Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?

WoollyRedHat

My outlook has changed more in the realisation of just how much bull**** there is in the world, and how within the limited confines of our being, we are powerless to do anything about it, and are destined to live life in one pre-mapped routine, from the moment we live to the moment we die.

efb

ejmaztec wrote: »

I don't think the Mediterranean tsunami reached Australia, so they were okay.

So God was only pi$$ed with the Mediterranean's? I blame the fecking Greeks- they invented Gayness!!!

1ZRed

efb wrote: »

Then God said to Noah there's gonna be a flood-y flood-y

Do people actually believe that cr@p???

Of course it's bullshit.

Noah was on his island with all the other animals

9959

Dear Philologos,
I have a couple of quick questions which I hope you can answer.
Before I ask, I'd like to apologise for not reading all of your latest post, I found it to be a tiny bit too long, but as I am currently on my holidays, I should have it finished, cover to cover so to speak, by this time next week.

Question 1 . Do you have a book for sale, cheaper than the ones being flogged to death by the good doctors of the afterlife, Moody and Van Lommel?

Question 2. Have you ever appeared on 'Oprah', Dr. Moody has, three times according to his website, unfortunately Dr. Van Lommel has yet to cut his teeth on the scientific ratings-grabber, but he's Dutch, so who knows, he may never get the call.

Thanks for your time, by the way, my good lady wife Doris, thinks you've a great way with words but that your posts are "fierce long", silly moo, I keep telling her that really, really, really long posts are a sign of intelligence, I'm just wondering if you could do the next one in the aul Latin, just to prove my point.

Good luck to you and keep it up.
You just might crack it!
Best Wishes 9959 (not a beastly number as I'm sure you know).

Dave147

philologos wrote: »

(EDIT: Did you not think that posting this on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum would have been more fruitful?)

My outlook has changed since realising that Jesus is Lord (in 2007). That all is forgiven, and that I won't be condemned at the end of time for rebelling against my Creator, and that life has an ultimate meaning, purpose and goal. I found that while acknowledging this universe and the Creator who formed it, that this Creation started making a lot more sense than believing the vague notion that this all came about from absolutely nothing.

The notion that non-believers appreciate the present moment more than Christians isn't really true I find. I acknowledge the here and now, and just because I acknowledge that this isn't the end doesn't necessarily mean I appreciate this Creation less.

Just lol.

geetar

philologos wrote: »

Without an objective basis for morality, morality starts becoming rather inexplicable very very quickly. If you're claiming that the objective basis for morality is something other than God, I'd be very interested in hearing you explain how it could work.

morality is intrinsic to human nature. its a human trait, not something created by religion. if you need examples, look at the various religions and tribes through the ages, and youll see a respect for life and a strong moral ethics.

ive even seen capuchin monkeys sharing nuts equally through a cage, when an absence of morals would have the monkey with the nuts eat them all without guilt. how many monkeys have read the bible? :rolleyes:

the false morality created by religion creates a horrible world where people feel they only do good because they will be rewarded with eternal life, and punished for bad behaviour. that in itself makes mankind seem inherently selfish.

philologos wrote: »

Explaining how morality can work on a subjective basis is entirely difficult for an atheist. Even the ones which are based on evolution come into difficulty when we consider altruistic, self-sacrificial, and self-detrimental moral action. If we were truly living on a survival of the fittest ethical system, we'd work on the basis of whatever was expedient for us, even if that was to the detriment of other human beings.

see above. the capuchin monkeys blow a hole right through this argument and makes it completely 100% invalid.

philologos wrote: »

I find the Biblical approach to right and wrong to be far more convincing than any other secular or atheistic explanation. While I was studying moral philosophy at university, this became more and more apparent to me. What objective grounding do any of these theories have from utilitarianism to moral subjectivism, and the answer is ultimately very little.

i take it you did one semester? :rolleyes:

philologos wrote: »

We are also told that if anyone preaches another Gospel, let them be accursed (Galatians 1:8).

there's some contradiction there!

you seem to think that the bible is a legitimate source historically?

its biased.

you make reference to other sources showing christ existed. It is believed that Jesus Christ did infact exist, however that does not automatically make the bible factually correct.

you must admit that the bible is the most biased source to reference when studying christ.

it would be like all of jimi hendrix's greatest fans writing his biography 50 years after he had died. its not going to be factual or historically accurate.

