what is simply my opinion. i'd
like to think that my opinion is reasonably well educated, grounded in rational inquiry and
science, but we all know that we are subject to confirmation bias and our own personal
inclinations. I'm willing to be wrong on some or any number of points, and you have my
word that if demonstrated to be wrong on some point, I will admit as much.
To theists, I would encourage you to take what I have written and take it back to your
discussion groups, and bring back any results to share with the rest of us. I know that as
a Christian at one time, I was extremely misinformed on humanism. I was reasonably
well-informed on rational inquiry and atheism, but humanism has a bad name for some
very political reasons in the United States. i'm somewhat ashamed to say that, as an
educated Christian for a time, that I never cracked a book on humanism. So much counter
Humanist apologetic in this within the Christian community, and none of them had even
cracked a book on Humanist philosophy. I was one of the popular majority who at one
time thought that humanism meant Soviet communism. This is the extremely dominant
popular view in evangelical Christianity. like a lot of Evangelicals, I assumed that
humanism meant hedonism. again, since the 1950s, there have been a lot of very political
reasons for this in the United States.
Hey y'all:
Leo I thank you for telling me about this and I have to confess that for a lont time I thought that you were an agnostic. I think that's how you spel it anyway. I didn't really understand what the beliefs are. So to put it in Laman's terms so a country girl lime me can understand you don't believe in God and you disprove him because of science am I right?
To the point of why we are here Leo, I have wondered about that question myself. I do believe that God created us but for what reason I don't know. Why he created this Earth that we live in, why he created the animals that are on this Earth, why he created us? Why did he create the waters and the seas and the lakes and the rivers? I don't know.
Now this is my opinion of what will happen to all of us when we die. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Paul talks about how that when we die will be asleep. Now, some people think that our Spirit will go up to Heaven, but I myself, think that we will be in the grave until God gets ready for the final judgment. It's just my opinion.
That's about right, an atheist assumes that based on the preponderance of evidence,
there is in all likelihood no god, and if there is, it is statistically improbable that one of us
would pick the right one out of literally thousands of available gods, most of whom are
exclusive. Of course, within each culture, there is usually a dominantly favored god, the
Christian god in the U.S., and the Muslim god in Saudi Arabia.
But if you were alive in Europe 2000 years ago, you would in all statistical likelihood have
been a devout follower of Odin, Freya, Thor and a whole host of other gods and
goddesses. That is not a personal attack, that is just how our minds work. In fact, we owe
our Christian cultural heritage to several political events: the elevation of Christianity by
Constantine to the status of State Religion, and two Trans-European invasions. The first by
Clovis, King of France, and the second by the Emperor Charlemagne, wielder of the Spear
of Destiny. In numbers, both invasions resulted in the slaughter and displacement of more
people than all the Crusades combined. Your ancestors, if you're white, were offered the
choice of convert or die. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Something like the modern Christian
free will argument was used as an apologetic for this mass conversion and destruction.
Were it not for these two invasions, and the earlier acts of Constantine, you would likely
have been a devout follower of the religions of your ancestors, the very people who gave
you your Western notions of the Three Noble Virtues: Love, Honor, and Fidelity.
Ok, now here's a question that I have. If indeed the Atheists decided or realized that there was a godand that one of you picked one, what if someone picked one and some of the people in your religious group didn't like him or her? I'm just curious as to how this goes. I'm not trying to make fun or mock your way I'm just trying to understand the way y'all see things.
Sorry if my response is random:
First to Chelsea. Though we have had our differences of oppinion in the past, I have always admired your - and Lightning's for that matter) dedication to what you believe, even though I have questioned your manner of showing it. I think it's very important to concentrate on our lives in the now. During the middle ages in Europe, I recall much of the culture of the time was focused primarily on "getting to heaven". People were so focused on the afterlife that they failed to live their lives, and their poor standard of living was seen as just another trial on their way to salvation. I'm probably oversimplifying things - it's been a while since I studied that time period. My point is, we are given this life, and whether you believe there's something afterwards or not, it's important to live life. As a Christian, I do look forward to what's to come. I'm interested in where my eternal journey will take me, and since most religions really only have a little understanding of what their afterlife truly will be (my own included) there is a sense of profound mystery to look forward to. That said, I love my life here and am in no hurry to reach its end. I think when you do have a belief in the beyond, it's important to have a sense of balance. Live the best you can, while looking forward to the future. I realize I do not know you beyond our interactions on these boards, and so it is likely not my business. But I would be very interested to learn why you no longer feel as you did. If this is personal, I understand.
Leo, I find your definition of humanism very interesting. Placing the welfare of humanity above creeds and dogmas is something I myself have always believed in. Every ideology has had its dark days, in which things were done by individuals which forever taint the collective body they represent. I myself believe by adhering to the creeds of my faith the needs of humanity will be upheld. There need not be one nor the other because the two compliment each other. In Christianity, at least in the LDS faith, for instance we are told first and foremost to love the lord with all our mind, might, heart and strength, and furthermore, to love our neighbors as ourselves. We are commanded to have charity, be kind, and give of our substance to help those in need. And we are commanded not to judge those around us for their deeds and imperfections because none of us are perfect. It's an idealist approach, and Of course these are blanket statements, and the interpretation of them is what leads to so much horror and abuse. But at heart, I think humanism is supported even by those who truly follow this. And of course it should go without saying that anyone has the potential to be a good person, and to uphold humanity, regardless of what they believe.
Furthermore Based on your description I think I can see why some have a problem with secular humanists. They are those who likely follow the letter of the law - who take every single scriptural command as literal and aplicable for our time, and who fail to read between the lines and do the research to understand what the words truly mean, and how they relate to us today. They fail to abide by the spirit of the law, which is what is intended. I'll use homosexuality as a heated example, because you did.:) It is very clear in the Bible (and in the complimentary books of scripture in the LDS faith) that homosexuality goes against the laws of God with regards to marriage and procreation. But does that mean homosexuals are evil? NO! Far from it. Whether they were born that way or shaped by society and experience doesn't matter. It is not our (anyone's) place, according to my faith - to judge them. They are human beings, and have the same rites and responsibilities as anyone else. God doesn't hate them - he loves them, as he loves all of us. Not agreeing with homosexuality itself doesn't mean you have to judge or dispise the people living that lifestyle. You can still stand up for them and their rites as individuals. That, if I understand it correctly seems to be what being a humanist, and a Christian is all about. It is providing dignity and honor to one another; learning to support and understand one another; standing up for one another's right to life and liberty.
BG, you sound like you have a pretty good grasp on the basics of the moral philosophy
many humanists follow.
Jo, I'll try and answer your question. Belief is not something you choose. Try this: Can you
make yourself believe in Santa Claus? The boogeyman? Thor the Warrior or wise Odin?
You can't choose to believe those. If your god is real, he would know if one of us atheists
was to fake believing. In other words, belief comes from childhood indoctrination or
because we find something out, or because something comes along that promises to meet
a need during a tough time.
Atheists cannot pick a god. If evidence of a god became probable, that god would reveal
itself to us, if it had a will to do so. Faith is not a virtue to us, just like being talked into
something is not a virtue to you. Evidence and knowledge are the ways we as atheists find
things out.
As to my personal motivation and moral compass, I can summarize that in the three
Noble Virtues of our pre-Christian ancestors: Love, Honor, and Fidelity. If you don't know,
fidelity means faithfulness. As one of the Virtues it means loyalty to one's own,
undergirding how we humans do relationships.
If there is a god, it seems rational that the god would respect honest skepticism and
rational inquiry, if it has anthropomorphic traits, and is an honorable god. Yahweh of the
Abrahamic religions seems to me to be the brainchild of resource-restricted desert tribes
of the late Bronze Age. This goes for Baal and the Sumerian gods also. The gods of your
preChristian ancestors in Europe, by contrast, appear to be made in the image of your
hunter ancestors. No dishonorable acts like stoning women to death, drowning children in
cataclysmic floods, no kidnapping of virgin girls en masse for the sex trade. No knocking
over skyscrapers either in Babel or New York City out of anger. It seems all these gods are
extremely unlikely to exist, except in the minds of their creators and the institutional faith
systems that follow some of them to this day.
Jo, I'll try to clarify something:
Atheism is the intellectual position that in all probability, there is no god, and if there is
one, one of the thousands of gods we know about, or some other deity, it would be
statistically improbable to find the right one. Only one can be right, after all. Your
Christian faith asserts that the Muslims and Jews are wrong, isn't that right? The Muslim
faith asserts that Christianity is wrong, and Muslims are concerned that their Christian
friends are going to hell, just like Christians are concerned their Muslim friends are going
to hell.
Catholics, Protestant groups, and so many more, all of them individually convinced that
they are right, and all their friends from other groups are going to burn for all eternity.
None of these are 'haters' as some call them. They're just convinced. Thousands of
subgroups, thousands of interpretations of deity. So the atheist concludes it's statistically
improbable they would pick the right one.
You mentioned agnostic. That position states it's impossible to know whether there is or
isn't a god. Thus, it is possible to hold positions, as an agnostic atheist. That is the
position I hold, as I see it as the most intellectually honest position.
It would be impossible for me to just pick a god. As I illustrated in earlier posts, you didn't
pick the Christian god after sitting down, scientifically analyzing all the available gods, and
selecting the most probable to exist. You're a Christian in a Christian-dominated society,
residing in the very Christian South, statistically likely to have Christian parents and had
Christian friends and influences growing up. You may have switched Christianities over
time, or set it all aside for a time, as did I when younger. But even the rebellion is done in
the framework of the dominant religion.
As an atheist, I examined the framework as a whole, and then the general framework of
religion in general.
BG, I'll happily answer your question.
for all the hemming and hawing I did about atheism being my chosen path, the growing up/maturing I've done, has allowed me to admit, both to myself and others, that it was simply a rebellious thing.
I was raised Christian, but the family members I was raised by had a philosophy of, "do as I say, not as I do," not to mention the fact that their presentation of their views made me feel as if there was no other way for anyone to live.
whenever I'd try to ask them questions to get answers, they'd blow me off, and, just as anyone would, after some time, I felt so lost that I doubt I would've asked for help of anyone, even if I had a chance to do so.
I always knew that I wanted no part of that way of thinking/living, and since I had no other options as to how to look into different religions, I freely chose the other extreme, which was atheism.
as I've said in my previous post, I still wholeheartedly believe in focusing on the here and now, but when I was an atheist, the explanation of why, or even how, certain things randomly happened, remained unexplainable.
also, I realize that when I was an atheist, I did the very thing I couldn't stand religious people doing to me, which was pushing my beliefs onto other people.
