Autoblography Part 11: Roller Rinks and Jesus

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Sep 13, 2011

Filed under: Personal 1043 comments

WARNING: In this post I openly discuss religion.

I’m not writing this with the expectation that you will convert to my beliefs. I didn’t embark on this series as a way of suddenly ambushing my readership with spiritual ideas. But if we’re going to get from point A to point C in my story, we must pass through B. Let’s just try to stay calm and get through it.

I know some people hate the subject. I know some people hate – or at least strongly oppose – Christians. I understand. This is a highly personal subject to me as well. Try to separate your notions of the faith from what you’re reading here. This took place in 1981 or 82, long before the subject of Christianity became quite the flame war / political battleground it is today.

Feel free to skip this entry if Jesus talk makes you uncomfortable. Feel free to read it and not comment. But whatever you do, don’t read it, get mad, and then rage out in the comments. That will not lead to edification for anyone. Also, please don’t do the passive-aggressive, “I respect your right to believe whatever drivel you like.” I know how you are, internet, and you’re not nearly as tolerant as you imagine when you do that.

I will be moderating the comment thread with an eye to preventing fires. Don’t post mad.

Mom, raised Lutheran, is now a kind of pagan hippie. She’s decided to not talk about religion with my brother and I, and instead allow her sons to, “Find the truth on their own.”

One Wednesday she takes us to Skate Castle (which still exists!) to enjoy some roller-skating. Actually, not “skating” so much as “slamming into walls and faceplanting”, in the case of my brother and I. But these are dues that must be paid if one is to rollerskate. Better to do this when one is four feet tall than to wait until mass and gravity are more dangerous adversaries.

People keep coming up to us and asking, “Are you here for church night?”

“No. I’m here for skating.”

“Oh, because tonight is church night.”

Whatever. I don’t know what to make of this, and neither do Mom and Pat. It’s Wednesday! Who ever heard of church on Wednesday? Maybe these folks just came from church? Maybe they are going to church after skating? I’m sure it doesn’t apply to me.

Halfway through the evening, the music stops. The lights go out in the rink. Everyone gathers in the concession area. “Church night” evidently means, “Pay for a full night of skating, get half a night of skating and half a night of some nutjob preacher.” He’s got a guitar and he plays some awful folksy gospel music, and stops every once in a while to read a bit of the Bible. He seems to be focusing on the whole “all the sinners get thrown into the lake of fire” bits, which doesn’t resonate with me so much as creep me out. I don’t like this guy.

Mom is not amused. She endures this business in silent rage, but when it becomes clear that this preaching isn’t just a short interruption, she storms out right in the middle of his talk. She tells the story again and again over the next couple of days, about the religious nuts who ruined our night of skating.

I am more circumspect. I have already decided that I believe in God, although I’m not particularly impressed by any of the churches I’ve visited in my life. I’ve been to some for weddings and funerals, and now I’ve been to “church” in a roller-rink. These feel wrong to me, or misguided. I’ve only met a few Christians in my life, and most of them I have mentally placed into the ever-growing file labeled “Jerks”. Despite all of this, I find value in a few concepts. There are ideas here that I accept, and some that I question. I don’t know how to investigate this on my own, and I sense Mom would be hostile to the idea, so I let it sit.

Late in the year a guy knocks on the door. I’m the only one home. We live in a bad neighborhood. It’s nighttime. I have no idea who he is. He’s a grown man. I’m a little kid. Both rules and reason say that I should give him the shove, but I let him in. He reads me a few verses from the Bible. John 3:16, and a bit of Romans. He talks about God, tells me about Jesus.

This. This is what I’ve been looking for. I’ve been snatching bits of understanding from my various encounters with the faith, like someone watching a game of baseball through a hole in the fence. The various unconnected ideas have drifted around in my head, and this guy gives me enough understanding to begin tying these concepts together and building something out of them. I have no idea what this will do, but I accept Jesus.

I don’t have it all worked out yet, and when he leaves I have more questions than answers. But it doesn’t matter. I don’t regret my decision.

I’m apprehensive about what Mom will say. Will she be angry? She’s been hostile to this business in the past. Things are already really tense around here, and I’m terrified to add any new conflicts to the mix. Still, I think I’m prepared to hold my ground on this one. I have no idea what this struggle will look like, or what the fallout will be. I brace for the worst. I’ve made this decision, and nobody can change it through force.

To my surprise, Mom isn’t upset at all. She doesn’t say much, but she seems to think it’s kind of nice that I’ve found something that makes me happy. My brother follows suit a few days later. A couple of weeks later we experience a shocking and unprecedented turn when Mom does as well. I don’t quite know what to make of this. Wow, Mom? Really?!?

There are repercussions for this. Mom’s friends largely abandon her. “Have a nice life,” says one as he and his wife (girlfriend, whatever) storm off in disgust. I’m relieved, since I thought most of these people were jackasses, but this rejection seems strange and incongruous. After all the awful crap you people say and do to each other every weekend, THIS is where you draw the line?

Mom goes through some trials as she transitions from the old life to the new. Things actually get worse for a couple of months as she experiences sweeping changes to her circle of friends, her lifestyle, and eventually her entire worldview. It’s like shifting without a clutch.

Mom cleans up, and things calm down. Soon enough we find ourselves attending two churches. On Sundays we go to an ultra-conservative Baptist church. That means fire and brimstone preaching every Sunday, warning people about the evils of fornication and riches. The congregation flinches under his booming assault of condemnation and warnings. I’m only ten years old, and the word “fornication” is new to my vocabulary. I’m not very savvy about the world of adults, but I’ve seen enough to realize that this guy’s message is ludicrous. Really? Is this the message these people need to hear? Fornication and riches? These people? (Gossip and pride, on the other hand…) They don’t like that Mom wears pants, and several times encourage her to wear dresses. They also think rock & roll is the devil’s music, and that Mom should stop smoking. Dancing, even at weddings and the like, is strictly forbidden to these people.

On Wednesdays, we go to church in an ultra-liberal charismatic church. (Note, dear reader, that “conservative” and “liberal” have very different meanings here than in American politics. There might be a tiny bit of overlap, but not enough to start extrapolating labels like “Democrats” and “Republicans”.) The service is held in a fire hall and the preacher is a young guy who talks about love and peace. They have upbeat, joyful music. People dance around and sing and have a grand time. They’re loud and often yell out in agreement when the preacher says something they like. Nobody cares how you dress or what you listen to, as long as you love the Lord and are good to your neighbor. Their behavior unsettles me a little, but they seem like nice enough people.

It’s culture shock, moving between these two groups. I begin comparing them to the fancy “High Church” (large, ornate, highly ceremonial) places I visited when I was younger.

If I had only attended one of these places, I probably would have concluded, “This place is what being a Christian is all about”. But these three points form a plane, and by moving around on that plane I can view Christianity from a lot of different angles and extrapolate a lot of other kinds of churches. I’m able to separate Christian ideas (which I embrace) from Christian culture (which I will soon grow to despise) and lay the groundwork for a lot of the thinking I’ll be doing over the next thirty years. I suppose if I had to choose between the two I’d side with the Wednesday-night folks over the Sunday-morning ones, but I’m not ready to throw my lot in with either one just yet.

The Dark Year is over.

 


From The Archives:
 

1,043 thoughts on “Autoblography Part 11: Roller Rinks and Jesus

  1. Raynoo says:

    Always nice ot read about someone’s faith when he talks about it with intelligence :)

    When you say “I'm not particularly impressed by any of the churches I've visited in my life” you mean as buildings or as subdivisions of religion ?

    Because if that’s buildings, even as an atheist some churches in Italy/France/Spain (old catholic europe) are really impressive to me !!!
    But maybe when you’re a kid it’s just dark cold buildings withs lotsa benches where you have to keep quiet.

    1. Shamus says:

      The distinction would have been lost on me at 10. Or at least, I never bothered making it. A “church” was both the building and the people in it.

      But yes, some buildings – particularly Catholic churches – are magnificent works of artistry.

      1. Raynoo says:

        Next trip is goind to be Turkey I think (oddly my holidays trip follow the plot of Assassin’s Creed, sad…) because apparently Mosquees (is that how you write it ?) are even more impressive. Light, aerial and less oppressing.

        Some nice Muslim influenced churches ins Spain too (even repurposed mosques I think).

        And yes, that was a silly question, I forgot you were writing as if you were the narrator of you 10 years old self…

        Also, what were these churches opinions on this whole metric/imperial debate ? :)

        1. Shamus says:

          The cubit is the One True Unit of measure! ;-)

          1. Nathon says:

            Right. What’s a cubit? [/cosby]

            1. ZzzzSleep says:

              More important is the question:
              “How long can you tread water?”

              1. noahpocalypse says:

                I dunno. Several minutes, I guess. Why? ;)

            2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

              Length from elbow to tips of fingers.

              1. Jakale says:

                Who does that arm belong to? Last I checked arms were proportionate to other body part sizes and people fluctuate quite a bit there.

                1. X2-Eliah says:

                  Who mentioned anything about humans? Could as well be length of a gorilla’s elbows to fingers, or who-knows-what’s.

                  Anyway, my stance is that if you will use a measuring system, just make sure it has a unified number base, not base 12 to base 6 to base 9 to base 13.5 to base whatever.. At least with metric you know it’s always base 10.

                  1. noahpocalypse says:

                    Huh. You could probably make some sort of asinine, infuriating, and downright esoteric encryption formula using a base 42.5 system along with all the symbols on the keyboard. Heh heh heh…

                2. Shamus says:

                  Normally, the arm belongs to “whoever is doing the building”. It’s not like they used a lot of advanced carpentry that required precision between various workmen.

                  When they DID need precision, they apparently had some sort of “standard” measure. There was the “Temple Cubit” (distance) and the “Temple Shekel” (weight) that were used when precision was required.

                  I don’t think either measure survived the fall of Jerusalem.

                  1. Peter H. Coffin says:

                    Not having a temple anymore to refer to tends to put a little bit of a damper on that…

                    1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

                      People tend to say that a cubit is approx. 18 inches. Is that accurate? I don’t know. My personal cubit is a little more than that.

                    2. Cuthalion says:

                      18 to about 20, if I recall correctly. “Royal cubits” and “Egyptian cubits” were a bit longer than the standard cubit. Presumably because the royalty and the Egyptians were taller.

                  2. Mephane says:

                    Wait, you are talking about a real, historical unit of measure? I thought by cubit you meant the unit of currency in Battlestar Galactica… seriously.

                    1. Shamus says:

                      The cubit is (was) real. From elbow to fingertip. And hope that if another carpenter comes along to help, he’s the same height you are. :)

                  3. Raynoo says:

                    Cubit as in cubitus then ? I thought this was some sort of volume (as in cube)…

                    Don’t know where the word shekel comes from though…

                    1. Cuthalion says:

                      Cubit was a unit of length, equal to roughly 18″ or 0.5 meters.

                      The shekel was a unit of weight used primarily for metals (weapons, money, etc.). I’m not sure what its equivalent was, and I think it changed significantly depending on the time and who was in charge, while the cubit was based on the length of the forearm and thus had less variance.

                    2. speaker says:

                      sh.q.l is just the Semitic* root for weight. so the closest to a translation (albeit not really one) for shekel would be “an article of weight”.

                      *Hebrew and other ancient near-eastern languages.

                  4. I’m jumping in really late here, but which fall of Jerusalem are you referring to?

            3. Dys says:

              God, how many people can have heard and remember that album?
              My father had it on vinyl when I was a kid, what a wonderful memory, thankyou. :)

              1. s* says:

                We still have that album on vinyl, though also somehow acquired it on CD because is so fantastic. Comic genius, that man.

          2. lazlo says:

            I love cubits, I use them all the time. They are fabulous because they convey not only a unit of measure, but by choosing to measure in cubits, you also convey information about the level of precision required. When I was a kid, if my dad asked for a 36″ board, I knew I needed to get out a measure and square, mark and cut, preferably leaving half of my mark on the inside of the saw kerf. If he said he wanted a 2 cubit board, then I knew that a board with a mostly square cut somewhere around thirtyish or maybe forty inches was fine.

            I find it kind of amusing that some of the same people who are so very harsh about the US mostly having one language that’s widely used will turn around and be harsh about the US *not* having one single set of measurement standards.

            1. Falcon says:

              That’s interesting, I’ve never heard of that particular knock against America. So is this a European view, south American or other?

              I ask because I find these mirrors of perspective interesting. Also the one language thing isn’t particularly true anymore.

              1. Dazdya says:

                In Europe, there are plenty of reasons to dislike America, and this is among them. Keep in mind, it’s against the British too.

                We on the European mainland have been blessed by Napoleon Bonaparte. They guy had some really good ideas, such as adopting the metric system, but he didn’t have the time to turn into a tyrant. This has the effect that all the things he left (metric system, everyone having official last names, etc) are quite benevolent. He’s my favourite dictator.

                1. Entropy says:

                  He did have the unfortunate habit of invading Europe.

                  1. krellen says:

                    Pff. Everyone did that.

                    1. Aldowyn says:

                      Awesome line, ty for that.

                      He kinda got stopped in the middle, yeah. Besides, tons of dictators are heroes in their home country.

                      Oh, and I think Charlemagne might have had a little bit of a similar impact, way back in the dark ages.

                    2. Sekundaari says:

                      Yeah, it’s not like Napoleon was the only one of the rulers invading Europe. And could you really blame them? With all the peer pressure from other rulers doing it, with nobody really paying attention to the health risks for their subjects, with how cool their ancient, medieval and later idols looked when they relaxed and invaded Europe.

                      And once you’ve fought the First Coalition, you figure you might as well invade some more and fight a Second one. Soon you’re escaping from exile to fight the Seventh Coalition. It’s really addictive.

                    3. noahpocalypse says:

                      My name is noahpocalypse, and I approve of this statement.

                2. Raynoo says:

                  I believe “You’re my favourite fascist dictator” is a line from red Dwarf when they get to meet Napolean.

                  Coincidence ? On the internet ?

            2. Zukhramm says:

              I have thought about it, and I have read the Wikipedia page and I still do not see how just using unit would give implications about precision that were not available before.

              1. Turgid Bolk says:

                A cubit can vary by the person measuring it, it’s not really a standard length. Thus when asking for cubits, one implies a lower level of precision required. This may be more of a family convention than universal understanding, however.

                A similar example: “give me 3 handfuls of rice” instead of “give me 1 kilogram of rice.”

                1. Ravens Cry says:

                  Or a pinch of salt/spice/herb of choice, or a squirt of a condiment.

    2. As a child we attended Roman Catholic mass in downtown Washington D.C., some really cool building there
      I still remember being amazed at my surroundings
      “Wow, this is a REALLY big room !”
      Later in life I became very interested in architecture and found a lot of artistic inspiration from houses of worship
      Regardless of the faith, the buildings all seem impressive to me because a tremendous amount of thought went into their construction
      Even Stonehenge is just a bunch of rocks, but arranged with definite purpose

      And just think, most cathedrals were designed with forced-perspective, so they could appear more massive and imposing
      There are a few which were even designed to create a sense of vertigo (feeling like the whole building is about to fall on you)

      1. Zukhramm says:

        On the other hand there seems to be some churches made to look as boring as possible. Right now I love close to two of the ugliest churches I’ve ever seen.

        Here’s one of them. Looks like a museum or a library to me.

        Then there’s one of the churches from my home town. It’s not very big or grand at all, but I like it.

        1. Dragomok says:

          I live near a brick church which has a roof that closely resembles a gingercake with frosting, has a platform with a statue of John Paul II and…

          Just take a look at these Google Images.

          Ughh.
          Interesting fact: it’s actually two churches in one: the second one (used during winters) is located in the basement of the building.

        2. Aldowyn says:

          There’s a couple of churches where I live that literally used to be malls. And we’re the most metropolitan city in the state…

          The church in downtown is renaissance style, and it looks pretty awesome. It’s like half the height of the skyscrapers, too.

          Lastly.. that first pic looks like a school to me, but I’m used to sprawling schools.

        3. NihilCredo says:

          Modern churches are often like that. Sometimes it’s shitty architectural fashion, sometimes it’s just because they can no longer afford a huge-ass cathedral – or, more positively, because over the centuries they’ve grown/been beaten humble enough to realise that domes and altarpieces are not exactly the most Gospel-friendly use of their cash.

          Not counting some that were just cheap white boxes (usually belonging to minor denominations), the ugliest church I’ve been in must have been this. I suppose nerds might like the Triforce though :)

          (Right now I live in Uppsala so even though I’m a militant atheist I take the chance to get inside the cathedral any time I can)

          1. ehlijen says:

            Old churches in europe are built sturdy because they were meant to be refuges in case the town got attacked and they were built pretty because a town’s wealth was often measured in how pretty their church was.

            In a time when there was no police and little to no luxury goods as well as having most of the community actually follow the same faith, that was a wise investment.

            These days, I’d be suprised if you can find architects that can still get them built like that for a still remotely sane cost.

          2. uberfail says:

            I once saw a church that was just an Iron warehouse/barn …

          3. wineinthewater says:

            I know this is very, very, very, very old, but….

            or, more positively, because over the centuries they've grown/been beaten humble enough to realise that domes and altarpieces are not exactly the most Gospel-friendly use of their cash.

            Depends on your perspective I suppose. In the Gospel, Jesus specifically chastises Judas for criticizing the woman who dedicates something precious to Him. He wore a seamless garment, an expensive thing in that time and place. He ate the last supper in an upper room large enough to host 13 and already prepared for the Passover, so a rich man’s house considering what a second story meant in that time and place. The Gospel takes an exclusively positive view on dedicating expensive things to God.

            But further than that, consider what a beautiful church is. It is an act of charity. Beautiful churches were, and sometimes still are, the only way that the poor could access beautiful art. The art was educational, teaching lessons about the Bible and the faith to a largely illiterate population and enhancing it even for a literate one. The beauty was a refuge from a frequently ugly and fallen world. They also make a statement about priorities. If the place of worship is not the most important place, then is what is being worshipped really what is most important. There’s a reason that there are so many stories of people who encounter a beautiful church and that is their first step toward faith. A beautiful church is a proclamation of faith.

            But more than that, a beautiful church is economical in ways. Disposable churches are expensive. How many times do you have to build a plain disposable church to reach the lifespan of Chartres? A beautiful, quality church is a gift to the future, they don’t have to keep rebuilding a place to go that is just going to wear out in one generation .. or less.

            There is always the risk of making a beautiful church for self-aggrandizement instead of the Glory of God, or neglecting the other important Works of Mercy. But on a whole, beautiful churches are a good and holy thing.

      2. Chris B Chikin says:

        Not just churches – that practice dates back to at least the ancient Greeks. The columns of the Parthenon are narrower at the top than at the bottom and it’s sides slope towards the middle in order to create a false sense of perspective and make the building look taller.

        1. Halceon says:

          I’ve heard that it’s actually crooked in such a way to make it appear as a perfect rectangle when looking at its side from a little way off.

      3. Raynoo says:

        I wasn’t saying that you can only find nice churches only in Europe, it’s just that I can only give my opinion on stuff I’ve seen !

        My village has a 13th century church that has nearly everything needed to defend itself from an attack. Pretty cool.

  2. X2-Eliah says:

    It’s nice that you had the chance / were allowed to decide on religion for yourself… That’s basically how the thing ought to be, imo.

    1. DanMan says:

      Yes, very much this. I have seen so many people driven from religion simply by how adamant that you MUST follow it. I don’t know as much about others, but being a Christian because you are told to be really defeats the purpose.

      1. ENC says:

        Not of how Christianity got started :D.

        It’s sad that I see so many kids being told what to think (apart from other things they do that should be picked up on) in regards to thinks like, NO GAY MARRIAGE, BECOME JEHOVA’S WITNESS, etc, without fully believing/grasping the concept. I had doorknockers once who were 2 teenage girls trying to tell me about the the impending doom and they cared more about the 1yo golden retriever next to me than giving me the actual message.

        Which is why I’m glad my mum too didn’t force me anywhere so I didn’t go anywhere (religion generally isn’t something you partake in unless you know someone else in it, and it’s not something that’s included in politics AT ALL or you’d get shot down for being theological unless you’re in the Australian Christian Lobby which is a small minority party anyway).

        1. Retsam says:

          Except, isn’t everyone really in favor of telling kids what to think? People like to say that they’re in favor of letting kids make up their own mind, but in my experience, 9 times out of 10, they’re more concerned with making sure that the kids are told to think what -they- believe is right. I’ve never actually heard anyone tell a kid “make up your own mind on whether or not homosexuality is okay”. I’ve only ever heard “homosexuality is wrong” or “people who think homosexuality is wrong are wrong”.

          A true neutral stance would be “It’s up to you whether or not you believe homosexuality is wrong, but regardless of what you believe, you need to treat others with love and respect”. Any other stance, I believe, just promotes intolerance; whether it’s intolerance of homosexuals or intolerance of Christians.

          1. Robyrt says:

            Telling kids what to think is fine – all of us who have exposure to children do it frequently. This is because many of the things integral to being a functioning member of society and a good person are neither automatic nor obvious. How do you hold a fork? Why is it bad to punch someone? Et cetera.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              Obviously there’s a limit here. Perhaps what we should say is telling kids what to think about society/culture and controversial topics is wrong.

              1. Syal says:

                It’s better to say that we should expose them to all sides of the debate; your opinions have a way of showing up even when you try to hide them, and kids can pick up on things you don’t even know you’re doing.

          2. Nick-B says:

            Love and respect others? YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! *slams door*

            1. TSED says:

              INDOCTRINATING KIDS IS WRONG! IT’S SOOOO WROOOOOONG!

            2. decius says:

              Make up my own mind!

              YOU CAN’T TELL ME WHAT TO DO! I’ll let other people decide what I think if I… if… if they tell me I want to!

          3. Dys says:

            So, this is the ethics of cultural and social conditioning.
            A child growing up without human influence does not develop ANY cultural norms. Notably about taboos like nudity, theft etc. So, reduced to absurdity, ‘letting children decide for themselves’ is not a productive idea.

            In this case, what should a child be taught? Once you have asked that question, the answer will inevitably be coloured by your own beliefs about the world. Personally I think there are objective answers which can be arrived at rationally. I’m certain other people would disagree. Ultimately then, children will be taught whatever their parents want them to be taught. They will also suffer the consequences.

      2. Kdansky says:

        There is just a small issue: Imagine we would try to apply this principle (“discover the truth for yourself”) to everything. We’d still be fretting about fire and shelter. It works much better as an idea than in reality, where it’s always better to build on what the other people already figured out. And if you don’t apply it to everything, how come we make arbitrary exceptions for some thing but not for others?

        Secondly, you cannot decide “the truth”. Some truths are obvious, and no deciding against it will make your blood green and the clouds purple. Others are not so obvious.

        I claim people have not thought this through at all.

        1. X2-Eliah says:

          Discovering fire and shelter is hardly a matter of deep personal & mental fulfillment unique to each and every one, that by its very nature cannot be enforced…

          Furthermore, the mere fact that ‘I cannot decide the ‘Truth” means so can’t you. If so, then under what right can anyone claim to have a right to impose their view onto others… Somehow willing self-deceit seems more preferable to imposed deceit of others.. Assuming nobody can ever figure out the truth.

        2. Chris B Chikin says:

          The fire analogy’s a bad one. We know how to make it and the facts are well documented; there is no real debate to give the other side of.

          On the other hand, the jury’s still out on whether or not God exists. Until a definitive answer is reached, both sides of the debate should be taught.

          A better analogy would be with cold fusion. You wouldn’t tell someone “This is how we make cold fusion happen; accept no other explanations,” when we don’t actually have any idea how to make it work yet. While the investigation/debate is still ongoing, there is no good reason to blinker yourself to any one of the possible answers.

          1. Peter H. Coffin says:

            On the other hand, the jury's still out on whether or not God exists. Until a definitive answer is reached, both sides of the debate should be taught.

            The jury’s still out on whether The Greys exist, whether the moon landing ever happened, how many gunmen there were in Dallas back in the day, how effective homeopathy is, and whether the Earth was transported here from Kolob 6000 years ago by the evil Xenu. How many people have to believe something before it reaches the “both sides” threshold? Should it vary from place to place? And how big a “district of belief” should we use?

            1. Aldowyn says:

              I find that a legal term is applicable here.

              Until an answer is proven without reasonable doubt, teach both sides of the argument.

            2. NonEuclideanCat says:

              Except, the jury isn’t actually out on any of those things besides whether or not there is intelligent life outside of our planet.

              Please try to keep Kettle Logic and Appeals to Ridicule out of serious discussion. It just slows things down.

              1. Dys says:

                I think the point is, there are people who believe there was no moon landing. How is that belief different from any other, how is it ‘not true’ by any definition which allows religions to be ‘maybe true’?

                1. NonEuclideanCat says:

                  Your argument is essentially “why can people say that some supernatural ideas are correct when we’ve objectively proven that some non-supernatural ideas are not correct”.

                  Do you see the holes in this argument?

          2. Kdansky says:

            There is no debate whether the God from the old/new testament exists either. He’s as real as Xenu, the Greek gods, the Roman gods, the Hindu gods, and all the other 10’000 gods that have been created by humanity already.

            Each of those gods can claim equal reality, so to speak. In the end, we all do not believe in 10’000 gods (or thereabouts), and some of us make one exception (why?). Christians are 99.99+% atheists too, they just don’t realize it. Or rather, they don’t want to confront this issue.

            1. Dys says:

              Just had an amusing thought…

              The exact same arguments are used on both sides of this question, ad infinitum.

              I bet you could program them into two chatbots, and they could have every online discussion ever on the subject of religion, just between themselves.

              Then the rest of us could get on with making obscene jokes and funny cat pictures.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                I want to steal your epiphany.

        3. There’s an easy way to do this–when kids ask you things, tell them what *you* think, and phrase it that way: “this is what I think”. It fills two purposes: 1.) it gives them the beginning framework they need to begin thinking about the topic, and 2.) when they reach the age where they no longer think you are all-powerful and all-knowing, they have the tools they need to decide whether what you think has merit or not.

          This also insulates them against just uncritically picking up whatever random crap they get exposed to in their long journey to adulthood.

          1. Terran says:

            It also ( In my opinion/experience) is a humbler stance which will often result in a better parent-child relationship. Letting a kid know the difference between what you know and what you believe (and letting them know that you don’t know everything) can pay huge dividends over time.

            1. Dys says:

              The problem there of course, is telling the difference between what you ‘know’ and what you ‘believe’.

              I think anyone who can make that distinction accurately is already ahead of the game in the child rearing stakes.

          2. Jon Ericson says:

            Exactly. It always confuses me that people believe either parents should be all-powerful shapers of their children’s minds or that children ought to be allowed to develop their own belief system independently. Have these people never been children? Where do they suppose adults come from? Whether we like it or not, our children will eventually be their own people. And they will be influenced by our beliefs whether positively or negatively.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              The biggest thing is just don’t push your beliefs. Tone matters more than the words themselves, usually. Above all, don’t get upset with them if they disagree.

    2. Chris says:

      Despite what parents may force kids to attend all religion, deep in the heart,
      , is individual choice.

  3. Allan says:

    Just out of curiousity, why did you (and your mother, obviously) continue to attend the very conservative church if it obviously made both of you uncomfortable? I get that you got a balanced and ultimately beneficial experience from it, was that the goal or an unintended side effect?

    1. Dan says:

      Can’t reply for Shamus, obviously, but finding a good church is actually really really hard. Sometimes you stay in a church because people preach that you “Have to go to church every week” and it becomes a schedule. People are very loathe to change churches.

      Like any community, it can be very hard to acclimate to a new group of people. It’s almost like changing schools. Even if you hated the previous school and the new one is great, it’s quite daunting. Especially as people relatively new to the faith.

      1. superkp says:

        It is really hard. When I was in highschool I went to one that sounded very much like Shamus’ wednesday church. It was good: presented the bible AS the bible presented itself, emphasized community, etc etc.

        But it turned out to have its bad parts, and these ran deep. The youth pastor (who was AWESOME, and really taught the bible the way the bible ought to be taught, and gave kids what they NEEDED, instead of what they wanted or what he thought they needed) was eventually fired because the ‘church council’ or whatever they called themselves gave him an ultimatum that had to do with a minimum amount of growth in less than a month after he got back from a missions trip to africa.

        Luckily, I had moved away before that crap started. Have a wonderful church now.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          It is a LOT like moving to a new school or a new neighborhood.

          It’s even worse as a kid (well, maybe not worse, but just as bad), because of sunday school. And if you don’t go consistently… that’s worse. At one point we were going to my grandparent’s church every other weekend, which was an hour and a half away. We did this for… most of a summer? I never liked going to sunday school, anyway – NEVER did it consistently.

          We’ve found a lot of good churches, but it’s hard for us to attend consistently, and sometimes we just … stop, for a while, and then it’s just… I guess too awkward for us to go back, so we try a new one. Is complicated.

      2. Eärlindor says:

        …but finding a good church is actually really really hard.

        It definitely can be. Heck, moving from church to church is my life story (though for a couple of those churches it wasn’t that they were bad, but rather we were called to move on).

      3. Dys says:

        Grammar police alert!

        Loathe – to feel intense aversion

        Loath – unwilling

        Thankyou for your time.

        1. noahpocalypse says:

          Huh. I’ll have to remember that.

    2. Shamus says:

      The guy who visited us came from that church. We did leave, but it took time.

      1. SolkaTruesilver says:

        Wait. So the church you attended before was the Wednesday-church, and the Church you started attendimg (because of the door-to-door missionnary) was the Sunday-conservative-church?

        1. Shamus says:

          For clarity: The “Sunday Church” was Calvary Baptist Church, an independent baptist church. (As opposed to Southern Baptist.) There are many, many independent churches that go by that name.

          We attended CB first, then we attended the firehall church later. Mom recently explained to me that we only attended the firehall church for about a month and a half, although it seemed like a longer and more important thing in my mind, since it had such an impact on my thinking.

          The firehall church was run by a distant family relation, who invited us when they heard about our conversion.

          We eventually left both churches, and began attending the relatively moderate Whitestown Road Baptist. That was my home church until 2005 or so. My Mom is still there. I left it in 2005-ish when we moved away from formal churches. (“Corporate Churches”, as they are called by some, although the term seems to be derogatory, so I avoid using it.)

          1. Robyrt says:

            Thanks for the clarification. This stuff is tough to keep straight in my mind, because I grew up in a Presbyterian church in a firehall, which was culturally casual but theologically conservative. (At one point, the idea was floated that hymns would be chosen based on the bingo machine on the back of the room; the musicians put a kibosh on that one.)

          2. Falcon says:

            I really feel for your experiences at Calvary Baptist. I grew up in a similar type of church, a missionary baptist church (a more conservative form of southern baptist).

            Churches like that need to go the way of the Dodo.

            I am currently and still a Christian. I, however, have seen firsthand what that kind of church does to kids and teens. Most of the people in my youth group from the time left the church/ abandoned the tenets of the faith. They really are a toxic form of hypocrisy.

            They have supplanted ‘the reason’ with ‘the rules’.

            Contempt of anyone who doesn’t fit their particular mold, outright hostility towards anyone who dares question their particular dogmas, and a complete lack of understanding of the concept of love. It shames me as a Christian to see so many of my supposed ‘brothers and sisters’ acting as if they had never read the very book they proclaimed. Do they not remember how Jesus treated the leper? The prostitute? The cheating tax collector? Last I checked it was with kindness and understanding. He never once said ‘clean up your act and then I’ll show you love’.

            The pharisees though…

            The one group Jesus is ever shown to get angry with, to verbally attack, is the ‘I follow all these rules so I am better than you’ group of Jewish religious leaders.

            People who act like modern day pharisees give us a bad reputation. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and they are by far the squeakiest wheel of our faith.

            Sorry for the rant, but this hits far to close to home for me. Seeing how the 10(?) year old Shamus saw the flaws, having not grown up in that kind of church, just reminds me how much of a problem that is.

