Religions?

[Titan Arum]

This has been a fascinating thread to read. Well done everyone at remaining civil! Conversations like this regularly remind me how awesome the 17th Shard is as a community.

 

I currently identify as an agnostic atheist, along the same vein as Voidus. I also am a strong proponent of the logical and scientific reasoning behind what I see in the world. I am, however, very fascinated by religion and I find it curious that almost ALL (if not all) cultures around the world have some form of religion to try and make sense of the world that we live in. With that, let me tell my religious story.

 

Growing up my family regularly went to a very large Catholic church. There was one problem with this: my father was raised "Methodist" and only went to Mass because my mother wanted us there as a family. He constantly would fall asleep in the pew, which frankly was a bad example for me and my sisters. I think his actions were the seed for my eventual departure from the church.

 

Up until confirmation I was a pretty good Catholic child. I had completed all of the required sacraments to that point. I went to CCD every week. I was one of the few kids allowed to read the gospel during the children's mass. But I had questions. Why did my dad not seem to care? Why would God allow so much pain and suffering on Earth? Why were all non-Catholics (according to my very conservative priest) going to hell? This last question, actually, is why I ultimately decided not to be confirmed in the Catholic church.

 

Prior to confirmation, the priest individually met with me and my peers. He encouraged us to ask any questions that we had, so I asked why all of my non-Catholic friends were going to hell. I was confused by his view because I though that my non-Catholic friends were good people and thus didn't deserve an eternity in hell. I asked him that if they follow their religion according to the beliefs of their religion, wouldn't that be good enough under God's eyes? Especially if they were still Christian? (I must admit, where I grew up we didn't have a lot of non-Christians and I wasn't aware of if any my friends weren't Christian.) My priests answer was steadfast: they're not Catholic, so they're wrong and they'll go to hell. After telling my mother about this conversation she asked me if I wanted to be confirmed. I told her no, and I left the Catholic church.

 

In retrospect, I'm surprised she let a 13-year old me make this decision; however this time was the beginning of the end of my parents marriage and she was starting to question her faith as well. After leaving the church, I dabbled in some non-denominational youth groups, but ultimately decided that I was only going to them for the social aspect. This was also the time that I really became interested in science and math, which seemed to answer a lot of the questions about the world I lived in and replaced a need for God in my life. Now I believe that science does and can answer all of these questions and thus I do not need to believe in an omnipotent God.

 

This isn't the end of my experience with religion, however. My girlfriend/fiance was raised Muslim. Her father is Muslim and her mother was Catholic. Islam strongly defines her cultural background, but she questions narrowly focused organized religion. Instead, she now identifies as a Unitarian Universalist. The UU church allows her to believe whatever she wants and at the same time have a spiritual community around her. For her, that sense of community is important and allows her to believe in God her own way. I think this is a good thing and it makes her very happy...but her father has no idea that she's no longer Muslim. 

 

I recently met her father for the first time. He doesn't know that I'm not religious. He assumes I'm Christian, but he is opposed to her potentially marrying a non-Muslim man. (It is okay for a Muslim man to marry non-Muslim by the book, but a Muslim woman cannot because in Islam a woman would normally take her husband's religion, not the opposite.) I think one day he'll be happy for his daughter no matter what, but this is a very dicey situation for us. Her brother has suggested I just convert to Islam to avoid this awkward situation. I, however, think this would be a huge insult and I am uncomfortable doing this do to my lack of a belief in God. Logically for me, if there is a God and a non-believer were to "convert" to keep up appearances, wouldn't this be worse under the eyes of said God than just not converting? It would be an insult to God and I would be lying to myself and everyone else around me. I just can't do it.

 

Has anyone else had a similar situation as the one that I currently have with my girlfriend? If so, how did you deal with it? PM if you want to talk more about it, because I'd love to know how we can handle this ordeal!

[Mailliw73]

Wow. I read a lot of this and skimmed the rest and, like everyone else, am extremely impressed. I'm also LDS/Mormon and my beliefs have been basically summed up.

 

I did find one thing interesting though: I'm curious as to why there are so many atheist readers of Brandon's work, in which religion and higher powers play a heavy part. I just wouldn't have expected that. 

[ThirdGen]

Wow. I read a lot of this and skimmed the rest and, like everyone else, am extremely impressed. I'm also LDS/Mormon and my beliefs have been basically summed up.

 

I did find one thing interesting though: I'm curious as to why there are so many atheist readers of Brandon's work, in which religion and higher powers play a heavy part. I just wouldn't have expected that. 

 

(spoilers, maybe-ish, for The Well of Ascension)

 

Hmm... here's the sort of thing I think I can answer without being terribly inflammatory.

