Time to introduce myself. I've been prowling around this site for a few months and have finally added a pic. He is Colonel Thomas Blood, a supposedly distant relative of mine and 1st class scoundrel. I use his name, as mine is sufficiently unusual to show up on a Google search. I am a nurse, and health care is rampant with xians. I am also an ordained clergy person and - well things are just a bit complicated right now. Folks who I don't want in the know, will not come snooping here on their own.

Enough intro: Here is the morsel for you to chew on. I have heard it expressed explicitly at least once, and implied by several of you that if one is an atheist, the is NO WAY that you could ever become sufficiently delusional to believe in a god. Well I was. Or did.

I grew up with a believing mother and an atheist father. We never went to church and my religious training was minimal (one year of a generic protestant Sunday school). I was atheist by age 15. I was always fascinated by xians however, especially the really confident kind. Long story short; over several years I developed and pursued the hypothesis that the only way I could be sure that there was no god was to diligently seek him. This led me on multiple pathways until I wound up in a fundamentalist country church one night where I was invited to "come to Jesus" Multiple threads in my life had brought me to the place where I was able to suspend my skepticism enough to accept the possibility of this being real. When I stood up, the world changed. The event and my theories about would take another blog.

The result of this "encounter " was that I became a fundamentalist xian .  My lack of religious upbringing actually worked against me as I had no framework for my new life, only that "reason" had failed as method for finding the TRUTH.  Over the course of decades my inquiring mind kept pushing me into ever more "liberal" understandings of God until I finally realized that my theology had become "Jesus as metaphor" and that I no longer needed the metaphor.

So here I am, full circle again. The experience has not been a complete waste of my life (Thank GOD!!!). I have a very full, hands on type of understanding of religious faith and have first hand knowledge of many of the different flavors of belief. I find many of you off-putting. You can be so bloody sanctimonious sometimes, as if all people of faith were idiots. I am sure I actually had more IQ points when I was religious than I do how. But I DO understand how you feel. I sometimes have to stop myself from thinking "How can anyone BELIEVE that crap?" when it was not so long ago that I did in fact believe it myself.

I've rattled on long enough. Have at it!

Views: 3666

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Gallup, about your words above: ...claim that religion is a need.

I almost responded yesterday to similar words. Are you saying religion is an objective need, a need that exists independently of people or other life forms?

I expect that the 'religion as a need' assertion is mostly a marketing ploy, very much like some advertisers using feelings of inadequancy, imperfection, and loneliness to make a sale of some version of snake oil.

Sadly it verges on co-dependency.

James, you have perhaps settled the long debate; advertisers need religion.

Gallup, about your words above: ...claim that religion is a need. I almost responded yesterday to similar words. Are you saying religion is an objective need, a need that exists independently of people or other life forms?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm your friendly neighborhood atheist.

Stole Jesus is claiming religion is a need. I've been asking her to provide examples of discoveries, inventions, achievements, etc. which "need" religion and would be impossible without it.

She's done a lot of tap-dancing, but hasn't produced any answer that passes the laugh test. For instance, according to her, the 1.4 billion Catholics in the world "need" to be Catholic. You know. Like they "need" food and water. And smartphones, too. Otherwise they die.

 

"You see, Stole-J, your repeated inability to support your point means you've failed, and my repeated ability to demonstrate this means I've succeeded."

Your funny Gallup - ok you win

I know I've answered a lot of your questions Gallup, you just dont like me not agreeing with you. You and arche are a bit similar that way.

Gallup: "You see, Stole-J, your repeated inability to support your point means you've failed, and my repeated ability to demonstrate this means I've succeeded."

Stole-J: Your funny Gallup - ok you win. 

No, you won-- not our argument but a personal victory-- by conceding to a "less evolved" atheist that religion, though perhaps greatly wanted, is not needed.

It's almost unheard of for someone to issue a blue-in-the-face argument and then concede a point. You've almost impressed me, Stole-J, after that rocky start.

I know I've answered a lot of your questions Gallup, you just dont like me not agreeing with you. 