I've seen that done by others in some recent board topics, and that, too, has caused me to think about needing to change that in myself/moving forward with the actual change.
I've found that it's no fun when anyone pushes anything on people. at least, it's no way to be fulfilled, live happily, and spread love and kindness to the world, as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not sure if that's a good explanation for you, BG, but that's the best I can do. if you have any other questions, feel free to ask me, and I'll answer the best I can.
I think that's a fantastic explanation, Chelsea. I feel I can relate to it quite well. The sort of people you just described are I think some of the most dangerous people out there. We must all be free to question, and we must all lead by example. We are, all of us, leaders. We never know what influence our behavior has on someone. That you found yourself in the place and point of view you described is a clear testament of that. Closed-mindedness of any kind is a hazard to our development, and that's true whether you're a believer in possibility, or probability.
Which brings me to Leo. I find the idea of trying to prove the existence of the divine using a statistical basis interesting, but hard to understand. You're 150% right about the confounding question of which church is the right church. Jews, Muslims and Christians have debated (and yes, warred) about that for centuries. They forget that essentially, they all come from the same source. It is just differing ideologies and beleifs. Don't get me started on the dozens of Christians out there and what they believe. And yes, I'm including my own. We LDS may have an origin which speaks to that very problem, but that doesn't make us right. Certainly, I find the LDS church to be the closest thing to the truth. But that is based on the way it meshes with my own beliefs, the experiences I've had, the research I've done, and yes, the many, many testamonies of other beleivers who have their own experiences to share. But I've never seen an angel. I've never talked as Moses or the Brother of Gered, to god, face to face. I've never moved mountains or parted seas, and yet I have had so many experienced, and learned so much that I am utterly convinced that, even if my exact church is wrong, it's at least in the right place. That's why I'm not sure about statistically proving the existence of God. If God is a living, thinking, feeling being, as we LDS believe him to be, then whe are sort of mocking him by doing something like, say praying a set number of times and calculating the number which are answered. God doesnt' work that way. He gave us free will. He leaves us to our own devices much of the time. He gives us free will to act, to question, to make mistakes and yes, he does give us trials to face. Does he answer prayers? I think so. But not every answer is going to be "yes." Statistically I've probably had more no answers to my prayers than yeses. But when it really counts, I feel like he is there, and that if I have the faith he asks of me, he will act in my best interests. Even if I don't know they are. I suppose I'm getting a little preachy and testimonial here, and I'm sorry about that. In the end I think it's extremely important for as to learn from one another, and support one another than worrying about whose light is brighter, or whose is artificial. God either exists, or he doesn't. And he is either in a form we recognize based on our understanding, or something altogether beyond our current level of comprehension.
Chelsea, that was very interesting. I have never met an atheist who arrived at that
conclusion based upon what you call rebellion before. That was interesting to read.
BG, this would be for an atheism topic, but I know no atheist who came to that conclusion
after performing the types of prayer "experiments" you described to the thousands of
gods available. And how would we know the answer was the no answer that you
described? If you pray to Thor and nothing happens, how do you know Thor just didn't say
no, because Thor has a better plan for your life? This is not rational inquiry, and not the
statistical improbability I was referring to.
But as this is a secular humanist topic, I should add many are not atheists: some are
panentheists, pan theists, and probably naturListic pagans who don't have a creed or a
god(ess) or pantheon of gods and goddesses. I don't know if Wiccans see themselves as
secular humamists or not. It would be instructive if one or more of them chimed in and
educated us on the matter, provided they felt safe doing so.
Leo thanks for answering my questions. As a Christian myself it's important that I set an example for all Christians to follow and that those who are not Christians or those of another faith can look up to me as an example because we all are leaders.
When it comes to talking about God or his word I try my best not to push anyone to believing like I do. That's one thing that God who has created us has given us free will. He's given us the free will whether to believe him and his word and what he says, or we can choose to not believe it and just let it go. I myself don't want to encourage someone to do anything that they don't want to do. I know of several people who have done that to me and it didn't work for me, so I'm not going to try to push you my way. I will just give to you what I know to be right from the bible that I have studied and from everything that I know.
while I won't claim to speak for anyone but myself here, I do wonder if others, on the zone and in real life, who have had bad experiences with people who are religious, turned to atheism as a rebellious thing, as I did.
that seems highly likely to me, though most people probably wouldn't admit it.
I think it is highly likely, Chelsea. I know for a fact (because they have said so) that another vocal atheist on this board has had very bad experiences also. And really, it makes sense. If you're treated horribly by someone, and if you've witnessed the hipocracy they represent, it's not much of a stretch to think you'd want to do the opposite of what they do. I'm afraid there are definitely those among us who condemn an entire group based on the actions of individuals, or based on our own experiences. One might even do all in one's power to disprove their beleifs. And certainly when one sees such people, and witnesses some of the vile things happening in the world today (and perpetrated by that very group in history) it's not so hard to come to the conclusion that the whole system is "bollucks".
Statistically, people who have bad experiences with one religion switch to another or they switch to another brand of the same religion. Raise Baptist? Switch to Pentecostal or maybe one of the liberal Christianities.
I did not defame people's character by claiming people of faith are brainwashed, and I assume people are genuine in their faith pursuits. I believe I have strong evidence to support people of faith's genuineness.
I find it greatly disheartening that the subject has devolved into high school terminology like rebellious. All I do know is that whatever Chelsea finds, she finds with a passion, no second guessing. No problem with that. But then always assumes it's the norm or that it's always a matter of maturation.
Again, rebellion and similar terms would have to be quantified in order to become useful.
I didn't decide to become an atheist, and this seems to be true of many I know. It was more a realization.
I'm disheartened.
But pretending that the nonfalsifiable claim about so-called rebellion is correct: Does that then mean the son of Madeline Murry O'Hara is rebellious, because he sought out and found fundamentalist Christianity? Is he then doubly rebellious because he now speaks for the Crhistian Republicans on many issues? For the less educated, and perhaps the more "I found it so everyone should" types, Madeline Murray O'Hara is (or was, if she is not still alive), an outspoken antitheist. Again for the benefit of aforementioned people, the antitheist position is atheistic, except instead of agnosticism as the intellectual position, it states there cannot be such a thing as a god, and if there were there are no circumstances where anyone would ever follow it. That is a fringe minority among atheists, as the most common intellectual position is that we simply cannot know, and cannot know among the thousands of gods available, which would be the right one. Chelsea, I think if you're going to set out to say people who have thought through these issues for years, painfully working out these problems and self-examining, are doing it out of some kind of high school rebellion, you at least owe us to tell us which brand of faith or spirituality or deism you have selected.
I think that whole idea is so counter-productive it intellectually makes my head hurt. BG, I'm shocked you instantly adopted her position after having seen reasonably the positions I set forth here. These are common, not just old-school atheists my age and up, but the young ones too, who have gone through this intellectually earlier in life before they had kids.
A break with religion is never easy, and many of us, if honest, have, like Charles Darwin, set out to actually secure our faith positions, batten down the hatches as it were, only to realize all our doubts were more probable to be valid than not. That isn't some sort of high school middle finger pointing: that's examination, rational inquiry, and critical thinking.
When I actually meet an atheist who decided to become one, who had an "atheist conversion experience," or came to the intellectual position that gods are not probable to exist, all because they wanted to kick back at mom or dad, I'll concede on this point. But the types of intellectual exercise, the examination involved, let alone the self examination of one's own genuine faith before deconversion, simply does not lend itself to this teenage response.
Because that is just not how belief works. I can't, for example, just make myself stop believing my wife loves me. That's technically impossible. A committed Christian can't just make themselves stop believing in the Christian God, a committed Muslim can't just make herself stop believing in Allah. The Wiccdans can't just stop believing in their gods and goddesses, as neither can the asatruars just stop believing in the Norse gods. That's impossible. One could stop following the religion of their upbringing, what the Christians call backsliders, but you're only stopping within the framework of the religion itself. Backsliders always "come home," because deep down they actually still believe the tenants of the faith of their fathers. They're just not following them.
But the Evangelical Christian idea that atheists are just atheists so we can be mad at god makes as much sense as me saying Evangelical Christians are just mad at the Angel Moroni, or mad at Zeus or Thor or Allah, or any one of the other thousands of gods, demigods and spirits available in human cultures. That has got to be the saddest, most overt misrepresentation and character assassination of us that is possible. That's like claiming some genuine Christian who prays, seeks God, does what She does in the faith, is doing so for political reasons or something. Nothing could at all be further from the truth. That violates the efforts and deep considerations of the person involved. this I will not do to theists of any stripe, and I'll ask again as I did in the first post, that the same favor be returned to nontheists of any stripe. Really: this is not too much to ask for people who have, as Chelsea says, "grown up."
I'll take this one point further, not only as a point of honor, but I believe there is strong statistical evidence to support it:
Most theists of any stripe are basically not hypocritical. Everyone falls short of their ideal, but that is technically not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy requires the mental exercise of operating outside your ideal while fooling everyone inside of it into thinking you uphold it. That is a very deliberate act, and very few peple actually do it.
In all likelihood, very few Catholic priests have actually engaged in sexual misconduct be it rape, assault or sexual harassment. You are statistically improbable to meet face to face a preacher who has had an affair. Go ahead, count the number of preachers and televangelists that you know of who committed domestic betrayal. Can you get all the way up to ten? Of the tens of thousands of preachers, priests, evangelists? How many? Why does it make the news? Rare things make the news, which is why you see plane crashes on the news but not so often car crashes. It's statistically improbable you will ever meet someone touched by a plane crash.
It is true that various people groups are closed, especially in religious communities, and that closed insular groups tend to lead to a lot of problems. That's due to the nature of the insularity of the situation, not whether someone is a theist or not.
And, in all statistical likelihood, you will exit one from which you had a problem, and in your vulnerable state find another brand of your same religion that will support you. At most, you will probably switch religions to another entire faith system, e.g. Christianity to Wicca or Asatru or some other nature religion. Or, you will just become a 'backslider' nominal member of your faith but not practicing, and not doing the intellectual exercise of examination, or the social exercise of switching communities.
In all statistical probability, even with atheism on the rise, you are not likely to find yourself an atheist. With contemporary culture, there are any number of forms of agnosticism, spiritualism, eclecticism and other 'isms' that people fall into, or realize that is what they are.
Two examples that disprove Chelsea's so-called rebellious claim.