philologos wrote: »

So in short, Christians make decisions on the basis of God's revealed word to them. As of Jesus Christ, He has come to pay the penalty for sin. As a result how can I expect to take someones life in turn? Jesus will return to judge, and it is at this point that God's wrath will be upon those who reject Him and His standards.

again you imply that you only dont commit murder because you would go to hell for it. scary stuff, i hope you dont lose your faith, and then your morality.

philologos wrote: »

So yes, the Bible is my moral guide. I read it as a whole, and I read the Old Testament in consideration of what Jesus has done as every single Bible-believing Christian has before me.

do you believe the world is 6,000 years old? if so, i may be wasting my time writing this response.

how do you also believe to have superior morals, even though I, as an atheist, have a greater set of morals then you or your god. i dont hate people because of a predefined sexuality, nor do i punish those that dont agree with me, nor do i murder over 2,000,000 people as found in the bible (which according to you is factual).

If god is real, i dont want to have anything to do with him because he is wrong. how can you explain that my own morals have exceeded what you consider to be their infallible source?

the real source of morality is empathy. empathy is found through education and understanding. i agree with a lot of what jesus "said" in his parables, and i agree with his messages of love and forgiveness. however, having looked at the world around me and the universe (not a single book about the very thing that i am to question) i can see that its neive to believe in a god, because the concept is a comfort blanket to mankind. today it is just a hangover from the times when we didnt understand why the sky was blue, and whether or not the sun would rise the next day, or how rain fell from the sky.

with knowledge comes lack of faith. and i promise you thats no coincidence.

look at statistics for atheism in developed countries, and "3rd world" countries and tell me im wrong. even look at ireland today, and ireland 50 years ago.

with knowledge comes reasoning and questioning, and therefore a lack of faith.

i mean no disrespect to people of faith, and i know a few people who have faith and are very intelligent. however, im a firm believer in religion only still existing through the indoctrination of children.

ask yourself if you had been born anywhere else in the world, or at any other time would you still be a catholic?

would you have an entirely different moral compass?

the fact that your religion is entirely time and location dependant makes the whole concept of religion redundant. through all of human civilisation, how could someone be so neive and arrogant to believe that their one religion out of a few thousand happened to be the correct one.

every person who has ever believed in a god, be it zeus or yahweh, believed in it with the same fervour and enthusiasm as you. does that not resonate with you at all?

philologos wrote: »

Firstly, there are other sources about Jesus Christ. We have Tacitus and Pliny the Younger referring to Jesus. We even have people who hated the Gospel writing about Jesus, for example in the Babylonian Talmud. There is a better case for Jesus than there is for many other people in history.

again, there's very few historians who dispute the existance of jesus.

the proof of his existence does not correlate to the proof of his claims. its only a testament (no pun intended) to the following that he had.

philologos wrote: »

Fourthly - We have the text of people who went to the Gentile world and risked their lives and in most cases were put to death for doing so. This isn't some expedient lie, and it certainly isn't one that was to their benefit. Why on earth would you go into the world to communicate a lie, with absolutely no benefit, in fact it was to their detriment to communicate the Gospel.

so your basis for proof of Christianity is that people were passionate about it?
thats not really a valid argument.

philologos wrote: »

Fifthly, if the Bible contains specific details about Jesus, specific events, specific people, why didn't people in the first century seek them out and debunk the Gospel?

the bible is composed of a select few gospels, reviewed and edited over the last 2000 years.

you're forgetting that bias exists. would you expect a book that proved the existance of jesus and god to be a complete myth to last very long?

dont forget Christianity's track record in terms of opposers

more importantly, the christian religion has a pretty good track record of disposing those who try to prove anything against them.

philologos wrote: »

Thirdly as a result of the Protestant Reformation the emphasis is on God's inspired word rather than on the authority of select individuals. Anyone can read the Bible, and anyone can listen to what God is saying to them if they are willing.

funny. it used to be a capital offence to have an english bible in london.

how do you suppose that (a) isnt an abuse of authority and (b) was allowing anyone who was willing to listen to gods message?

this is fact by the way, and post reformation.

philologos wrote: »

This is extremely serious, and I need to obey Him. The reality of the matter is, we have eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said and did. If these words are true, they have serious implications for you and for me. It's not just a passing interest or a hobby, if these words are true they lead to eternal life. If the Gospel is true, then God's amazing love has been shown to you already through Jesus. Why should I not proclaim this?

again, how do you not see the selfishness of this?

it just creates a religion where people believe in it for their own personal benefit.

the vast majority of practising christians in the uk and ireland are doing so just to be on the safe side. there's an "ah sure ill go to mass on a sunday, in case he's real" attitude. and thats not due to laziness or incompetence, its due to a religion with faulty principles.

cowzerp

Mine has, What the kids are always going on about YOLO actually makes sense to me-When you die your gone-Make the most of the 1 shot you have.

