Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rational BAC · 07-23-2003, 10:05 AM

Opera Nut--------

I don't think anybody should get suicidal about any of this stuff.

If you are an atheist, suicide gets you nothing at all. If you are a theist, suicide get you less than nothing.

So what is the point? I vote for living until the end.

The whole thing is not that serious. We are just grains of sand on an eternally expansive beach. Whether we are living grains of sand or just a bunch of very dead silicone grains of sand is not terribly important.

If you die and there is non-existence, you would not know anyway. If you die and there is a wonderful afterlife, then that is just a plus.

I do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell, -------nor should anybody--a barbaric concept. The only 2 real choices are Heaven or non-existance. And neither of which is that bad a deal.

Opera Nut · 07-23-2003, 10:28 AM

The problem with Xtianity is that its starting premise, that of Original Sin, is abusive. You get a rap you don't deserve, that you had nothing to do with in the first place. It's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding and the cop plants a gun and some marijuana in your car and you get busted for those too, and you are innocent.

Christianity sets up a problem that is non existent (original sin) and then comes up with Jesus as the all purpose cure.

I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve ever existing.

When you have preachers telling everybody they're a worthless piece o'crap just because we're living and breathing, that's a pretty heavy burden. You keep hearing that shit and you start to believe it. And then when you beg them to help you find a job, pay you, you'll do anything for them, and then people tell you you're not supposed to charge for it, then that can drive you over the edge. I had hissy fits in church after sermons, directed right in the preacher/rectum's face. I told them exactly how their sermons made me feel -- like crawlin in a hole and dying.

Christianity is societally sanctioned mental and emotional abuse.

Christianity is all about DEATH and not LIFE.
Christianity is sick, twisted and morbid.

So why don't you just ignore the artificially created problem of original sin, and quit being a Christian, if I may ask?

You can follow the GOOD teachings of Jesus without thinking that salvation by Jesus is the be all and end all of things.

Or you can follow the mean bad-assed teachings of Jesus (I come with a sword...etc) and act like many Christians do -- they drive thinking people away.

I have found the GOOD NEWS.

Do you know what the GOOD NEWS is??

There is no Original Sin!! We are all born OK the first time!!!

There is no Sky Daddy judging us! We have to use our minds and craft our own morality. That takes a lot more work than just swallowing what some preacher tells you to do.

Rational BAC · 07-23-2003, 10:45 AM

If it makes you feel any better I am a Christian and do not believe in original sin.

"Original Sin" was just a con job done much later in time trying half assedly to tie the OT to the NT.

If original sin is your primary hangup with Christianity, just throw it away. I did. And I am an even better Christian for doing that.

Opera Nut · 07-24-2003, 01:20 AM

If you reject original sin, then you have no need for the alleged salvation of persons by Jesus. He's just another historical teacher of wisdom [in some of the verses, in others he's wrathful and capricious and cruel, just like his Old Man].

You don't need Jesus. You don't need Christianity. You just need the writings of the great thinkers, like the Sermon on the Mount, (ignoring for the moment that we don't even know for sure if Jesus existed, and we don't know who wrote most of the Bible), and think for yourself.

All the major religions have teachings about kindness, love and serving your fellow man.

The alleged teachings of the alleged Jesus are not necessary for rational, moral behavior.

So you don't even need to bother with that label Christian and the baggage that goes with it.

Us cynical types who have been buffeted by the worst of life's experiences have negative reactions to the word "Christian" because of our life experiences, and the fact that Christianity does nothing at all to answer our big questions, nor does it help any with avoiding the suffering of our reality.

If you were born OK the first time, as many people believe, then you have no problem with original sin and no need to be "saved" by Jesus or Sky-Daddy. I don't see any problem there.

andy_d · 07-24-2003, 05:45 AM

The only people i've ever met who deconverted did so because they became dissillusioned with the gulf between what their group preached and what it practiced.

(I've met a lot of folks who are now broadly atheist but previously considered themselves members of a religion by default cultural basis, but I don't consider that deconversion because they never really accepted the core values of their former faith)

Aravnah Ornan · 07-24-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Theists who have strong experiences of god(s) do deconvert, but why? I've never heard of someone who had strong experiences of god(s), and ended up deciding that these experiences should be rejected because they werent' good evidence.

That was part of my reason for deconversion. I spoke in tongues, heard "from the L-rd," and felt that feeling of oneness with the universe. The more I read about the naturalistic explanations for such experiences, the more I noticed that my experiences lined up better with the naturalistic explanations than with the Bible. Now, when I hear mysterious voices, they're from the neighbors' car stereo.

[on edit] Now I suppose that someone will say that all those articles I read were planted by Satan, that I was never really saved to begin with, chirp chirp chirp.