 

I think there are lots of factors that add to the appeal for atheists.  For instance:

 

- Religions with real gods acting on the world, magical powers, etc. have always been in fantasy works.   It's fantasy, not reality.

 

- One of the things that really clicked with me about Sanderson's books is that he writes fantasy as though it's sci-fi, with care for consistency.  There's a sense of a grounded set of rules at work, even if they're not seen.  He very much avoids my pet peeve about epic fantasy, that everything can randomly change because somebody finds an undiscovered orb of power or something.

 

- Unlike the books of, for instance, C.S. Lewis, Brandon Sanderson does not step outside the "magic circle" of storytelling and demand that you, in your actual life, believe a particular thing.  It's gutsy for an author with strong religious beliefs to have a subplot like Sazed's leafing through all the religions he's studied.  You can take the ultimate message of that as, actually, a range of possibilities, because...

 

- The characters have distinct viewpoints, with their own strengths and weaknesses.  Like actual people's conflicts.

 

- His being a Mormon has rather an advantage compared to more commonly depicted religions in that he can make allusions to stories that not all of the audience will immediately recognize.  In Film Appreciation class in high school, I developed a mental groan reflex to movies from the 60s and 70s that hamhandedly throw in a crucifixion pose for their protagonist, for instance.  Telling a story we haven't already heard a thousand times has much more potential for great art.

 

And, nonspecific to the works themselves,

 

- Atheists are into everything everyone else is.  Just regular, walkin'-around people that happen to lack one particular hobby.

 

- A poll on the Internet is pretty likely to have a bunch of atheists taking it.  It happens.

 

- The demographics here probably skew kinda young, and in the US at least, polls confirm more young people are drifting from the religion they were raised in to some sort of "none of the above," usually described as "spiritual but not religious" on polls that have an option phrased that way.

[mail-mi]

I'm not going to explain in detail my lack of religious beliefs, suffice to say I agree with Chaos in pretty much everything he's said. I do, however, want to share with you, Kobold, that math does explain love, or rather can be used to do so. On my first day of Differential Equations the professor strolled into class wielding nothing but a piece of chalk, and proceeded to explain the true beauty of math, and then to prove to us that math was as beautiful as he claimed, mathematically explained love. It was awesome, and one of the best days of my college life.

 

I am pretty interested to see how this lesson was taught. Could you explain it here, or PM me? 

[Silverblade5]

I'm christian. I know that we can sometimes come across as annoying, but we have a very good reason for trying to convert every single person that we meet, and I think this video sums it up pretty nicely.

 

 

If you believe in all this stuff, and that it's your belief that allows you to go to heaven, and lack thereof that keeps you from there, and therefore sends you to hell, how much would you have to hate someone to not talk to them about it, to not try and get them to believe?

[+Slowswift]

I'm christian. I know that we can sometimes come across as annoying, but we have a very good reason for trying to convert every single person that we meet, and I think this video sums it up pretty nicely.

 

 

If you believe in all this stuff, and that it's your belief that allows you to go to heaven, and lack thereof that keeps you from there, and therefore sends you to hell, how much would you have to hate someone to not talk to them about it, to not try and get them to believe? 

*emphasis added*

 

Basically.

 

Along these lines, Elder Bednar gave this talk at the last LDS General Conference. It's basically talking about why we Mormons like to share our beliefs so much. In fact, it's directed at people who aren't Mormon. Give it a read, anyone, if you want. 

[Mistrunner]

*emphasis added*

 

Basically.

 

Along these lines, Elder Bednar gave this talk at the last LDS General Conference. It's basically talking about why we Mormons like to share our beliefs so much. In fact, it's directed at people who aren't Mormon. Give it a read, anyone, if you want.

I agree completely. If you have something that brings you so much happiness, why not share it with everyone you can?

That's a fabulous talk. I second Slowswift. You should all go read it. To quote from it, "Our simple desire is to share with you the truths that are of greatest worth to us." So... That's why we talk to people about our church. It makes us happy, and we want you to be happy too.

Warmest and fuzziest of feelings,

Mistrunner

[The Honor Spren]

There's a surprising number of Mormon Sanderfans here, more than I expected.

Once word got around that he writes clean epic fantasies, I just couldn't resist.

I can't talk as much for other lds in here, but I will say this. Our religion teaches (among many other things) that knowledge and learning are very important, and so, generally, we tend not to be as daunted by dictionary sized books as other people.

Oh yeah, and I also agree with Slowswift and Mistrunner. Loved that talk.