            1. lionday says:

              Yeah… I’m glad i don’t go to a church with that mind set. We’ll I’m sure that a few of the church goers are probably like that, but as a whole there great.
              We have a nice mellow rock service for teens (Which i love).
              Its a baptist (which i believe has the best doctrine but usually the worst people).

          3. Hal says:

            I would love to know why you moved in 2005, and where you moved to, although that might be a bit beyond the scope of the discussion here.

          4. NihilCredo says:

            Interesting. Did you “shop around” before quitting organised churches altogether? It appears you always stayed within Baptist churches, but obviously the Christian religion is much bigger than that. (And for that matter, did you ever explore other religions at all, either as a teenager or as an adult?)

            I have no idea at all of where precisely in the USA you lived, so maybe Baptism just had a ‘local monopoly’ on religion?

            1. Shamus says:

              We did shop around at a few churches, but I kept feeling like they were an ill fit. I was getting the feeling that something is WRONG here.

              I won’t elaborate, lest I threadjack my own post with a bunch of complaining about various churches.

              I’ve actually had this itch for a while now to write about the problems I see in the church, in much the same way that I rail against DRM in the videogame industry. Not on this blog, of course. Every time I think to write about it, I get the feeling of, “Not yet.”

              1. Scott Schulz says:

                I’d love to read that critique. Be sure to link from here to any such work, if you publish it elsewhere. There’s value to be had in a reasoned critique of religious institutions as distinct from the religious beliefs of a sect’s adherents. I encourage you to continue to listen to that inner voice until the time is right: it sounds like some insight may be coming to fruition within you.

                1. Knight of Fools says:

                  I’m going to second that. I’m a firm member of the church I attend, but reading about other people’s opinions and beliefs is very satisfying when they do it without preaching. From what I’ve seen, Shamus is good at talking about something he feels strongly about without preaching it, a skill few writers possess.

                  Of course, Shamus’ (Shamus’s?) writing is so gripping that I’d read it even if he preached with a fervor to make an extremist look placent.

                  However, there are very few places one can freely write about religious views that aren’t connected to any particular church (Not that I’ve come across, anyways). I doubt he’d be able to find anywhere satisfying as his own blog.

                  1. noahpocalypse says:

                    Third.

              2. Cado says:

                Shamus, if you’ve never seen this blog before I think you’ll resonate with a lot of what this man has to say: http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/

                1. Scott Schulz says:

                  I’ve got a publishing relationship with the editor of Pagan portal over at Patheos. We could probably hook Shamus up with the editor of Evangelical portal for a church critique if he’s interested publishing there. Patheos would be a good fit, I think, and large number of eyeballs. Let know if and when the time comes if I can help.

                  Another possibility is Ship of Fools which does reviews of specific churches as well as more general critiques of Chrisitanity with a humorous bent. The Editors are Anglican, but the community is widely ecumenical.

    3. Mom says:

      We did not stay in the conservative church very long,perhaps 6 months. The decision on where to go rested with me because I was the driver(-:.
      As Shamus said, it took me a while to sort everything out.Actually I am still doing that.I was talking to many varieties of Christians and finally sought out a trusted christian from my past, who had lived as an unapologetic Christian all her life and who had witnessed in a loving way to me when I was in my twenties. She was at the church I am a member of to this day. She is, however, no longer there.
      At this point, though I would like to say the conservative(a convenient but very inadequate descriptor) was not a terrible church and its “strictness” was beneficial to me at the time. I also remember getting Godly parenting advice, which I needed very much.

  4. Mormegil says:

    I’ve been waiting for this one. I’m an atheist but I went to a catholic school so I’d be lying if I said that christian thought didn’t have an influence on me. I was curious to see where your religion came into this story since you’ve mentioned it tangentially before.

    These stories are great and it’s interesting to see the parallels and differences with the life of a fellow nerd. Even though I suspect we’d disagree on some important issues (I actually like Miranda in ME2) you seem like someone who I could sit across the table from with an rpg. I suspect many other readers feel the same way.

    1. Raygereio says:

      I just can’t stop laughing over how you classified liking/disliking ME2 Miranda as an important issue. ^_O

      1. Klay F. says:

        Well, of course. Anyone who actually likes Miranda is clearly deviant and must be purged. XD

        1. DanMan says:

          Heresy! Burn the Witch!

          1. ehlijen says:

            I take the fact that in response to an article about religion, Miranda is all people get up in pitchforks about as a good sign :D

            1. Raygereio says:

              We’re nerds; we know what’s really important in life. ^_O

              1. ehlijen says:

                Possibly. But given that we’re basically talking about cyberbooty, is that a good thing? :S

                1. Raygereio says:

                  We’re nerds; the stereotype demands that we talk about the cyber version because we ain’t getting the real one.

              2. Atarlost says:

                Yes, and the important thing is that the SRD doesn’t give stats for pitchforks. We can’t riot properly until someone finds suitable stats.

                And no, they’re not in the AD&D player’s handbook either. Can someone check 2nd or 4th?

                1. krellen says:

                  A pitchfork would be functionally identical to a short spear.

                  1. ehlijen says:

                    Or possibly a Trident?

          2. Raka says:

            DanMan startled the Witch

            1. xXDarkWolfXx says:

              The witch incapacitated DanMan

              1. DanMan says:

                Uh guys? Health pack? Please!

          3. That guy says:

            I just want to congratulate everyone for not quoting Monty Python in a response to this post.

            I’m sure some of you had to pummel your burning passions into submission.

            1. Boison says:

              Isn’t referencing the quoting of monty python almost as bad as committing the crime itself, or does that only apply to quoting Monty Python ironically?

              I am taken back to a particular DMotR strip of the arrival at Edoras.

              1. noahpocalypse says:

                Ni!

          4. noahpocalypse says:

            She’s a witch I tells ya! Burn her, burn her!

        2. swenson says:

          I’ll fetch the pitchforks and torches then, shall I?

          Then again, I’m not exactly one to talk, as I genuinely liked (and continue to like) Kaidan.

          1. LassLisa says:

            Me too! Yay, not alone in the world.

          2. glassdirigible says:

            I’ll admit that I never really gave Kaidan a chance but really, what did you like in him? He always just seemed bland to me.

            1. krellen says:

              Did you actually talk to him, listen to his story? Kaidan is in constant pain – migraines, specifically – from his outdated Biotic implants, and furthermore he killed his instructor (accidentally) when he allowed his Biotic power to get out of control. His reservation and soft-spoken nature are easy to understand based on the foundation of those facts.

              1. Aldowyn says:

                As opposed to Ash, who’s just racist. I get the military tradition, but… racism? It works WELL with Pressly (especially with the added bonus in the ME2 normandy crash site), but in a main character? No thanks.

                Jacob is the bland one. Generic “daddy issues” are his main plot point >.>

                1. swenson says:

                  Agreed on Jacob, but surprisingly, Ash has grown on me. Hated her on my first playthrough (didn’t stop me from getting very upset after a certain part, though… guess I liked her more than I thought), but I finally actually went through her whole dialogue tree in a different playthrough and found that if she just liked aliens more, I’d probably really like her.

                  By the end of the game I think she’s grown to be more accepting of aliens. It’s just that if you never get past her initial comments (like I didn’t at first), you never see that.

                2. Raygereio says:

                  I get really tired of the “OMG Ashley a RACIST!” thing. Did you even talk to her and know what racism is? For starters at no point does she express the notion that other races of man are inferior. We should be talking about speciesm when aliens are involved.
                  That said; Ashley (and Pressley btw) is xenophobic / prejudiced.

              2. Catiff says:

                Actually, I have to say that liking Kaiden is both a choice and sort of demanded of me, as my daughter and her man named my third grandchild after him. He’s truely a lovely bit of genetics. :)
                Funnily enough, it was that event that made me buy ME1, just so I could know why they did so, and his backstory was one of the better ones I have read, including that of my literary major D&D player’s.

            2. ehlijen says:

              At least Kaidan’s background had scifi elements (the government program to study and advance biotic tech). Ash had a genre-free, generic military background story. They were both bland compared to the aliens, but I found his less bland.

              I actually had a problem with how much personal interstellar history all the human characters had given that humanity is supposed to have found mass effect tech less than a generation ago according to the opening blurb.

      2. Mormegil says:

        What can I say, I’m a shallow, shallow man :)

        And a sucker for an Australian accent (a real one) in a science fiction setting.

        1. Simon Buchan says:

          As a Kiwi, I am required by the New Zeleand National Patriotism Review Committe to hate all Australians with all the power my all-black heart can summon. Normally I’d complain about this obviously racist and hatefull policy, but they’re otherwise fine with me decrying this horrible, terrible country, which is a nice freedom I’d likely not get elsewhere :) (Decrying the country I’m in, not New Zealand, specifically – I assume lots of countries are OK with *that*)

          1. Mormegil says:

            I was going to say you’re just jealous because of New Zealand being even more under represented in science fiction than Australia. Then I remembered Jango Fett. I’ll slink away quietly now.

            1. uberfail says:

              Though we certainly win in the fantasy Genre.

        2. Aldowyn says:

          I don’t actually mind Miranda. Her storyline is kind of cliched, but I can still get it and understand her motivations. Even the Cerberus cheerleader part, though that is annoying sometimes. I think it’s just fashionable (especially here) to hate on anything related to Cerberus.

          Of course, it helps that I’m a fan of the actress… Chuck (the show) is pretty awesome.

          1. That guy says:

            Well, up until they gave Morgan any sort of role.

  5. Dan says:

    Wow. I read your intro knowing that I would need to leave a comment. I feel exactly the same way. I have strong Christian beliefs myself and I hide them on the Internet, not because I am ashamed of them, but rather because I do not feel like dealing with the hassle.

    People have said that you have shown courage to write some of your other entries and have sympathized with some of your earlier struggles. This is the first time I could really do the same. Thank you for having the courage to put something that is so personal on the Internet.

    1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

      I (a Christian) just wish it wasn’t considered such a big deal. I don’t even begin to condone some beliefs loudly protected on the internet, but has anyone ever had their mind changed by a flame war? I personally don’t have much experience with religion on the internet (this being the only blog I read :) ), but I saw nothing in this post that I’d think would anger people except the mention of Jesus. Is that alone usually enough to get people riled up?
      The fundamental/charasmatic debate would definitely get a war going in a certain group of people. However, there’s a distinct feeling of tolerance in the air around this blog, so I don’t see that starting here. I love Christian culture, but I don’t yell at you for not. Romans 14:5 says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” If the Holy Spirit tells you its fine, not my job to say otherwise.

      1. NihilCredo says:

        The point of a flame war isn’t to change minds, it’s to prove your smug superiority in front of an audience and stroke your ego. (Somewhat more charitably, there are also people on the Internet who have genuinely suffered because of the worst aspects of religion, and who as a result lash and vent out whenever the issue appears. Their behaviour is no less justifiable, but more understandable.)

        Personally I’m one of the actively anti-religious people Shamus mentioned in the intro. I have done my best to support my religious friends’ doubts and questioning, and to help them quit their reliance on belief; never pushing, but trying to stimulate what was already there. And yet, I’d have to be drunken mad to try and do the same thing in a comment thread, with people of whom I know nothing but a nickname, and who know no more than that about me.

        As for this blog, I would estimate that the predominant civility is imputable about ¼ to the content and about ¾ to the appropriately tyrannical moderation.

        1. Dys says:

          I do wonder how many comments Shamus has to decline. Happy to say I don’t think I’ve felt the wrath til now, though this thread may do it.

          Incidentally, Shamus, I apologise for the work I must cause you with my scattershot approach to commentary. I tend to leave a comment for every dozen or so I read. :)

          Funny, I don’t consider myself garrulous in real life.

    2. Eärlindor says:

      I agree, it takes guts to talk about your religious beliefs, especially on the internet and when you have a wide readership.

      Being a man of the faith myself, thank you and well done.

    3. Cado says:

      I come from a background of religious conservatism and as such I came to hate Christianity in my adult life. I would still say I do, and I think humanity would have been better off if it had never existed and the ideals of the new testament had been presented within a different framework. I do, however, respect some of the people who have adopted Christianity, and as the faith isn’t going anywhere I hope saner heads prevail and more liberal forms of the religion take hold in the mainstream.

      Some ideas aren’t worth tolerating. No one would, say, tolerate racism in the modern world, and no one should. I feel the same should apply to anti-intellectualism and attempts to teach intelligent design in schools. (Not in science class, at least. Whereas evolution has a lot of explanatory power and serves as the basis for biology, intelligent design is a story which does nothing to alter or improve existing theoretical structures.) The point of vitriol-if it’s well applied-isn’t to change the opinions of people on the other side but expose the true nature of their beliefs to those outside their circle.

      It doesn’t matter if they try to defend themselves if no one believes their stance is defensible.

      On the internet? There’s no clear target, nobody has an agenda, it’s mostly a bunch of dicks who forget that there’s real people behind whatever they’re attacking, and there’s no room for nuance in their approach so all Christians get put into the same basket when there’s as many different kinds as there are people.

      Anti-intellectualism isn’t inherent to Christianity, it’s just an unfortunate aspect of what its most vocal conservative proponents (the ones who end up shaping the perceptions of the mainstream) have to say.

      In the end, whatever our individual opinions of a faith may be, it’s pretty rare that it can’t be turned into a positive force. Every person believes -something- that could be considered crazy and I think it’s better to accept that and consciously mythologize one’s life in certain ways than it is to outright deny or suppress it.

      Faith which adds richness to one’s life and transforms us into what we want to be is wonderful. It’s faith that pushes an agenda or gives people control over us that’s the problem.

    4. I’ve never had much of a problem with people knowing about my faith (Christian) on the internet. Most people that I’ve encountered are happy to live and let live, and are quite open to having an intelligent discussion about such things once we’ve been interacting for a while…..the few who try and start a flame war are fairly easy to ignore.
      Admittedly, a lot of this takes place in browser games that require teamwork and reliance on the community, so playing nice is in people’s best interests…….

  6. TheRocketeer says:

    I had always sort of wondered.

    1. TheRocketeer says:

      By the way, I can’t help but add that I only took your earlier summation of ‘pk’s’ in stride because I couldn’t disagree with a straight face.

      I find myself in a lot of interesting situations as one, bearing knowledge on many religions and theology in general, yet I rarely interject in conversations on the subject. I get the impression none of my co-workers even know I’m a Christian.

      But I Iong ago determined that only with great deliberation and a trusted audience should one engage in any discussion upon religion, politics, or Final Fantasy. It has spared me agitation.

      Thanks for being more open than me.

      1. superkp says:

        Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the tables were 100% flipped only 2-3 generations ago?

        Back then it seems, if you were atheist, you kept your mouth shut, because of the flak you get from religious people. Rather than religious people keeping their mouth shut for fear of being ridiculed (and fired).

        I don’t like these tables, personally, and they should not be flipped: they should be discarded. I want to know what my coworkers think about theological questions, especially if they don’t share mine.

        1. ccesarano says:

          Maybe it’s because of the people I hung out with, but around six years ago when hanging with my gamer friends, it was frequent to hear people bash my religion. I kept quiet for a while, but finally when I’d hear “God is this invisible sky bully!” I had enough, and said “Well, actually…” and brought forth my knowledge of God as an intelligent and rational being.

          Of course, I only got so far as “Well, actually…” before they disregarded everything I said.

          Which is when I learned the most valuable lesson of all: It doesn’t matter what you believe in, everyone is the same kind of ignorant asshole.

        2. krellen says:

          The internet is the only place that belongs to atheists, at least in the US. Throughout the public sphere outside the internet, atheism is still a thing of shame and derision.

          Case in point: name one openly atheist politician.
          I bet you can’t.

          1. Deoxy says:

            You obviously haven’t been to any major college campuses lately. One significant part of liberal leftist indoctrination is the complete and utter removal of Christianity. (Note that I did NOT say that A) all leftists are bad or indoctrinate, or B) all atheists are liberal left, or C) other permutations like that.)

            Christianity is generally viewed with utter disdain (the only group that “tolerant” groups don’t tolerate, as the most obvious example) by large chunks of the MSM, enormous chunks of Ivy league and non-private-Christian colleges, and other bastions of political correctness. Christianity is almost definitionally politically incorrect. Find me another majority group that allows itself to be treated that way.

            But of course, I can’t name you one openly atheist (national level) politician, as there are far too many Christians who won’t for vote for such a person, just as I can’t name an openly Muslim one. But both do exist at the state level (depending on the state). That’s not to say that Christians remotely “own” everything but the internet!

            1. krellen says:

              I work at a major college.

              And the Muslim in Congress made many headlines when he was elected (and sworn in on the Koran, not the Bible).

              I also find claims of Christian victimhood insulting. Christianity is hardly vilified or victimised, and cries of “Wolf” should be saved for people actually being attacked by wolves.

              1. acronix says:

                Quite sure victimhood of any kind depends heavily on the ideoloogical fashions of that one place and time. For example: in a pro-elf society dwarves would be victims, but in a pro-dwarf one elves would.

                Also: Wolf!

              2. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

                That’s ‘Christian victimhood in the US and Europe’ right? Because there are plenty of other parts of the world where people are killed or imprisoned because of Christian beliefs.

                1. krellen says:

                  Yes. I generally assume a Western audience here.

                  1. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

                    Sorry, I re-read my comment now and it seems very sarcastic which was not intended, since I was fairly sure you did mean to imply a western audience. Just wanted to make sure that it was understood as such.

              3. Deoxy says:

                I also find claims of Christian victimhood insulting. Christianity is hardly vilified or victimised…

                Luckily, I wasn’t drinking anything, or it would have gone up my nose when I read that.

                Really, find me another group (for one very easy, college-campus-y example) that has to worry about having their group de-chartered or otherwise removed from campus for having the temerity to require that their members actually be professing members of their religion.

                I can give plenty of others. Modern political correctness is oh so tolerant of groups that openly profess their desire to commit genocide (for just one example), but Christianity? Wow, that’s just ridiculous – can’t tolerate THOSE people.

                1. krellen says:

                  No one is allowed to be exclusionary like that. Black student unions have to allow white members. Muslim societies have to include Jews. The Jewish league must allow Christians. And Christian clubs must allow atheists.

            2. Shamus says:

              I can’t wait until we start electing non-Christians. The fact that politicians are:

              A) Philandering, dishonest, sleazy, duplicitous, uninformed, or brutish

              And

              B) “Christians”

              …is a source of endless vexation to me.

              1. krellen says:

                With all the good, honest, hard-working and big-hearted Christians I know, I sincerely agree with this sentiment. You guys really need to stop letting the Jerks hijack your identity. :)

                1. Falcon says:

                  I’m more concerned with letting the jerks hijack our country personally.

                  1. krellen says:

                    Part and parcel of the same thing.

                2. Chuk says:

                  This. The public face of Christianity is not much like the “real” Christians that I know.

                  1. ehlijen says:

                    That’s cause the kind and tolerant members of any group aren’t the ones shouting loudly to get attention. The angry, intolerant ones are the ones that do that, or at least they do it more loudly than the rest.

                    The public face is always what stands out the most, ie volume and extremism.

                    1. ben says:

                      lol, And the public face of judaism is Jon Stewart…

                    2. swimon1 says:

                      It’s also because the “real” Christians are people you know and like. You’re far more forgiving towards people you like. If your best friend had an affair with someone what you would see was how sorry and regretful he was and the pain the whole thing caused him. If a politician has an affair most people seem to consider him (or her, I guess, but really what are the odds?) scum of the earth.

                      Don’t take this as a defense of politicians tho. They say things not because they believe it but because it will make them popular. They are, almost by definition, the worst kind of people. Just not for the reasons normally given.

                      But yeah I guess its kinda unfair towards christianity that they got all the politicians. Really all creeds should get representation so that they can all be deeply ashamed by that intellectually dishonest moron who claims to be their representative.

                    3. Shamus says:

                      “But yeah I guess its kinda unfair towards christianity that they got all the politicians. Really all creeds should get representation so that they can all be deeply ashamed by that intellectually dishonest moron who claims to be their representative.”

                      Awesome. Someone needs to use that as their campaign slogan.

              2. acronix says:

                Down here in the third world we have solved this problem. All our politics are philandering, dishonest, sleazy, duplicitious, uninformed or brutish, but the only mention of chirstianity (or religion) they do is to name God whenever the Church points at them with the “you are doing things wrong, pal” finger.

              3. Alex the Elder says:

                The characteristics in A) are minimum requirements (some, but not all of them) for being a politician. Anyone with too much respect for his fellow man gets weeded out if he tries for any office higher than city council – you’re competing against people who want NOTHING MORE IN LIFE than power and influence.

              4. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

                Is there a note of giving up in there, Shamus? I’d prefer we just elect the airquote-less Christians. They (hopefully we) can be a good bunch as people go ( at least we have set, unchanging morals), but I’ll admit I haven’t seen very many around politics.

                1. Kdansky says:

                  >at least we have set, unchanging morals

                  You are being ironic, surely?

                  1. NonEuclideanCat says:

                    Theoretically, we actually do have that. But there’s a good reason Shamus used quotation marks; far too many people are Christian in name only. Unfortunately, they’re the ones who get the most media attention.

                    1. Kdansky says:

                      Really, you don’t have an unchanging list of morals. There have been billions of Christians during the last 2000 years, and they clearly had differences on pretty much any topic there ever was. You’re pretty much saying “I am the only real Christian on the planet”, which is clearly not true.

                      Secondly, I am pretty sure that most Christians are exactly as human as any one else, and frequently change their opinion.

                      As for the ten commandments: Read them. They are quite evil, really.

                    2. NonEuclideanCat says:

                      Read them. They are quite evil, really.

                      Don’t murder. Don’t steal. Don’t sleep with married women. Don’t commit perjury. Honor your parents.

                      Troll harder, you’re not doing a good job of it.

                      Really, you don't have an unchanging list of morals.

                      Actually, we do. Whether we follow it or not is irrelevant; it exists.

                      I am pretty sure that most Christians are exactly as human as any one else, and frequently change their opinion.

                      Correct on both accounts. Still irrelevant. A list of concrete laws and morals exists; it’s in the Bible, here and there. Regardless of the opinions or actions of any single Christian, it’s there.

                  2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

                    We have them (at least two of the Ten Commandments are directly pointed at things Shamus mentioned). Do we always follow them? Obviously not.

                    1. Dys says:

                      So.. if you have a rigidly defined moral code, please tell me, where does it come from?

                    2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

                      I’m no theologian, and if you really want to know, you have to keep a bit of an open mind with me here. (I’m NOT trying to convert you here and now. It’s just that the Christian life has concept you might not get.)
                      Short Answer: The Bible, which we believe comes from God. In it, there are lists of OT, ancient-Israel-specific rules, but there is rigid stuff that still applies to modern Christians.
                      Long, more specific answer: The Ten Commandments, for one. That alone, as I mentioned, contradicts some of the “requirements” for being in politics, according to Alex. Jesus and other NT writers kept the Commandments in play and even added to them (e.g. Jesus says don’t even lust after a woman, and hate is as bad as murder from God’s perspective).

                      Jesus does tend to focus on your general attitude as opposed to hard, fast lists like the OT has. And hear me out before you say “I knew it.” This includes the Beatitudes (the beginning of Matthew 5). Basically, it says “You’re blessed if you are humble.” Humility would prevent a whole lot of stuff a person might do otherwise. And the golden rule (love(neighbor)=love(self)) pretty well restricts what you can do. If nothing else, the top two commands according to Jesus (found in Matt. 22: 37-39)are all a Christian really needs: Love the Lord w/all your heart, soul, and mind; and the golden rule.
                      “But Ander,” you might say, “that’s not very rigid.” I disagree. They’re general, restrictive, and firm. If you could follow them, you’d be leaps and bounds closer perfection than the rest of us mortals. The idea of the Biblical commands is to set the bar so high that a human being can’t possibly reach it, and can’t get close without God. The point is to show that God is too righteous for us to even get near to Him. However, the Bible’s commands still give us something to shoot at, and God commands that we do try.

                      I left out the Holy Spirit because I figured that’d make your eyes roll. That means also not covering the “Would you pull a donkey from a pit on the Sabbath?” question, but you get the idea. We do have rules. Someone who doesn’t have principles that they won’t compromise on doesn’t follow the Bible.

              5. Kdansky says:

                I am a die-hard atheist and will take any chance (I am trying to make an exception for you right now ;) ) at ridiculing any belief.

                I’ll vote for a Christian, if that’s not the centre of his programme. If he is pro-education, pro-science, pro-for-the-greater-good, against ridiculously low taxes for rich people, against violence and not a horrible bigot who wants to burn black people and gays and so on, I have no issue with his religion. I will disagree with everyone (including myself) on a few points anyway, so it might as well be religion. But as soon as his religion becomes a corner-stone of his position, I cannot support him any more.

                If I lived in the US, I wouldn’t have known who to vote for since I am allowed to, which is already more than a decade.

                That is a huge problem.

                1. Atarlost says:

                  Yes, your problem is almost certainly that your definition of “absurdly low” taxes lines up fairly well with a typical American’s definition of “absurdly high” taxes.

                  If your ideological requirements include a minimum tax rate you’re not going to find many kindred spirits in a nation that started as a tax revolt.

                  1. Kdansky says:

                    I’d like to quote Warren Buffet: “My secretary pays a lower percentage of her income in taxes than I do.”

                    I think that’s too low.

                    1. krellen says:

                      I’m sure Warren Buffet said “higher”, not lower.

                    2. Deoxy says:

                      I'm sure Warren Buffet said “higher”, not lower.

                      He did, and there are many articles discussing whether or not that is really the case (summary: when you realize that all dividends are taxed as corporate profits first, then the remainder passed along to you to be taxed as your income as well, probably not), but it really boils down to this:

                      If he thinks that’s not right, he should A) be advocating against all the zillions of ways income can be sheltered by the rich, instead of just the nominal rate (that’s the real issue) and B) stop making such amazing use of those shelters himself.

                      But really, there is simple proof as to who pays how much, it’s publicly available from the IRS, and it sums up easily, nicely, simply, and truthfully like this:

                      The top X percent pay a higher percentage of their GROSS (not net) income in actual taxes (that the government actually gets) than those below them. This is true at any level of summary so far provided (top 20%, top 10%, top 1% that I know of off the top of my head).

                      That is, for any dollar they (as a group) take in, more of it goes to the government than for every dollar of someone who makes less than them. Warren Buffet himself may be an exception (see that bit about tax shelters), but as a group, the top 20% of earners pay well over half of all taxes already.

                    3. krellen says:

                      The top twenty percent have 80% of the income, so by all rights, they should be paying 80% of the taxes.

              6. ccesarano says:

                Yet I’ve spoken to endless Christians that refuse to vote for a non-Christian, because they want someone in office with “morals they can trust”.

                Of course, the only time I hear the people around me wagging fingers at “immoral politicians” is when the Democrats make the headlines. It’s all with blinders on, and is awfully infuriating (especially when you consider that Christians are supposed to be obedient to the law for the most part, rather than trying to rule the country. And when your country has “freedom of religion” stamped in its constitution, then you need to leave those sorts of biases out)

              7. Aldowyn says:

                Slightly tangential: Christianity is NOT American. A lot of people cite the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance as proof, but here’s a fun fact: Added in the 50’s, in the middle of the ridiculously conservative time of the red scare. True, most of the country were christians, even devout christians, but the founding fathers agreed that America should be a country of free religion – thus the phrase in the 1st amendment and separation of church and state.

                1. Shamus says:

                  Yes, that is indeed the point I was making.

                  1. swimon1 says:

                    No disrespect to Aldowyn but that comment really made me laugh (Shamus’ comment that is). I think it’s the smiling picture of you that really sells the deadpan delivery ^^.

                    I guess this is even more tangential but I just had to say it since I’m still kinda giggling.

                2. Raynoo says:

                  You do have a mention to God (yes, I used a capital G cuz’ I’m nice and all) on your bank notes though right ?

                  Was that always there ?

                  1. krellen says:

                    No. It appeared on our coins during the Civil War and was put on our bills at the same time the phrase was added to the Pledge.

                  2. Cuthalion says:

                    In fact, President Theodore Roosevelt* actually opposed its use on currency, because he thought it irreverent and hypocritical. I tend to agree with him.

                    (The source is a newspaper article from a long time ago. I read it a few months back, but hopefully I remembered the right president. :P)

                    1. krellen says:

                      It certainly sounds like something TR would do. Wikipedia agrees with you that it was him.

          2. Peter H. Coffin says:

            Case in point: name one openly atheist politician.
            I bet you can't.

            Pete Stark, one of California’s Representatives. The only reason I know this is that the list is so short.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              Doesn’t Cali have like… 50 representatives? (Wiki-ed – BANG 53)

              1. Adam says:

                Is that a real name? It sounds villainous.

                For a politician, fairly appropriate.

          3. Abnaxis says:

            There’s actually a thing in sociology, I think it’s called the “Social Distance Scale.” Basically, the surveyor goes through a series of questions in the form “How comfortable are you having X as a Y.” X’s are various ethnopolitical groups like “Blacks” or “Jews” or “homosexuals” or “republicans”. Y’s are things like “schoolteacher” or “mayor” or “neighbor” or “coworker” or “in-law”. For each question, you pick from very/somewhat comfortable, very/somewhat uncomfortable, and neither comfortable nor uncomfortable.

            It’s been a long time since I heard about it, but either Muslims are the most intolerable group among the American general populace and atheists are a close second, or the other way around. I do remember the third worst off is homosexuals, by a significant margin. I should see if I can find that paper again…

            1. Abnaxis says:

              For reference, here’s the entry for the scale. I was talking about a variation of the test they list there.

              I can’t seem to find the article, however (at least, not for free). I’ll hunt around later tonight…

              1. Viktor says:

                http://www.soc.umn.edu/~hartmann/files/atheist%20as%20the%20other.pdf

                At least, that’s what I’ve always heard referenced. Athiests are worse, Muslims are second.

          4. Jon Ericson says:

            When atheists obtain 50% or more of the voting population, you will see atheists politicians. I suggest that politicians are not the best bellwether of popular sentiment. They are, in market terms, lagging indicators. One commentator I read, Gregg Easterbrook, suggests using the beliefs of beauty queens as a barometer of where our culture is going. By this measure, we aren’t likely to see many atheist politicians any time soon, but fundamentalism is far less threatening than most of us suspect.

            (By the way, politics and religion in the same comment! Are we crazy or what? ;-)

            1. krellen says:

              Jews aren’t 50% of the voting population, yet we have Jewish politicians. Muslims aren’t 50% of the voting population, yet we have Muslim politicians. Mormons – who are considered by many denominations to be “not Christian” – aren’t 50% of the voting population, yet we have Mormon politicians. Blacks aren’t 50% of the voting population, yet we have Black politicians.

              (Incidentally, of all those groups, only Blacks are statistically significant compared to self-identified Atheists. The other groups are much smaller, by factors of 8 to 12.)

              1. Jon Ericson says:

                My 50% comment was overly flippant. Obviously, the majority attitude toward atheism has traditionally been harsher than toward other subdivisions of the populations. (But I will say that if atheists observed the tendency to congregate in one place as other groups have, we’d see more atheist districts and therefore more atheist politicians.)

                I guess I agree with you, but not with your reasoning. (It’s a small point, so I’ll drop it now.)

                1. Zukhramm says:

                  That is, assuming people do not vote based on the politics they want.

        3. Abnaxis says:

          Wait, who’s getting fired for being religious? I would be surprised if, in the US, there are a great many examples of people being fired for being Christian (unless they were using their faith as an excuse to cause conflict–making unwelcome religious advances to the non-believers on the company dime or whatnot).

          From my own experience, people in the majority almost universally assume you are part of their own group unless they don’t like you. Case in point, most of the people I know think I’m Christian, because I’m generally easy to get along with and I don’t ever bring it up. I’ve never seen anyone IRL assume that I’m atheist (I am).

          It makes for a slight bit of awkwardness on my part, when my boss or the head of HR starts going on about some church function or referring to a mutual acquaintance as a “good Christian,” and I just nod my head. But even then, I would not construe that as subjugation

          1. Peter H. Coffin says:

            Googling….