Jimoslimos

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

I think we all hate when people think they are smarter than us, I have to admit it does annoy me even when I know that they are smarter than me

I was dragged to mass today (I consider myself atheist) and there was a priest from a different parish covering the usual. He went on to tell the congregation that the pope was smarter than everybody there and everybody in the world, the Pope knows what we all need and what we should do. He then went on to tell us that the EU need to stop destroying and pushing away the church because the church should be running Europe. He said the same of the Ireland as a country and said families should stop watching TV and replace TV with the Rosary. All of this was sort of annoying but still it wasn't VERY bad.

He then started to preach the worst thing I have ever heard in a church: He told the mass goers that the sick and those suffering from chronic illness are so lucky to be blessed with the ministry of pain and suffering.

Really??

I have no love for the church but your story seems a tad...contrived.

TheBoss!

R.I.P. Bono, you were a decent all the same.

dttq

Gauss wrote: »

For me it didn't really change as I was 9 or 10 when I first found out but as the years went by I think it became more apparent that at some stage my family would be gone forever, kind of made me appreciate the present moment more, that happiness is now, not some abstract time in the future.

It certainly enlightens the consciousness of the individual who finally sees religion for what it is - a dodgy ponzi scheme which enriches the top dogs who accumulate their vast wealth and estates through selling fairy tales every Sunday onto vulnerable people in fear of their own mortality, who then hope for a life after through the aide of the ponzis and their fairy tale promises. It also opens your eyes to the sheer bigotry, backwardness and barbarity that is religion and of religious people worldwide. I hope that they colonise Mars one day and plant the lot of them there, the Earth would certainly be a much better and content place.

daisybelle2008

philologos wrote: »

Without an objective basis for morality, morality starts becoming rather inexplicable very very quickly. If you're claiming that the objective basis for morality is something other than God, I'd be very interested in hearing you explain how it could work.

Morality IS inexpicable without a man-made 'objective' basis. Morality is subjective, humans are socially constructing this 'morality' it continually changes and evolves like fashion .. i.e Slavery is acceptable in the bible, but unacceptable now. Just because you apply an objectivity that is a mind-made speculation or measurement ('Gods' moral code) does not mean that you have made a reality. All you have is a man made judgement on human behaviour, which is fickle, meaningless and socially conditioned.

philologos wrote: »

My point was very simply, without a common basis for morality, if someone wrongs you, you have no external reason to object to their behaviour. After all what's right to you, might be wrong to them. In order to explain how someone has genuinely wronged you, you require to explain ethical behaviour by an external means. If you are claiming that someone has wronged you, you mean that it is apparent that they have wronged you and that they should have known better. Otherwise why rebuke them? It would be a waste of breath.

So the common basis for morality is to decide if someone 'wrongs' you? That is not a true objective morality. That is a group of people getting together and deciding what to be offended by at that time.

Didn't someone say in the bible 'judge not lest ye be judged' and 'turn the other cheek'? Your value system seems to be only required to judge and rebuke? Is that not a contradiction of the bible?

Ethical behaviour is entirely subjective. To make it objective in your example, I first need to be socially conditioned to feel 'offended or wronged' by some behaviour that has been deemed 'wrong' by 'the ethics board'. 'Rebuking' is only required because you have first decided to judge behaviour with a man made value system.

philologos wrote: »

Explaining how morality can work on a subjective basis is entirely difficult for an atheist. Even the ones which are based on evolution come into difficulty when we consider altruistic, self-sacrificial, and self-detrimental moral action. If we were truly living on a survival of the fittest ethical system, we'd work on the basis of whatever was expedient for us, even if that was to the detriment of other human beings.

