I no longer consider myself a christian

[norseamd]

So here I am almost exactly 5 years later and I stumble upon this thread I started. A few observations and thoughts.

1. I'm ashamed I called someone a lovely human.

2. I'm still an atheist/agnostic. Some would argue they are different, but really they are essentially the same. Most of my friends are atheist. All of my family knows my stance, it has been the cause of some divide, mostly do to my choosing. I no longer have a relationship with my grandparents. Religion isn't the only reason, but it played a big part in my decision that I was just done with that part of my life. They are really conservative southern baptist Christians. I decided I didn't want my future kids getting their heads filled with their bat shit insane idea's about the world. (I'm engaged now)

3. I went from a staunch right wing republican to a someone who is a Bernie Sanders supporter. I wouldn't call myself a liberal. I don't necessarily like political labels. I like to separate each issue as its own issue and make a reasoned decision not based on what group i identify with believes in. Once you put all the religion BS aside and out of your mind it really opens up your view of the world and you think about things a different way. I liken my personal experience with religion as a sickness. It crept into every crevice of the way I acted and thought. When I was a "christian", I never acted the part. I had the belief part, but I didn't follow the "rules". But even so, it drastically changed the way I thought and acted in certain situations.

4. I'm no longer afraid to be wrong. I like to debate and I like to listen to others and exchange thoughts. I like listening to the greatest minds of our times (Richard Dawkins, NGD, L. Krauss) just to name a few. I generally feel like I care more about my fellow man and the world as a whole now that I don't have this fear of some invisible sky man that watches everything I do.

5. I never considered myself racist in the traditional sense. But being brought up the way I was, it would be next to impossible for some of my families discriminatory habits and remarks not to rub off on me. I have never been the type of person that would openly discriminate against someone in public, or do an action against that person because the color of their skin. To give an example, I would say I would not have had an open mind to the discrimination that some minorities face today in this country of ours. The reason I didn't have an open mind is because of how I was raised, and that racism kind of crept into that part of my life when dealing with the social issues of another race. To be more clear, I was essentially in denial that real issues existed and that it wasn't just as easy as "blacks commit more crimes". I suppose I'll always fight against that instinct, but now I'm aware of it. I think deep down we are all a little discriminatory against others not like ourselves. I think half the battle is knowing that about yourself.

6. I'm still not a troll.

7. The reason I decided to bump this thread is that maybe someone else is just coming into where I was 5 years ago. Plus its just kind of cool to see what a difference 5 years makes. I now see that Christianity does not have the monopoly on morality. I can now hold my own against any bible toting southerner ready to argue with me about religion or politics. Overall I feel like a more intelligent person, while still knowing that I'm ignorant about a lot of things. But things like logic and the scientific method have given me the tools necessary to solve many of life's little problems and queries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axARKd24eHo

 

[norseamd]

I can understand agreeing with the guy if you went atheist, but I don't understand how anyone can put him in the "greatest minds" category. Not that he's unintelligent, but he's just more vocally opposed to Christianity and religion than being a top researcher, philosopher, scientist, or whatever label you can apply to him. EDIT: You could maybe say he's an excellent writer and speaker, but I think you'd have to limit yourself to atheism apologists to consider him great. There are a thousand other mathematicians, physicists, linguists, computer scientists, economists, writers, etc I'd take over him. Granted, I'm not an atheist, but even trying to be objective about it I don't see anything special about him other than the level of his commitment to Neo-Darwinism.

Going by his actions concerning gamergate I would have to agree here. He did not seem like he was concerned at all with the realities or moralities of the gamergate scandal, but instead was basically only worried about getting his name off the blocklist.

 

[norseamd]

I'm not the biggest fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he at least gets that.

And like more than a few less ignorant intellectuals and scientists, Neil does not like to identify as anything, but if he has to then he identifies as agnostic.

 

[WelshBloke]

And like more than a few less ignorant intellectuals and scientists, Neil does not like to identify as anything, but if he has to then he identifies as agnostic.

Why should religion get some sort of weird pass? Is it supposed to be beyond comment? It's something that we have to politely ignore even when it's shitting on the carpet?

