Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Robittybob1]

If you have been involved with a particular faith, or religion all of your life, and for a few years, you start changing direction...it can feel strange. If you have your life all figured out, I envy you. I sure don't.

Don't feel alone on that wegs.

 

[wegs]

Fascism. Racism. Antisemitism. Homophobia. Sexism. Also insidious and sinister ideologies/value systems. But that doesn't mean one is rebelling against them or out for revenge against them. Honesty sometimes requires you recognize that delusion and bigotry are just THAT--delusion and bigotry. Religion is a soul-poisoning addiction that feeds off of fear and human weakness. It drains us of life energy with neurotic fantasies of moral perfection and approval before an exacting and judgemental father figure. It enslaves the mind with superstition and paralyzes the heart with a shame and insecurity more suited for a child of three that for a maturing adult. Calling it "enemy" is a major step in moving beyond it into real authentic living. After a while you won't even think about it anymore. It's called moving on and getting over it.

http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html

''Getting over it.'' That's interesting that you position those words in that way.

My anger if it shows here at all, is due to the fact that I believed in something for so very long, that was not true. So, when you strip away religion, and the idealogy of such a religion, I'm left wondering if God exists. As you said earlier in the thread...it is nice to not really 'have' to know, anymore.

I've explored other faiths, and never felt like an outsider, or really anything...just explored them, objectively. I still do. But, I come away with the feeling that at the end of the day, they all want their ''followers'' to believe that they are the ultimate pathway to 'enlightenment.' The ultimate path to 'a god.'

If others want to follow a particular religion, great. I don't want to ever become someone who tries to talk someone out of any belief system, simply because I don't believe in it. Every person is unique, and I respect that. I only ask to be respected in return. Your points here Magical, I understand. In my view, religion tends to pit people against one another. It creates divisions, whether subtly or blatantly.

I know your story, from reading it elsewhere, and you haven't had it easy. I commend your courage to press on with what you believe to be true.

wegs,



If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally.

Sorry, not certain of what you mean here? Can you clarify?

Then let's not include Christianity. I'm cool with that if you are.

Okay

The process of evolution (similar to darwinian) is nothing new. In vedic literature it is understood that the soul transmigrates from one body to another, going from simple to complex, and the human form is the gateway through which the spirit-soul can be liberated from this process and go back to it's essential, original state.

....

So why accept a speculative explanation when we can understand how people came about through the Bible?

who is speculating?

They were the first something, but people? That's illogical

lol ...the story as it goes, presents Adam and Eve, as the first humans on earth, yes.
It is an unfortunate problem for the Bible, what with evolution and all, I know.

It assumes that Caine married a woman who was him sister (as Abel was killed).
It assumes that Caine got married, built a city, and waited till he had enough children to populate it.
It assumes that Caine was frightened of his yet unborn off-spring that would eventually rise up and kill him because he was a marked man.
I'm sure if I could be bothered, I could come up with loads more oddments but I'm sure you get my drift.

Do you believe this story? (I'm honestly asking you that.)

You're talking about a small section, not the whole thing.
You're free to broaden your perspective now. Why not take advantage?

I do feel a sense of peace and contentment over leaving the faith, and even being ok with letting go of the notion of what or who 'God' might be.
When you say...''broaden your perspective'' ...do you mean explore other religions or spiritual 'paths?'
Could you clarify, Jan?

Obviously not everyone thinks so. Are you saying you are right and anyone who doesn't think like you are mistaken?

No, it's only my opinion of how I feel about religion.

If not, then what is the purpose of these massive, gigantic claims?

It's not gigantic. It just seems that way because you disagree.

I have not read much here, not even your full post, but the above caught my eye.

The word "virgin" now means without sexual penetration, but the Hebrew word (and Greek as parts of bible were first in Greek, I think) it comes from did not mean that when bible was written. Most scholars agree it meant: "young woman." There are dozens of texts from the period where this is clear from context. Just to make one up as I'm not a language scholar. Texts that translate into English like: "The virgin and her husband worked together from sun up until sun down in their field while her mother cared for their two young children."

