Is the tiny amount of sanctuary you may think you find in religion worth ...

[Union Yes]

the incredible price that humanity must pay for it.

Meanwhile, not 1 shred of scientific evidence can support the existence of any god, soul, or afterlife.

If you ever want to experience true freedom, then toss religion to the curb.

You'll thank me later, trust me.

Freedom exists when you learn to think for yourself.

The independence you'll feel will shock you in a good way.

Give Atheism a chance.

Peace

[lame54]

1. It's not like one can just pull proof out of one's ass - or is it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6096361

[anonymous171]

2. I used to think that until I met an (atheist) randroid.

Secular dogma can be even worse.

[BlooInBloo]

3. How many of them are there? Billions?

[Odin2005]

32. Randianism and Marxism as well are de-facto religions

With Greed and History as their gods, respectively.

[Cleita]

4. No which is why I'm a lone practitioner of my own religion.

I don't need churches or church men telling me how to think, nor do I need atheists doing the same.

[rrneck]

7. Yep.

The best religions are do it yourself projects.

[Curtland1015]

8. But you'll do what YOU tell you what to do? What a SHEEP!

:P

[Cleita]

13. Always!

:rofl:

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. 'zactly!

Either side telling me how I should behave only distances me further from their attempted control.

[ZombieHorde]

30. I demand you think for yourself. I command you to think for yourself.

Do what I tell you and think for yourself.

[Union Yes]

49. I never demanded or commanded anyone to do anything in my OP.

I simply asked them to think for themselves and give Atheism a look.

[ZombieHorde]

59. My post was a joke. If some is commanded to think for themselves, then in a stupid way, thinking for

themselves is not thinking for themselves. Just a little semantical fun.

I was not trying to make any sort of point. I probably should have stated that in my post.

Sorry for the confusion.

[blondeatlast]

10. Well said. nt

[rrneck]

5. Rec'd.

I might say, "give humanity a chance."

Thanks for this:
Freedom exists when you learn to think for yourself.

[blondeatlast]

6. I gave atheism a chance for over a decade and came back to spirituality.

My own path just led me back. What's important is that we follow our own without judging or imposing on others.

[Odin2005]

33. Us atheists can be "spiritual" as well, we just don't belive such experiences are supernatural.

The "god" label just devalues such experiences by trying to place delusions of human "folk psychology", or as I prefer to say, "aocial reality", on nature.

[uppityperson]

11. Are you talking Organized Religion or religion in general?

Aside from that, and a clarification would be wonderful, I am amused by your contradiction "freedom exists when you learn to think for yourself...give atheism a chance". So I'm supposed to think for myself, yet do what you want me to?

[stuball111]

12. Any person can find..

peace and solace in a higher power, in spirituality, if you will. It doesn't cost millions to build a church, buy special clothes to go to that church, and find spirituality. Athiests and agnostics seldom REALLY believe there is no power greater than human power, what they want is proof. Well, look around you. Look at a tree, a mountain, the stars at night, there is your proof of a power greater than human power. You don't need proof, just a belief that there is SOMETHING in this universe that is a guiding force for good. And you are right, it doesn't need to cost millions of dollars or lives to think for yourself and practice some humanitarian guidelines like peace, compassion, and good will toward your fellow man. We all have that deep within us, even you.

[Arugula Latte]

23. I had a Christian neighbor ask me point blank my religious beliefs one time.

He cornered me and, after hearing I wasn't religious, said: "Well, you HAVE to believe in something, I told him: "I believe in Nature."

He sort of sputtered at that.

[Odin2005]

34. You are going after a strawman.

Most of us non-believers that have actually thought about it deeply DO revere nature, we just don't feel the need to slap the label "god" and notions of human social reality like "guiding forces of good". Nature is value-free, meaning-free; we sapient individuals create value, we create meaning.

[stuball111]

39. I agree

Thus the term "Higher Power" But religion and especially organized religion, does not have a monopoly on the term "God" That term is a personal one. Even an Atheist can use it to describe their personal guiding force, whether it is from within or without.

[rd_kent]

69. But ther isnt one!

There is no guiding force.

[rd_kent]

68. "just a belief that there is SOMETHING in this universe that is a guiding force for good"

Uh, ok? With all the suffering and misery on this planet, where is that guiding force for good?

[Bunny]

14. What qualifies you to judge how much sanctuary someone else finds in their religion?

Your arrogance is extraordinary.

[tammywammy]

15. Agreed. n/t

[blondeatlast]

18. +1. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

22. Amazing isn't it? The arrogance is identical to...

any fundie in any religion proclaiming the one, absolute truth.

Atheists are not immune to it.

[Union Yes]

42. Your "sanctuary"should be provable. Prove it with the scientific method.

That's all I ask.

That's not so hard is it?

[JerseygirlCT]

54. Why?

Can you prove love with the scientific method?

Some things are not within science's purview. And some people are quite fulfilled by their faith.

You needn't make that choice, but you also needn't assume that your own criteria should be everyone else's as well.

[laconicsax]

75. Any claims about the natural world are within science's purview.

Claims of any being existing and/or operating in the natural world can be examined by scientific inquiry. \

There has been and is ongoing research into love, much of it revealing a natural process of chemical and hormonal interactions in the brain, so yeah, you can prove love with the scientific method.

[JerseygirlCT]

76. What if the natural world can not emcompass God?

I don't believe God is in the least restricted by the things that restrict our natural world.

And I don't really believe hormones or chemicals can explain love. You'd have to have a pretty restrictive view of such things to believe that.

Which is all really beside the point. I feel no compunction to prove anything to you - why should I feel that's necessary? I'm not attempting to persuade anyone to become religious. (In fact, the OP is rather trying to persuade religious people to cease being so, it seems).

[laconicsax]

81. You can't have it both ways.

Either 'God' is a part of the natural world, or it isn't. That doesn't mean that 'God' has to fit neatly into one or the other, just that it's at least part of the natural world or not.

If 'God' at least partly dwells in the natural world and directly influences things in it, then 'God' is part of the natural world, and we should be able to observe and measure its effects.

If 'God' doesn't at least partly dwell in the natural world but still directly influences things in it, then 'God' is still part of the natural world and we should be able to observe and measure its effects.

If 'God' doesn't at least partly dwell in the natural world and doesn't influence things in it, then why should we care about it much less worship it?