 

[sandorski]

You seriously can't take the teaching of Jesus as small-mindedly as you just pretended to.

Look at the alternatives vis a vis the evolution of man kind without that Christian ethos.

It sure isn't enlightened humanism.

In fact, the fact that the government doesn't hunt you down and kill you for disagreeing is essentially an outcome of the Christian ethos.

That is utter crap. You can thank Secular Humanism for that and the end of most Inter-Christian armed conflicts.

 

[Mayne]

you are no longer a nice person?

 

[x26]

It feels like a 1000 bricks have been lifted off my shoulders. I don't have all the answers, nor am I foolish enough to think I ever will. But I feel so much better. Now lets see how family reacts to updated religious views on facebook. That is all

I am not a troll.

That's Nice Honey.

 

[norseamd]

Why should religion get some sort of weird pass? Is it supposed to be beyond comment? It's something that we have to politely ignore even when it's shitting on the carpet?

No that is not what I said at all. But it is not good to just piss on shit on anything just because of a label of religion. Plus you also have no idea if god does exist or does not exist so stop the act of knowing he does not exist at all.

 

[norseamd]

That is utter crap. You can thank Secular Humanism for that and the end of most Inter-Christian armed conflicts.

European Humanism has roots in theologians like Erasmus.

 

[Mayne]

No that is not what I said at all. But it is not good to just piss on shit on anything just because of a label of religion. Plus you also have no idea if god does exist or does not exist so stop the act of knowing he does not exist at all.

no one in their right mind believe in gods...we act the way we do becuase of common sense. common is a rare word these days.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Mankind evolved for about a million years without the "Christian ethos". And from the 1800 years of so of violence and bloodshed done in the name of Christianity since the invention of both the religion and the ethos, we were doing a lot better without it.

We're doing better now that we've moved bast our medieval 'christian' thinking; yet if you read what Jesus was saying, including the quote you just dismissed, you'll find that you are functionally a Christian: as in you follow a philosophy inline with that of Christ.

We were total assholes until we came up with the idea "Don't be an asshole, because everyone has a shared humanity". Look at the perpetually backward nations everywhere that didn't have this bright idea.

That is utter crap. You can thank Secular Humanism for that and the end of most Inter-Christian armed conflicts.

No doubt. But the evolution of caring human thought runs through the Christian ethos.

Just look at how un-belivers were and are treated everywhere but in nations that have taken the logical next-steps out of a mindset that respects our shared humanity.

We all live in tribes; we evolved to respect only those in our tribe. The idea that 'everyone' is in the tribe of humanity is so radical that it still hasn't reached a full expression.

We can't do without this idea; we can't have the science and creativity and advancement we've seen without this idea. Without the idea brought to us by the teaching of Christ the "life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

With it, we are free to enter a secular state where we can respect one another's functional ideas, even though we possess ways of thinking that are artifacts of our upbringing as they interact with our society.

 

[WelshBloke]

No that is not what I said at all. But it is not good to just piss on shit on anything just because of a label of religion. .

But why should a religious view get any respect just because it's a religious view? Seriously, just because you have an old book of stories it doesn't qualify you to be taken seriously on anything (that's a you in the general not the specific).

Plus you also have no idea if god does exist or does not exist so stop the act of knowing he does not exist at all.

Who gives a shit? Want to use your guy in the sky to give your argument weight? Then it's up to you to prove that your guy exists.

 

[Charmonium]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with religion. The problems arise when people become so convinced that they know 'the truth' that they start to make decisions based on that so-called truth rather than basic principles like compassion and understanding.

The thing that true believers never understand is the importance of doubt. Doubt is at least as important as faith because it's what keeps us honest - from going so far down the rabbit hole of superstition and illogic that you find yourself capable of justifying things that no sane human could ever justify.

And religion isn't the only offender here, it's just the biggest. Any uncritical and absolute belief in anything can lead you down a pretzel logic path that can be used to justify any behavior.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

And religion isn't the only offender here, it's just the biggest. Any uncritical and absolute belief in anything can lead you down a pretzel logic path that can be used to justify any behavior.