            “fired for being an atheist”: 42,000 hits
            “fired for being a christian”: 92 hits

            Okay, then…

            1. NihilCredo says:

              While in this particular instance it might be a decent reflection of reality, I’d like to state that to me it comes off as frankly obnoxious when people use compared Google hit counts as if they were at all a reliable indicator of the facts (and pretty sloppy too, particularly when putting the search phrase in quotes).

              1. Dys says:

                Is it not intrinsic to the way search terms are indexed that the more often a term appears online, across the breadth of the net, the more hits you will get for that term?

                In which case a comparison of google hits is an excellent measure of how often any term appears online.

                That is, I agree, biased by which terms are more likely to appear online, dependant on net usage demographics and such.

                1. NihilCredo says:

                  Yes, but the correlation between “how often does it appear online” and “how often does it happen in reality” is pretty awful.

                  To offer an obvious example, ‘RP for prez’ has 175.000 hits compared to 165k or so for Obama.

        4. Isy says:

          There has certainly been more pushback by atheists recently, but I wouldn’t call the tables turned by any means, more nudged askew a bit. Militant atheists remain a(just as obnoxious) minority to militant Christians.

          (My beliefs lean more towards the atheists, but I grew up with Christians, and I know many are good people. For so called bastions of reason, the militant atheists are determined to use the same hateful and screaming rhetoric as the people they claim to be better than.

          Which is not to ignore the point, that the tables should be ignored anyway)

          1. guiguiBob says:

            What I think is happening is US is catching up to the rest of the more atheist countries. Atheist aren’t a minority anymore or as much so the message is louder. The christians message is getting messed in all those denominations debates and all that diversity and all the other religions around the world getting their message out there(Atheist message being pretty much: there is no proof of a higher power. simple and easy)

            Also Atheists have realized that to reach more people they need to build a sense of community that wasn’t present a few decades ago. The internet is making it possible for those communities to exist over long distances. (They also do this to christians but they had churches so it doesn’t chage the game as much for them)

            As for the hateful atheists…

            1. Aldowyn says:

              I’ve heard that there are more atheists than christians in Europe. I might be wrong, but I wouldn’t be altogether surprised.

              1. ehlijen says:

                Officially true in Germany I’d expect (at least other than Bavaria). But if so, most likely for tax reasons.

              2. guiguiBob says:

                You don’t have to cross the Atlantic, here in Quebec, Canada, you’d have trouble to find anybody below 60 in churches. In the 50’s the catholic church held the strings to political power, having control of education, censorship, french language higher studies, made deals with elected officials, clearly stated that if you didn’t vote the good side you were going to hell : “Le ciel est bleu et l’enfer est rouge” (Sky is blue and hell is red) Blue and Red being party colors.

                Then with women liberation movments and secularisation of education, they lost their power and now they have trouble reaching people with their values.

                Honestly I have no ideas of our Province PM religious affiliation and don’t care either.

              3. Von Krieger says:

                I actually heard this factoid mentioned by the rather hateful preacher that my mom adored. I looked at the CIA Factbook. The only country that might possibly be considered European that had anything approaching a non-Christian majority was Turkey, which is Islamic and pretty much expected.

                I think there might have been all of one or two countries that dipped below even 40% Christian. Unless you start splitting hairs over what does and does not constitute a Christian. Like there is one country where the majority religious denomination is Calvinist. Or Catholic. Which some folks, including the aforementioned preacher, decry as not being Real True Christians (TM).

                1. Rockbird says:

                  I know at least one. Living there helps with the remembering :D

                  “Norris and Inglehart (2004) found that 54% of Swedes do not believe in
                  God. According to Bondeson (2003), 74% of Swedes said that they did not believe
                  in “a personal God.” According to Greeley (2003), 46% of Swedes do not believe
                  in God, although only 17% self-identify as “atheist.” According to Froese (2001),
                  69% of Swedes are either atheist or agnostic. According to Gustafsoon and
                  Pettersson (2000), 82% of Swedes do not believe in a “personal God.” According
                  to Davie (1999), 85% of Swedes do not believe in God.”
                  http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

            2. Blake says:

              “Atheists have realized that to reach more people…” you sound as though we seek to convert?

              Here where I live (in Australia) Atheists have certainly started standing up more, not to convince people their beliefs are wrong, but to state that we exist to all the politians who talk like christians make up 99% of what’s out there.

              I know very few religious people my age or younger (I’m soon to be 25), and outside of one of my siblings and one of my parents there’s none I regularly converse with.

              Evem our prime minister is atheist but before the elections the Murdoch media treated it like the worst thing in the world.

              I suppose my voice only gets louder because the more I hear the few extreme fire and brimstone “the Queensland floods were due to the gays” type people trying to talk as though they speak for everyone, the more I need to say “you don’t speak for me”.

              1. guiguiBob says:

                Nah Atheist aren’t an organized group seeking to convert people. What I meant, not writing in my own language is that deconverting from religion can lead to several problems, isolation, depression and even suicide amongst others. So reaching those people is important and with internet it can be done.

                Well converting from a religion to another I figure could be the same if religious group didn’t have those structures built in. And even then I imagine it must be pretty hard.

              2. Atarlost says:

                Yes, many atheists seek to convert. At least one has admitted to it in this very comment thread.

                Not sure why. Christians believe that Jesus saves. There’s actual perceived benefit to proselytes. Atheists believe that atheism doesn’t actually do anything. Converting others to atheism is pointless because even if there is no god the absence of god isn’t going to do anything for its nonworshipers. You can argue the opportunity costs against Pascal’s Wager, but there’s really no point to spreading atheism. It comes off as spite. People who can’t stand that others take comfort in something they personally don’t.

                1. Simon Buchan says:

                  Pascal’s wager is dumb. To an atheist, the chance that you would be rewarded for praising a (specific?) god is pretty close the to chance you would be punished for the same thing. Who knows how gods think?

                  The reasons why an Atheist would argue for Atheism are various – attempting to gain respectability and increase tolerance of their beleifs, attempting to reduce the intolerance towards minorities they perceive from religions, or simply the fact that an Atheist generally holds truth to be more important than feeling good about yourself – in other words, they beleive even if you aren’t happier not beleiving in God that you are at least abstractly better off. So pretty much the exact same reasons that religous people do.

                  PS: I’m using the third person despite being an Atheist myself to make clear that I’m not attempting to convert people (at least without ‘provocation’ – say a Christian trying to convert me).

                2. Steve says:

                  This is true. There is no benefit to spreading atheism, because faith has never lead anyone to make irrational decisions that harmed themselves or others.

                  1. Raynoo says:

                    I’d be more likely to say that ignorance and intolerance lead to irrational decisions.

                    Therefore I don’t think you can’t say that all believers are ignorant and intolerant and you can’t say that all atheists are tolerant and well informed on anything.

                    Good and bad people comes in all sizes and flavours.

                    Also : I don’t think you can say that for example crusades were only a religious thing. Had the middle east been poor and weak and the Church not afraid of having all the riches they had stolen from the people stolen back, maybe things would have been different.
                    In the end the people probably didn’t care knowing that 1000 miles away people worshipped another god (or the same god but a different way).

                    1. Steve says:

                      I agree. Those are the only two things that ever lead to irrational decisions.

                      Okay, I’ll cut that out. As you perhaps guessed, I don’t actually agree. Believing in things that aren’t true will inherently lead you to make decisions that may appear rational from the inside but irrational to an objective observer.

                      Also, you seem to be projecting a lot of arguments onto me. I never mentioned the crusades, nor did I make any statements about the “goodness” of either believers or atheists.

                3. Raynoo says:

                  Agreed, I don’t see the point in trying to prove a believer that he’s wrong. Faith is private.

                  Only exception would be on the subjects like creationism but I don’t care that they think evolution is wrong, I just want people to stop comparing faith and science.

                  Also, not using a capital A when writing atheist is the proper way to write it as atheism is not a thing, it’s more an absence of thing.

                4. Dys says:

                  I do not like it when people believe pretty lies to the detriment of the entire human race. That is why I think people should try to avoid believing things which are not true.

                  It is extraordinarily difficult to do. Human brains are built to believe things, to make patterns from chaos, but still I think we should try.

                  For me, believing in the existence of a supreme being is analogous to believing one can fly. It’s perfectly harmless until it leads one to step off a rooftop.

                  1. Raynoo says:

                    You could consider religion a tool in that the way it is used changes everything.

                    You can use it to maintain people in fear and ignorance (dark ages, we’re loolking at you), or you can use it to help people cope with the unavoidable thing that is death, it also has lessons about plenty of things (though you can apparently find everything AND its contrary in holy books).

                    Science (atheism answer to fear and religion) is ALSO a tool. You COULD use science as a mean to create a superior race but you would not have me say that science is bad for mankind.

                    Also as House would say : everyone lies. Always, all the time. So just make sure people understand that not everything is true because it’s written and not everything is to be taken litteraly.

                    And finally, as a scientist, the only DECENT position would be agnosticism (someone once explained me how atheism is close to faith while agnosticism is science).
                    Do YOU have any proof that there is no god ? Not a god that would be exactly one of the most erm “famous” ones, just a superior being.

                    Its existence cannot be proved NOR disproved, so it is a matter of faith.

                    1. Entropy says:

                      agnosticism and atheism aren’t mutually exclusive. agnostics say ‘I don’t know whether a god exists’. Atheists say, ‘I don’t believe in a god’ Knowledge and belief are entirely seperate things.

                      Very few atheists would claim they ‘know’ no god exists. Usually, the conclusion is that current evidence is insufficient to prove a God exists, so the assumption is that it does not, until sufficient evidence does arrive.

    2. TheRocketeer says:

      I just had to open my mouth.

  7. Mrs. Peel says:

    Thanks for sharing, Shamus. I’m really enjoying this series. (I particularly liked the one where you talked about your mom working with paint – I’ve always said, “Shamus could write about watching paint dry and make it fascinating,” and you did!)

    I didn’t become a Christian until I was almost 19, and it took a while for me to find a good church home. Your image of the plane is a great way of conceptualizing the differences between churches, and I had to travel around that plane quite a bit to find someplace where I was comfortable. Hope you eventually found a good home…church isn’t required for salvation, of course, and a collection of humans is naturally subject to human failings; but if you find a good fit, it can really add a lot to your spiritual life. In my experience, anyway.

  8. goatcathead says:

    I don't have it all worked out yet, and when he leaves I have more questions than answers. bBut it doesn't matter. I don't regret my decision.
    You made a mistake in the word ‘but’

  9. Silfir says:

    You spend one entry of your autobiography discussing one of the central themes of your formative years that will continue to persist until today? What is this tomfoolery? For shame!

  10. Chuck Henebry says:

    I like your thoughts on how diverse “christian” worship really is. Non-christians rarely have a sense of this cultural diversity. Rarely, though, do you find a soul who’s experienced first-hand not just two but three radically different forms of church.

    I wish you were more vivid in rendering the lived experience of conversion and the other events you discuss here. You outline major events, but leave us wondering what, for instance, the man who visited you read and said to you. What made his outreach appealing to you? What prior thoughts did it gibe with? If the big story here is how we get “from point A to point C … pass[ing] through B,” what preliminary understanding did you have of God at point A? What did you think life was all about during that year of terrible suffering? And how did that stranger’s talk of God change your understanding, and in what way, so as to move you to this new “place of grace,” B?

    1. Peter H. Coffin says:

      As a non-Christian, I think a good number of non-Christians really do have a strong understanding of this diversity. But it’s a diversity of pie: there’s cherry and blueberry (which are kind of alike but with a different emphasis), apple and Dutch apple (which start from the same emphasis and head off in different directions), strawberry with rhubarb, strawberry without rhubarb. There’s pies that try to include everything like mincemeat, and pies that focus on doing one thing really well (custard pies). There’s also pies that some people that say they “like pie” don’t really consider as pies at all: meat pies, cheesecakes, pizzas. Pie selection is kind of regional: certain parts of the US sees more peach pies than apple, or you’re assured that outside of right around wherever it is, you’re never going to find as authentic a pecan pie. There’s even pie evangelists, who offer people looking for sherbert a slice of frozen margarita pie because it’s almost the same thing, right? And unification folks, that assert that pie, and cakes, and even baklava and cookies are all sweetened wheat-based dessert and the whole world is really one. Except for poor idiots eating ice cream and pineapple parfaits and thinking they know anything about dessert…. Someday, they’ll understand pie.

      1. SolkaTruesilver says:

        Religious talk makes me hungry

      2. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

        This analogy is really good.

      3. Rayen says:

        concerning religion, this is possibly the greatest thing i’ve ever read…

      4. Aldowyn says:

        I got totally and awesomely sidetracked. Got it at first, then got lost. Finding a map… I think I figured out where we are.

        Christian diversity is complicated.

        ANYWAYS… I’ve always wondered if Islam has as many different styles as Christianity, or at least close. I’m inclined to believe it DOES, it’s just not NEARLY as obvious to us westerners because, well, there aren’t that many muslims, and most of them aren’t really conservative and pushy about it.

        1. krellen says:

          It has, at the very least, a significant three-way divide similar to Christianity’s Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox split in the Sunni/Shi’a/Sufi split. Shi’a is a small enough group that there’s probably not a lot of orthodoxy disagreements, but I do not a lot of Muslims follow the teaching of one Ayatollah over another, and there are differences enough that Iraqi Shi’a and Iranian Shi’a are different enough as to not be the same thing.

          To my understanding, Sufi is deliberately non-conformist and each Sufi teacher is likely to be fairly unique. Sunni, the “orthodox”, mainstream branch, is by far the largest, and thus almost certainly has divides within it (however, unity is far more explicitly an aspect of Islam, and so the divides may be smaller and far less visible from the outside.)

          1. Aldowyn says:

            From what I recall, Sunni and Shi’a (or Shiite, whatever), are the two main branches. They divided over who they thought should lead the .. church (there’s gotta be a better word) after Muhammed died – his descendants, or other appointed rulers. I forget which ones are which and which ones are the radicals.

            Sufis, on the other hand, were itinerant missionaries, basically. They’re the reason for the large Islamic foothold in India, so I imagine India isn’t so much Sunni/Shi’a

            1. krellen says:

              Pakistan, on the other hand, is heavily Sunni.

              And the Shi’a are the ones that supported the family of the Prophet. The ‘a part is short for “Ali”, as Shi’a were the “party of Ali”.

      5. decius says:

        Ah, the pastryfarian church.

      6. Dys says:

        See, if people started world spanning holy wars over PIE, maybe I’d understand.

    2. Mari says:

      Really? Most people I know have spent at least several years “church hopping” and experiencing the varied church cultures. I personally did about 8 years of religion hopping where I started with the Christian churches and then hopped right on over to every religion I could find that didn’t require years of “education” or whatever to join. Then I moved on to the more mainstream cults before ending up right back in the Christian church. It was a highly educational almost-decade once I was able to divorce the emotional tumult from the whole experience.

    3. Abnaxis says:

      “Non-christians rarely have a sense of this cultural diversity”

      I would like to respectfully disagree here. I think everyone–Christian and non-Christian alike–knows about as much about religious diversity as they care to learn. A Baptist who grew up spiritually content in a Baptist church and never saw a reason to explore any denominations that aren’t their particular flavor of Baptist is going to know just as little about diversity when compared to an atheist who is satisfied with being atheist and sees no reason to investigate Christian denominations because he is satisfied with being atheist.

      Though I will admit, there is a dearth of atheist theologians. I have always wondered what ideas would be advanced if an atheist formally studied theology…

      1. Alex the Elder says:

        Well, I’m an agnostic amateur theologian, if that counts. :-) I’ve spent time throughout my life studying religions from Christianity to Buddhism to Shinto to indigenous animism to ADF Druidry, from within and without, both on my own and in formal classes, and came to the conclusion that all of them had good points (in terms of what their tenets actually say, anyway), but none of them seemed internally consistent for me to want to sign my identity over to them. :-)

        1. Aldowyn says:

          Religion shouldn’t be about whether you believe in the tenets. It should be about whether you actually do BELIEVE in what the religion is about.

          Talking about the values of different religions is morality, which is an entirely different thing. It’s a better idea to just take those ideas from different religions and put them together to form your own morality.

          I may have misinterpreted somewhere, and if I did I apologize.

          1. Taellosse says:

            I think you may be confusing “tenets” with “ethics.” I believe in the context in which it was used, “tenets” would be a synonym for “dogma” or even, broadly, “theology.” I think Alex as suggesting that the metaphysics and philosophies of the various faiths he’s studied are not sufficiently internally consistent for his tastes.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              Hmm. I was thinking tenets as in ethics, because it didn’t make sense with it as dogma. Lemme re-read.

              Eh. I suppose it could go either way. And obviously he said they weren’t sufficiently internally consistent, considering he said that exactly.

      2. krellen says:

        Do I have to go to school, or can I just read and think about all the religious texts I can get my hands on? Because if the latter, I’m already pretty far along that path.

        1. Abnaxis says:

          Do you have to go to school to study religion or to consider yourself a theologian? Of course not.

          Do you have to go to school to study in order to publish articles and share your insight with the academic community at large? Yes, unfortunately. They won’t take you serious otherwise (though if you admit to being an atheist, they still might not take you seriously).

          I am sure there are plenty of atheists who have studied theology on their own dime. I am one of them. But I am genuinely curious the effect on the discipline would be if an atheist chose to study theology formally, as a profession.

          1. Tuck says:

            I think you’ll find there are quite a lot of atheist theologians. Friends of my family in formal theology studies have remarked upon the large percentage of atheists studying alongside them.

            There have even been/are atheist church leaders.

          2. PAK says:

            Note: re-reading the below sounds like I may be evangelizing. I don’t intend it as such. I am drawing attention to things I happen to know as a result of my chosen church affiliation.

            You describe any number of Unitarian Universalist ministers. (Nontheism being quite common in the movement.) An extensive seminary program is required to achieve UU ministry, due to the necessity of having working knowledge of several extant world wisdom traditions. The publishing arm of the church is Beacon Press, and a number of theological writings by UU ministers are available.

            EDIT: partially ninja’d.

          3. Abnaxis says:

            I fail at English.

            I acknowledge that, just as there are many flavors of Christianity, there are many flavors of “atheism.” I know the word literally means “one who does not believe in a god.”

            However, in my mind the default “atheist” is “one who does not formally or informally associate themselves with any religious dogma.” I probably do that because it describes me (see above response to #5), and also because “atheist” is a lot easier to type than “non-religious person.”

            I realize this a a very narrow view of a much more varied term (bad, bad Abnaxis) but that was my intent. So when I say “I am genuinely curious the effect on the discipline would be if an atheist chose to study theology formally, as a profession,” what I really mean is “I am genuinely curious the effect on the discipline would be if a person with no religious affiliation chose to study theology formally, as a profession.” It’s just the latter is more wordy, and gets cumbersome after a while.

            In my mind, theology is the practice of critically analyzing religious texts, examining the details of their historical evolution, and evaluating their merits as philosophical constructs and sociological motivators.

            Actual faith in a religion is not a prerequisite for this activity, but it invariably skews the conclusions drawn by theologians in a certain direction. Non-religious people would be no different in this regard, but a non-religious theologian would nonetheless be unique in that non-religious people as a whole are underrepresented among theologians, meaning the hypothetical non-religious theologian would have great potential to change the discipline at large in a significant way, owing his unprecedented, unique perception of the field.

            ((Sorry if this comes across as snappy. I’m trying to be accurate with my terms))

            1. PAK says:

              No, not snappy at all. Great clarification. :)

            2. shrikezero says:

              I end up using agnostic in a similar way.

              My exposure to religion has been not unlike sliding around a frozen lake on a circular sled. Now attach that ice metaphor to a variation of Shamus’s plane (Judaic) and toss in some questionable social skills and voila. My family gave me a push in a hazily defined direction, but mostly I just got dizzy and meandered in a lazy curve across the ice.

              So it is far simpler to call myself agnostic. Any discussion of my personal religious beliefs is going to be convoluted at best.

            3. Dys says:

              The point which snags in my mind is that theology is often confused with something called christian theology (though I’m certain any of the major religions could be substituted).

              Theology in the pure sense is the study of religion. In this sense I can absolutely imagine someone with no religious beliefs or affiliations having an interest in one of the greatest cultural forces.

              Theology in the vernacular is the attempt to prop up irrational beliefs with semi-rational philosophical arguments. In that sense I rather doubt anyone who did not have a vested interest in the stability and apparent coherence of the faith would have any part to play.

      3. swimon1 says:

        Oh you’re just begging for a wonderfalls clip ^^ (OMG Lee Pace is soooo dreamy^^)

  11. Nyctef says:

    Heh, and then you have Anglican churches with a nice and polite service and then tea and biscuits at the end, which is what I grew up with :)

    Anyway, I don’t think I’m particularly religious (I like to think I can live up to Christian/whatever ideals without necessarily being a Christian) but I absolutely believe in ‘the Church’, seeing how much good charity and community work they do. Hope that makes sense :)

    1. Dave says:

      Yeah, I’ve also attended the Anglican services that weren’t terribly nice, and reminded me of the “different” baptist services I’d experienced.

      It’s funny how you can get overlap in service type when the churches are doing what they think they need to do to draw in parishioners.

      I love the post-church snacks though. :)

      1. Aldowyn says:

        That sounds SO English. Just saying. (Obviously that would makes sense)

        1. krellen says:

          Cake or Death?

          1. Dys says:

            We’re gonna run out of cake at this rate…

  12. Zaxares says:

    I’ve found that most religions have the same central tenet – Be nice to people. The problem is that in many cases religion has been hijacked by jerks and crooks as either a vehicle or justification for their crimes.

    Religion, just like anything else in the world, can be a source of great things, but it can be, and often is, taken to extremes, which is when the problems start.

    1. DanMan says:

      That’s the problem when you’re talking about things people believe will save them from eternal torment: People can convince them of things that aren’t true sometimes fairly easily.

      I am very much Christian and love what churches and Christian communities can do. I see Muslim and Hindu communities working hard at bettering the world around them. Then I see idiots and power-hungry jerks telling people complete lies because he can? I guess? It really saddens me.

      1. toasty says:

        Not to paint other religions in a bad light, but Islam and Hinduism have just as many problems as Christianity. I’m not a fan of Islam, having grown up in a Muslim majority country.

        Shamus: really enjoying this series, so glad that you’re writing it. I’d be interested in knowing why you left “corporate” churches in 2005. I haven’t regularly attended Church since I started college last year, mainly becasue I don’t feel like taking the time to find a church.

        1. krellen says:

          I believe the message DanMan was trying to convey was exactly that: Hinduism and Islam aren’t much different from Christianity. They have problems, and they do great things as well.

          1. DanMan says:

            Yes, exactly. I, myself, am Christian, but the point I was trying to make was about religion at large. All groups of people, be it political, religious or for fun have problems. That’s just the nature of people. I was trying to say that Christianity isn’t the only religion that is doing nice things in the world

        2. Falcon says:

          I would be very interesting hearing more. As an American, who has both read the Koran as well as numerous Muslim scholarly works, I can see some of those problems. The big one for me is how the teachings of some modern leaders (ayatollahs and such) are given the same weight and importance as their holy scriptures. This has led to terrible abuses. It’s the same problem christainity had with the papacy during the middle ages. That said I’m still a relative outsider. So some balance from you would be nice (much of the thread fatalities the failings of the Christian church) :)

    2. Meredith says:

      I often try to remind people that all major religions come down to ‘be nice to each other’. It doesn’t work very often. It really makes me sad to look back across human history and see how many wars were started in the name of religious differences when the whole point of religion is to bring people together.

      1. Aldowyn says:

        Suddenly reminds me of Starship Troopers (heh). Heinlein essentially claimed that he believed that all wars were caused by some sort of population pressure – including the Crusades, probably the most famous religious war.

        Now, I have no clue if he actually studied this, or if that was just his opinion from what he’d seen, but… interesting idea.

    3. Raka says:

      I’d actually change “in many cases religion has been hijacked by jerks and crooks” to “in all cases religions are composed of people”. Not that all people are jerks and crooks, of course. But we’re all capable of it, and in a group of any decent size you’ll find at least one who’s actively practicing. And they will be noticeable and memorable.

    4. Grampy_Bone says:

      It’s not “be nice to everyone,” it’s “Be nice to people.*” (*who are part of your same group.)

      FYI the new testament wasn’t meant for gentiles. *sigh*

      Religion is ALL ABOUT in-group morality, out-group hostility.

      1. Shamus says:

        As someone who is, right now, working his way through Paul’s letters to the GENTILE churches, wherin he admonishes them to be “nice” to people outside the faith, and refuse to associate with people INSIDE the faith who fail to live by the teachings of Christ, I will say that you seem to have skipped a few pages.

        1. Shamus says:

          I apologize for the snarky tone I used. I don’t know what I was thinking. I guess it was just that I stopped reading the section in question and happened on this, and for some reason just HAD to say something.

          Nice moderation, Shamus. Reeeal nice.

        2. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

          Shamus, are you really calling every book after the Gospel of John ‘a few pages’? :P

          1. acronix says:

            Maybe his edition has very, very large pages.

          2. TheRocketeer says:

            Luke’s gospel is very gentile-oriented; It’s my father’s favorite book.

        3. Kdansky says:

          I’ll be snarky: Count how many pages have a story where “open friendship to other religions” is supported, and compare them with “open hostility to other religion” pages. I’ll doubt it will be better than 1:100

          Edit: I wrote this before your snark-apology. :P Feel free to delete.

          1. Raka says:

            Hopefully this will not continue the snark-escalation, but I respectfully disagree. The New Testament is overwhelmingly open and friendly towards other peoples and religions, and I can’t actually think of a single example (outside certain interpretations of Revelation) of hostility. And I say this as a non-Christian who generally finds Paul frustrating, to put it mildly. But “hostile to outsiders” really doesn’t seem to be among his post-Saul flaws.

            Here’s a more light-hearted approach to the issue of NT inclusiveness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-nh7xOjkSs

            1. krellen says:

              Something many people (Christians and non-Christians alike) fail to understand is that the Old Testament is included in the Bible not so much as further instruction, but as historical grounding so that one can understand the tradition from which Jesus sprang. Basically the Old Testament is there to describe what the coming of the Messiah shall be, so that one can read the Gospel and understand that he is, in fact, the promised Messiah.

              Then most of the rest of the New Testament are Paul’s suggestions about how the faith should conduct itself.

              1. Shamus says:

                It’s gratifying to see people outside the faith understand this. The Old Testament is history, genealogy, a system of laws for a specific nation, a system of arbitration of disputes, building instructions for the temple, a guide to hygiene and manners, music (now poetry) , and “Instruction in Wisdom”. It would be like if there was single book that had the constitution, a record of the Lewis & Clark Expedition, the collected works of Walt Whitman, the family tree of George Washington, the layout of The Mall in DC, and the directions for running a session of congress. If we called the book, “The Book Of AMERICA”, it wouldn’t mean you need to chop down a cherry tree in order to be a citizen.

                Once in a while some smart alec staggers into the debate and says, “Christians don’t stone people for adultery like it commands in Leviticus, therefore they are all hypocrites LOLOLOL”. It’s the equivalent of the guy who says, “It’s snowing in January… SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING!” At best they are woefully uninformed. In many cases, they are probably deliberate trolls.

                So far, this thread has been very free of stress and strife. Thank you all.

                1. NihilCredo says:

                  Well, to be fair there are a few strands of Christianity who are pretty hardcore inerrantists, so for them the ‘why don’t you stone adulterers?’ objection has value (not that the smart alecs are terribly likely to have encountered them outside of Fred Phelps’s rantings). Unfortunately those same strands also tend to be made by the kind of people who would gladly stone adulterers indeed :/

                2. Aldowyn says:

                  Well, all of the Old Testament is supposed to be (supposed to: I don’t really believe. I dunno. Get into that later) either instructions to Abraham’s descendants, or history (God, Deuteronomy. Pain.)

                  It is specifically said in the New Testament to basically IGNORE a lot of the old testament’s instructions, iirc.

                  My bible scholarship is very sad, I apologize.

                  1. Eärlindor says:

                    Well, Christ does say in the NT, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” It’s not totally done away with. You have some revisions and the like. My own knowledge is, unfortunately, not as strong as it could be, so I don’t know all the specifics. But I remember verse I mentioned above.

                    1. krellen says:

                      That line has many interpretations, including one that says “fulfilling” the Prophets and their Law means evolving to a new state that no longer needs them.

                    2. Eärlindor says:

                      I’m sorry, that doesn’t make any sense to me. So what you’re saying is that the Old Law (which Jesus said he wasn’t sent to abolish) is fulfilled in a way so it’s still done away with? 0.o

                    3. krellen says:

                      If my need is fulfilled, I no longer have that need. Thus, if a Law is fulfilled, perhaps we no longer have that Law.

                3. Dys says:

                  I fully endorse pointing out that a Christian does not follow every instruction in Leviticus to the letter, but only in one very specific circumstance.

                  That circumstance being right after someone has quoted 20:13. That being the ‘kill the gays’ part of the old testament.

                  Yes, nuance, yes, historical perspective. But only when those qualities are present in the other half of the dialogue.

                4. Alan De Smet says:

                  There are Christians who selectively pick and choose which parts of the Old Testament to treat as the Final Word on matters. Those specific people and sects do deserve mocking for their hypocrisy. But mocking Christians in general shows a profound lack of knowledge about the faith.

              2. Falcon says:

                I was going to say pretty much this, so thanks.

                And you are right about people missing that point. As a Christian I grew up in a church like that. It is easier, after all, to say do not, do not, do not, than to teach how to be a kind and loving example of Christ. Certain denominations LOVE the old testament because it is so very black and white rules rules rules. Granted they conveniently forget certain ones (growing up baptist they usually glossed over gluttony and gossip).

                It would be great if that wasn’t the case, but alas human nature ruins a perfectly good thing, story of our planet.

      2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

        Basic creed for a Christian attitude toward others can be found in 1 Peter 2:17– “Honour all. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” “All” means “all.” (And I checked Strong’s Concordance on that.) This is not out of context. Peter was talking about not using your right to sin (that is, a Christian can sin without being condemned) as an excuse to sin. Instead of doing that, do 1 Peter 2:17.
        (Note that I removed the [men] at the end of the first sentence. It was marked as a word that was added for clarification and wasn’t in the original text.)

    5. Blake says:

      And this is where I think philosophy trumps religion.
      Religions have a philosophical basis, but they come with a whole book worth of things people can use an excuse for all sorts of madness (I’m reminded of this awesome piece of parody http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw ).

      When a persons moral code is based off ‘being nice to people is good, making people sad is bad’, there isn’t much room for justification. When a persons moral code is based off ‘what this book says is good’, then even if the strongest theme of said book is ‘being good is important’, there’s still plenty of wriggle room to justifiably do or hate nearly anything.

      1. Or, worse, when the book is (supposedly?) based on unprovable and indemonstrable instructions from an invisible, undetectable entity who transcends human understanding, you can justify anything whether it’s in the book or not. “God told me to do it” is a universal blank check, because nobody can contest it. “This is the rational thing to do based on the data”, however, can be contested by ANYBODY, proven, disproven, debated, altered, tested, whatever.

  13. Matthew says:

    Nice, loving this series so far, very informative and consistently insightful. I’m glad you feel able to freely divulge your views and ideologies, and on the internet, no less, and give your opinion with no apparent concern for the judgement of others.

    I feel quite encouraged, both as a christian and a resident of the interwebs, that there are people like you in the world, and that, though I’m not sure how much ban-hammering was done, there are people who are able to comment on such an exposition without malice or ill-intent. Thanks!

  14. Conlaen says:

    I am not religious myself but, like yourself, I do like religious ideas, be they Christian, Islamic, Judaic, or any other really. The ideas of loving your fellow humans, of acceptance and togetherness.

    It’s probably the culture that has generally turned me away from religion. It often differs too much from the original ideas. Especially what you see in the media focusses too much on the nagative. So in the end, not feeling at ease with any of any of the religious cultures, I just follow my own heart. I find community not in those who worship the same god, but those who have the same hearts I guess.