But the 'morality' you speak of exists in your religion, why would an atheist want to explain to you how that can work with out religion?.
Your question really is how can people behave in the way 'I judge' they should without being conditioned by religion? Well they can't, you feel people need to be controlled, judged and 'rebuked' to know a 'right' from a 'wrong'. Imposing this religious opionion has been much more detrimental to other human beings than anything else. i.e Crusades, Spanish Inquisition etc. On all fronts you require judgements, hirarchy, punishments, separation, 'moral' superiority and 'proving' yourself to a God. That does not make sense if God made us in his own image and loves us unconditionally.

I have found I cannot be true to myself and be true to your vision of God, your religion requires you to see the human condition as unnatural and sinful without your moral judgements, I believe the natural state is not sinful and I have no desire to run around raping, pillaging and murdering funnily enough.

Here we go again - arguing for an objective morality while using your own subjective interpretation of someone else's subjective interpretation of morality

9959

bluewolf wrote: »

Here we go again - arguing for an objective morality while using your own subjective interpretation of someone else's subjective interpretation of morality

I think Woody Allen said the same thing in the 1975 film 'Love and Death'.

Ush1

bluewolf wrote: »

Here we go again - arguing for an objective morality while using your own subjective interpretation of someone else's subjective interpretation of morality

I actually think religion is the biggest troll job of all time.

B.A._Baracus

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

dpe

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

So, after 2000 years of setting fire to people for having the temerity to question the existence of God, the religious are now upset because the newly enfranchised forces of common sense call them names? I suggest you sit back and take it on the chin; we've got a lot of catching up to do.

Sykk

OP is an expert troll.

http://stylealchemy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/kingofpopcorn1.gif

B.A._Baracus

dpe wrote: »

So, after 2000 years of setting fire to people for having the temerity to question the existence of God, the religious are now upset because the newly enfranchised forces of common sense call them names? I suggest you sit back and take it on the chin; we've got a lot of catching up to do.

Fair enough.
Question, how come we dont bash the germans too for the horrific acts of world war 2? ... was only 70 years ago?

Ush1

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I do believe in God.

But I have been struggling lately. Not in my bellief - ust in my wondering why.

I believe Earth is only temporary - but I struggle with - why should any aspect of energy in the universe be left in a place where suffering is so extreme? april jones, jill meagher, that new girl who chose to kill herself in canada over bullying, my own awful experiences.

I think - why were we left here to go through this? Why?

Why is not a meaningful question. You could ask what are the circumstances which led to this? But asking why is pointless.

Paddy Samurai

philologos wrote: »

My outlook changed. I was an agnostic, now I'm a Christian.

My faith isn't blind either, it's the result of evaluating the Scriptures, evaluating the evidence, and evaluating the world around me. It's a far more rational approach than presuming that people are deluded without providing any good or sound reason as to why you think that is the case. Making absurd claims about people who believe in God being deluded are worth nothing unless you have a reason for thinking so.

Something similar to me. Over the last few years I have come to the unpopular conclusion ,that there is a God. I rarely attend church or discuss religion with others, family and friends included. Its up to everyone to choose for themselves. If my kid's ask me a question I will answer them to the best of my ability,but I don't ram it down their throats.They will make their own decisions.
To me over time it’s become obvious there is a God. I did’nt come to this conclusion overnight ,but over years of thinking, reading and evaluating about weather there was a God.
IMO it is harder in the modern world to find God(for want of a better phrase) than in the past. This is mainly because people don’t have the time/inclination to sit down and think about spiritual issues. Also it’s not cool to believe in God.
One thing that has struck my about a lot of posters is that they seem to confuse God with organised religions , which are run by humans with all their frailties and faults.

Ignore my disclaimer for this post.;)

EuskalHerria

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Fair enough.
Question, how come we dont bash the germans too for the horrific acts of world war 2? ... was only 70 years ago?

Firstly that comparison is largely irrelevant to the entire discussion.

However I would imagine the answer to your question would be best put as, at least the Germans could admit they were wrong.

9959

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

Nothing wrong in believing in the supernatural, it's when the proselytizing begins that non-believers start to get a bit figety.
I mean you no harm, but if you have a couple of days to spare, read post #294,
but before you do, you'll need two things to assist you in reading it 'all in one go', strong coffee and a will to live.

old hippy

I felt a burden released at the time but the only thing that irks me are the zealouts who feel they have the right to discriminate.