Edited June 28, 2015 by The Honor Spren

[Orlion Blight]

Of course, what brings happiness to you is not necessarily applicable. It might even be hurtful (to take the example in the Bednar talk, what if one of the children the boy applied dish soap, ointment, and bandages to happened to be allergic to one of those components? The intention is surely good, but the result is the opposite of what is desired). 

 

To bring this to theology, we can look at the following from Asimov:

 

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.

Essentially, the expectation that we ought to understand and accept why someone would continually share their faith should be paired with the understanding that many will respond with a "No thank you".

 

And of course, these people should understand that religion will be talked about in a thread called "Religions"  

[Mistrunner]

Of course, what brings happiness to you is not necessarily applicable. It might even be hurtful (to take the example in the Bednar talk, what if one of the children the boy applied dish soap, ointment, and bandages to happened to be allergic to one of those components? The intention is surely good, but the result is the opposite of what is desired). 

 

To bring this to theology, we can look at the following from Asimov:

 

Essentially, the expectation that we ought to understand and accept why someone would continually share their faith should be paired with the understanding that many will respond with a "No thank you".

 

And of course, these people should understand that religion will be talked about in a thread called "Religions"  

Eloquently said, and I understand completely. I just believe that my religion brings happiness, and yes, several people have told me they want nothing to do with it. I won't force anybody; it's their choice. I just want them to have that chance, if I'm making any sense.

And for about the eightieth time, thanks to everybody for being so pleasant and informative on this thread. I haven't seen an angry word yet, and I doubt I will, because you're all awesome. Virtual cookies for all! (Non-spiked, of course.)

[Voidus]

I'm christian. I know that we can sometimes come across as annoying, but we have a very good reason for trying to convert every single person that we meet, and I think this video sums it up pretty nicely.

 

 

If you believe in all this stuff, and that it's your belief that allows you to go to heaven, and lack thereof that keeps you from there, and therefore sends you to hell, how much would you have to hate someone to not talk to them about it, to not try and get them to believe?

I understands the intention and the motives behind it but at the same time it can come across as somewhat pushy and arrogant, the implication is that either you haven't heard of the bible or christianity (Which let's be honest in this day and age is pretty much impossible) or that you weren't clever or open minded enough to accept the truths that seem obvious to the preacher.

I know that that's obviously not what most people are thinking when they're preaching the gospels, they're just trying to share something that's given them joy with someone else.

It's not a perfect analogy but I generally compare it to your favourite food. Personally mine is tacos, I can eat 20 tacos in a sitting because they're just awesome. It makes me happy, so if I may try to recommend them to other people so that they can taste the delicious awesomeness of tacos, but what I should not and do not do is try to tell someone who says that they don't like tacos that they're wrong and that tacos are amazing regardless of their opinion and try to force them to eat tacos, that person has their own favourite food that gives them happiness, I can't judge my happiness compared to theirs and force them into liking tacos if they don't.

No harshness or criticism is meant from this post, it's not an accusation of the motives of those who try to share the gospel but rather the impressions of someone who's had it preached to them many times.

[Blaze1616]

I am pretty interested to see how this lesson was taught. Could you explain it here, or PM me? 

 

Oh geez, I'll have to dig through my college journals to find that class, and then see if I even took notes that day (he may have told use not to so he could go faster than normal). If I don't have them then I'm sorry, I do not remember it off the top of my head. I just remember the feeling of awe and wonder as my love of math was solidified for life.

[Kestrel]

Here's an interesting little story I found while leafing through Tumblr. I thought the Shard found find it interesting, and because of how mature the discussion is (at first, I was ready to pop popcorn and watch the fur fly, but it didn't happen) I thought I'd share this piece of text.

Why God Created Atheists

There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.

One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”

The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”

“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”

ETA source: Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 by Mar

The source of the exact text (which I copy/pasted to keep the story intact and prevented it being butchered by myself) is religiousragings on tumblr.

[Argent]

I am pretty interested to see how this lesson was taught. Could you explain it here, or PM me? 

 

The very very short version is that once you know enough math*, you start noticing it everywhere. It is what I imagine religious epiphany feels like, except instead of believing that everything has a purpose and a reason, you know what those things are. You are speaking the language of the universe. I don't get this as often with pure math, but understanding physics does the trick pretty often. 

 

It's difficult to convey though. 

 

* I don't mean the ability to solve problems and ace tests. I mean understanding as easily and natively as you understand, for example, that things fall down when you let go of them. 

[Kipper]

@Voidus

The taco example is somewhat different than the Christian one in that Christians see it as an eternal life and death issue, whereas tacos are just...tacos.

