Letting Go Of God

Osterkraut wrote: The only thing worse than proletariat philosophers is women comedians. I'm out!

We proles are that bad, huh?

Some people have this perception of athiests that we walk around going "I choose not to believe in your god".

It's not like that.

It's not that I don't believe in god.

It's that I believe there is not a god of any sort.

Hope that made some sense..

Shawn

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Plus, I realized that if I were God, I'd probably be awful lonely, bored, and anxious to do stuff. Creating a universe and a bunch of planets and some life would be pretty cool. Oh yeah, that's right. I think God's an engineer, a geek, and a nerd. So there's you're Trinity. ;-)

I'm totally stealing this.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair did for atheists what Pat Robertson has done for religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

While I applaud her gutsy 'swim against the tide' way of doing things, she was condescending and insensitive. Many people still think all atheists are like her, nothing could be further from the truth.

volvoclearinghouse wrote: Plus, I realized that if I were God, I'd probably be awful lonely, bored, and anxious to do stuff. Creating a universe and a bunch of planets and some life would be pretty cool. Oh yeah, that's right. I think God's an engineer, a geek, and a nerd. So there's you're Trinity. ;-)

Don't forget that he's a sadistic bastard too.

"to prove how much you love me, go kill your son"

"God was looking out for me, he cured my cancer!" He also gave it to you in the first place by that logic.

I may as well take the bait. I think you and I can get along, although I really don't want to drag this out. Same to you regarding the disclaimer (although, the question I posed was meant as a frame for what I wrote, which is the answer I believe, the Apostles Creed). The following is the understanding of the Apostle’s Creed, which I, as a rather immature Christian, only have a passing understanding of. I appreciate the (mostly) real thought that went into this, and I understand your belief structure. I also understand that you see yours as very similar to mine, but I do not see that. The crux of my beliefs is that no covenant of works can come to fruition, thanks to the fall of Adam. You simply cannot do enough good to make up for original sin, thus any attempt to meld Christianity with a moral structure is a failure and a gross misunderstanding. It doesn’t make any logical sense to believe some of what the Bible teaches and ignore the rest, in my opinion, believing that the entire Bible exists to establish morals is folly.

curtis73 wrote: The following is simply a response to tuna with my beliefs listed under each line. It is not commentary, bashing, or judgement, simply an answer to a question posed by tuna.

I believe in God,

curtis73 wrote: Yep, me too. Just not in the traditional sense

I do believe in a being in Heaven who is God. An actual guy. He made us in his image.

the Father almighty,

curtis73 wrote:I would agree with this in the loosest possible sense. I don't view god as a father, although "almighty" kinda works. In the church it tends to cause supplication and reverence, whereas I think of god more like the sum total of all the mass and energy in the universe and beyond. There are more than three dimensions and there are other realms beyond many people's comprehension. I know of them well and *I* still don't really understand them.

Creator of heaven and earth,

curtis73 wrote:Yes, but again that implies that god went "poof" and created them. god IS heaven and earth, as are we, our chairs, the rings of Saturn, and a bacterium 6000 galaxies away.

I do believe that God went 'poof' over the course of six days to create this world. When he did, he clearly told us all about them. He didn’t say he was in the earth, worship it, he’s in the animals, worship them. He said worship him. He also said “thou shalt have no Gods before me” Worshipping the planet or the trees is an example of this.

and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

curtis73 wrote:I think there is a very good chance that jesus existed, was an incredibly enlightened soul, and was most likely sent here at the manifestation of our energy. Lord? Not so much for me. More like guide, teacher, Rabboni, spiritual helper, or example.

I believe that Jesus came to establish the new Covenant with man. The "new testament " title is actually a poor translation. It's intended to be "the new Covenant". The first was a covenant of works. This means you obey, you get in. The second is a covenant of Grace. This means you believe in God's forgiveness through Christ, you get in. Nobody obeyed, read the old testament or the Torah. Not even Moses, Aaron, Abraham, Job etc... He was a great example, but you can’t say that he was a great teacher if you don’t believe in what he taught! The whole point of anything he taught was that you need to be forgiven!