To use a more modern example of how meaning of words evolves, even within one language, consider "Lady." Only a couple of hundred years ago "Lady" clearly referred to (and only to) a Lord's wife. Now the cop is fully correct when he calls this report in: "Send the wagon to Fourth and Vine. There is a drunk lady lying in the gutter there."

With regards though to religious 'dogma'...Mary (Jesus' mother) is taught to have been a virgin (in today's sense of the word) when she became pregnant with Jesus.

That's not evolution.

I'm a bit confused as to what Jan is explaining, above.

Don't feel alone on that wegs.

Thanks.

 

[geeser]

geeser, sorry that you read so much better than I can compose! My bad!

No it's not simply that. It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. Seriously. You would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.

I will not bother you with any more simple stuff that I explain wrong. I should learn to read like you. then maybe I could figure out what I type is the opposite of what you claim to read.

That would seem to be so considering, that you say one thing in one post which appears as if you get it and yet another in a subsequent post.

geeser, if it would not be asking to much of you, would you please not tell me what I say or said, just maybe quote my actual words!!

With pleasure! In post #187 you stated (Emphasis mine (note the bolded))

"Sheople", are people who, for whatever reason, prefer NOT to do their own "Critical Thinking" - thus just repeating something/anything that will make them appear "normal"?!?!

"Sheople", are not really anything - theist/atheist/republican/democrat/liberal/conservative - those things would require the "Critical Thinking" they fail to exercise!

So we can gather from the first statement that 1, Sheople are not individual people who think for themselves.
And 2, Yet you claim in the second statement, that people who are individuals do follow a group mentality. Which contradicts your frist statement and the very essence of the term Sheople.
http://searchwarp.com/Q-15678-What-Is-The-Origin-And-Meaning-Of-The-Word-Sheople
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=w...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=5Dc_UvXcA47K0AX6rIDICQ
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-1153411.htm
Anybody that follows a group mentality is a sheople.

geeser, if you actually read them word for word...never mind...I guess I really do get it.
Just pretty sure that you have no idea what the "it" is, that I am getting!

That would be true if the "it" was something you conjured up in your own mind which now it seems "it" was.

 

[Magical Realist]

''Getting over it.'' That's interesting that you position those words in that way.

My anger if it shows here at all, is due to the fact that I believed in something for so very long, that was not true. So, when you strip away religion, and the idealogy of such a religion, I'm left wondering if God exists. As you said earlier in the thread...it is nice to not really 'have' to know, anymore.

I've explored other faiths, and never felt like an outsider, or really anything...just explored them, objectively. I still do. But, I come away with the feeling that at the end of the day, they all want their ''followers'' to believe that they are the ultimate pathway to 'enlightenment.' The ultimate path to 'a god.'

If others want to follow a particular religion, great. I don't want to ever become someone who tries to talk someone out of any belief system, simply because I don't believe in it. Every person is unique, and I respect that. I only ask to be respected in return. Your points here Magical, I understand. In my view, religion tends to pit people against one another. It creates divisions, whether subtly or blatantly.

I know your story, from reading it elsewhere, and you haven't had it easy. I commend your courage to press on with what you believe to be true.