First, my own Wife. I can't prove this to you because She is not on this site. She was raised going to the Methodist church, one of the more liberal Christianities, if I understand it right. Are any evangelicals on here ready to call Her 'rebellious' for finding her way in a more evangelical setting? Since it's your setting, obviously you would not find it rebellious for someone to find their way in.
And you, BG: Rebellious? You came to faith in the LDS Church. You weren't raised LDS, you came to it. If we were to take Chelsea's philosophy, I guess we'd have to say rebellious, yes? Except that, in your situation, your overt claims of how you came to faith are far more plausible, make a lot more rational and emotional sense.
You came to the Church, among other things, because it:
- Answered a lot of questions of faith you formerly had,
- espouses the kinds of values you aspire to live by,
- has a community of people who you respect,
among other things. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just took from your posts.
Your conversion from what you were to LDS sure doesn't seem like rebellion to me. Frankly, it seems honest and transparent.
Are all the black men in America who are leaving Christianity and turning to Islam rebellious?
are all the Wiccans rebellious? The serious ones, I mean, not the teenage twilight kind you read about on the Internet. I don't personally know any, but I imagine theirs is one of faith and genuineness, and one can read their testimonials on the Internet just as one can for all the various Christianities.
My sister-in-law came to faith in the Catholic Church. She was raised outside of it, some kind of hippie nature beliefs, if I remember correctly. Now she is a marine and a dedicated, genuine Catholic. Is she being rebellious?
Because if someone finding themselves out to be an atheist is rebellious, then the converse would also be true: everyone who finds themselves on the outside of their religion or lack thereof,and finding faith in another one, would be considered rebellious. Unless it was the faith of their fathers.
Your dear Dr. Laura Schlesenger, the conservative moral-advice talk show host, came to faith in Judaism in the 90s. Her parents are atheist. What a rebel, right? Do you actually believe she is rebellious? What about all the various testimonials in all the Christianities' churches, all the baptisms, all the experiences people are having where they left one and switched to another? What is this? Are we a nation of absolute rabble-rousers?
I believe I've taken this 'rebellious' hypothesis apart to demonstrate it for the fallacious straw man that it actually is. As to Chelsea? I'm betting, when she comes out and tells us how she arrived at her conclusions now, you will find some evidence of genuine searching, not 'rebellious' teenage attitude. I have read about a few transitional atheists, people of one religion who just couldn't do that religion anymore, by default assumed an agnostic atheist position, but then found another niche that was more suitable for their makeup. The Asatruar community has quite a few of these. Honestly, some of those are pretty atheistic still, though the real believers actually believe the Norse and European gods have been waiting for, "Such a time as this." (irony not lost on that one).
leo, think what you will about the fact I'm using the term rebellion to describe my experience, and probably, as I said, experiences of others, but I must say that BG is exactly right on, in his last post.
like BG, I know for a fact that I've seen a self-proclaimed atheist on these boards say that he/she has been around people who are religious, that don't lead good examples throughout their lives.
so, knowing that, that's why I say what I do.
also, Leo, I feel I must correct your assumption that believing in God automatically means I, or others, subscribe to a religion.
I'm sure you've seen people on these boards say that they believe in God, but that they don't subscribe to a religion. so, I'm puzzled as to why you aren't okay with that line of thinking, yet you're every bit willing to accept someone's beliefs that are similar to your own.
and, to be honest, another reason I'm not giving you the answer you're seeking, is cause I don't believe in shouting from rooftops, as I've done in the past, and as I've had people do to me.
I don't believe that that's the slightest bit productive. I'd much rather quietly lead by example, as I should've done all along, without feeling like I'm required to justify anything and everything to everyone.
Hi Leo and others:
For many years I have been a Christian. After becoming a Christian I was a Baptist. A friend of mine was a Jehovah's witness, which I almost became one except for the fact that they didn't celebrate Christmas and they don't take blood when they are sick. I just had a hard time with that and when I got to reading the bible I found out they were different in other things too although I can't remember what they are now.
So then about seven years ago I was and still am friends with a lady who believes in the Church of Christ way. I did some studying and I am a Church of Christ Christian. I didn't become that out of rebellion I did it because I did the studying of what it meant and that's what I wanted to do.
Chelsea, I would be the last person to tell you what is 'ok' or 'not ok' for you to believe in. How could an atheist like me possibly tell someone like you what faith system to adopt or not adopt? How uncredible is that?
I know there are a lot of various faith systems out there, some more or less tightly defined. I mentioned a few, among the Wiccans, Asatruars, spiritualists, and so on, groups that don't have the main political response.
So why did I ask? I'll be honest: I'm curious. Human beings and how they figure things out always are a point of fascination.
But beyond that, if I knew what you ascribed to, then when saying god or goddess, I would do so in context. Your context. Most people when they say god, mean one of the Abrahamic Gods, the god of one of the many Christianities in the U.S., or Judaism, or Islam. You are correct in saying that doesn't encompass all people. Sadly, if you are outside that framework, you tend to get drowned out by all the political noise of the mainstream Abrahamic gods. So it would in fact be constructive for us to learn a little bit about where you're coming from. That isn't shouting from the rooftop, by the way, that's just educating us the ignorant.
You asked why I thought you believed in one brand or another of the Christian gods. Because in all statistical likelihood in the United States someone says God they mean the Abrahamic kind. Had you said goddess, we don't have a dominating goddess, so I would have not known.
So, I asked, so we can refer to yours in proper context. Without us knowing, we would refer to what we know, and you would accuse us of assuming. We wouldn't be assuming, we'd just be operating in the main, based on what we know. Other agnostics on here have been quite transparent about where they're coming from, and anyone who is thoughtful enough in conversation can refer to their god in its proper context.
No assumption on my part was deliberate. I do try hard to say the god of the Bible if that is the particular god in question, or the Abrahamic gods to refer to the Big Three and their monotheistic traditions, or the deistic god of the philosophers, as some refer to the entity that started off the universe but is aloof and indifferent to human affairs.
I guess humans put names to gods so they can be understood and communicated about in their proper context.
So again, I apologize if I misappropriated your understanding, it was a total accident. Clarifying just a little bit will help us not do so in the future. And clarifying just a little bit won't be 'shouting from the rooftop,' it will just be a way so we know better how to refer to it in its proper context. Unfortunately you live in a society politically dominated by a certain idea of god, so while most of them don't require explanation, yours might, in order that the rest of us won't assume. Accusation of assuming isn't good enough: Explaining where we were wrong, and out of context, is helpful and instructive.
Since I'm pretty sure I'm being referenced on here, I'll just toss a couple
cents in here. first of all, no, I'm not being rebellious. I'm being rational.
Religion is the sucker of weak minds. Its so easily refuted that its hardly worth
my time to do so anymore. I'm relatively sure that, were you to look at my
board post history, I will have already completely disproved any justification you
can make for religion. I'd be highly surprised if any of you could come up with
something I haven't already faced, and don't know how to disprove out of hand.
Its really not a challenging thing. You, and by you I mean theists, make it easier
and easier the more you talk. Every time you say something about your religion
or your beliefs or how you came to those beliefs you make it easier to prove you
wrong, or at the very least incredibly ignorant. That is especially true of the
extraordinarily stupid religions like mormonism. That one is so laughably false
that I can't even treat it as anything more than people being collectively stupid
on a magnitude which defies description. (I mean its a religion that tells about
wooden submarines carrying Jews to the North American continent BCE using a
magic compass made of non-magnetic metal. A four-year-old could prove that
wrong with a simple demonstration of a frickin' compass).
Now, I realize that this is harsh, and that I've offended some people. I don't
really give a shit. If you want to open your mouth, and voice an opinion, be
ready to have someone who knows more than you shove that opinion back
down your throat. Don't want to deep throat your own opinion, you have two
choices. Choice one, remain silent. Believe anything you want, about whatever
you want, and say nothing about it. No one will know, and you won't have to
display to your friends and family that you still believe in bedtime stories, frauds
and faerie tales. Choice B, get better opinions.
Now, if anyone thinks they are firm enough in their beliefs to challenge what I
said in the first paragraph, you're welcome to try me. I'm willing to bet I'll have
you running in logical circles within a few posts. But you go right ahead, try it. I
dare you. But you might want to pray first.
I'm only speaking for myself here. Actually I have to agree with Leo and Cody.
Though in regards to my atheism, I didn't say to myself, oh, tomorrow I'll
become an atheist because I wish to prove every religious person that I'm
better and more rational than them; and who gives a fuck if I hurt their
feelings. I have religious friends who don't harm anyone and are not hypocrites,
(and I don't credit religion for that). I don't have the energy to shove my beliefs
down their throats, just as long as they don't start wanting to preach to me.
Anyhow, it honestly was more of a realization after being in religion for so many
years and coming to terms with myself. It was not rebellion from my end. I
respect people but not their religious beliefs. That's all...
Cody, I doubt they wish to debate with you. They said what they said in order to
assassinate your character, and did so with nonfalsifiable claims.
Leo, I don't believe for a second that clarifying for the world what, if any, religion I subscribe to, would help people.
as I've said before, people are used to labeling this or that, and while I accept the fact labels can be helpful in some contexts, I'm not looking for others to refer to a God as I do, or to talk about it in my context, as you say they should be able to.
all I'm doing, is sharing why I now believe differently, cause I refuse to not make the ways in which I change, known to people.
that's good enough for me, which is one reason why I disagree that specifying a religion wouldn't be considered shouting from rooftops. plus, this isn't the topic for that, but if one ever comes up, maybe I'll read and respond to it, as I've done here.
All right, if that is how you see it. So, without knowing what that god looks like at all, the best anyone can do in referring to your situation without assuming, as you call it, is to refer to that god as Chelsea's god. To the rest of us, a nameless, faceless entity with no perceivable characteristics, at least until we are educated otherwise.
But if that is how you would have it, that is certainly your right.
Cody, to illustrate further what I was saying about their lack of rational discourse with you: The 19th-century Christian apologist Dr. Comings created a "hidden sin" straw man claim to explain atheists. The current 20th / 21st century Christian apologist and spokesman for the Evangelical Right Dinesh D'Souza claims that atheists are atheist only in their sex organs, so that they may have extramarital affairs. He then carries on in a way that would have you convinced he believes all atheists are men, which strikes me as odd, considering his movement has had a cow and several bison over Madeline Murray O'Hara. These are fallacies just like the 'rebellious' fallacy, put forth by people who don't want to rationally engage. No more and no less than the ad hominem of the current vein of Christian apologists. Most of whom have been trial lawyers. It's the intellectual gas gauge needle in the red, pronouncing for all the world they are running on fumes. Plenty of theists are willing to rationally engage without the character attacks.