Let me provide another example. Say you have a friend with Body Integrity Disorder. This friend believes that they must snip their spinal cord and become a quadriplegic to be the person that they were meant to be. You disagree. In fact, you disagree strongly. You feel that they are wrong, and are just mentally disturbed. However, when you mention this to the person, they angrily rebuff you, telling you that they KNOW they are right, and would be better as a quadriplegic. Do you just let it go? Or do you persist in telling this person that in no way should they voluntarily become a quadriplegic?

This, I feel, is a better comparison. Now, I am certainly not comparing non-Christians to a victim of BID, or saying that non-Christians are mentally disturbed. If you think I am, then I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of comparisons. This comparison is to be looked at from the perspective of the anxious friend, who is watching his friend do something irretrieveably awful.

@Chaos

While the Bible does not lay out the foundations of math, it does address the topics of astronomy, geology, physics, cartography, and others, touching on subjects and knowledge that would be completely unknown to the writers at the time without divine intervention or something weird.

Examples:

1. Isaiah refers to "the circle of the earth," centuries before the Earth was known to be round.

2. In Job we have "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial bodies. Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders. Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job 26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction of the northern hemisphere.

3. The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again (Eccl 1:7)". The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job "Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).

4. God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!6 Interestingly, the three stars that comprise Orion's belt appear to be closer together than the outer stars in the constellation, but are actually farther apart! (they appear closer together because of the 2-D plane we see them in).

There's more, including the value of Pi found in the Bible, correct to four decimal places, but if you care enough about, I suppose, you can find out about that yourself...

[Voidus]

@Voidus

The taco example is somewhat different than the Christian one in that Christians see it as an eternal life and death issue, whereas tacos are just...tacos.

Let me provide another example. Say you have a friend with Body Integrity Disorder. This friend believes that they must snip their spinal cord and become a quadriplegic to be the person that they were meant to be. You disagree. In fact, you disagree strongly. You feel that they are wrong, and are just mentally disturbed. However, when you mention this to the person, they angrily rebuff you, telling you that they KNOW they are right, and would be better as a quadriplegic. Do you just let it go? Or do you persist in telling this person that in no way should they voluntarily become a quadriplegic?

This, I feel, is a better comparison. Now, I am certainly not comparing non-Christians to a victim of BID, or saying that non-Christians are mentally disturbed. If you think I am, then I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of comparisons. This comparison is to be looked at from the perspective of the anxious friend, who is watching his friend do something irretrieveably awful.

@Chaos

While the Bible does not lay out the foundations of math, it does address the topics of astronomy, geology, physics, cartography, and others, touching on subjects and knowledge that would be completely unknown to the writers at the time without divine intervention or something weird.

Examples:

1. Isaiah refers to "the circle of the earth," centuries before the Earth was known to be round.

2. In Job we have "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial bodies. Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders. Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job 26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction of the northern hemisphere.

3. The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again (Eccl 1:7)". The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job "Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).

4. God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!6 Interestingly, the three stars that comprise Orion's belt appear to be closer together than the outer stars in the constellation, but are actually farther apart! (they appear closer together because of the 2-D plane we see them in).

There's more, including the value of Pi found in the Bible, correct to four decimal places, but if you care enough about, I suppose, you can find out about that yourself...

Well I'd point out that you can either say comparisons can be perfect and try to substitute one for mine or acknowledge that there'll never be a perfect analogy. But essentially your comparison shows exactly how many atheists feel when being preached to. To start with many atheists have read the bible and studied it's history more than a great many christians have, partially out of necessity partially out of genuine interest. So to have someone try to preach to you about the subject when you've already studied it in great depth is both condescending and insulting in many cases. Secondly is the assumption that that person is incapable of discovering the truth for themselves, it's either a self evident truth as in the case that removing your spinal cord is a bad thing in which case the assumption is that the atheist must be in some way mentally flawed to be incapable of perceiving it as such or else you are not assuming that the atheist is any smarter or dumber than the average person and so you must accept that there is at least a possibility that you are wrong. (Which very few people who preach gospel will do)

I'll quickly follow with an atheists views on biblical foreknowledge, this is just my personal views and not a representation by any means, some atheists accept biblical foreknowledge, some don't, some believe the entire bible is a hoax, this is just my views on the subject.

I assume that's a reference to Issaiah 40:22? It's an ironic passage in that it's used frequently in discussion by both sides, an atheist will point to it and say that it clearly says that the earth is flat, it references a circle as opposed to a ball or sphere and goes on to reference spreading the heavens like a canopy as a tent for people to live in, which is not exactly a sound analogy if one assume it references the earth as a sphere. Many Christians on the other hand will as you do point it out as a reference to a spherical earth. Personally I don't think it matters much, the idea that people used to believe the earth was flat is largely fallacious, the ancient greeks figured it out many many thousands of years ago, I see no problem in believing that the hebrews did too.

