Deconversion: Letting go of one's religious belief and accepting reality on its own terms.

[Charity]

6 minutes ago, waysider said:

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!

(Inset image of shocked Pikachu face here.)

Did you read the whole forward?  It was published in 2015 and I did not see who wrote the forward to the book.  It doesn't say who published it either.  This sums up a lot.  It's from page xix:

The record of Bishop Pillai’s exposition of Orientalisms in the Bible during his six-week stay with Dr. Wierwille in the summer of 1953, along with other recorded teachings throughout their long association, served as the source for this book.

Apart from how vp may have influenced the Bishop, Pillai's source seems to be his culture from living in India.

Edited May 24 by Charity

[waysider]

26 minutes ago, Charity said:

Pillai's source seems to be his culture from living in India.

As a follower of Hinduism.

[Nathan_Jr]

*exasperated sigh*

I should remind everyone that those gloves, shrunken by a thorough saturation in blood, merely appeared not to fit. In fact, Nicole gifted those gloves to OJ and he wore them the night he slaughtered her and Ron Goldman.

 

Pillai and victor hope you won’t read Leviticus 1, but the writer of Judges and his character Jephthah surely had read it. They knew exactly what a burnt offering meant.

Jephthah may have hoped and beleeeved for a goat to bolt out of his front door to meet him, but no, it was his daughter! What luck! Jephthah made a vow and a gamble. A reckless gamble.

If Jephthah wanted to purchase that military victory by committing his virgin daughter’s life to service in the temple, he would have said so, but he didn’t. He gambled and he lost.

As the lesson of Isaac is about commitment, intention and obedience, the lesson of Jephthah is about honoring one’s vow to God - keeping one’s end of the bargain, integrity of the deal, and honoring bets made, no matter how horrific the cost.

 

Edited May 24 by Nathan_Jr

[Raf]

There you go reading what's written and letting the book speak for itself. So arrogant. :)

So my adaptation of Jonah gets nothing?

[Nathan_Jr]

“…according to the book Born Again to Serve by the American Christian Press, Pillai and Wierwille worked through every orientalism in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation over a six-week period in 1953.”

—K.C. Pillai’s Wiki page

 

 

 

Six weeks? Worked through every orientalism in… the… Bible!?!? EVERY? In six weeks?

 

Yep. The ”work” checks out.

 

 

[Nathan_Jr]

28 minutes ago, Raf said:

So my adaptation of Jonah gets nothing?

I almost forgot! (It was a long post.) Your treatment of Jonah is gold.

[Charity]

10 hours ago, Raf said:

Let's not confuse TWI with Christianity. In my experience, cults are far more interested in combatting demonic activity than the average Christian is. In my experience, Christians just want to live their lives and respect their beliefs.

Cults? Cults want you to be afraid of every demon or devil lurking behind every corner, en garde! ready to fight at a moment's notice.

It's EASY to let extremism paint all of religion, just like it's easy to let nihilism define atheism. They're not the same thing, but how do you resist the temptation to conclude If A, Then N? Especially when you add time to the equation, when it becomes increasingly justified.

An atheist NOW may not be a nihilist, but ask him what he thinks of everything 6 billion years from now, and the opinion of an atheist will be indistinguishable from that of a nihilist. But the point is most of us are not nihilists NOW. Atheists do not reject moral principles and we don't consider life meaningless. There is much meaning in life. In fact, this being the only life we have, we treasure life. That's why you don't see atheist suicide bombers. No one's promising us 72 science textbooks if we sacrifice ourselves for Darwin.

You'll never see us flying a plane into a building while shouting "REASON!!!!!!" until the last second.

Defining a group by the actions or beliefs of its extremists is usually not fair at all. Muslims suffer some of the worst prejudice for this. Atheists too. Christians, not so much. There are so many Christians that most people recognize "that's not all of us" when they're criticizing one religious group. JW's have the blood transfusion ban, not Christianity. Westboro Baptist teaches God Hates F*gs, not the average Christjan.

But that's part of what makes it so challenging to discuss some of these issues. No matter what belief Charity deconstructs as part of her journey, there will always be some branch of Christianity somewhere that says 

Or

So now, while Charity tries to make sense of what Christianity teaches and whether/why she rejects it, she suddenly becomes compelled to evaluate and reject every alternative interpretation of Christianity before being permitted the luxury of saying, "You know, I think none of it is true."

Well that's preposterous. There are 45,000 Christian denominations on earth today. 45 THOUSAND. 

The OVERHWELMING MAJORITY of Christians and Jews, throughout all of time, believe that Genesis 22 records God telling Abraham to kill his son as a test. When the angel stops Abraham, at no point is there a "correction."

The angel SAYS:

The angel does NOT say:

"Stop! You TOTALLY misunderstood what God asked you to do. He wasn't asking you to kill your son. Are you crazy?"