As for love, there is documented research showing a definite chemical and hormonal aspect to it. I never said that love can be explained entirely by that chemical/hormonal aspect, but it is very likely that love can be eventually explained as a purely natural process. What's more, it certainly isn't a restrictive view to imagine that the natural world is more spectacular and complex than we know. IMO, crediting an unknown entity with anything we can't currently explain is limited--it's essentially declaring that there's nothing special about the world we live in; that we have all the answers already.

[JerseygirlCT]

86. In but not of

Not restricted to the natural world, or its laws.

Beyond human understanding, and so not something that can be boxed into human explanations.

Which will continue to be my answer, as we will always be at loggerheads so long as you want to use science to understand God. Your paradigm doesn't work there.

I also disagree that belief in God means we're crediting anything we can't explain as God's work, and have done with it. There's no conflict in using science to understand this world and all its wonders - and there's nothing in my belief to limit our ability to continue to explore and learn. We don't have all the answers already, by any means. And to me, we weren't gifted with intelligence in order that we not use it.

[tinrobot]

102. Such arrogance...

Not all things can be described with numbers and labels.

Learn to meditate and quiet that part of your brain that requires labels. Then you'll see.

[MADem]

16. Live and let live. That's the way to real peace. nt

[Union Yes]

43. Nice notion but be gay and live under religions oppressive bootheal.

I'm gay and have dealt with the hate and the oppression coming straight from the big 3 major religions my whole fucking life.

Particularily Christianity.

[SidneyCarton]

72. The alternative to "Live and let live" is far from preferable.

We either learn to get along together, or slaughter each other. I may not agree with your view of the universe, but I'd prefer to have the luxury to ignore sanctimonious attitude toward my faith and accord you the same privlege than have to worry about killing my neighbors who believe (or do not believe at all) differently than I, before they do the same to me.

Applying the broad brush and arguing that all believers are intolerant bigots who seek to oppress you is oversimplifying in the extreme. I am sorry for the oppression you have suffered, it is wrong and exposes the distance we still must travel to achieve a tolerant society. But matching intolerance with intolerance, arrogance with arrogance, narrow-mindedness with narrow-mindedness does not solve anything. All it does is ratchet up the tensions, further atomize society into armed camps of paranoids, and send us hurtling onward toward that Hobbsian war of "all against all."

If you want to go there that's fine, I have better things to do than bury my children over asenine arguments that will never satisfactorily be resolved by anyone but fanatics.

[kwassa]

98. I know so many gay clergy ...

openly gay, and welcomed in the Episcopal Church. Other denominations welcome them as well.

The priest in my last church is a lesbian, and both she and her partner were central figures in the church.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. I have, and I have rejected it simply because...

there is also no proof that there is NO god and people who attempt to push atheism on me are as ignorant and obnoxious as those who try to push their religion on me. And I refuse to fit my religious views into those nasty litle pigeonholes the more voluble atheists insist must exist.

I am a member of an organized religion, and it has quite a few satisfactions and advantages that atheism is lacking. Being able to fully integrate physical knowledge with religion and grow within thaty religion is far more satisfying than just throwing a large part of my life in the trash.

You might find that there are many DUers who are members of organized religion, some even ordained, and even more who follow thir own spiritual paths. Is it necessary to insult us all with your yammering?

[Union Yes]

50. We live in the age of scientific discovery. Religion=Shamefully inventitive

The burden of proof now lies on the religous.

Educate yourself on the fossil record and evolutionary science.

Ever notice how religion has had to evolve in recent years to try stay relevent in the face of scientific discovery?

Centuries past, scientists first tried to prove an alternative theory to the origins of man.

They were fucking burnt at the stake.

Religion has set mankind back scientifically about 5000 years.

[Sal316]

62. If you think faith and reason are incompatible....

....then you're just as much as ignorant ass as the "young earth" crowd is.

Congrats on being the same as those you condemn.

[DeadEyeDyck]

92. well said n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

65. We've lived in ages of scientific discovery going back to...

classical times when Aristotle, illogical as he was, proved God exists. Islam, in its glory days, promoted arts and sciences, as did Christianity for much of its existence. Was it not the barbarians who sacked the enlightened empires who brought ignorance with them?

Maimonedes, Descartes, Newton... such fools who wrote of religion as they wrote of science. How silly of them to even think that any conflict between religion and science was an invented one. Our great Jewish and Christian universities must not exist. The past ties of our Ivy League universities with churches must never have existed, and Yale and Harvard don't have divinity schools.

Of course, if you first fall for the God of the Gaps fallacy, as you obviously have, you could end up believing anything.

[rasputin1952]

104. "The burden of proof lies on the religous (sic)"...

No, you are stating there is no deity, the burden of proof is on you to prove there is no deity.

You are asking others to follow your point of view, without offering any proof there is no god; essentially, you are asking people to take your point of view at face value simply because you stated it...that is asking people to have faith that you are correct in your assumption.

Whether an individual is religious, agnostic or atheist, it is a personal choice...a choice made with the assumption the choice is the "correct" one. Since there is no definitive proof of a deity or not, all decisions are made on faith, the faith that the individual is right. In the end, each of us will find out what the "truth" is, either there is something after this life, or there isn't.

[rucky]

19. Do you get a toaster if you convert one?

[Critters2]

36. That's the impression you get, isn't it?

Apparently, they have a meeting each week, where they have to report the numbers of people they've turned away from religion. Then, they hand out the toasters.

[Union Yes]

44. I'd have to belong to some kind of organization to be awarded a free toaster.

I'm an independent Atheist.

Do you fear me converting someone?

I'm really not that scary in real life.

I'm quite normal, really.

[Liquorice]

20. There are many non-religious spiritual people in the world. Not having

a "religion" does not mean a person is an atheist.

Atheism may mean freedom for you , but that doesn't apply to everyone else. Descartes threw all of his beliefs out, for example, and then carefully examined all possible scenarios (God/no God, etc), and came to the conclusion that God exists. In fact, he believed he proved it beyond a shadow of doubt. That was freedom for him.

Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses come to my door on occasion and they believe they have found freedom too. If only everyone else believed like they do, the whole world would experience the freedom they have! Sound familiar?

[cherokeeprogressive]

21. Your insistence that I abandon religion feels exactly like fundie insistence that I embrace it. n/t

[Union Yes]

45. Show me where I insist anything. I simply ask people to give Atheism a chance.

[Sal316]

63. Here's where you insist....

If you ever want to experience true freedom, then toss religion to the curb.

So, true freedom comes when one rejects religion?

Says who?

You?

[Fire1]

24. I encourage you to give Christianity a chance. n/t

[Union Yes]

46. I did. I ran away from home at 14 and nearly committed suicide because..

of Christianity.

