Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

That moment when you sat down, thought about it and finally said "You know.. I think religion is a load of crap". Share your stories.

There was no one moment, it was a series of half-lapses interrupted by periods of religious terror that steadily gave way to comfortable atheism. I think by the time I was in community college I was atheist.

I didn't have a moment, I don't think I ever really believed in God or gods.

Germans and their government subsidized abortions and mandatory gay marriages don't count.

Originally posted by SamZED
That moment when you sat down, thought about it and finally said "You know.. I think religion is a load of crap". Share your stories.

It sounds like you asking about a religious moment. Kind of like being born again.

Originally posted by SamZED
That moment when you sat down, thought about it and finally said "You know.. I think religion is a load of crap". Share your stories.

Was very young, probably under 14 years old when I decided religion was man-made nonsense.

Belief in God/greater being though, I still believe there is something greater than us.

I would be skeptical of anyone who claims a "moment" did it for them with any kind of religious belief. Any religious belief that can be decided upon in a moment is, at best, uncritically analyzed to see if it holds up to scrutiny. And, at worst, incredibly shallow and reactionary. And that's even if the final explanation or rationale is simple.

Anyway, I started doubting individual aspects of my Christianity somewhere during college. It was all fairly independent, not due to a particular person or text. I don't even remember where or when it started. But that led to research, which led to further doubts and research, and it was a period of years that took me through dozens of texts and resources for various points of view. Much of it was a stripping away of magical thinking of one sort or another, or discovering that religious beliefs can either be debunked or that they lack sufficient evidence to be maintained rationally. After briefly flirting with Taoism - before realizing that the parts of it I could agree with were those that could comfortably be referred to as philosophy - I somewhat grudgingly adopted atheism. I say grudgingly due to the cultural stigma, not because it doesn't accurately describe my position toward God/gods (it does). A longer explanation of my journey and reasoning can be found here.

Originally posted by Digi
I would be skeptical of anyone who claims a "moment" did it for them with any kind of religious belief. Any religious belief that can be decided upon in a moment is, at best, uncritically analyzed to see if it holds up to scrutiny. And, at worst, incredibly shallow and reactionary. And that's even if the final explanation or rationale is simple...



It took me years of study and thought to first abandon Christianity, and then discover Buddhism. It was a journey, not a moment.

Well, when I was sixteen I went off to school, and I wasn't forced to go to church every Wednesday and Sunday. So at the time, I remember thinking "What's the point in believing in a god?" I just didn't care either way. I didn't really actively think about it.

Then in my twenties, I went through a period of serious depression and tried to find some comfort in religion, but I found it made me feel worse than better.

So I just decided that I would rather believe in no god than a god that clearly doesn't care about this universe or the beings in it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


It took me years of study and thought to first abandon Christianity, and then discover Buddhism. It was a journey, not a moment.

Your particular sect of Buddhism seems abnormally rational in its approach, even for an overarching religion (Buddhism in general) that tends to eschew blind faith as a valid reason.

When I was a devout Catholic, fully embedded in the Church, I prided myself on believing what I did because it made sense to me. It took me a long time to realize many others didn't approach it that way. I don't know if it was learned or innate, but apparently I don't have the capacity or tendency toward faith like many do.

Originally posted by AbnormalButSane
Well, when I was sixteen I went off to school, and I wasn't forced to go to church every Wednesday and Sunday. So at the time, I remember thinking "What's the point in believing in a god?" I just didn't care either way. I didn't really actively think about it.

Then in my twenties, I went through a period of serious depression and tried to find some comfort in religion, but I found it made me feel worse than better.

So I just decided that I would rather believe in no god than a god that clearly doesn't care about this universe or the beings in it.

Heh. Well, I tend to agree with your conclusion. Perhaps not the rationale, but for the most part it's about what works best for you, so long as it's not actively harming others. So...cool.

Originally posted by Digi
Your particular sect of Buddhism seems abnormally rational in its approach, even for an overarching religion (Buddhism in general) that tends to eschew blind faith as a valid reason...

And your particularize form of Atheism isn't as dogmatically ignorant as most.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And your particularize form of Atheism isn't as dogmatically ignorant as most.

Ha. Thanks, I think. I'm not sure there's a practical difference, though. If someone's going to be upset at stubborn, dogmatic atheism, they're equally as likely to be upset when I listen to them and consider their points, then wholeheartedly disagree with them. I certainly feel better, though, knowing I can at least engage the most popular defenses of theism.

i was raised loosely catholic. got baptized, took communion and all that, but didn't really go to church much besides that and never really cared for it anyway. i believed in god and the devil and all that shit cause adults said it was true. besides that, my religion was just a cultural label. never knew a damn thing about the bible. my family didn't really focus on that shit too much. it was like an accessory.

when i was a freshman in high school i took a bible study class as an elective cause i signed up way too late and all the good shit was taken. we read the first couple of chapters of the bible and i couldn't believe what an amazing book it really was. i always assumed it would be some boring shit like a bunch of sage wisdom and nice stories of nice people doing nice things for eachother. i had no idea how much carnage, hellfire and sex there was. i'm not gonna lie, that class was great. but i do remember thinking the stories sounded pretty fake.

not long after that i discovered online that it was an option not to believe in all this shit. i mean it's always an option but i never really thought about it... anytime anyone said 'atheist' they made it seem like devil worship so i avoided it. until i went online and found out it was no big deal.

Originally posted by Digi
Ha. Thanks, I think. I'm not sure there's a practical difference, though. If someone's going to be upset at stubborn, dogmatic atheism, they're equally as likely to be upset when I listen to them and consider their points, then wholeheartedly disagree with them. I certainly feel better, though, knowing I can at least engage the most popular defenses of theism.

When you wrote "Ha. Thanks, I think." I was relieved to see that you had gotten my meaning, but now I am not sure. Let me explain, above you gave me a left handed complement, so I gave you one back. It was just for fun. No need to defend your beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When you wrote "Ha. Thanks, I think." I was relieved to see that you had gotten my meaning, but now I am not sure. Let me explain, above you gave me a left handed complement, so I gave you one back. It was just for fun. No need to defend your beliefs.

Ah, ok. I understood. I just have a bad tendency to over-explain.

So, thanks...I think.



Originally posted by red g jacks
anytime anyone said 'atheist' they made it seem like devil worship so i avoided it. until i went online and found out it was no big deal.

I never quite understood this either. I feel like the biggest thing we could possibly do for worldwide atheist acceptance would be to distribute a wikipedia definition of atheism to every person. I literally had to tell my own mother "I don't believe any crazy stuff" when I had the talk with her. The relief on her face was palpable.

My mom is Catholic and my dad is Muslim, so I started questioning religion at an early age. It was when I went to Catholic school that I started distancing myself, although it wasn't until around 2012 when all those crazy GOP nutbags were spouting their religious crap that I comfortably became agnostic.

As I stated before, I do wholeheartedly believe and pray to God, I just do not believe the Abrahamic version is the correct one due to it's discriminatory dogmas, obvious scientific inaccuracies, and obsolete myths.

I do not care.

I never really cared. I said I did, but no, not really.

I realized it was crap at 6 years old, when my mom told me non-christians go to hell for eternity. Didn't seem right to me.

Originally posted by Lestov16
As I stated before, I do wholeheartedly believe and pray to God, I just do not believe the Abrahamic version is the correct one due to it's discriminatory dogmas, obvious scientific inaccuracies, and obsolete myths.

I like this. It's such a clear, uncompromising opinion, and summarizes a lot of common problems with Christianity.

I was 11. I was at the public library reading an astrophysics book about black body radiation. Not sure why but something about hawking radiation and how it was described in that book gave me an epiphany and I was convinced that there is a Master Creator behind everything. That's when I decided my career was going to be astrophysics and I set on a long journey to work towards doctorates in it...and then, 2.5 years into a general physics degree, I abandoned it: astrophysicists get paid horribly.



At this point, you're probably thinking that I will say that I had another epiphany where I abandoned any theistic beliefs but I didn't. Still the same.

I think there is a God out there and based on my tautological argument, this being needs to be benevolent. I've settled with Mormonism being the closest and most logical idea of how this stuff should work.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was 11. I was at the public library reading an astrophysics book about black body radiation. Not sure why but something about hawking radiation and how it was described in that book gave me an epiphany and I was convinced that there is a Master Creator behind everything. That's when I decided my career was going to be astrophysics and I set on a long journey to work towards doctorates in it...and then, 2.5 years into a general physics degree, I abandoned it: astrophysicists get paid horribly.



At this point, you're probably thinking that I will say that I had another epiphany where I abandoned any theistic beliefs but I didn't. Still the same.

I think there is a God out there and based on my tautological argument, this being needs to be benevolent. I've settled with Mormonism being the closest and most logical idea of how this stuff should work.

Just admit you are mormon and like multiple chicks at once

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was 11. I was at the public library reading an astrophysics book about black body radiation. Not sure why but something about hawking radiation and how it was described in that book gave me an epiphany and I was convinced that there is a Master Creator behind everything. That's when I decided my career was going to be astrophysics and I set on a long journey to work towards doctorates in it...and then, 2.5 years into a general physics degree, I abandoned it: astrophysicists get paid horribly.



At this point, you're probably thinking that I will say that I had another epiphany where I abandoned any theistic beliefs but I didn't. Still the same.

I think there is a God out there and based on my tautological argument, this being needs to be benevolent. I've settled with Mormonism being the closest and most logical idea of how this stuff should work. so your weren't born into a mormon family or approached by some mormon preachers... you just decided on your own to become a mormon based on your own conception of god? i'm not trying to be rude, just curious. usually i picture those niche religions like mormonism, jehovas witnesses, etc as either something you're born into or something someone gives you a really convincing pitch for which converts you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Was very young, probably under 14 years old when I decided religion was man-made nonsense.

Belief in God/greater being though, I still believe there is something greater than us.

Well, there's something greater than you. It's me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've settled with Mormonism being the closest and most logical idea of how this stuff should work.

Is that, coincidentally, also the Religion you were raised in?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, there's something greater than you. It's me. You are pretty fat, yeah.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You are pretty fat, yeah.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah? Well...you are pretty...pretty...**** you!

Get Sancty's permission first. I'm no home wrecker.

Originally posted by SamZED
That moment when you sat down, thought about it and finally said "You know.. I think religion is a load of crap". Share your stories.
I've never thought religion is a load of crap.
When i was 12 though, i was kicked out of (Catholic) church for asking too many questions. My mother beat me all the way home.
Never went back.
After that, i came to some conclusions i couldnt quite put into words, which boil down to more or less how, as an adult, i define my patriotism, in that i love my country, but dont always agree with my government.
Organized religion (churches, clergy, rituals etc.), i really have no use for. God on the other hand, we're good.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Is that, coincidentally, also the Religion you were raised in?


Originally posted by red g jacks
so your weren't born into a mormon family or approached by some mormon preachers... you just decided on your own to become a mormon based on your own conception of god? i'm not trying to be rude, just curious. usually i picture those niche religions like mormonism, jehovas witnesses, etc as either something you're born into or something someone gives you a really convincing pitch for which converts you.

Couple of questions:

1. Why do either of you think it matters?
2. Is it possible to become converted to a religious belief system independent of your parents?


The question is fundamentally rude. It shows negative judgment and immediate dismissal. "Clearly, this person cannot think for themselves because they just believe what their parents believe."


To answer you question, directly, no.


Edit - Really, Catholic is the religion my family would prefer I be. There was a strong push to get me baptized, when I was a kid. I didn't want to.

i guess it matters because to me mormonism is a strange religion to choose to be without any sort of external influence guiding that decision.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i guess it matters because to me mormonism is a strange religion to choose to be without any sort of external influence guiding that decision.

As a Mormon, we strongly believe that an external influence converts you: God.


I know...I know...sorry, sorry.


I more closely identify as agnostic theist. I think there is something virtually omnipotent out there that probably cares for this universe. But I really don't ****ing know. For me, the Mormon theology fits best how I view this universe.


Also, it helps to be the kind of Mormon that thinks everything religious has been tainted by the evil of man and that nothing, ever, that comes from man is perfect.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Couple of questions:

1. Why do either of you think it matters?
2. Is it possible to become converted to a religious belief system independent of your parents?


The question is fundamentally rude. It shows negative judgment and immediate dismissal. "Clearly, this person cannot think for themselves because they just believe what their parents believe."


To answer you question, directly, no.


Edit - Really, Catholic is the religion my family would prefer I be. There was a strong push to get me baptized, when I was a kid. I didn't want to.

1) it doesn't necessarily matter, I don't think it disqualifies your opinion (there's other reasons to disqualify your opinion, amirite?), however there seems to be a trend where a lot of Religious people seem to find that the "true" Religion happens to be the one of their parents.

2) Of course it is possible.

3) Yes, it was meant to be mildly rude.

4) If your parents wanted you to be baptised as Catholic, how come they didn't before you had a choice, as is traditional in Catholicism?

Originally posted by Bardock42
1) it doesn't necessarily matter, I don't think it disqualifies your opinion (there's other reasons to disqualify your opinion, amirite?),

Yup. 313

Originally posted by Bardock42
4) If your parents wanted you to be baptised as Catholic, how come they didn't before you had a choice, as is traditional in Catholicism?

Good question. Probably because my mother wouldn't have it. She despises baptizing infants. Luckily, I grew up in a home where my parents strongly believed in choice and religion, for them, is the most important choice a person can make.

Also, the influence to baptize as Catholic was from my paternal grandparents. You know, the Italians in my family.

Interesting. Btw, how did you come to Mormonism then?

Originally posted by dadudemon
As a Mormon, we strongly believe that an external influence converts you: God.


I know...I know...sorry, sorry.


I more closely identify as agnostic theist. I think there is something virtually omnipotent out there that probably cares for this universe. But I really don't ****ing know. For me, the Mormon theology fits best how I view this universe.


Also, it helps to be the kind of Mormon that thinks everything religious has been tainted by the evil of man and that nothing, ever, that comes from man is perfect. alright. so i don't want to debate any of this but i am just curious... do you believe all the stuff about jesus coming to america and whatnot?

Originally posted by red g jacks
...do you believe all the stuff about jesus coming to america and whatnot?

If Jesus was a divine being, it is true. I don't know if it is true. I believe it is impossible to know being agnostic n'stuff.

Like Digi and other people in this thread my decision to step away from organized religion took place over many years. Mostly there has always been doubt in my mind but I wanted so badly to believe I overlooked it.

Now I just enjoy not knowing and trying to figure out where I fit in the world minus religion. I've been much more successful going that route then others I have traveled.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If Jesus was a divine being, it is true. why?

KMC made me hate god- the woes of joining the internet community at 13.

Thanks KMC.

Originally posted by red g jacks
why?

I don't think you understand what you're asking.

What do you mean "why?" Ask your question but ask it much more directly. Don't be afraid: I won't bite.


If your superficial question is taken as is, you're asking, "Why do you think God exists if God exists?"

I grew up with both my parents being practicing, devout Christians. I was obligated to go to church by them for years, including mass and all that.

I believed for a long time. Perhaps I was fifteen or sixteen? Anyway, I soon realized that there's not much evidence supporting God's existence and don't even get me started on the religious aspect. I found there was much to be critical of and little good that came out of religion, it's dogma, and it's influences.

I still continued to go to church after I stepped out of the realm of belief because I had an abusive mother who gave me the option (if you want to use that term) to go to church or be kicked out onto the street.

At this moment, I consider myself antireligious and an atheist. My thing is that a God/Gods could exist but it's irrelevant to my personal beliefs because those require sound evidence, something that I find is lacking in terms of the presence of a God and/or Gods.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you understand what you're asking.

What do you mean "why?" Ask your question but ask it much more directly. Don't be afraid: I won't bite.


If your superficial question is taken as is, you're asking, "Why do you think God exists if God exists?" no. my question is.... if jesus is a divine being, why do you think that means he came to america?

America is a divine country.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I realized it was crap at 6 years old, when my mom told me non-christians go to hell for eternity. Didn't seem right to me. Had a similar moment but I was a bit older than 6.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It sounds like you asking about a religious moment. Kind of like being born again. A good friend of mine had a "religious moment" several months after his father died of cancer. We don't talk as much because he's waaay into religion these days, spends a lot of time in church. But it helped him deal with a longlasting depression so meh.. whatever works I guess.

Originally posted by SamZED
A good friend of mine had a "religious moment" several months after his father died of cancer. We don't talk as much because he's waaay into religion these days, spends a lot of time in church. But it helped him deal with a longlasting depression so meh.. whatever works I guess. This prompts me to ask: Are there any atheists here who have had similar, profound losses? What got you through your grief? Family? Friends? If so, were they also atheists? What did you find yourself saying/thinking, especially when by yourself? I'm genuinely curious.

Originally posted by SamZED
Had a similar moment but I was a bit older than 6.

A good friend of mine had a "religious moment" several months after his father died of cancer. We don't talk as much because he's waaay into religion these days, spends a lot of time in church. But it helped him deal with a longlasting depression so meh.. whatever works I guess.

There is a place for that, but I wouldn't think Atheism would ever be that place. The question just seemed ironic.

Originally posted by Mindship
This prompts me to ask: Are there any atheists here who have had similar, profound losses? What got you through your grief? Family? Friends? If so, were they also atheists? What did you find yourself saying/thinking, especially when by yourself? I'm genuinely curious.

This isn't your intent, but this question can be tricky to deal with because it's not far from the less informed questions of "How do atheists {insert thing}?" Such lines of questioning often presume that there is one universal substitute for atheists, or it's presented in a slightly accusatory manner as if there can't be an acceptably comforting substitute outside a religious context.

Again, I realize this isn't your intent. But it could be read by others as such. So I'm just hedging my response here.

For myself, I can't really describe a profound difference. The coping mechanisms for grief are intrinsic and fairly common throughout humanity. That some people tend to ascribe them to religious reasoning is just window dressing. The internal process is the same or very similar. It's the same when people ask how you find meaning outside of religion. Some legitimately can't fathom it. But from the other side, all I see are people creating their own meanings, religious or otherwise. It's all intrinsic.

So, like, with losing someone, the process of grief and moving on is nearly identical. Some may argue that as an atheist you don't think you'll see loved ones again, and that's true. But think about how everyone and anyone deals with loss. We regret what we didn't say to them, how we treated them, miss them, etc. But if you truly knew you were going to see them again - in eternal heaven, no less! - these things wouldn't gnaw at us. I'm not saying religious people don't believe they'll see loved ones again...many, probably most, do. But for practical purposes, the act of grief and the reasons behind it are identical, as are the emotional obstacles you need to overcome.

Originally posted by The Renegade
I still continued to go to church after I stepped out of the realm of belief because I had an abusive mother who gave me the option (if you want to use that term) to go to church or be kicked out onto the street.

Ouch; sorry to hear that.

To this day, I still cannot understand the concept of forcing other people to follow a religion. If they're going through the motions just for the benefit of someone/thing other than themselves, they're not actually practicing the religion.

Originally posted by Digi
This isn't your intent, but this question can be tricky to deal with because it's not far from the less informed questions of "How do atheists {insert thing}?" Such lines of questioning often presume that there is one universal substitute for atheists, or it's presented in a slightly accusatory manner as if there can't be an acceptably comforting substitute outside a religious context.

Again, I realize this isn't your intent. But it could be read by others as such. So I'm just hedging my response here.

For myself, I can't really describe a profound difference. The coping mechanisms for grief are intrinsic and fairly common throughout humanity. That some people tend to ascribe them to religious reasoning is just window dressing. The internal process is the same or very similar. It's the same when people ask how you find meaning outside of religion. Some legitimately can't fathom it. But from the other side, all I see are people creating their own meanings, religious or otherwise. It's all intrinsic.

So, like, with losing someone, the process of grief and moving on is nearly identical. Some may argue that as an atheist you don't think you'll see loved ones again, and that's true. But think about how everyone and anyone deals with loss. We regret what we didn't say to them, how we treated them, miss them, etc. But if you truly knew you were going to see them again - in eternal heaven, no less! - these things wouldn't gnaw at us. I'm not saying religious people don't believe they'll see loved ones again...many, probably most, do. But for practical purposes, the act of grief and the reasons behind it are identical, as are the emotional obstacles you need to overcome.
Thanks for your response and not reading more into my query. May I ask: have you personally gone through such a loss? I got an impression from how you worded things that you haven't, and I was hoping to hear from someone who has. Otherwise, one's perspective on profound loss, however well-considered, is more of an intellectual assessment, even for die-hard Bible thumpers.

I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness until the age of 13. My Dad was an elder in our congregation in Brooklyn and went to Bethel before our move to California. I had questions early on about the teachings the JW's espoused, so it was always there in the back of my mind even in childhood, primarily because of the "My Book of Bible Stories" book which is given to children. I was raised reading that book all through childhood and the stories of Job, Joseph, Lot, Noah, Abraham, and Samson just didn't make sense to me, or the concept of a "chosen people" and the '144,000' when Jehovah created everyone and should love and protect everyone. Eventually my Dad was "dis-fellowshipped" from the congregation because of his alcoholism and my parents divorced, and my Mom (who had custody of us) began practicing a more mainstream version of Christianity (Baptist), at least for a time. Due to some domestic issues I wound up in the custody of my Dad a few years later after being homeless during my sophmore year (long, sad story) and through friends I met at my new high school I began attending a Pentacostal Church in Berkeley. This is where I was exposed to the 'Baptisms of the Holy Spirit' and the speaking in tongues part of religion. I went along with it for a time. I even thought I'd actually felt something on an occasion and spoke in a tongue (being coached by church members to chant "Jesus" with all I could muster to the point of being lightheaded and jittery, and then breaking down in tears from the feelings of hysteria and euphoria of releasing years of pent up anguish). Through it all, though, my rational mind would always reassert itself and question it. From the things that were actually in the Bible to how if I was actually being bestowed with the grace of a supernatural power why was it that within moments of sitting down and collecting myself my friends and I were right back to checking out the sexy women in the same church which was filled with the grace of God. The clincher for me was when I attended another 'Revival' Church that my Mom was attending in Pittsburg while visiting from college and the Pastor of her church was also baptizing people with the "Holy Ghost" via this vial of holy oil. I went up before the Church to receive this blessing and this woman placed an oil covered hand on my forehead and said some prayers and recited some scriptures as the whole church was hollering and singing and the choir was going ham, and I felt nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then the Pastor leaned in to me and whispered "Lay on the floor", which I did, right in the front of the Church with all the other members who had come forward for this baptism lying on the ground, some convulsing, others crying, some running up and down the aisles. I laid there, greasy handprint on my face, with my eyes closed pretending to have received this 'gift' and then made the mistake of opening my eyes for a moment and made eye contact with a young boy of like 6 or 7 who saw me and smiled, then tried to tug on his Mom and tell her that I'd opened my eyes and his Mom just hushed him and told him to pay attention. At that moment the realization that it was a sham and indoctrination just hit me like a kick in the chest, and I felt like crap for playing a part in the act which this young kid was being led to believe was real. The rest is a bunch of book reading and philosophy and history courses and coming to the position that there's nothing supporting the existence of anything supernatural, whether related to Religion or not, and the acquisition of knowledge.

Originally posted by Mindship
Thanks for your response and not reading more into my query. May I ask: have you personally gone through such a loss? I got an impression from how you worded things that you haven't, and I was hoping to hear from someone who has. Otherwise, one's perspective on profound loss, however well-considered, is more of an intellectual assessment, even for die-hard Bible thumpers.

It depends on where you draw that line. I lost a grandmother recently. Her last years weren't pleasant, so the actual end was as much a blessing as a hardship. But we were close, and there was still a grieving process. So yes, I have personal experience on both sides, per se. Losing my grandmother wasn't nearly as hard as some other losses, but I feel like part of that was just that I'm a mature adult now. Regardless of religion (or lack thereof), I wasn't emotionally prepared for certain losses earlier in life. But it had more to due with age and experience than religion.

My explanations tend to sound a bit academic, though, whether or not they're personal or simply intellectual.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness until the age of 13. My Dad was an elder in our congregation in Brooklyn and went to Bethel before our move to California. I had questions early on about the teachings the JW's espoused, so it was always there in the back of my mind even in childhood, primarily because of the "My Book of Bible Stories" book which is given to children. I was raised reading that book all through childhood and the stories of Job, Joseph, Lot, Noah, Abraham, and Samson just didn't make sense to me, or the concept of a "chosen people" and the '144,000' when Jehovah created everyone and should love and protect everyone. Eventually my Dad was "dis-fellowshipped" from the congregation because of his alcoholism and my parents divorced, and my Mom (who had custody of us) began practicing a more mainstream version of Christianity (Baptist), at least for a time. Due to some domestic issues I wound up in the custody of my Dad a few years later after being homeless during my sophmore year (long, sad story) and through friends I met at my new high school I began attending a Pentacostal Church in Berkeley. This is where I was exposed to the 'Baptisms of the Holy Spirit' and the speaking in tongues part of religion. I went along with it for a time. I even thought I'd actually felt something on an occasion and spoke in a tongue (being coached by church members to chant "Jesus" with all I could muster to the point of being lightheaded and jittery, and then breaking down in tears from the feelings of hysteria and euphoria of releasing years of pent up anguish). Through it all, though, my rational mind would always reassert itself and question it. From the things that were actually in the Bible to how if I was actually being bestowed with the grace of a supernatural power why was it that within moments of sitting down and collecting myself my friends and I were right back to checking out the sexy women in the same church which was filled with the grace of God. The clincher for me was when I attended another 'Revival' Church that my Mom was attending in Pittsburg while visiting from college and the Pastor of her church was also baptizing people with the "Holy Ghost" via this vial of holy oil. I went up before the Church to receive this blessing and this woman placed an oil covered hand on my forehead and said some prayers and recited some scriptures as the whole church was hollering and singing and the choir was going ham, and I felt nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then the Pastor leaned in to me and whispered "Lay on the floor", which I did, right in the front of the Church with all the other members who had come forward for this baptism lying on the ground, some convulsing, others crying, some running up and down the aisles. I laid there, greasy handprint on my face, with my eyes closed pretending to have received this 'gift' and then made the mistake of opening my eyes for a moment and made eye contact with a young boy of like 6 or 7 who saw me and smiled, then tried to tug on his Mom and tell her that I'd opened my eyes and his Mom just hushed him and told him to pay attention. At that moment the realization that it was a sham and indoctrination just hit me like a kick in the chest, and I felt like crap for playing a part in the act which this young kid was being led to believe was real. The rest is a bunch of book reading and philosophy and history courses and coming to the position that there's nothing supporting the existence of anything supernatural, whether related to Religion or not, and the acquisition of knowledge.

Wow. Fascinating journey, dude.

Originally posted by Mindship
This prompts me to ask: Are there any atheists here who have had similar, profound losses? What got you through your grief? Family? Friends? If so, were they also atheists? What did you find yourself saying/thinking, especially when by yourself? I'm genuinely curious. my father died of cancer in 2010. my family is religious so there was a priest there and all that when he died, and they seemed to get something out of it at least. i didn't get anything out of it but i was glad they did. the grief question... i am not sure really. i was the one who lived with him and watched him go through the process of dying so by the time it came i was ready for it to be over and done with. my father was too so i don't feel bad in saying that.

Originally posted by Digi
It depends on where you draw that line. I lost a grandmother recently. Her last years weren't pleasant, so the actual end was as much a blessing as a hardship. But we were close, and there was still a grieving process. So yes, I have personal experience on both sides, per se. Losing my grandmother wasn't nearly as hard as some other losses, but I feel like part of that was just that I'm a mature adult now. Regardless of religion (or lack thereof), I wasn't emotionally prepared for certain losses earlier in life. But it had more to due with age and experience than religion.Yes, age and maturity, where you are in life, has a lot to do with how one handles loss. It also does depend on other circumstances, such as quality of life the deceased had.

My condolences regarding your grandmother.

I lost my father (heart attack @ 52) almost 30 yrs ago, and it hit me hard. More recently (10 yrs ago), I lost a younger brother (he was 47); and my mother-in-law is gone almost 2 years now (she was 87). Regarding these two last, respective losses, both myself and my wife were not as badly hit as when I lost my dad. Not only were we older, but their last years were also not pleasant, so yeah, blessing as much as a loss.

Originally posted by red g jacks
my father died of cancer in 2010. my family is religious so there was a priest there and all that when he died, and they seemed to get something out of it at least. i didn't get anything out of it but i was glad they did. the grief question... i am not sure really. i was the one who lived with him and watched him go through the process of dying so by the time it came i was ready for it to be over and done with. my father was too so i don't feel bad in saying that. Thanks for sharing. Sorry for your loss.

*group hug*

Originally posted by Mindship

Thanks for sharing. Sorry for your loss.

*group hug*

What do you think you have gotten out of these anecdotes?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you think you have gotten out of these anecdotes?

Fuel for his tear-driven ambitions?

131

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you think you have gotten out of these anecdotes? I was hoping to get some general idea of what a nonreligious person goes through in these situations; not so much emotionally (as Dij mentioned, the feelings and grieving process are more/less universal), but more in terms of one's actual inner dialogue. As someone who does counseling, I tend to focus on behavior (cognitive as well as external), so I like to understand where the other person "is" with regard to what they're saying to themselves.

Originally posted by Digi
Fuel for his tear-driven ambitions?

131 My tear-driven ambitions have more to do with my eternal failure to get published as a scifi author.

Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my question is.... if jesus is a divine being, why do you think that means he came to america?

I still think you're question is malformed and is unanswerable.

If you asked, "If Jesus really was a diving being, why would He not visit all lands, as His sacred text says he did?" Then I would answer, "I agree: He probably would if the mythoi surrounding His character are mostly true."

which sacred text are you referring to? i don't think my question is unanswerable at all.. i think you're doing a pretty good job of not answering it though.

Originally posted by Digi
Wow. Fascinating journey, dude.

My life's been 'eventful'.

Originally posted by red g jacks
which sacred text are you referring to? i don't think my question is unanswerable at all.. i think you're doing a pretty good job of not answering it though.

I dunno, man, you seem to be being vague, on purpose, and you're disregarding some key information that would have answered your questions, already.


Here, I'll make a list for you that will answer any and all questions for you:

1. I'm agnostic, first and foremost. I don't know if anything related to the the divine is true or not. If asked about religious beliefs, I will always answer, "if x is true, then y would have to be true." You will always get answers in that format because, guess what? I don't know nor will I ever claim to know.

2. I identify as Mormon.


Any questions you ask about my beliefs or supposed beliefs can be directly answered by 1 of those 2 points.


What do you think a Mormon would answer to your question about religious texts? If you don't know, google search what religious texts Mormons use.



Edit - Perhaps you're not very familiar with Christianity and you genuinely do not know the part where Jesus said ,"...other sheep have I not of this fold..."?

http://biblehub.com/john/10-16.htm

Since I identify as Mormon, it should be obvious that the Mormon belief system centers around this very idea/concept...which you asked me about. It is not true if Jesus was just a man and not divine. It was true if Jesus was divine. That should be obvious. You should not have any more questions about that because that's a very obvious answer. "If God is God then God is God." That's the answer I gave you. And you're asking things like, "If God is God, then why do you believe he is God?"

lol... i think you're being difficult on purpose. if i knew you were this way i wouldn't have bothered asking. you could have easily just said "cause this verse says x y z" or whatever if that is your reasoning, instead of giving me the run around. anyway, sorry for asking. clearly it annoys you for whatever reason.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I dunno, man, you seem to be being vague, on purpose, and you're disregarding some key information that would have answered your questions, already.


Here, I'll make a list for you that will answer any and all questions for you:

1. I'm agnostic, first and foremost. I don't know if anything related to the the divine is true or not. If asked about religious beliefs, I will always answer, "if x is true, then y would have to be true." You will always get answers in that format because, guess what? I don't know nor will I ever claim to know.

2. I identify as Mormon.


Any questions you ask about my beliefs or supposed beliefs can be directly answered by 1 of those 2 points.


What do you think a Mormon would answer to your question about religious texts? If you don't know, google search what religious texts Mormons use.



Edit - Perhaps you're not very familiar with Christianity and you genuinely do not know the part where Jesus said ,"...other sheep have I not of this fold..."?

http://biblehub.com/john/10-16.htm

Since I identify as Mormon, it should be obvious that the Mormon belief system centers around this very idea/concept...which you asked me about. It is not true if Jesus was just a man and not divine. It was true if Jesus was divine. That should be obvious. You should not have any more questions about that because that's a very obvious answer. "If God is God then God is God." That's the answer I gave you. And you're asking things like, "If God is God, then why do you believe he is God?"

I guess what red g jacks is asking is, whether you think that there were ancient, literate cultures in the Americas that the resurrected Jesus visited.

I suppose he wants to know whether you regard this as a factual description of something that happened, and if so, what you believe happened or whether you think it is metaphorical or unimportant...

Originally posted by red g jacks
lol... i think you're being difficult on purpose.

And yet, I think you are the one that is being difficult: asking questions you should already have the answers to, being vague on purpose, and being antagonistic.

Originally posted by red g jacks
if i knew you were this way i wouldn't have bothered asking.

But, see, I'm used to people like you. You're very common on the internet.

The best way to deal with people like you is point out where your statements are purposefully stupid, redirect the red herrings back to the topic, and point out the flaws in your arguments. Isn't that what should be done in discussions like these, anyway?

Originally posted by red g jacks
you could have easily just said "cause this verse says x y z"

But, see, that wasn't my answer to your question nor should it have been my answer (but you want it to be my answer so you can revel your smug, misplaced sense of superiority: "AHA! See, he is relying on scriptures for his beliefs! See, he's a dumb person.". You brought up another point and I responded to that additional point. You already forgot that or you are purposefully "forgetting" it to redirect the conversation elsewhere.

Observe what you tried to do:

You stated and asked:

Originally posted by red g jacks
alright. so i don't want to debate any of this but i am just curious... do you believe all the stuff about jesus coming to america and whatnot?

To which I replied (obviously, you did want a debate and you used common anti-theistic points: I'm not a newb):

Originally posted by dadudemon
If Jesus was a divine being, it is true. I don't know if it is true. I believe it is impossible to know being agnostic n'stuff.

To which you hilariously replied:

Originally posted by red g jacks
why?

To which I replied (which, at this point, I already knew what you were trying to do so I forced you, if you wanted to continue this conversation, to reveal where you were trying to go with this):

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you understand what you're asking.

What do you mean "why?" Ask your question but ask it much more directly. Don't be afraid: I won't bite.

If your superficial question is taken as is, you're asking, "Why do you think God exists if God exists?"

To which you replied:

Originally posted by red g jacks
no. my question is.... if jesus is a divine being, why do you think that means he came to america?

To which I replied:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I still think you're question is malformed and is unanswerable.

If you asked, "If Jesus really was a diving being, why would He not visit all lands, as His sacred text says he did?" Then I would answer, "I agree: He probably would if the mythoi surrounding His character are mostly true."


See, I asked the question you should have been asking because your question made no sense based on the information presented by me in this thread and my previous answer (all of which you read).

The only problem with your approach is I am notorious on KMC for calling out bullshit like that.

Originally posted by dadudemon
or whatever if that is your reasoning, instead of giving me the run around.

Here's the problem: I never gave you the run-around. You did, however, start with vague questions with sparse words, twice. Your second question, of course, you could have answered on your own with a bit of thinking. "Well, he identifies as agnostic so he doesn't really know it is true. So I guess he thinks, 'if I first assume x is true then y is true' when approaching these topics."

Originally posted by dadudemon
anyway, sorry for asking.

No you're not. Be honest. You were stewing for an argument. Your very first question is a very common question asked by anti-theistic who are being condescending. Bardock42 admitted to it but I already know him and I expect that from him so it was not necessary for him to "fess up."

Originally posted by dadudemon
clearly it annoys you for whatever reason.

Why would I be annoyed by a person who is being needlessly antagonistic, condescending, and combative; when I clearly enjoy arguing with those types?




For your benefit, I do not believe basing one's beliefs on a sacred text is rational or even tenable. This is why when someone identifies as "agnostic", it makes no sense to start talking about how much their beliefs rely on a "scared text."

Originally posted by Bardock42
I guess what red g jacks is asking is, whether you think that there were ancient, literate cultures in the Americas that the resurrected Jesus visited.

He already stated what his question was after I asked him to clarify and that was not what his question was about: he wanted to know if I believed that Jesus visited the various peoples of the Americas.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I suppose he wants to know whether you regard this as a factual description of something that happened, and if so, what you believe happened or whether you think it is metaphorical or unimportant...

I think it would be logical to conclude that my position would be, when boiled down, "I don't know." Also, I don't think any honest agnostic will ever claim something factual regarding the divine. Really, I don't think almost every last honest person, regardless of their philosophical or religious position, will claim something as factual regarding the divine. As I've stated multiple times in the religion discussion forum here on KMC, the only people that claim objective truth regarding God are those that claim to have directly interacted with God. They may genuinely be honest about that, too. They may not. But as Symmetric Chaos pointed out, they still cannot objectively say that was God because it could just be a super-alien pretending to be God.


Edit - I should make it clear that every last one of my beliefs start with an "If x is true, then..." Because, fundamentally, I don't know. I can explain the theology and philosophy of some of the beliefs out there but it should be quite obvious that I genuinely do not know. As I have talked to Digi about, in the past, I think everyone is really agnostic...no one can know nor should they pretend to know.

Originally posted by dadudemon
As I have talked to Digi about, in the past, I think everyone is really agnostic...no one can know nor should they pretend to know.

And as I've stated, I think this is a bit silly. Theism/Atheism isn't about "knowing" or even pretending to know. But to act like anything less than that is agnosticism is to muddy the term to the point where it no longer has practical or functional meaning.

i think you are reading a lot more into my question than was actually there. i'm not going to get into a *** for tat argument with you about this. i asked you about the jesus thing because you said something about how religion has been tainted by man and you said you came to mormonism based on your own conception of god so maybe you didn't buy into the entire thing. how would i know? i know catholics who don't literally believe in transubstantiation. i actually know very little about mormonism other than the fact that they were started in the 1800's and believe jesus came to america. you seem hyper-defensive about this whole issue and seem to have assumed a ton of motives for my questions which aren't actually there.

Originally posted by Digi
And as I've stated, I think this is a bit silly.

Well, when I read over your position, after this sentence, I thought your position was silly. You have a strong aversion to being labeled as "agnostic" and I really do not know why because you've admitted that your position could be boiled down to a form of agnosticism and you were logical about it. You like the label "atheist" but as you yourself admitted, pretty much no atheist will take the position of gnostic atheist because, as you say above, that would be silly.

I see no reason why an atheist cannot say, "Well, there's no way to know for sure and I am not foolish enough to think I know for sure no God or gods exist." Sure, that's slapping on an agnostic label to their position by saying stuff like that. But it really is not that big of a deal nor does it diminish their position.

Originally posted by Digi
Theism/Atheism isn't about "knowing" or even pretending to know.

IMO, that's not an accurate portrayal of those two positions. At the center of the theistic or atheistic debate is the question of "knowledge": quite literally and directly, and for thousands of years, this debate has always been about "knowledge" and what it can mean for the individual. The dichotomy you describe falls on a spectrum from gnostic atheism and gnostic theism. My position is, unless either side is omniscient, it is impossible to actually hold a gnostic position. That means everyone is agnostic when their positions are put under philosophical scrutiny.

Also, if someone is omniscient, as I stated before, that creates some logical issues. At the atheistic side, they themselves would be Godlike and, therefore, make their position illogical (how can you not believe in a God or gods and be one, yourself?). Then there is the opposite end which is perfectly sound: "I believe in God or gods because I am a god, myself."

Funny thought: Do you think God sits on His metaphorical throne and says, "Gosh, I'm a gnostic theist."? Prolly not.

Originally posted by Digi
But to act like anything less than that is agnosticism

I think you don't grasp my position, fully (but you probably do, now, after reading my previous 3 paragraphs). I am not saying "anything less than that is agnosticism." My position is much stronger than that. I think almost all positions are some form of agnostic. Generally, when pressed, most of the people on the theism spectrum will admit, "Well, I really don't know at the end of it." As I am sure you have, you run into those ridiculously devout Christian types who claim gnostic theism. If you can respectfully press the issue enough, you can get them to admit that they are agnostic, in a light form, too. Usually, that debate centers around faith and they sometimes have a lightbulb come on in their head when you approach that topic that way. On another note, I think this is how we can get the aversion to atheists and agnostics reduced in America: making them realize that pretty much everyone falls on a spectrum of agnosticism.

For me, I think it is important that everyone realize that when it comes to religious beliefs (or the lack thereof), "I don't really know" is the most honest approach. Obviously, this applies more to theists than atheists.

I still do not understand your aversion to the label, "agnostic", though, when you yourself admit that there's no way you'd be foolish enough to say you knew for sure no God or gods exist. There's nothing wrong with that label. You can still identify as atheist. They are just labels. I'm pretty sure most halfway educated atheists already know that they are some form of agnostic, anyway.

Originally posted by Digi
..is to muddy the term to the point where it no longer has practical or functional meaning.

This gent explains the same thing, I do:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

He does not view them as "muddied up" terms, either. He seems to agree that, hey, atheists are agnostics, too.


Originally posted by red g jacks
you seem hyper-defensive about this whole issue and seem to have assumed a ton of motives for my questions which aren't actually there.

I figured you would reply with something like this. Based on my previous reply, your only option was to deny.

Your motives and approach were very obvious and your protestations are not improving the situation. But who cares? Just fess up and move on instead of dragging things out. We can agree and talk about politics for hours so, clearly, we are good people. So why muddy up the awesome conversations we've had in the past by getting into a *** for tat over this?

But, to directly address where you expressed curiosity in Mormonism: go to an LDS website and look up what they believe.

Here is a great place to start:

http://www.mormon.org/what-do-mormons-believe



I think it is important that people do not get just the pure beliefs about Mormonism and then learn about the history, too. It took decades for Mormonism to evolve their belief system to what it is, today. I would suggest reading about Mormon history, too. Start on Wikipedia and the the LDS history website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#History


http://history.lds.org/?lang=eng




I should note that I've had the benefit of knowing and LDS Historian who specializes in LDS History. You'd be shocked (you probably wouldn't, really) about the strong bias, in the historical community, against Mormons. For instance, one of my college history books said the Mormons were driven out of Missouri because they are reclusive, militaristic, and scared people. I checked the source, found the Historians who wrote that, and took it to this dude. I already knew the REAL reasons (plural) they were driven out but I wanted to know why a published Historian would spread falsehoods like that. Basically, it boils down to people not liking other people and they can't keep their biases out of things. I am positive that this LDS Historian has his own biases, too: he loves the shit out the Sumerians and often overlooks some of the shittier parts of the Sumerians.

Basically, where I was going with all of this is: there are a lot of biases out there against Mormons. Some are former Mormons. Some are people who have latched onto negative thoughts about Mormons for whatever reasons. And some, I think, are just plain bad people. I know lots of the "former Mormons" type of people. Half of them left because they wanted to smoke-weed and drink (but they later come back and say it was because of beliefs or corruption...likely story...). So, be weary of criticisms of Mormons. Be weary of people singing accolades of Mormons. If you have more questions, post about it in the official Mormon thread. If I care and want to help, I'll respond. I have spent 15+ years arguing against anti-Mormons and I identify as an anti-anti-Mormon.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I figured you would reply with something like this. Based on my previous reply, your only option was to deny.

Your motives and approach were very obvious and your protestations are not improving the situation. But who cares? Just fess up and move on instead of dragging things out. We can agree and talk about politics for hours so, clearly, we are good people. So why muddy up the awesome conversations we've had in the past by getting into a *** for tat over this?no, actually i had a few options. i could take the bait and get into a long winded boring argument over something i don't really care that much about, or i could say what was honestly on my mind. i went with the latter. first i asked you a question which i tried to disarm by saying i wasn't interested in a debate... when you said the question was unclear i tried to clarify.. when you said the question was still unclear it became obvious the disarming didn't work so i started antagonizing you. that wasn't my original intent. you can choose to believe whatever version of events you like, i won't 'fess up' to something i don't think i'm guilty of.

here's the thing... i don't actually care that much about mormonism in particular, or else i would have went on google to do research a long time ago. i am curious about what people believe in general and i like to hear their own reasoning for it, if something they believe strikes me as odd or in any way interesting. but i'm not 'anti-mormon' or whatever it is. i have little to no opinion on the religion, beyond the fact that i doubt any version of christianity is actually true and by extension the same applies to mormonism.

I think it's a mixing of terms.

Gnosticism has to do with knowing/knowledge.

Theism has to do with belief.

You can be Agnostic ("I don't know if God(s) exist..." and still believe ("...but I believe in God(s)". That's Agnostic Theism. There's also Gnostic ("I know God(s)..." Theism (...and believe in God(s)". Agnostic Atheism (which is essentially my position) is not knowing whether God(s) exist, but not believing they exist as well. And you can reach any of those positions through a myriad of paths and for a myriad of reasons (mine being no evidence that anything supernatural exists. Not only God(s), but demigods, ghosts, fairies, spirits, djinn, etc.). I went from a Gnostic Theist Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal to an Agnostic Atheist because as I became older and more capable of comprehending the Bible and reasoning my positions and values, I found my faith in unproven supernatural phenomenon irrational, as well as finding a lot of events and actions in the Bible immoral and not in line with my personal values (like Jehovah magically summoning two Grizzly Bears to slaughter children they teased Elijah, or his essential wager with Satan and toying with Job's life, among various other examples). Just takes a little objectivity.

If it makes you feel better I don't find Mormons any weirder than other Christians...

Originally posted by Bardock42
If it makes you feel better I don't find Mormons any weirder than other Christians...

That does make me feel better.


This is the same belief that I hold, by the way. But I expand it to pretty much all religions.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
I think it's a mixing of terms.

Gnosticism has to do with knowing/knowledge.

Theism has to do with belief.

It definitely is mixing of terms and it is mixing them on purpose.

This is why the term (singular) exists, gnostic atheist and gnostic theist. They represent the poles on that spectrum.

I do not want you to think that I am making up terms and coming up with my own philosophies (because it seems like you may have the impression). While it would be awesome if I was actually doing that, they are terms that have existed for quite some time: probably before I was born.

Here is a group dedicated to gnostic atheism:
https://www.facebook.com/gnosticatheism

Here is another site (but the terms' order is swapped):
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/distinguishing-the-atheist-agnostic-the-theist-gnostic-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/



Also, my favorite is apatheists. They simply don't give a f*ck.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If it makes you feel better I don't find Mormons any weirder than other Christians... either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.

Originally posted by red g jacks
either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.




I am not your typical Mormon nor should you get an impression of what Mormons are like from me.


I'm combative, argumentative, arrogant, I will socially drink, I am for gay-marriage (secularly), I think most drugs should be legalized, I have both a perverted and foul mouth, and I'm okay with casual abortion (meaning, non-medical reasons) up to 2-3 months.

Mormons are supposed to be soft-spoken, humble, kind, never drink, oppose gay-marriage because it destroy God's intended plan for families, be against mind-altering drugs (non-medical uses, that is), have clean language, and oppose all non-medical (rape and incest abortions are considered kosher, though) types of abortions.

Originally posted by red g jacks
either do i... though i don't actually know any mormons. i only thought the idea of jesus coming to america was odd but like i said i haven't researched it at all. just that from what i understand the native americans didn't seem to be christian when we got here.

Strange things like that seem to kinda just happen. In the Bible the Israelites seemingly forgot about Moses and Yahweh/Jehovah bringing them out of Egypt and the miracles they'd witnessed firsthand and went right back into creating other idols (Golden Calf) at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses went to get the Commandments.

It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:

"Meh...

Nature Spirits ftw."

Originally posted by dadudemon



I am not your typical Mormon nor should you get an impression of what Mormons are like from me.


I'm combative, argumentative, arrogant, I will socially drink, I am for gay-marriage (secularly), I think most drugs should be legalized, I have both a perverted and foul mouth, and I'm okay with casual abortion (meaning, non-medical reasons) up to 2-3 months.

Mormons are supposed to be soft-spoken, humble, kind, never drink, oppose gay-marriage because it destroy God's intended plan for families, be against mind-altering drugs (non-medical uses, that is), have clean language, and oppose all non-medical (rape and incest abortions are considered kosher, though) types of abortions. you sound like me. except i am more of an alcoholic than a social drinker. do you disagree with those ideals or just not live up to them?

Originally posted by red g jacks
you sound like me. except i am more of an alcoholic than a social drinker. do you disagree with those ideals or just not live up to them?


The latter: I just do not live up to them. In some ways, I am improving myself as a person. I'm less argumentative than I was even as little as 3 years ago. I am learning how to let arguments go. A person can really become miserable if they try to change people's incorrect ideas or suppositions....because, clearly, most people ignorant and dumb.



I drink maybe 2 times a year. Probably won't have a drink for 2-3 years, though.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:

"Meh...

Nature Spirits ftw."

That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The latter: I just do not live up to them. In some ways, I am improving myself as a person. I'm less argumentative than I was even as little as 3 years ago. I am learning how to let arguments go. A person can really become miserable if they try to change people's incorrect ideas or suppositions....because, clearly, most people ignorant and dumb.



I drink maybe 2 times a year. Probably won't have a drink for 2-3 years, though. yea they're not bad ideals to strive for.. it's just so easy to go the other way. even easier if you only have one life to live.

Originally posted by red g jacks
yea they're not bad ideals to strive for.. it's just so easy to go the other way. even easier if you only have one life to live.

One of the reasons I stick with Mormonism (as opposed to just another random religion that I've pulled from a hat) is that it gives the chance for anyone to obtain salvation.

Even an atheist who has argued against Christ his entire life has a chance to "see the light" and get all that God has to offer.


If God is truly omnibenevolent, then this means God would have to have some way of people to start drinking God's koolaid.


But, here is the caveat: you still have to try to be a good person. You can argue against people and religion, as long as you're a good person. That's pretty much the only requirement to go to "heaven" as a Mormon. *


All are saved if they want it. I can deal with silly things like magic underwear as long as the belief system is mostly logically consistent.


*I told Digi that I think Hitchens, if the Mormons are right, has a chance to accept God in the next life and I think Hitchens, if he accepted, is probably arguing with God, right now.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Strange things like that seem to kinda just happen. In the Bible the Israelites seemingly forgot about Moses and Yahweh/Jehovah bringing them out of Egypt and the miracles they'd witnessed firsthand and went right back into creating other idols (Golden Calf) at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses went to get the Commandments.

It could just be that once Jesus left their presence Native Americans looked at each other and were like:

"Meh...

Nature Spirits ftw."

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again. yea, see, i didn't know any of that. i thought you guys thought there was some sort of christian lineage within the native americans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
One of the reasons I stick with Mormonism (as opposed to just another random religion that I've pulled from a hat) is that it gives the chance for anyone to obtain salvation.

Even an atheist who has argued against Christ his entire life has a chance to "see the light" and get all that God has to offer.


If God is truly omnibenevolent, then this means God would have to have some way of people to start drinking God's koolaid.


But, here is the caveat: you still have to try to be a good person. You can argue against people and religion, as long as you're a good person. That's pretty much the only requirement to go to "heaven" as a Mormon. *


All are saved if they want it. I can deal with silly things like magic underwear as long as the belief system is mostly logically consistent.


*I told Digi that I think Hitchens, if the Mormons are right, has a chance to accept God in the next life and I think Hitchens, if he accepted, is probably arguing with God, right now. well yea i mean anyone would accept immortality if given the choice

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's actually pretty much what Mormons believe. We believe, based on the Book of Mormon "historical" account that the Native Americans who saw Jesus kept religious beliefs up for about 200 years after Christ visited. Then they slowly devolved into what you described. By around 400 C.E., they started slaughtering the shit out of each other, again.

Interesting.

So what are Mormons views on the Old/New Testament? Well, maybe I should say what's your view since you say you're atypical. Do you find it's accounts as viable as the North American Jesus visit? Ark of the Covenant and such?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...

What it boils down to me is this: "I don't know for sure" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is a God" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God/gods" or "I don't know for sure, but I lack belief in any God/gods."

You're throwing out the latter half of those statements to say they're all the same. They're not. And this is throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are massive, life-altering differences in those statements. And, again, theism isn't saying you know God exists, nor is atheism saying you know He/it doesn't. Even Richard Dawkins has said this. And if he's an agnostic, and JUST an agnostic, it makes my point for me, because the ridiculousness of that statement highlights the weakness in your approach.

Because, let me throw you a bone, I agree that any coherent religious opinion starts with "I don't know for sure..." But that isn't the same as saying everyone's agnostic.

So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation. It's worthless in the real world. Even if you reimagine religion as an agnostic spectrum, there's still massive differences of opinion and belief that need some kind of recognition. So not only do I think it's oversimplifying the issue and ignoring how people actually use/define theism/atheism, I think that doing so is intellectually negligent.

^I think that's a very valid point. There's nuance between "I don't believe" and "I lack belief". For example, if you grew up in an environment without Religion/Theism and you simply lacked a God concept culturally. It's not that you don't believe, it's just a concept which you don't take into consideration.

Originally posted by Digi
What it boils down to me is this: "I don't know for sure" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is a God" is different than "I don't know for sure, but I believe there is no God/gods" or "I don't know for sure, but I lack belief in any God/gods."

I think your confusion on my perspective stems from "faith" which is belief that is not based on proof. When you start appending things to the first statement, which is a statement about knowledge, and then talk about another statement, which is a position not based on knowledge, it becomes unnecessary if the point is to make a statement about knowledge (which is what I'm doing).

The same holds true for agnostic atheists.

Your statement can read, to better reflect where I am coming from, as follows:

"I don't know for sure, but I believe, despite the lack of knowledge, that there is a God."

Originally posted by Digi
You're throwing out the latter half of those statements to say they're all the same. They're not.

That's not true at all. They both share the same base and I'm quite sure the wording in my previous post should make that obvious. The same base is "I don't know..."

That base is an agnostic base. From there, it can branch out to many different positions. Obviously, there are "third kind" options, but we are not talking about those.

Originally posted by Digi
So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation.

Obviously, we fundamentally disagree, here.

If everyone could be more honest about their positions by admitting that at the base of atheistic and theistic beliefs is an agnostic foundation, we'd make more progress in these types of discussions. Imagine if hundreds of millions of Muslims who became sympathetic to "agnostic atheists" because the atheists just cannot justify the leap of faith required to become full-fledged members of Islam? "Oh, well...we pretty much have the same foundational position as I do. Perhaps I should be more sympathetic?" The same can be said of the US South where Christian Evangelicals persecute and socially ostracize or less-than-faithful brethren.

In fact, I find this fact so important that I don't see how much progress can be made on this debate until all sides (mostly the theistic side) admit this and explore this.

I see viewing religion or irreligion, like this (that none of us really knows, for sure), as helpful for people to stop judging each other and hating each other, so much.

Originally posted by Digi
So even if you claim a technical correctness, there's no explanatory or practical purpose of your interpretation. It's worthless in the real world. Even if you reimagine religion as an agnostic spectrum, there's still massive differences of opinion and belief that need some kind of recognition. So not only do I think it's oversimplifying the issue and ignoring how people actually use/define theism/atheism, I think that doing so is intellectually negligent.

I think the problem with your position regarding my position is you want it to be something it is not. You want it to be only about agnosticism and that's clearly not what it is about. It's clearly about the knowledge aspect being the same on that spectrum and people get too broad with the knowledge brushes they are painting with. Quite clearly, a person on the far right of the spectrum (yes, intentional to imply right-wingers), their lives can be strikingly different because of their faith if you compare these types to the far left on this same spectrum. But was my point ever about differences in how people lead their lives? No. This is the point I think you're missing. My point is a philosophical one that shows where the foundations of that spectrum lie.


You call it a technicality, of course. I view it as something much more important, from a philosophy perspective, than just a technicality. And as I have pointed out in the previous paragraphs, it can be a position that is helpful in tearing down the hateful walls (and sometimes fortresses) that people build to seperate themselves from eachother.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Interesting.

So what are Mormons views on the Old/New Testament? Well, maybe I should say what's your view since you say you're atypical. Do you find it's accounts as viable as the North American Jesus visit? Ark of the Covenant and such?


Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.


Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Digi is probably referring to the fact that generally the default of how people live their life is to not believe something exists unless there is some sort of convincing evidence.

Nah, I actually agree with dudemon on most of what he's saying. It all factually checks out. I just think that, by making it about the knowledge instead of the belief, he's ignoring how people actually relate to religion.

Because, yes, if people acknowledged this like DDM is with his agnostic base, the world would be a better place. But they don't, and because of how they approach their beliefs/faith, they never will. Not everyone, of course, but the only people that it would be useful to convince are those who aren't already quite reasonable about differences of religion. So it's useful in an academic sense only, not in any practical or sociologically applicable way. And that, to me, makes it a pointless exercise. I can nod my head in technical agreement, but then must ignore it for all irl usage of religious ideas.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.


Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Interesting.

So the events of the Book of Mormon actually predate the New Testament? It was always my understanding (as a former Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal) that Jesus's life in North Africa/Middle East began in 1 AD (hence the changing of the Roman calendar). If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, per the BoM, the Jews spent a portion of a millenium (or an entire millenium) in the Americas before the account being recorded in 350 C.E./AD by Mormon, so a period extending to prior, or wholly prior, to approximately 650 BC, and before Jesus's birth? Or is that a typo and you meant 1350-1400 C.E./AD?

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Interesting.

So the events of the Book of Mormon actually predate the New Testament? It was always my understanding (as a former Jehovah's Witness/Baptist/Pentecostal) that Jesus's life in North Africa/Middle East began in 1 AD (hence the changing of the Roman calendar). If I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, per the BoM, the Jews spent a portion of a millenium (or an entire millenium) in the Americas before the account being recorded in 350 C.E./AD by Mormon, so a period extending to prior, or wholly prior, to approximately 650 BC, and before Jesus's birth? Or is that a typo and you meant 1350-1400 C.E./AD?

The events in the BoM are purportedly supposed to occur from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E. so they overlap the events of the OT and NT.


Also, there is another book/account that these BoM Native American peoples ran across. As modern times considers the Book of Mormon, the Ancient BoM Natives considered this other people. It was the Book of Ether. They ran across this situation/record because the last survivor of that culture stumbled upon one of their (the BoM Native Americans) cities. The "People of Jared" are rumored/purported to have existed from as far back as 10,000-15,000 years ago and lasted all the way up to, I think, 600 B.C.E. These people were migrants from, possibly, Asia. There are several theories as to where they came from and settled with some saying they are mongols and some saying that they settled in the Great Lakes (with several viable extinct tribes in that location as potential candidates for the People of Jared). This fits a bit too well with the land-bridge theory that was supposed to happen at...what...13,000 years ago. Also, since they became extinct, supposedly, around 600 B.C.E., there are other extinct Native Americans that can possibly fit their description.


For more information, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaredites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/



Also, the tower of Babel is another one of those things that Mormons debate. Some call it allegory for when man started to defy God/gods an the allegorical lesson is man is confounded when they think they are as good as God. Some think the Tower of Babel story is literal (a stupid thought) and that the ancient human people had one language. More than likely, it is supposed to be an allegory. Additionally, if the Jaredite peoples are much more ancient that the Tower of Babel, then it becomes more of a legend that was propagated by the BoM Native Americans (or, perhaps, as another theory goes, the BoM natives associated the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel with whatever migration story the last survivor of that people communicated...something that has happened numerous times throughout human civilization (the absorption/integration of similar stories in to different cultures such as Gilgamesh's story)). Keep in mind, this last survivor may or may not have had records. If he had no physical records (written in a language), he told the origins and stories of his people, perhaps thousands of years old, to the Native Americans he stumbled across. It is possible that a vast amount of information was tainted or lost in translation because the Book of Ether is a second-hand account of the fate of the Jaredites that was passed to another Native American people, in their language, and then passed from those Native American people to the mind and hand of Mormon, and then from Mormon to Joseph Smith. Again, this is all "supposedly." This all falls apart if you consider none of these records exist and/or Joseph Smith made this all up and lied.

Based on the parallels LDS scholars are finding, what was once considered preposterous is now being considered plausible. And example of this is the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans supposedly built when waging wars. It was cited as clear evidence that Joseph Smith made it up. When a parallel, in the Americas, was found that moderately fit the time and description of the fortifications, it was considered a big find and a step forward in finding out whether or not the BoM could be used as a potential historical guide to a 1000 year span of Native Americans. There is a group of LDS people dedicated to doing just that: finding real-world parallels.


Since I view this stuff from an agnostic perspective, I approach these topics more from a scientific view. Some of these parallels that they are finding are ridiculously close and fit the content of the BoM. Some of it is not found anywhere. Still, other findings only loosely fit what is in the BoM. At the bottom of it all, is it just the biases of the scholars finding parallels rather than genuinely finding material? That's the question of faith and it is not something I am comfortable with entertaining/or answering. I have no clue. My religion tells me to pray about it and see what God tells me. But my mind says I'm not capable of sifting out my own thoughts from God's thoughts. So I view all of this stuff as just "fun" stuff and treat Mormonism as an ethical, moral, and philosophical approach to life.

Originally posted by Digi
Because, yes, if people acknowledged this like DDM is with his agnostic base, the world would be a better place. But they don't, and because of how they approach their beliefs/faith, they never will. Not everyone, of course, but the only people that it would be useful to convince are those who aren't already quite reasonable about differences of religion. So it's useful in an academic sense only, not in any practical or sociologically applicable way. And that, to me, makes it a pointless exercise. I can nod my head in technical agreement, but then must ignore it for all irl usage of religious ideas.

That makes sense. In my naivete, I think these things would work. But when put under the light of practical scrutiny, it is just a pipe dream. I would be a fool to think hundreds of millions of Muslims could all have an epiphany and realize every other human is trying to discover their own faith and that, at the end of it all, no one knows for sure (same applies to the 10s of millions of Christian Evangelicals).

Originally posted by dadudemon
The events in the BoM are purportedly supposed to occur from 600 B.C.E. to 400 C.E. so they overlap the events of the OT and NT.


Also, there is another book/account that these BoM Native American peoples ran across. As modern times considers the Book of Mormon, the Ancient BoM Natives considered this other people. It was the Book of Ether. They ran across this situation/record because the last survivor of that culture stumbled upon one of their (the BoM Native Americans) cities. The "People of Jared" are rumored/purported to have existed from as far back as 10,000-15,000 years ago and lasted all the way up to, I think, 600 B.C.E. These people were migrants from, possibly, Asia. There are several theories as to where they came from and settled with some saying they are mongols and some saying that they settled in the Great Lakes (with several viable extinct tribes in that location as potential candidates for the People of Jared). This fits a bit too well with the land-bridge theory that was supposed to happen at...what...13,000 years ago. Also, since they became extinct, supposedly, around 600 B.C.E., there are other extinct Native Americans that can possibly fit their description.


For more information, see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaredites

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-americans-lived-on-bering-land-bridge-for-thousands-of-years/



Also, the tower of Babel is another one of those things that Mormons debate. Some call it allegory for when man started to defy God/gods an the allegorical lesson is man is confounded when they think they are as good as God. Some think the Tower of Babel story is literal (a stupid thought) and that the ancient human people had one language. More than likely, it is supposed to be an allegory. Additionally, if the Jaredite peoples are much more ancient that the Tower of Babel, then it becomes more of a legend that was propagated by the BoM Native Americans (or, perhaps, as another theory goes, the BoM natives associated the Jewish story of the Tower of Babel with whatever migration story the last survivor of that people communicated...something that has happened numerous times throughout human civilization (the absorption/integration of similar stories in to different cultures such as Gilgamesh's story)). Keep in mind, this last survivor may or may not have had records. If he had no physical records (written in a language), he told the origins and stories of his people, perhaps thousands of years old, to the Native Americans he stumbled across. It is possible that a vast amount of information was tainted or lost in translation because the Book of Ether is a second-hand account of the fate of the Jaredites that was passed to another Native American people, in their language, and then passed from those Native American people to the mind and hand of Mormon, and then from Mormon to Joseph Smith. Again, this is all "supposedly." This all falls apart if you consider none of these records exist and/or Joseph Smith made this all up and lied.

Based on the parallels LDS scholars are finding, what was once considered preposterous is now being considered plausible. And example of this is the fortifications described in the Book of Mormon that the Native Americans supposedly built when waging wars. It was cited as clear evidence that Joseph Smith made it up. When a parallel, in the Americas, was found that moderately fit the time and description of the fortifications, it was considered a big find and a step forward in finding out whether or not the BoM could be used as a potential historical guide to a 1000 year span of Native Americans. There is a group of LDS people dedicated to doing just that: finding real-world parallels.


Since I view this stuff from an agnostic perspective, I approach these topics more from a scientific view. Some of these parallels that they are finding are ridiculously close and fit the content of the BoM. Some of it is not found anywhere. Still, other findings only loosely fit what is in the BoM. At the bottom of it all, is it just the biases of the scholars finding parallels rather than genuinely finding material? That's the question of faith and it is not something I am comfortable with entertaining/or answering. I have no clue. My religion tells me to pray about it and see what God tells me. But my mind says I'm not capable of sifting out my own thoughts from God's thoughts. So I view all of this stuff as just "fun" stuff and treat Mormonism as an ethical, moral, and philosophical approach to life.

Very interesting.

So do you (and Mormons in general), taking the above chronology into account, find the Noah/Flood story allegorical rather than historical as well?

Also want to thank you because I genuinely find this fascinating and enlightening. I've never been exposed to any tenets of Mormonism before, and Jehovah's Witnesses have a significantly different interpretation than most denominations I've encountered in the last couple decades.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Mormons view the Book of Mormon, OT, NT, and some other scriptures to be "good" but not perfect. They are tainted by the minds and hands of man and are, therefore, predictably imperfect. We think the bible has more errors/flaws in it than the Book of Mormon because the BoM supposedly went through fewer hands and minds to get the English language version we have, now.

Some Mormons do not know their religion very well and make the grossly inappropriate assumption that the Book of Mormon is perfect. I liken these people to the "Biblical Literalists" because they have to ignore or be ignorant of quite a huge body of evidence that points to the reality that the Book of Mormon is far from perfect.


Also, Mormons do not know how much of the OT is literally historical or allegorical. Similar allegories appear in the Book of Mormon. But, unlike the OT, the BoM is considered closer to an actual historical account than the OT (in the LDS community, at least). Basically, the BoM gives a near sequential account of the Native Americans (and the Jews that mixed with them) that lasted for about 1000 years.

There is something important to discuss about that: the Book of Mormon is actually an abridgment of a vast cave of records that were kept by the Native Americans. The person who abridged these records into the Book of Mormon was a man named Mormon. He did this around 350-400 C.E. His life's work, after he retired from his military services, was to compile the spiritual aspect of his peoples into a small, condensed book. Apparently, that cave still exists, somewhere. The cave is supposed to be full of much more historical and military stuff. Hmmm...comparable to a political museum. It also, supposedly, contains records from more than just the primary peoples the BoM focuses on. It would be an amazing archaeological find if it is uncovered. I am not saying that this cave actually exists: I don't know. If it does, that would be awesome. It would be like un-burning the great library in Constantinople that was burned down during the crusades. The records would focus on about 1000 years of American history instead of European and African history, though.

Not to throw you cats off topic, but if you ever get a chance to see the play "The Book of Mormon", do go. IMO, even though it takes the piss out of Mormons, you'd really enjoy the comedy/satire aspects for what they are.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That makes sense. In my naivete, I think these things would work. But when put under the light of practical scrutiny, it is just a pipe dream. I would be a fool to think hundreds of millions of Muslims could all have an epiphany and realize every other human is trying to discover their own faith and that, at the end of it all, no one knows for sure (same applies to the 10s of millions of Christian Evangelicals).

Right. It's unfortunate, but I see it as true.

I might still quibble with you over terms like atheist and theist. I don't think the agnostic modifier is needed. Or, at least, I don't think most people think of it in those terms, or even acknowledge the "agnostic base," as we put it. I simply don't see that agnostic base as making someone agnostic, whether acknowledged or not, because theism (and to a lesser extent, atheism) don't deal with knowledge.

But this is so minor a detail that I don't want to waste both our time. On a purely intellectual basis, I have no disagreement with you.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Very interesting.

So do you (and Mormons in general), taking the above chronology into account, find the Noah/Flood story allegorical rather than historical as well?

Like all people, Mormons are very diverse in their education and intelligence and, unfortunately, some think the whole world was flooded. I have heard/read a good argument for the Epic of Gilgamesh occurring in a specific area/region (flooding) and that there could be a decent regional parallel somewhere, but I do not think the story is supposed to be taken so literal and, instead, be more of a lesson on faith, duty, and perseverance.

Originally posted by MF DELPH
Also want to thank you because I genuinely find this fascinating and enlightening. I've never been exposed to any tenets of Mormonism before, and Jehovah's Witnesses have a significantly different interpretation than most denominations I've encountered in the last couple decades.

Mormons view, as we call them, Jay Dubs as kind of like our younger brothers: similar radical approaches to Christianity, ostracized by the Christian community, and they have some strict beliefs on governing your every day actions. In my circle of Mormon friends, I don't think anyone holds a negative view of Jehovah's Witnesses. They probably do think, "Well, they got some things right compared to the other Christian faiths. Bless their little hearts." And, yes, that's condescending. Some Mormons are like that: they think they are better than every other religion. On a side note, our very own scriptures says that, in the Last Days, Mormons would become like that. Ahahahaha, they are fulfilling their own prophecies.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not to throw you cats off topic, but if you ever get a chance to see the play "The Book of Mormon", do go. IMO, even though it takes the piss out of Mormons, you'd really enjoy the comedy/satire aspects for what they are.

Selphie told me the same. I really should see it. Some of my Mormon friends are going to go see it.


Actually, a gay couple who are technically Mormons, invited Emily and I to go.




Don't have time, though.

If you have time for a movie, you have time for a play. So go see the play with the two technical Mormon gays.

I liked this guy's talk. It is like a TedX talk.

I_P4pnvUqAI


He goes down a list of 11 things that Christians should know about atheists. He is an atheist.

Other than #6, I agreed with all of his points.

I started questioning religion around 8.

One of the major things that gets me about religion is how it basically places humanity as the center of the universe as if We are something special to a higher being.

I mean think about it for a second, don't you think that a just higher being will not have priviliges for any of his/her/it creations?

Why in the whole vast universe earth or humanity will be something special to a higher being? Have we done something in particular other species haven't to have priviliges with a higher being? Or maybe is just because religious mythology is created by human beings the reason why religion favors us?

I consider myself agnostic btw