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,

curtis73 wrote:As are we all in the same way.

born of the Virgin Mary,

curtis73 wrote:Mary was only a virgin if you don't count anal. That is a joke. A very bad one. But just as we each have the power to manipulate energy and mass with our minds (if we only used them), the likelihood that a virgin conceived a child is possible. I just don't believe it happened like the bible says.

Dude. A really bad joke. Please. I expect better of you. I don't believe that we have the ability to do any of that, either.

suffered under Pontius Pilate,

curtis73 wrote:Yeah, that guy was a buzzkill.

was crucified, died and was buried;

curtis73 wrote:Nothing abnormal about believing this. Crucifixion was a common method of punishment, it usually caused death, and burial was what they did with the body.

on the third day he rose again from the dead;

curtis73 wrote:I know that his soul (or divine-energy as I call it) would have emerged nearly instantly from his body and his blueprint would have become part of the next realm. Most people call this "heaven" despite the fact that Revelations specifically says that souls sleep until the rapture at which point the souls of the righteous will be re-awakened.

Some 500 people saw him up and walking about. The grave WAS empty when the stone was rolled back. Even the Jews acknowledge that, they just think it was grave robbers. No divine energy, no next realm. He got up and walked away.

he ascended into heaven,

curtis73 wrote: Or, as i said above, into the next realm... as do we all.

I actually believe the guy died, rose again, said goodbye, and then left. Not that he died again.

and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;

curtis73 wrote:Again, I can see how this became a permutation of what actually happens. Our bodies and minds are not here for us, they're here for god... of whom we are a part. The analogy I sometimes use is a school of fish. Sometimes a few fish venture off to experience something and when they are done they return to the school... only in my analogy you have to assume there are no predators. Our bodies are fabricated pieces of reality in which a soul-energy ambulates through experience.

from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

curtis73 wrote:Judgement (in the sense of good and bad, right and wrong) is only something that happens in the realm of the Relative, not in the realm of the Absolute, nor in the realm of the Abstract. Since our minds and bodies are in the Relative, we judge. After our bodies die and become re-membered with universal whole, there can be no judgement.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

curtis73 wrote:I believe in infinite spirits, all part of the whole which I call god.

the holy catholic Church,

curtis73 wrote: Yes... and they never let you forget: Papal hierarchy with more wealth and jewels than the Kardashians, hundreds of wars waged in the name of Christ, witch hunts, gay bashing, colonialism, imperialism, supremacy, prima nocta.... I'm not passing judgment, simply pointing out that the catholic church sure has made itself known.

OK, Curtis, you have to be corrected here on a misunderstanding. I am not Catholic. This part of the Creed does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church at all. Essentially what this means is that I believe there is only one real church. The better translation is actually “universal”. This was written before there was a Roman Catholic Church. This has nothing to do with anything you just wrote about.

the communion of saints,

curtis73 wrote: I currently know a few with whom I've communed.

Again this is not the Catholic Saint. The Catholic saint is a guy who has made miracles and is dead, and has waited long enough to make sure they are not in purgatory, blah blah stuff I don’t fully understand and certainly don’t agree with. Any believer who professes the Word is called a “saint” or a “priest” in the new testament. Paul talked about this a lot.

the forgiveness of sins,

curtis73 wrote:I would have to believe in sin first.

the resurrection of the body,

curtis73 wrote:Never really gave this one much thought. Jesus' soul would have had no need for his corporeal body, he could have simply appeared to people in spirit form, but possibly he removed the body to lend credence to his message.

and life everlasting.

curtis73 wrote: Absolutely. there is no way it can't be. We are part of god. god can't remove part of godself.

I don’t believe that. Our souls will live on forever, but nothing in the Bible supports the assertion that we are somehow part of God that I have read.

Thanks for the conversation.

I've always considered myself and Christian, but I don't really go to church anymore. Just don't like people preaching on me. I have a hard time with people that just flat out reject the possibility of the existence of god, but also a hard time with people who just flat out deny the obvious truth of evolution.