Rational BAC · 07-24-2003, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aravnah Ornan
That was part of my reason for deconversion. I spoke in tongues, heard "from the L-rd," and felt that feeling of oneness with the universe. The more I read about the naturalistic explanations for such experiences, the more I noticed that my experiences lined up better with the naturalistic explanations than with the Bible. Now, when I hear mysterious voices, they're from the neighbors' car stereo.

[on edit] Now I suppose that someone will say that all those articles I read were planted by Satan, that I was never really saved to begin with, chirp chirp chirp.

No chirp chirp chirp here---

Actually I agree with you. Those type of emotional religious experiences that you are trying so hard to achieve are most likely self fulfilling. And can be easily explained away rationally as self delusion.

What is harder to shake is the very rational guy just going about his business not trying to do anything at all spiritually, when WHAMMO is hit in the face with something supernatural, with no rational explanation.

You go on with your life, and you don't stop being a rational person day in and day out, but you never get away from that original feeling -----------"Uh Oh------there really IS something out there" --- "Am going to have to adjust my thinking to allow for that"

Opera Nut · 07-26-2003, 12:53 AM

RatBac still hasn't said why he considers himself a christian if he doesn't believe in Original Sin which is the starting "problem" that "salvation by Jesus" is supposed to cure.

If he believes in universal salvation, that would make him a Universalist.

If he still believes in the Trinity he would NOT be a Unitarian, he would be a Trinitarian.

There are no Universalist seminaries anymore. The minister of the U-U church I first attended gave a sermon each year called "The Last Universalist Minister". He graduated from a now defunct Universalist seminary called, IIRC, St. Lawrence, in 1963, or '64. They merged with the Unitarians shortly there after and that's why they are properly two Us.

Michael Servetus of Transylvania was the first Unitarian-Universalist, back the 1500s.

He wrote letters to John Calvin about One God and Universal Salvation. Calvin invited him to Geneva for a debate and then barbecued him.

Protestants have probably done nearly as much barbecuing as the Catholics, when they had the chance.

Koyaanisqatsi · 07-26-2003, 02:11 AM

Quote:

My idea was to look at people who are first theists, and then deconvert. They believe for a reason on the first list, and then deconvert for a reason on the second list. Now, the case in point was that people who believe for the first reason, experiences of the supernatural, very seldom see the arguments against acceptance of such experiences as convincing. I'm saying that this points to the validity of the experiences. I mean, atheists tend to think that supernatural thought is foreign to the real world, and that there are good refutations of the argument from religious experiences. But if those were true, wouldn't it be easy to convince experiences of the supernatural that they are wrong?

How would one convince someone that what they experienced was "wrong," if they're not rationally minded to begin with?

You're assuming that there is a person (who lives in a vacuum) who has an experience and translates that experience into: Proof of a God.

How would that be possible, unless they already have a belief in a god? If, for example, Jesus Christ appeared before me (literally) and stated, "I am the Lord Jesus Christ," I still would not believe that what I had just witnessed was a visitation from a two thousand year old dead guy, let alone that he was literally "the Lord" or that something "super" natural had occurred. Why would I? On hallucinogens, I saw a house turn into a lion's head and I've become my own vomitus. While dreaming, I've destroyed every single known physical "rule" of matter interaction. While awake, I've seen bugs that didn't actually exist upon further examination and heard my name called out when no one was around.

None of which would be "proof" that a supernatural realm exists, since literally all of it can be explained through natural processes. This isn't to say that there is most likely more to what we currently consider "natural processes;" but it doesn't necessarily constitute evidence (however experiencial) of a supernatural process at work.

The irony in all of this is the age-old irony inherent within theism of any kind; that such a belief ipso facto means that there is an undeniable objectivety to the universe; yet, for obvious reasons, these kinds of "experiences" are never about objective experience; always personal, subjective experience.

Personal experiences of these kinds are exceedingly easy to explain according to natural processes, but an objective experience (such as the stars being rearranged to spell out, "I am Yahweh, as written in the Old Testament" for every person on Earth to see every night) never occur. Why not, if in fact a god's existence is almost singularly defined as mandating objectivety?

The very fact that these "experiences" are entirely subjective proves conclusively that they do not represent the objective existence of a supernatural being, but try and explain that to a cult member who has been conditioned to think that personal experience is the defining quality (and gee, why would that be the case

?).

Present an objectively verifiable experience and you've conclusively established a claim; present a subjectively un-verifiable experience and you've conclusively established that you aren't a very critical thinker.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2003, 10:05 AM	#11
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Opera Nut-------- I don't think anybody should get suicidal about any of this stuff. If you are an atheist, suicide gets you nothing at all. If you are a theist, suicide get you less than nothing. So what is the point? I vote for living until the end. The whole thing is not that serious. We are just grains of sand on an eternally expansive beach. Whether we are living grains of sand or just a bunch of very dead silicone grains of sand is not terribly important. If you die and there is non-existence, you would not know anyway. If you die and there is a wonderful afterlife, then that is just a plus. I do not believe in a fire and brimstone hell, -------nor should anybody--a barbaric concept. The only 2 real choices are Heaven or non-existance. And neither of which is that bad a deal.