I was born gay into a conservative Christian home. My family had long been members of the Assembly of God church. I knew full well by the time I was 8 years old that I was gay.

The hate that I heard delivered from that pulpit made me hate myself.

Enough to contemplate suicide as a child.

When I could no longer take it, I confronted my parents and told them I refused to EVER enter that church of hate ever again.

At the age of 14 I ran away from home to escape it.

I have lived my entire life under the oppressive boot heal of Christianity.I don't believe in heaven or hell but if they did exist I would rather burn in hell for eternity then ever associate with that religion ever again.

I gave Chistianity a chance and it nearly killed this gay dude.

No thanks.

[JerseygirlCT]

53. AOG most definitely does not make for a fair

representation of Christianity. They are among the worst of the lot, IMO. Authoritarian, repressive, and aggressively seeking to foist their own idea of Christianity on others - especially other Christians. I'm not surprised at your experience, as I've heard similar stories from others.

But it's also unfair to paint all of Christianity with your singular experience in a particular denomination.

[Union Yes]

55. Last I heard the pentecostal church had 80 million members strong in the US alone.

They are perhaps the most politically influential religious group in America.

Well funded and well organized. They have defeated progress perhaps moreso than any other political organization in the history of our nation.

You're spot on correct about the AOG church. I'd have a hard time explaining it any better than what you said.

Let's take a look at a much more tolerant or so called more tolerant denomination.

The Episcopal Church of America.

Years ago, 2003 I think, Pastor Gene Robinson was elected as the first openly gay Bishop of the ECOA.
The church divided nationally and many left in anger that the church would ever embrace LGBT people.
The homophobes left en masse.

I actually felt hope for religion at the time. Like religion was turning a corner and looking to embrace those whom it once shunned.

Yesterday, I heard in the news that the ECOA announced that they would now perform civil unions for LGBT couples. I thought this was great news and gained even more respect for the ECOA.

Then today, the new story broke that half of the ECOA's leadership was very angry and opposed to this new outreach to the LBGT community. And many of the church's membership are also angry at this new policy.

Once again, cementing my belief that in regards to religion.. ALL HOPE IS LOST.

A few questions..

Do you see/not see just how shamefully inventive that ALL religions have become?
I'm simply asking that people open their eyes. Is that so bad?

If this were 300 years ago, i would have been already burnt at the stake for this kind of talk.

Which leads to my next question.

For perhaps thousands of years early scientists, or anyone who challenged the church or whatever religious authority ruled the land, had a habit of vanishing. Or many were burnt at the stake in some public square for all to see that if any challenge religion it'll be their ass burning on that pole. Or they were drawn and quartered with arms and legs sent to the four corners etc. You get the point.

Do you not see how religion has set humanity and scientific discovery back by perhaps 3000-5000 years or more?

All the while, not 1 shred of scientific evidence has EVER supported the theory of a god, a soul, or an afterlife.

In a desperate attempt to keep up with science over the years, religion has had to resort to being shamefully inventive.

Incapable of ever producing any scientific evidence to support it.

Next question..

Do my Atheist rantings scare you in any way? I got news for ya.

I'm not that scary in real life. Really.

I'm quite normal.

If a gay Atheist can ever be considered normal in America.

[JerseygirlCT]

58. You certainly don't frighten me, don't worry about that

I just find your observances limited. And therefore, limiting.

A couple of other points. There wasn't nearly the schism within the Episcopal church that some news outlets (along with those few making the stink) would have you believe. Testament to that perhaps are those two resolutions at our last General Convention (just over). They won, they passed - both with the house of delegates (laity and clergy) and in the house of bishops (thought to be the harder sell).

The few who continue to disagree will probably either continue to try to spread hate and fear while remaining a part of TEC, or continue to spread hate and fear and join one of the (illegal by Anglican Communion standards) churches sponsored by Nigeria or the Southern Cone. They are the remnants, though - not the majority of the church at all. And we're not exactly a rabid, do first and think later bunch, lol. Go carefully when reading the mainstream media on this issue - they like to create more of a drama than is really there. Episcopal Cafe is a good site for news on these issues.

Science has certainly at times been stymied by the religious powers that be. OTOH, many of our most important scientific discoveries have come from religious people - even clergy. Again, it's not at all one-sided, and reflects far more about the zeitgeist of the time and about human nature than about just religion and its place in our lives.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

66. The doctrine of Original Sin tells us we are ALL worthless.

That is inherently abusive and cruel.

ALL Christians believe in Original Sin; it is the starting premise, without which there would be no need for the substitutionary atonement of Jesus.

THEREFORE, Christianity in all its denominations is abusive and cruel.

I have too much respect for myself to ever sit in a church and let a preacher tell me how we are ALL horrible just because we are born.

Union Yes, this form of abuse is accepted to "break" peoples' spirits, especially children, and to make them obedient little sheep.

Read John Bradshaw's works. He's a Ph.D. psychologist who was a Jesuit priest for several years. He goes into great detail about religious addiction as a form of avoiding unearned guilt and shame placed on people by their churches and parents and schools.

Original sin is a SCAM. It is a RACKET. It eats away at self-esteem and a person's ability to judge themselves objectively, or to even recognize their good points.

Primitive, superstitious, and even cannibalistic -- take of my body and eat. That's quite primitive. That's like saying if you eat tiger meat, you will be strong like a tiger.

I thought our society could get past that sort of primitive thinking. Nope.

:grr: :banghead:

:wtf:

[redqueen]

67. I didn't think all Christians subscribed to the concept of original sin.

But yeah, any religion that does anything like that... or that stipulates as a fundamental concept that women are less than men... there is no redeeming that crap.

I do think religion is dying, it's just happening very slowly.

[JerseygirlCT]

77. They do not. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. as far as I know ALL Christians subscribe to Original Sin.

As I said BEFORE,

ORIGINAL SIN is the Starting Premise of Christianity.

If there is no original sin, there is no need for substitutionary atonement by Jesus.

End of discussion.

Show me where there is a Christian group who does not believe in original sin and the necessity of salvation by substitutionary atonement by Jesus.

I would like to see one.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Most mainstream Christian churches either do not subscribe to that

belief, or have no required dogma on it.

I think it would be accurate to say that salvation is central - but there is certainly disagreement on how that is to be understood - even how the resurrection is to be understood.

I do not subscribe to SA, and most of the people I've met do not as well. I also know that in my Episcopal church there are probably a wide variety of understandings about the resurrection and its nature.