Wow, this really changed directions from its original form. Leo, I adopted Chelsea's stance so readily because her circumstances resonated with me. I could give my interpretation of what she experienced and why she did what she did then, and now, but she can, and has spoken for herself. I would like to deal with this notion of rebellion however, because it seems to be a word we're stuck on. people usually rebel against something when they do not agree with it, or when they consider it to be wrong. Given the nature and intensity of her thoughts on the subject of religion, I'd consider it safe to say she felt very strongly. Whether it is rebellion or realization is irrelovant here because to her, it was rebellion. On the flip side, I was agnaustic. or maybe it's safer to say I was a non-comittal theist. Honestly we humans are so quick to place labels on virtually everything. I chose a specific faith based on everything I've already described. Does that mean I rebelled against my non-commital feelinggs? I really don't think so. And that brings me to another point. Just because Chelsea said she's no longer willing to say she knows for sure what there is beyond, doesn't mean she has to proscribe to a specific religion if she doesn't choose to. God is a universal concept. Jahova, Yawah, Eloheim, Chrishna etc, they are all interpretations on the idea of a higher creator - god. So a person can say they believe in God without meaning Christian, Muslim or even the pantheon of Pagan, roman or sumerian gods.
The only reason I did ask, though, BG, was that in expressing her opinion of god, it would enlighten the rest of us. You have 50,000 years' worth of evolution that explains abstractions, labels, and names for you. If we didn't label things, we would be severely limited in what we could express. A label misapplied is wrong of course. But if someone defines for the rest of us what they're thinking, and perhaps invents a word or uses an existing word to describe it, then we can readily understand.
For people who wish we did not label things, how would you suggest that we communicate in a meaningful way without abstractions? What if you couldn't label trees, for instance? What if you had to say oak, or maple, or spruce all the time, you couldn't say tree to speak of something that had some of the most common characteristics? And, if you found a new type of tree, wouldn't you perhaps describe it to us, and maybe put a name to it? Otherwiwise, you would have to give paragraphs of description every single time you referred to it.
Everything we have, even the god concept, is a result of abstractions and labels that language affords as a means of communication. Until we no longer use language to communicate, and develop some other non-abstract form of communication, we'll be stuck with using abstractions, I'm afraid.
And BG, I wasn't doubting Chelsea's individual case. I was placing doubt on the fallacious assertion that she made, stating other atheists are so because of 'rebellion'. If it is true that we would allow her to define her own experience, then it logically follows that she would also be under the same expectation to not define the reasons for atheism in others. I did use your situation to prove precisely what you did say: your religious conversion couldn't possibly be rebellion, it was clearly a thought-through response to your situation. That much, at least, I thought I had made clear.
My penis gives me great joy. Therefore, my penis is god.
Perhaps I misunderstood, Leo. I'm not the brightest star in the sky at times. In any case, I agree with what you're saying. We do help to define many things by placing labels on them. I just wasn't certain in this circumstance it was necessary to cast a label on the situation.
thank you, BG, for backing up what I said. I'm glad at least someone understands the message I'm trying to convey.
leo, clearly, you're misunderstanding what I've written. if you'd go back and read my words, though, you'd see that I used the words "I wonder if other atheists are this way cause of bad experiences they've had with people who are religious," rather than, say, "I assume all atheists are atheists due to having such bad experiences with people who are religious."
also, leo, I don't believe labeling myself as a specific religion would make you happy/otherwise able to identify with me. you and others would likely then criticize me for being attached to this brand of whoo or that brand of whoo, as you like to call it, which is counterproductive to any discussion, really.
anyway, I'm sorry for derailing your topic. that wasn't at all my intent.
Or, if you describe how you see things, then the rest of us would better communicate with you understanding your perspective.
Asking questions about what one believes or doesn't is not the same as criticizing out of hand.
Indeed, you yourself have used the common 'brand of woo' expression.
I can't control the fact that you're unhappy with the detail I've provided. plus, as I've said, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to talk about the god I believe in. I haven't suddenly become sensitive to people's vocabulary choices about this sort of thing.
Fair enough. But in the future, in order for you not to feel like anybody is assuming anything, it's probably best when referring to your perception of god or gods, for the rest of us to say Chelsea's god. Then it won't be confusing or you won't think we're holding you to one of the dominant viewpoints, which none of us logically could.
I am really late on this topic.
Anyone that reads the boards knows my stance, so I'll not go there.
Welcome Chelsea.
Dolte, I do somethimes wonder if you aren't ignoring the fact the Witnesses were a difficult part in your life, so you did as Chelsea stated as well?
I had ask both of you this question before, and both said no.
I don't believe all Atheist are in the same boat, but I do wonder.
Leo states education, but I'm highly educated, and I still believe in a God, or God as a part of the human experience, so education won't change my mind.
I've studied, and have argued with Cody who thinks I'm silly as well.
Just my 2 cents.
Cody, you aren't the only one being refered to here. Others take your stance.
leo, you really don't have to refer to god as Chelsea's god, if there's ever a topic where I bring it up again.
that would be silly, and I'm not sure why it's even an issue, as you see it.
in fact, I don't always see you use the words "Mormon god," when referring to god in conversations you have with BG, nor do you label him/her/it as "BG's god."
you simply refer to him/her/it as "god," which I suspect is fine with him.
he and I seem to adopt similar stances on this, in feeling that as long as we're able to convey whatever message we're trying to get across, it makes no difference what others call god.
what I suspect, is that it's such a shock to you that I believe something totally different than I claimed I used to, that it bugs you that you don't know how to refer to the god I believe in, so as to appease me.
I also agree with Wayne that while some atheists probably are not atheists due to extreme circumstances, there are plenty who are.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that, though, at all. it simply is a reality that, clearly, some people don't believe is true.
Wayne, for what it's worth to you, I've always found your posts very transparent on how you see God and us and the relationships between. It is that type of transparency I find very refreshing.
No, I agree: Most educated people are theists of one form or another. I don't agree with Cody when he says that theists are by definition stupid. That isn't a rational claim. Some, like Francis Collins, compartmentalize their theism apart from science and rational inquiry. And many philosophers are theists, or at least deists.
Many humanists are theists also, although not of the more evangelical religious persuasions like our friend a-writer1 and other Christians in the U.S.
Even one of the Christians' top apologists, William Lane Craig, is a cosmologist. He is also well versed in theistic philosophy and debate tactics. One could certainly not call that man stupid or uneducated. I may not agree with his claims, as he sets out to prove the American Christian version of God, but I cannot in all honesty call him stupid or uneducated.
It's fallacious and intellectually dishonest when antitheists refer to theists of all stripes as stupid. Even C. S. Lewis: although it seems he sometimes speaks on things for which he has few qualifications, is clearly not stupid. He was an English literature professor at Cambridge and guest professor at several universities in the U.S. He and J. R. R. Tolkien worked on the mythology behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy, taking from ancient English and Welsh lore. If you ever read his literary work "Until we have Faces," You will come away with the distinct impression of a man very well versed in the literature of his home nation, one with thousands of years of history.
On the opposite end, I think Richard Dawkins is short-sighted on areas that touch on cultural anthropology, and how theistic systems interact with native cultures.
So Wayne, I'd go so far as to say your point about atheists not necessarily being better educated is well founded, and there is a lot of evidence to back it.
Those of us atheists who have come to it through rational inquiry are reasonably competent at rational inquiry and skepticism, not necessarily versed in all theistic systems' intricacies or all of the natural sciences. But that doesn't by definition mean theists are irrational. That much I personally never intended to imply. Had I done so, or implied theists / believers were uneducated, I would be totally uncredible and my arguments would fall flat on their faces.
Oh, I think some Atheist are educated.
I don't like the "all" term when it comes to people, and that is what Cody and others push.
But, I've argued this much. Smile.
Leo, getting Chelsea to put a label on herself, or her concept of God is a waste of time and space. I've tried to get her to give me labels in the past, and was completely rebuffed.
Her idea reminds me of an old Roy Rogers song called "don't fence me in."
Back to the original topic. Tell me once more, what is a secular humanist? Make it simple so that a dunce like me can understand.
From my perspective, I have been an agnostic for many years. I consider atheism another religion, like Christianity or Judaaism.
BTW, I tried to find "secular humanism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (my go to for anything philosophical.) It wasn't there.
So help me out: in simple terms, what does a secular humanist believe?
Bob
Leo, getting Chelsea to put a label on herself, or her concept of God is a waste of time and space. I've tried to get her to give me labels in the past, and was completely rebuffed.
Her idea reminds me of an old Roy Rogers song called "don't fence me in."
Back to the original topic. Tell me once more, what is a secular humanist? Make it simple so that a dunce like me can understand.
From my perspective, I have been an agnostic for many years. I consider atheism another religion, like Christianity or Judaaism.
BTW, I tried to find "secular humanism" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (my go to for anything philosophical.) It wasn't there.
So help me out: in simple terms, what does a secular humanist believe?
Bob
From Wiktionary:
... An ethical system that centers on humans and their values, needs, interests, abilities, dignity and freedom; especially used for a secular one which rejects theistic religion and superstition.
I personally disagree with your assertion that atheism is a religion, it doesn't fit the dictionary definition of the term. certainly some forms of antitheism bear a lot of resemblance to religion though. I don't think that the position of agnostic atheist can be held as a religion. If anything, one of the moral systems that secular humanists follow could be compared to a religion, in that there are ethical guidelines. Except that by definition of being secular, part of the definition is that religion is not necessary for a moral system.
Oh, and there are lots of theistic humanists, that aren't by definition secular humanists. They hold to the above definition, except that they include spirituality. Some of the more liberal Christianities I believe call themselves humanists in certain contexts. Just not secular humanists.
What is an "agnostic atheist"? Isn't that like saying someone is a Mormon Baptist? Apples and oranges, you know.
Bob
No, Agnosticism is the position that we cannot prove whether there is or isn't a god, atheism saying in all probability there is no god. So an agnostic atheist would not say for sure there isn't a god. But lives like an atheist, e.g. not trying to please one of the thousands of gods, goddesses and demigods available, because in all probability they don't exist. Also the atheistic mindset doesn't place a premium on faith, as do many theistic systems.
Agnosticism isn't an in between stance, in other words. Antitheism states with certainty that there isn't a god, just as orthodox theists state for certain that their god is the only one there is.
Hope that makes sense.