07-23-2003, 10:28 AM	#12
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	The problem with Xtianity is that its starting premise, that of Original Sin, is abusive. You get a rap you don't deserve, that you had nothing to do with in the first place. It's like being pulled over by a cop for speeding and the cop plants a gun and some marijuana in your car and you get busted for those too, and you are innocent. Christianity sets up a problem that is non existent (original sin) and then comes up with Jesus as the all purpose cure. I personally don't believe in Adam and Eve ever existing. When you have preachers telling everybody they're a worthless piece o'crap just because we're living and breathing, that's a pretty heavy burden. You keep hearing that shit and you start to believe it. And then when you beg them to help you find a job, pay you, you'll do anything for them, and then people tell you you're not supposed to charge for it, then that can drive you over the edge. I had hissy fits in church after sermons, directed right in the preacher/rectum's face. I told them exactly how their sermons made me feel -- like crawlin in a hole and dying. Christianity is societally sanctioned mental and emotional abuse. Christianity is all about DEATH and not LIFE. Christianity is sick, twisted and morbid. So why don't you just ignore the artificially created problem of original sin, and quit being a Christian, if I may ask? You can follow the GOOD teachings of Jesus without thinking that salvation by Jesus is the be all and end all of things. Or you can follow the mean bad-assed teachings of Jesus (I come with a sword...etc) and act like many Christians do -- they drive thinking people away. I have found the GOOD NEWS. Do you know what the GOOD NEWS is?? There is no Original Sin!! We are all born OK the first time!!! There is no Sky Daddy judging us! We have to use our minds and craft our own morality. That takes a lot more work than just swallowing what some preacher tells you to do.

07-23-2003, 10:45 AM	#13
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	If it makes you feel any better I am a Christian and do not believe in original sin. "Original Sin" was just a con job done much later in time trying half assedly to tie the OT to the NT. If original sin is your primary hangup with Christianity, just throw it away. I did. And I am an even better Christian for doing that.

07-24-2003, 01:20 AM	#14
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	If you reject original sin, then you have no need for the alleged salvation of persons by Jesus. He's just another historical teacher of wisdom [in some of the verses, in others he's wrathful and capricious and cruel, just like his Old Man]. You don't need Jesus. You don't need Christianity. You just need the writings of the great thinkers, like the Sermon on the Mount, (ignoring for the moment that we don't even know for sure if Jesus existed, and we don't know who wrote most of the Bible), and think for yourself. All the major religions have teachings about kindness, love and serving your fellow man. The alleged teachings of the alleged Jesus are not necessary for rational, moral behavior. So you don't even need to bother with that label Christian and the baggage that goes with it. Us cynical types who have been buffeted by the worst of life's experiences have negative reactions to the word "Christian" because of our life experiences, and the fact that Christianity does nothing at all to answer our big questions, nor does it help any with avoiding the suffering of our reality. If you were born OK the first time, as many people believe, then you have no problem with original sin and no need to be "saved" by Jesus or Sky-Daddy. I don't see any problem there.

07-24-2003, 05:45 AM	#15
andy_d Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: umop apisbn Posts: 568	The only people i've ever met who deconverted did so because they became dissillusioned with the gulf between what their group preached and what it practiced. (I've met a lot of folks who are now broadly atheist but previously considered themselves members of a religion by default cultural basis, but I don't consider that deconversion because they never really accepted the core values of their former faith)

07-26-2003, 12:53 AM	#18
Opera Nut Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Houston TX Posts: 1,671	RatBac still hasn't said why he considers himself a christian if he doesn't believe in Original Sin which is the starting "problem" that "salvation by Jesus" is supposed to cure. If he believes in universal salvation, that would make him a Universalist. If he still believes in the Trinity he would NOT be a Unitarian, he would be a Trinitarian. There are no Universalist seminaries anymore. The minister of the U-U church I first attended gave a sermon each year called "The Last Universalist Minister". He graduated from a now defunct Universalist seminary called, IIRC, St. Lawrence, in 1963, or '64. They merged with the Unitarians shortly there after and that's why they are properly two Us. Michael Servetus of Transylvania was the first Unitarian-Universalist, back the 1500s. He wrote letters to John Calvin about One God and Universal Salvation. Calvin invited him to Geneva for a debate and then barbecued him. Protestants have probably done nearly as much barbecuing as the Catholics, when they had the chance.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.