I appreciate that you respect my position and don't take my antireligious stance too personally. Everybody's got their own path to follow. Some go around. Some go underneath. Some fly high above. And some plough straight thru. I share with you the anger of having the first 1/3rd of my life dominated by a system of belief and morality that was just plain wrong. What a tragic waste of time and energy. Not that I wouldn't have had to have taken this path eventually. I just wish I had had a good intellectual role model to steer me clear of all that religious BS. One good thing that came out of it is an instinctive skeptism for all belief systems. I learned to live with the ambiguity and the uncertainty as to what it's all about. To this day I still don't know. And that's fine. Do ANY of us really know the answers? Not really. We just have to keep living and stay open to whatever experience brings.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

No it's not simply that. It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. Seriously. You would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.
That would seem to be so considering, that you say one thing in one post which appears as if you get it and yet another in a subsequent post.
With pleasure! In post #187 you stated (Emphasis mine (note the bolded))So we can gather from the first statement that 1, Sheople are not individual people who think for themselves.
And 2, Yet you claim in the second statement, that people who are individuals do follow a group mentality. Which contradicts your frist statement and the very essence of the term Sheople.
http://searchwarp.com/Q-15678-What-Is-The-Origin-And-Meaning-Of-The-Word-Sheople
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=w...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=5Dc_UvXcA47K0AX6rIDICQ
http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-1153411.htm
Anybody that follows a group mentality is a sheople.
That would be true if the "it" was something you conjured up in your own mind which now it seems "it" was.

geeser, in my second statement quoted above I stated : Sheople are not REALLY anything!

Also, I never stated that an individual could NOT follow any group mentality - being Catholic/Republican/Mason does not mean that you are not an individual, nor does it determine whether or not you are, indeed a "sheople"!

When it comes right down to it - it seems that "sheople" are more apt to "tow the party line" - or drag it around with them.

Whereas someone who "toes the party line" - has actually critically thought about it and has decided to embrace it and "carry and support"it!

geeser, if you s-l-o-w-l-y r-e-a-d m-y P-o-s-t-s , a "sheople" is a person who, for whatever reason - choice/ignorance/naivety/??!!?? - prefers NOT to do their OWN CRITICAL THINKING!

A "sheople" CAN be a member of many groups - or belong to no groups!

If you fail to understand my Posts, or prefer to read other than what I actually say into them, then it can only possibly be because - I, dmoe, am mentally impaired - and - you, geeser, are mentally perfect - is that WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?? (notice the question marks - I, dmoe, prefer to ask for clarification!!)

geeser, I wonder what you "READ INTO" what I Posted above?

I will not have to wonder long though - because you, geeser will surely say I said something other than I actually did - and state that I am WRONG - with no valid argument to back it up!

Or, geeser, you will just state that I am WRONG - but still with no valid argument to back it up!

Either way, between Mazulu and yourself, I have no idea which one to antici.............pate the seemingly more irrational, more unintelligent, more puerile and more inane Posts from!

Are you two "Fighting" for some kind of "Title"? If so why not leave me out of it?

Maybe I should make that a statement.

geeser, you have my full permission to "play" with yourself or anyone else - but I would prefer that you no longer attempt to "play" with me!!

As an adult, I prefer not to play "mind games" with children - no matter how much they beg and plead - and honestly, geeser, you seem to beg and plead at least as much, if not more, than Mazulu!

'Nuf sed, yet !!!???

 

[wegs]

I appreciate that you respect my position and don't take my antireligious stance too personally. Everybody's got their own path to follow. Some go around. Some go underneath. Some fly high above. And some plough straight thru. I share with you the anger of having the first 1/3rd of my life dominated by a system of belief and morality that was just plain wrong. What a tragic waste of time and energy. Not that I wouldn't have had to have taken this path eventually. I just wish I had had a good intellectual role model to steer me clear of all that religious BS. One good thing that came out of it is an instinctive skeptism for all belief systems. I learned to live with the ambiguity and the uncertainty as to what it's all about. To this day I still don't know. And that's fine. Do ANY of us really know the answers? Not really. We just have to keep living and stay open to whatever experience brings.

This sums up pretty much, my thoughts to it all, in a very succinct way. Thank you.
While I'm not religious anymore, I'm not anti-religion. My anger is not aimed at anyone, in particular. It is more maybe at myself, as to why didn't I questions things sooner? Why did I just go along with it all for so long, even when doubts sprung up in my head over the years? It all doesn't matter, I guess, at this point.