You might want to investigate some of the more liberal churches - in them, the idea is more that we start good and sometimes miss the mark (the literal meaning of "sin"), then that we're born bad and require forgiveness through SA.

[Critters2]

85. I know a good many Episcopal priests who hold to

the understanding of nonviolent atonement, as I do.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. Yup.

And IIRC, the Orthodox churches do not see SA as the way to understand it, either.

It's most certainly a central tenet of fundamentalist churches. But most of the Christian world is not made up of fundamentalist Protestant churches.

Really, I think SA is a convoluted and illogical way to understand God and our relationship with God. It portrays God as some sort of cruel being, forcing Jesus to die in order to satisfy some need of God's for sacrifice. Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

[Critters2]

90. SA assumes that peace comes through violence,

which is how most humans think. There are non-violent understandings of atonement, such as that of mimetic theory. I'm on the board of Theology and Peace, a group trying to train clergy and lay leaders in mimetic theory, to move the Church away from SA and other models of atonement which we in T&P don't really think can be found in scripture. The T&P board is made up of 2 UCCs, one UCC/UMC dual-standing pastor, one Episcopalian, one Anglican (British), one ELCA Lutheran, one Roman Catholic, and one Mennonite....and none of us believe in substitutionary atonement. Yet, somehow, we're all Christians.

Here's our website: theologyandpeace.org

[Critters2]

84. The United Church of Christ does not believe in original sin

and the necessity of salvation by substitutionary atonement.

Next question.

[Critters2]

87. Rene Girard says the original sin is violence.

And he's a Christian.

[Sal316]

64. So you're letting that event define you.

Your bitterness and hatred (not altogether without reason) have clouded your judgment and driven you to the point where you classify all religion as oppressive and evil.

You're allowing those events to control you to this day. You're still giving the intolerant jackholes power over you.

If abandoning religion resulted in "true freedom", you wouldn't still be carrying around this bitterness and hatred.

True freedom comes from not letting others control our lives.

I'll pray you someday forgive those who did that to you.

Contrary to popular belief....forgiveness isn't necessarily for the "forgive-ee", but for the "forgiver".

[SidneyCarton]

73. Funny, you rejected the Assembly, yet you still reason like a fundamentalist.

The same narrow, antagonistic, "I have the truth and the rest of you have to agree with me" kind of attitude. Atheism hasn't brought you enlightenment friend, just a new focus for the fanaticism you were brought up under. If you had truly rejected the fundamentalism of your parents, you would not be preaching it under a different guise.

[Critters2]

25. It's statements like yours that have caused me to say that i would never

tell anyone if I did become an atheist. I don't want to be associated with such intolerance.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. Freedom exists when you do what I tell you to do. n/t

[Union Yes]

47. But I'm not telling anyone what to do. I'm asking them to look into it.

Of their own free will.

But you want to obfuscate.

[Critters2]

112. NO. You stated it as an imperative.

You are telling people what to do.

[blondeatlast]

28. I have faith--that the Op will not return to this thread. Prove me wrong, I pray. nt

[Union Yes]

51. Weird. I felt the urge to check this OP. Divine intervention?

[madmom]

29. Myself being an atheist I find this op offensive. I don't like being

preached to by religion and I would grant those who do believe the same consideration up to and until they start preaching at me.

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Thank you. And well said. nt

[Odin2005]

31. Religion is inherently authoritarian.

It's a projection of the social relation between parent and child onto the cosmos, where it doesn't belong.

[Critters2]

37. So is the OP's attitude. nt

[Union Yes]

48. Why? Because I'm asking people to give Atheism a look?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. How do you know we haven't?

:shrug:

[Critters2]

82. Because you're self-righteous and arrogant.

What makes you think that's more attractive in an atheist than in a theist?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. I found true freedom

in religion.

It has been the source of some of the greatest experiences of my life.

Not that it's any of your business.

[JerseygirlCT]

40. Amen to that, Lydia nt

[Union Yes]

41. Being gay, I found true oppression and death threats from religion.

Be the victim of religious hate and we''ll see what kind of true freedom you find in it.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. I guess that may depend on where you were looking

There are many religious places in which you would have met with compassion and welcome and understanding, not hate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Yes, to name three:

The Unitarians
The UCC
Most Episcopal parishes
Many other mainstream Protestants

Just because you had bad experiences in your childhood religion doesn't mean all religions are oppressive.

[JerseygirlCT]

57. I imagine we've all got within us, as humans, that urge

to oppress - hopefully in lesser quantity than the urge to free and be free.

As an instrument for humans, religions follow each of those urges at times. Not just one, and not just the other sometimes. For so many of us, religion has been a tool to guide us toward care for others and toward social justice.

[LAGC]

95. The problem with "liberal" Christian sects...

Is that they lend credibility to Christianity overall, which is by and large a RIGHT-WING phenomenon.

How many liberal Christians started out that way, only to get sucked over to the dark-side as conservatives convinced them to read the word literally?

You can't just believe in bits and pieces of the Bible. You have to take it in its entirety.

And in its entirety, it is one evil piece of work!

[Critters2]

99. Your position is the same as that of fundamentalists,

with one slight difference.

Fundies: The Bible is either all true or none of it's true. So, it's all true.

You: The Bible is either all true or none of it's true. So, none of it's true.

Neither of these positions demonstrates any critical thought or maturity.

[Rob H.]

108. "Fundies: The Bible is either all true or none of it's true.

So, it's all true."

Here in this part of the South it's reduced to "The Bible is all true." They don't even allow the possibility that some of it might not be true.

The crazy thing is, I've heard religious conservatives (in this case Southern Baptists because they don't drink) tie themselves in knots trying to rationalize Jesus' water into wine miracle. Other verses say alcohol is evil, but because Jesus isn't evil and he wouldn't (their reasoning goes) make something that isn't evil (water) into something that is (alcohol), Jesus didn't really turn water into wine, he turned it into unfermented wine. So essentially they're telling themselves it wasn't "water into wine," it was "water into Welch's."

Edited for spelling.

[Sal316]

105. That's the most asinine piece of reasoning I've read.

Christianity is neither a RW or LW phenomenon. Jesus was as much a Republican as he was a Democrat....

The problem with posts and attitudes like yours is that it perpetuates the myth, the heresy you could say, that in American Christianity you have to be a Republican to belong.

Congratulations, you believe the exact same things the RW fundies believe.

Some of the greatest Church fathers were "liberal Christians". In fact, one COULD say that 90% of the Founding Fathers were "liberal" Christians. Most were non-trinitarian and universalist in belief. They were heterodox at best.