    1. DanMan says:

      This is why I get so confused by people who are scathingly hateful towards religion. The New Testament shows Jesus calling out the two most important rules in the world:

      1. Love God with everything you have
      2. Love your neighbor as yourself

      Now, we can ignore the first one rather than debate the existance of God, but wouldn’t we be better off if everybody followed rule #2? THAT is what most religions should preach, since many of them have similar passages in their own texts.

      1. Yes, yes we would. Interestingly that can include atheists too.

      2. Isy says:

        Two answers. A disturbing number of Christians are jerks, who will tell you you’re going to hell if you don’t believe as they do, and will disown their own children for the same reasons. This isn’t to say other people aren’t jerks, but in a majority Christian country you hear a lot more about Christian ones.

        The other answer is “politics”, I think. Once a religion gets involved in politics, it becomes less about God and more about keeping political power, and it becomes associated with certain political affiliations. And when that church is seen as having power over people who do not agree with the church (not the love and happiness parts, the other parts), they resent it.

        “Religion in Politics ruins both”, I think some people said. How you keep it out of politics is a question for the ages, I think.

      3. Alex the Elder says:

        Depending on which part of the Bible is your favorite, you can find a lot more rules than that. Jesus said that it was basically those two. Moses before him and Paul after him said that there are rather a lot more than that.

        1. The point he was making was that all of the rules -stem- from those two, and if you follow those two you will follow all the others.

          For examples, if you love God, you will keep his commandments, you will worship him, etc.

          If you love your neighbor as yourself, then you won’t hurt them, lie to them, etc.

          Basically they’re the two overarching rules that cover everything.

          1. Alex the Elder says:

            So the first rule has kind of the same role that the Commerce Clause does in latter-day US jurisprudence?

        2. Falco Rusticula says:

          What the guy above me said. If you love your neighbour, you won’t kill him, steal from him, or sleep with his wife (unless said couple has a mutual clause allowing that, I guess). If you love God, then you work to serve him and refrain from insulting him. All other rules are elaborations on those core two.

          1. X2-Eliah says:

            Ummmmmmm. Why is love associated as implying servitude?

            1. Falcon says:

              Obviously you’re not married ;)

              1. decius says:

                May I remark that this comment, while apparently sarcastic, reinforces a negative stereotype? I wish only to avoid providing the tacit approval implied by not responding at all.

            2. Falco Rusticula says:

              Interesting question. And…I just realised I don’t really know how to put the answer, as I understand it, into words. Let’s try anyway.

              Love to some extent always does involve servitude, I think. Any relationship is an act of give and take -you change yourself in some ways to make the other person happier, and they in turn adapt to see you happy. Those things might be as simple as getting a cup of coffee for the friend in your office who doesn’t handle mornings well. Not to change yourself, if you’re really upsetting someone you care about, would be selfish.

              If you love God, that love is also intertwined with trust. God is the ultimate authority; he made the universe, with all its wonders, and he also has a plan for how it will all play out. So to love and trust God is to trust that his plan is something that will better the universe and humanity as a whole, and therefore it is an act of love to aid in that plan.

              Does that make any sense? I think I may have expressed it rather clumsily…

              1. Dys says:

                I think you’re confusing servitude with charity.
                There is an important distinction between the two.

                To believe that you must alter your behaviour to make others happy is nothing but conformity.

                To alter your behaviour by choice in order to make others happy is sacrifice.

      4. Grampy_Bone says:

        Religion is inherently divisive. They all have an “us vs them” mentality. If you’re not one of the faithful, then you are to be treated with casual disdain at best, or outright hostility and violence at worst. “Love thy neighbor” only applies to other members of the church. Everyone else is fair game.

        1. krellen says:

          That is explicitly not what Jesus preached.

        2. X2-Eliah says:

          Not so much religion as human pack/tribe mentality that’s stuck with us since the ape/post-garden times (pick your choice as preferred).

      5. Kacky Snorgle says:

        No, because rule #1 provides the reason to follow rule #2. It’s all very well to say that the world would be a better place if everybody loved each other; but the fact is that it’s entirely possible to “get ahead” in the world by trampling on others instead of helping them out. It’s the Prisoner’s Dilemma, if you will: it’d be great if we were *all* nice loving people, but as long as some of us *aren’t*, there’s an advantage in being one of the ones who isn’t. Why shouldn’t I pursue that advantage–why should I love my neighbor instead? Because I’ve first learned to love God, and thus to obey His instructions on how to treat my neighbor.

        Sure, it’s possible for an atheist to love his neighbor too. But it’s not possible for him to show why “love thy neighbor” is a rule we should all follow….

        1. krellen says:

          It’s eminently possible. History and nature have proven, time and time again, that the greatest long term gain and health of a society is achieved by groups that “love thy neighbour”. There may be short-term suffering for the gentle, and short-term gain for the brutal, but in the long term, gentleness has proven a far more beneficial trait.

          1. Kacky Snorgle says:

            So you’re saying I should love my neighbor because I should care about the long-term gain of society? I’m going to have to call circular reasoning on that one….

            I have yet to encounter a non-God-based approach to morality that doesn’t fall into essentially that same trap. Sure, on a daily basis, I do a certain number of “nice” things because I enjoy doing them and because I enjoy making other people happy. But the test comes when I *don’t* feel like being nice, when I do have a desire to be selfish or hurtful or whatnot. Why is it wrong to indulge such desires? Every answer to that question that I’ve heard can be reduced to either “it’s wrong because the Higher Power(s) say so”, or else “it’s wrong because it’s wrong”. (Or else “never mind why, just don’t misbehave or you’ll suffer the consequences” — which is effective in some cases but not really eligible as an argument.)

            1. Aldowyn says:

              You know that commercial where one person sees someone doing something nice, so they make an effort to do something nice, and it keeps going until someone does something for the first guy?

              Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. One good turn deserves another. All of those have messages that aren’t linked to religion but are still equally valid.

            2. Calatar says:

              You hurt yourself by hurting others. It’s that simple. When you live in a society, as humans (tend to) do, you depend on the people around you. The degree of dependence varies, but with every act of hostility, you endanger yourself by endangering how much help/resources/kindness people are willing to offer you.
              You have a choice to either be kind for other people’s sake, or to be kind for your own sake, but if you’re not, you are hurting yourself as well as society. There is some connection between individual and society, which is where I think you’re having difficulty. “Society” need not be all people in the world. “Society” can be a place as small as an apartment shared with a roommate. Think about how that dynamic works with 2 helpful, 1 initially helpful 1 not, 2 not helpful.

              There actually is more reason to be a good person than “God told me to be.” Given the wide range of acts gods have been said to endorse, I’d say it’s probably a dangerous argument as well. Not to mention that morality from that point of view becomes entirely dependent upon conviction in the existence of said divine entity, thus branding nonbelievers as immoral.

              1. DungeonHamster says:

                It might be worth noting here that Christianity brands everyone, believers included, as immoral. “No one is good except God alone,” after all. The grace of God is the only thing that saves anybody.

                It’s also worth noting, I think, that what other gods may or may not have endorsed has no bearing on whether the claim that one particular god’s orders are worth following, seeing as how by any religion (with a few exceptions) are false ones. What the god-kings of Egypt or Allah or any one of the Buddhas might claim is good has no bearing on whether or not the God of the Apostles is correct, and vice versa, since following any one of them requires rejecting the others.

                And as to there being other reasons to be good, I ask only how we know what good is in the first place apart from some divine authority? The best I’ve heard is Plato’s “because it’s in the closest accordance with our nature” shtick, but if it were actually in accordance with our present nature it seems to me wouldn’t be so hard to do.

              2. Anonymous says:

                You hurt yourself by hurting others. It's that simple. When you live in a society, as humans (tend to) do, you depend on the people around you. The degree of dependence varies, but with every act of hostility, you endanger yourself by endangering how much help/resources/kindness people are willing to offer you.
                You have a choice to either be kind for other people's sake, or to be kind for your own sake, but if you're not, you are hurting yourself as well as society. There is some connection between individual and society, which is where I think you're having difficulty. “Society” need not be all people in the world. “Society” can be a place as small as an apartment shared with a roommate. Think about how that dynamic works with 2 helpful, 1 initially helpful 1 not, 2 not helpful.

                That is mostly just in relationships that are already balanced in power, though. It requires each side to have some means of holding the other accountable, and often breaks down otherwise. For instance, most forms of domestic abuse are based on a one-sided power struggle, in which the abuser benefits from the many abusive tactics they use to break the victim’s will. The latter becomes increasingly motivated by sheer pain avoidance, and eventually loses any leverage they originally had. While the abuser is rewarded with an obedient servant at their beck and call, the victim pays the price in fear, isolation, and a variety of long-term mental health problems–at a minimum. Counselors have noted that it does NOT harm the abusers to do this; only getting caught and held accountable really gets to them, yet they often manage to keep their victims quiet and/or discredited for a long time by the same process of abuse.
                Another example, if it’s not inappropriate for this website, is chattel slavery earlier in American history: Plantation owners profited from enslaving, tormenting, and sometimes murdering millions of people for 245 years before some third parties from another section of the continent intervened. That’s entire generations who never saw any kind of justice.

                It’s wonderful that there are people of all belief systems who would never take advantage of someone like that even when they can get away with it, but I’m not sure that we will ever outgrow a need for external infrastructure to keep the bad apples in line. And maybe we’ll never outgrow the need to debate which infrastructure works best.

            3. Blake says:

              Here’s how I derive my ethics from first principles:

              I like to feel good and I don’t like to feel bad.
              Other living things feel as I do, positive emotion = good, negative = bad.
              Objectively then, the best things are those which maximise positive emotions across the majority of people while minimising the negative.

              Time must be taken into account, punching someone might make me feel good for a moment, but it would also make them bad for a while (also: there’s a strong chance it would make future encounters between the two of us less pleasurable).

              I’ve also noticed negative emotions tend to be stronger and last longer. If I was to take $20 away from one poor person and give it to another, I’m sure the one who lost would have much more sadness and for longer than the receiver whose happiness would be momentary.

              I believe being nice to people is good because I like people being nice to me.
              I believe being mean to people is bad because I don’t like people being mean to me.
              My moral decisions are based on that, no higher power required.

            4. decius says:

              The ‘greater good of society’ is an explanation for why a system of morality is prevalent: The society with such a system prospers more than a society that has some other system. Darwin described how traits which produce offspring are present in offspring, while hereditary traits that result in fewer offspring die out.

              The problem, or perhaps advantage, of that explanation is that it doesn’t answer the question “What is the reason for or against a moral imperative to propagate a system of ethics or morals?”. It only explains why the systems that have propagated are ones that propagate.

            5. Simon Buchan says:

              OK, I know this argument has been responsed to death, but even looking at this from a *completely* non-moral, non-ethical and non-religious viewpoint, being nice to other people, at least as a default, is *still* the correct thing to do for your own gain, in the specific case of the iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma (eg, where the actors involved are in continuous loop of Prisoner’s Dilemma situations). Specifically, this is because the current best-returning strategy for a single actor, against any known strategy used by other actors is “Tit-for-tat, with forgiveness”, roughly, start by not betraying your partner, then do whatever he did last time, with a small chance to forgive him if he betrayed you last time (in order to break revenge cycles against another tit-for-tat’er). Note that this also means that revenge is not only OK, but ‘moral’ behaviour, if you use that interpretation, which you might not be OK with.

              EDIT: I’m a dumbass, this is of course in response to @Kacky Snorgle.

            6. Dys says:

              These nested comments get awfully confusing when they get this dense. The non-religious morality argument has been fairly solidly answered already I think, but I would like to add my own personal experiences.

              I am neurologically atypical, which perhaps is relevant to this point, but I regularly act in ways which are not beneficial to myself. I am genuinely more interested in the benefit of the group in which I find myself than in my own. It is natural and normal for me to think, when making decisions, ‘what will provide the most benefit to the people around me’.

              I don’t know if this is a result of my poor social skills, an attempt to overcompensate with abnormal generosity, or genuinely an abberation in my perception of my relationship with the rest of the world, but it is how I think.

              The point I’m trying to make is that people do not always act in their own personal best interests. Often the well being of others is a higher consideration, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

        2. toasty says:

          Yet I’ve mused on more than one occassion if after the results of the 9/11 Bombings, if the entire population of America had responded, not with angry and a desire for revenge (very reasonable reactions, I will admit) but with a “how can we love these people that hate us? How can we serve them?”

          My mom is fond of telling a story about a missionary and his two sons who were burned alive in their car in India at the hand of Hindu radicals. This man’s wife and his daughter, instead of asking the Indian government to punish these murderers to the fullest extent of the law, simply said, “I forgive you.” India was speechless. They didn’t understand how someone could say that. Imagine an entire nation doing that to people like Bin Laden. Its a scary thought. People like Gandhi have proven that nonviolence, but an intollerant attidute towards injustice is just as effect, perhaps more effect, than violent acts of terrorism (I’d like to point out that Islamic Extremists have done very little good in the West, except making people hate ALL muslims, while Gandhi, indirectly, created THREE nations and made the entire world take notice of a single man’s power).

          I think people just prefer the fast and easy way of doing things. I’m angry so I’m going to hurt you. You have stuff so I’m going to take it. That’s easy. But its also destructive. It divides communities instead of bringing them together, and that ultimately is bad.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            India is… odd, sometimes. Hindi is the dominant religion, I believe, but it’s also the home of such pacifist beliefs like Gandhi’s and Buddhism. You basically said that the country couldn’t imagine that someone would follow teachings very similar to one of the most famous people from that country. Odd.

            1. Blink says:

              This “pacifist” Gandhi being the same one who held a recruitment campaign during WWI? This being one of those figures that have been glorified beyond recognition, like Mother Theresa.

              Besides, when analysing the moral behaviour of a nation, religion is the LAST place you look at. The tenets of the dominant faith have no correlation with how people actually behave. Things like poverty, famine, low health care education and politics always come first.

              Well, there’s an exception actually: if the nation has a relatively new and “hot” religion, it’s usually worse off for it.

        3. Calatar says:

          It most certainly is possible. “Love of God” is really the only rationale you can find for why caring and kindness towards your neighbors is an excellent rule to follow?

          The phrase “mutually beneficial relationships” comes to mind. If you do nice things for other people, or at a minimum are considerate, they’ll respond in kind in most cases. Rudeness, hostility and taking advantage of others results in return hostility, thus diminishing the resources available to you.

          It’s fairly evident to see how a population of backstabbing opportunists wouldn’t fare as well or possess the same level of resources as a similar population of helpful individuals working together. Of course the latter necessitates a higher level of social ability, which humans have attained through our large brains. The study of the evolution of altruism as a trait deals with this heavily. In a society which depends upon the prevalence of altruism, a known backstabber faces ostracism for breaking the social rules which benefit everybody. Therefore the opportunist takes a risk by being parasitic, thus lowering the fitness of the trait.

          It’s not a hard rule, but generally speaking, you’re better off being nice to others than thinking only of yourself.

          Furthermore, it’s rarely wise to say “It’s impossible for X people explain Y thing” when speaking to a group which includes X people. Especially when it’s an alleged impossibility which presents such negative connotations for group X.

          1. Cuthalion says:

            which humans have attained through our large brains.

            I know I’m nitpicking here, but this bugs me, so I’m getting it out of my system. Large brains do not necessarily equal intelligence.

            1. Calatar says:

              We probably evolved large brains because of our complicated social dynamics, which require complicated and abstract thinking. Large brains do imply some evolutionary advantage deriving from the large size. Given that our abnormally large craniums cause difficult childbirths thus lowering our reproductive fitness, it stands to reason that they must increase our fitness otherwise. Human brains also use up far more energy than those of other primates, which use more energy than other tested mammals.

              Some studies have found there is some correlation between brain size and intelligence. It’s far from 1:1, but it exists (probably, though it is debated). There is a reason we don’t think Stegosaurus was too bright though.
              Wikipedia for more.
              Neuroscience and Intelligence

              Evolutionarily, we do care about brain size as a contributing factor of species intelligence. It’s not strictly true on an individual basis, but that’s why it’s not a 1:1 correlation.

        4. decius says:

          Sure, it's possible for an atheist to love his neighbor too. But it's not possible for him to show why “love thy neighbor” is a rule we should all follow….

          Yes, it is.
          First, establish a basis for deciding what the necessary and sufficient conditions for an action being one that we ‘should all follow’, or for an action being one that a given individual ‘should’ take.

          If you start with any permutation of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, then some variation of ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’ follows trivially. If a dictator is needed, one will be appointed, possibly without his consent.

          If you start with some variation of “do what you must to get ahead”, then you might see practical value in mutual society, which requires that certain mutual standards be applied. It’s good to be the king, but it’s also good to not be killed by those seeking the throne. The person or people who keep the power will take steps to keep it and maximize their returns. Thus, the wise despot will eventually create laws which benefit the people he has power over in order to indirectly benefit himself. Those laws are only effective if the sanctions for breaking those laws are less desirable than the consequences of following them. Therefore, the most selfish thing any individual can do is to perform the action which causes the most total benefit. QED.

          Or consider the strategy in infinitely iterated prisoner’s dilemma.

      6. Dys says:

        Two problems with those two rules.

        First problem, why is God #1? In this case the first rule takes precedence over the second and therefore anyone not worshiping God as you believe God wants to be worshipped is excluded from rule #2.

        Second, if we are ignoring the first rule, why exactly do we need it at all? Why not just have one rule which I would define as…

        Be Excellent to each other.

  15. Jason says:

    So I know you are writing this somewhat from your 10 year old perspective, so you wouldn’t have understood at the time, but why two churches? And why two that were so incongruous?

    For a long time, this blog has been an insightful place to read about games, I’m glad to see that you are as insightful about your own life.

  16. noahpocalypse says:

    Mark one down on the list of people who think this is a great series, made all the more so by it’s thoroughness.

    Irrelevant, but I totally agree with this post.

  17. Hal says:

    Eh, one quibble:

    Christianity has been a politicized, hot-button issue for a bit longer than you give credit. Roe v. Wade was 1973; Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979 (if Wikipedia is to be believed). Just saying, it wasn’t rainbows and unicorns in 1980.

    It’s sort of sad to me that it’s practically a rite of passage for young Christians to become disillusioned with the people around them in specific, or the faith as a culture in general. When you first become a Christian, you have a very idealistic idea of what it means to be a Christian; eventually you kind of see that it’s still a bunch of broken people sitting in those pews, and at the front of the church, every Sunday (or Wednesday, I suppose.) I guess the real test of maturity is when you can see past that and realize this isn’t a massive flaw but the reality of living in a broken world.

    1. tussock says:

      1973? The 16th century got just a touch of religion in their politics, with all wars kicked off by the Reformation movement. Major wars, over vital matters like who your priest was ordained by, saving entire nations from the horrors of people worshipping god the wrong way in their own homes.

      Crusades perhaps? If you want something a little more D&D. You know, getting European culture into the middle east by force of arms. Won’t make that mistake a….

      OK, I’ll stop now. 8]

      1. Deoxy says:

        I was going to comment on the Crusades part, but Wikipedia has a simple quote that does it much better:

        The Crusades were in every way a defensive war. They were the West's belated response to the Muslim conquest of fully two-thirds of the Christian world… The crusades were no more offensive than was the American invasion of Normandy… If the Muslims won the crusades (and they did), why the anger now? Shouldn't they celebrate the crusades as a great victory? Until the nineteenth century that is precisely what they did. It was the West that taught the Middle East to hate the crusades.

        “”historian Thomas Madden

        from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

        1. Max says:

          Okay, self defense against Muslim conquest is a reasonable explanation for why the crusades started, but it doesn’t explain the mass slaughter of Jews and Orthodox Christians in the Holy land. Even if the crusades started for a good reason, it doesn’t change the fact that they turned into horrible atrocities.

          Also the Middle-eastern crusades where not the only ones. There was the Northern Crusades against the pagans of Northern Europe, and the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars, which wiped out almost the entire population of southern France. Just try to weasel a self defense argument for those.

          1. Tuck says:

            I’ve always understood (reading between the lines) that most crusades were based on the greed of particular potentates (whether religious or secular).

            In fact I reckon that can be extended to include the cause behind most wars. Greed and fear, the two most powerful emotions.

            1. SolkaTruesilver says:

              Rule #1 about Wars and Religion:

              Religion are never the actual cause for war. It might (and has) been used as a pretext, but it’s not an actual CAUSE for war. Crusades were done to secure trade routes to the East and prevent further encroachment of the Muslims in Europe.

              At a time of population pressure caused by the plague and a lack of potential fief to be inherited by a sudden surge in the population of the Military/Aristocracy social class, you end up with massive population displacement led by competent military leaders that just wanted to go out and find greener pastures. Might as well do it in the name of the Holy Church, no?

          2. DungeonHamster says:

            I would recommend God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. Not a religious polemic, just in case you were afraid of that, but much more sympathetic to the Crusaders than most other recent literature and a good read. Worth reading just for the view from the other side, even if you decide Stark’s full of it.

          3. Deoxy says:

            Just try to weasel a self defense argument for those.

            Their BEHAVIOUR in the wars? The only defense I would have for any of that is that is was fairly common, historically speaking, among most or perhaps all people groups.

            But really, discussion of the bahaviour of the crusaders (or crusades against non-muslims) would be moving the goal-posts in this particular discussion.

      2. Raka says:

        16th century? As I recall, there was some politically and religiously inspired violence that took place right around 33 years after the New Testament opens. There may have been one or two incidents of politically and religiously inspired violence that took place in the Old Testament as well, but I’m sure it would take a lot of digging to find those.

    2. Alex the Elder says:

      Christianity has been a political battleground since the Council of Nicaea, or possibly even earlier than that depending on how you interpret the Epistles and Revelation.

    3. Hal says:

      Context, people! Context! We’re talking in a (very) contemporary sense about Christianity and cultural/political strife. While I (and probably Shamus) can’t comment about that relationship prior to the 1970s in America, there is the perception that things sort of exploded in the 1990s (for various reasons), and this accelerated in 2001, and again in 2003, after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

      1. Aldowyn says:

        Thank you for saying this. People are talking about the CRUSADES, and Shamus was talking specifically about American politics…

        *checks* Oh, you’re the OP. THAT was totally on-topic and relevant. I’ll be darned if it didn’t immediately get derailed.

  18. Skating and preaching? That’s a … weird concept. Though if everyone kept skating whilst the preaching happened that would be kind of entertaining.

    I’m intrigued to see when/if your religious views change over the rest of the autobiography…

    1. Mari says:

      Apparently not that weird. I grew up in a church that owned a roller rink for the specific purpose of skating while preaching or skating and preaching or whatever combination of wheels and words you can think of (to kids – I don’t know that the adults ever used it). It also owned a bowling alley so that they could preach while bowling. And a basketball court for preaching while slam dunking. Also a collection of arcade games, foosball tables, and air hockey tables for similar purposes. They were big on doing things while preaching.

      1. X2-Eliah says:

        I’m torn on this. On the one hand – if skating is used solely as a lure to draw in kids, then.. it seems wrong to me. Like, you shouldn’t resort to tricks if you felt you’d be doing the right thing.

        On the other hand, maybe it’s truly a more fun way to conduct sermons/whatever – after all, unlikely that the bible outright banned preaching sessions while skating, and what’s wrong with having more than the bog-standard ‘sit around and listen to how awful hell is while being uncomfortable and cold’ stereotype..

        So. Yeah. Can’t figure out if it’s a good thing or a morally wrong thing. halp?

        1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

          If the vehicle for preaching isn’t wrong per se (and skating, I belive, falls in this category), then I don’t think it’s wrong, assuming it doesn’t offend badly or detract from the preaching itself (set moral values are excempt from the qualification).

          1. Nick says:

            I guess it comes down to advertising – if you make it clear before your customers pay their money that preaching will be going on, then I think that’s fine. After all, a service provider is allowed to name their terms and conditions and ‘being preached at’ is just one of those for this one.

            The fact that it just happened without warning in Shamus’ case makes me feel extremely put out – especially as the skating stopped for it and clearly they didn’t know it would happen!

            1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

              Yeah, I found that odd.

            2. Cuthalion says:

              Well, they were apparently asked a few times if they were there for church and told it was church night. So evidently, it was well-known, but… still not advertised? Hm.

    2. Ingvar M says:

      Not sure if “skating & preaching” is more or less weird than “scouting & preaching”. I’ve seen the latter, but never the former.

      1. Rutskarn says:

        Need a reliquary here!

        1. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

          This made me burst out laughing at work. Thanks, Rutskarn.

  19. Dwip says:

    I’ve always wondered about you and this subject, for some reason. Great thing about this series is it really puts a face to the name, as it were, on all sorts of topics.

    Also interesting to me how I went precisely the opposite way from you about the same age. Most of the Christians I got exposed to early on (the ones who talked about it, anyway), were decidedly of the “gossip and pride” set, and enough of that made me a fairly militant athiest* for a while. Wasn’t until I got to college and met a really great group of people in the “peace and love” set that I really started calming down on that. Kept the athiesm more or less, lost the militancy. Best for everybody. I wonder sometimes how it would’ve gone had that particular meeting order been reversed.

    * – A militant athiest with a passion for Byzantine iconography and religious mosaics. People are contradictions.

    1. Aldowyn says:

      Back in the day most art was for religious or government purposes like that, not for personal enjoyment. Especially big stuff. Think of the Greeks, and all their statues of their gods. Closer to what you were talking about, the Sistine Chapel. So it’s not that surprising, and certainly not a contradiction.

      1. Dwip says:

        Well, yeah, but even just in the Roman/Greek context, there are plenty of nice secular pieces of art to enjoy. Or I could have chosen to be a huge fan of Van Gogh or something. Instead, it’s all icons and mosaics and the Chi-Rho is my favoritest symbol ever.

        So I think that’s a little bit contradictory. It makes some sense, I basically majored in classical history, but still.

  20. Rodyle says:

    Just for the record: I’d like to point out that I am an atheist (albeit a ‘weak’ atheist) and that I would never mock people for their beliefs. While I do like debating these issues, I know to don’t do it if the other person is uncomfortable with that.

    OT: that’s an interesting situation you were in. I’ve been in several churches in my youth, but never in more than one, let alone such radically different ones at the same time.
    I was also wondering: what are the larger christian movements in America? I know that over here in the Netherlands it’s mainly Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, but I was wondering what the situation is over there.

    1. Hal says:

      Well, the Catholic Church and Protestantism are still your biggest groupings of Christianity in America, but I’d venture a guess that the percentage of Protestants is higher, plus the breakdown of Protestant groups is probably quite different. The United Methodist Church is, to my knowledge, the biggest denomination, followed by the Southern Baptist Church and the American Episcopal Church.

      Of course, we have a lot of “other” flavors of Protestant that don’t play well with the others: Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. I only mention them because their numbers are much smaller overseas, though I’m sure you’ve seen Mormon missionaries at some point in your life.

      1. sab says:

        Could you elaborate on the ‘not playing well with others’ part? My experience with Jehova’s witnesses at the door seem more like “if you don’t want to play, that’s ok with us”. And we don’t get a lot of mormons here at the european side of the pond.

        If Shamus allows this subject to be discussed, ofcourse.

        1. Jonathan says:

          Hi sab,
          Short comment- I need to go to work here. Generally main-line Christianity does not accept these groups as Christian because they take what we believe about the nature of God (a key and important part of our faith) and the Bible and change it to the point where we believe that the god they worship is no longer the God of the Bible.

          The Jehovah’s Witnesses use a different translation of the Bible that changes a few key words and thus interpretations about the nature of the Holy Spirit and God himself.

          The Mormons have some additional books of the Bible that were added by a (reported) visitation of an angel to Joseph Smith in the 1800s, which make changes and contradictions to the Biblical canon accepted by the church for the past 1900 years or so (Jewish Torah + New Testament composted of the writings of the apostles, all of whom had direct face to face meetings with Jesus). For at least a part of their history, the Mormons also accepted further additions to the scripture by “revelations” which could only come to church leadership, but I’m fuzzy on that part.

          The other “doesn’t play well” group I can think of are Christian Scientists, who don’t believe in secular medical treatment and medicine (at all), and follow a book written by a lady in the late 1800s… beyond that I’m not familiar with the details of what they believe.

          Hah, I just thought this would be short!

          1. ccesarano says:

            I wouldn’t be so sure about the New Testament all being written by apostles who had face to face contact with Jesus. In fact, the author of Acts had no such contact, and Saul who wrote several letters also was not an apostle.

            It’s actually been interesting going through the New Testament again, and my approach to the text. I dislike the “THE WORD IS ALWAYS TRUTH NO MATTER WHAT” assessment, and when you get some background to the authors (or at least, the theories behind them) you get a sense of personality, but in some cases a sense of “Wow, is this guy full of crap?” To me, Acts seems inconsistent with the rest of the New Testament. There’s a lot more flash, pizzazz and theatrics than when Jesus was performing miracles. If anything, this gives more evidence that the author is giving second-hand accounts and wasn’t actually present during most of these events.

            …but then I try to bring this stuff up with my Church’s College and Careers group, and people warn me about the dangers of intellectualism…sigh…

            1. Joe Cool says:

              Actually, Paul was an apostle (from Greek apostolos, “messenger, person sent forth”) in the sense that he was instrumental in spreading the faith. He just wasn’t one of the Twelve.

              And whether or not he had face to face contact with Jesus depends on whether or not you accept his account of what happened on the road to Damascus.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                I’m pretty sure Paul actually does refer to himself as an apostle a few times, though he seems to consider himself less privileged because he didn’t have as much face-to-face contact with Jesus. I’ll look it up if I have to. :P

            2. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

              “The dangers of intellectualism”? Seriously?

              Luke (a physician) wrote his account of the gospels by interviewing people who knew Jesus after the events of his life.

            3. Cuthalion says:

              Actually, going by the texts themselves, it’s the other way around. Luke was present for significant portions of Acts, but got the info for the gospel named after him via his after-the-fact investigation.

              1. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

                Yes, he was certainly present during Acts, but was not prominent during Jesus’ lifetime.

                1. ccesarano says:

                  Hrm, I may have forgotten that part. I looked it up and read that he had interviewed Peter, but must’ve forgotten he was around during Acts.

                  I do find it odd as well, as I really enjoyed reading Luke, but there’s something about Acts I’m not a fan of.

          2. NonEuclideanCat says:

            Just some clarification here, since one of the greatest persons I’ve ever met is a Christian Scientist and I feel like I’d be doing him a disservice letting his faith go misrepresented.

            Basically, the core difference (or, at least, the most well-known) that separates CS from other forms of Christianity is their beliefs on healing. Specifically, they take the idea presented in Matthew 17:20

            (He replied, “Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”)

            and run with it, especially in terms of being able to heal wounds, disease, etc. Basically, with true faith, prayer, knowledge, and understanding, all things are possible through God (with the proviso that “all things” are good things; no killing tons of people with lightning vision).

            The “book written by a lady in the late 1800s” is a textbook-length analysis of the teachings of Jesus, with emphasis on the healings He performed while on Earth. The name “Christian Scientist” comes from the idea presented in the book that these healings are a provable, repeatable, coherent science that could be utilized by us regular humans at will, provided the requirements I mentioned above are fulfilled.

            Also, it isn’t that they don’t believe in medicine and medical treatment. There’s actually nothing forbidding them from seeking secular medical help (except in a few special cases). It’s that they will rely on aid and healing through God first and foremost. The exact reason why they do this would take far too long to explain and potentially falls into Mind Screw territory, since it concerns the metaphysical nature of reality, the true nature of Existence, and suchlike. I’m not going to try to render it into Plain English with my cursory knowledge of the subject.

            So yeah. That. Hope I cleared things up a bit. Like I said, someone I know (girlfriend’s uncle) has done so much good for so many people (nigh-constant missionary trips to Africa) through and with his faith that the idea of letting it go misrepresented like that just felt… wrong, somehow.