Leo
Atheism is a lack of a religion. And actually, I think the term "agnoistic" should be stamped out for the sake of simplicity. You either actively believe in a deity, or you don't.
Oh dear god, are people still thinking that agnosticism and atheism or theism
are mutually exclusive? How many times am I going to have to educate people?
Thankfully, not this time, Leo did a wonderful, if verbose, job of it. Here here
Leo.
Chelsea, you're right, we don't have to label your god. We can simply label
your opinion or belief. Since your opinion is not directed toward any definable or
easily recognizable subject, we can't judge it on those merits. Because of this
we cannot judge the evidence or reasonings behind why you hold this opinion.
So, we can't tell where the opinion comes from, or where its going. We can't tell
why it exists, or really that it exists at all. So it is, rather simply, absolutely
fucking pointless. So, from here on in, since you don't have a pony in this show,
everything you say can easily be defined as absolutely fucking pointless. That's
the team you play for now. Congratulations, I'm sure your jersey will be bitchin'.
Now then, let me clear up something else. Look at my post, its post 26. Did I
say religious people are all stupid and uneducated? No, I said religion is the
sucker of weak minds. Now, there is more than one way for your mind to be
weak. You can be ignorant, or you can be rationally dishonest. Wayne, though
you claim to have studied, I fear most of your posts in my opinion come off as
simply ignorant. You study, but you don't really seem to understand enough to
actually utilize most of it. Something like a dog who just caught the car it was
chasing. You've got it, but you're not really clear yet on what to do with it.
Now, others, like William Craig are intellectually dishonest. You can see it in
their debates and speeches. They have to deny so much, and twist so much,
and flip so many things backward, paint them pink, spray them with rose water
and take them on a date just to make their beliefs make some kind of sense.
Fortunately for them, the vast majority of people are really too stupid to look
deeply and see the flaws. So, they get away with it, and people think they're
intelligent.
Let me also put something else to rest. Intelligent and educated are not the
same thing. You can have a lot of schooling, go through a lot of classes, you can
even have a doctorate, and be stupid. Want proof? Its easy, George W Bush,
remember him, the one everyone openly admits is our most stupid president?
Yeah, he went to an ivy league school, and has an advanced degree from it.
He's educated, anyone wanna step up and call him intelligent?
Don't assume that people are intelligent simply because they are educated or
have a degree. They will probably be very well-versed in their field, but that is
not intelligence. Learn the difference, you'll be more intelligent.
Cody, I absolutely love your last post! ... wayne, I'm not ignoring that witnesses
were difficult in my life. I even said I came to terms with myself when it came
to religion, because I was also raised as catholic before I was brought up into
the JW beliefs, and after, when I decided to leave my mothers. And now that
I'm on my own I can say i've had a breather from all of it. But I haven't ignored
it, and I am not rebelling from any religion in particular, as I believe that the
concept of god doesn't make any sense. Just my opinion, though. I won't gain
anything by telling every religious friend I have how I believe, just as they won't
change my mind about believing in god as I didn't decide that over night. Just
clarifying...
Chelsea, my leaving the flock as it were, had nothing to do with rebellion at
first. as you know, one of the worst people in my life was an atheist. Were your
theory true, i'd have run as far the other way as I could go, to not be like him.
Because of many events in my life, I concluded based on the evidence around
me, and based on logical, rational, independent thought, that christianity or
well, any religion wasn't the path for me.
As I see things, its not possible to be a person of faith with out resorting to
logical fallacy, rationalization, and deliberate abuse, omission, deliberate
misunderstanding or flat out ignoring of scientific fact, philosophy and critical
thinking.
considering we're all intellectually dishonest about some aspect of our life, the
fact its religion for many isn't shocking. Its a handy coping mechanism. there
are a lot of psychological and sociological reasons one would turn to religion,
but they don't validate religion itself. they just give people a framework that's
easier to cope with than reality as logic would present it.
once i knew how different I was, and how badly society would see me for being
who I am,particularly where I grew up, being a rebel did bring me some
measure of comfort. It also helped me feel stronger than many around me.
While the majority of the christians I knew as a child/young adult/teenager, and
well, even now if i'm being honest, used/use the religion as a crutch, or as a
way to justify horrendously vial cultural norms, or acts committed against
fellow men and women, I at least knew the choices I made were my own,
made sense, and were things I could stand behind. It was more stressful at
times, because I felt more accountable for my self and my actions than those
around me. People had the "threw god, all things are forgiven if you really
repent and believe" option to fall back on, and I didn't. Its a lot more pressure
knowing that no one can save you from a bad situation but yourself, and the
only one that can forgive you is the person you've wronged.
Not having to be good because daddy is always watching me brings me
comfort, I can admit that. and if i'm a rebel because I enjoy being free of the
shackles of control, emotional manipulation, and fear tactics most religious
people rely on to ultimately set their moral compasses bye, then yes, call me a
rebel and what's have done with it.
I can't make the logical and intellectual compromises required to believe. I
know this to be fact. I know I don't have all the answers, but i'm ok with that.
the last thing I want in my life is to open up the god can of worms, because it
creates for me personally 1000 times more problems than it solves. I can't sleep
in comfort with that massive a problem just sitting, waiting, like a massive
program i'll never debug.
Chelsea, my leaving the flock as it were, had nothing to do with rebellion at
first. as you know, one of the worst people in my life was an atheist. Were your
theory true, i'd have run as far the other way as I could go, to not be like him.
Because of many events in my life, I concluded based on the evidence around
me, and based on logical, rational, independent thought, that christianity or
well, any religion wasn't the path for me.
As I see things, its not possible to be a person of faith with out resorting to
logical fallacy, rationalization, and deliberate abuse, omission, deliberate
misunderstanding or flat out ignoring of scientific fact, philosophy and critical
thinking.
considering we're all intellectually dishonest about some aspect of our life, the
fact its religion for many isn't shocking. Its a handy coping mechanism. there
are a lot of psychological and sociological reasons one would turn to religion,
but they don't validate religion itself. they just give people a framework that's
easier to cope with than reality as logic would present it.
once i knew how different I was, and how badly society would see me for being
who I am,particularly where I grew up, being a rebel did bring me some
measure of comfort. It also helped me feel stronger than many around me.
While the majority of the christians I knew as a child/young adult/teenager, and
well, even now if i'm being honest, used/use the religion as a crutch, or as a
way to justify horrendously vial cultural norms, or acts committed against
fellow men and women, I at least knew the choices I made were my own,
made sense, and were things I could stand behind. It was more stressful at
times, because I felt more accountable for my self and my actions than those
around me. People had the "threw god, all things are forgiven if you really
repent and believe" option to fall back on, and I didn't. Its a lot more pressure
knowing that no one can save you from a bad situation but yourself, and the
only one that can forgive you is the person you've wronged.
Not having to be good because daddy is always watching me brings me
comfort, I can admit that. and if i'm a rebel because I enjoy being free of the
shackles of control, emotional manipulation, and fear tactics most religious
people rely on to ultimately set their moral compasses bye, then yes, call me a
rebel and what's have done with it.
I can't make the logical and intellectual compromises required to believe. I
know this to be fact. I know I don't have all the answers, but i'm ok with that.
the last thing I want in my life is to open up the god can of worms, because it
creates for me personally 1000 times more problems than it solves. I can't sleep
in comfort with that massive a problem just sitting, waiting, like a massive
program i'll never debug.
sorry about that double post. the sight was lagging, and I thought after 30
seconds I'd failed to hit the button, or it didn't actually post for some reason.
I just want to make clear that I didn't post my opinions with the intent of being
offensive. I just posted what I honestly thought. Me saying I can't be religious is
like anyone saying I can't just magically become a fish and live in water for the
rest of my life with out coming back up. Because well, i'd have no gills for a
start, have a different digestive tract than fish do, which is used to processing
different kinds of food... Hmans are not very aerodynamic in the water
compared to fish, etc... Its just something I know. Its not a question of faith, or
opinion. its fact. I can no more believe in god than I could believe myself in to
becoming a fish.
Oh, Cody, I absolutely love you, and your intelligent/educated post.
You say people that believe in God are not uneducated, but you then say “religion is the
sucker of weak minds.”
Does being Atheist make you strong minded, educated, and intelligent over us that choose to believe in God?
Education comes in many forms, and when I state I am highly educated, I’m not only talking university, or book studies.
You’ve read many of my post, and experience plays a major part in my education.
We talked about Atheist and churches, and lots of other things you’ve never experienced, because you simply haven’t gone to them.
Some, I’d bet you aren’t even aware exist, or refuse to accept do, but yet, you tell me and others we are weak minded?
Never once do I call you ignorant, stupid, un educated, and all other terms you place on me. My reason for this, is I feel you have a journey in life to travel. This travel will be life long, and your opinions, beliefs, and such may change do to your travel.
Never are you stupid however. You have a great mind, but what you fail to respect is others do as well, and that your opinions are not the say and do all!
When you learn that lesson, you’ll be a much better person. That is only my opinion, because, some people never learn that lesson, so go through life arrogant, and lacking in understanding, because they close their minds.
A strong opinion is a good thing, but that opinion shouldn’t be based on the fact that others are just beneath your level of thinking, intelligent, education, and general sweet self!
But, my words will be in vain, I understand this. I just wanted to say though.
James, I don't think you were offensive at all. If someone is offended by one of us saying why it is we ourselves can't believe, that person is possibly starting to doubt some things themselves. A strong faith would not be offended in the least by others not subscribing to it. A strong crowd instinct would need everyone else to subscribe to it in order for that person to feel safe and all right.
Cody, I confess I do tend to ramble, even if I do edit posts and apparently miss things. One reason I will never be a professional writer.
Interesting what directions this topic has turned.
It's too bad no pagans have spoken out on this topic, though. I've never had the opportunity to ask a pagan how they came to the conclusions they came to, and why. For most of them, it can't be the default cultural meme that one of the various Christianities or Mormonism or Islam can produce.
I say this, understanding that modern pagans, depending on where they live, may not feel safe self-identifying. Modern anti-pagan inquisitors still exist, unfortunately.
James, considering it has been years since you and I've talked about anything personal with one another, I can't say I remember what you've shared here ever being discussed.
that being said, I'm not in the least offended by the fact others believe differently than I do.
my mission is not to convert anyone to my way of thinking, as it is with many atheists/some people who are religious, but rather, to quietly lead by example, and discuss things in more detail, if I see fit to do so.
Wayne said it best, though, with regards to everyone having things to share with the world.