My boyfriend being an atheist his whole life, tries to understand, but can't really fully understand. He encourages me to take my time and heal. He believes that I need to heal from years of indocintration, and believing in something that wasn't true. Sometimes, I envy him. He never experienced a 'faith' life, and has never entertained the idea. He said to me one day...that he doesn't look at religion as a bad thing, necessarily. But, if you have to compromise your own values to follow one, then it's not worth following.

I GREATLY appreciate your comments here, Magical. You have a kind heart.

 

[wegs]

no it's not simply that. It sounds like you aspire to become mentally handicapped. Seriously. You would rather gaze in wonderment at the invisible barriers on the bus than have the intellectual capacity to identify them as windows.
That would seem to be so considering, that you say one thing in one post which appears as if you get it and yet another in a subsequent post.
With pleasure! In post #187 you stated (emphasis mine (note the bolded))so we can gather from the first statement that 1, sheople are not individual people who think for themselves.
And 2, yet you claim in the second statement, that people who are individuals do follow a group mentality. Which contradicts your frist statement and the very essence of the term sheople.
http://searchwarp.com/q-15678-what-is-the-origin-and-meaning-of-the-word-sheople
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=w...firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=5dc_uvxca47k0ax6ridicq
http://www.datehookup.com/thread-1153411.htm
anybody that follows a group mentality is a sheople.
That would be true if the "it" was something you conjured up in your own mind which now it seems "it" was.

geeser, in my second statement quoted above i stated : Sheople are not really anything!

Also, i never stated that an individual could not follow any group mentality - being catholic/republican/mason does not mean that you are not an individual, nor does it determine whether or not you are, indeed a "sheople"!

When it comes right down to it - it seems that "sheople" are more apt to "tow the party line" - or drag it around with them.

Whereas someone who "toes the party line" - has actually critically thought about it and has decided to embrace it and "carry and support"it!

Geeser, if you s-l-o-w-l-y r-e-a-d m-y p-o-s-t-s , a "sheople" is a person who, for whatever reason - choice/ignorance/naivety/??!!?? - prefers not to do their own critical thinking!

A "sheople" can be a member of many groups - or belong to no groups!

If you fail to understand my posts, or prefer to read other than what i actually say into them, then it can only possibly be because - i, dmoe, am mentally impaired - and - you, geeser, are mentally perfect - is that what you are saying?? (notice the question marks - i, dmoe, prefer to ask for clarification!!)

geeser, i wonder what you "read into" what i posted above?

I will not have to wonder long though - because you, geeser will surely say i said something other than i actually did - and state that i am wrong - with no valid argument to back it up!

Or, geeser, you will just state that i am wrong - but still with no valid argument to back it up!

Either way, between mazulu and yourself, i have no idea which one to antici.............pate the seemingly more irrational, more unintelligent, more puerile and more inane posts from!

Are you two "fighting" for some kind of "title"? If so why not leave me out of it?

Maybe i should make that a statement.

Geeser, you have my full permission to "play" with yourself or anyone else - but i would prefer that you no longer attempt to "play" with me!!

As an adult, i prefer not to play "mind games" with children - no matter how much they beg and plead - and honestly, geeser, you seem to beg and plead at least as much, if not more, than mazulu!

'nuf sed, yet !!!???

^^^ lol!

 

[Jan Ardena]

wegs,

If one doesn't take the Bible literally, how can one understand what is written?
How do you conclude that Mary couldn't have been pregnant without having sexual intercourse, or somehow came into contact with sperm, if you didn't take it literally.

Sorry, not certain of what you mean here? Can you clarify?

To gain the best understanding of the Bible, one has to take it literally whether you agree withwhat it say's, or not.

....

.....

"One attains the human form of life after transmigrating through 8,400,000 species of life by the process of gradual evolution. That human form of life is spoiled for those conceited fools who do not take shelter of the lotus feet of Govinda [Krsna]."1. Brahma-vaivarta Purana .1

who is speculating?