And the Bible later says Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. It doesn't say "Abraham misunderstood God, but in doing so he demonstrated a faith that impressed the Almighty."

I do not know if Wierwille was alone in teaching that the burnt offering meant something other than what Abraham took it to mean. I do know that he cited no sources in making this claim. 

Where is he getting this information? He doesn't say. And I may not have delved into the practice with all the resources and time of a scholar, but I am not finding a scrap of support for Wierwille's sentence quoted above. If anyone can find a scholarly source, not Wierwille, to indicate that God might have meant something else when he said "offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I will tell you," I would be glad to see it.

But absent any other evidence, the only source for this claim is Wierwille.

The verse and context are clear: God was testing Abraham when He asked him to kill his son. And Abraham passed the test. The angel didn't intervene to correct Abraham. The angel intervened because IT WAS A TEST and IT WAS OVER. 

Did God really want Isaac to die? No. If He did, He would have let Abraham go through with it.

Did God tell Abraham to kill Isaac? Yes. He was testing Abraham. He says so.

But doesn't the Bible say God does not tempt? Yes. A thousand or two years after the Abraham incident, God says he does not tempt people with evil. But obedience to God is not evil. Trusting God to fulfill His promises is not evil. Abraham passed the test because he trusted God, not because he misunderstood Him.

Let the Bible speak for itself and the message is clear.

Now, stepping OUTSIDE the internal story that's being told, we turn our attention to the story as human beings.

God told Abraham to kill his son. It was a test. ABRAHAM DIDN'T KNOW THAT. We do. So we can look at the big picture, while Abraham is stuck in the present. God just told me to kill my kid. What do I do?

Any parent with a heart is going to answer the same way: "Tell Him No!" Maybe add an expletive or two after that. 

 

 

As unbelievers, we are not criticizing God in this story, because we are not asked to identify with him. We are criticizing the character we're supposed to admire, the one we're supposed to emulate, the one we're supposed to look up to as an example of steadfastness of faith: Abraham.

But in REAL life, if someone told you he was about to kill his kid because God told him to, you would do everything in your power to stop him because, and this is key, you would not even entertain for a nanosecond the notion that he's telling you the truth.

And since the subject of this thread is deconversion (and by extension deconstruction) it should be pointed out that the majority of Biblical stories are tales you would flat out reject if someone claimed them in front of you right now.

Imagine someone washing up on Miami Beach right now and saying, "Lo! Spring Breakers! I just spent three days and three nights in the stomach of a whale after passing through his 25 centimeter esophagus, and I sat there with hundreds of pounds of krill in a vat of hydrochloric acid, only to go back through the esophagus for the whale to throw me up three days and three nights later (by the way, the Apple Watch battery lasts a long time, but that's how I knew how much time was passing as the acid disintegrated my skin). And I have come to tell you REPENT! REPENT! Or God will destroy Miami!"

You would not have gotten two sentences into that without calling mental health experts and fitting him for a nice white coat with REALLLLY long sleeves.

But you're supposed to believe Nineveh heard Jonah's warning and converted.

There is no evidence of any long term sudden change of religion in Nineveh. Just a Bible story that never happened.

Similar to how the story of God testing Abraham never happened. It's a story. If it were real, Abraham would be the bad guy and no one would admire him.

This thread is just over a month old and I wasn’t sure how to navigate the topic when I started it.  Even though I have a bit of a better idea now, there are still foggy patches where I don’t know where I’m heading.  Sometimes, I’m all over the map going in too many directions. 

I know there have been some glitches, but I really appreciate what posters have shared.  Along with discussing other ideas, discussing scriptures has given me the chance to    

- see how I think differently about them now

- consider how letting go of bible passages make life better, freer

- ask questions

- find more grounds to support my decision to be an atheist

- learn from how different people view them

- amend my POV as I gain new insight from others

- even notice that I can get angry or judgmental at times.

All good stuff so thanks to everyone.

[Charity]

11 hours ago, Raf said:

An atheist NOW may not be a nihilist, but ask him what he thinks of everything 6 billion years from now, and the opinion of an atheist will be indistinguishable from that of a nihilist. But the point is most of us are not nihilists NOW. Atheists do not reject moral principles and we don't consider life meaningless. There is much meaning in life. In fact, this being the only life we have, we treasure life. That's why you don't see atheist suicide bombers. No one's promising us 72 science textbooks if we sacrifice ourselves for Darwin.

But that's part of what makes it so challenging to discuss some of these issues. No matter what belief Charity deconstructs as part of her journey, there will always be some branch of Christianity somewhere that says 

Or

So now, while Charity tries to make sense of what Christianity teaches and whether/why she rejects it, she suddenly becomes compelled to evaluate and reject every alternative interpretation of Christianity before being permitted the luxury of saying, "You know, I think none of it is true."