This is largely true of many examples of biblical foreknowledge, they're views that are at best vague and require some interpretation to arrive at the knowledge section (As evidenced by the fact that Christians typically did not interpret passages in that way until after the facts had arisen) and largely not all that prophetic in any case, Pi was well known in many segments of the world, some cultures were more mathematically advanced than others, that does not automatically grant their religions divinely inspired status.

Now I could nitpick the other points and say that nothing is not really an accurate expression for space, we have neutrinos, dark matter and energy, the cosmic background radiation and vacuum energy throughout space, I could say that Genesis implies that space is water and not nothing, I could say that the greeks predicted entropy and the big bang by saying that the universe formed from chaos but that's largely missing the point. The Bible, and for that matter the Quran, the Illiad, the Bahagavad Gita and many other religious texts are supposed to be poetic, make enough poetic verses and some of them are bound to eventually be at least tangentially related to some real world discovery, that doesn't make those verses prophetic.

Now this is in no way an attempt to dissuade anyone from their religion or to say that you can't interpret those passages as prophetic if you so choose, but just know that in the eyes of someone who doesn't already perceive the Bible as divinely inspired these verses are not exactly compelling evidence.

[Kipper]

@Voidus

1. I understand that atheists have that perception of Christians "witnessing." I get that it can be offensive. I'm just asking you to please understand that most do it because they genuinely care.

2.

Oh, I totally realize that none of these verses are "scientific evidence." While some are awfully hard to skirt around, a single verse (or even a lot) will not convince a rational atheist. I think, though, that by focusing on what the Bible does not explain, you lose focus on what your own beliefs cannot explain (I assume here that you believe in evolution) Of course, we all do that. We always will tend to gloss over our own belief system's faults and exaggerate those of other belief systems.

What can/does my religion not explain? A lot, I'm sure. You could probably give me a list. I might could, but of course, it would e subjective (as would yours). My list would likely leave out some major critical flaw. If you addressed said critical flaw, and I didn't have an answer, I would probably say, "I have faith that the answers will eventually become clear to us," which means, "I have no clue, but Jesus," you would mentally laugh, and we would move on.

The same happens for evolution. I can ask a simple question like, "How did something come from nothing," or "How did life begin," or "How do you explain irreducible complexity," and I guarantee you that the answer would be something like, "Just because science doesn't have all the answers now doesn't mean we won't have them later." Essentially, what that means is, "I have faith in science to solve all the problems." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I perceive it. Now that's certainly not a bad thing. People have to have faith in something. My point is to say that the difference between "religion" and "science" isn't really that big. You too believe in a religion, with the deity of science. You have faith that science can provide the answers to ultimately unobservable phenomena. If you believe that that is not the case, fine. I beg to differ.

So do Christians. It's really no different. The main difference is that Christianity has the whole afterlife and forgiveness of sins thing. A load of crap? You obviously think so. It does sound pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? I thought it was crap too. Everytime someone told me the salvation story, I just wanted to barf. Until I started getting into the study of philosophy and ethics. Then I at least believed in a deity of some sort. Then I went religion shopping, and discovered that Christianity's beliefs seemed to work pretty well. At this point (after a while of following stupid rituals), I realized that actually believing anything (ANYTHING) requires faith. No system can explain everything. Evolution cannot fully account for philosophy, logic, human emotion, music and other things. The Bible cannot account for some advances in modern science. I think the reason why so many rational people (or xNTx personality types) have a problem with religion is that they don't like not being able to explain stuff. Well, strike that. I KNOW that that is the reason. The idea of being vulnerable to irrationality and "faith" frankly scares me to death. It took me the longest time to bridge the gap between my head and my heart. I would tell you how it happened, as it has great personal meaning to me, but you would probably think, "Wow, yet another emotional story about yet another Christian who 'found God. What a surprise."

Where am I going with this......? Ah yes, ration cannot do everything for you. That's pretty much the crux of what I'm saying. You have faith right now in what I see as an inherently flawed belief system without all the answers.

From your perspective, the same applies for me, most likely.

Now, I have more to say about rationality and perceptions, if you care after this longwinded post...but I have to sleep and go to work in five hours, so not right now...

[Kaymyth]

@Voidus

1. I understand that atheists have that perception of Christians "witnessing." I get that it can be offensive. I'm just asking you to please understand that most do it because they genuinely care.

2.

Oh, I totally realize that none of these verses are "scientific evidence." While some are awfully hard to skirt around, a single verse (or even a lot) will not convince a rational atheist. I think, though, that by focusing on what the Bible does not explain, you lose focus on what your own beliefs cannot explain (I assume here that you believe in evolution) Of course, we all do that. We always will tend to gloss over our own belief system's faults and exaggerate those of other belief systems.