The side-steppers.

lol ...the story as it goes, presents Adam and Eve, as the first humans on earth, yes.
It is an unfortunate problem for the Bible, what with evolution and all, I know.

It doesn't.
The first humans on earth (at that particular time) was the multitudes of humans mentioned on day six.

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It assumes that Caine married a woman who was him sister (as Abel was killed).
It assumes that Caine got married, built a city, and waited till he had enough children to populate it.
It assumes that Caine was frightened of his yet unborn off-spring that would eventually rise up and kill him because he was a marked man.

I'm sure if I could be bothered, I could come up with loads more oddments but I'm sure you get my drift.

Do you believe this story? (I'm honestly asking you that.)

Belief is irrelevant, it shows that Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans ever, unless you just feel like making that claim.

I do feel a sense of peace and contentment over leaving the faith, and even being ok with letting go of the notion of what or who 'God' might be.
When you say...''broaden your perspective'' ...do you mean explore other religions or spiritual 'paths?'
Could you clarify, Jan?

Just because you're not bound by the religion doesn't mean you can't look at the Bible objectively. You seem to have jumped out of the frying pan and straight into the fire, from one dogma to another.

No, it's only my opinion of how I feel about religion.

Don't you mean ''...how I feel about the religion I just left''?

It's not gigantic. It just seems that way because you disagree.

So, God, spirituality, religion, are so simple one can explain it all without looking into them?

With regards though to religious 'dogma'...Mary (Jesus' mother) is taught to have been a virgin (in today's sense of the word) when she became pregnant with Jesus.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... With regards though to religious 'dogma'...Mary (Jesus' mother) is taught to have been a virgin (in today's sense of the word) when she became pregnant with Jesus.
...

That's true, but when did become the church's POV? I suspect the answer is slowly, in parallel with the shift in meaning of the term from "young woman" to "woman without first sex."

 

[Robittybob1]

That's true, but when did become the church's POV?

This was known right from the day Mary told Joseph the news.
Mary: "I'm going to have a baby"
Joseph: "But I can't be the father for you haven't had proper sex with me yet."
Mary: "I haven't been with anyone else either. Check if you like I'm still a virgin."

 

[Billy T]

This was known right from the day Mary told Joseph the news.
Mary: "I'm going to have a baby"
Joseph: "But I can't be the father for you haven't had proper sex with me yet."
Mary: "I haven't been with anyone else either. Check if you like I'm still a virgin."

Oh - you have a tape! Can I get a copy?

 

[Robittybob1]

Oh - you have a tape! Can I get a copy?

You don't need it on tape, you can just about hear it still ringing out across the land.

 

[wegs]

That's true, but when did become the church's POV? I suspect the answer is slowly, in parallel with the shift in meaning of the term from "young woman" to "woman without first sex."

From some of the things I've read over the years, I *think* it became actual 'dogma' (that Mary was a virgin when she was pregnant with Jesus, virgin meaning never having had sex) in the third century.

@ Robittybob, I think your 'theory' about Jesus having an actual twin brother (biologically) is unfounded. Of all the things I've read over the years, any reference to Jesus' 'brothers,' are the kids of Joseph. (from a previous marriage) Sorry!

 

[wynn]

Fascism. Racism. Antisemitism. Homophobia. Sexism. Also insidious and sinister ideologies/value systems. But that doesn't mean one is rebelling against them or out for revenge against them. Honesty sometimes requires you recognize that delusion and bigotry are just THAT--delusion and bigotry. Religion is a soul-poisoning addiction that feeds off of fear and human weakness. It drains us of life energy with neurotic fantasies of moral perfection and approval before an exacting and judgemental father figure. It enslaves the mind with superstition and paralyzes the heart with a shame and insecurity more suited for a child of three that for a maturing adult. Calling it "enemy" is a major step in moving beyond it into real authentic living. After a while you won't even think about it anymore. It's called moving on and getting over it.

http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html

And you are, of course, the role model of inner peace and lucidity.