Shenshen

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

Nah, all of the above are only wrong if you forget to point out that your religion demands you to act/think/feel that way.

token101

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

What??? What's the Catholic teaching on gays again? Catholics do a good enough job of tearing into people.

Shenshen

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Fair enough.
Question, how come we dont bash the germans too for the horrific acts of world war 2? ... was only 70 years ago?

As a German, please do tell me when they are going to stop.
My grandparents were not even born when the war was over, but boy, you want to dress warm in most parts of this earth before informing people about where you're from.

Such is life, I suppose.

Red21

Genuine questions

For the religious:
When you say, you believe in god are you talking about a personal type god as is described in the bible or are you talking about some kinda unmanifestited intelligence that is behind the reality of our situation

For the non-believers
When you say, you don't believe are you just talking about a personal type god or do you also lack belief in the any kinda intelligence/higher power.

Ush1

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

Ironic no considering many religions stances on it?

GeorgeBailey

9959 wrote: »

the concept of eternal 'nothingness' is a difficult one to accept.

Think of it more as eternal sleep. Shur who doesn't like an aul lie-in

Shenshen

Red21 wrote: »

For the non-believers
When you say, you don't believe are you just talking about a personal type god or do you also lack belief in the any kinda intelligence/higher power.

Personally, I don't believe in either.

Shenshen

9959 wrote: »

Perhaps that's one of the reasons why man invented God, for some - even atheists like myself - the concept of eternal 'nothingness' is a difficult one to accept.

I don't know, I found it a relief when I first came across it. Not being is something I can honestly say I'm almost looking forward to some days. A bit like going to sleep after a long and hard day : you close your eyes and you stop existing.
To me this sounds beautiful.

By contrast, the idea of eternal life sounds hellish.

Son Of A Vidic

Gauss wrote: »

Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?e.

Don't assume please, shít stirring thread is obvious shít stirring thread. Maybe ask us an open question, rather than making a stupid idiotic assumption in future. But I find it ironic, when people can so assuredly rule out the existence of a creator, or seem to know the answers here with such certainty.

Me? Well I can't be certain either way on this issue. But one thing I do know, thankfully I'm not pompous or egotistical enough to think that I'm right and ridicule other people's genuine beliefs. The only time any of us will know the answer is when we reach Asystole.

bbam

I'd consider myself a sort of a-la-cart Christian.
I don't believe in a god in the form of some bloke in a white frock who created the world.
I don't even believe in a god thats out there steering the whole universe in
A supernatural sort of way. Yet I feel I have a faith.

I view Christianism as a vessel to hold together the morals I feel important, some of these overlap with the church I attend. Attending church occasionally affords me to think about these morals where if find when I don't attend at all I don't think so much about them. Our children are brought up in a similar manner, we would correct some of the teachings of the church we feel are wrong. Eg confession, talking to god through a third party? I reflect to myself when I do wrong, hold myself accountable, there are wrongs I've done that I never quite reconcile, others are easily wiped away.

I suppose the big question is if these morals are there because I'm human or are instilled from some higher being I'm not aware nor really believes eactually exists, I don't really care and don't think about it. Actually I've never really thought about what I actually have faith in until this thread.

Gauss

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Gauss wrote: »

Has your outlook changed since realising there is no God?e.

Don't assume please, shít stirring thread is obvious shít stirring thread. Maybe ask us an open question, rather than making a stupid idiotic assumption in future. But I find it ironic, when people can so assuredly rule out the existence of a creator, or seem to know the answers here with such certainty.

Me? Well I can't be certain either way on this issue. But one thing I do know, thankfully I'm not pompous or egotistical enough to think that I'm right and ridicule other people's genuine beliefs. The only time any of us will know the answer is when we reach Asystole.

Of course there could be a God, but also my entire life could be a dream and not real. I prefer to rule out such nonsense as the chances are so negligible they are not worth considering.

There is no arrogance on my part. The fact of the matter is I realised how ridiculous the idea of God was and the motivations behind religion. I didn't realises this stuff previously, I accepted what I was told with questioning it.

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

So lets look at it .... its 2012. Its wrong to:

- Judge or treat a person differently because the colour of their skin. As racism is deemed wrong by todays society in Ireland.
- Same goes for a person being gay, disabled, etc etc.