I am pretty sure that God is mostly indifferent to us. I think that he wants us to be generally good, to be observant of the needs of others, and to live our lives fully. I also think lots of people give responsibility for themselves and their lives up with a mentality that whatever happens to them is God's will.

The only forces I've seen act on me and my life are my own will to achieve things and gravity. And gravity's a bitch.

Curmudgeon wrote: Madalyn Murray O'Hair did for atheists what Pat Robertson has done for religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair While I applaud her gutsy 'swim against the tide' way of doing things, she was condescending and insensitive. Many people still think all atheists are like her, nothing could be further from the truth.

QFT. I deconverted from Christianity in the late 1970s, but didn't refer to myself as an atheist for another stinking 20yrs just because that woman was the only atheist I'd ever heard of. No Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll books in the Swanquarter NC Public Library back then..

I believe in Happy Days.

I believe in Jonie loves Crotchy.

I believe in all that TV crap,

and I believe in Swordfish.

Nothing to add here. Well......

I left this ferment most of the day and it generated 4 pages with very little moral superiority from either side. Good for y'all.

I traveled a similar (though abbreviated) path to Ms Sweeney's. (Oh, and for those who generally dislike her as a comedian...I wasn't a fan either, but she's VERY good with this material and has performed it for years). I gave it all a shot, even dabbled a bit in Buddhism (not really a religion), but ultimately said, "Nah, I think agnosticism works for me". What I liked about the performance is it did not have that smarmy Bill Maher undercurrent of "All you believers are idiots" like most atheistic books/movies/etc all seem to have. I don't dig on that. I don't want to bash people who truly believe something different than I any more than I want to be treated poorly as a non-believer. And I'll tell you, it's not something that's typically well received when divulged.

Case in point: I met a guy online who is local who has a motorcycle like mine. We agreed to get together for a ride. We hit it off and had a good time and he was all gung-ho to go again. We friended each other on Facebook as a means of communication. Well, I have a lot of friends who have varied philosophies and we like to banter ideologies back and forth, so it wouldn't take much digging to see where I stand on religion. My riding buddy is a big time, mega-church guy. We've never discussed religion, but ever since the FB thing I've hardly heard from him. Whether or not we have differing religious views should not have anything to do with riding motorcycles, but I guess to him it does. I label it intolerance, and I find it puzzling that someone who is taught to "love thy neighbor" would treat someone that way.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't dismiss people on religious or political beliefs unless they're trying to 'convert' me or demean my view. This brings me full circle to why I think having an understanding of the other side's view is important even if you don't agree with it. Most of us were raised with some sort of church education, so even if we disagree we have an understanding of the beliefs. Not so much with agnosticsm/atheisim.

"Case in point" = A case for the point you are making within the point you are making. It's a pretty rare occurrence. Lost me again.

OR: I won't judge you on your religious beliefs, but I'll judge the berkeley outta you on pet peeves.

I tried so hard not to post in this thread.

I lost my religion. It was painful and scary- suddenly a large part of what used to be truth for me no longer made sense. I was angry for a while, and sad. Those feelings passed.

The older I've gotten, the more mellow I've gotten about it. I think anybody who gets up in your face (religious or not) and tells you that you are wrong is an shiny happy person. People do NOT like to have their worldview changed. Most atheists and religious folks might as well be speaking a different language, but we can still be kind to each other, right?

Is there a god? I hope there is, but I think there probably isn't. That might seem odd coming from an atheist, and it is hard to explain, but there it is.

ddavidv wrote: Case in point: I met a guy online who is local who has a motorcycle like mine. We agreed to get together for a ride. We hit it off and had a good time and he was all gung-ho to go again. We friended each other on Facebook as a means of communication. Well, I have a lot of friends who have varied philosophies and we like to banter ideologies back and forth, so it wouldn't take much digging to see where I stand on religion. My riding buddy is a big time, mega-church guy. We've never discussed religion, but ever since the FB thing I've hardly heard from him. Whether or not we have differing religious views should not have anything to do with riding motorcycles, but I guess to him it does. I label it intolerance, and I find it puzzling that someone who is taught to "love thy neighbor" would treat someone that way.