People disagree on matters of opinion. Tell me radishes are delicious and I'll disagree. On matters of fact, there is no disagreement. A thing is true or not, and one accepts it or not. We don't "disagree" on your point that religion is a need. You failed to make it. It simply isn't true. Religion is no more needful than wine or a rabbit's foot.

You and arche are a bit similar that way.

Arch is a good debater, when he puts in the time. I hope he comes back.

 

@Gallup - "The entertainment value of this is compounded with your bizarre reversal of what you .......

No Gallup - the entertainment value is playing spot the Narcissist  .......

" ........  my repeated ability to demonstrate this means I've succeeded."

lolz

 

 

No Gallup - the entertainment value is playing spot the Narcissist  .......

lolz

You're being awfully hard on yourself, Stole-J. I don't think you're a narcissist, even if you do belittle atheists and secularism while posting under a passive-aggressive namesake.

Besides, if I thought you were, I wouldn't apply the term on the public boards. Otherwise, someone might get the impression I was attacking you personally, rather than addressing your argument. (I mean, you know, if you had presented one.)

Naw, judging by the number of dishonest and fallacious arguments you presented in our exchange, your problem isn't narcissism, but an impaired ability to think and reason clearly.

But you know how much I enjoy that... Harry! ;)

 

@Gallup - "So psychology-- the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors-- cannot be accomplished without religion."

Thats the wrong way to ask the question.
The question could be something like - why is psychotherapy and the religious process of confession so similar?

"*Cue laugh track*"
Thats artificial - I use real laughter, it feels better.

Gallup: "So psychology-- the scientific study of mental functions and behaviors-- cannot be accomplished without religion."

Stole-J: Thats the wrong way to ask the question.

I didn't ask a question. You made the claim above. Now it falls to you to support the claim.

Stole-J: The question could be something like - why is psychotherapy and the religious process of confession so similar?

It could be, but-- since it doesn't support your claim, and since the one above is a 'loaded question fallacy' and contains an unjustified assumption intended to limit the answer to those which serve your agenda-- it's not.

Have you eaten the leftover dog-turd stew you had from yesterday, yes or no?

Gallup: "*Cue laugh track*"
Stole-J: Thats artificial - I use real laughter, it feels better.

Oh, rest assured, Stole-J, whether fresh on the first reading, or canned to share with others on subsequent readings, my laughter at your antics is both frequent and genuine. Keep up the good work! 

 

"Oh, rest assured, Stole-J, whether fresh on the first reading, or canned to share with others on subsequent readings, my laughter at your antics is both frequent and genuine".

 .. said Frollo to Esmeralda.

...said Frollo to Esmeralda.

Okay, so...

Frollo, the Archdeacon of Notre Dame, threatens the innocent Esmeralda with death, denying her sanctuary in his church unless she reciprocates his love. Esmeralda refuses. Frollo hands her over to be hanged. Frollo watches from his church and laughs, so Quasimodo kills him. The End.

So you present this story by Victor Hugo-- the famous 19th century Freethinker, rationalist, and atheist-- as analogous to our little story here, which is:

Gallup the atheist, indicts Stole-J the apologist for religion, after she (1) claims falsely that 'religion is a need', (2) insults atheists who reject her claim, and (3) belittles those who hold secular ceremonies. Stole-J repeatedly responds to Gallup with intellectual dishonesty ('Catholics need to be Catholic!') which makes Gallup laugh. Stole-J concedes. Gallup is surprised enough to offer a complement. Stole-J replies with an insult. The End.

Naw, you've got it all wrong. In our story, you're the wrongdoer and I am your foil in that I highlight your dishonest qualities to your ruin. We need a proper analogy for that. In short: 

To represent your argument, we need a villain who is incompetent, persistent, and ridiculous. To represent mine: someone the villain just can't get the best of.

I've got it! You're Harry the burglar from Home Alone and I'm Kevin! No matter what you've tried, it's been constant failure for you and endless entertainment for me!

Okay, taking it from the top:

"Oh, rest assured, Stole-J, whether fresh on the first reading, or canned to share with others on subsequent readings, my laughter at your antics is both frequent and genuine".

...said Kevin to Harry.

 

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service