            1. Dys says:

              My only contact with Christian missionaries to Africa comes second hand and concerns distant American cousins. So I may not know much of what I speak, but apparently their main contribution to the well being of the third world is smug self righteousness?

              Charity is always at risk of condescension, particularly across national and cultural boundaries. I suppose what I’m wondering is if you have any actual evidence of this person’s good works, from the people to whom he was actually ministering?

              1. NonEuclideanCat says:

                None on hand that are any more conclusive than your second hand evidence obtained from distant cousins. Considering that I posses neither the time nor the resources to travel out to Africa to obtain in-person testimonies from people, I’m not really sure how I could. The only thing I could really offer is a link to the foundation he’s a part of: http://iwanttohelpafrica.org/

                I suppose what I’m wondering is if you have any actual evidence that your conclusions that are based on second hand information from distant cousins are all accurate, based on the testimony of etc, etc, etc…

        2. Hal says:

          Insomuch as, except for the “not Catholic” part, these groups wouldn’t necessarily be classified together. Mormons wouldn’t really consider other Christian groups to be orthodox; same for JWs. On the other hand, most Protestant churches consider other denominations to be different flavors of the same thing, differing only on matters that are ultimately minor. Presbyterians wouldn’t call Baptists or Lutherans unorthodox.

        3. Mari says:

          Just venturing a guess, but the “not playing well with others” could mean that a major doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is that ONLY JW’s will get into heaven (and not even all of them, based on their doctrine of the 144,000 elect compared to their own membership numbers). Mormons are similarly inclined to overtly reject the notion of non-Mormons in heaven. Granted, many denominations and flavors of Protestants intimate such a believe, but only Mormons and JWs actually have it as a central tenet of their faith. By contrast, while you may find more than a few Southern Baptist pastors preaching on Sunday morning on the evils of some other denomination, it’s not something that the Southern Baptist Church has written down as a core faith article. They never held a vote on “All in favor of kicking the Methodists out of heaven, say aye.” Make sense?

          For the record on the basic difference in church makeup between the Netherlands and the US, the Roman Catholic church and the various “reform” churches (Calvinist/Presbyterian and Lutheran) make up a larger part of the European church population (with more than a passing nod at the Anglican church in England) while America seems to have a much larger percentage of later “protest” churches that trace their roots to sects that were kicked out of/fled Europe for being a little too weird for general consumption at the time. For instance, my family has a branch of Anabaptists that fled England to the Netherlands to avoid persecution in the 16th century. They stayed in the Netherlands for two generations and then wound up migrating to America. The area of Texas where I live still has a large population of various Anabaptist groups (primarily general Mennonite but also some Brethren and a scattering of Hutterite communes and Moravian churches). I’ve also noticed a big upsurge lately in various Pentecostal churches around here, which fits more into the “liberal” and “charismatic” end of the spectrum that Shamus described.

          1. adam says:

            I would say it’s a commonly accepted myth among people (Mormons included) that only Mormons will go to “heaven.” But that is simply not the case. There’s nothing in Mormon doctrine that states that only Mormons go to heaven. What Mormon doctrine asserts is that there is a prescribed method for re-entering God’s presence (this is not just “heaven”) and that the Mormon church is currently the one with the authority and knowledge to execute (parts of) this method.

            Think of it like taking a crucially important grad course from a world renowned professor. You’ll be given the opportunity to succeed, no questions asked, at some point during the class, with full knowledge of the consequences of both success and failure.

            Some of what the professor requires for success may appear arbitrary or silly to you at times (think “wax on, wax off”), but you go along with it because he’s the professor and he’s in charge. It’s a lot of very hard work, but if you do what the professor tells you to do, you’ll get a good grade and a recommendation from the professor that will open doors to personal and professional progression that you never would have realized otherwise. Of course, with this progression comes lots more work and lots more responsibility, but that’s the choice you made when you decided to work hard in your professor’s class. And, one day, armed with the knowledge you’ve gained and the education you’ve obtained as a result, you are in place to become a professor just like your original mentor who opened the gates for you and you can give others the same opportunity you had.

            Alternatively, if you procrastinate and don’t work hard in your professor’s class, you don’t get your good grade or your recommendation and that’s that. Life goes on, but you never see the opportunities for progression you would have had you trusted your professor and done the work that was asked of you. You can still do many great things, but you blew your most important opportunity. Of course, that’s what you wanted, isn’t it? You made the choice not to work hard in your class and now you don’t have to. Any regrets you have are your own self-inflicted punishment. Your hell, if you want.

            Seems pretty fair.

            That’s Mormonism.

        4. Abnaxis says:

          The thing about Jehova’s witnesses and Mormons is, they tend to cause conflict by merely being present more so than by starting a fight. As Jonathan mentioned above, their worldviews don’t jive well with many other denominations. At the same time, their faith compels them to go on mission to spread their faith. Some of the more conservative Christian in the United States construe this as an assault on their beliefs and an attempt to corrupt their children, and they will react with hostility in response. They’re like the gypsies of Christianity, in a way. A lot of the laws we have with regards to free speech, privacy rights, and freedom of religion have grown directly out of this conflict.

      2. Rodyle says:

        Hrm… Nope. I’ve never seen a Mormon missionary before over here. I’ve seen a few Jehovah Witnesses though.

        Yeah, over here, most of the Protestant are Calvinists(which is not too strange, seeing how we had the beeldenstorm and all that) and a few Lutherans, Reformed and Evangelicals.

      3. DanMan says:

        It also varies significantly by region. The Netherlands is about the size of the north-easter seaboard of America. While there is plenty of diversity, it’s hard to have as wide-spread differences as in the geographically larger America.

        I don’t want this to sound condescending, but a lot of the perceived “backwater” areas are hugely Southern Baptist. It’s called Southern Baptist because it’s largest groupings are in the southern states like Alabama and Georgia. By “backwater” I mean typically the southern farmlands and swampier areas.

        Shamus and I live on different sides of PA. I know Baptist has a greater pressence out on his half of the state.

        In the more “sophistocated” areas (I only mean big non-industrial cities like Philadelphia, New York, Boston, etc.) there is much more Methodist and Episcopalean influence.

        It really is interesting how different even “Christianity” is.

        1. Brett says:

          And you’re only talking about the eastern half of the country. Here’s a summary of American religious affiliations. And here are some maps showing different religious affiliations in different parts of the country.

          Broadly, the south is heavily Baptist and evangelical, New England is Catholic, the Midwest is mainstream Protestant (Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran), the Mountain West is Mormon, and the Pacific Coast is mostly unaffiliated but trending Catholic thanks to Hispanic immigration.

          1. DanMan says:

            Yes, I was only talking about the eastern part because that’s really all I know. This was very informative. Good stuff, thank you

            1. Aldowyn says:

              About what I would expect. I’m kind of surprised New England is flat Catholic, though. The Puritans were definitely protestant, and I can’t think of any reason for there to be lots of Catholics there. I know that, at least in the middle colonies (primarily NYC), the Irish were prosecuted in a large part because they were Catholic.

              1. krellen says:

                The Irish and Italians who were persecuted largely settled in New England, bringing their Catholicism with them.

              2. Cuthalion says:

                Iirc, Maryland was founded Catholic. That might’ve had something to do with it.

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  I think you’re right about maryland. Duke (I think he was a Duke) Baltimore and all that.

                  @krellen Was it enough to change the demographic of an entire area? Somehow I doubt it :/

                  1. krellen says:

                    Enough such that the dominant ancestry in New England is now Irish or Italian.

                    Note: I live in the middle of that light pink area where people are “Hispanic”, not Mexican (because they are, in fact, mostly Hispanic; New Mexican Hispanics largely pre-date Mexico.)

        2. kmc says:

          Also, in many denominations, just a change of preacher can make a huge difference in the “flavor” of the church. Mostly, the congregations I grew up with sort of had their beliefs but a lot of that was kept on an individual basis. If they really didn’t like the preacher, they wouldn’t say much about it but you could feel it, and if they liked him or her, they’d profess beliefs that mirrored more or less what he or she preached. I think, though, their beliefs stayed mostly the same deep down. This is particularly mutable in a denomination like Baptist where there is no official ruling body. (In other words, a church can be Southern Baptist whether or not they follow guidelines set by an organization such as the Southern Baptist Convention.)
          My experiences are Southern Baptist growing up (Southern California), a fair stretch of no affiliation at all, American Baptist in college (outside Philly), and some Methodist (also Southern California). Now that I’ve spent my whole Air Force and post-Air Force careers in the Bible Belt, I haven’t looked for a church. The prospect is a little daunting.

        3. Jarenth says:

          I’m not entirely sure what exactly constitutes the ‘North-Eastern Seaboard’, but the Netherlands is about the size of the island of Nova Scotia. Just a little smaller than Maine.

          Your point still stands, though. Just wanted to point out that we might even be smaller than you think.

          1. DanMan says:

            Wow, I was guessing from memory of a size comparison of a map I saw last week. I thought it was the size of basically Maine to New York.

            I spent some time in Europe in high school and it still blows my mind how geographically tiny the countries are. It takes me 6 hours to get to my grandparents’ house ONE state over. It’s so strange to think that 6 hours of driving could take you through several countries.

            1. krellen says:

              New Mexico is roughly the size of France, and is only the sixth largest state in the US. I think Europeans are as alienated from the sheer scale of the US as Americans are from the relative closeness of Europe.

              1. DanMan says:

                Yes, the map I was talking about was a comparison of the entire continent of Europe compared to the state of Texas. Essentially, Europeans were criticizing Americans for not using/investing in public transportation like trains. Someone responded with that map.

                Yes, it’s easy to travel around Europe in a train. Yes they have a good train infrastructure. They also don’t have 3,000 miles to travel if they want to go from one side of their country to the other.

                Not to say that we shouldn’t invest in trains in this country. It’s better than flying

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  Umm. I don’t really care about public interstate transportation systems – I care more about city transportation systems. Europe’s are immensely better, especially than where I live. It’s the 46th largest city (by population, according to Wiki) in the country, and the measure of it’s transportation system is a completely insufficient bus system.

                  1. ben says:

                    Both the Seattle and Atlanta metropolitan areas, (where I live currently, and used to live), have a comprehensive bus network and light rail system.

                    But why would tie my schedule to public transit when I have a car? I can go 30 miles in my car for the 4 dollars I would spend on round trip public transit.

                    And I HAVE TO HAVE A CAR, because my parents live 40 miles away in Tacoma, and my sister lives 280 miles away in Pullman. With access primarily via the interstate highway network.

                    The public transit system between my house and my parents house exists, but would still require 2 bus rides and a train ride, entailing a significant delay and additional cost. Meanwhile the public transportation to get to my sister would be byzantine with a terrible hours long bus ride on Interstate 90 and highway 260.

                    Or I could just take my car, paying less than $15 in gas to get to my parents’ and $50 to get to my sister’s. AND not have to make any stops along the way, reducing the length of each trip by at least half.

              2. Cuthalion says:

                This always weirds me out. The closest border growing up was two hours away, and you had to go further to get to anyone you know (Washington -> Oregon). Other states were more like 6 and 8 hours away, and the ocean was 2-3. Now that I live in Ohio, it’s 2 hours from my family’s house in Kentucky, and the states are so much smaller over here that a few hours travel in any direction could go through multiple states.

                It blows my mind to think that, as close together as the states seem to me here, it’s even moreso in Europe, as they aren’t just state borders, but entirely different countries, with their own laws, languages, and (sort of) currencies!

                1. krellen says:

                  Yeah, actually, Eastern Americans might actually grasp the most European scales, and might be as surprised by the scales of the Western US as Europeans are.

                  The United States isn’t really a single nation. It’s much more akin to three nations* united under a single state.

                  (*The nations being the East/Northeast, the South, and the West/Midwest. There may be even further subdivisions of nations within those, of course.)

                  1. Falcon says:

                    Yeah most midwesterners wouldn’t take to kindly to being lumped with the west. Heck being a Chicagoan we most certainly already have a bit of a complex. There is a coastal bias we react strongly to, screw New York and LA. The national media focus too much on them, and ignores us, yadda yadda yadda. A bit silly, but there it is.

                    1. krellen says:

                      Hey, I’m from the Mountain Time Zone. We don’t even get a listing.

                    2. Aldowyn says:

                      @Krellen What’s in the mountain time zone, really? To be perfectly honest, that makes sense. Population wise, it’s just minuscule. Sorry if I’m offending you :P

                      The midwest, on the other hand… 4 of the 10 largest cities (… what? Is that wiki map accurate? San Jose and Pheonix are larger than anything other than NYC and Philly on the eastern seaboard?) are in the midwest, and there are actually a significant amount of people there, especially around the great lakes area.

                      As for the midwest being in the same category as the West… completely different, and significantly different between itself (I would say more so than the rest, except southern cali and the pacific northwest), from north to south (Texas-Illinois. Enough said)

                    3. krellen says:

                      Denver is in Mountain, as is Phoenix for half the year (Arizona doesn’t observe Daylight Savings).

                      And I live in a first-strike target. How many other people can say that?

                    4. Eärlindor says:

                      I think Chicago is about the only city in the Midwest that the two coasts are willing to admit exists. :P

                    5. Aldowyn says:

                      Since no one likes to think about Texas, sometimes.

              3. Zukhramm says:

                What? Looking up the areas on Wikipedia, it seems New Mexico is less than half the size of France. And Europe as a whole is roughly as big as the US. And of course, not everything is densely populated here either.

                1. krellen says:

                  I mixed up France and Germany (not that I was confused about which country is which, I just forgot which one was the bigger one). New Mexico is roughly the same size as Germany.

              4. TSED says:

                I live in Canada. We can stick a good chunk of your CONTINENT into most PROVINCES.

                I just cannot fathom the population density of Europe, but I hate how sparse it is over here. I frequently find myself fantasizing about moving to Scandinavia / Britain because of it…

              5. Dys says:

                Speaking as a Brit, I think you’re entirely right about not being able to really grasp the size of the US in comparison. It’s often held as a point of ridicule how few US citizens hold passports or travel outside the country, or know sod all about anything outside the US. It’s less common to see that accompanied by a decent understanding of the fact that foreign travel is so much more present in Europe.

                As one memorable comic put it, ‘I can piss on Calais from Dover.’ (It’s actually about 50 miles, but I think I’m right in saying that at no point in Great Britain is a person more than 1,000 miles from France).

                1. krellen says:

                  I spent a year living in Ohio. Geographically, that is the same as a Spaniard spending a year living in Prague.

                  1. Cuthalion says:

                    To emphasize what krellen said:

                    I was born and mostly raised in Puyallup*, Washington**. My family (and I, when not at college) now live in Hebron, KY. That is 3,765 km (2,340 miles) by road. Guesstimating 3,200 km (~2,000 miles) by air.

                    This is roughly the road/boat distance from Madrid, Spain to Helsinki, Finland (3,614km).

                    I am still in the same country.

                    ——————————–
                    *Pronounced “pew-WALL-up”… sort of. Sometimes.
                    **The state, not the city. 2,678 road miles distance from roughly center to center. And now that I live closer to DC, I always have to specify “Washington State” when I say where I’m from. :P

  21. Mogatrat says:

    Of all of this, I found it most interesting that your mom’s friends abandoned her when she went Christian. Non-Christian people, particularly in the US, have to deal with Christianity all the time and generally speaking most of your friends, coworkers and random people you find on the street are going to be Christian, so I’ve always figured that getting terribly offended at someone’s religion is kind of a silly, self-defeating enterprise. I wonder how these people survived in the US at all.

    1. Jonathan says:

      My understanding of the current statistics is that, although most people in the US consider themselves “Christian,” something like 30% or fewer actually attend church on a regular basis.

      You can be a Christian without attending church, but there is instruction in the Bible to “not abandon the gathering together of believers,” and teaching about the Bible, and it’s hard to grow on your own. I think most of the people who say “yeah, I’m Christian” but do not attend church are “cultural Christians” or people who grew up in the church, walked away from it, but still think of themselves that way.

      You can go to church without actually being a Christian, ie without having personally acknowledged in your heart that you are an imperfect, flawed sinner, and are totally unable to erase your sin with good works, and that only through Jesus can you be saved and have a personal relationship with the Creator God of the universe.

      Between those two groups, the actual % of Christians in the US is smaller than it might appear at first.

      1. Brandon says:

        And yet, when it comes to politics and society the Christian Culture is still a powerful force, even if those individuals might not be considered “true” Christians. I was made very sad a couple years ago when a semi-regular survey resulted, yet again, that atheists are the most reviled belief/philosophy group in the US. Even for those who are “fair-weather” Christians, the idea that there is something greater out there is essential, and that atheists don’t accept that can be very threatening.

        A Christian friend once told me she thought I was brave, sauntering out into the world believing that there was no afterlife, that when I died I was merely gone. I’m not sure I agree.

        1. ccesarano says:

          See, that’s the thing I find interesting. When I think about the after life, of eternity, I actually feel frightened. Every time I explain it I find myself having to huddle in a corner until my nerves calm down.

          When you live a finite life in a world where nothing lasts forever, the idea of never-ending is scary. At least, it is to me. This fear is perhaps my greatest temptation to stop believing in God.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            My problem is that I just have too strong a faith in the laws of the universe. If I believed in God (… complicated), I would probably be closest to a Deist – basically believing that he just made all the laws of the universe and let it create itself. I would add that even he can’t break them – and thus, Lazarus wasn’t really dead, and there was a reason Jesus walked on water. Or they’re just stories. I’m a strong believer in Genesis (at least the beginning) being metaphorical, not literal.

            1. Cuthalion says:

              I don’t think you’re alone. Deism seems to be the default belief of Americans. Most just don’t know the name for it.

              (“Default”, not “only”.)

          2. Tzar says:

            Interesting. I’m an agnostic, but I find the idea of non-existence to be profoundly terrifying. Enough so that I’ve actually become a bit of a transhumanist lately.

  22. Simon Buchan says:

    I hope the positive feelings above are due to your excellent readership, and not to your tireless moderation. I feel I have the duty, as a good* Atheist**, to reassure you and your readers that you don’t have to be Christian (or even religious in general) to find this post compelling, and your thinking and position admirable. I would also like to state that your mother is starting to sound like the best person in the whole world ever, you inconsistantly lucky bastard :)

    Re: Christians looking like Jerks: I think a lot of this is due to the fact that if you don’t know someone well, but do know their religion, be it Christian, Fundamentialist, Atheist, or whatever, in general that is because they are being a Jerk about it. It’s a pity that at this point, bringing up religion at all requires half-page disclaimers, or the equivalent.

    * Debatable, for any interpretation :)
    ** Perhaps not strictly: rather than beleiving in the lack of a theistic power, I beleive in a system of logic that leads me to be confident, given my current experience and knowledge, in the lack of a theistic power. Perhaps more correctly Agnostic, but that is more easily misinterpretable in the popular understanding of the term.

    PS: I apologise for the stiff tone of this post. I try very hard to use maximum politesse if I feel my message could easily be misinterpreted and cause some drama.

    1. Dys says:

      Agnosticism is most correctly the belief that it is impossible to know anything about God, his existence or lack thereof.

      So stated, your position appears to be atheism, in that you don’t believe there is a god. The fact that you have reasons and are prepared to be wrong doesn’t alter the current state of your belief.

      I’m not sure there is any such thing as an Atheist, defined as someone who will refuse to believe in any god even in the face of direct evidence for said being.

      1. swimon1 says:

        I can’t find the word right now but I know there’s a word for someone who believes in a god but refuses to worship it. It’s maybe not exactly what you were looking for but I like mentioning it because I think it’s a cool concept. It’s one thing to not believe it’s another to actively oppose a being you believe to be omnipotent, that’s pretty ballsy.

        1. krellen says:

          I’d use the word “anti-theist”.

  23. Note: Tired when I wrote this. If it does violate the gold box above, just delete it. I don’t mean to, but the fact I don’t intend to have an argument (I’m really not proposing any discussion at all here, it’s just a comment on a situation I’m surprised to have never experienced) here might not translate to an actual outcome. I dunno. If it does, I’ll be as annoyed as anyone.

    Atheist though I am I still find reading about religion extremely interesting, because it’s just so different from the way I think. And I kind of resent the fact that whenever I try to discuss it, It’s always assumed I’m trying to start something, to the point there’s always disclaimers like the above present in case I get too inquisitive and start insulting people for no reason or something.

    For reference I’m a pretty die hard skeptical atheist, meaning I personally have no investment in what I believe beyond “is it true or not”, and very few things actually meet my criteria for the former. But the vast majority of my extended family are Christians of various denominations, and my Pentecostal cousins were basically like siblings to me growing up, but I could never, and really still can’t understand why they aren’t as uncompromising about this kind of thing as I am. Because I certainly didn’t make a point of talking or even really thinking about it growing up. So that lack of understanding fascinates me, though it does so FAR more than it does others I’ve noticed. Which is a shame.

    Like I always wonder why fundamentalists are considered “too extreme” by moderates for taking their holy text as read. Not that, from where I sit the moderates are doing anything wrong – I’m all for the peace and love aspect, but what purpose would parts you have to read around serve in a guide to civilization? I mean, my worldview involves the universe being giant, uncaring and willing to crush us like the insignificant blue dot we are pretty much at random, with things like ethics and morality being entirely self-determined. But as nihilistic as half that stuff is, that doesn’t mean I can choose not to believe it.

    Maybe there’s a reason religion is so popular, everyone does it after all, so naturally I keep asking things like this, with the intent of understanding what I’m missing, and naturally nobody wants to give me an answer. The usual reasons being because I’m obviously just trying to start a flame war or being intolerant (I figure if I’m still trying to talk to someone, they’re being tolerated) or trying to ruin people’s beliefs. But why would I want to make anyone mad if I’m looking to get an answer out of them? Why do people get mad at questions anyway? I love questions, questions make me think, and wonder if I’m wrong. Sometimes I am wrong, and I don’t have a problem with it because that’s the first step to becoming right, so I don’t understand the opposite reaction.

    Meaning, basically I’ve kind of stopped asking, pretty much for that reason.

    1. Primogenitor says:

      Me too. I find belief (especially against evidence) quite an alien concept.

      1. Zekiel says:

        Me too!

      2. Eldiran says:

        Agreed, and this is coming from an ardent Christian.

        I much prefer the definition of ‘faith’ as the ability to believe in things that are inconvenient to believe, rather than believing without reason to. Such as believing in a proper ethical system when you might want to do something a little morally shady.

        It’s a shame you can’t find anyone to discuss intellectual matters with, Pareidola — too often political correctness and a misguided need to “get along” gets in the way of insightful discussions, such as this autoblography and its comments.

        Thanks for having the guts to share all this, by the way, Shamus.

        1. What I don’t get is where does “inconvenient belief” change into “belief without reason”? Aren’t the things that would make your view on the nature of the universe “inconvenient” considerably harder to ignore than the temptation to take the moral low road?

          I think that’s the fundamental disconnect with faith for me – I treat belief in abstract concepts like ethics as a completely different animal to more physical concepts like chemistry or something. If I find myself having trouble believing the former I try to come up with a good solution, if the latter then I stop.

          1. Eldiran says:

            What I don't get is where does “inconvenient belief” change into “belief without reason”?

            Optimally, it doesn’t. I don’t think anyone should believe in anything without reason to. For me though, there are a lot of logical reasons to believe in God.

            I realize that my view of faith is quite different from the traditional view, but it’s the only one that makes sense to me.

            To sum up with a big ol’ quote from C.S. Lewis ‘cuz it makes me look way smarter:

            But what does puzzle people-at least it used to puzzle me-is the fact that Christians regard faith in this sense as a virtue, I used to ask how on earth it can be a virtue-what is there moral or immoral about believing or not believing a set of statements? Obviously, I used to say, a sane man accepts or rejects any statement, not because he wants or does not want to, but because the evidence seems to him good or
            bad.

            […]

            Well, I think I still take that view. But what I did not see then- and a good many people do not see still-was this. I was assuming that if the human mind once accepts a thing as true it will automatically go on regarding it as true, until some real reason for reconsidering it turns up. In fact, I was assuming that the human mind is completely ruled by reason. But that is not so.

            For example, my reason is perfectly convinced by good evidence that anaesthetics do not smother me and that properly trained surgeons do not start operating until I am unconscious. But that does not alter the fact that when they have me down on the table and clap their horrible mask over my face, a mere childish panic begins inside me. I start thinking I am going to choke, and I am afraid they will start cutting me up before I am properly under. In other words, I lose my faith in anaesthetics. It is not reason that is taking away my faith: on the contrary, my faith is based on reason. It is my imagination and emotions. The battle is between faith and reason on one side and emotion and imagination on the other.

      3. Jethro says:

        The difference between religion (and specifically here I’m speaking of Christianity) and science is how the term ‘belief’ is interpreted. In science (or Rationality, or Skepticism), belief is determined by provability. In religion, belief is derived from faith. Faith is defined by Christians as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” This in turn becomes belief.

        As a Christian, I find little value in the idea that it’s helpful when Science (or ‘a science’) makes a discovery that corroborates my beliefs. Christians get really excited when archaeologists find an ancient site that’s mentioned in the Bible, or when some esoteric passage of poetry can be interpreted to confirm a scientific principle; I find this to be pointless. What use is my faith, if it’s based entirely on rational thought? It is no longer faith, but is then logic, rationality, and so on.

        The point of faith is to sustain our souls, not our intellects. I firmly believe that we have both, and that they are linked- but I’m not going to try to nourish my soul with facts about the world I live in. (Why do we consider a sunset beautiful? It’s merely a collection of photons. Why do we weep when watching Emmanuel Kelly on The X-Factor? What triggers the release of chemicals into our brains when seeing his story? Both our soul and our intellect are observing these events, but to say one has more value than the other is to cheapen the whole that is a Human.) I consider myself a skeptic, even with regard to my own faith- but I don’t apply science to my questioning of my faith and its principles.

        Someday, perhaps, we will discover the ‘faith gene’ and figure out what triggers belief against evidence; or perhaps we won’t. Regardless, my faith won’t be less valid to me. Just as I don’t lose ‘faith’ in science when it blunders (and it has, just as religion has), so I seek to keep my faith in spite of the evidence that religion causes nearly as many problems as it corrects.

        1. I find sunsets beautiful because they’re a collection of photons. In fact I find a lot of the rational science stuff absolutely beautiful, I assume in the same way most people find poetry. It’s fulfilling to me in more than an intellectual way, but I can’t see why I would need a soul to appreciate it. The appreciation is mental, as is the intellectual part, so where does the soul fit in to there? What drives the assumption that it’s required or is it just another name for the part of my brain that likes pretty things?

          1. Eärlindor says:

            If I understand this correctly, you’re saying you appreciate things based on a function performed by the brain. So you’re asking what a soul is and where it comes into play, or it’s relevance to the body.

            If that’s the case, I think I might be able to help put this in perspective. In Christian theology (and likely other theologies as well; I’m not an expert on world religions but I assume others have this concept) the idea is that a soul is not something you have but, rather, something you are. You’re not a body with a soul, you’re a soul with a body. Soul=You (the real you [think I just beat this into the ground; sorry!]), the body is a temporary shell (though it is an amazing and complex shell). And the two are linked for the time we are here.

            Taking the sunset example, one does not necessarily need to know what it is exactly, or how it works, to appreciate its beauty. In your cause, you (yourself, the soul) appreciate and find beauty in the mechanics, the photons. And that also stimulates your mind and intellect. Everyone is different like that, and that’s cool.
            That may be a little sidetracked. The original point of bringing this up was when you said:

            …so where does the soul fit in to there? What drives the assumption that it's required or is it just another name for the part of my brain that likes pretty things?

            There’s not an assumption of a requirement, it’s more like it is (and it’s you).
            I hope that makes sense. I was kinda having trouble explaining it at the end there (or last half, or whatever).
            Ultimately, I was just trying to give you an idea of what a soul is and what’s meant by it (according to Christian theology).
            Hope that helped.

    2. Cerapa says:

      The thing about religion is that in some cases it punishes non-belief. If you are doing something that might reduce that belief, then its the equivelant of attempting to send them to hell.

      That might just be a small subset of people though. I dont actually have a clue why religion is such a touchy subject. That is basically my herp-derpy emotional answer that is totally unproven.

      Also, questions are awesome.

      1. Retsam says:

        Real things have consequences. Non-religious people tend to think of religion as an abstract concept that shouldn’t have any impact on their life if they don’t accept it, but that’s not the way real things work.

        People are quick to say, “If I don’t believe in God, then I shouldn’t be ‘punished’ when I die“, and think that’s logical. But replace the words “God” and “die” with just about anything else and see if that makes sense.
        “If I don’t believe in Gravity, then I shouldn’t be ‘punished’ when I step off a cliff.”
        “If I don’t believe in the speed limit, then I shouldn’t be ‘punished’ when I drive 70mph in a 30mph zone.”
        “If I don’t believe in sharks, then I shouldn’t be “punished” when I go swimming in the middle of the ocean wearing a slab of meat around my neck.

        It just doesn’t make sense. Because gravity, sharks, and even the speed limit are “real” things, then they have consequences, regardless of your belief in them. If religion is real, then why should it be any different?

        1. Cerapa says:

          You have brought up a very good point.

          Non-religious and religious people have very different angles from which they view god.

          Non-religious people think its fuss over nothing.
          Religious people think its reality and thus denial is very odd.

          1. krellen says:

            And apatheists just want us all to stop being such Jerks all the time.

          2. Aldowyn says:

            Ah, but what will God do to those who believe he isn’t real? Will he give them a free pass? (and not give EVERYONE a free pass? Yeah, that makes sense!) Send them straight to hell? (the belief of what Shamus called “firehall” churches) Or will he actually consider each and every one of them? (This is where I would lean. I personally believe that, his existence assumed, good people will go to heaven, bad ones will go to hell, and belief has nothing to do with it. So, belief is a means to an end, and not the end itself)

            1. krellen says:

              Shamus used “fire hall” to describe the group sitting around a campfire singing Kumbayah. He used “fire and brimstone” (the far more traditional term) to describe the straight-to-hell ministry.

              1. Aldowyn says:

                Whoops. … Whoops. Fire just made me think fire and brimstone.

                *shamefacedly moves on*

            2. Atarlost says:

              The fire and brimstone churches are accurate, but not constructive.

              If you went to a math class that did nothing but reiterate the fundamental theorem of calculus you wouldn’t learn anything about practical integration and would come to resent the fundamental theorem, but that wouldn’t make the fundamental theorem cease to be fundamental or true.

              The doctrine of human depravity and the doctrine of hell are similar.

        2. Jarenth says:

          I can’t really think of a way to word this reply in such a way that I don’t sound like a smarmy jerk, so I apologize on beforehand if I give off that impression.

          The difference might be that gravity, sharks and the speed limit are all provable, observable things, whereas God by definition is unprovable and unobservable. With the prior examples, the ‘punishment’ is alleviated by the fact that I can predict the outcome on beforehand and test it, and that I have ample, proven warning that ignoring these rules gets me trouble. The more brimstony religions, on the other hand, tell me that unless I do everything right, I will essentially be punished for something I can’t test, know or understand.

          1. X2-Eliah says:

            Thank you for making the reply far better-worded than I would have.

          2. Retsam says:

            Thank you for a respectful reply.

            But I would argue that provable and observable aren’t attributes of objects, they’re attributes of ourselves. An ant would find sharks or cars to be unobservable and unprovable, but that’s has no bearing on whether or not an ant would be crushed if it wandered onto a highway.

            And, perhaps God isn’t provable in a scientific manner. (There is, however, in my opinion, plenty of evidence for God, if not scientific) But God is certainly knowable, many people claim, myself included, to know him on a very deep level. And I’d even say it’s possible to understand God, to the extent that he has revealed himself to us. (Which is to say, very very little)

            The problem here, is that you’re defining a very very specific way of knowing, claiming that you can’t know God in that way, which may be true, and then claiming that, therefore there can’t be any negative consequences for not believing in him.