So, why the "scare quotes".

You can't just believe in bits and pieces of the Bible. You have to take it in its entirety.

And in its entirety, it is one evil piece of work!

Really?
Evil?

You're just as rigid and judgmental as those you condemn..... and just as ignorant.

[LAGC]

106. Okay, convince me.

Start converting some of these fundies to a more liberal Christian view.

The way I see it, they're the ones doing all the proselytizing, and spewing their hatred and discontent of homosexuals, science, and women, while all the liberal Christians do is sit there and equivocate how Christ's teachings really aren't all that bad. Really?

Besides, weren't most of our Founding Fathers DEISTS, not Christians?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. I've said this any number of times, but fundamentalists are instructed to be wary of liberal

Christians. You haven't heard the TV preachers tell their flocks that liberal Christians are of the devil because they "know the truth" and reject it. One of the local fundies gave a rant against my own parish, claiming that its mission statement was "the entire gay agenda, word for word."

Fundamentalists are in a total information environment, and it's really hard to break through that bubble.

BTW, here's our mission statement. If that's the "whole gay agenda," I'm all for it.

_________is a welcoming faith community called by God to peace and reconciliation through inspiring worship, spiritual growth, passionate hospitality, and service to others in the love of Jesus Christ. In keeping with the historic Anglican recognition of the authority of scripture, tradition, and reason, we welcome and respect diverse views, independent thinking, and thoughtful discussion as essential to how we come to know and serve God together.

Our Core Aspirations:
Inspiring Worship
Reconciliation
Spiritual Growth
Passionate Hospitality
Service to Others

[Rob H.]

109. That happens here in Memphis, too

I've heard local conservative pastors speak sneeringly of "liberal Christians" and not long ago, when a city council member introduced a non-discrimination resolution that included LGBT city employees, these same pastors were in front of the courthouse the very next day, preening for the cameras. Obviously they were against "special rights" for people based on their "lifestyle choice." Fortunately we do have a couple of liberal churches here in town but they're definitely in the minority.

[Sal316]

119. I don't have to convince you of jack.

You're as big of a judgmental intolerant ass as the RW fundies are. Grow up and own it. On the douchebag coin, they're the heads and people like you are tails.

The way I see it, you're no better than them.

Most of the FF's were unitarian and heterodox in belief. Learn some history while you're at it. "Liberal" theology was prominent during the Enlightenment period, where the focus was more on Jesus the man than Jesus, Son of God.

[LAGC]

120. Okay, so how do you propose we return to the prominence of "liberal theology" then?

Like I said, I don't see liberal theologians out there actively trying to convert the conservative flock. Instead its the other way around.

In the meantime, I'll do everything I can to convince you both from your sillyness.

Watch this video if you have an open mind:

http://www.thegodmovie.com/trailer.php

You should accept the possibility that Jesus never existed.

[Sal316]

122. It's changing, it just takes time.

"Like I said, I don't see liberal theologians out there actively trying to convert the conservative flock. Instead its the other way around."

Perhaps because liberal theologians believe the greater mission is to "walk Jesus" by putting their faith into action instead of just talking Jesus like most fundies.

"In the meantime, I'll do everything I can to convince you both from your sillyness."

Whatever you say, atheist Falwell.

Since we're trading links, here's a good one for you. It's even mine. A Review of David Mills' Atheist Universe

[Meshuga]

123. Adding to what you are saying...

Why should liberal theologians be actively trying to convert that type of believer? In fact, my observation is that no matter how silly a radical belief system might be, the active attacks on their beliefs seem to empower them even more and it actually creates the necessary wall for them to hide and be who they are without having to listen to opposing views.

Not to mention that liberal theologians by nature already challenge conservative believers who will do anything to discredit scholarship that gives doubt to biblical tales.

And as a side note, the whole spiel about the poster doing everything to convince the liberal believers/religious from their "silliness" is merely an excuse to achieve self fulfillment by seeing him/herself subscribing to a superior world view. I could be wrong but that's the way I am perceiving it at this point as a observer. And it is pretty pathetic, in my opinion, if true.

[Sal316]

126. Good post!

In fact, my observation is that no matter how silly a radical belief system might be, the active attacks on their beliefs seem to empower them even more and it actually creates the necessary wall for them to hide and be who they are without having to listen to opposing views.

You're exactly right.

Too bad the militantly atheistic, pseudo-intellectual Ditchkins wannabes don't get that.

[LAGC]

124. "atheist Falwell"

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Its because of enablers like you that the Christian Right goes completely unchallenged, able to spew their filth while those who don't agree feel hamstrung to even debate the merits of those beliefs for fear of being considering "just as bad" as the zealots in question!

Why is it so wrong to challenge and debate someone's beliefs if you truly think they are false? Why should the fundies have monopoly on spreading their world-view?

If I wasn't exposed to "godless thought" I could very well still be Christian, as I was for the first 15 years of my life. And that thought SCARES me.

What we need is MORE exposure and MORE critical thought out there, not less. You can stick to yourself with your MINORITY Christian views all you want, but I'll do what I can to convince the MAJORITY of believers (who ARE conservative) that they are wrong, or at least plant that little seed of doubt which is sometimes all it takes to crack the overall facade of religious indoctrination.

[Sal316]

125. If the shoe fits, Falwell, wear it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Its because of enablers like you that the Christian Right goes completely unchallenged, able to spew their filth while those who don't agree feel hamstrung to even debate the merits of those beliefs for fear of being considering "just as bad" as the zealots in question!

Enablers like me? Wow, I didn't know I had that much power.

There's a difference between debate and what you're doing, which is being an asshole. Being a confrontational douchebag puts you on the same level as those you condemn and is really the easiest way to get anyone to dismiss anything you have to say.

Why is it so wrong to challenge and debate someone's beliefs if you truly think they are false? Why should the fundies have monopoly on spreading their world-view?

There's a difference between challenging and being an ass. If you ever want anyone to take you seriously, I suggest you learn the difference.

Let me ask you this. How effective do you think the "in your face" "turn or burn" tactics are? How well does that go over with you?

Now....why do you insist on using the same tactics?

If I wasn't exposed to "godless thought" I could very well still be Christian, as I was for the first 15 years of my life. And that thought SCARES me.

Scares me, too. With your disposition, I'd bet you'd be one of those fundies.

What we need is MORE exposure and MORE critical thought out there, not less. You can stick to yourself with your MINORITY Christian views all you want, but I'll do what I can to convince the MAJORITY of believers (who ARE conservative) that they are wrong, or at least plant that little seed of doubt which is sometimes all it takes to crack the overall facade of religious indoctrination.

