A Conversation with Ruby

[Schizobunny]

I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

 

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by elliotfc - italics added
I think you're full of it, or yourself. I spend time with religious people constantly and I don't see sadism and fear. You see what you want to see, that's all you're saying. Believe what you want.

You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands?

 

[pgwenthold]

I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

For me it was the omnipotence thing. For a being that was supposedly omnipotent and all-knowing, God seemed to have a lot of human limitations. At least according to christians, that is.

For example, the old "Sometimes a parent has to show their child tough love to make them learn." Even if I accepted it as true, it wouldn't have anything to do with God, who, being omnipotent, can make us learn without having to use "tough love." In fact, there is _nothing_ that God has to do. Everything he does is by choice.

So why does his behavior always get rationalized by applying human limitations? It doesn't make sense. So after dispensing with the only god I had believed in as nonsensical, I was suddenly atheist.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I'm sorry about that! Good thing you're not like a murderer or something. I'm being serious. If you can't control your beliefs (if they were abominable) I wouldn't want to be around you. If you can't control your beliefs (if they are relatively harmless, like yours), all I can say is sometimes you can in fact do things if you really put your mind to it.

Here again, I think a somewhat overly liberal application of the term 'belief' is a potential cause for confusion. This time you are using it to describe a system of moral standards. And again, my objection is that this is not the meaning of the word 'belief' which is most relevant. Society holds me responsible for my acts -- not my beliefs. But this is not what we are talking about here.

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ. The tacit assumption, and the commonly held notion -- which I dispute -- is that this is something which is subject to conscious choice. Since belief is the very basis of becoming accepted under such a system, to admit -- even to oneself -- that one experiences serious doubt about the matter is pretty much guaranteed to cause great internal conflict. Yet the doubt (the cause of the conflict) must be rooted out and destroyed, and this without making that admission. A tricky prospect. The way it is done is to identify doubt in others, where it can be safely acknowledged and attacked. Psychologists call this 'alienation and projection'. I think that is what we are seeing here.

It is easy to focus on the suffering such people may inflict on others, overlooking the fact that their actions demonstrate that they are suffering themselves. I am not saying that their suffering excuses the sort of brutality which they so often display, and every measure should be taken to limit the opportunities for groups of these people (where they are most dangerous, as has been observed) to augment their emotionally abusive practices with political power. The historical record quite clearly shows the results of that.

 

[kittynh]

wow! If most of us posted on a Xian site I'm sure we would find the athesit belief system constantly "insulted" and "talked down". And I'm sure those people would have lots of great examples of evil atheists and bad things that have happened because of NOT believing. I really wouldn't think they would repspect someones atheist beliefs. Heck, they wouldn't respect my moderate Christian beliefs. In fact, they wouldn't respect any of their "members" that posted on the JREF site, because you have to "guard against the devil who is a good at manipulating". It's vainity to openly investigate and pit your "faith" against the devil - you're asking for trouble! (from my ultra Xian neighbor - she says I'm burning belief or not anyway...but she loves me!)

On the Xian site you are going to get people who have had good experiences through their beliefs. Here you are going to get people who have had good experiences through their skeptic beliefs or non - beliefs. Many people's lives have been bettered by leaving a too strict religious dogma. There is no worse hell, than someone elses view of heaven imposed upon another.

These are their war stories. I've found a place where I am comfortable, and that comfort brings me a sense of peace when others assail it. I share the same religious beliefs as Martin Gardner, but many others don't. (I just put that because I think he's so cool, and when I found out we were on the same wavelenght I was pretty smug for awhile....)

 

[Ruby]

As in many occasion before, the lack of objectivity shown with members in this group is evident.
The lack of ability to READ this information is also evident.
But, just for my sake and the record, I will offer a synopses.
This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said).

Ruby: I think Christians are crazy. They also involve themselves in worthless rituals, their beliefs are based on fear (not reason), they are sadists and delight in the idea that people will go to hell. They have been brainwashed, and are paranoid. They are immoral and the biggest backstabbing gossips. They spread false and malicious stories is rampant. They are abusers of every sort...including sexual.

I am glad you said "This is paraphrasing (not what actually was said)". That was a hodge podge of statements taken of context from various threads I posted in. I don't recall ever flat out saying "I think Christians are crazy". If I did, I must have been angry.....and it must be out of context.

I don't recall ever saying that Christians, as a whole, base their beliefs on fear. The closest to that I recall saying was in the thread The psychology of Hell. Ruby said: "Fear, fear fear. That seems to be the biggest motivaton behind so much in Christianity...although so many Christians can't see it. So many who have doubts, but still cling to Christianity, would never admit that they hold on due to a deep seated fear that "Hell" might still be for real."