 

 

As unbelievers, we are not criticizing God in this story, because we are not asked to identify with him. We are criticizing the character we're supposed to admire, the one we're supposed to emulate, the one we're supposed to look up to as an example of steadfastness of faith: Abraham.

And since the subject of this thread is deconversion (and by extension deconstruction) it should be pointed out that the majority of Biblical stories are tales you would flat out reject if someone claimed them in front of you right now.

Imagine someone washing up on Miami Beach right now and saying, "Lo! Spring Breakers! I just spent three days and three nights in the stomach of a whale after passing through his 25 centimeter esophagus, and I sat there with hundreds of pounds of krill in a vat of hydrochloric acid, only to go back through the esophagus for the whale to throw me up three days and three nights later (by the way,  the Apple Watch battery lasts a long time, but that's how I knew how much time was passing as the acid disintegrated my skin). And I have come to tell you REPENT! REPENT! Or God will destroy Miami!"

 

Great post Raf about a lot of things.  This abridged copy of it is to say thanks a lot for your support (see underlined parts). 

The video clip above was part of another one called My Top 7 Favorite Hitchslaps.  I thought that name was very apropos for what he does in this one.  He's so good at not mincing words.  I love it.  Thanks for sharing it.

Your Jonah adaptation was precious.    Unfortunate though that your main character drank the Koolaid. 

You wrote, "As unbelievers, we are not criticizing God in this story, because we are not asked to identify with him."  I couldn't get your point at first because even as an unbeliever, I'm thinking h*ll yes, God deserves to be criticized big time.  Then I'm pretty sure I got it - it was up to Abraham to tell God what He could do with his insane command.  That would make him someone in this story worthy of emulating. 

 

[oldiesman]

20 hours ago, Raf said:

To be clear, I was answering a question about what's accepted about the Bible on THIS THREAD. Not on GSC. There are other sections of GSC where the Bible is treated with less skepticism (because to treat it otherwise would derail the thread).

 

Exactly.

[oldiesman]

On 5/22/2024 at 12:47 AM, chockfull said:

 

I had a relative die of MS.  Just saw his widow.  He was supposedly healed of MS by someone praying years ago.  Did that happen?  Or did it just go into remission for 20 years?  I don’t know. 

 

Or else it was the plan all along?   If so, logically then "he who planned it all along" must be keeping track of everything.   In contrast from the non-spiritual side of things, it all happened by happenstance? 

[oldiesman]

18 hours ago, Raf said:

Let's not confuse TWI with Christianity. In my experience, cults are far more interested in combatting demonic activity than the average Christian is. In my experience, Christians just want to live their lives and respect their beliefs.

Cults? Cults want you to be afraid of every demon or devil lurking behind every corner, en garde! ready to fight at a moment's notice.

It's EASY to let extremism paint all of religion, just like it's easy to let nihilism define atheism. They're not the same thing, but how do you resist the temptation to conclude If A, Then N? Especially when you add time to the equation, when it becomes increasingly justified.

An atheist NOW may not be a nihilist, but ask him what he thinks of everything 6 billion years from now, and the opinion of an atheist will be indistinguishable from that of a nihilist. But the point is most of us are not nihilists NOW. Atheists do not reject moral principles and we don't consider life meaningless. There is much meaning in life. In fact, this being the only life we have, we treasure life. That's why you don't see atheist suicide bombers. No one's promising us 72 science textbooks if we sacrifice ourselves for Darwin.

You'll never see us flying a plane into a building while shouting "REASON!!!!!!" until the last second.

Defining a group by the actions or beliefs of its extremists is usually not fair at all. Muslims suffer some of the worst prejudice for this. Atheists too. Christians, not so much. There are so many Christians that most people recognize "that's not all of us" when they're criticizing one religious group. JW's have the blood transfusion ban, not Christianity. Westboro Baptist teaches God Hates F*gs, not the average Christjan.

But that's part of what makes it so challenging to discuss some of these issues. No matter what belief Charity deconstructs as part of her journey, there will always be some branch of Christianity somewhere that says 

Or

So now, while Charity tries to make sense of what Christianity teaches and whether/why she rejects it, she suddenly becomes compelled to evaluate and reject every alternative interpretation of Christianity before being permitted the luxury of saying, "You know, I think none of it is true."

Well that's preposterous. There are 45,000 Christian denominations on earth today. 45 THOUSAND. 

The OVERHWELMING MAJORITY of Christians and Jews, throughout all of time, believe that Genesis 22 records God telling Abraham to kill his son as a test. When the angel stops Abraham, at no point is there a "correction."