Stick to be the "megaphone guy" who is a mirror image of everything you despise and see where that gets you. I can tell you this, most, if not all, believers, when confronted by people like you, are so turned off that they ignore everything you say.

So... believers are "wrong"? Sounds to me like you're not interested in critical thought at all. You're only interested in indoctrinating people into YOUR line of thought and destroying religion. Good luck with that one.

There is absolutely ZERO critical thought in your position, and your own words give you away. Is it easy to dismiss the wanna-be pseudo-intellectual atheist douchebags like you? Yes. Why? Because you're just as much of a jackass as the RW Bible thumping literalists and far-right douchebags like Fred Phelps and his clan.

[LAGC]

128. Well, I've deprogrammed 3 people so far.

3 previously devout Christians who no longer believe. That's a pretty good record so far, if I may say so. And I'm only one person. If every unbeliever did this, we'd represent over 40% of the population and a Republican would never be elected into office again, considering over 75% of us non-believers voted against them last election.

Granted, most believers, like yourself, will just clam up and stubbornly stick to their dogma and superstition, no matter what evidence presented to them to the contrary.

Did you ever look at that link I posted questioning the existence of Jesus? That video makes some really good arguments that he never really even existed. I know it costs money to buy the video... I already own it. Maybe one of these days I'll transcribe it and post the basic arguments on here for everyone to digest, so they don't have to buy the film. But if you're really open-minded, you'd at least hear out the evidence.

I did view your link, BTW. While the article makes some good points (that the atheist author was over-the-top in some of his arguments) I was stuck with the feeling that the author (of that article) believed in Biblical Creationism. That kind of turned me off to whatever point he was trying to make.

[SidneyCarton]

129. So I take it you've already earned your toaster and are working up to the big screen TV.

[kwassa]

130. Why don't you summarize those arguments?

They've all been made in this forum before, let's see if you have anything new!

[LAGC]

132. Nothing extraordinary.

I generally start out poking and prodding at the idea of an "infallible" Bible, that its necessarily inherently good. Once I can get the believer to recognize that perhaps not all of the Bible is "the absolute truth" (either due to the many contradictions or just illogical fallacies of little things like the issue of dinosaurs all fitting onto Noah's ark, for example) I open the door to challenge every other "truth" contained within. One of my favorite arguments is to point out how much we are the product of our environments. The fact that if you are born in a predominantly Christian nation, chances are you are going to end up Christian. Likewise, with a predominantly Muslim country, etc. Why would God entertain so many conflicting religions if only one of them was exclusively right? How is it fair to all those born in predominantly Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu nations that they are all going to Hell simply because they were born in the wrong place? What kind of benevolent God would allow for that? Once they come to realize that perhaps God isn't so good after all, they can begin to see the reasons why certain humans may have invented a God-figure to scare people and judge them and control them.

I'll admit most of my subjects have been of the conservative variety. My experience with liberal Christians has been more tricky, since they already don't take the Bible literally. But I'm not so much concerned with wrecking their faith, primarily just the fundies. It doesn't please me though that the liberal Christians tend to sugar-coat Christianity to make it a pill easier to swallow though, as many of those drawn to Jesus WILL gravitate toward the right-wing rantings of the Bible by default, since that IS the primary source of propaganda saying Jesus existed and was a Messiah, etc.

[Sal316]

131. Gee...you must be so proud.

3 previously devout Christians who no longer believe. That's a pretty good record so far, if I may say so. And I'm only one person. If every unbeliever did this, we'd represent over 40% of the population and a Republican would never be elected into office again, considering over 75% of us non-believers voted against them last election.

You just keep proving my point over and over. With you, it's not about debate, it's not about critical thinking....it's about eliminating religion all together. Proselytizing every chance you get with the goal of converting others to your beliefs.

Congrats. That makes you as big an ass as those you condemn.

Granted, most believers, like yourself, will just clam up and stubbornly stick to their dogma and superstition, no matter what evidence presented to them to the contrary.

Why don't you just go ahead and call them simple minded or moronic.

Did you ever look at that link I posted questioning the existence of Jesus? That video makes some really good arguments that he never really even existed. I know it costs money to buy the video... I already own it. Maybe one of these days I'll transcribe it and post the basic arguments on here for everyone to digest, so they don't have to buy the film. But if you're really open-minded, you'd at least hear out the evidence.

I did watch the video. I'm aware of alot of the arguments re: "Christianity stole that tradition". I'd be interested in watching it. Hopefully it won't be the same psedo-intellectual claptrap that most of the Ditchkins arguments are.

I did view your link, BTW. While the article makes some good points (that the atheist author was over-the-top in some of his arguments) I was stuck with the feeling that the author (of that article) believed in Biblical Creationism. That kind of turned me off to whatever point he was trying to make.

Do I (the author) believe that God created the universe? Yes.

Do I believe in the 'young earth' or a literal Adam and Eve? No. I understand metaphors.

According to Mills and other Ditchkins clones, the fact I'm not a fundamentalist makes me a "Great Pretender"...a fake Christian. Basing their arguments on this false choice immediately discredits anything they have to say. Just as not all atheists are obnoxious, self-important jackholes, not all Christians are fundamentalists. He, and people who believe like him, conveniently ignore thousands of years of Church history, including thousands of writings by Christian theologians, that challenge that viewpoint.

For people who are supposedly so "reasoned" and so much smarter than the average believer, the fact that they can't see this makes me laugh....and makes them look like fools.

[LAGC]

133. Believe it or not, I'm not a Strong Atheist.

I'm an agnostic atheist. I don't claim to know for sure that God doesn't exist. I only know what I DON'T believe, and that is the story of God as told by the Bible.

However, I can't help but to think you wouldn't be satisfied unless atheists just SHUT UP altogether. Not unlike the argument that gays should just stay in the closet, an outspoken atheist seems unfathomable to you.

While you may make your point for "live and let live", so long as there are those out there who make it their duties to convince others of their faith, I feel its my duty to refute them when I can. You can call me an "atheist Falwell" all you want, but I'm not the one doing the indoctrinating. That was already done to them over a long period of time in establishing their religious beliefs. All I do is plant the seeds of doubt. If that makes me a "Falwell" in your eyes, so be it, there may be nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.

[Sal316]

134. What nonsense...

"However, I can't help but to think you wouldn't be satisfied unless atheists just SHUT UP altogether."