Part of the above paraphrasing was taken from the thread Motivation for Morals where I posted back in November of last year saying "When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted. I found many christians to be harsh and condemning of others...and the biggest backstabbing gossips. The spread of false and malicious stories was rampant. There were abuses of every sort...including sexual.

Christians have not cornered the market on morals!!

Now, as an agnostic, I choose to be moral...without fear or pressure....without legalism...without pretense. I don't expect or wait to be rewarded for doing a good deed...as christians always do.....I just do good deeds, period...expecting nothing.

I feel better about myself due to this.

For the record, I don't think Christians, on the whole, are crazy. I also don't think, on the whole, that they are immoral. Speaking in general terms, I think that at least 1/3 of Christians are legalistic. Some are abusive. I think that some Christians are trapped by fear. I think some Christians are harsh and condemning. I think some are backstabbers and gossips.

Now, in my 13 years as a Christian, most of the Christians I was around, happened to be legalistic, abusive, condemning and so on. Only a few were exceptional. This was my experience. It was Hell. Not everyone shares my type of experience.

Me: I state as a fact that you know very little of Christian dogma.

Ruby: I studied 13 years this stuff.

I believe my exact words were (from The Blinding Power of Fear) "I lived with Christian dogma for about 13 years". I did not spend the whole 13 years studying it. I probably spent about seven or eight years out of that studying.

Me: Furthermore, you say a lot but not show very little evidence of intelectual work. In this subject you show that your decision are emotions based, that you are being intellectually lazy about it.

Ruby: You are insulting me, you are a bad person.

LOL!! I never called you a bad person. What is your point in "paraphrasing" like this? This isn't paraphrasing at all. You are adding words. I don't think you are a bad person. However, I am upset at your approach with me, and frustrated at your tactics to continue to make me look like I am some awful person. I can't even seem to get to get to the topic at hand...whatever that was............

Me: I'm making factual observations to you. If I'm wrong show me your work. You say Christians are crazy, illogical, with beliefs based on fear and that is your critizism of them. I chanllenge your judgements, and what you to show me the intellectual work that brings you to those conclusions.
Ruby: You are not my god, you are not my king. You can't make do anything.
Me: That's is not what I'm saying. If you call other people illogical, these people have the right to challenge you reasoning. Of course you don't have to answer any of it. But then, your statements become worthless. And it could be perceived as hypocrisy.

Yes, if I have called someone illogical, they have the right to question me, but I have not called anyone, personally, illogical. I have only talked about Christians in my past....from my life, in my experience. I have not called you illogical or any other Christian on here.

Ruby: You are a villian, and others agree with me.

What I really said was "I don't think I'm off my head.....at least one person backed me up on this."

Others: Ruby is entitled to her opinion and she has the right to say whatever she wants about Christians. Besides, you are very ugly.

Me: I'm not arguing about her right to say those things (she has).

No, I did not say them the way you have interpreted them.

I'm not even arguing about the right of her to villify me (she has).

I can't understand why you think this.

I'M STATING THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT CHANLLENGE WHAT SHE SAYS AND TO ASK HER FOR THE INTELLECTUAL WORK BEHIND HERE STATEMENTS
She has the right to not to answer me.
AND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CALL THAT HYPOCRISY
And she has the right to villify all over again.

Why are you so angry and upset with me? What on earth have I done to provoke you like this? This disturbs me very much. I am not your enemy.

I have been responding, albeit slowly, to all your posts about my so called talking down about Christians. That was the purpose of this thread. Actually, you were supposed to ask questions about my constant talking down of Christians. There is so much to go through....so much of my posts you have copied and pasted and made comments on....that I may have missed actual questions.

I am very tired now. I must rest......but i will be back, and try to respond to what I can. I was agreeable to this thread being started....but only for the purpose of being confronted about my supposed talking down of Christians.

Go back and read The Blinding Power of Fear here http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35055&perpage=20&pagenumber=5 where I said "If you find that I "talk down about Christians constantly" and you want to question me on it, why not start a whole new topic on it?" and your reply was "ok".

That's all I agreed to concerning this thread. I was bit surprised when I came on this thread the first time and discovered you had said in your opening post "Ruby has agreed to join in and talk about her path to atheism. Ruby, what was the main reason of your "Conversion"?"