The angel SAYS:

The angel does NOT say:

"Stop! You TOTALLY misunderstood what God asked you to do. He wasn't asking you to kill your son. Are you crazy?"

And the Bible later says Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was imputed to him for righteousness. It doesn't say "Abraham misunderstood God, but in doing so he demonstrated a faith that impressed the Almighty."

I do not know if Wierwille was alone in teaching that the burnt offering meant something other than what Abraham took it to mean. I do know that he cited no sources in making this claim. 

Where is he getting this information? He doesn't say. And I may not have delved into the practice with all the resources and time of a scholar, but I am not finding a scrap of support for Wierwille's sentence quoted above. If anyone can find a scholarly source, not Wierwille, to indicate that God might have meant something else when he said "offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I will tell you," I would be glad to see it.

But absent any other evidence, the only source for this claim is Wierwille.

The verse and context are clear: God was testing Abraham when He asked him to kill his son. And Abraham passed the test. The angel didn't intervene to correct Abraham. The angel intervened because IT WAS A TEST and IT WAS OVER. 

Did God really want Isaac to die? No. If He did, He would have let Abraham go through with it.

Did God tell Abraham to kill Isaac? Yes. He was testing Abraham. He says so.

But doesn't the Bible say God does not tempt? Yes. A thousand or two years after the Abraham incident, God says he does not tempt people with evil. But obedience to God is not evil. Trusting God to fulfill His promises is not evil. Abraham passed the test because he trusted God, not because he misunderstood Him.

Let the Bible speak for itself and the message is clear.

Now, stepping OUTSIDE the internal story that's being told, we turn our attention to the story as human beings.

God told Abraham to kill his son. It was a test. ABRAHAM DIDN'T KNOW THAT. We do. So we can look at the big picture, while Abraham is stuck in the present. God just told me to kill my kid. What do I do?

Any parent with a heart is going to answer the same way: "Tell Him No!" Maybe add an expletive or two after that. 

 

 

As unbelievers, we are not criticizing God in this story, because we are not asked to identify with him. We are criticizing the character we're supposed to admire, the one we're supposed to emulate, the one we're supposed to look up to as an example of steadfastness of faith: Abraham.

But in REAL life, if someone told you he was about to kill his kid because God told him to, you would do everything in your power to stop him because, and this is key, you would not even entertain for a nanosecond the notion that he's telling you the truth.

And since the subject of this thread is deconversion (and by extension deconstruction) it should be pointed out that the majority of Biblical stories are tales you would flat out reject if someone claimed them in front of you right now.

Imagine someone washing up on Miami Beach right now and saying, "Lo! Spring Breakers! I just spent three days and three nights in the stomach of a whale after passing through his 25 centimeter esophagus, and I sat there with hundreds of pounds of krill in a vat of hydrochloric acid, only to go back through the esophagus for the whale to throw me up three days and three nights later (by the way, the Apple Watch battery lasts a long time, but that's how I knew how much time was passing as the acid disintegrated my skin). And I have come to tell you REPENT! REPENT! Or God will destroy Miami!"

You would not have gotten two sentences into that without calling mental health experts and fitting him for a nice white coat with REALLLLY long sleeves.

But you're supposed to believe Nineveh heard Jonah's warning and converted.

There is no evidence of any long term sudden change of religion in Nineveh. Just a Bible story that never happened.

Similar to how the story of God testing Abraham never happened. It's a story. If it were real, Abraham would be the bad guy and no one would admire him.

This all is well said and well taken.   The (let's say) hundreds of bible claims and stories, bring a once-believer in miracles to come to the place of not believing ANYTHING spiritual?   Not to mention that personal experiences of the miraculous?   It doesn't work with that VPW "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" but they do happen don't they?   All of that should be thrown in the trash can like it was all a silly accident?    All comments welcome, thx.

[Charity]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

Or else it was the plan all along?   If so, logically then "he who planned it all along" must be keeping track of everything.   In contrast from the non-spiritual side of things, it all happened by happenstance? 