But why should a religious view get any respect just because it's a religious view? Seriously, just because you have an old book of stories it doesn't qualify you to be taken seriously on anything (that's a you in the general not the specific).

I agree with both of these statements.

However, a view should not get any less respect just because it comes up through religion. In a secular sense we act like nothing that was said or thought in that 'old book of stories' can have any relevant meaning.

However it's a large part of our history and pre-forms an amazing amount of our thought. Mindlessly disrespecting ideas because of their origins is just as logically invalid as mindlessly respecting them because of their origins.

 

[ctark]

:hmm:

I can understand agreeing with the guy if you went atheist, but I don't understand how anyone can put him in the "greatest minds" category. Not that he's unintelligent, but he's just more vocally opposed to Christianity and religion than being a top researcher, philosopher, scientist, or whatever label you can apply to him.

EDIT: You could maybe say he's an excellent writer and speaker, but I think you'd have to limit yourself to atheism apologists to consider him great. There are a thousand other mathematicians, physicists, linguists, computer scientists, economists, writers, etc I'd take over him. Granted, I'm not an atheist, but even trying to be objective about it I don't see anything special about him other than the level of his commitment to Neo-Darwinism.

The people I listed are the voices out in the mainstream and they play a very important part in helping people open their minds. I know some of these don't do much research anymore. Instead they help spread the message. Someone like Neil Tyson takes latest discoveries and breaks it down into layman for the rest of us, and he does it in a very interesting and engaging way. I saw a video with Dawkins awhile back where he had a discussion with a Bible scholar. I don't remember the Bible scholar's name off the top of my head. But after watching the video I did actually go look into some of the research that the Bible scholar did. I still think Dawkins is a brilliant mind. He did do research, but he is past that point now.

 

[Charmonium]

I agree with both of these statements.

However, a view should not get any less respect just because it comes up through religion. In a secular sense we act like nothing that was said or thought in that 'old book of stories' can have any relevant meaning.

However it's a large part of our history and pre-forms an amazing amount of our thought. Mindlessly disrespecting ideas because of their origins is just as logically invalid as mindlessly respecting them because of their origins.

Except that the whole point of most religions, certainly all Western religions, is to suppress doubt and encourage mindless devotion. So pretty much any idea, however inoffensive, when raised in the context of religion, gets colored completely differently than if it's raised on its own merits.

For example, you should be kind to people not because we're social creatures and that's how societies are supposed to work but because that's what god wants us to do. You find good empirical evidence for certain behaviors benefiting a society as a whole. But the whole point of religion is to remove the need for having an empirical basis.

 

[WelshBloke]

However, a view should not get any less respect just because it comes up through religion.

Religion always seems to ask for respect just because it's religion. It's like the racist old guy that gets huffy when you pull him up on his views.

In a secular sense we act like nothing that was said or thought in that 'old book of stories' can have any relevant meaning.

Lets be honest, there's nothing that amazing in that 'old book of stories' once you ignore the obvious fabrications.

However it's a large part of our history and pre-forms an amazing amount of our thought. Mindlessly disrespecting ideas because of their origins is just as logically invalid as mindlessly respecting them because of their origins.

Yeah but ideas should have some basis in logic or fact and should be open to challenge. Just because a story is old means nothing, it certainly doesn't inform modern scientific thinking and, frankly, it needs to stay out of the way.

 

[Mai72]

There are roughly 4,200 religions in the world today.

Someone please tell me out of 4,200 religions, why Christianity is the chosen religion?

 

[WelshBloke]

There are roughly 4,200 religions in the world today.

Someone please tell me out of 4,200 religions, why Christianity is the chosen religion?

Christianity is the chosen religion?

What does that even mean? Chosen for what? And chosen by whom?

 

[Mai72]

Christianity is the chosen religion?

What does that even mean? Chosen for what? And chosen by whom?

Well have you ever spoken to a Christian? They try to guilt you into believing in God or else you will spend eternity in hell. How can this be true if there are 4,200 religions today?

They act like Christianity is the only religion that matters.

 

[WelshBloke]

Well have you ever spoken to a Christian?