            As a counter question, does true love exists? I’m really not a romantic person, but it strikes me as a good analogy. It’s not measurable, not directly observable, and certainly not provable, yet many people claim to know it, and many people claim to act based upon it.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              This is actually really simple: Yes, that’s valid – if he exists. But that can’t be PROVEN – and nothing you said changes the fact that belief in him is based on faith, and not proof. I would recommend you go look at Jethro’s last post for more detail.

            2. Jarenth says:

              Fair point. As a not-particularly-religious person I don’t know how authentic your knowing of God is, but I’ve had other people I respect and admire tell me similar stories, so I can only accept that it is a thing (that I currently do not share in).

              The analogy to love and other emotional state is a good one (even if, as far as I recall, the scientific community is hard at work explaining love as a function of brain chemistry [citation needed]), and you could certainly argue that God is proven in the people acting in his name. It’s, again, not a view I subscribe to, but it’s certainly a valid one.

              I do fully believe that an ant, equipped with the right tools and procedures, would be able to eventually observe and prove sharks exist. They are vastly different in scale, true, but that does not make it impossible, just hard. Do you feel God is inherently unprovable, or is it more a similar matter of scale?

            3. Stranger says:

              You forget that gravity and sharks and whatever are all simply functions and organisms, they dont have the ability to choose or change their behaviour. God, if he exists, has essentially placed humanity in an incredibly unfair game. First of all, what you end up beliving, or if you end up beliving at all, is dependant on your environment and upbringing, and then, your circumstance. When all is said and done, and you didnt end up with the right faith, who is at fault? Its like making every human play russian roulette, only if you lose, you burn in hell forever.

              Frankly, you made a rather absurd argument. If salvation is something that has to be achieved through hard work and study, then the deck is stacked by such ridiculous obstacles that only a small fraction of people can hope to succeed.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                In (most) Christian theology, salvation is not achieved through hard work and study, but through acknowledgement of Jesus’s deity and his ability to forgive us of our sins/evils/failures. This is a much easier thing physically, though not necessarily psychologically. (We often prefer to have things happen because of our own physical actions, not someone else’s.)

                The idea that what we end up believing is dependent on environment, upbringing, and circumstance is controversial within Christianity. The argument you make is the same that Christian opponents of that idea often make. I don’t believe in the cosmic roulette game myself.

          3. DungeonHamster says:

            Except not all things on earth are so obvious as sharks, gravity, and such. Things we didn’t/still don’t understand have been killing people without warning signs for time immemorial. For instance, in 1986 a lake in Africa (Lake Nyos) gave off a giant CO2 bubble that killed a couple thousand people. No warning, so clue that anything like that might happen. Nobody even thought to look. There have been many other things that haven’t even been explicable in the aftermath, and I doubt somehow that we will ever be able to prove the existence of everything that could mess us up. Observability, even provability, has no bearing on actual reality, only on our perception of it.

            As far as brimstone, it has its place. It is difficult to accept God’s grace when we don’t even understand our own sin and its consequences; that is, both “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” and “the wages of sin is death.” Like any good story, there has to be some sort of obstacle. The problem arises when some would wallow almost masochistically in that agony, making a terrible show wailing at the city gates in sackcloth and ashes, failing to move on to what the Heidelberg Catechism tells us are the other two things all believers should know: “how I am set free from my sin and misery, and how I am to thank God for such deliverance.”

            Incidentally, I really do love the Heidelberg Catechism.

            1. Jarenth says:

              But wouldn’t you say we were, retrospectively, able to observe this event? You’re able to tell me that it was a CO2 bubble that killed those people, after all.

              Incidentally, the concepts of the original sin and possible punishment for not following the rules are the two main reasons I don’t subscribe to any major religions. I understand how they have their place in a consistent religious worldview, I honestly do, but (to misappropriate a quote) I prefer to reject that reality and substitute my own

        3. I’ve heard this expressed before, and thing is, it’s Pascal’s wager with the serial numbers filed off – “isn’t it better to believe when lack of belief could mean eternal torture”.

          Jarenth outlined the basic disanalogies well, but even assuming it’s true, there’s a problem. You can apply the argument to any belief in any deity, but belief in all of the gods is mutually exclusive, and believing the wrong one is equivalent to atheism with respect to any other gods.

          So if Christianity is real I should be a Christian, but if The Norse Gods are real I should worship Odin, if the Greek gods are real I should worship Zeus.

          Is heresy worse than disbelief in these cases? Gravity won’t actively punish you for thinking stuff falls to earth because of magnetism instead.

          1. Stranger says:

            Exactly. It isnt love or belief or antyhing like that, its just nodding along because you’re afraid of the consequences if youre wrong.

        4. Dys says:

          Ok, working hard to try to take this apart, but I’m not sure I’m really up to the task. Jarenth does an excellent job as usual.

          Taking one step at a time then, ‘Real things have consequences’..
          ..yes, which means the critical question becomes ‘is God real?’

          If any one of the gods is real, then yes, we should do as they say. Until that question is satisfactorily answered however, it makes little sense to do anything.

          I would not argue that disbelief in God should result in no punishment after death. I would argue that the non-existence of God, and indeed any kind of afterlife, would guarantee a lack of punishment after death.

          If we assume the non-existence of any gods, then whether or not a person believes in them during life will have precisely zero impact on that person after death.

          Alternatively if you are not talking about God, but about religion, then yes, I would prefer that not having anything to do with them resulted in them not interfering with me, but acknowledge that it will never be the case. Religions are people and people affect other people, such is the nature of the world.

        5. Dovius says:

          While I am perfectly okay with actions having consequences, something like consequences in the afterlife sound like a completely different affair to me then the examples you named.
          The entire thing, to me, seems like telling someone to choose from a set of 2 answers for a question of which they have only the vaguest of clues of what it actually is, with the answer only being noted as correct once you walk away and either get an eternity of Heaven or an eternity of Hell without consideration of any variables, such as if the person that the case concerns has lived a good life or been an evil jerk.

    3. Zekiel says:

      Good question, and thanks for the disclaimer. Additional disclaimer: What I write here is not intended to be inflamatory or prosletyzing; I won’t be offended if Shamus deletes it if he feels otherwise.

      Disclosure: I’m a Christian, having happily been an atheist or agnostic in my teenager years and decided aged 21 that Christianity made sense.

      All that out of the way… I think your question is a very good one and I heartily agree with you believing that truth is important. I think we have to hold to the truth so far as we understand it – while recognising of course that we’re not going to have understood all of it fully – and keep searching for more truth. (Part of which is being able to ask questions and not get shouted down for the question being irrevant or something.) But I have had the same experience as you – there are plenty of people who whom truth isn’t so important, and actually what they’re looking for is something that works.

      So one answer to “why doesn’t everyone agree with fundamentalists taking the holy text as read” is “because it doesn’t seem to gel with our reality today and therefore doesn’t work for us”. One way of dealing with this is to say “OK well then the holy text can’t be true”. An alternative is to ask what you mean by “taking the holy text as read”. If by that you mean “why doesn’t everyone take the holy text as being literally true” – then was that text written with the intention that is be taken literally?

      I would suggest that it is also important to read what is written in the context of the people it was originally written to – it’s not realistic to expect every part of a text written hundreds or even thousands of years ago to be directly applicable to us in the Western world of the 21st Century.

      Obviously there are lots more questions beyond that… but does that help at all? Or have I missed the point of your question?

      1. Jethro says:

        THIS. Christians are much more interested in reading the Bible as a literal history book, than in expending the effort to understand what it really is: a collection of stories, facts, parables, poems, and ideals- written down at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to do one thing: to draw people to Christ. Every bit of Scripture is geared to this one thing. It’s not meant to be taken literally; it’s not a textbook on anything (even though it contains a great deal of wisdom across a wide range of subjects); and it’s certainly not meant to be used as a Weapon Against Evil (that’s what the Fifth Element is for).

        And yes, context is very important. Saint Paul said a lot of shit to a lot of different people, and if we take what he said at face value for us today, we’re going to do some screwy things. (Still, anytime, anyplace: probably best not to sleep with your step-mother!)

        1. krellen says:

          SOME Christians read it literally. Many more do not.

          1. Gale says:

            And some talk at length about how their reading of the Bible is a literal, common-sense reading of what’s written, denouncing all other interpretations as arbitrary, and even evil – only to immediately fall into symbolism and allegory when asked about what it all “really” means.

            And some Christians interpret the Bible in terms of who it was actually written by, the times in which it was written, and the intention they likely had at the time. Hence Revelation being regarded as pure prophetic soothsaying by some, and cutting political allegory by others. Or both! Or neither! “Bible inerrancy” isn’t really as clear-cut as people often assume; it is unwise to take people’s descriptions of themselves at face value, especially when they use words like “literal”.

            There are a lot of different kinds of Christians out there, as it turns out.

          2. Peter H. Coffin says:

            The Some are the noisy ones, though. If someone’s misrepresenting that they speak for another, and the other doesn’t deny it, why shouldn’t the one be taken for the opinion of both?

        2. Eldiran says:

          On the other hand, we have to be careful not to interpret everything as metaphorical. There are parts of the Bible that are literal, and parts that are not. If we’re not careful, before long people will be seeing the resurrection itself as a metaphorical event, which undermines the entire religion. That said, many of the literal passages need contextual information from the culture and history of the time to make any sense, so yes, definitely don’t take it at face value, literal or not.

          1. Gale says:

            “Undermines the entire religion”? Well, it may well undermine significant portions of Christianity, as it stands today, but given how . . . diverse the religion can be, and has been, I would hesitate before I say something quite so broad.

            1. Eldiran says:

              Well, when I say religion, I’m referring to the belief structure and not the institutions. It does undermine the very core of Christianity, because if Jesus weren’t resurrected, he would not be the Messiah, and would instead be a heretic who claims godhood falsely, invalidating much of his ministy and the ministry of those who preach his name.

              Aside from the inherent meaning tothe resurrection of defeating death and sin and granting forgiveness to believers, there are buttloads of prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus had to fulfill to be the proper Messiah. Resurrection was kind of a biggie among them.

              1. Dys says:

                But surely those requirements may also be allegorical, non literal or simply wrong?

                1. Eldiran says:

                  If that were the case then I’d say Christianity would be pretty well undermined.

          2. Blake says:

            Ive met Christians who don’t believe in the resurrection. They believe there is one god who got a woman pregnant a couple of thousand years ago and he was capable of performing miracles and whatnot, and they believe if they’re good they’ll go to heaven.
            You see the resurrection as one of the most important parts of the bible, some just see it as a happier ending than ‘Jesus died, the end’.

            One of my problems with religion is that it’s so open to interpretation, and that each individuals interpretation can’t be disproved even though the majority *must* have at least some of it wrong (based on all the differing views).

            1. Eldiran says:

              I’m afraid the resurrection is pretty essential. I describe it in my reply to Gale. Although I’m sure the Christians you speak of are good and kind people, they are mistaken on the tenets of Christianity if they believe that just being good will bring them salvation.

              The Bible is very clear that faith in Jesus as the Son of God is the only path to salvation. I mean, they can call themselves Christians if they like, and I’m not going to stop them, but if they don’t believe in the ideas of Christianity I’m not going to include their beliefs when discussing the ideas of Christianity.

              1. krellen says:

                I object to the “salvation through faith” idea primarily because of all the Christians who then make the leap that their “faith” saves them, regardless of how they live on Earth. The “faith, not deeds” crowd. I think these people are dangerous, to themselves, to those around them, and to the planet as a whole.

                The (in my experience, more prominent) crowd that believes that deeds reflect the faith, and faith without deeds is meaningless, are a much more wholesome bunch.

                In my experience, people that talk about needing faith to be saved tend to more likely fall into the former category than the latter.

                1. Eldiran says:

                  I wholly agree that deeds reflect one’s faith, but I would argue that if someone’s still committing all kinds of wrongdoing, then they didn’t really come to faith. You can’t just say “I believe in Jesus and God” and be saved regardless of what you do. Even Satan believes that Jesus is the Messiah. In order to truly accept the gift of salvation you have to at least be trying to obey God and do the right thing.

                  That said, if a man on his death bed repents and truly believes, then regardless of his actions during his life he can be saved.

                  1. krellen says:

                    The deathbed conversion is a dangerous and harmful idea. Your faith (as a community, not as a feeling) would be stronger without it.

                    1. Shamus says:

                      Well, “stronger” isn’t the goal, truth is, so…

                      I expect that it’s actually exceptionally rare that a person might might have a TRUE conversion at death. If they go through life rejecting the idea of God, and then change their mind in the last 24 hours, they are probably grasping at straws and looking for comfort than engaging in a serious search for the truth. Hitchens is so concerned about this that he said ahead of time that if he “converts” at the end, it will be due to drugs and pain, not a change in beliefs. He’s right about himself, but I also expect he’s right about a lot of other people.

                      If anyone says ahead of time, “I’ll live as I like, and then convert at death.” Then they probably are REALLY engaged in Pascal’s wager, and not seriously contemplating their creator.

                      So yes, people shouldn’t go around entertaining thoughts of converting “later”, if they believe now. At the same time, if an epiphany comes to a human being near the end and they genuinely repent, then they are no different than a ten year old boy who repents. What? Is the forgiveness of Jesus too WEAK to cover that debt? (And Jesus even warned us against grumbling about this being “unfair” in Matt 20.)

                      It leaves the door open all the way to the end, but also serves as a trap for the careless or calculating. Interesting dynamic.

                    2. krellen says:

                      Matt 20 is the workers in the field parable, right?

                      I always hated that one, because I always found it kind of douchey to the guys that worked all day. And while the “day” in this case does represent life, in the real world those workers you hired in the morning are highly unlikely to come back the next day.

                      I think Jesus preached a lot of good things, but I don’t think that was one of them.

                    3. Shamus says:

                      Why wouldn’t they come the next day? In the parable, he paid a fair wage for a day’s work. So what if he is more generous with others? So what if he goes to the market and hands out free money? It’s his money. I did my work, and I was paid as agreed. Any complaining is just self-destructive bitter jealousy on my part.

                    4. krellen says:

                      It’s an active incentive to wait around until the last hour instead of doing honest work all day (which has the same destructive and harmful effect as the deathbed confessional).

      2. Abnaxis says:

        Responded to the wrong comment

      3. I’ve no problem with my points being attacked/answered/questioned/whatever in any way anyone sees fit.

        I do realize the people who wrote it were vastly different from us, but I’m not sure that’s an excuse for the myriad interpretations of a single document.

        Couldn’t an omniscipotent being account for the people reading it and make an indexed series of instructions by time period with no room for interpretation, in such a way that whoever read the words directed at them would understand them perfectly? Or simply make a book that automatically rewords itself to make sense to those reading it?

        Getting people to write a book that can be taken as equal parts metaphor, literal account or parable seems like it’d be specifically designed to troll people, which wouldn’t serve the purpose of the text. So why assume anything written in it means anything other than what it says?

    4. kanodin says:

      Ah I’m in much the same boat, never really had much belief nor concern over what others believe and yet still interested in the topic. Though I always reckoned that curiosity was more natural inquisitiveness and holdovers from being raised going to church instead of any hole in my life.

      If I may be so bold, the way your post reads it seems like you are only or primarily getting the more conservative and fundamentalist perspectives. I say this because they tend to be the ones that don’t appreciate outsiders questioning anything as well as your characterizing them as taking their text as read.

      Liberal and moderate Christians sound completely different from that and are, generally but not always, a lot more open to people questioning them about their beliefs. Indeed, I asked a similar question on fundamentalists to my sister, who is currently in seminary, and her response was that the majority of the bible is about love and world peace and that the fundamentalists are focusing only on the negative that they prefer.

      It’s important to remember that multifaceted nature of Christianity applies not only to those within the church, but also with those interacting with it.

      Note: As above I have tried not to say anything argumentative or offensive but I could be wrong on that so moderate away.
      Edit: Seems I took longer typing than I thought, with a half dozen replies suddenly ahead of me.

    5. Daimbert says:

      Well, for me, I see big problems with “taking the holy text as written”. I do a lot of philosophy, and doing that really reveals that “as written” isn’t always obvious. For example, reading Kant “as written” is likely to be horribly confusing; you need to do a lot of work and have to even translate words based on what was said because he doesn’t — and can’t — use the words with their literal meaning. The same thing applies in spades for the ancient Greek texts where you’re translating a word that doesn’t exist in your language. And then there’s the question of thought experiments and examples, and of what should be considered such. And then there are questions of scope: for how long and in what cases are, for example, some of the moral rules meant to apply to?

      Interpreting pretty much any religious text gets into these issues, especially the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ones with such a long history.

      So there is room to argue against literal interpretations … and to argue for them. Which — while philosophy of religion and theology are low on my list of interests — is what makes philosophy of religion and theology interesting.

      1. Zekiel says:

        Entirely agree!

    6. Warstrike says:

      One reason someone might have trouble with someone else taking their holy book exactly as they read it is that it (the KJV for most “fundamentalists”) is a particular translation of older works. It tried hard to use beautiful language and made at least a couple of specific translational choices based on political expediency, leading to several places where the accuracy of the translation is debatable at best. It is an incredibly beautiful translation, and the basis for most later versions because of this beauty.

      Truly accurate translation is difficult, a point that was made to me when I had to use a correspondance (texts in early greek/latin/hebrew next to the english translation) to write a paper about the phrase “fear of God” used in a particular passage. The same greek word used in that phrase comes up in different places, not necessarily attached to the same english word. To really figure out what the older word means you need to look at the context of all these appearances of that same word. End result is I had to write a 5 to 10 page paper to really explain what that phrase meant. Most “fundamentalists” (or anyone else except biblical scholars, including me) don’t (can’t) put that much effort into their reading.

      1. Matt says:

        This is why many churches believe very much in an educated clergy. I am a pastor, and went to seminary, and studied Greek and Hebrew. We compare various translations with the original texts, and do the kind of word studies you’re talking about regularly, in order to try to provide just the kind of context you’re talking about here when we teach the Bible. No translation is perfect, and yet even the lay person, without this kind of training, can come to a pretty good understanding of what the original author meant by what he said, if he or she is willing to put in the effort.

        Also just wanted to second what a lot of others said. I’m really enjoying these stories, and as someone very much interested in the process of faith, I love to hear how that happened in individual cases.

    7. Abnaxis says:

      One point that I think is missing here: Some of the most resounding, powerful arguments against religion come in the form of a question. An example question would be: “If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why does He let innocents suffer? Could he not design the world any other way?” The idea is that if you cannot find a satisfactory answer, then the religion is inadequate and/or invalid in some way.

      While I don’t think consideration of these questions is inherently bad as a philosophical exercise and in fact can greatly serve to guide one in finding one’s philosophy, many people with an anti-religious bent use these questions as a debate tool, playing “gotcha” games with believers by continuously posing complex philosophical questions and waiting for a misspoken or not-well-thought-out response. Because these few vindictive people have antagonized others in this way, you have to make clear that you aren’t trying to do the same thing. Make sure whoever you are talking with understands you are asking valid questions that you are genuinely curious about, not that you are trying to trap them in a hypocrisy.

    8. Kdansky says:

      You know what the primary issue with religion is? It can be abused and quoted for any atrocity you want to come up with. There’s always that one hard to interpret (or downright bigot) line somewhere.

      The problem is not that people believe. It’s that they justify their interactions with others by it. And you can justify anything if you go by a book that’s been written by a hundred authors during a thousand years. The translation and interpretation issues are not helping either.

      So my advice: Don’t ever bloody quote the bible. You can get it to say whatever you want anyway.

    9. Cuthalion says:

      I think fundamentalists are considered “too extreme” because:
      1) Their beliefs are different. Which is kind of an ironic reason, really. (For certain definitions of “ironic”.)
      2) They have a reputation for anger and aggressiveness.

      I think their willingness to stick to their beliefs is admirable. I also appreciate that they define truth in a sense very similar to you: something which is fact, regardless of convenience, rather than having truth be “something that makes you happy” regardless of its relation to fact. On the other hand, I cringe a little inside when I or someone I agree with is called a fundamentalist, because it includes all the negative attitude baggage that I don’t want to be associated with.

      Personally, I think religion is popular primarily because there is something about it which is true, and humans are constantly trying to get at it. That desire, I believe, is built into us. Oh, there are other reasons — political expediency, a glue to hold society together, a way to look better than everyone else — but I don’t think those are primary.

      Even atheism reflects this. I typically see atheists (including, as best I can tell from your post, yourself) defend their beliefs not because they are convenient or feel nice, but because they’re true. They accord with fact. If it’s true, it doesn’t matter if you like it.

      In a way, atheist and fundamentalist beliefs are held under the same rationale. If it’s true, it’s true, whether I or you or anyone likes it or not. Fact is greater than feeling.

      As for myself, I’m not really sure what category I’d fit in. I don’t agree with all of the typical fundamentalist beliefs, at least not to the “no exceptions” extent typical of some of the more extreme ideas on things like literally interpreting the Bible. I also don’t like being thought of as a jerk. So, there’s that. But my beliefs themselves are based on the fact that I think the things I believe in are true. Not just true in the sense that they provide me stability, but true in the sense that they match the facts. While I don’t really want to be considered fundamentalist, I don’t really want to be considered mainline either because that brings with it the connotations of separating fact and belief, along with a lot of internal inconsistencies that bother me.

      Perhaps I should just say, “I’m a Christian,” and leave it at that?

      1. Aldowyn says:

        … Yes. Leave it at that. Good on you.

      2. Dys says:

        I get the feeling we’re on far sides of a quite daunting chasm, so I don’t think getting into a conversation here is going to be wise, but I couldn’t help but comment on this.

        Fundamentalism and atheism are held under the same rationale because both prefer things that are true?

        I simply can’t swallow this assertion, which, yes, may be a failing on my part. The beliefs of a fundamentalist of any religion are not true. They are simply not factually true… You may believe they are true, but that does not make it so.

        I’m not going to say that the position of an atheist is provably true either, but it’s so close as to be virtually certain, whereas the whole world would have to be intrinsically different for a fundamentalist belief system to be true.

        So, do you actually believe that the assertions of a religious fundamentalist are actually, factually, true? And if so, can you try to explain to me how you can believe that?

        1. Abnaxis says:

          Actually, I can see where Cuthalion is coming from, and it is a very interesting point I’ve never considered before. Atheists and fundamentalists base their philosophies on two polar opposite axioms: fundamentalists, on the one hand, believe that in his infinite wisdom God passed the Bible down to humanity, instructing them on the nature of humanity and the universe, and that this book is the ultimate, pure truth. Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is no God, that the universe is governed by universal laws which pay no heed to any man or being, and the only way to unlock to mysterious of the universe is through our own investigations.

          However, once you look beyond the fundamental bases for their philosophies, atheists and fundamentalists look very similar. They both seek to objectively define their worldviews using the tenets of their philosophy–for fundamentalists, this means a close, literal reading of the Bible, while for Atheists search for truth in science and logic*. “Objectively” is the key word there–if the (accepted) Bible says, in no uncertain terms, that women cannot cut their hair, fundamentalists women should not cut their hair. At the same time if science were to discover, conclusively, the existence of the soul, an atheist should not ignore this fact even if it is distasteful to them.

          That is a very interesting way to compare two very different groups of people. Thank you.

          *NOTE: Not saying all theists are illogical, just that the basis of faith is not logic.

          1. Warstrike says:

            C.S. Lewis wrote a significant number of books on these kinds of questions, probably due to his own conversion process. “Simple Christianity” (I think that’s the right title) was an attempt to derive Christianity based on observation and logical argument. “The Problem of Pain” is an entire book (which I admit I did not make it all the way through) on the question of how there can be a good God with all the pain and suffering around. The thing I noticed about each of these books is that they are very clearly written, in reasonably simple language. he doesn’t go soaring off into realms of flowery prose or get bogged down in philisophical terminology.

            1. Cuthalion says:

              Probably “Mere Christianity” you’re thinking of. Very interesting book. And actually, the book that convinced me nonfiction reading could be entertaining and not just homework. (Of course now, I spent an outrageous amount of time reading short-form nonfiction, like this blog or wikipedia articles on phonetics.)

          2. Cuthalion says:

            Yes, that’s exactly where I meant to go with that! Fundamentalists prize, prize objectivity. As do many of the atheists commenting here, if I understand them correctly. They come to different conclusions not because they have irreconcilably different priorities or methods, but because they have at some point accepted very different points from which to reason. They’ve judged different sources of information to have the highest reliability. But they would both scoff at the idea that we should believe something which is not objectively true.

            (To the point where emotions are seen as almost dangerous in many theologically fundamentalist churches. This gets confusing when a few fundamentalists get reputations for being very angry, thus the negative connotations of the term — but I think many of those do not even realize they’re being emotional. They probably think they’re simply doing their duty in pointing out evil and not allowing the subjective, emotionally-clouded opinion of others to force them to back down. What comes off as angry may simply be cold, ruthless objectivity — albeit, I would say, with a few critical logical failings.)

            I ramble, but I’m glad it gave you a new way to compare the two groups, Abnaxis.

    10. Eärlindor says:

      I’m a Christian. I see nothing wrong or offensive with this. Even Christ warned against blind faith. It’s a shame that your questions about religion over the years have been shot down by people when, in fact, they should be addressed to the best of one’s ability. It’s the only way we learn and grow.

  24. Jonathan says:

    Glad to see this post. I’m a Christian, and I’ll agree that it’s hard to find a church that you can be really comfortable at. Looking back at the church that I (mostly) grew up in…yeah, a little wierd, and had some issues. Happily, it’s not church or the preacher that saves us, but Christ Himself.

    There are a lot of churches out there that tend towards legalism, and/or where it seems thateveryone is OK and nobody has problems… when in fact most people have habitual sin of some type they deal with, anger issues, grief over stuff in their past, etc. etc. Hey guess what, Christians are still flawed human beings, we just have Jesus to help us work through it and find grace, forgiveness, and peace. My current church has a saying… “It’s OK to not be OK. It’s not OK to want to stay that way.” They teach the scripture, but with a heavy focus on the grace of God… which is, ya know, pretty important in a fallen world.

  25. Primogenitor says:

    Out of curiosity Shamus, was it something Christianity-specific that attracted you to that faith? Or was it the more general “people should be nice to each other” idea?

    This sounds to me more like the latter, which in turn makes me interested if you could have a different faith (e.g. Hindu, Buddhist, etc) if you had different experiences (e.g. indian origin babysitter). Or was it more “Christian or nothing”?

  26. X2-Eliah says:

    Errrrr. Okay, after reading the comments a bit, a question springs to mind:

    A few Christians referred to the current-day world as ‘broken’ / ‘fallen’. Is that a thing coming from the religion (that view of the world), and subsequently, does it mean anything if one thinks the world isn’t particularly broken?

    1. Eldiran says:

      It comes with any religion that requires belief for salvation, or that has a strong ethical code. Humans always fall short on one or both counts. Even those that succeed in the former fail in the latter.

      Thinking the world isn’t fallen implies that you are fallen. Which isn’t saying much, since we pretty much all are.

    2. DanMan says:

      Answering for others as best as I can. “The Fall” is a Christian, Jewish and Muslim concept. It may exist in other religions as well, but I don’t know about them. The three religions which accept the Jewish God believe that the world started in the Garden of Eden, which was a perfect paradise where no Sin existed (people were in harmony with God and followed what he says).

      Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by disobeying God, which is referred to as “The Fall”. People describe this as the “fallen world” because sin was introduced. Now the world is no longer a paradise because people rebel against God.

      That is a very simple explanation, with a TON of theological implications behind it. I’m assuming you wanted the short version

      1. Aldowyn says:

        This reminds me:

        Am I the only one that finds it absolutely ASTONISHING that such a vast majority of the world is judeo-christian? (which, btw, includes Islam. Sorry, they were late to the party). The ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD became predominantly judeo-christian – I literally can’t think of another religion that is dominant in more than one country. (Hindi- Indian, primarily. Buddhism – … it’s a little fishy, but I think most would agree that most countries wouldn’t identify as “buddhist”.)

        1. Blink says:

          Not really that remarkable once you take into account that judeo-christian religion has the most powerful incentives to destroy, suppress and convert other religions, mainly the commands to spread and fill the earth and the whole missionary thing.

          Eastern religions, I think, are much more introspective.

          1. ben says:

            Judaism has a lot of parallels with Shinto-ism and Hindu-ism. National religions of one ethnic group that are resistant to foreign conversion but are not into converting others except through marriage and adoption. No commandments to spread the word or expand to fill the world here.

            Christianity has a lot of parallels with Buddhism , both religions proselytize extensively, and both are second generation descendants of religions that were formally tied to one ethnic group.

            Islam is the odd man out, since its goal is to RULE over the world while not necessarily converting everyone. Proselytizing is secondary.

    3. Daimbert says:

      To come from the religion itself, it would be equivocation; the literal “fallen” wouldn’t necessarily mean what you think it does (meaning fallen from the Garden of Eden). Otherwise, there is much room for debate on the view of the fallen or broken that you’d be thinking of, with some arguing that the world is broken and some arguing that it isn’t.

    4. Retsam says:

      Are there people who don’t think the world is screwed up? I tend to find non-Christian perspectives on the world to be even more negative than Christian perspectives.
      If anything, I think the Christian worldview is quite positive. It teaches that humans are inherently good, but have simply been twisted by sin. There are no “complete monsters” only people who have been severely twisted, everyone has inherent value as a human being.

      Personally, I believe to really be a humanist, you have to be a theist. I know atheists claim to be humanist and that humans have value, but honestly, I just don’t see how that idea is consistent with their belief that we’re nothing more than the accidental byproducts of random chance.

      1. krellen says:

        We don’t have to have purpose to have worth. We don’t have to have a Creator to have purpose. And you don’t have to have faith to believe people are fundamentally good.

        1. Michael says:

          (Yes, this was intentionally a response to Krellen – need it to make my last point)

          I find your description of atheism alarming, Retsam.
          “I know atheists claim to be humanist and that humans have value, but honestly, I just don't see how that idea is consistent with their belief that we're nothing more than the accidental byproducts of random chance.”

          See: Vulcanized Rubber, Penicillin, Plastic, Super Glue, Teflon.

          All of those things were created by random chance – some even a by-product of a experiment for something completely different. Yet all this things are incredibly valuable.

          Vulcanized rubber is used for car tires and shoes. Penicillin is the most used antibiotic; it has saved millions (perhaps billions) of lives. And there’s plastic in almost everything nowadays – including some people!

          I could not agree more with Krellen, here. Perhaps the randomness is what spawns the belief that humanity has great value. Out of trillions of trillions of permutations, this is the one that prevailed.

          As for the ‘people are good’ thing? People would like to believe other people mean good. So they do. Nothing more complex.

          EDIT: I don’t mean to come off snappy or hostile, but I can’t word this any other way. I’m glad other members of the community are more eloquent than I.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            Ouch. This point and rebound probably hit me the hardest theologically. I actually physically flinched.

            … I don’t think humans are inherently good. Ouch. I don’t think they’re inherently, evil, either.

            That doesn’t mean they don’t have worth, though, but it also means they don’t have… what’s the opposite of worth? ability to do bad/evil?

            Ultimately, it’s up to each person to be either a fundamentally GOOD person, or a fundamentally BAD person. It’s entirely possible that the only reason “good” is seen as predominant is because society encourages good. … sheesh. Atlas Shrugged is now inserting its thinking, and thus I shall stop.

            (Or not. Is what society says is “good” actually good? Or should everyone do their hardest to succeed, in any way, no matter what society thinks? To be fair, that is NOT what Atlas Shrugged says – Rand believed that people earned success through intellectual achievements, and force was immoral and unnecessary for societal success in such an environment)

            1. Michael says:

              “That doesn't mean they don't have worth, though, but it also means they don't have… what's the opposite of worth? ability to do bad/evil?”

              I’m not entirely sure either. When something has no worth, it’s generally considered ‘worthless’, but no opposite immediately springs to mind.

          2. Retsam says:

            I’ll say that I find atheism to be moderately alarming. I have a generally good opinion of atheists, but that’s largely because most (if not all) of them don’t follow their beliefs to their logical conclusion.