Chockfull  had written, "I had a relative die of MS.  Just saw his widow.  He was supposedly healed of MS by someone praying years ago.  Did that happen?  Or did it just go into remission for 20 years?  I don’t know."

~~~~~~~

That's the thing oldiesman, why are there these questions?  Why can someone not know for sure if God was responsible for Chockfull's relative having 20 years without the symptoms of MS?  A Christian might answer, "I know by faith that it was the result of prayer," and this would give enormous comfort to the Christian.

When the MS returned and there's medical proof that the person died because of the MS, then the questions return as well - why did it return?  If there were prayers said, why were they not answered this time?  The faithful Christian will most likely think of a reason that again brings some comfort.

An atheist doesn't go through all that.  It's simply, we're so relieved the symptoms went into remission.  Sadly, the MS returned which is not an uncommon thing to happen.   

Which scenario is preferable is a personal decision. 

 

 

 

[Charity]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

This all is well said and well taken.   The (let's say) hundreds of bible claims and stories, bring a once-believer in miracles to come to the place of not believing ANYTHING spiritual?   Not to mention that personal experiences of the miraculous?   It doesn't work with that VPW "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" but they do happen don't they?   All of that should be thrown in the trash can like it was all a silly accident?    All comments welcome, thx.

Thank you for your post oldiesman.  It can happen when someone begins to have questions about God (and consequently his word as well), for whatever reason, decides to look for logical answers both within and outside of the bible and eventually discover those answers give enough reasons for them to permanently change their view that a God exists.

I know I've said that my "decision" to no longer believe in God happened one particular evening, but I had been seriously questioning for a while before that night over a couple of issues.  I think the fact that I did go back to the bible afterwards to see again what it had to say was a sign of my wanting to confirm that decision.  And with time, the confirmation came and continues to come as I learn more.

[Raf]

Stephen Hawking had ALS for 55 years. Augie Nieto had it for 18. The average life expectancy after diagnosis is two to 5 years. My sister lived four years and 11 months after diagnosis. So Hawking, the atheist, outlives the majority of Christians praying for a miracle by a factor of anywhere between three and 11, if we're being charitable.

I know, that's a MEAN thing to say. And no one wants to hear it. 

But it also unfairly singles out one person's experience and tries to make an example of it.

The MUCH more fair thing to do is recognize that regardless of faith, an ALS diagnosis is more often than not a death sentence with an execution date within two to five years. It doesn't care what you believe or how much "faith" you put in science. It's there to kill you, period.

But what about the exceptions? They're exceptions. Statistics tells you to expect them.

My sister's ALS was not God's fault. Stephen Hawking's ALS was not God's way of giving a prominent atheist as much time as divinely possible to change his mind and see the light. How do I know this? Because I literally just made that up! This idea of clinging to the possible as likely just because it hasn't been ruled out is not an honest approach to the facts.

I suspect the reason some Christians think atheists are angry at God is that they recognize, if they were in our shoes, that they would be angry at Him (too, from their perspective). And I could see where that would make sense. Dozens of GSers prayed for my sister and contributed to ALS research on her behalf (THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR THAT). Did God just not give a flip? Too busy keeping the evangelical atheist scientist alive to give a sick nobody one or two more years of a quality life before she watches herself deteriorate painfully with the knowledge that eventually she will basically drown in her own saliva? Hell, I would be mad at Him too!

But it's not his fault for the same reason it's not Allah's fault it's not Zeus' fault it's not Odin's fault it's not Horus' fault it's not Joe Pesci's fault.

None of those guys exist. Well, maybe the last guy, but I'm half convinced he's a fictional character being played publicly by an amazing actor.

My son has autism because he was born with a brain that misfires in the area of communication. Happens to a lot of people. Happened to my kid. Would have happened if I never believed in God. Would have happened if I were the right reverend so-and-so. It does.not.care.about.my.religious.beliefs.

That's kind of the sad part about realizing you're atheist. You can't pray for people anymore, and let me tell you, that hurts. Because we WANT to do SOMETHING. "I'll pray for you." It sounds like something. And to the person praying, it is. But as it's written in James, if I'm hungry, and you say "I'll pray for you," um. Thanks, but you haven't flipping fed me.

I think that's in James.

I give a lot more as an atheist. Not to churches, but to real causes. Like clean water. Medical research. Feeding programs. Journalism associations. First Amendment defenders.

I could pray for them, but that would not pay a single bill.

I foster kids. I could pray for them, but that wouldn't rescue them from an abusive home, comfort them when they're having nightmares. Feed them. Play with them. Teach them. Clothe them. Take them to their first baseball game or swimming pool. 

People need to do that.  

Edited May 24 by Raf
Corrected stats

[Raf]

2 hours ago, oldiesman said:

This all is well said and well taken.   The (let's say) hundreds of bible claims and stories, bring a once-believer in miracles to come to the place of not believing ANYTHING spiritual?   Not to mention that personal experiences of the miraculous?   It doesn't work with that VPW "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" but they do happen don't they?   All of that should be thrown in the trash can like it was all a silly accident?    All comments welcome, thx.