But! if a person believes in god. Tear into them, right? Bunch of "thickos" right? - this is just one big bashing thread.

Im not sure but I think a physical trait such as skin colour, sexual orientation or a disability is just a teeny weeny bit different to believing something. I respect people not their bat **** notions

smash

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Why do you assume everyone that reads this has 'realised' there's no God?

I guess he assumes we're all intelligent.

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Fair enough.
Question, how come we dont bash the germans too for the horrific acts of world war 2? ... was only 70 years ago?

Because not all of them did it, most that did are dead and quite a few of those who did were punished (when still alive)

B.A._Baracus

7 8 replies to a post i made... geez I rubbed people wrong way

I cant speak for anyone else, but I speak for myself. How about we just let others live their life and believe what they want to believe. Be it in a god, not in a god. Does it matter?

Does anyone have the right to say the other is wrong?
But more importantly than that, does anyone have the right to tell someone else is wrong with what they personally choose to believe?

endacl

Gauss wrote: »

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

Why do you assume everyone that reads this has 'realised' there's no God?

FearDark wrote: »

Because the OP doesn't appear to have any sort of mental issues from his post.

No, just issues of arrogance and smugness.

There is absolutely no arrogance or smugness on my part. I don't subscribe to concepts of inferiority or superiority. I simply realised God didn't exist.

Yep. Op addressed the question to those who no longer believe. If your still operating under the delusion of the big sky beard, there's no point on taking offence. The question doesn't apply to you.

For my part op, no. Made no difference. None at all. Just another fairytale I grew out of. Thanks for asking.

endacl

philologos wrote: »

smcgiff wrote: »

Stop derailing the thread plilologos, sell crazy somewhere else.

It's not derailing the thread. If the OP is entitled to advocate atheism here, then I've got every right to respond to him and say that my perspective has changed as a result of Jesus? Or is that anathema?

If you have an issue with any of my posts, click the report post button which you'll find under my avatar and a mod will sort me out.

I read no advocasy! Op asked a question that doesn't apply to you because you still have an imaginary friend.

It goes something like this...
Q: Is life better for you since you gave up playing football?

A: Well, the thing about hockey is...

Loomis

I was never very religious, nor were my parents. I only really went to church when it was school related. I didn't think about it very much but as a young kid, hearing about hell and 'eternal torment' etc was actually terrifying. Probably why I didn't think about it too much.

As I reached my teens I realised I didn't believe in the specifics of the Christian religion. I still thought there was 'something' out there but when I questioned this I realised it was only because I liked the idea of there being something after death etc rather than being what I actually believed.

I've looked at religion more closely in the past few years. I completely understand a person's inclination to believe in a deity but to subscribe to a particular religion/god is farcical. The makeup of these holy books is laughable. Believing it is gullible. That on its own would be fine. Many religious people don't leave it at that, unfortunately. The alternative is to lie to myself in the hopes it brings me some comfort. I don't see the point.

I went to the funeral of a friend's brother a few years ago. His death was suicide which made the funeral quite different, for me anyway. There was just something about it that it seemed to affect everyone there; family, friends, strangers alike. It just confirmed to me that if a god existed and he gave even the remotest **** about us, he wouldn't let things like that happen.

My grandmother died last year and it was the first death in the family since I'd realised my lack of belief in god and the afterlife. I did find it quite tough knowing she was gone forever, certainly tougher than when my grandfather died despite being older and 'stronger' now.

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

7 8 replies to a post i made... geez I rubbed people wrong way

I cant speak for anyone else, but I speak for myself. How about we just let others live their life and believe what they want to believe. Be it in a god, not in a god. Does it matter?

Does anyone have the right to say the other is wrong?

I agree. I have no intention in infringing in your life.
However I have every right to think and state that believing in talking snakes, spontaneous cures for lepers and the blind and chaps getting up for a stroll after being dead for several days, just on the say so of a hand me down book from 2000 years ago when a good many folk also thought that thunder was a blond dude with a hammer having a hissy fit is just a bit crazy.
I also think smoking is stupid but this doesnt mean i think smokers are stupid.