No, I'd just be satisfied if pushy jerks of any persuasion would shut up. Religious/non-religious/left/right/whatever.

"Not unlike the argument that gays should just stay in the closet, an outspoken atheist seems unfathomable to you."

There's a difference between outspoken and being an obnoxious, condescending asshole. I suggest you learn the former, since you seem to have the latter down.

"While you may make your point for "live and let live", so long as there are those out there who make it their duties to convince others of their faith, I feel its my duty to refute them when I can."

If you want to refute, then refute. I'm just saying when you resort to using language like "deprogramming", "myth", "superstition", "fairy-tale", and the like, ain't nobody gonna listen to you.

"You can call me an "atheist Falwell" all you want, but I'm not the one doing the indoctrinating."

Yes, you are. Into your way of thought. Deprogram/indoctrinate.. call it whatever you want.

[LAGC]

135. Don't be pushy, pushy.

How could I have possibly stated my case any differently for it to not be seen as "pushy" in your eyes?

Seems just the mere instance of disagreeing with you or challenging the notion of theism is being "pushy"...

Look, all I ask is that you quit being so shy about your beliefs. Seems like you spend a lot of energy fighting atheists -- how much time do you spend fighting fundamentalist theists? All I'm saying is: DEBATE THEM when the opportunity arises. Don't shy away and just keep to yourself if you truly believe that what you believe in is right. When a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon missionary comes to my door, I LET THEM IN and engage them, I don't just slam the door in their face. Every opportunity to challenge baseless superstition should be pounced upon. I know you don't like that word, but...

su⋅per⋅sti⋅tion
  /ˌsupərˈstɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

[Silent3]

137. I'm an atheist, but I agree with others that you are...

...overstating your case.

Clearly all-or-nothing interpretations of the Bible aren't the only interpretations out there. You at least seem to understand that.

Given that there's long been a mix of interpretations, and a downward trend in literalism when you take a centuries-long view of history, and a small ebb and flow in more recent American history in terms of percentage of the population that believes a particular way, I'd say the burden of proof is on you that an "it's all true" interpretation is such a powerful or inevitable force for conversion.

The danger of fundamentalist Christianity and Biblical literalism is not in any sort of inevitability for large numbers of liberal Christians to become more conservative, it's in the zealotry of those who are already at the extreme to try to grab power and control others.

[JerseygirlCT]

111. Why do people consistently miss this?

Christianity is not about accepting the Bible as inerrant; reading it literally.

There is no entirety that must be accepted. There IS a great deal that's always been open to interpretation. Even the people who call themselves fundamentalists do it - they just don't admit to it.

It's a work that's divinely inspired - not a textbook or rulebook handed down from on-high. Each person will gain from it something different. And that will likely change and grow as they do the same.

And I wonder where you get the information to back up your assertion that Christianity by and large is a right-wing phenomenon?

[LAGC]

115. Religious Voting Patterns in the 2008 Election

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=38850

Although Barack Obama won a majority of the national popular vote and the Electoral College in yesterday’s presidential election, he did not win a majority of the voters who say they regularly attend church, according to the network exit poll.

Obama’s failure to win among church-going Americans continues a pattern that was also seen in the 2000 and 2004 elections, when Republican George Bush won the presidency.

On Tuesday, Obama defeated McCain in the nationwide popular vote, 52% to 46%.

Among voters who told the exit poll that they attend church once a week, however, McCain defeated Obama, 55% to 43%. McCain also defeated Obama 55% to 43% among voters who said they attended church more than once a week.

Obama ran strongest among voters who told the exit poll they “never” attend church. These voters picked the Democratic candidate over the Republican, 67% to 30%. Among those who said they attend church “a few times a year,” Obama won 59% to 40%; and among those who said they attend church monthly, Obama won 53% to 46%.

Eleven percent of voters told the exit poll they have no religion. These voters supported Obama, 75% to 23%.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

117. Two points:

1. The article is from a fundie website, and the comments indicate it

2. My guess--and the comments bear this out--is that the "people who attend church every Sunday" are fundamentalists, conservative Catholics, and Mormons, who voted largely on the abortion issue.

My church is full of people who attend every week, although they're not as compulsive as the groups above would be. Most of them voted for Obama, based on both conversations I had with members and the percentage of Obama bumper stickers in the parking lot. There were so few McCain supporters that I did a double take when I saw a McCain sticker.

[JerseygirlCT]

118. Same experience here -

in fact a few people surprised me with their support. (They were usually fairly conservative on social issues, but hard-core union supporters - I'm pretty sure that's what was important to them).

I think the number of people involved with very conservative Christian churches is often inflated - it fits the story well for two groups: those hoping to claim that Christianity is more rigid and authoritarian and monolithic than it is, and those who are happy to say that they are in the company of more people.

And yes, I don't think people in my church are quite that compulsive about attending every week - or saying that they do!

[Meshuga]

70. But that is painting it with a broad brush

Religion encompasses the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly. I'm sure most religious people in this site are members of congregations where this kind of bigotry (that comes from other religious groups) is non-existent.

We all have our own vehicles to experiencing freedom and your prescribed way may work for you but not for others.

[SidneyCarton]

74. I have been, because of my faith.

Freedom comes from within, as does oppression. A man may be imprisoned and shackled, but manage to maintain his freedom within. He may walk freely in life, but be psychologically shackled due to hatred, ignorance or fear. It comes of how one seeks to view the world.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

79. Union Yes, I agree with you completely.

I refuse to have anything to do with Christianity. It's very primitive and superstitious.

We can do better than that.

Unitarian Universalists affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Many Christians have a real problem with that, whether it's gay people, or people of other races, or people who are not "saved".

I'm a secular humanist Unitarian Universalist, not a Christian.

I have been involved in Unitarian Universalist churches and congregations for over thirty years, and I have yet to meet a UU that stated to me that they were a Christian.

People on DU say that UUs are Christian, and they can be, but I have yet to meet one.

[Critters2]

89. Do UUs not affirm the inherent worth and dignity of Christians?

Or, what does "every person" mean?

Oh, and as for UU Christians: www.uuchristian.org

"The Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship is an organization of women and men, most of whom are members of a UU church, who are interested in exploring liberal Christianity within the context of their liberal religious faith. Some UU Christians find that the theological orientation of their home congregation is not receptive to their interest in Christianity, and so they join the UUCF to explore their interest in Christianity through this network of individuals."

[JerseygirlCT]

91. From the Book of Common Prayer (Anglican/Episcopal Churches)

baptism rite:

Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all
people, and respect the dignity of every human
being?