I felt you had lied or tricked me......or just grossly misunderstood our discussion in the other thread. Anyhow, I have decided I'll go ahead and post my conversion story.............but that will take awhile to put together. In the meantime, I am working my way through all the stuff you have dragged up to accuse me with. I am not avoiding questions.

 

[kittynh]

well, saying there aren't a lot of crazy people who claim to be Christians (though I have my doubts, can you really believe in divine retribution and act like David Koresh?) - is like saying there aren't a lot of crazy people who claim to be Muslims, or even atheists.

Bad people will latch onto and corrupt anything they can manipulate to their own ends. A dogmatic religion is as good as an inflexible and repressive political belief.

"You don't see a lot of people complaining about Swedenborgians...


http://www.swedenborg.org/tenets.cfm

Swedenborgianism
This, then, is the living reality of Swedenborg's teachings. In stressing freedom, diversity, and individualism, he issued a challenge to individuals, churches, and other organizations to be committed to the human growth processes and to express their personal commitment in ways as diverse as their numbers. Sensitivity to, and respect for, each individual's "internal church," or spirituality, is what Swedenborgianism is really all about.

I just like Swedenborgians, no ones ever heard of them....but the few I've met believe that choosing to be an atheist can be your spiritual journey. God isn't going to hold it against you...they are so nice....

this is so off the topic isn't it?

hang in there Ruby!

 

[evildave]

kittynh this is so off the topic isn't it?

It's a perfect example of acknowledging the Christians who are nice.

Most Christians are just normal people who I never have any complaints about at all. They don't go out of their way to get in my face, and I never bother with messing with them at all.

It's only that peculiar extremist minority whose concept of "right and wrong" is so utterly skewed by their religious teachings that open harrassment and abuse, heck, even VIOLENCE seems "right" to them over disagreements as trivial as philosophy. They certainly can become better people if they choose. Unfortunately, their sense of what is "better", "moral" and "good" is warped into being more devout in their extremist ways.

A pity, really. If there's any truth about a "just and loving god", who cares about people, and segregates them in some way "after death" (or judgment or whatever), then the "hell" they end up with is only a "hell" for being filled with people like themselves.

 

[Yahweh]

Dymanic wrote:
The other approach, of course, is to make a commitment to truth. Once the struggle is over, it's the only thing left -- to try to find the courage to be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. This requires courage because the truth is often quite ugly -- even terrifying. And there is no turning back. Atheism is the red pill.

But if I'm really honest with myself and SEE human limitations to knowledge (in the context of close to infinite information and (from the MA perspective) randomness)) then I have to admit that the truth is unattainable.

The things that atheist can be certain about (that really matter) in comparison to the rest of the population (including Christians) is miniscule, at best.

Christian,

I cant tell you how many times I've heard the "humans are so limited in their knowledge" argument. Do you know what kind of argument this is? Its a cop-out, its a vacuous statement absent of actual reasoning. Its true simply because the words which form the statement make it true (that is not reasoning, thats called tautology, which is not equivelant to reasoning). For the same reason, there are few instances where I'll ever accept "... therefore X is true by definition".

Have you taken the time to think through the logic? It is futile at best, an endless circle. A person who worships another god as yourself could quite successfully argue against your god simply on the basis of "your knowledge is limited". And vice versa.

However, you are describing God as "the unknown". Well, if we leave it at that, what we dont know gets smaller and smaller everyday. 100 years ago, it might have been perfectly acceptable to say "where did the universe come from... ahhh, you dont know, I propose god did it (oh, but god doesnt need a cause because he's god ya know)". Today, there is no mystery in that first cause, and it seems the information we've unraveled is not god (well, I guess by technicality, you could call the big bang by the name of God, but it would be weird).

I will be unlikely to be persuaded in a belief in God because of my lack of knowledge, and I will unlikely to tolerate a condemnation of the things I believe because I myself have not achieved godhood.

The "human knowledge is limited" is not an excuse for belief in anything really... that is unless you can devise a way for which you can distinguish one supernatural explanation another. Was it God, or was it gnomes, who knows!

If you accepted human knowledge being so limited, how can you possibly accept the bible. I will propose that the book was written by devils who are trying to lead you away from the True Christian God. Though the devils did in fact give you a chance to see this True Christian God (Romans 1:20 tells you to understand God through his creation, and his creation is utterly indistinguishable from a universe absent of God, you can only assume a deistic concept of God or the fact that God has no influence on the world... hmmmm, I guess atheists go to Heaven whatever that may be).


Everything I will ever learn will come an epistemological approach to world, a series of observations and analysis of those observations. Apparently, the world is indistinguishable from a world driven entirely by natural forces.