I submit that part of what you're missing with this excellent, respectful question actually seeking an honest response without a hint of being judgmental or dismissive is that the process is not an immediate or instantaneous one.

Personal experience of the miraculous. Honestly, I think we call things miracles when they're not. We call our intuition Revelation when it's not. Most of the "personal experiences with the miraculous" I had easily and neatly fall into the category of "you know, coincidence explains that just as easily as divine intervention." A few fall into the "you know the other person involved was lying, right?" Some of it was "you made that up" and "there is a mountain of evidence contradicting that claim and zero evidence supporting it." What was left, for me, are stories OTHER people told. And I honestly respect their integrity. But I don't believe there was anything supernatural at work.

No matter how cold it was (who has ears to hear).

I remember thinking at ROA 89 that LCM had bugged the RV we had rented for the week, because there he was on stage every night addressing something we were discussing in private hours earlier. He must have bugged us! And, admittedly, he easily could have. BUT: isn't the more likely explanation that hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, at ROA 1989 were all talking about and thinking about the same controversy that had just decimated the ministry? Did he really need to bug a bunch of nobodies from New York (and Texas) to find out what our complaints and arguments were?

A few months back, Mike posted a thread trying to explain the "paucity" of miracles. It was a stunning admission right there in the title of the thread. Folks had to argue whether the evidence really supported a "paucity" of miracles. I just sat there thinking, "finally, someone admits it."

...

On a semi-related front, if ANYONE on GSC has cause to think I am biased against his religious beliefs, it's got to be Mike. The utter contempt I had for him as a human being cannot be overstated. I often joke that half of GSC's rules were developed to combat the ways I talked to and about Mike. My personal favorite is we can no longer distort the person's screen name for comedic effect. That's because I used to call him "Smikeol," like he was Gollum from Lord of the Rings protecting his precious PFAL.

Ah, the good old days.

One thing I have noticed about Mike though: he follows the GSC rules. He may annoy [some of] us [more than others], but he knows the difference between arguing his position and arguing against people. I respect that. And my comments on his thread would have absolutely derailed the conversation you all were having in Doctrinal (which is to say, "of course there's a paucity of miracles; there's no God to perform them!') So I had to start a parallel thread here in the atheist subforum OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE CHRISTIANS WHO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS THEIR FAITH WITHOUT MY INTERFERENCE.

And I bring it up now because Oldiesman, your question was the best example I've seen in a long time of conducting a respectful inquiry despite holding a [presumably] polar opposite point of view from the people of whom you are inquiring. So thank you for that.

Edited May 24 by Raf

[Charity]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Stephen Hawking had ALS for 55 years. Augie Nieto had it for 18. The average life expectancy after diagnosis is two to 5 years. My sister lived four years and 11 months after diagnosis. So Hawking, the atheist, outlives the majority of Christians praying for a miracle by a factor of anywhere between three and 11, if we're being charitable.

I know, that's a MEAN thing to say. And no one wants to hear it. 

But it also unfairly singles out one person's experience and tries to make an example of it.

The MUCH more fair thing to do is recognize that regardless of faith, an ALS diagnosis is more often than not a death sentence with an execution date within two to five years. It doesn't care what you believe or how much "faith" you put in science. It's there to kill you, period.

But what about the exceptions? They're exceptions. Statistics tells you to expect them.

My sister's ALS was not God's fault. Stephen Hawking's ALS was not God's way of giving a prominent atheist as much time as divinely possible to change his mind and see the light. How do I know this? Because I literally just made that up! This idea of clinging to the possible as likely just because it hasn't been ruled out is not an honest approach to the facts.

I suspect the reason some Christians think atheists are angry at God is that they recognize, if they were in our shoes, that they would be angry at Him (too, from their perspective). And I could see where that would make sense. Dozens of GSers prayed for my sister and contributed to ALS research on her behalf (THANK YOU ALL AGAIN FOR THAT). Did God just not give a flip? Too busy keeping the evangelical atheist scientist alive to give a sick nobody one or two more years of a quality life before she watches herself deteriorate painfully with the knowledge that eventually she will basically drown in her own saliva? Hell, I would be mad at Him too!

But it's not his fault for the same reason it's not Allah's fault it's not Zeus' fault it's not Odin's fault it's not Horus' fault it's not Joe Pesci's fault.

None of those guys exist. Well, maybe the last guy, but I'm half convinced he's a fictional character being played publicly by an amazing actor.

My son has autism because he was born with a brain that misfires in the area of communication. Happens to a lot of people. Happened to my kid. Would have happened if I never believed in God. Would have happened if I were the right reverend so-and-so. It does.not.care.about.my.religious.beliefs.

That's kind of the sad part about realizing you're atheist. You can't pray for people anymore, and let me tell you, that hurts. Because we WANT to do SOMETHING. "I'll pray for you." It sounds like something. And to the person praying, it is. But as it's written in James, if I'm hungry, and you say "I'll pray for you," um. Thanks, but you haven't flipping fed me.

I think that's in James.

I give a lot more as an atheist. Not to churches, but to real causes. Like clean water. Medical research. Feeding programs. Journalism associations. First Amendment defenders.

I could pray for them, but that would not pay a single bill.

I foster kids. I could pray for them, but that wouldn't rescue them from an abusive home, comfort them when they're having nightmares. Feed them. Play with them. Teach them. Clothe them. Take them to their first baseball game or swimming pool. 

People need to do that.  

You bring a depth of insight and conviction in your posts about atheism Raf.    

You wrote, "The MUCH more fair thing to do is recognize that regardless of faith, an ALS diagnosis is more often than not a death sentence with an execution date within two to five years."

But that’s when a Christian will likely want to hold onto their faith tighter than ever working hard to build it to the level of Abraham's in Romans 4, “Who against hope believed in hope…And being not weak in faith…He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith...And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.”  The fact that, unlike Abraham, God makes no promise of healing in the bible is just a moot point. 

Some will hold onto their faith if they think there's even a slightest chance that God will answer their prayer.  Either way, when no deliverance comes, the idea may surface that it's because there is no god but then along come all the “possible” reasons why prayers weren't answered (websites actually give 5, 6, 7, 10 and even up to 20 of them).  IMO, It's like   .  It's better (healthier) just to not play this guessing game anymore.

 

[modcat5]

Reposting the "Questioning Faith" forum rules, which apparently require a reminder. Emphases added.

On 11/17/2014 at 8:37 AM, modcat5 said:

The Greasespot rules apply here just as they do on any other forum. They apply to everyone, regardless of forum "status" or authority. They apply FOR everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof.

This forum on Questioning Faith was started in order to isolate discussions on atheism from other discussions on doctrine. It was started specifically in response to complaints in the Actual Errors in Genesis thread. There was an ERRONEOUS belief that the doctrinal section is for believers only, and that people who are not believers are "wasting their time" posting in doctrinal. Let it be clear: anyone of any faith (or lack thereof) is free to post on any thread in doctrinal. Efforts to make posters feel unwelcome in the doctrinal section because of their beliefs will not be tolerated.

The same goes for Questioning Faith. ANYONE can post here, no matter what you believe.

But whether it's an atheist in the doctrinal section or a believer in Questioning Faith, it is expected that your contribution to the discussion will be On Topic.

If two people are discussing who is the best active player in Major League Baseball, you can't decide this is the right place to talk about whether the Red Sox blundered trading Babe Ruth to the Yankees. You don't get to declare the thread to be about baseball in general just because baseball is an element of the conversation.

If you are not interested in a conversation, you do not get to unilaterally change it. If you would like to start a related discussion, feel free to do so. That will keep the thread on topic while still allowing you to explore ideas inspired by but not directly related to the topic at hand.

Calling someone deceitful because of their beliefs will not be tolerated.

Calling someone demonic will not be tolerated.

If you're going to call a statement untrue, be prepared to back it up. The issue is the statement, NOT the person making it.

Believers are more than welcome to challenge atheist ideas in Questioning Faith. Believers are welcome to start threads and initiate discussions. They are more than allowed to participate in discussions -- they are invited to do so. But just as unbelievers are to stay on topic in doctrinal, believers are to stay on topic here.

The point is to have a discussion, not a monologue or an echo chamber.

Challenging someone's beliefs = fair game.

Mocking them or demonizing them for holding a belief = NOT fair game.

This post will be updated as needed. Feel free to PM me or another moderator with suggestions.

[Nathan_Jr]

8 hours ago, oldiesman said:

This all is well said and well taken.   The (let's say) hundreds of bible claims and stories, bring a once-believer in miracles to come to the place of not believing ANYTHING spiritual?   Not to mention that personal experiences of the miraculous?   It doesn't work with that VPW "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" but they do happen don't they?   All of that should be thrown in the trash can like it was all a silly accident?    All comments welcome, thx.

Atheists are not precluded from an experience or conscious awareness of the transcendent, the mystical, the “spiritual.” Nor are they precluded from “a walk endowed with power from on high.” I use these terms and phrases for convenience, in spite of their insufficiency.

 

 

 

 

[Raf]

Ah yes, the Disclaimer.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in God or gods. 

That's it.

You can be atheist and still believe in ghosts, spirits, astrology, crystals, reincarnation, past life regression, witchcraft, chiropractic, bitcoin and the comedic genius of Rob Schneider. You just can't believe in gods. 

Now, context is critical, because most of the time atheists will have chucked it all out: There is no baby. It's all bathwater.

But you can't guarantee that. The only thing you know about any atheist is that he or she does not believe in gods. 

That said, oldiesman's question was aimed at me and therefore properly worded for my sake. But if anyone else were to read it, the response might be different.

 

 

Edited May 24 by Raf