Wayne, what you communicate really well is the journey aspect. I certainly don't hold the same views on a lot of things that I held in my 20s.
And I can appreciate what you're saying about experience. Hate to be cliché, but it's often true that experience is the best teacher.
Chelsea, please understand I am only asking. You continuously say "Lead by example." I know quite a few dominant theistic systems use this phrase. But what does that mean to you? Lead whom by example, and example of what, exactly? That is a fair and honest question without us knowing much about where you're coming from.
Take Wayne for instance: He communicates pretty clearly about his view of God as love, and God being among us, although I may be misquoting some. If his example is love, I'd say he does a pretty damn good job of that: He's a good guy, not stooping into cat fights on here.
But I'm merely curious what you mean by lead by example: Who are you leading, and example of what?
Oh one point of clarification: It's impossible for me to 'convert' someone to the intellectual position I hold. At least in my case, I found myself out to be an atheist, and tested it to see if it was true. I didn't decide one day. So how would that be possible? There's no 'born again' moment of atheism, none that I know of anyway.
Oh and Wayne is right, absolutely right about humanist community centers, some of which resemble churches. I never really liked church going as a ritual practice, so I don't go. But many people do. They like the singing the structured environment, and so on. I do meet up twice a month with a group of nontheists at a coffee shop here in Portland. So if Cody said there are no humanist churches, that is technically wrong. The Unitarian Universalists even accept full-blown atheists. I have never been, but my Wife went once in Her early 20s, and since Her search was more theistic from a Christian persuasion, She was left feeling like they "played church". I understand why these places exist, due to the dominant cultural means of building community. I simply don't go because church going is not something I ever really enjoyed, more did my duty to the deity I was following and to my family, and a matter of self-discipline. So yes, if Cody did say these churches don't exist, they certainly do. They are not wholy atheist, though. They are usually humanist. Called secular humanist because they don't appeal to supernatural entities. But in such places one can do a christening of a baby, weddings, funerals, and so on.
As for me, when I die, I'll be dead: so if my family who is predominantly Christian wants a Christian funeral, I'd say have at it. It's them that needs comfort then, after all. I'm gone, boom, lights out. So for their comfort they should have what suits them. But in that way I am quite different from some atheists that I know.
I also don't care about a funeral.
If you love me, see me while I'm alive. After I die go out and have yourself a good time doing something accept sitting at my funeral.
Now, if you should feel better because you had a funeral, good, but don't do it because it is what you should do.
Here here, Chelsea. I couldn't have said it better myself. I try very hard not to be too preachy. I do tend to ramble a little, but if people aren't interested in my beliefs I leave them alone. Leo, That said, in my perspective, it doesn't matter whether one is an atheist, agnaustic, Christian, nipple rubber or turtle worshiper. it's how we act that defines us , and how others perceive us. Beliefs have never been an issue. Having such an incredibly low oppinion of religion (or a lack there of) and those who practice it isn't a problem. Voicing one's oppinions isn't even a problem. But doing it in such a derogatory, cocky and belittling way is. It is that people will remember, and Nobody likes a fanatical zealot, whether they are religious, agnaustic Atheist, or even antitheist with a holier-than-thou complex. This goes for everybody. it's why I find conversing with certain people a drain on my patience. It doesn't matter to me if people hold differing beleifs than I do. I don't even mind being challenged, so long as the challenger is open minded and doing it for the purpose of the sharing of ideas. Heck, I challenge my own beliefs now and then. it's how my faith in and knowledge of my religion grows. But those out simply to stir the pot, or who could really care less how they come off or who they offend are often just as bad as the people who they despise.
Leo I agree. I too would love to hear some Pagan perspectives about all of this. I've always found panthiistic beliefs quite interesting. I do agree in most that in many cases the religions we prescribe to are defined by our experiences and environments, but there are, of course many other factors.
I think what I learn most from is the why. What it is that makes someone in particular adopt a particular persuasion. You, for instance, BG: There aren't as many LDS people, not even in the U.S., as the more popular evangelical Christianities. I admit it, it's the human element that does interest me. I may not personally see as probable gods and goddesses, and certain gods' actions I personally find reprehensible. But the humans that follow them and, in some of our opinion, created them, are of curiosity to me. It's no different from learning about the way other cultures view certain things.
leo, when I say I choose to lead by example, rather than being preachy, I mean that I choose to live my life without often making a huge deal to everyone about why I believe in god, or even what belief in god means, to me.
I used to discuss atheism a lot, on these boards in particular, and I was doing the very thing I despise in others, which was being preachy.
I was also hell-bent on trying to encourage others to think like me, instead of letting the chips fall where they may, and stating things as solely my experiences/opinions.
I thought my using the phrase "lead by example" would be self-explanatory to people, but since it clearly isn't, what I mean, is that who I am as a person is still the same, despite the fact I'm religious, and some of you are not.
much like Wayne, I wholeheartedly believe that my goodness shines through in the decisions I make, both for myself, as well as others, the ways in which I interact with people, the small and big kindnesses alike that I do for myself and others, the things I do to try and make the world a better and brighter place, along with the fact that, every day, I go to sleep knowing I put my best foot forward, no matter what task was at hand.
I forgot to say in my last post that I don't particularly want a funeral, either.
if my loved ones feel they'd like it for comfort reasons, that's fine, but I'd much rather them celebrate my life, share funny stories, share things I said or did to make them think, laugh, ETC.
Thanks for your responses, Chelsea.
So, I do have to ask: What defines being preachy? I, for instance, don't even find BlindGuardian's stuff preachy. Testimonial at times, perhaps. But preachy is a direct attempt to convert someone to the other's way of thinking. I have never seen BG do that. Ironically, I never saw you do that either, not with religion anyway.
So what is the difference between stating one's point of view, and explaining it, and being all out preachy?
Well to me at least, the difference lies in what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to change the other person to your persuasion by manipulation, that would be preachy. But like it or not, something you say is going to change how I or anyone else thinks, because humans think about what they read and hear, and if the shoe fits, it's gonna fit, even if you didn't set out to change my mind. That doesn't make you preachy, though. It just makes you having a sound argument, or something to say that was poignant. Wayne does this lots, even if he doesn't know it at times.
I'll start with Wayne, cuz his post was first. No Wayne, I'm not intelligent
because I'm an atheist. You have it backward. I'm an atheist because I'm
intelligent. I'm not weak minded. I'm as intellectually honest as I can possibly
be, and I strive daily to improve that. I seek to destroy my own opinions at
every turn. I openly welcome challenges of my statements. It just happens that
there are few people on this site with the intelligence or wherewithal to actually
challenge me. Its sad, but its the truth. Most people on here are bland and
average, and some are downright moronic.
Now, you say that my opinions will change as I grow older, and that's
probably true. They will, but my experience in life will not effect the world
around me. In order for your claims to be correct, you would have to change
the world around me. You can't do that with just my experience. Religion will
still be harmful, the religious will still cling to easily refuted and antiquated
opinions, and you will still be wrong about the vast majority of the things you
say that I can bring readily to mind. You have to change the world, not just my
opinions of it.
Now then, BG, there's just one problem with your statement. You act, and
forgive me if I'm wrong, but you act as if all opinions are equal. Everybody has
his or her own opinion, and they can voice them or not voice them as they
choose, but if they do voice them they are on equal footing. To which I say, and
again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I say that is complete and utter bullshit. We
don't allow the people who say that the government is adding floride to the
water supply to brainwash america to have equal standing with the scientist
who says that its all but healed many deadly diseases and increased overall
health while not brainwashing anyone. They're not on the same standing.
Someone who says that God made everything is not on the same footing as
someone who says that the theory of evolution is true. One is wrong, the other
is right.
Now, lets examine that last sentence, one is wrong, and one is right. That's
important, because it demonstrates something that you BG often overlook.
We're not actually dealing with opinions. We're dealing with facts. God exists,
that's either a fact, or it isn't. So, you don't have an opinion on the matter. You
are either right, or you are wrong. Those are your options. That means they are
statements of fact, not opinions.
Strawberry ice cream tastes better than vanilla, that's an opinion, because it
can be true and false at the same time. Evolution is not an opinion, because it
cannot be both true and false. Follow me on that?
So, when you say that everyone has equal standing, you're saying that those
people who are right should be heard just as much as those people who are
wrong. Now, doesn't that sound incredibly stupid to you?
Not exactly what I am saying, Cody. I'm merely speaking about aditude and intention. I do believe that everyone does have a right to believe what they will. I also think people have a rite to voice their oppinions, and live them accordingly. I actually think it's best, if you believe in something, to live it to the best of your ability. I also think it's healthy to challenge your own beliefs from time to time. Don't follow mindlessly your convictions without understanding and analyzing them. If you're religious, faith does not have to be blind. I also agree with you, certain things are facts, others are oppinions. No, all of that is fine. What I am speaking of are those who voice their beliefs for the sake of establishing their own superiority (or perceived superiority), arrogantly asserting their own oppinions are the be all and end all, ramming their oppinions or beliefs down others throats, condemning them, insulting them or basically using the rite to be opinionated to justify contention or condemnation. This goes for people on all areas of the spectrum. It's needless, time-waisting and lends little to any discussion. It also often causes people to judge the body such people represent unfairly such as the devout Christian who condemns the unmarried couple for birthing a child out of wedlock. A lot of people seem unwilling or unable to differentiate between a people and an ideology. That is what I am saying.
I think you and cody have a viewpoint that is mutually exclusive to one another.
You value peoples comfort and security over the truth. He values educating
people, and correcting the wrongs and misconceptions they hold, before they go
out and do damage to the world, by spreading views that as he sees them have
no intellectual value in an honest society..
Admittedly, even i can understand the frustration that many atheists feel when
we're told that we must respect creationism as something having equal weight
to what we've been able to prove with scientific fact. There are all sorts of ideas
people would never accept in society, because they're ignorant, morally
repugnant, or create nothing of substance. But in the name of religion,
standards of logic and reason fly out the window. Its hard for rational people to
just except that way of looking at the world, or to agree that people should be
able to communicate ideas that stunt our social, economic and scientific growth
in the name of respecting something we can't prove. Where as in any other
arena of society people would be lambasted for acting so counterproductively to
the society they claim to care about.
Its a contradiction as weighty as those that ultimately drove me away from
religion. And as someone who tries to be respectful, i'll admit i'm having trouble
looking at this problem in a practical way and discounting it for the sake of
peoples comfort. We're encouraged to be honest, moral and responsible, but at
least in this venue, protecting peoples feelings runs counter productive to those
goals.