 

[Aqueous Id]

To gain the best understanding of the Bible, one has to take it literally whether you agree withwhat it say's, or not.

Didn't you recently say you're not advocating the Fundamentalist position?

The first humans on earth (at that particular time) was the multitudes of humans mentioned on day six.

Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

It's just a myth, Jan.

Belief is irrelevant, it shows that Adam and Eve could not have been the first humans ever, unless you just feel like making that claim.

All of this is beliefs and claims. In this regard your position is no different. To that you're adding your belief that the text is to be read literally.

Just because you're not bound by the religion doesn't mean you can't look at the Bible objectively.

All of it is religion. Certainly you are expressing a view that indicates that you are bound to the Anabaptist religion. But objectivity is another thing!

You seem to have jumped out of the frying pan and straight into the fire, from one dogma to another.

But fundamentalism is highly dogmatic. Declaring literal interpretation to be the only valid belief is particularly dogmatic.

Don't you mean ''...how I feel about the religion I just left''?

That's quite subjective. Many people practice their religion outside of the church that founded it . . . you for example.

So, God, spirituality, religion, are so simple one can explain it all without looking into them?

It strikes me that fundamentalism simplifies these concepts more than orthodoxy. Once you've blanketed all dogma with the additional constraint of fundamentalism, it reduces belief to blind faith in the literal interpretation of the text.

With regards though to religious 'dogma'...Mary (Jesus' mother) is taught to have been a virgin (in today's sense of the word) when she became pregnant with Jesus.

Surprised you put it that way. That could just as well be the required conclusion of your fundie reading of the text.

 

[wynn]

All of it is religion. Certainly you are expressing a view that indicates that you are bound to the Anabaptist religion. But objectivity is another thing!

Have you used to be an Anabaptist, or otherwise had to do with Anabaptists?

 

[wegs]

Surprised you put it that way. That could just as well be the required conclusion of your fundie reading of the text.

Think u meant that for Jan, but I posted it. Lol
Truth is tho...that's a traditional "doctrine" of the Christian faith. Not just a "fundamentalist" view.

 

[Magical Realist]

And you are, of course, the role model of inner peace and lucidity

Typical ad hom attack hurled by one who has nothing of substance to say..

 

[Mazulu]

Well let's see, the Christians say we have a soul, there is a God, we should follow some rules, and life is meaningful and has purpose, and that God and Jesus love you.

Atheists say that life is meaningless, you can kill yourself if you want because you have no soul and nobody cares if you do. In fact, according to atheists, nobody loves you. Oh, and just ignore the origin of the big bang, science doesn't know, but there is a quantum foam somewhere that spits out singularities occasionally, or so were told.

Does that about sum up the differences between Christianity and atheism?

 

[geeser]

geeser, in my second statement quoted above I stated : Sheople are not REALLY anything!

You chose your user name well, and an apter one you could not have picked.
Yes you did say "Sheople are not REALLY anything!" Well done for actually noticing that, go to the top of the class. It is not necessary for you to understand things in order to argue about them.

Also, I never stated that an individual could NOT follow any group mentality - being Catholic/Republican/Mason does not mean that you are not an individual, nor does it determine whether or not you are, indeed a "sheople"!

Ah! But it does, simply because by default you're not individual if you're in a group, following a group mentality. Sheep follow a shepherd/master/leader/messiah. Individuals are loners. Did the actual meaning of group* and individual** get mixed up in your head. Oh wait of course they did!
I really really would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be offensive to your intelligence.
It seems you think, you've hit the target. Whereas you simply called whatever you hit the target. Come on what's really on your mind, if you will forgive the overstatement?


*Group: a number of people or things that are located, gathered, or classed together:

** Individual: a single human being as distinct from a group: