Hello world

[Hydra009]

If I was born in Saudi Arabia or India or China, would I be Christian? I think the obvious answer is no. I’d be Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist respectively.

Undoubtedly.  A surprisingly high amount of this stuff can be chaulked up to outside forces - pressure from family and from society at large to conform to certain religious beliefs.  And largely, it works.  If I were raised in a society that took the existence of faeries seriously, I would, too.  At least for a while.  But eventually, cracks form and breach this whole charade.  You seem well on your way yourself.

One thing that has always bugged me about religion, as a believer and as an ex-believer:  how does anyone know that any of this stuff is true?

Start fom a place with no assumptions and no conclusions.  Someone talks about how something or another is a miracle or that someone's in heaven or hell.  How do they know that?

And examine someone from another religion's counter-claim and their justifications.  Are these any more grounded in reality than the first?  Who knows what they're talking about and who does not?  If the former, how do they know?  If the latter, what could cause them to pretend to know?

[Unbeliever]

Just the fact the religion is geographically distributed ought to tell people that their religion may not be "the one true religion." But it doesn't, for some reason.

[SGOS]

There is a tremendous amount of lore about God, including stories from which we form opinions about his wants, needs, abilities, and how he interacts with humans.  But for me, there was really only one question I had about God: "Does he exist?"  While trying to hang on to my belief, this was the only thing I needed.  Had I found that information, I would have been a happy camper.  But I could find no evidence, and what people pointed to as evidence was inadequate and/or could easily be accounted for by reasons of psychological desire, poor reasoning skills, undocumented 3rd party testimony, and blatant use of logical fallacy.  If existence cannot be proven, all the rest of his attributes and needs are irrelevant.  Questions like, "Why does god love us," are not only irrelevant, but utilize the fallacy of begging the question. ("Why god loves us" assumes he exists.  His existence is implied in the question, but the person offers no proof for the essential question.")  The question is a waste of time.  Theists waste their time chasing their tails of circular thought.  I understand this.  Having a buddy god is important and fills a need.  Although not for me.  My need is for proof, and to Hell with chasing the unicorn.

[AcrobaticDetective]

Undoubtedly.  A surprisingly high amount of this stuff can be chaulked up to outside forces - pressure from family and from society at large to conform to certain religious beliefs.  And largely, it works.  If I were raised in a society that took the existence of faeries seriously, I would, too.  At least for a while.  But eventually, cracks form and breach this whole charade.  You seem well on your way yourself.

One thing that has always bugged me about religion, as a believer and as an ex-believer:  how does anyone know that any of this stuff is true?

Start fom a place with no assumptions and no conclusions.  Someone talks about how something or another is a miracle or that someone's in heaven or hell.  How do they know that?

And examine someone from another religion's counter-claim and their justifications.  Are these any more grounded in reality than the first?  Who knows what they're talking about and who does not?  If the former, how do they know?  If the latter, what could cause them to pretend to know?

Exactly. We just take it for granted. We're obviously raised to believe and trust our parents, teachers, doctors and religious leaders. Mom says be a gentleman, we do it. The doctor says exercise, we believe her. The priest says God told Noah to build an arc, we say cool. For those raised in abusive homes, we hope they can see past the lessons they're given. But we have instincts (maybe) that often cause us to protect what we've grown up with instead of questioning it.

[AcrobaticDetective]

There is a tremendous amount of lore about God, including stories from which we form opinions about his wants, needs, abilities, and how he interacts with humans.  But for me, there was really only one question I had about God: "Does he exist?"  While trying to hang on to my belief, this was the only thing I needed.  Had I found that information, I would have been a happy camper.  But I could find no evidence, and what people pointed to as evidence was inadequate and/or could easily be accounted for by reasons of psychological desire, poor reasoning skills, undocumented 3rd party testimony, and blatant use of logical fallacy.  If existence cannot be proven, all the rest of his attributes and needs are irrelevant.  Questions like, "Why does god love us," are not only irrelevant, but utilize the fallacy of begging the question. ("Why god loves us" assumes he exists.  His existence is implied in the question, but the person offers no proof for the essential question.")  The question is a waste of time.  Theists waste their time chasing their tails of circular thought.  I understand this.  Having a buddy god is important and fills a need.  Although not for me.  My need is for proof, and to Hell with chasing the unicorn.

I can understand that. I never needed proof myself. I learned about God from so many people I loved and trusted that I took his existence for granted. But once I started debating with others, I found myself unable to say anything that didn't seem like intellectual dishonesty or mental gymnastics. When I actually spoke an apologetic argument aloud, I felt that "oh that was stupid" embarrassment in my stomach. Worried that someone would call me on it and I wouldn't have an answer.

[Baruch]

An open mind is a good thing, as long as it isn't so loose it falls out of your skull (nihilism) ;-)

[Draconic Aiur]

The Greek/Roman pantheon are poly theism, while the Judiah religions are monotheism.

The Greek/Roman pantheon are full of monstrous gods but not all were total dicks, some did have good in them. Just like the God of heaven there was good but in the the case of monotheism it came from a narcissistic sociopath who demanded you love him more than anything to get rewards. Jesus, the god or son of god of Christianity teachings were great until the parties and narcissistic behavior came then he was a ass worth betraying. At the same time the Greeks religion separated their gods and goddesses up into sections with the monstrous titans and the 12 dicks. Out of those 12, Zeus, Hera, Ares, Aphrodite, Athena  and Hades were the worst started from nightmarish with Zeus and less than nightmarish with Hades.

Hades was a giant dick but he wasn't the devil. He just was the eldest god that got screwed into being the god of the underworld aka manager of the afterlife which includes heaven or Elysium. Really Yahweh should compare to Zeus who is very identical.

[SGOS]

I can understand that. I never needed proof myself. I learned about God from so many people I loved and trusted that I took his existence for granted. But once I started debating with others, I found myself unable to say anything that didn't seem like intellectual dishonesty or mental gymnastics. When I actually spoke an apologetic argument aloud, I felt that "oh that was stupid" embarrassment in my stomach. Worried that someone would call me on it and I wouldn't have an answer.

I still judge a debate on how logically it is constructed.  In fact, at one time, I thought using logical fallacy was enough to disqualify a debater.  I don't know why I thought that because theological debate draws heavily on fallacies.  I also thought that logical fallacies were caused by lazy thinking, but not all theists are stupid, so I tend to think they are also used with outright dishonest intent.  The purpose of debate is to win, not to determine truth.  The so called rules of debate actually seem to be more about civility, not honesty or integrity.  This makes debating with theists, pointless.

[Blackleaf]

Welcome, Nightwing! I know what you mean. When you're a devote believer, you see objections to your own faith through a pair of kaleidoscopes. You just can't process them properly, even though you think you have logical ways of dismissing those objections. For me, it wasn't some documentary that made me lose my faith. It was after years of experience, trying my best to serve and please God. It was my passion and my drive. I was as immersed in it as you can go, so it pisses me off when Christians try to claim I had some flash-in-the-pan faith to dismiss what I have to say entirely. But eventually, I came to an important realization. My relationship with God was entirely one sided.

I did the work, he took the credit. I give him my time, my energy, my thoughts, and my free labor, and he gives me nothing. It wasn't that I was expecting some reward or anything, but this was supposed to be my "Heavenly Father." I could look to my Earthly father and see how he shows his love for me in real, tangible ways, so why did it seem like my Heavenly Father--who was supposed to be infinitely better than my Earthly one--was ignoring me? Why didn't he speak to me when I prayed to him? Why didn't he give me advice to help me through life? Why was it everything I was supposed to give him credit for in my life was stuff I had to work for myself? Eventually, I just had to accept that there was no one on the other side of the line. It was only then that my brain was able to think clearly. To use a common Christian term: The scales fell from my eyes.

[AcrobaticDetective]

I still judge a debate on how logically it is constructed.  In fact, at one time, I thought using logical fallacy was enough to disqualify a debater.  I don't know why I thought that because theological debate draws heavily on fallacies.  I also thought that logical fallacies were caused by lazy thinking, but not all theists are stupid, so I tend to think they are also used with outright dishonest intent.  The purpose of debate is to win, not to determine truth.  The so called rules of debate actually seem to be more about civility, not honesty or integrity.  This makes debating with theists, pointless.

I agree.

[AcrobaticDetective]

Welcome, Nightwing! I know what you mean. When you're a devote believer, you see objections to your own faith through a pair of kaleidoscopes. You just can't process them properly, even though you think you have logical ways of dismissing those objections. For me, it wasn't some documentary that made me lose my faith. It was after years of experience, trying my best to serve and please God. It was my passion and my drive. I was as immersed in it as you can go, so it pisses me off when Christians try to claim I had some flash-in-the-pan faith to dismiss what I have to say entirely. But eventually, I came to an important realization. My relationship with God was entirely one sided.

I did the work, he took the credit. I give him my time, my energy, my thoughts, and my free labor, and he gives me nothing. It wasn't that I was expecting some reward or anything, but this was supposed to be my "Heavenly Father." I could look to my Earthly father and see how he shows his love for me in real, tangible ways, so why did it seem like my Heavenly Father--who was supposed to be infinitely better than my Earthly one--was ignoring me? Why didn't he speak to me when I prayed to him? Why didn't he give me advice to help me through life? Why was it everything I was supposed to give him credit for in my life was stuff I had to work for myself? Eventually, I just had to accept that there was no one on the other side of the line. It was only then that my brain was able to think clearly. To use a common Christian term: The scales fell from my eyes.

My earthly father wasn't right in the head. So I grew up with a very odd sense of what a loving father does. The God of the old testament fit the mold very well. And the God of the new testament seemed like a dream come true. However, my scales have also fallen away (I like the twist on that phrase).

[Baruch]

My earthly father wasn't right in the head. So I grew up with a very odd sense of what a loving father does. The God of the old testament fit the mold very well. And the God of the new testament seemed like a dream come true. However, my scales have also fallen away (I like the twist on that phrase).

We all suffer from imperfect relationships, and those with parents are the most telling.  I hope you continue to grow beyond the mistakes and abuse.

[aitm]

If I suggested that the very first "human" child born say....350,000 years ago, came into the world with the complete knowledge of everything from all the languages to quantum mechanics....structure of atoms, quarks, black-holes and how to make a proper brownie, but yet...for some reason could not quite grasp the female menstrual cycle but went on to create it's own universe within minutes of birth, you would no doubt squirch your eyebrows at me and simply dismiss the idea as complete stupidity.

But if I replace the "child" with a god....suddenly people say, "oh yeah, makes perfect sense."

To tell me that something has existed forever, prior to the existence of anything, but yet has knowledge of everything prior to him making it exist....is pretty absurd.

[Blackleaf]

If I suggested that the very first "human" child born say....350,000 years ago, came into the world with the complete knowledge of everything from all the languages to quantum mechanics....structure of atoms, quarks, black-holes and how to make a proper brownie, but yet...for some reason could not quite grasp the female menstrual cycle but went on to create it's own universe within minutes of birth, you would no doubt squirch your eyebrows at me and simply dismiss the idea as complete stupidity.

But if I replace the "child" with a god....suddenly people say, "oh yeah, makes perfect sense."

To tell me that something has existed forever, prior to the existence of anything, but yet has knowledge of everything prior to him making it exist....is pretty absurd.

"But God lives outside of time!"

Which means he can't do anything he didn't already know he was going to do. Which means he has no free will. Everything was set in stone from the very beginning, but unlike us, he had the curse to see all of infinite history before it happened, and know just how much of a slave to destiny he really is.

[Baruch]

If I suggested that the very first "human" child born say....350,000 years ago, came into the world with the complete knowledge of everything from all the languages to quantum mechanics....structure of atoms, quarks, black-holes and how to make a proper brownie, but yet...for some reason could not quite grasp the female menstrual cycle but went on to create it's own universe within minutes of birth, you would no doubt squirch your eyebrows at me and simply dismiss the idea as complete stupidity.

But if I replace the "child" with a god....suddenly people say, "oh yeah, makes perfect sense."

To tell me that something has existed forever, prior to the existence of anything, but yet has knowledge of everything prior to him making it exist....is pretty absurd.

The movie ... Baby Geniuses ;-)