I changed my answer. Motorcycling is my religion, and the throttle is my path to God. I used to meet up with my small congregation every Saturday morning when it was nice out, but haven't been for a while.

People being so concerned with everyone else's personal life is the underlying problem with religious intolerance. Your beliefs have no impact on my life or my beliefs, so why care about why? It's not a problem limited to specific religions, but to all people of any and all beliefs as well as non-believers. I've met some rather hateful atheist people in my travels. Being so concerned about why people believe what they do is like spending hours researching why people wear denim.....because it's retro-awesome!

curtis73 wrote: This reminds me of a Tshirt that said, "I was an atheist until I realized that I'm a God." One thing that might help bridge any gaps... many times Atheists use the unbelievable (to them) nature of the bible to believe that God doesn't exist. Keep in mind that just because the God of the bible may not exist for you, it doesn't mean that *A* god *might* exist. Make sense? I think too many people are black and white about it; either the God of the bible does exist, or she *can't* exist because they find the bible to be non-credible. Instead of jumping on one side or the other, there is the philosophical plausibility in the grey area: 1- the god of the bible exists as written 2- there is no god because the bible is not believable to a person, -or- 3- a god could exist, just not as the bible describes (or incorrectly describes) #3 is a situation that rarely gets discussed in these discussions. It seems to always be 1 or 2; the polar opposites

If I ever disagree with you about anything, remind me of this thread so I can recall how much I respect this post.

Whether god exists or not, religion has brought a great deal of peace and comfort to an untold number of people.
Conversely, whether god exists or not, religion has brought incredible pain and suffering to an untold number of people.
My question has always been, how do we promote more of the first, and work to eliminate the second from the world? Especially when they frequently exist under the same roof? Denomination or belief structure doesn't matter to me, only the outcome.

Brett_Murphy wrote: I lost my religion.

Was that you in the corner? Was that you in the spotlight?

mguar wrote: Maybe we should just follow the teachings of Jesus and obey the ten commandments?

Ten is too many.

If you think about it, all ten can really be condensed down into two:

http://youtu.be/YzEs2nj7iZM

friedgreencorrado wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote: Madalyn Murray O'Hair did for atheists what Pat Robertson has done for religion.

[.....]

While I applaud her gutsy 'swim against the tide' way of doing things, she was condescending and insensitive. Many people still think all atheists are like her, nothing could be further from the truth.

QFT. I deconverted from Christianity in the late 1970s, but didn't refer to myself as an atheist for another stinking 20yrs just *because* that woman was the only atheist I'd ever heard of. No Bertrand Russell or Robert Ingersoll books in the Swanquarter NC Public Library back then..

Richard Dawkins is the new O'Hair. I guess he thinks we need to always have a sanctimonious asshat who gives athiests a bad name, and decided to step up to the plate and fill that sloth for the current era.

I miss Stephen J. Gould.

poopshovel wrote: I believe in Happy Days. I believe in Jonie loves Crotchy.

I believe that this porntastic typo was intentional, but don't care.....it still makes me laugh.

(...and I still like pie better than disagreements about religion.)

Beer Baron wrote:

Brett_Murphy wrote: I lost my religion.

Was that you in the corner? Was that you in the spotlight?

It's usually when your not in the spotlight when you're doing something else in the corner.

You made me LOL BTW

mguar wrote: Does God take attendance at Church? Exactly what is "Church"? Can I attend church in my thoughts just as well as attending the local multimillion dollar edifice?

I always struggled with that question.

If a preacher says "I can reach more people by starting a new church" he is saying that the old church is somehow ineffective. He will change the method that he preaches in a way best to reach those who have been missed.

So, if I go into the woods, alone, and I come out of the woods with three friends, all who now understand the world in the same moral/ethical way that I do, and maybe we all believe in Christ. Have I just started my own church? Am I now a preacher?

In reply to PHeller:

But if a tree falls in those woods...

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to PHeller: But if a tree falls in those woods...

Then the tree doesn't believe anything any more