Probably.

They try to guilt you into believing in God or else you will spend eternity in hell.

Doesn't really happen over here. Talk loudly or vociferously about religion here and everyone rights you off as a nutter.

How can this be true if there are 4,200 religions today?

That's your problem. You're bringing logic into a logic free zone.

They act like Christianity is the only religion that matters.

To them it probably is the only one that matters.

Personally I think all the religious people should get together and agree on some sort of guy in the sky story before they get to bother any of us unbelievers. Why the hell we should listen to them when they can't agree amongst themselves I don't know.

 

[norseamd]

I don't think anyone really has a problem with religion.

Some individuals obviously do. And they label all religion whether Christian, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, or Wandjina as the same as Abrahamic extremists.

 

[norseamd]

And religion isn't the only offender here, it's just the biggest. Any uncritical and absolute belief in anything can lead you down a pretzel logic path that can be used to justify any behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68mGbvZZZg

 

[Charmonium]

Lets be honest, there's nothing that amazing in that 'old book of stories' once you ignore the obvious fabrications.

Not only that but what most people don't realize is that many of the stories in the old testament are rewrites of Babylonian myths. When Israel was conquered by the Babylonians in the 6th century BC, many were taken to Babylon where they had to learn the customs and religion. The best known example of this is the story of the flood which is really part of the Gilgamesh epic. Another example is the story of Moses where he's set adrift in a basket on a river. This is almost identical to another story in Mesopotamian mythology about Sargon.

Of course none of this proves anything one way or the other about the historical accuracy of biblical stories, but it starts to make a lot of sense if you take a more objective, historical view of the text.

The point is that there really aren't any new ideas but that every culture will adapt and modify the expression of those ideas.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

We're doing better now that we've moved bast our medieval 'christian' thinking; yet if you read what Jesus was saying, including the quote you just dismissed, you'll find that you are functionally a Christian: as in you follow a philosophy inline with that of Christ...

First and foremost, nobody knows what Jesus was saying because Jesus didn't exist. Period. Not even the Jesus-freaks can find a historical mention of Jesus. Not one single reference, not one single word. Why does it not strike you as odd that a person supposedly performing miracles made ZERO IMPRESSION on the world around him? Butchers, bakers, politicians, criminals, artists, writers all get mentioned in the writings of the day and in some cases have their actual words preserved, but not Jesus. The first mention of Jesus was more than 50 years after Jesus supposedly lived and it was by a person who admitted it was a dream. ALL the writings and quotes attributed to the fictional entity known as Jesus were written later by people who were not there at the time, never met Jesus, never met anyone who claimed to have met Jesus and never met anyone who claimed they met someone who claimed they met someone who knew Jesus. It's all fiction and we can trace the actual origin of 99% of the Jesus myths. Nothing in the bible is original, it's all just reconstituted myths and fairy tales and stolen snippets of other religions that had been passed around that region for thousands of years. Even the ridiculous story of a god who was the son of a god who was born of a virgin, died and was resurrected was used by at least a dozen different religions and fables before the Christians stole it as the life story of their invented man in the sky.

Do you even know how the bible came to be the bible? There was no official version of Christianity for 325 years after the supposed death of fictional Jesus. There were tribes and pockets passing around their own legends and their own beliefs each of them inventing Christianity into what they personally wanted to believe. Exactly like happens today, but that's a different thread for a different time. Emperor Constantine wanted greater control of Christianity and he demanded that the leaders of the factions, the televangelists of their day, come together and hammer out ONE story that they would all agree to believe in. And they got together and literally horse-traded the bible into existence like the US Congress passing a pork-laden appropriations bill. They argued and they bought each other off, "okay, you can have the part about hating gays if you let us have the part about enslaving women as concubines, deal? Deal!!" So they took a collection of silly writings, fables, myths, other religions, the insane rantings of people with voices in their head, outright fabrications to give themselves power and they DECIDED that from then on they would believe it was the word of god and they would tell their followers that it was the word of god. And not even your religion can deny that. The bible was VOTED into existence by men preserving their own favorite stories by mutually agreeing to pretend they were the word of god.