What can/does my religion not explain? A lot, I'm sure. You could probably give me a list. I might could, but of course, it would e subjective (as would yours). My list would likely leave out some major critical flaw. If you addressed said critical flaw, and I didn't have an answer, I would probably say, "I have faith that the answers will eventually become clear to us," which means, "I have no clue, but Jesus," you would mentally laugh, and we would move on.

The same happens for evolution. I can ask a simple question like, "How did something come from nothing," or "How did life begin," or "How do you explain irreducible complexity," and I guarantee you that the answer would be something like, "Just because science doesn't have all the answers now doesn't mean we won't have them later." Essentially, what that means is, "I have faith in science to solve all the problems." Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I perceive it. Now that's certainly not a bad thing. People have to have faith in something. My point is to say that the difference between "religion" and "science" isn't really that big. You too believe in a religion, with the deity of science. You have faith that science can provide the answers to ultimately unobservable phenomena. If you believe that that is not the case, fine. I beg to differ.

So do Christians. It's really no different. The main difference is that Christianity has the whole afterlife and forgiveness of sins thing. A load of crap? You obviously think so. It does sound pretty ridiculous, doesn't it? I thought it was crap too. Everytime someone told me the salvation story, I just wanted to barf. Until I started getting into the study of philosophy and ethics. Then I at least believed in a deity of some sort. Then I went religion shopping, and discovered that Christianity's beliefs seemed to work pretty well. At this point (after a while of following stupid rituals), I realized that actually believing anything (ANYTHING) requires faith. No system can explain everything. Evolution cannot fully account for philosophy, logic, human emotion, music and other things. The Bible cannot account for some advances in modern science. I think the reason why so many rational people (or xNTx personality types) have a problem with religion is that they don't like not being able to explain stuff. Well, strike that. I KNOW that that is the reason. The idea of being vulnerable to irrationality and "faith" frankly scares me to death. It took me the longest time to bridge the gap between my head and my heart. I would tell you how it happened, as it has great personal meaning to me, but you would probably think, "Wow, yet another emotional story about yet another Christian who 'found God. What a surprise."

Where am I going with this......? Ah yes, ration cannot do everything for you. That's pretty much the crux of what I'm saying. You have faith right now in what I see as an inherently flawed belief system without all the answers.

From your perspective, the same applies for me, most likely.

Now, I have more to say about rationality and perceptions, if you care after this longwinded post...but I have to sleep and go to work in five hours, so not right now...

 

I do understand that witnessing comes from a place of caring.

 

Unfortunately, the very same tenet that leads to witnessing is exactly why I first became disillusioned with Christianity in the first place.  I cannot wrap my head around the idea that the only way to avoid going to the Very Hot Place is to believe the specific Thing.  If you believe a different Thing, no matter how sincerely and devotedly, whoops, sorry, wrong Thing!  Down you go.

 

That's billions of people on this planet right now.  Billions.  I can't accept a universe where that is the way things are is just.  And in my mind, justice is paramount for an all-encompassing deity like the Judeo-Christian god to have.  If there is no justice to a deity, then what is the point in having faith in him/her?  And for that matter, if my solidly atheist husband (who is, in fact, a kinder, gentler soul than I) has no chance of getting into Heaven, then why would I want to even consider going there without him?

 

All told, it's not really surprising that I wound up Kemetic.  I put a lot more stock in what a person does than in what they believe, and the ancient Egyptian gods are far more interested in what you've done with your life than whether you're doing it in their names or not.

[Chaos]

@Voidus

The taco example is somewhat different than the Christian one in that Christians see it as an eternal life and death issue, whereas tacos are just...tacos.

Let me provide another example. Say you have a friend with Body Integrity Disorder. This friend believes that they must snip their spinal cord and become a quadriplegic to be the person that they were meant to be. You disagree. In fact, you disagree strongly. You feel that they are wrong, and are just mentally disturbed. However, when you mention this to the person, they angrily rebuff you, telling you that they KNOW they are right, and would be better as a quadriplegic. Do you just let it go? Or do you persist in telling this person that in no way should they voluntarily become a quadriplegic?

This, I feel, is a better comparison. Now, I am certainly not comparing non-Christians to a victim of BID, or saying that non-Christians are mentally disturbed. If you think I am, then I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of comparisons. This comparison is to be looked at from the perspective of the anxious friend, who is watching his friend do something irretrieveably awful.

@Chaos

While the Bible does not lay out the foundations of math, it does address the topics of astronomy, geology, physics, cartography, and others, touching on subjects and knowledge that would be completely unknown to the writers at the time without divine intervention or something weird.

Examples:

1. Isaiah refers to "the circle of the earth," centuries before the Earth was known to be round.

2. In Job we have "He stretches out the north over empty space; he hangs the earth on nothing (Job 26:7)". It should be noted that just last century scientists believed space consisted of a hypothetical substance called Ether (not the chemical), which was the medium between the celestial bodies. Also, the pagans of that time believed in such things as a mythical Atlas character who supported the pillars that held heaven and earth apart, and later carried the earth around on his shoulders. Another interesting tidbit that illuminates the divine nature of Job 26:7 is the recent discovery of a huge hole in space in the direction of the northern hemisphere.

3. The circulation and conservation of earth's water is called the hydrologic cycle, which is accurately portrayed in several passages of the Bible, including the following: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man. (Job 36:27-28)" . Centuries after the Book of Job was written, Aristotle demonstrated only a vague understanding of this process. Though he recognized that rain came from clouds, he incorrectly postulated that air turned into water and vice versa.

It has only recently been learned that most clouds are formed by ocean evaporation, but again the Bible had it right centuries ago: "All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again (Eccl 1:7)". The complex nature of how water is supported in clouds despite being heavier than air is clearly implied when God declared to Job "Do you know how the clouds are balanced, those wondrous works of Him who is perfect in knowledge (Job 37:16).

4. God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!6 Interestingly, the three stars that comprise Orion's belt appear to be closer together than the outer stars in the constellation, but are actually farther apart! (they appear closer together because of the 2-D plane we see them in).

There's more, including the value of Pi found in the Bible, correct to four decimal places, but if you care enough about, I suppose, you can find out about that yourself...

That is interesting. I may be a bit too hasty.

I'm going to be honest, though, I really don't think religion is for me. I don't want to live believing in sin, or temptation. I don't think it is a useful construct to me, personally. At a very central level, it is very hard to believe Christianity (the whole idea of "being saved") when I don't think sin is useful or even a real thing. I will not submit to a thing that philosophically I do not abide by, nor remotely desire to. For me, there is no conflict between sin and the divine. Merely a construct...

I would rather emphatically not be saved, and prefer to focus on this world, rather than a potential afterlife (and I truly do think you should do things to help the world we have, not to get into an afterlife). And even more deeply than that, I don't even want there to be an afterlife. I don't think there is one, but if you gave me an option, I think I would turn it down. That might sound insane to believers, but I don't want that, and am completely satisfied in belief being totally absent in my life.

[Orlion Blight]

So many things to comment on... so little time... I believe I will only focus on a couple. First:

 

To start with many atheists have read the bible and studied it's history more than a great many christians have, partially out of necessity partially out of genuine interest. So to have someone try to preach to you about the subject when you've already studied it in great depth is both condescending and insulting in many cases.

 

Absolutely. I, to simplify the story, was once a "Christian". I had studied the Bible extensively, as well as ancient and modern commentaries. I was an amateur theologian, and I got many atheist friends to concede defeat to me in debates. 

 

So now, when some one tells me I should really give "the Word" a chance, that if only I actually read the Bible... that's offensive. Chances are, even with me having not touched it for years, I probably know more about the Bible than you run-of-the-mill pastor. I certainly know more about than you do (you general, not specific... I'm thinking of a specific non-17th Sharder right now). Nothing wrong with being pretentious, but you better be able to back it up.

 

Now, the "everything requires faith". I think that's a false equivalency. There's a difference between accepting something on faith and accepting something... we'll say pragmatically. In the latter, if a postulate is shown to yield incorrect (or even inaccurate) results, we would say that that postulate is false or inaccurate. If I had accepted the postulate on faith, however, that postulate is always right despite evidence for or against. 

 

There's at least a third class that you would call "belief" that would be "definitions". These exist simply because we define them. A lot of geometry (and math) is made up of these definitions. They are tools to help us understand the world around us, but they are not the actual world itself. The map is not the country.

[+Slowswift]

I do understand that witnessing comes from a place of caring.

 

Unfortunately, the very same tenet that leads to witnessing is exactly why I first became disillusioned with Christianity in the first place.  I cannot wrap my head around the idea that the only way to avoid going to the Very Hot Place is to believe the specific Thing.  If you believe a different Thing, no matter how sincerely and devotedly, whoops, sorry, wrong Thing!  Down you go.

 

Ah yes. The classic "if you don't believe x you're doomed" argument. Because that always works. 

 

Oh. man, the Mormon view on this is somewhat complicated, but I'll do my best.

 

1 Corinthians 15:22:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

 

See the word "all" in there? Yup. We don't believe everyone who's not Mormon is automatically going to burn in hell for all eternity. Rather...

 

1 Corinthians 15:40-41

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 

Everyone gets resurrected. Whether or not you make it to the Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial Kingdom is an entirely different matter. And only the most terrible of people (such as Cain, IIRC) end up in Outer Darknes, aka Perdition, aka Hell.

 

...I probably botched that.  But basically, that's it, if any of my Mormon friends wish to correct me, go ahead.

 

And I'm not trying to preach, just trying to explain what I believe.

[Kaymyth]

Ah yes. The classic "if you don't believe x you're doomed" argument. Because that always works. 

 

Oh. man, the Mormon view on this is somewhat complicated, but I'll do my best.

 

1 Corinthians 15:22:

 

See the word "all" in there? Yup. We don't believe everyone who's not Mormon is automatically going to burn in hell for all eternity. Rather...

 

1 Corinthians 15:40-41

 

Everyone gets resurrected. Whether or not you make it to the Celestial, Terrestrial, or Telestial Kingdom is an entirely different matter. And only the most terrible of people (such as Cain, IIRC) end up in Outer Darknes, aka Perdition, aka Hell.

 

...I probably botched that.  But basically, that's it, if any of my Mormon friends wish to correct me, go ahead.

 

And I'm not trying to preach, just trying to explain what I believe.

 

Now, see, that's a theology that I can grok.  Pity more branches of Christianity don't teach that kind of structure; I've come across too many who firmly believed that it was their solemn duty to "save" everybody they met from Certain Doom.  I know they think they mean well, but they push all the wrong buttons. 

 

That said, I still believe what I believe.  I've had personal experiences that lead me to believe that at the very least, my gods are real entities of some sort.  I like my gods.  I respect my gods.  But I don't think that I actually outright worship them, and in the end, I'll put my husband and closest friends and family first.  (Yep.  Slytherclaw to the very end.)

 

But, you know, if it turns out that the Mormons are the ones who have it right, I could easily see my friends and I hanging out in the Telestial Kingdom and making up ridiculous new board and card games for eternity and having a great time of it all.  And those of you who wind up in the Celestial should lobby for a new spiritual 17th Shard forum that allows access from all three Kingdoms so that we all can keep bothering each other.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Kaymyth

[+Slowswift]

But, you know, if it turns out that the Mormons are the ones who have it right, I could easily see my friends and I hanging out in the Telestial Kingdom and making up ridiculous new board and card games for eternity and having a great time of it all.  And those of you who wind up in the Celestial should lobby for a new spiritual 17th Shard forum that allows access from all three Kingdoms so that we all can keep bothering each other.

 

Yes. Of course. The afterlife has free wifi, right?

 

It's totally cool for y'all to believe what you want. You're all storming awesome anyways.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Slowswift

[Mistrunner]

Now, see, that's a theology that I can grok.  Pity more branches of Christianity don't teach that kind of structure; I've come across too many who firmly believed that it was their solemn duty to "save" everybody they met from Certain Doom.  I know they think they mean well, but they push all the wrong buttons. 

 

That said, I still believe what I believe.  I've had personal experiences that lead me to believe that at the very least, my gods are real entities of some sort.  I like my gods.  I respect my gods.  But I don't think that I actually outright worship them, and in the end, I'll put my husband and closest friends and family first.  (Yep.  Slytherclaw to the very end.)

 

But, you know, if it turns out that the Mormons are the ones who have it right, I could easily see my friends and I hanging out in the Telestial Kingdom and making up ridiculous new board and card games for eternity and having a great time of it all.  And those of you who wind up in the Celestial should lobby for a new spiritual 17th Shard forum that allows access from all three Kingdoms so that we all can keep bothering each other.

  

Yes. Of course. The afterlife has free wifi, right?

 

It's totally cool for y'all to believe what you want. You're all storming awesome anyways.

Slowswift, I think your explanation nailed it. I was thinking I'd have to explain it. Probably wouldn't have ended up so well put.

Kaymyth- what Slowswift said, basically. You're all awesome, and it made me so happy to read your post. I just want to give everybody a big hug after reading these. Come on guys, everybody in.

[Orlion Blight]

   You're all awesome, and it made me so happy to read your post. I just want to give everybody a big hug after reading these. Come on guys, everybody in.

 

Time for a specifically tailored joke! Who knows? You might be pleasantly surprised.

 

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

Edit to add: If it's too "tailored" (i.e. no one gets it/it seems mean-spirited as a result) I'll add in the reference later... and unlike the TV series LOST, all will be revealed!)

Edited July 4, 2015 by Orlion