            All those things you listed were discovered “by accident” but were still discovered by an intelligence, and were only put the their respective uses by acts of intelligence. “Penicillin” may be an accident but “Pencillin as an antibiotic” was not.

            And, regardless, it’s not just that we came about randomly, but that if there’s no soul, no free will, no higher power, we’re nothing more than chemical/electrical signals running through sacks of carbon. Kill someone? All you’ve done is end a few tiny electrical signals. Why should I care about those electrical signals any more than the ones running through my computer’s CPU? (Because if I don’t, other people will end -my- electrical signals and I’m hardwired to care about that? A very pragmatic answer, but not a very comforting one, and does little to encourage altruism)

            “Out of trillions, this is the one that prevailed.” I couldn’t quite tell if you meant this, or if you were ascribing this idea to others. Either way, simply saying “there were a lot of ways this could have happened, and this is the way it happened” doesn’t make it special. If I throw a handful of sand up in the air, it’ll land in one particular pattern, out of, perhaps billions of different patterns that it could land in (I won’t quite say trillions, but I think billions is reasonable). Does that make that pattern special or valuable or worth something? Not really.

            1. Michael says:

              Well, there’s your problem – you’re confusing Atheism with Nihilism and, to a lesser extent, Determinism.

              How did you come to the conclusion that Atheists believe that there is no free will?

              I also still object to your argument that things cannot have value for simply existing. You mention the fistful of sand, and then say that, despite being unique, it’s not special or valuable.

              While I would agree that a fistful of sand is far from valuable economically; it’s still special. It’s one of the billions of ways it could fall, you said. I can’t put a price-tag on it, no, but the creation itself is still unique and intrinsically valuable, even if not monetarily.

              EDIT: DungeonHamster below me has a very good point. Value is relative. Just because you believe something is valuable doesn’t mean I will.

            2. Stranger says:

              Alright, see, THIS is a line of thought I have a pretty big problem with. I consider myself atheist, and it gets rather tiring that people seem to balk at the concept that morality can exist without being forced upon you by a higher being. Aside from the more complex answers involving social development and such, it boils down to a very simple answer: Other people, wether or not they have a soul, are humans, just like you. Imagine how you would feel if they harmed you. Thats how they feel if you harm them. Yes, its a simplified way of looking at it, but thats essentially what it boils down to. The Golden Rule isnt exclusive to Christianity.

              If you need God to be a decent person, then I say that you arent a decent person at all.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                Interestingly, (theologically conservative) Christians would actually argue that no one is a decent person at all and therefore each person needs God in order to become a decent person.

            3. The Defenestrator says:

              That is a really strange and scary thing to say. Are you saying that if you met someone who didn’t have a soul, you would say that morality didn’t apply to them, so you could do whatever you wanted to them with a clear conscience?

              Presumably you value people as people, not as valuable materials that happen to be arranged in self-ambulatory shapes. Why is it strange to you that atheists behave the same way?

        2. Retsam says:

          (As a side note, this post has spawned a lot of discussion. I suppose I should have seen that coming, and I’d like to reply to more of it, but I don’t see that happening, and I’d rather give detailed answers for a few, than quick, easily debunked answers for many)

          “We don’t have to have a purpose to have worth.” Not that I said anything about a purpose, but can you give any justification for this? What sort of worth are we talking about?

          Ultimately, it’s a self-referential problem. Without any external standard, it comes down to “We’re worth something, because we say we are.” But, the problem with self-reference is that it’s not justifiable or provable*. It’s just something that has to be accepted at face value, and if someone comes along and says “Humans are worthless”, there’s really no basis on which to wage an argument.

          “And you don’t have to have faith to believe people are fundamentally good”.

          Well, first of all, the idea that people are fundamentally good seems like a huge leap of faith, given what goes on in this world. I’m guessing you meant “religious faith”, otherwise the statement seems like a contradiction. (Unless you have some sort of proof for that statement)

          But, not to resort to just asking you to define every word you use, but how do you define “good”? What standard do you measure people’s actions to, and call some good and call others bad? More importantly, how do you justify that this standard is the right one?

          I’ve heard many answers to this question, for example “not causing others pain is good”, and while I respect the thought process behind many of them, there’s no justification. Again, it comes down to a self-reference problem. “Not causing pain” is good, because I say it’s good. (Or because society says it’s good)

          The quick response to this is “It doesn’t matter that I can’t justify it, it’s still better to treat people well”, and yes, that’s true from a practical side of things; but again it’s no use trying to use it in arguments or as a basis for a worldview, because if anyone else comes along with a different definition of good, (even a wildly different one), there’s no way to promote one definition over the other.

          Having a God, having a Creator provides an external standard for both these issues; we’re worth something because the almighty God says that he loves each of us individually. We can know what good and evil are because God is good. We know that we’re good because we’re created in his image.

          To nontheists who believe in doing good and who care about others: I applaud you. But I don’t think that your worldview stands up to logical scrutiny.

          *Actually, the problem with self-reference is self-reference.

        3. DungeonHamster says:

          The thing is, value is a relative concept. I might value a Snickers enough to pay a dollar for it, whereas you might only consider it worth 50 cents. One might place one man’s life at roughly equivalent to 2.875 horseshoe crabs, while another might consider one human worth more than an infinitude of any variety of crustaceans. You get my drift. However, if some sort of god is running this scenario, then if this god values humans, then we will value them precisely to the extent that we care at all what this god thinks of us.

          As far as purpose, no, you don’t need to have faith to have purpose. If god exists, you’ve got a purpose whether you want it or not. If we’re referring only to personal goals, well, then very nearly everyone has a purpose almost by definition, although not, from the view of anyone who holds a faith in something other than what you do, necessarily a worthwhile one.

          I would also argue that you do, in fact, need a great deal of faith to believe that there is any sort of good at all, much less that people are fundamentally any such thing. How else but by faith can we know what good is? Moral good, that is, rather than merely something which seems to us beneficial.

          1. Michael says:

            In that last paragraph, do you mean faith as in religious faith?

            Or do you mean faith as in “belief in something not based on proofs.”?

          2. krellen says:

            Good is an evolutionary trait we have developed because it helps us survive as a species. You don’t need a higher power to convey it, because good is simply rewarded by increased survival, and thus increased procreation and increased influence. What we view as “Good” is, ultimately, the evolutionary traits that most help Humanity survive as a species.

            And I’m really sick of some theist falling back on the damn “how can you have Morality without God” argument every time I try to have this conversation. It’s not all of you that do, but one of you will inevitably drop it EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

            There was morality before Christianity, and before Judaism, and before Zoroastrianism. Morality does not have to be bequeathed upon us by a higher power to exist. It comes from ourselves.

            And if you don’t believe that, you’re not a humanist.

            1. DungeonHamster says:

              Just a quick post before I turn in for the night. Sorry if this reeks a bit of smartaleckry.

              First, I didn’t say you needed a god, just faith. Good requires some sort of purpose to which it tends. With Christians, that purpose is to serve God and bring glory to his name. According to your above post, that purpose would be survival of the species. That doesn’t mean that doesn’t take a certain amount of faith.

              Second, having a morality is not, at least if we accept the existence of some species-wide goal (be it survival, serving God, or even the ever popular finding happiness) which good and evil are relative to, the same as having the right one.

              Finally, though I’m not entirely certain you’re using the term correctly, I never claimed to be a humanist.

              1. krellen says:

                This conversation thread is about humanism.

                And survival isn’t really a trait that requires faith.

                1. DungeonHamster says:

                  But the belief that “good is an evolutionary trait we have developed because it helps us survive as a species” does.

                  1. krellen says:

                    How so? There’s historical proof of that fact. While each culture has its own subset of things it considers “good”, there nevertheless exists a superset that permeates all cultures of universally “good” virtues – charity, honesty, cooperation, humility. We don’t quite all agree on the entire definition of “good”, but there’s an extremely firm foundation we hold in common to start from. I don’t need faith for that; it’s empirical fact.

                  2. ben says:

                    Altruism is a survival trait is what he was trying to say.

                    Ants don’t have the brainpower to even begin to deal with faith, but they still display altruism.

                    Many of the traits that are considered good despite being detrimental to the individual, are actually beneficial to the survival of the community or species as a whole.

                    Helping the injured and sick as charity, for example.
                    Spend a little extra resources here, and later that guy can help you when you get sick. That way you both survive, while the people who aren’t charitable end up losing tribe members faster than they can replace them and die out.

            2. Retsam says:

              Of course there was “morality” before Christianity. Of course people realized that if they went around killing people, people would come around killing them. Of course people realized that if you stole from others, they’d steal from you.

              But is that all that morality comes down to? Reciprocity? I should do good, so that it benefits me? If so, people who jump on grenades have missed the point entirely.
              Moral behavior makes sense, but why is it that our conception of morality seems to go beyond mere reciprocity? Why do we believe that people should legitimately care for one another, even when it doesn’t benefit them?

              Without a God or higher power, there’s no basis for any higher morality than mere reciprocity.

              1. Zukhramm says:

                If there is no basis for higher morality without god there is no basis for it with god either. Following a set of rules because someone (god or other) tells us to is not morality, it’s just rules. What makes it morality is that we think the rules themselves are good and if they are, that is a conclusion we can reach both with and without god.

              2. Cerapa says:

                By jumping on a grenade you are increasing the survival chances of your “tribe”. And since communities tend to share genes, this means that the genes in question that make a person do that, survive through others.

                So its a persons genes increasing their own chances of survival and procreation through others.

                1. Sekundaari says:

                  Genes are one thing, but I think jumping on a grenade is more a trait from social and cultural evolution. By sacrificing yourself you are saving others with similar values and thoughts (maybe even religions), which is certainly beneficial for the survival of those “memes”. Your heroic death can even spread your values after your death.

              3. Stranger says:

                Well there’s friendship, family ties, sheer goodwill, a lot of things can make people want to do good without compensation for it. If you have to promise them it will make God happy then they kinda missed the point of altruism.

      2. X2-Eliah says:

        Idk.. Somehow I find the Christian perspective stating that a newborn infant is guilty of sin by default – simply due to existing – to be the disturbing one.

        1. Shamus says:

          In my view, it’s not so much “guilty” as having “an inevitable propensity for”. Sooner or later that baby will grow up, and participate in the Great War Of Everyone Being A Complete Dick To Everyone Else. It’s not guilty until it does so, but that cute ‘lil bundle of joy WILL (in this way of thinking) do so eventually if it is [un]lucky enough to live that long.

          1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

            In fact, I’m not sure where, but David indicates that his son who died an infant went to heaven. The implication is that God doesn’t hold a baby accountable for his inevitable sin until the child is capable of understanding right and wrong. Once that happens (and if there isn’t a mental problem, it will happen), they need to get saved.

            1. Cuthalion says:

              This is one of those issues that even people in the same church will disagree on. I think pretty much everyone (including myself) really wants to see it the way you and Shamus describe, but it’s not really directly stated either way that “dead infants go here -> X”.

              It’s also hard to discuss thoroughly sometimes because people often lose young children, and most people don’t want to discuss something that could make a mother cry. But for the record, I agree with what Shamus said and kind of what Ander said.

              1. Falcon says:

                Here’s another problem, say you are a Calvinist. You have a child, born premie, and dies a few days later due to complications. Now the Calvinist concept of total depravity (for more google Calvinist tulip) states that that child was born as a sinner. They, though having not yet sinned, are still guilty by generic inheritance.

                That child is then going to he’ll.

                Not a pleasant thought, is it. Now I’m not one to shy from uncomfortable truths, but that isnt something most people can willingly accept. Now try and square that with the idea of God. What shape does God now take?

                Do you get the picture of a loving God, who cares for all? Cause that gives me a picture of God as a vindictive dick, without a concept of mercy. It doesn’t really mix with the picture Christ paints.

                That’s why I don’t ascribe to that bit of theology, it doesn’t square for me. I believe in the concept of ‘age of accountabilty’ aka that baby will go to heaven, as will any child who doesn’t yet understand right or wrong.

                I hope I’m right, because that example is all to real right now.

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  From what I’ve seen, God in the Old Testament was a pretty vindictive God. He occasionally punished his own worshipers, and was always trimming them for the ones who really did believe. (Noah and the Flood, Moses and the Exodus).

                  Jesus’ views in the New Testament were totally opposite. Everyone had a chance to go to heaven, and basically all they had to do was admit they were sinners.

                  This… confuses me. There is little to none direct contact with God himself in the New Testament, so basically all you have, even Christians, to say that this second idea is what God wants is Jesus’ word. Obviously, lying is a sin and thus it is true because Jesus never sinned, but… still. Why would God never confirm this in any other way?

                  1. Cuthalion says:

                    Confirm that Jesus was really him? Well, if you accept the things the New Testament says that Jesus and his followers did, and not just the things they said, then he did confirm it in various miraculous ways. Also, there are a lot of Christians who would claim the reality of their belief was confirmed outside of the words of Jesus, though any of that stuff is very difficult to prove. Experience, I think, tends to be the most persuasive and the least reliable.

                    (Not meant to sound snarky.)

                  2. Bret says:

                    Have you seen what his followers were up to?

                    It was, on average, 30 years between sessions of “You know what’s awesome? Other gods and burning babies alive!”

                    And every time, he sent someone to sort things out, often with explicit instructions of “Here’s what you do. Hint: It involves not-infant-sacrifice. Are we sorted?”

                    And it didn’t stick.

                    Sure, a lot of violence, but it mostly hit cultures that were asking for it. And there was, often as not, a chance at forgiveness and survival, if people went for it. See: Rahab, and Nineveh. Not quite as thorough as the conventional wisdom goes.

                    And Jesus, on the flipside, was a lot less hugs than commonly depicted. Sure, redemption was available to anyone. On the other hand, he beat the crap out of the money lenders in the temple, there’s the parable of the sheep and the goats, his treatment of the Pharisees, and more.

                    Fascinating stuff, when you look into it.

                    1. Stranger says:

                      See, this brings up something that has always bothered me about the Christian God ideal. All those people that regularly got slaughtered back in the Bible days… were all of them irredeemably evil or something, like, the women and children and everything? I mean, dont get me wrong, I get that those days were pretty crappy all around, but it just seems kind of unnerving. And it “mostly” hit cultures that were asking for it? What about the ones that didnt? The one that always bugged me the most was the whole Jericho thing, where they ended up dead because they lived in the wrong spot and wouldnt leave because some guys showed up and told them God said they got to live there now. How is this fair again?

                      If God is real, then obviously, he can do whatever he wants to us, its not like we can stop him, but that kind of behaviour doesnt really make me want to sign up.

                  3. Blink says:

                    And not just in the Old Testament. Jesus basically invented the idea of “go die in a fire forever.”
                    Before him, if you did bad you were just murdered, which seems more merciful to me.

                2. DungeonHamster says:

                  The thing is, Calvinism also teaches the doctrine of Election. If God’s picked that baby, then by all that is holy he’s picked that baby.

                  That said, while Scripture nowhere discusses the subject of infant salvation in any sort of depth, it in several cases implies allows a certain extension from part to the whole. In Adam, one man, all men sinned. In the remnant from Israel that returned from the Exile, all Israel is saved. In the “whoeverso believeth in him shall have eternal life,” “God so loved the World.” There’s even a passage in I Timothy 4 that refers to “the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe,” hinting that while certainty is impossible, there MAY even be some hope for those who are not believers themselves.

                  With that in mind, turn to I Cor 7:14, and we see “For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” I think that’s a pretty sure indication that at the very least children of believers are in the clear until they are able to decide for themselves.

                  As far as the children of unbelievers, we can have no certainty. They MAY be saved. It is not utterly outside of the realm of possibility that Satan himself might one day be redeemed.

                  But we cannot know. If not, well, as Romans 9 says “But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “˜Why did you make me like this?” Cold comfort, perhaps, to those believers who grieve for those who aren’t, but a clear message that it’s not up to us.

                  1. Falcon says:

                    Yes, I understand all this. It’s just going into Calvinist/ Armenianist/ other doctrines on a forum not dedicated to such topics is rather difficult. I was giving the cliffs notes version, assuming an audience not intimately familiar with the distinction.

                    Heck most Christians don’t truly understand the distinction.

                  2. Stranger says:

                    In that case, I’d rather have nonexistance.

              2. noahpocalypse says:

                I’m inclined to think that God will have mercy on those who aren’t mature enough to realize what they are or aren’t doing. After that point, they are accountable for themselves and need to realize ‘I did wrong, and I truly regret that. Forgive me.’

          2. ccesarano says:

            I’ve had discussions over “sin nature” with friends myself, and I actually look back to Adam and Eve pre-Apple. Before they had knowledge, they weren’t ashamed of being naked. After they had knowledge, they were ashamed of being naked. Eve’s conversation with the serpent is much like a child might have. “But God/Mommy/Daddy said not to!”

            I look at children as being unaware of the weight of their actions, and if you study psychology/sociology you learn that children aren’t completely capable of sympathizing with others. This is why we keep asking “how would you feel if…” It’s also why they tend to play dress-up and other such games that literally require them to step into someone else’s shoes. It’s an attempt to understand the outside world by experiencing it as themselves.

            But, without that ability to understand the weight of their decisions, with their minds only capable of grasping personal experiences, they’re not going to be able to understand sin. All they know is themselves. I believe we aren’t truly judged until we reach that awareness, where you understand the weight of your choices and what is right/wrong based on how it effects others.

            As to when that begins, who knows. But because of this I feel babies, toddlers and children (to a certain age) are innocent.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              That conversation reminds me of something I’ve struggled with in the past.

              I think this was harder for me than others, but I didn’t really realize that other people were just as complicated as I was … probably until high school (it’s… complicated. Lots of things are). Every once in a while it strikes me: Wow. There are seven BILLION people on this planet, and EVERY one is a person, just like me, with their own talents, their own personality, their own problems… amazing.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                That hits me every once in awhile, too. I usually have a hard time coming to terms with that fact and sort of passively assume that everyone else is not real. They’re NPCs. But then, I get to know someone, and I realize that behind the scenes they actually have stats and skill trees not so different from mine.

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  Lol. I love video game comparisons.

            2. Dys says:

              So… what about psychopaths?
              They retain that trait their whole lives.

              1. krellen says:

                They’re anomalies.

      3. Woyzeck says:

        Well, as an atheist who claims to be a humanist (at least i try my best not to be a douche ^^), i indeed believe that the universe wasn’t created, but simply is, that life is “the accidental byproduct of random chance” rather than a product of god’s will, and that our consciousness, our intelligence are results of evolution, not of a plan.

        And in this worldview, because life and intelligence aren’t necessary, they are precious. I won’t have an afterlife to amend, therefore i try to be a decent human being here and now.

        It is neither more or less consistent a belief than “life is a gift of god, and he wants us to love each other” :)

      4. PAK says:

        BTW, I hope the following isn’t antagonistic–I simply want to take part in all the enriching sharing of perspectives going on in this thread. It’s quite wonderful! Only on Twenty Sided.

        I’m a nontheist (though I usually self-classify as agnostic, rather than atheist) and I regard myself as profoundly humanist. I have many atheistic colleagues who are strongly humanist as well.

        I understand your stance to a point. Many nontheists are quite cynical people. But you don’t have to believe in a guiding sentience to recognize beauty and magnificence and order in the world. Is order the product of an “arbitrary” rule set? Is it accidental? What is accident, in an ordered universe? What does it all mean? See, even those of us without ardent faith don’t always have it so clear.

        I seem to have wandered. Sorry! My actual point is, heck, maybe it’s just evolution programming me to be amazed by my fellow humans and to have human concerns. But who cares? Maybe “objectively” humans are meaningless, but as a human, I find human potential and human beauty and the power of kindness and happiness to be AMAZING. To me, that’s self-evident, even if there isn’t a sentience that created me with that purpose. Let’s all be nice to each other and be all we can be. Why would we have any other goal?

      5. Alex the Elder says:

        “I know atheists claim to be humanist and that humans have value, but honestly, I just don't see how that idea is consistent with their belief that we're nothing more than the accidental byproducts of random chance.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

        (Read the entry: “ignorance” has a very specific definition and function in the description of the logical fallacy and is not meant in the colloquial, insulting sense.)

        1. Nick says:

          Also: you’re confusing what is a logical inference here because you’ve taken ‘there is a God’ and ‘there is a divine mandate for ethics’ as precepts for ‘we should all be nice to each other.’ That makes sense to you because the first two points are axioms (non-arguable points) for you.

          But if I take neither such axiom, and instead take ‘humans learn from observable experience’, ‘society incentivises helpful behaviour as a self-helping measure[by which I mean laws, police, recognising charitable actions etc]’ I can still arrive at ‘we should all be nice to each other’

          See? There’s no need for God to be involved in humanist ethics if you don’t believe that God matters/exists

          Edit: This is in response to Retsam, just to make that clear

          1. Eldiran says:

            Of course, that’s where the troubling question of “why should I care about society except when it benefits me personally?” comes up.

            1. krellen says:

              Because a disordered and dysfunctional society harms you personally.

              1. X2-Eliah says:

                Yeah, but it takes more than a few decades to change an entire society by one person.. so the individual, assuming not a dictator / military leader / religious idol, is pretty much safe in that aspect. Ofc, if ‘personally’ includes successors of the line..

                1. krellen says:

                  It depends on how quickly the people you are preying on team up. We are, essentially, pack animals, with great strength in numbers. Our cooperative and collaborative skills are not an accident and oft underestimated.

                  1. Eldiran says:

                    True enough that if you’re outright malicious it can come back to bite you quickly. But there’s never any reason to do good or avoid doing bad unless you are trying to impress others.

                    Regarding successors, there’s no reason to care about your successors because they’re not you.

                    1. krellen says:

                      Genetically, and evolutionarily, they are. Traits that help your successors are more likely to be passed on, because you will have more successors.

                      And besides “being its own reward”, doing good is also investment in the community; those that do good are rarely then later on left to rot on their own when they fall on hard times. The same is not necessarily true for those that do not do good (although the presence of people that do good tends to offset this effect.)

                    2. Eldiran says:

                      @krellen:I can’t reply directly to your comment because the thread is too big :(

                      The reasons you give are both reasons that being helpful can be self-serving. But it’s not really about being moral if it’s purely about self-interest, is it? It’s not really a system of ethics, but instead is a strategy on how to best serve oneself.

                    3. krellen says:

                      If you believe in absolute morality, an absolute good, then the WHY doesn’t matter. What matters is the deed. If you approach the good from the basis of “because God said so” and I approach the good from the basis of “that’s what benefits us as a species the most”, we’re both still good, and neither is more good than the other.

                    4. Eldiran says:

                      Actually, the why is the only thing that matters when you want to determine if someone’s actions are good or not. If you help someone only because you expect to get a big reward, that is evil. If you help someone for the sake of helping someone, that is good.

                    5. krellen says:

                      I could not disagree more. Motive is not a defining feature of good. Think of all the evil done in the name of “the greater good”.

                    6. Shamus says:

                      Krellen, I sort of want to offer a blanket compliment for your contribution to this thread. You’ve been patient, interesting, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and prolific. A lot of people have had a lot of interesting things to say in this conversation, but you’ve done an exceptional job and I’d like to thank you for it.

                    7. krellen says:

                      It’s been a pleasure, Shamus. Religion is one of the things that really grips my interest. I love talking about it.

                    8. Eldiran says:

                      Ah – you are correct. I have to amend my statement. I have been thinking from the perspective of determining a person as good or evil, even though I said actions.

                      An action is good or bad depending on the circumstance, but a person is good or bad depending on the motives for their actions.

                      Regardless, just from society, there is still no incentive to be good, benefit the species, or do anything unless it benefits oneself.

                    9. krellen says:

                      The “incentive” to be good is that we are genetically predisposed towards goodness, because evolutionarily, “good” human groups thrive over “evil” human groups, and have done so throughout history.

                      Evolution has many examples of altruism, without divine impetus, because altruistic species do a better job at surviving, as a species, than do selfish ones.

                      And to steal your own argument, if your reason for being good is because you will receive a reward from God in the afterlife, morally that is no different from someone being good because they will receive a reward from society in Earthly life.

                      (Slight tangent: I believe that “good feeling” most people have when they have done the right thing, helped another person, is our evolutionary reward for altruism. We have a “feel good” gene activated by our charity that encourages charity, and that encouragement led to its propagation throughout the species.

                      And to those that say “if you do it to feel good, it’s not really altruistic”, I say “shut up, smartass.” :)
                      /end tangent)

                    10. Eldiran says:

                      If good is just what we are genetically predisposed toward, then it’s not really a matter of morals. We could no more blame Nazis for their actions than we could blame them for their hair color, because they just did what they were biologically impelled to do.

                      I agree that seeking heavenly rewards is not a good reason to do good. It really irritates me when people try to evangelize through threats of hellfire, or through promises of heaven. Having faith based on fear or greed is not a good place to be. (Not to mention the logical fallacies involved in preaching in such a manner!)

                    11. krellen says:

                      Actually, the Nazis, being as human as the rest of us, were explicitly operating against their altruistic genetic imperatives. They were selfish, laying blame for their problems on another group and opting to find violent ends to their problems that could have otherwise been repaired diplomatically (instead of tanks, they could have built Volkswagons for all of Europe and affected much the same economic recovery as their militarism brought them.)

                      And they failed, and were discredited, and their ideas and responses were proven unsuccessful and were not passed on. It is one of the most pointed recent examples of an “evil” human group failing to thrive against a “good” human group.

                      We have, as Carl Sagan put it, “dangerous evolutionary baggage” left over from our earlier evolution. Evolution never ends. Some traits that were beneficial in the past cease to be so in the future, and we must evolve beyond them. For instance, two traits we have left over from an Ice Age when the world was cooler and resources more scarce that we have increasingly evolved away from are, physically, our propensity for hairy bodies and, socially, our propensity for aggression.

                      We’ve reached a point of complexity wherein human society is evolving as much (probably more, actually) as the human species. The same principles apply to that evolution – and yet we are intelligent enough to guide our own evolution. We can make the decision ourselves which evolutionary traits we desire and should keep, and which we despise and should discard. Our sense of “good” – increasingly globalising, yet independently built on similar, solid foundations – is what we use to shape this evolution.

                    12. Eldiran says:

                      Wouldn’t the Nazis just have been following a different biological urge (dominance, self-preservation, etc) than the ‘altruistic’ imperatives? How is one impulse inherently better than another?

                      How can you know for certain they were acting against their altruistic urges — perhaps their genes were deficient, and they experienced altruistic urges less frequently?

                      If ‘good’ is obeying a specific genetic urge, wouldn’t that make some bloodlines of human inherently better than others? And for those who are inferior, how could we blame someone for their genes differing from ours?

                      Regarding guiding our evolution — how can our sense of “good”, if that is itself an instinct, guide us to have different instincts?

                    13. Cuthalion says:

                      I agree that seeking heavenly rewards is not a good reason to do good. It really irritates me when people try to evangelize through […] promises of heaven.

                      I hate to jump into the exchange between you two, but while I would probably normally side with Eldiran, I’ve decided for whatever reason to contradict here:

                      Why did Jesus tell people to store up treasures in heaven for themselves?

                      By the logic that heavenly rewards are a bad reason to do good, I would argue that Jesus was encouraging his followers to do something useless, perhaps even evil. By his very mentioning of heavenly rewards, he gives opportunity for — even commands — wrong motive. If it were wrong to do things for good results for oneself, then we would all be better off if he had never said this.

                      Now, I do think there is something even more special about doing something good without even thinking about whether it would reward oneself. But I think that God considers doing good for reward perfectly legitimate. (And God is the source of morality, according to the standard for which you are arguing.)

                    14. krellen says:

                      The Nazis didn’t think they were doing “good”, Eldiran. Many of the rank-and-file after the fact stated as such, that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but were “just following orders”.

                      As for your genetic argument, you’re simply ignoring the reality of evolution, and the particulars of self-directed evolution. Evolution doesn’t just accept every genetic change as valid and good. Genetic differences are constantly tested and evaluated. Some are found desirable and are thus retained. Some are found wanting and discarded.

                      Just because someone has a genetic impulse does not make that impulse “good”. “Good” is an absolute whose boundaries we have not fully discovered; some cultures still view “purity” as vital to goodness while others do not, but all societies agree that “fairness” and “no harm” are vital components to goodness.

                      We’re still working out the specifics. That means we will have tests of what we, as a species, consider “good”, and it means we will once in a while have to endure (which, notably, does not mean accept) an anomaly that we consider “evil”. That’s just how the process works.

                    15. Eldiran says:

                      Generally, yes, the reason many Nazis gave for their actions was following orders. I’m mostly just using them as a prototypical ‘evil person’ for the sake of argument.

                      But the problem I’m trying to get at is, if the only incentive to do the right thing is a biological urge, then those who have a different biology cannot be blamed for their actions.

                      And if someone happens to have a biology that predisposes them toward whatever we deem “good”, then that makes them a better human being than others.

                      @Cuthalion: Perhaps you are right. I personally am bothered by it, but perhaps I’m not being pragmatic in realizing that it as an incentive, it could actually work to make people better. I do think that receiving rewards from God is better than from people, since he’s certainly not going to misjudge you and give more than you deserve.

                    16. krellen says:

                      Yes, people who are more predisposed towards the “good” moral sense we have evolved are better people, Eldiran. Evolution does not claim all members of a species are equally fit. Some have evolved better traits than others, and those traits prosper over others.

                      But because we have reached a level of intelligence at which we can self-direct our own evolution (and we have, and we do), those that lack and refuse to adopt the superior moral sense that is “good” can be blamed for not doing so. We have the intelligence to overcome biology and do so all the time.

                    17. Eldiran says:

                      Intelligence is also something rooted in biology — you can’t just will yourself to become smarter. It’s entirely plausible according to this theory that a man can be born immoral and be unable to become moral. This is a very slippery slope.

                      I’d also wager that a biological moral impulse does not reflect reality. If you take an infant from a moral family and raise it elsewhere, odds are it won’t display any special propensity toward being good.

                      And I still maintain that what is beneficial to the species is separate from what is good. Under the definition you have described (if I understand it correctly) then eugenics is good, and allowing people who will never contribute to society to live is bad (such as incurable mental patients, incurably senile elderly, prisoners with a life sentence, etc) because these things benefit the human race.

                      As an aside, I want to clarify something tangential that occured to me might be important to clear up — when I argue against the possibility of a universal moral standard in a worldview without a higher power, I am not saying that people who don’t believe in a higher power are all immoral. That would just be stupid and disrespectful — there are atheists who are better men than I will ever be. What I am arguing is that their understanding of why they are moral is mistaken.

                    18. krellen says:

                      If the entire concept of Eugenics is not-good, then animal husbandry is also not-good; they are the exact same thing.

                      The practice of Eugenics was evil, because it was argued poorly, by people with not-good agendas, for not-good ends. But the concept of Eugenics, in the idea that it is possible and even desirable to breed a better human, is not inherently evil (thinking that a “better human” has white skin, as was the central flaw in Eugenics as practised, is).

                      I’m not convinced that saving every life possible is good, or desirable. It’s certainly not one of the precepts upon which a unified stance of “goodness” has been agreed upon by all cultures. A lot of healthy, vibrant cultures have ideas of “dying with dignity”, a concept that exists even within our own. And cancer, which is a mass of unproductive but undeniably living (aggressively living, even) cells, is universally viewed as unhealthy and bad.

                      OTOH, it is very important that great care should be taken here; what defines “never contribute” can vary greatly, and even someone that will never work a day in their life may still have great value in other ways; our social ties are far more complex than mere “production”.

                      As I’ve alluded to before, there are many varying definitions of “good”. I don’t think any of them have arrived upon the “absolute good” that guides them all, but with all the testing and proving Humanity goes through on the concept, we’re making a much bigger list of what we’ve agreed is absolute, and what we’re still in debate on is or not.

                    19. Eldiran says:

                      Fair enough, but I can think of another example that poses a problem because it is much less ambiguous.

                      A weak and unintelligent man is in danger of dying a horrible, agonizing death. Is it good for someone who is extremely ‘fit’ mentally and physically, to risk his life rescuing the other man?