We most certainly affirm the worth and dignity of every person - and renew that vow with every baptism.

Just FYI

[kwassa]

97. I grew up Unitarian.

I agree with you that I never met a Unitarian that described themselves as a Christian, and I've been in a dozen UU churches all over the country. If anything, I encountered an anti-Christian prejudice there. So much for liberalism. And, never mention the G-word!

If you wish to be a manifestor of light, you had better learn a lot more about Christianity, and religion in general, or your light will be shining on a rather low wattage, I think.

Can you tell me why Unitarian churches still follow the format of a Protestant church service, including the hymns, while they deny all of the Protestant content? It is a bit like buying food at the store, coming home, throwing all the food out, and keeping the container.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

100. I have the right to reject Christianity and its stories

You have the right to accept it. And if any Christian tells me I must be one of them or I am going to hell, then I have the right to tell them they are wrong.

I already know a lot about Christianity. I used to be one. Then I decided it was a fraud.

I have studied Hinduism, Buddhism and Judaism extensively.

I studied Christianity in college through professors that had D.D.s form Princeton Theological Seminary (Presbyterian).

And no, I don't know why Unitarian churches follow the format of a Protestant church service.

You'd have to ask somebody at www.uua.org

There are many similarities in religious rituals across the world, such as praying to a diety for the blessing of the congregation, asking the deity for guidance, asking the deity to grant favors, telling the deity he/she/it is special and valued, invoking the name of the deity, singing hymns, dismissing the congregation, etc.

The structures are similar even if the content is different.

The good guidance in Christianity can be distilled down to a few paragraphs. The rest of it is baggage and superstition.

[Critters2]

103. Ummm...a DD is an honorary degree, not an earned one.

The fact that you don't know this very basic fact throws doubt on all your other claims about expertise...including the claim that you studied under a bunch of DDs at Princeton.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

113. I looked it up in my college catalog. They did not get D.D.s. My bad.

These two guys I took courses from in college. I did NOT go to Princeton. I went to another Presbyeterian college:

Francisco Oscar Garcia-Treto
B.A. Maryville College
B.D., Th.D., Princeton Theological Seminary

R. Douglas Brackenridge
Associate Prof. Religion
B.A. Muskingum College
B.D., Th.M. Pitsburgh Theological Seminary
Ph.D., University of Glasgow


Your average half-assed anti-intellectual preacher couldn't pass the courses I took.

[Critters2]

114. All mainline clergy, in order to be ordained, must have MDivs,

having studied under PhDs and ThDs, at schools accredited by the Association of Theological Seminaries. More than half of the faculty of my seminary had PhDs from Harvard. There were a couple of Princeton grads on faculty, but they were always reminded that they were not the Harvard, Yale or Oxbridge grads amongst whom they worked.

Princeton Seminary isn't all that special. It has no affiliation with Princeton University, and is just one more denominational seminary. A pretty good one, but not the best.

And again, you aren't smart enough to know the difference between a DD and a PhD, and the differences are pretty important. I'm not convinced YOU passed the courses you took....or claim to have taken.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

116. thanx for calling me a liar....NOT

[Critters2]

83. I've been the victim of atheist hate.

I don't see the difference, really.

[Sal316]

61. Is the tiny amount of sanctuary you may think you find.....

....in this pseudo-intellectual, "I'm smarter than you", "religion is a fraud" diatribe worth it?

Is it worth coming across as big of an asshole as any RW fundamentalist?

Is your life so intimately tied up in feeling superior to others that you feel the need to resort to this sort of intolerant bullshit?

Have people done horrible things in the name of religion? Sure.

But people have also done horrible things:

a) in an effort to eradicate any religion.
b) without religion being a motivating factor.

This sort of broad brush crap attacking believers is just as intolerable as the broad brush crap RW fundies use.

Congrats... you've shown us you are the opposite side of the same coin.

How does it feel to be as big an intolerant jackhole as them?

[SidneyCarton]

71. Yes.

n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

93. I was an atheist for a long period of time

but through my own discovery and meditation, I have found a spiritual component in my life. I is very real to me and very rewarding. I do not push it on to anyone else.

[LAGC]

94. If you don't mind me asking...

What kind of "spiritual component?" Do you feel its a "higher power" or just a "presence" of some sort?

[DeadEyeDyck]

96. It is a relationship to the Emptyness

I spent years meditating for inner growth. I went through many levels and at some point reached an awareness that I was rejoining a greater presence. I have expanded into a greater realm. Some call it Kundilini. To me it is simply being.

[tinrobot]

101. Similar story here...

As an atheist I found it very easy for my noisy thinking brain to dismiss spiritual concepts as irrational.

Then I learned to meditate, mostly though my Kundalini yoga practice. It changed my perspective on spirituality completely. These days, I consider myself spiritual, though not particularly religious. Religion can only point towards that which is the root of all spirituality.

[uberllama42]

110. I'm baffled at the religious here telling you, a gay person, that you are intolerant

because of this rather bland exhortation to question whatever school of "revealed knowledge" they happen to believe in.

If it turns out that any heterosexual who has posted here has ever experienced the level of intolerance faced by gays in a country run by Christian fundamentalists, I will be well and deeply surprised. What I'm sure of is that such oppression, if any straight person here has been victim to it, came from RW Christian quarters, not from the godless.

Crying "intolerance" or "authoritarianism" at this post is an embarrassment and an insult to all those who have been subject to racism, homophobia, and other real-world forms of bigotry. This thread is a testament to the appeal of false victimhood.

[kwassa]

127. and what country are you talking about that is run by Christian fundamentalists?

It certainly isn't this one. The Christian far right is a minority, and way out of power, in case you might have missed last year's elections.

Anyone can be intolerant, by the way, group membership gives no one a pass.

[Evoman]

121. Religion is lame.

I'm always sort of suprised that people aren't embarrased to be religious. I mean, when people I know get really jesus-ey (like when they earnestly tell me how much they love jesus and how god gave his only son, etc)I sort of feel bad for them and cringe that they are admitting it out loud.

It's sort of the reaction I get to really intense PDA. Or when someone tries to make a joke and no one laughs...uncomfortable.

I sometimes even find it a bit childish...believing in stuff that you were taught just because your parents really insisted, or making stuff up to make yourself feel better.

[Vidar]

136. Tried it for a couple of years, didn't like it.

[cynatnite]

138. Religion was a waste of time and energy...

and if I could get it all back, I wouldn't hesitate a second. Being free of that burden called christianity was the best thing that ever happened to me.