The problem with your stance BG, and thanks for defining it by the way, is
rather simple. Most things aren't actually opinions. Lets take something
mutually harmless to both our egos, homeopathic medicine. If you need to
google that, go ahead, but I'll give a brief overview for the sake of analogy.
Homeopathic medicine is taking one part of an active ingredient, say duck liver
or onion juice, and deluding that one part in tens of thousands of parts of water.
So you may have one gram of onion juice and several million grams of water.
According to the base theory of homeopathic medicine this solution would be
thousands of times stronger than if you were to just take pure onion juice.
Now, come on, we can all say that's absolute crap. We all know that the less
you have of something, the weaker it is. wE learned that as a kid when we put
sugar in our cereal. Right?
Now BG, lets say your grandma got cancer, (and I hope I'm not touching a
nerve or anything there, if I am I apologize(). So, you take your grandma to the
doctor, and the doctor says "she needs radiation therapy". But then, the window
washer for the hospital happens by and overhears the conversation. "No," he
cries, "She only needs this homeopathic cure. Its a tiny bit of cancer and a
whole whole bunch of water. It'll cure her instantly". Would you rather the
doctor say, "Oh, well yes, he has his opinion too, lets hear him out", or would
you rather the doctor say, "Good lord, why is this window washer here giving
medical advice? Someone call the cops and get him out of here." Which would
you prefer?
Right now, at least in America and many other countries, we have people like
Ken Ham, who has no professional training other than a basic degree in science,
has never actually done any scientific research, and yet is putting forth a
hypothesis that he wants treated as science, and taught in science classrooms.
You have the absolute vast majority, up to ninety-nine percent in some studies,
of real scientists, published scientists, who do it for a living, all agreeing on one
theory, and using that theory to create medicine and other technologies. Now,
should Ken Ham be allowed to be displayed as an equal? Do you want that guy
teaching your children? How about the guy that says Obama is a reptilian alien?
How about the one that says that the twin towers were hit by a missile? Do you
want these people on equal footing?
If your answer is yes, I'm afraid there's no hope for you. If its no, then you
need to start realizing that in order to tell some people they're wrong, you have
to tell them very very loudly.
Cody, I did not suggest your experience would change the world, I suggested your experience, may, and most likely will change you.
I think Atheist are frustrated for the same reason religious people are. Each wishes to win the other to their side.
I also think some Atheist have a narrow view of religion, and don't take in to account all aspects of it.
This would be true of religious persons too.
On the Atheist side, for example, you have attacked faith/prayer, based on immediate receiving of tangible things, when in fact faith/prayer has many other aspects in a person’s life.
On the religious side, for example, Atheist are said to have no moral base, because they don’t have a God, and this is not true in all cases.
I like the middle ground where frustration doesn’t factor.
Atheist statements are only food for thought in my case, and some are valid. However, scientific study has not taught humankind everything, and never will.
When scientist don’t understand, they tend to ignore things, or just forget about them, because they can’t put them in to a lab and text them.
Faith healing is one of these things scientist can’t figure out why it works for some.
as I've been trying to explain throughout this topic, I see being preachy as shouting from rooftops that I believe in god/why I believe in him.
even though people in this discussion have asked me to explain things further, I don't feel my explanation would add any value to what's being discussed here.
it's often second nature for people to put each other in boxes, when certain things are said, whether they're about religion, sexuality, or something else entirely.
that's fine, but I don't feel such banter adds anything to whatever is being discussed, which is why I'm steering clear of it, here.
Ah, but because you were once admantly Atheist, you have been asked right here to explain your reasons for changing.
That adds to the topic due to being asked.
Now, you don't have to explain, but you can't honestly refuse to answer because it adds nothing or is creepy.
They want to know.
James, I understand your conundrum. I am an atheist married to a Christian. My daughter follows the faith of her Mother. And she believes, for now, that she has gotten rational thinking skills from me, the kind that are usually found among atheists.
This leads back to the secular humanist part, and while that term is vilified in Christianity, I embrace it. In the case of Ken Ham, you bet I would oppose it if he wanted to teach that stuff up here in the schools. In the case of some Creationists at church, who believed I was in serious doctrinal error for entertaining Christian apologists like Francis Collins who is an evolutionary scientist? Well I can't change their minds. I can answer questions when a doubter asks. Let me tell you: The churches are full of doubters. I were one, and get the guy away from his wife and the alpha leadership, and once you check each other out to the point you know you are safe, you can look at the tough questions. It all doesn't have to be loud and somewhat boorish. My brother who is a marine biologist has been an atheist since his early 20s, is married to one as well. And Neither are loud about it. But it is easier because they are both the same.
The advantage as I see it, being part of the infamous "unequally yoked" club, (interfaith marriages), I see both the human and the rational side. I don't discuss this stuff with my Wife, for instance. She knows how I feel about certain things. It was a struggle raising kids. I'll admit it, I was not fully cognizant of what I am. I had not come to the realizations about belief or lack thereof in my case, until very recently. I applaud the courage of young people who are not going along just to get along, but examine and reexamine themselves. Peple like you, James, Cody, Chelsea, BG also, though I don't know if you call yourself young anymore or middle aged, not knowing your age.
One aspect to being an atheist for me is that I no longer need to fight. I'm not fighting with myself internally anymore. So, if the Christians or the Jews or the Muslims or Wiccans or whoever want to celebrate publicly? Have at it: that's part of being human after all. If the Christians believe I'm going to burn for all eternity, I can't change their minds. Would I like to? Sure: not because I think there's a Hell, but because the ones that I know will suffer greatly if I die before they do. I have seen Christians tormented with this when an unbeliever died. And, it is NOT pretty. Those poor people who are under that belief system are like war-torn refugees when a nonbelieving family member or friend dies. I'd go so far as to say they are probably at risk of post-traumatic stress, but I am no psychologist. Being raised in the RepubliChristian mindset, I was trained to be ashamed of humanist tendencies, humanity for humanity's sake. About as bad as sex shaming, to be honest. Like the sexually liberated women of the 60s and 70s, I am not ashamed or afraid anymore. Not afraid to be compassionate for compassion's sake, be humanitarian for humanity's sake, or to put the needs of people before ideologies. I don't know if you identify as a humanist or not, James, but if you do, you may find solace and some guidance in the works of David Hume and others.
In Cody's example, of course we would interfere, because the doctor is a qualified individual regarding the woman's health, and the window washer, or I for that matter, are not. I think a person of honor in that situation would interfere on the doctor's and the woman's behalf.
But these boards are not that situation. Yes, it's the Internet, and yes, wrong information can and does get disseminated. And yes, I think it's morally awful when Christian and other theists suffer night terrors and are racked with emotional pain because their unbelieving mother or father or friend is now burning for all eternity, and the Christians have been told exactly what that looks like. And yes, I think it's a real problem that we really should address somehow. But yelling at them isn't going to help. And many are so entrenched that even when they act out as spokespeople, they may not really bear the blame. Some of these groups really do intellectually and morally infantilize their followers to such an extent as to prevent their free agency in any meaningful capacity. That is a real problem. But, we don't yell at battered women, rape victims,. Even if they are attempting to "defend" the perpretrator, either out of fear or a reflex reaction they can't help.
Admitting I'm way out in the weeds here: I'm an engineer not a psychologist. But do we really understand how it is some of us get out and others don't? Why, for most of my life, was I the one with so many doubts, and others around me not? I cannot point to any heroic act of will or jumping off point which made me "turn" (in quotes) atheist.
In fact, my ultimate realization of my own atheism came after my Wife had brought home those check lists they have at the churches, "what do you believe about ..." fill in the blanks. My answers having reduced her to tears, I set out on what I believed was an honorable mission to prove to myself beyond all reasonable doubt that this faith thing, in particular the brand we were part of, was real. Like Charles Darwin, I went out to solidify my faith, out of duty to family and what I believed at the time was the right thing to do, only to find the whole thing implausible, and find myself out to be an atheist.
But what if I had believed even one of those things the "right" way? Or enough of them to have not reduced Her to tears like that? My bet, I would have remained one of those very unconvincing "reasonable" Christians that the Christians really deep down despise, and unbelievers find to be inauthentic atheists.
If you troll this Religion board back a couple years, you will find my pathetic attempts at apologetic for a couple of areas. Pathetic only in that Christians on here didn't even buy it. I followed the Francis Collins school of thought that science / rational inquiry were in one compartment and Christianity in the other. I even tried to logically fallaciously explain away how Christ died Friday night and allegedly rose Sunday morning, and that through metaphorical interpretation that could be read as three days and three nights.
Cody could have, but didn't, rip that one to shreds. you want to know who did, though? Christians. They found me out, and I don't resent them in the least for it. Even during the two and a half fiery years of my early 20s, when I was 'sold out', I was not that convincing.
I have no rational claim to superiority because of where and what I am. The Christians would have it that I 'entertained' these doubts. Nothing could be further from the truth: They were as ever present as the sex drive in most young males. Only the sex drive at least moderates some as you get older. But the doubts / skepticism drive in me only increased as I got older, knew more, saw more. And being a father, I know what a father actually does. Being a husband, which the Christians believe that Christ is the husband of the Church, I know what an honorable husband does by his wife. Absenteeism and apologetics / excuses is not in the list of activities honorable men do by their wives. This was never lost on me for an instant, even though I tried my hand at apologetics, and read more of that stuff than most the men who had me "marked" for "spiritual maturing," or the women who were "concerned" about "the things I was into."
But what if I simply hadn't noticed those things? What if they were not all consuming like sex drive can be? This is why I refuse to belittle the theist, even if I challenge theistic systems.
The science is not yet clear on how it is they hold on to their beliefs, and some of us do not. So, like victim blaming, any criticism I had against theists for their belief would be unfounded.
Chelsea, what Wayne says is true. You were one way on this site for a long time. I wouldn't go so far as to say preachy, or at least that is not how it came across to me. But now that you have switched, it is true we human beings do like to know the why of things.
As to leading anyone by example, that won't happen if people don't k know what example you are trying to set and who it is you are trying to lead. If you are trying to lead by example, by the way, you are actively trying to convert people in their way of thinking. I'll admit as much. as someone that has volunteered in the emergency services community and as a father, I have tried to "lead by example" getting my daughter and her friends to create buddy plans and buddy systems before they go off on their frequent hikes, educating them on what happens if people don't know where you are, and so on. The "lead" would be to other fathers and other interested parties, the "example" is of the buddy system, buddy / float plans, and pre-disaster preparedness. That is all explainable, and none of it is shouted from any rooftop.