[Nathan_Jr]

Right, but he welcomed all comments.

Taoists and Buddhists are atheists. Beleef is not part of these traditions as I understand them.

[oldiesman]

20 hours ago, Raf said:

I give a lot more as an atheist. Not to churches, but to real causes. Like clean water. Medical research. Feeding programs. Journalism associations. First Amendment defenders.

I could pray for them, but that would not pay a single bill.

I foster kids. I could pray for them, but that wouldn't rescue them from an abusive home, comfort them when they're having nightmares. Feed them. Play with them. Teach them. Clothe them. Take them to their first baseball game or swimming pool. 

People need to do that.  

Raf, I think you give because of YOU not because you no longer believe in spiritual things.  (my opinion).   Your heart and soul.   I volunteer to do stuff too, among them, give blood and platelets, not because I believe in the spiritual realm but because I can see it does help save lives.   I still do pray when I do this though.

[oldiesman]

20 hours ago, Raf said:

I submit that part of what you're missing with this excellent, respectful question actually seeking an honest response without a hint of being judgmental or dismissive is that the process is not an immediate or instantaneous one.

Personal experience of the miraculous. Honestly, I think we call things miracles when they're not. We call our intuition Revelation when it's not. Most of the "personal experiences with the miraculous" I had easily and neatly fall into the category of "you know, coincidence explains that just as easily as divine intervention." A few fall into the "you know the other person involved was lying, right?" Some of it was "you made that up" and "there is a mountain of evidence contradicting that claim and zero evidence supporting it." What was left, for me, are stories OTHER people told. And I honestly respect their integrity. But I don't believe there was anything supernatural at work.

No matter how cold it was (who has ears to hear).

I remember thinking at ROA 89 that LCM had bugged the RV we had rented for the week, because there he was on stage every night addressing something we were discussing in private hours earlier. He must have bugged us! And, admittedly, he easily could have. BUT: isn't the more likely explanation that hundreds of people, maybe even thousands, at ROA 1989 were all talking about and thinking about the same controversy that had just decimated the ministry? Did he really need to bug a bunch of nobodies from New York (and Texas) to find out what our complaints and arguments were?

A few months back, Mike posted a thread trying to explain the "paucity" of miracles. It was a stunning admission right there in the title of the thread. Folks had to argue whether the evidence really supported a "paucity" of miracles. I just sat there thinking, "finally, someone admits it."

...

On a semi-related front, if ANYONE on GSC has cause to think I am biased against his religious beliefs, it's got to be Mike. The utter contempt I had for him as a human being cannot be overstated. I often joke that half of GSC's rules were developed to combat the ways I talked to and about Mike. My personal favorite is we can no longer distort the person's screen name for comedic effect. That's because I used to call him "Smikeol," like he was Gollum from Lord of the Rings protecting his precious PFAL.

Ah, the good old days.

One thing I have noticed about Mike though: he follows the GSC rules. He may annoy [some of] us [more than others], but he knows the difference between arguing his position and arguing against people. I respect that. And my comments on his thread would have absolutely derailed the conversation you all were having in Doctrinal (which is to say, "of course there's a paucity of miracles; there's no God to perform them!') So I had to start a parallel thread here in the atheist subforum OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE CHRISTIANS WHO HAD EVERY RIGHT TO DISCUSS THEIR FAITH WITHOUT MY INTERFERENCE.

And I bring it up now because Oldiesman, your question was the best example I've seen in a long time of conducting a respectful inquiry despite holding a [presumably] polar opposite point of view from the people of whom you are inquiring. So thank you for that.

YW and thanks.   So here's a question you may have already answered, but perhaps you may want to expound more for the readers understanding.   The below link has been described as a "miracle".   But what is the non-spiritual explanation?   I will admit, I do believe it was a miracle and can't honestly see it any other way at this point.   Thx.

Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia

[Raf]

The article you cited has a section called "Skeptical Explanations" that appears to answer your question quite neatly without any help from me.

[Raf]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

Raf, I think you give because of YOU not because you no longer believe in spiritual things.  (my opinion).   Your heart and soul.   I volunteer to do stuff too, among them, give blood and platelets, not because I believe in the spiritual realm but because I can see it does help save lives.   I still do pray when I do this though.

Thank you. And likewise. I think what I was trying to get at was that I no longer consider praying to be doing something about a situation. 

Whether someone does the right thing because they feel moved by God or because they feel no One else is coming to the rescue, the right thing gets done. I rejoice in that.

 

 

[Nathan_Jr]

"Did Abraham actually sacrifice his son Isaac in the earliest versions of the story we find in Genesis 22?"

This is the question Dan McClellan asks at the start of this fascinating 3 minute video. Apparently, according to ancient and medieval Jewish scholars, the answer is YES. And textual evidence points to a story changed over the centuries to hide the infanticide.

McClellan is scholar of the Bible and a believer. He hosts the podcast Data Over Dogma. This is his latest upload. So timely for what we've been discussing. A miracle!

 

 

Edited May 25 by Nathan_Jr