If you care at all, I wrote a Proof for Naturalism.

Oh, and sparklecat wrote some things definitely worth reading.

 

[RandFanJr.]

"When I was a Christian, I was motivated by fear to be moral...this turned into legalism. Most Christians went around feeling superior if they abstained from more "worldly" things than other Christians. For some, it was considered immoral to drink alcohol. For others, to wear make-up was immoral. So many Christians spent far too much time worrying and sweating over little things to even face the fact that they were being immoral in the big things...where it really counted.

I have to say that this is also typical of a number of Mormons. I have spent a good deal of time defending Mormonism but I have to honestly say that religion and human nature tend to do this to a significant # of people.

I have a Mormon friend who is fanatically against alcohol. He has no problem downloading porn on his computer though. It seems people tend to defend their own "sins" while not accepting others.

 

[RandFanJr.]

You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands?

I don't think it has been demonstrated that a majority of christians are sadists or live in "fear".

Could you expand on what you mean?

 

[elliotfc]

I became an Athiest because I read the Bible. I never relized one book could contradict itself so often.

Given all of the different authors it should come as no shock. I never get how contradictions in the Bible equals no God. I don't see how that equation is valid.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

You're putting me on, right? Everyone else sees the irony here? Can I get a show of hands?

Irony? You stereotype a whole group of people. I'm only talking about you.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Here again, I think a somewhat overly liberal application of the term 'belief' is a potential cause for confusion. This time you are using it to describe a system of moral standards. And again, my objection is that this is not the meaning of the word 'belief' which is most relevant. Society holds me responsible for my acts -- not my beliefs. But this is not what we are talking about here.

OK.....

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ.

Right, and that happens after death.

The tacit assumption, and the commonly held notion -- which I dispute -- is that this is something which is subject to conscious choice.

I sort of agree. When it's just us and God, it should be very obvious, but that doesn't mean you have to accept the obvious.

I am following you...but I think accept is the word I would use, instead of believe, when it comes down to salvation.

Since belief is the very basis of becoming accepted under such a system, to admit -- even to oneself -- that one experiences serious doubt about the matter is pretty much guaranteed to cause great internal conflict.

Yes, plus our natures fight against capitulating to God.

Yet the doubt (the cause of the conflict) must be rooted out and destroyed, and this without making that admission. A tricky prospect. The way it is done is to identify doubt in others, where it can be safely acknowledged and attacked. Psychologists call this 'alienation and projection'. I think that is what we are seeing here.

Right. You are identifying doubt in others.

It is easy to focus on the suffering such people may inflict on others, overlooking the fact that their actions demonstrate that they are suffering themselves.

But that's my point. I *could* say the same thing about you.

I am not saying that their suffering excuses the sort of brutality which they so often display, and every measure should be taken to limit the opportunities for groups of these people (where they are most dangerous, as has been observed) to augment their emotionally abusive practices with political power. The historical record quite clearly shows the results of that.

Right. USSR.

-Elliot

 

[evildave]

USSR... or most of Europe throughout the Dark Ages.

Or, heck, most cultures before the 'Age Of Reason' dawned were run directly, or indirectly by religious authority.

We still have plenty of nice examples of places in Africa and the Middle East that run off religious authority.

Or my favorite example, the 'Lord's Resistance Army' (LRA) that kidnaps children to either be raped, mutilated and killed, or turned into soldiers, all in the name of establishing 'The Ten Commandments' as the government.

Religion + Government = HELL ON EARTH.

Just read your history and pay attention to your current events.

 

[kittynh]

I never got converted to fundie beliefs as a teenager as my fundie friends all said that God was "omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent" (if I spelled all that right it would be a miracle).

She told me that everything was preordained by God. so, I was like, "I have no free will?" right-oh!

so, my going to special bible classes and all that wasn't going to be my choice, it was going to be Gods. In fact, being "born again" was going to be Gods choice, not mine.

I told her I'd go on like I was for now thanks. She finally decided it was pre ordained I'd go burn, and dropped me as a friend. this while I taught Sunday School every week. She's gone through a marriage and abondoned her kids...but hey, the last time I talked to her "this was God's will" and who was she to question it? Not having free will must be fun. sure am glad God decided it was ok for me to join JREF...
Thanks God!

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Under Christianity, salvation ultimately boils down to a single requirement: believe in Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------

Right, and that happens after death.

Wait...what? I don't know where you went to Sunday school, but that ain't what they taught me. You have read the bible, haven't you?