But if I led by example, by just thinking a certain way and doing things that way, nobody would have any idea the motivation. And so, in some of our opinion at least, it would be a tragedy when we couldn't find a hiker who went out there without making arrangement ahead of time, and died of exposure. Happens a lot out here, actually.
By leading by example, you are assuming that position of leadership, and that means you are prepared to change minds and / or attitudes. But nobody knows about what or whom. I get that it's trendy and popular for all the hipsters to shun labels or 'boxes'. Hell pubs are full of 'em out here. Me: "I'll buy you a beer if you want. What you drinkin'? Ale? IPA? Nut brown? Pick your poison." Hipster: "I don't do labels. I'll just look at the list." Five minutes later, a selection. Yup that really happened. All the happy hipsters thought the one was enlightened and cool, the rest of us just had a good laugh.
The list is long, but subdivided into categories just to make things a little easier. It's that last 50,000 years' worth of evolution getting in the way of the popular hipster crowd and their eschewing of all labels, categories and abstractions. Damn that evolution. Maybe Ken Ham was right after all! Ooh ow! The Flying Spaghetti Monster just slapped me for that.
I don't like titles, but I'd say I was humanist , in belief, not title.
Your description would match many of my beliefs Leo.
Also, leading by example, requires you say why you've all of a sudden changed course.
Yesterday I walked on the left side of the street, and I did this for years leading.
Now, today I'm walking in the middle. Why are you walking in the middle?
Well, I'm leading by example.
Yes, but I've only seen you walking on the left side, so what happened? Why shouldn't I walk on the left side?
You told me I should walk on the left side, and you did this, so what has changed?
Wayne, there are thousands of things science easily explains, but which you
don't know the explanation of. Faith healing is one of them. We know exactly
why it works for some. You just don't know what it is science says about it, so
you assume science doesn't have an answer. You're ignorant, science isn't
underpowered.
as I've said many times throughout this topic, I was an atheist due to not having any guidance/structure in my life, and the fact I desperately hoped I'd be able to find a way away from the religious hipocricy I was constantly around.
since I didn't have any guidance, back then, I was under the impression that going from one extreme to another might accomplish what I was aiming to accomplish. however, life experience has shown me otherwise, and that's what has brought about a change in me.
I've stated what I now believe, in my last post to this topic, and I have no earthly idea how I can make things any clearer to those of you who insist that I explain things to the world.
I've said that I'm the same person as I was before, and I've outlined the fact that I still uphold similar values as I used to. the only difference, is that now, I'm admitting that I believe there's a creator who helps orchestrate our lives, to some degree, at least.
if that isn't enough of an explanation about why my beliefs have changed, I don't know what else to say.
Actually you explained more, and that helps. So you believe in a creator who orchestrated things, and may help out from time to time, if I understand things correctly. I know some people like that. Basically secular except that they have some concept of god or creator or force, or others have different names for it, which they believe is involved.
So, you kind of explained more of where you're coming from. And, that makes it understandable.
Yes, better. Smile.
Chelsea, I honestly don't understand how you've come to these conclusions,
from a rational point of view, or how you've managed to take these conclusions
and jam them in to your world view, Or what you've had to excise to make
them fit. though I'm not you. Stating you're the same person you were, save for
the fact that you now allow some kind of god, of some type to play some vague
roll in your life is completely polar opposite to years worth of views you've
expressed both to me privately and on the boards. From the outside looking in,
it looks like yore holding two magnets facing their polar opposite sides together
by force of will alone. I would be interested in knowing how you made these two
all together different world views combine with out contradiction, but I also
understand you don't owe me an explanation. and that you'd probably be
unwilling to give it, or try, because its something I just can't rationally make
sense of, even with help, or for many other reasons.
I think these are the kinds of questions most of us have, and I think most of the
curious here have only asked to try and understand your world view, because it
isn't something we can understand based on the inputs and outputs to the
equation, as they've been presented.
what I've been trying to get across, though, is exactly the fact that those of you who are atheists or agnostic, couldn't possibly understand where I'm coming from, being that the two world views are so vastly different from one another.
one reason why I've been so reluctant to try to explain things further, is cause I know that, no matter what I say, and no matter how much some of you would like to think you can understand the change that I've admitted as truth, I don't think that's possible.
in fact, it's quite clear from James's recent post that was directed towards me.
he makes it very clear that he can't possibly understand where I'm coming from, based on things I've told him years ago, and based on what he has seen on these topics, throughout my time as a zone member.
leo, call me basically secular, if that's what suits you, but I don't identify as such, in the least.
I believe there are things in life that I have control over, but if I were to fill out a form, I wouldn't check the box that says "non-religious," as that isn't descriptive of me.
Chelsea, I won't refer to your view as secular since you just clarified. For me to continue
to do so strikes me as unfair to you, and for that I apologize.
James, everyone goes through changes, gradual and otherwise. Chelsea said her time as
an atheist was an emotional response, if I read that correctly. I wasn't there in your
conversations, but if she wasn't teasing apart the problem of evil, the fallacies behind the
free will arguments, and other philosophical objections, you can't hold her to that
standard. Never have I seen her write on evolutionary theory, the statistical absence of a
designer in a chaotic universe, or relative probability. She may or may not have opinions
based on these things. But, in my opinion, you are not judging her fairly. Were i to come
out unapologetic theist, you would be well within your rights to cite things I've written on
here and elsewhere and ask for answers for a sudden assertion of the supernatural. Even
when I called myself a Christian, other Christians accused me of "thinking like an atheist."
Looking back, I see they were right about me all along. But Chelsea didn't set down
arguments based on rational inquiry, so you can't judge her as you would me.
And another thing: you can only deduce based on the attributes of her god she has
revealed, without falling prey to the mistake I made in an earlier post, and she called me
on. She has not made the extraordinary claim that her god saves, judges, knows our
thoughts, or any others claimed by monotheistic traditions. If I read properly, she says
her god created the universe, and controls things outside our control. She hasn't said the
god is good or bad, whether or not it cares about us, whether it is omnipotent,
omniscient, or omnipresent. So one can't say she's contradictory. Not until you prove what
her philosophical objections were before, and how any of that contradicts with how she
sees things now. While I don't share the theistic mind sets, I know quite a few whose god
concept escapes the philosophical and logical contradictions of the mainstream religions.
Maybe I'm missing something, so it you can cite a board post where she held a
contradictory philosophy to what she has said here, I don't think you have a case. Clearly,
as I have learned, not all atheists come to it through rational inquiry and philosophical
objections. One could be an atheist for moral reasons alone, then learn about, or invent, a
god who is not a terrorist and satisfies their moral objections.
I'm not claiming this is or is not what Chelsea has done; only she can say. I'm just
appealing to your rationality to judge her situation fairly.
I have to say, I feel like everyone's overthinking all of this. I'm rather interested as well, being one who has butted heads with you in the past, Chelsea. But while you have not really given specific reasons for your current stance, I don't really find it so surprising. People circumstances change, and their beliefs evolve accordingly. You say you no longer discount there is something beyond us as you once did, but nor have you apparently settled on "a god" such as it were. I don't see the problem with that. Whether your frame of mind is rational behavior depends on what one defines as rational. To me it makes perfect sense. Given the strength of your previous beliefs, I'd say it is safe to assume - yes I'm only assuming here - that your change of mind did not come about without some reflection and forethought. It's not a decision you came to just for the heck of it. Once devoutly religious people can become atheists due to experiences or from utilizing their intelligence to come to a conclusion. Is it such a stretch that a woman who once denounced the idea of God could change her point of view a little?
Also, when I said rational inquiry, that is a systematic thought discipline. I did not intend
to imply Chelsea was, or is, irrational. Billions of rational people do not use the systematic
thought discipline known as rational inquiry or skepticism. I didn't always know it, I had to
learn it. But that doesn't make me superior to other rational people who for whatever
reason don't use it in all areas. After all, none of us truly does. It is a wonderful discipline
of mind which makes for better decision-making. But I never use it in my love life, I
confess. In that area, you would find my mind full of confirmation bias and presumption of
argument. So by that logic, one would have to see me as irrational.
Anyway, wanted to clear that up in case people were unfamiliar with the term "rational
inquiry." My point was that one could not use that school of thought, claiming Chelsea was
contradictory of it, if she had.not appealed to its particular methods as an atheist. I don't
think that's overthinking it, it's only being fair to Chelsea. Even if I disagree with the
"world view" fallacy she appealed to in saying we could not understand her. I've traveled
overseas, been to the Orient, and I could understand them, at least some. Most atheists
live and work with theists, so we can understand them. We were raised in the same or
similar theist dominated culture. Many of us were theists at one point. You are theist
almost by default in a culture like the U.S.
leo, you have my sincere apologies for thinking that you wouldn't be able to understand my position as a theist, especially given the fact that you, in particular, really do empathize with people where most other individuals on here often do not (this discussion, and many other ones, such as those where I've talked about being sexually open as a woman, for example, are great examples of that fact).
you also have my apologies for my coming across as unwilling to fully explain my position, but I hope you now understand that it was due to the fact that I knew I'd get a lot of flack from some atheists that, quite frankly, I didn't, and don't, wanna waste my time trying to tackle.
as you well know, I used to tackle a lot of things that I'll admit were mostly unnecessary. however, another of the ways in which I've changed, is that I've realized that I don't need to be heard all the time, even if I have a strong opinion about something.
furthermore, you're right on, regarding your assessment that my claiming I was an atheist was an emotional response, rather than one that I came to, as others have apparently experienced.
I say this, despite how vocal I was about atheism, and, honestly, it's beyond refreshing to know that you do get the full picture of where I'm coming from, even though you don't share in my beliefs.
BG is also right, in thinking that I didn't wake up one morning and say to myself, "I'll believe in a god cause it's easiest," or whatever.
there has not been a single time in my life that I've made decisions without giving them serious thought, from every angle that I possibly could.
you and BG both recognized that about me, along with the fact that, whatever I'm thinking about, whatever I'm wanting/trying to do, or whatever I'm talking about, I'm 1000 percent passionate about whatever it happens to be.
in some people's eyes, that's probably to a fault, cause I'm so fiery about whatever it is. however, if I weren't as passionate, people would find reason to criticize that, too.
I appreciate your words. And you're right, people would criticize you for being less fiery.
People often misplace my less passionate ways, calling me wishy-washy, or deferring to
the slippery slope fallacy. So yes, I'll vouch for you on that one, I'm living proof of what
you're talking about.