B.A._Baracus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I agree. I have no intention in infringing in your life.
However I have every right to think and state that believing in talking snakes, spontaneous cures for lepers and the blind and chaps getting up for a stroll after being dead for several days, just on the say so of a hand me down book from 2000 years ago when a good many folk also thought that thunder was a blond dude with a hammer having a hissy fit is just a bit crazy.
I also think smoking is stupid but this doesnt mean i think smokers are stupid.

I agree
You have that right and have every right to state what you think. Just as I think alot of athiests are smug and arrogant. Trying to be "better than thou" to those who choose believe. Often using "we are more intelligent" in there opinions.

Live and let live?

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I agree
You have that right and have every right to state what you think. Just as I think alot of athiests are smug and arrogant. Trying to be "better than thou" to those who choose believe. Often using "we are more intelligent" in there opinions.

Live and let live?

Grand. Take that up on a one to one basis though i must say that this accusation of smugness and superiority constantly being leveled at anyone who dares to point out that talking snakes and transubstantiation are daft ideas is shockingly tedious.
It has simply become a stick to beat with for those who cannot make a better arguement

endacl

smcgiff wrote: »

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But imagine their are some who think your opinion is wrong. But they don't look down on you or call you foolish.

Maybe think that everybody is on their own path of discovery.

Do you look down on anybody?

Would you look down on a scientologist ?

Yes. But only because I'm 6'4" and tom cruise is a midget. If we were sitting down I'd look across at him. If he was sitting on a cushion that is.

B.A._Baracus

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Grand. Take that up on a one to one basis though i must say that this accusation of smugness and superiority constantly being leveled at anyone who dares to point out that talking snakes and transubstantiation are daft ideas is shockingly tedious.
It has simply become a stick to beat with for those who cannot make a better arguement

Thank you for proving my point
there aint no "live and let live" is there GB?

Sure, lets look at your post. You quoted me to say "I agree. I have no intention in infringing in your life. HOWEVER..." then proceed to state your views. However, when I in turn stated my views ... it annoyed you. It went too far huh?

John Doe1

philologos wrote: »

(EDIT: Did you not think that posting this on the Atheism and Agnosticism forum would have been more fruitful?)

My outlook has changed since realising that Jesus is Lord (in 2007). That all is forgiven, and that I won't be condemned at the end of time for rebelling against my Creator, and that life has an ultimate meaning, purpose and goal. I found that while acknowledging this universe and the Creator who formed it, that this Creation started making a lot more sense than believing the vague notion that this all came about from absolutely nothing.

The notion that non-believers appreciate the present moment more than Christians isn't really true I find. I acknowledge the here and now, and just because I acknowledge that this isn't the end doesn't necessarily mean I appreciate this Creation less.

Well done i can totally empathise, in 2008 i gave my life over to the flying spaghetti monster, although there is scant evidence of his existence i believe he is my saviour and thats all that matters, fck da haterz right?:)

Irish Guitarist

endacl wrote: »

Yep. Op addressed the question to those who no longer believe. If your still operating under the delusion of the big sky beard, there's no point on taking offence. The question doesn't apply to you.

For my part op, no. Made no difference. None at all. Just another fairytale I grew out of. Thanks for asking.

If someone expects only atheists to reply to a thread there's a dedicated forum on Boards for them.

[-0-]

I'm paraphrasing Hitchens here.

We are expected to believe that for the 80k - 250k years before the appearance of Jesus, Heaven stood by with indifference while people died at a very young age from things like their teeth and child birth. The average life expectancy was early to mid 20s. Humans had, and still do have, an oversized adrenal gland and a small pre frontal lobe. Then around 2,000 years ago they decided it was time to intervene by sending Gods' son to his slaughter so that humanities sins can be forgiven. He didn't appear to the Chinese who already had literature. He appeared to a bunch of sand farmers who were unable to read and write. This sort of tripe cannot be believed by any intellectual.

Regarding design, the universe is severely flawed. Andromeda is on a collision course with us, and darkness is heading our way too. Pretty soon in there will be no stars in the sky. Some design isn't it?

Ghost Buster

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point
there aint no "live and let live" is there GB?

Sure, lets look at your post. You quoted me to say "I agree. I have no intention in infringing in your life. HOWEVER..." then proceed to state your views. However, when I in turn stated my views ... it annoyed you. It went too far huh?

Not a clue have I got as to your point!
Where have I not 'let live' in stating that accusations of superiority and smugness are often without foundation?
Straw man?
What view did you state whcih I then refuted exactly?