I think accept is the word I would use, instead of believe, when it comes down to salvation

If you want to just make this stuff up as you go along, that's cool, but it isn't consistent with mainstream Christianity, which involves an affirmative obligation to believe a certain thing: "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". You can play around with the words all you want, but there is simply no wiggling out of that.

Right. You are identifying doubt in others...

...But that's my point. I *could* say the same thing about you

I have learned that a reasonable default assumption is that a crusader (for any cause, not only religious causes) is likely trying to compensate for some percieved shortcoming.

This has subtle and widespread implications. For example, I think many who seek careers in law enforcement (certainly many of the most successful at it) are driven by a need to subjucate their own criminal tendancies. People often reveal much about themselves by what they protest against, especially when they "doth protest too much". I hope you will notice that my wording includes escape clauses in acknowledgment of the fact that this process invloves considerable guesswork, but I stand by my view that those who appear to have a significant emotional investment in what others believe is very likely to be one who is tormented by his own doubts.

I have zero emotional investment in what you, or Christian, or for that matter Ruby, or anyone else believes or doesn't believe, and you will not find me trolling Christian fora with my atheism (though I will confess that I did go through that phase). I no longer need to, because I'm (finally) comfortable with what I believe. I also don't have a problem with you guys working through your stuff here either, though there seems to be some room for improvement around style. I think we're basically all doing the best we can with what we have to work with.

My own suffering ended once I decided to stop trying to steer my beliefs. I believe what my reason tells me to believe, and I do not consider myself answerable to anyone else for that. My views may change without further notice based on the input of new information, but if they change, it will be because of that, and not a result of deliberate intent on my part. The rule of thumb I use now is that believing in something shouldn't require a lot of effort.

 

[Yahweh]

Given all of the different authors it should come as no shock. I never get how contradictions in the Bible equals no God. I don't see how that equation is valid.

-Elliot

I'm sure every person might answer the question differently (and possibly more succintly than I could), but one of the immediate reasoning which comes to mind is that a number of contradictions seems to defeat the idea of a perfect god. If some people accept their god as perfect, believe he wrote the bible, then certainly they ought to reject belief in God when the work he has written is internally contradictory.

However, it is quite easy to say "oh, then the bible was inspired by a perfect god". Well, there is no reason which comes to mind which feeds the idea the book was inspired. Most of the stories are quite allegorical (hey, even Gal. 4:24 says the story of Abraham was allegorical, Jesus also taught in parables). This suggests that the morals of the bible are more important than the details. For some, this is enough to feel comfortable with the idea that there is no god, because the character written in the bible is an allegory in itself. God as an allegory is a reflection of humanity.

The allegory of God comes through in the fact that the inconsistencies and contradictions of God's character. Further reasoning to suggest God is allegorical is the fact that nearly all physical manifestations of God are indirect or symbolic. God expresses his intentions through the use of symbols (such as the use of the rainbow in the allegorical story of Noah's ark).

Of course, few folks are unwilling to accept that the God written in the bible is intended as symbolic. What folks usually find hard to understand is the inconsistant nature of God. In the course of two chapters in Exodus, God threatens to destroy the Israelites, relents, and then pronounces himself loving, forgiving, and slow to anger. God physically wrestles Jacob and allows Jacob to beat him. These humble and endearing qualities of God contrast his later appearances as a pillar of fire and a thunderous mountain.

To some, contradictions in character of God, the contradictions in the bible, and the allegorical nature of many of the stories in the bible are only to be believed in the strictest of irrational faith. Many folks are unwilling to settle for irrational faith, so they reject it. With it, they reject their belief in God.

 

[Ruby]

She told me that everything was preordained by God. so, I was like, "I have no free will?" right-oh!

You just hit right on one of the many reasons I began to have doubts as a Christian. I could not reconcile everything....especially Christians.... being preordained, known and chosen by God, and yet man having freewill. My mind went round in circles with it. It scared me. I hid it away until too many other little things kept popping up and I had to face it all. Even then, I could not stop being a Christian. It was the emotional that held me in place..that kept me in my church....I needed that social outlet.....until my church...my Pastor, that is, turned on me and my husband. We were so hurt, and yet it was freeing at the same time. All the veils came down. What an incredible journey it has been so far!!!

 

[elliotfc]

Christian I just don't know why you are singling out Ruby. Actually, I must admit I have some suspicions, but they could be totally wrong, so I'll just say I don't know why you are singling out Ruby.

If you should single out people, you have many to choose from, yet you choose one of the most sincere persons on this forum. Weird.

-Elliot