                      For the purposes of this example, the victim is someone who is weak and unproductive to the point that his overall contribution to society is in the negative. If he were rescued, this wouldn’t change. It would actually benefit humanity for him to die. And it would be terrible for humanity if the fit man died in the attempt.

                      But the right thing to do is to save him, and I’d warrant that society agrees pretty strongly on this.

                    20. krellen says:

                      That depends rather heavily on a lot of variables you’re leaving out, Eldiran. Is it dangerous to save him? What, precisely, is weak and unproductive about this individual that makes him a negative? Should a strong, moral prison guard risk his life running into a burning prison to rescue an irrefutably guilty rapist? I don’t think society would unequivocally agree that saving him is the right thing to do.

                    21. Eldiran says:

                      Since we’re running a hypothetical situation here, we can decide all those variables ourselves.

                      Let’s say the victim is a fop and a wastrel who doesn’t do any work and doesn’t produce anything — nothing more than a drain on society’s resources. And he is of low intellect and physically weak. He is old and utterly set in his ways.

                      At the current moment he is stumbling into a pit. A pit filled with poisonous snakes that are on fire. The poison is incredibly painful. Anyone who falls in will die in a prolonged and agonizing fashion.

                      Our beefy supergenius hero stands a few feet away and can make a split-second desicion to jump and grab at the victim. There is a 5% chance that the victim’s flailing will cause them both to fall in and die. There is no way to rescue him from his fate other than to try to grab him.

                      Does the hero jump out to save him? (y/n)
                      _

                      The right thing to do is to save him. Even though the victim is pathetic and nothing will change that, it’s widely accepted as wrong to let him fall to a hideously painful death. If our uberman here chooses to just let him fall, who could still think of him as heroic?

                      More importantly though, if we take our ultimate goal to be benefitting humanity, then it becomes wrong to save him even if there were no chance of failure.

                      There is a disparity between “benefitting the human race” and “good” as agreed upon by society.

                    22. krellen says:

                      I think one of the disconnects we’re having here is that I have not been speaking on the micro scale; the concepts I have discussed do not operate on the single, one-man scale. Evolution only operates on a macro scale; benefits to the human race only operate on the macro scale. I speak of the benefit to society, as a whole, from the actions of individuals within that society taken as a whole. I speak of survival and fitness of societies, not individuals.

                      Good is the micro sense that leads to the macro result of benefit to humanity. You cannot take the “benefit to humanity” view and boil it down to a single person – evolution simply does not work on the scale of an individual. We can use good to judge an individual, however, because our evolutionary sense has developed such that the sense of good will, in aggregate, result in macro-scale benefits, whatever the individual micro-scale cost of the individual decision.

                      An altruistic man might die because of his altruism. An altruistic species (meaning a species whose individual members are predominantly altruistic), on the other hand, flourishes.

                      Examples abound throughout nature. In our own species, we need look no further than our own children. No other species on the entire planet, even the ones with longer lives than we have, invest so much time and effort into the altruistic rearing of children – humanity has one of the longest gestation periods on Earth, and the single longest adolescence. This, among other altruistic urges we have evolved, is among the reasons we are the dominant species on the planet.

                      Whatever cost we invest into an individual because of our sense of good is worth the overall benefit our sense of good lends the species.

                    23. Eldiran says:

                      But there’s no reason, in the context of our argument, for humans to do “good” except for the evolutionary impulses; these evolutionary impulses would naturally evolve toward “whatever benefits the species.” Our notion of morality would never evolve to include actions that are harmful to our species. Instead it would evolve to tell us we should let weak men die.

                      The fact that an altruistic person is, in certain cases, required to do things that are actively harmful to society, means that altruism is not just an evolutionary force. Certainly it shapes our evolution by altering our actions, but our understanding of goodness has to come from something else.

                      A society in which all people acted to benefit the species, on both a micro and macro scale, is not what anyone would see as an altruistic society. Genetically weak people would allow their superior brethren to slay them so as not to divert resources away from their betters.

                      And if our species were like this, it would flourish way beyond its current state, or even way beyond a society that actually behaved altruistically (ours does not, in spite of knowing better).

                    24. Sekundaari says:

                      There is another reason for altruistic behavior, which krellen mentioned earlier and I mentioned further above, namely that our cultures and societies see evolutionary pressure too.

                      This cultural evolution can be enormously faster than biological – Nazis rose to power in 15 years or so, less than a generation, and the Germans afterwards didn’t carry deep biological urges to “purify” the human race, as far as I know. A message of “This is all X’s fault” has a habit of spreading fast. The cultural traits can also spread more freely than genes, not just from parents to biological children, and can be altered more during life. And I wouldn’t wonder if behavior like saving others at the risk of dying yourself was spread more culturally than biologically these days. Through religion, through one’s own moral evaluation or maybe through a touching story. Anything that makes one feel it is heroic and right, that “If I did that and died, it wouldn’t be a bad way to go.”

                      And one of the reasons I believe leads to us not evolving to always benefit the society, not individuals, is that estimating the benefit of the species is way more complicated than the benefit of an individual. It is easy to see that a person falling into the proverbial poisonous fire snake pit will suffer, harder to estimate the chance of your death, or the potential harm for society from your own death or the other person’s survival. However, cultural evolution can change things in that direction, and so you probably do see people arguing for the benefit of the society at the cost of an individual. You might see people fighting wars over it.

                    25. krellen says:

                      While I was writing my last response, I initially included a paragraph that I later took out. Clearly I should have left it in, so I shall recreate the argument below:

                      Were we omniscient, omnipresent perfect judges of moral character, able to accurately judge an individual’s worth in a split second, your argument that altruism is counter to evolution would be correct. However, we are not perfect judges of moral character, and as such, our moral sense has evolved to err on the side of altruism because, in aggregate (as I keep saying, and please pay attention to this line, think about it, and respond to its idea), between all the individual up-and-downs that altruism causes, the net result is a gain.

                      I will stress once again that you cannot – literally, cannot – argue against evolution based on an individual example. To call evolution’s influence into question, you must look at trends across an entire species and in every culture. It’s not that finely tuned a process; evolution does not affect individuals. You’re making the same argument against my point as the people that claim evolution, as a whole, does not exist because no one has ever evolved gills to save them from drowning.

                    26. Eldiran says:

                      Aye, I’m not arguing against the fact that there is human cultural and biological evolution to some degree. And altruistic behavior can influence this. (Though it seems to me that only the cruelest or most pacifistic ideas would die off faster than others– a virtuous person and a selfish person are probably going to prosper about equally.)

                      However my point is that the true standard of good/altruism is not defined by evolution. It is static across human history — a universal moral standard. I think we are in agreement on this if I understand you correctly, but I could be mistaken.

                      As such it seems to me that our (society’s) knowledge of good must come from something other than just evolutionary impulses, even if (in aggregate) altruism benefits our species.

                    27. krellen says:

                      I think we agree there is an absolute definition of “good”.

                      I think we disagree in where this definition comes from, and on where our knowledge of it comes from. You give it divine impetus and discovery, while I give it evolutionary impetus and discovery (from my point of view, our evolution will stop once we finally reach a complete understanding of the absolute good.)

                    28. Eldiran says:

                      Yes, exactly! That sums it up perfectly.

                      My problem is I can’t see how or why evolution would stop at absolute good. Surely it would continue until only ‘fit’ behaviors are encouraged? There is a lot of overlap between good and fit, but there are fit behaviors that are not good and vice versa.

                    29. krellen says:

                      I actually disagree on that point. I think, in the long term aggregate of the entire history of the species from now until eternity, “fitness” and “good” will, eventually, converge.

                      At the moment, yes, there are survival traits that are not “good” that continue to thrive. I believe we shall eventually outgrow these, however. We’re not there yet, obviously.

                    30. Eldiran says:

                      Well, if Good is a universal standard, it’s not changing… And it’s not like the definition of ‘fit’ can radically alter; it’s never going to be beneficial to the species to do certain Good things, such as preserving the weak. I just don’t see how these two could ever logically match up.

            2. X2-Eliah says:

              Incidentally, that question is only troubling if you care about the society other than when it benefits you ^^

              1. Eldiran says:

                True that. But when it comes to establishing a system of ethics without assuming an absolute moral standard exists, then the question becomes quite a sticky wicket.

                1. krellen says:

                  Why do I need belief in a higher power to believe in absolute moral standards?

                  1. Aldowyn says:

                    Ah, but what IS the absolute moral standard? I… don’t really think there is one. Morality is our view of what is good, and how to be good. “Good” itself is an abstract concept, and I don’t think abstracts can be absolute, because they don’t physically exist, and are always subject to interpretation.

                    I see holes in that. Like the fact that you can interpret an absolute.

                    1. krellen says:

                      We haven’t discovered the entirety of the absolute yet, but we’re getting there. There are certain universalities we have generally reached already – pretty much every successful culture on Earth has already determined that murder, lying, cheating, and stealing are all bad, for instance.

                    2. Cuthalion says:

                      Why can’t abstracts be absolute? Yes, they don’t physically exist, but why does that make them less real?

                      Serious question. I personally don’t think all reality is physical, which is why I ask. It seems a little odd to me.

                    3. Aldowyn says:

                      Hmm. The physical = reality is an issue with the way I think, I think. Physical things are absolute, can be proven, are always the same, etc. Mental things are malleable, abstract (there goes the implication that abstracts can’t be absolute again… need to think about that for a bit), which means they can’t be absolutely proven and are ALWAYS subject to interpretation.

                      Still real, though. Just not.. reality. There’s a point and a difference here, I promise.

                  2. Eldiran says:

                    They need to be derived from some higher power to exist. In a world with no higher power, an absolute moral standard has no meaning. If there is no being, mind, or force behind it, then why should it matter who is Good and who is not?

                    A Good man might feel less guilty, or be more appreciated by others, but if those are the only differences between a Good man and an Evil man then it’s no longer a real moral standard and is instead just “what you can do to feel better about yourself”. Such a thing could just as well be a hardwired biological impulse that might be different if our cells were rearranged (and is thus not a universal standard in the least).

                    Without a higher power to make it matter, a universal moral standard would be unobservable and have no effect on existence whatsoever.

                    Thanks for asking this question, by the way. It made me stop and think for a long time about the answer, and I ended up typing a whole bunch on the meaning of life and God before I came to a much more succinct and hopefully straightforward response.

                    1. krellen says:

                      See above: A “Good” man is more fit to survive, and evolutionarily favoured. And across our species, there exists several universal traits we all agree constitute “good”. These cultures evolved independently, and yet largely arrived at the same solutions. How are these not absolutes?

                    2. Eldiran says:

                      I’m afraid I can’t equate Good with survival. Doing the right thing is often directly at odds with survival, such as putting oneself in danger to rescue someone else.

                      If the species’ survival is the ‘good’ thing to pursue, then why would you risk your life for another human’s life? Especially if the other human is inferior to you, physically or mentally. The right thing and the ‘fittest’ thing are not the same.

                    3. Cerapa says:

                      You are confusing personal survival with the survival of your genes.

                      For example it is generally agreed that people are more friendly and willing to help their family, yes?
                      Now why is that?
                      Genes man, genes. They share your genetic structure the most so any genes that make you friendly towards them are actually protecting themselves.

                    4. Eldiran says:

                      I’m not sure what preserving your genetics has to do with being Good. Doing good is still often at odds with protecting your own bloodline.

                    5. Aldowyn says:

                      I may have said this before.

                      Heinlein, in Starship Troopers, said that all morality is derived from protection of something. The first level is yourself, the second is your family, then your friends, neighborhood, town, state, country, and so on and so on. Probably the primary evidence is, given the assumption that animals are naturally “moral”, this kind of idea is what dominates the life of any animal, just on different scales depending on the animal.

                      Interesting idea, actually.

      6. Zukhramm says:

        I don’t know anyone, religious or not, who believes we are a byproduct of random chance.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          If you consider evolution random chance, then there are many who do. Most people wouldn’t – it’s darwinism, survival of the fittest. The fact that we were created was random, the fact that we survived and progressed is NOT. Thus, we … holy ****… thus, we inherently have value. (Yes, I just came up with that and surprised myself)

      7. Cybron says:

        I very much object to your presumption that humanity has to be an intentional creation to have value.

        Look at the Grand Canyon. If it were not made by the hand of some greater power, would it suddenly lose whatever significance it has? Personally I find it even more impressive, that such an amazing thing could arise from random interactions.

        Or are you saying the only reason you value human life is because of some edict from on high? That implies that human life has no value beyond whatever sacred command you’ve been given, which is a pretty disturbing perspective to have.

        1. DungeonHamster says:

          Value is inherently relative. That is, value is entirely in the perception, rather than reality. A human being, like anything else, has worth only because the observer values them. I might value a book at $10, you might judge it worth $15. The only reason any trade ever happens is because both parties are exchanging something they value less for something they value more.

          Now, since all ethical systems ultimately come down to what we value, it might seem at first that good and evil are also relative. However, if we allow that the universe was intentionally created, then it follows it was created to some end. To borrow a little from Plato (not that I’m his biggest fan, but he has some good stuff), we do good when we act “according to our natures” which, in this scenario, is the same as according to our creators intentions. We do evil when we struggle against it. Thus the ethics/morality (call it what you will) inherent in the universe is absolute, because God’s values are an absolute, in the same way it might be an absolute fact that a person likes chocolate ice cream.

          Kind of went off on a tangent there. Hope it’s not too much of a muddle. Need to go back and reread me some Greeks.

          Anyway, yes, I value human life primarily because I value God. That said, seeing as how the God of which we’re talking values mankind more than he does the life of his own Son, I can’t honestly say I find anything particularly worrisome about that.

          1. Cuthalion says:

            It might be less disturbing to say “values mankind more than he does his own life”. Otherwise, you get the impression of child sacrifice or that his son wasn’t in on the idea.

            1. DungeonHamster says:

              touche

          2. Cybron says:

            Sorry, but I’m not sure what this has to do with what I said. What I said was if you believe that one can only value human life for religious reasons (as the person I was responding to did), that means you believe can’t value human life for non-religious reasons. I find this disturbing, as it basically implies that all non-religious individuals must be sociopaths. Do people really believe without religion we’d all have no regard for human life at all? Was there no one who valued life before the advent of religion? The implications of the statement are just stunning to me.

      8. Dys says:

        God, this comment thread is starting to make my head hurt. Not in a bad way, just haven’t had to think this hard in a long while. Trying to keep up with Jarenth and Krellen is a daunting prospect.

        So, one point I didn’t see adequately addressed is ‘we're nothing more than the accidental byproducts of random chance.’

        I don’t think anyone believes that, unless you’re in the far fringes of solipsistic philosophy. What you’re referring to, I imagine, is that we are the product of an unimaginably large chain of unimaginably vast trial and error experiments. Each change within a single generation may be entirely random, but the survival of an individual is anything but.

        The true genius of Darwin was to see that all of the complexity of life and all of the glory of the human mind could be created by natural and inevitable processes.

        Speaking as an atheist, and not one usually given to poetry, a human being is an almost unbelievably wondrous thing. To understand that a system so complex, so marvellous, could be created by a natural process – which is as intrinsic to the universe as the fundamental principles of geometry – is a revelation unmatched by anything else ever conceived by humanity.

        The existence of any single human being is a chance so radically small that any attempt to grasp it is doomed to fail. Every one of us is a winner in a lottery whose odds outnumber the stars and whose prize is life. One life, three score years and ten (or considerably more as medical technology advances). One life, fantastically unlikely, indescribably precious and over far too soon.

        1. Cybron says:

          I believe they simply mean random as in without final cause or plan, events which happen because of their proximate cause and no other reason – as Douglas Adams said “That which happens, happens” (He also has a WONDERFUL essay describing the ramifications of that statement).

          In which case I believe what you’ve described (which I believe also mirrors my own views) is by that definition an “accidental byproduct of random chance”. It’s a shame to belittle such a fantastic concept with such a label, though.

  27. SolkaTruesilver says:

    I actually don’t care wheter Shamus is a religious guy or not, because he already proved to be somebody who would never arbitrarily pick a morality stanced based on what somebody told him to and then spent the rest of his existence validating such shallow decision-making process by convincing other people to do the same.

    Shamus is a rational person, who has some moral stances I might agree or disagree with, but the point is, you know he has good reason for such stances. He will think about things, and actually re-evaluate his position if he’s presented with new elements to the issue. Even better, he doesn’t feel obliged to take a stance when he doesn’t have to. So he reserves his jugement until it’s appropriate.

    All these character traits is what I value about a man’s morality. It has to be naturally evolved into shape rather than hammered into place based on a standardized template picked by others.

    What causes the morality to become what it is right now is irrelevant. Because of religious arguments (which aren’t inherently bad if picked as ARGUMENTS, not self-evident truths), life experience or personnal epiphany.

  28. Mumbles says:

    I used to teach Sunday School at my Catholic Church and I went to a Catholic College. I tried really hard my senior year of high school to believe in Christianity, but it just didn’t work. I knew I didn’t believe in it, but I was really good at talking about the Bible and sounding reasonable so I stuck with the community for as long as I could. Eventually, I felt like a phony so I dropped out of the whole scene.

    I’ve got a deep envy for people who really believe in the Christian faith or any solid religion, really. I just can’t. People think agnostics are lazy, but that’s not always the case.

    1. krellen says:

      No, the people that are really lazy are us apatheists.

      1. Jarenth says:

        I’m interested in hearing about this denomination. Do you have a pamphlet?

        1. krellen says:

          I never finished it. Halfway through, I realised I just didn’t care to explain it.

          1. Jarenth says:

            Well played.

            1. krellen says:

              In reality, a simple explanation of apatheism is that it really doesn’t matter whether there is a God or not, as this fact does not ultimately affect Earthly life anyway.

              Whether or not there is a God, “be nice to one another” is still a pretty good idea. Whether you arrive at that conclusion through a belief in God or a belief in Humanity or a belief in a pasta-based entity isn’t important.

              1. Cuthalion says:

                I think that’s the central tenet of fundamental* religion that you’d disagree with: whether or not God’s existence would affect Earthly life.

                Not sure where I was going with that.

                *fundamental in the sense of more literal, sticking-to-the-original-idea beliefs, not in the sense of “diepagandie”

                1. krellen says:

                  Fundamentally, apatheism is a belief, no different from other beliefs, that the existence of a higher power doesn’t matter.

                  1. Destrustor says:

                    Wow… I’m an apatheist.
                    The more you know!
                    God exists, or not. who are we to know? why are we even arguing about that?
                    As for the afterlife, if its all fire and pain, light and joy, or just nothingness, I guess we’ll find out when we get there. I just hope I discover that as late as possible. We should just try to make the wait as fun as possible for everyone else.
                    The short time we have here is the one worth caring for.

                    1. krellen says:

                      Ministry must be in my blood.

                  2. Aldowyn says:

                    That sounds about right. I’m getting tired of all these labels, though.

                    One caveat: “not caring” and believing it “doesn’t matter” are NOT the same thing. I can CARE whether god exists but believe it doesn’t matter, especially as far as morality is concerned.

                    1. Dys says:

                      I believe that apatheism allows one to think that the existence of God is absolutely critical to the future of humanity. So long as you don’t really care.

                    2. krellen says:

                      Use whatever labels or definitions (or lack thereof) you like. I don’t care. ;)

              2. SolkaTruesilver says:

                Can’t you also link Apatheism to Blaise Pascal’s razor regarding if you still should have the faith?

                – If there is no God, then it doesn’t matter if I believe or not
                – If there is a God, then it’s important as Hell I believe in him for when I die.

                While there is no direct application to Earthly life, it has a big application to the afterlife, in the possibility that there IS something.

                1. krellen says:

                  If I’m a good person, and I live a good life, doing good to the people around me, and there is an afterlife with a God who rejects me simply because I didn’t believe in it, I don’t want to spend the afterlife with it. It doesn’t deserve me.

                  1. SolkaTruesilver says:

                    – Suscribed

                  2. PAK says:

                    Krellen, this is exactly why I stopped fearing Hell. So awesome to see someone else using that line of argument.

                    1. Aldowyn says:

                      But what if Hell actually IS torture? I wouldn’t particularly want to spend eternity in any religion’s hell. Then, self-interest necessarily comes in, unless you want to make a moral stand AGAINST god.

                    2. PAK says:

                      Aldowyn, for me it becomes not so much “what if?” and deciding I want to stand up to God, it becomes “what a ludicrous idea. I just CAN’T take seriously the notion that any omnipotent being would punish me for not believing, especially when they would have played a role in the development of my intellect to begin with (and given that I strive to live well).”

                  3. Cuthalion says:

                    This is actually an argument that is sometimes used to respond to the question of “Why would a loving God send people to hell just because they don’t believe in him?” Not in those words, but that’s the basic idea.

                  4. Christopher M. says:

                    I think the standard response to this is: If you were truly a good person – by God’s standards of good – you would be let into Heaven automatically.

                    Problem is, God being regarded as an infinitely perfect being, anything less than perfection ain’t good enough. Anyone who’s ever told a white lie, while they may be a saint by human standards, is on the same plane as everyone else when compared to God’s standards.

                    1. Eldiran says:

                      Agreed, although I disagree that white lies are always evil (albeit incredibly minor evil). But that’s pretty much unrelated.

                      My understanding of the situation is like this: every person on Earth (or in space) is an incurable sinner, but God says: ‘here, have the gift of forgiveness and salvation’. We can acknowledge and take the gift or refuse it; he doesn’t force it on us.

                      Being a “good person” is basically insigificant, given the immense magnitude of sin, and the fact that as our creator God owes us nothing and there is nothing we can do to earn it.

                      P.S. It’s worth noting that I’m of the belief that God judges us based on our circumstances, and that an infant with no understanding of reality or a human separated from all contact with the Word is judged accordingly and fairly.

                      (Sorry to pick on you krellen, you just have all the most poignant comments that I can’t resist replying to :p)

                    2. krellen says:

                      Eldiran: Now I get to use my flippant response.

                      If my only choice is to accept this God’s forgiveness in exchange for my worship and belief, or suffer an eternity of torture, I choose the torture. I refuse to worship a God so petty.

                    3. Eldiran says:

                      Fair enough.

                    4. Aldowyn says:

                      Like I said, Krellen. Taking a moral stand against God.

                2. John Lopez says:

                  Pascal’s Wager has a major flaw in that it is Boolean: either you believe in God or you don’t. What is not contemplated is the third option: you believe in the *wrong* God.

                  If it turns out that something other than Christianity is the “correct answer”, both options Pascal contemplated were losers (barring krellen’s “you did good enough” approach, in which case faith isn’t required).

                  Worse, the Reformation made it clear that salvation has been tied to a particular *flavor* of a religion. In the end you would have to “hedge your bet” by believing and following a myriad of faiths, made more difficult by the contradictions that entails.

                  1. Jarenth says:

                    I can’t speak for the other major religions, but I’m pretty sure Christianity and Judaism have an exclusivity clause built into their Ten Commandments.

                    1. Atarlost says:

                      Only the exclusive religions matter. No reason to be a Hindu, I’ll get reincarnated either way.

                      Of the exclusive religions there are a finite number. Pascal’s Wager doesn’t tell you which one to choose, merely that you should choose one of them. Then it’s on to things like comparing archaeological evidence and noting that Baal is a real jerk and all the Olympians ride the short bus and eventually I think it gets down to the abrahamic religions, the non-greek polytheisms, and any non-reincarnating eastern religions with an afterlife. Add the assumption that if god or gods care enough to create religion they care enough to keep the true religion from extinction and you can cut out most of the polytheisms. All of them actually I think since Hinduism has reincarnation and all the others are extinct. Maybe some of the amerind stuff still has followings.

                    2. Dys says:

                      I think it’s worth noting that since the ‘exclusive’ religions are all basically worshipping the same god, and simply disagree on exactly how, from His perspective there’s as much difference between Muslim and Jew as between Catholic and Protestant. Right?

                  2. DungeonHamster says:

                    One little quibble. The Reformation didn’t make clear anything of the sort. I doubt you’ll easily find many Protestants even willing to condemn Catholics to eternal perdition, much less other Protestants. Even if they were, it would be because they perceived the other as “not Christian” rather than “wrong flavor of Christian.” We all agree man does not live on bread alone, but there was some confusion as to whether wheat, white, potato, or rye “word that comes from the mouth of God” was actually the edible one. That debate was pretty much killed, at least in America, by the forced association of different denominations during WWII and by the end of the agrarian, town centered society that predated it.

                    Of course, now that we’ve established that they’re all edible, we have to settle for arguing that ours has twice as many vitamins and minerals as the other guy’s, and tastes better anyway.

                3. Zukhramm says:

                  But, assuming not all religions are true, choosing one just for the afterlife is pretty much a lottery.

                  In any case, life is one of those things I can be satisfied even with “only” one.

    2. somebodys_kid says:

      There’s a line from the US TV show House concerning religion. It goes something like, “Most people who attend church don’t believe in it; they just go for the community”. As a practicing Catholic, I’ve observed this to be very true. Doesn’t make them bad people, but the community is a bigger draw for some people than the faith.

      Edit: And krellen’s line is very good. :)

    3. Daimbert says:

      Note that there’s a bit of an issue here with “agnostic”. It originally came from Huxley, and he used it strictly to refer to whether you can know God exists or not. It doesn’t say anything about whether you believe or not. I, in fact, am a strong agnostic theist: I believe that God exists but think that we could never, in fact, know that God exists.

      1. Mumbles says:

        That’s exactly what I believe thanks for explaining it so clearly since I forgot to.

      2. DungeonHamster says:

        But how do we know anything? Outside of the painfully limited realm of our own senses, is there anything we “know” that we don’t take on faith? While we’re at it, how do we even know our own senses tell us the truth?

        We might never be able to prove beyond all doubt that God exists, but it doesn’t seem to me that it precludes us “knowing” that God exists anymore than not having actually been there and witnessed the creation, the drop, and the explosion precludes me knowing we nuked Hiroshima.

        What do you think?

        1. Daimbert says:

          To paraphrase Deadpool: Oooh, philosophical questions!

          Well, in my stance, the “know” you’re talking about is what I mean by know when I say that we can’t know it. There are potentially skeptical questions, but for the most part those get put aside in that sort of discussion. For me, we cannot know that God exists even to the extent that we can know that Socrates existed. Not only is the evidence not there, but the definition of God is such that the sorts of verifications that we’d use for other things simply won’t work. Even seeing a miracle always leaves open, for example, questions of “Sufficiently advanced alien”. We can’t, then, empirically prove that God exists to a degree required for knowledge, and the purely logical approaches may not be the right sort of argument and, for the most part, don’t quite work either.

          It’s fairly common to presume that knowing must require certainty, but in philosophy that hasn’t been true for a while now. We can know that there was a bomb dropped on Hiroshima because we have a reliable chain of references that justify our believing it, and so we have a justified true belief. That’s not there for God.

          (Note that when I say that we lack “justified true belief” I DON’T mean that we aren’t justified in believing. The word meaning changes in those two cases, and most people don’t notice. The justified in “justified true belief” is a lot stronger than the justified required to simply believe.)

    4. kmc says:

      (Lol @ Krellen, first of all. Reminds me of a t-shirt my friend had that a picture of a sleepy-looking Old God holding a coffee cup, entitled “Apathulhu”.)

      I really feel you on this, and I’m–probably?–on the other side of the line. I must’ve critically failed on my “belief” roll, so I realize it’s just not something I’m good at. On the other hand, my Christian upbringing, which is kind of a mix of different things, is deep-seated, so I would be hypocritical to act as though I don’t feel comfort from it in times of need and doubt. I haven’t quite figured out where it fits in in my everyday life, and until then, I don’t really feel comfortable calling myself a Christian but I can’t call myself an Athiest, either.
      In a turn of poetic justice, it was my church Youth Group that basically drummed me out as an early teenager. The adults were fine with me and were supportive, and heck, they’d known me since I was born. It was the kids who, um, found my lack of faith disturbing.

      1. Mumbles says:

        Youth groups are nuts and there’s a lot of earl political stuff that happens. For me it was actually a priest who noticed I was struggling. He told me in order to be christian I had to believe jesus was ressurected and I realized I don’t believe in that single, core ppart of the religion so I kinda cast myself out.

        1. krellen says:

          There are other denominations that don’t hold that requirement. If you have a desire to be Christian, or part of a Christian community, but can’t get over that hurdle, there’s still places you can be included.

          I know with certainty that the United Church of Christ (my mother is a minister in the UCC) has churches that don’t require belief in the resurrection as a fact to be included in their flock. Of course, the UCC is an overwhelmingly accepting denomination, so individual UCC churches may vary.

        2. Urthman says:

          That idea that Christianity is defined by “belief”–defined as intellectual assent to certain propositions–is actually a modern spin on traditional Christianity.

          The word often translated as “belief” in the New Testament is probably better translated as “trust.” It has more to do with loving God, relying on God, being loyal to God, living in response to God’s love, than having certain correct thoughts about God.

          I like how Stanley Hauerwas puts it:

          I still find it surprising that I am a Christian. God is just not there for me the way God is there for some people. I am not complaining. I assume that that is the way God works to make some of us have to think hard about what it means to worship God. I use the language of worship rather than belief because I am never sure if I believe in God. I do not trust myself enough to take what I believe seriously. But I do worship God, and I do so with joy.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stanley-hauerwas/people-are-surprised-that_b_599230.html

          1. Mumbles says:

            Thanks for linking the article, it was an interesting read. I feel pretty similar in some ways. While feelings and faith are logically unreliable, I think they point people towards their thoughts about god. Personally, I’ve never felt an absence of a greater force, if that makes sense. I have respect for life, for other people and I love how the world can be chaotic and organized at the same time. I feel like there’s something behind it, even if there’s nothing logical for me to back up that feeling. And, at the end of the day, I can’t say I’ll ever know for sure.

            1. Dys says:

              Carl Sagan said, in Cosmos : “The cosmos is full beyond measure of elegant truths, of exquisite interrelationships, of the awesome machinery of nature.”

              It seems to me that this is the thing that sometimes appears to take the shape of a god, the very real truth that we live in a universe stranger and more wonderful than we can imagine.

              1. Mumbles says:

                Thank you for reminding me to read more Carl Sagan :)

            2. kikito says:

              “And, at the end of the day, I can't say I'll ever know for sure.”

              Then the question is: are you going to keep trying?

              From my point of view, religious people have just given up on trying to “know for sure”. They have shut down the analytical paths of their brain dealing with that problem, and just marked a statement as truth.

              1. Shamus says:

                Wow, really? People who disagree with you have just shut down their brains and refuse to think.

                Deep thoughts, man.

                I think I have demonstrated that, whatever my faults, I’m still keeping the “analytical paths” of my brain busy these days.

                1. kikito says:

                  Hi Samus,

                  Well, first of all, I didn’t mean to be offensive, or at least, not as offensive as you seem to think. Your overall brain functions look excellent to me. Otherwise, I would simply read your blog (which, by the way, is awesome).

                  I believe in logical thinking, mainly because … it works. If suddenly religion (or magic) started working the same way as reason does, then I’d believe on it, too. Logical thinking is just the best tool I have right now to deal with the world.

                  I didn’t mean to imply that *all* your analytical paths aren’t working correctly, or that you have “shut your brain and refused to think”. I was referring exclusively to the particular “path” dealing with the “why are we here?” question. For some people that’s a very transcendent question, and it conditions how they live. For others (the majority, I suspect) it doesn’t have much of an effect on their daily lives. Others have not even stumbled upon it yet.

                  It is my opinion than when someone has faith, there’s a group of assertions that are “true”, without discussion. I am not allowed to use logical thinking to try to demonstrate why “god exists” (or any other faith-based belief). Yes, I have a problem with that. I want to use reason, because it has worked so far. I can ask “why is this car so expensive?” but I can’t ask “why must there be a god?”.

                  Isn’t that what faith is, after all? Believing in something without having proof of it? If this is not what it is, then please correct me. I’m not trying to be confrontational.

                  I’m not saying that believers “refuse to think” .. but I do think they don’t think *analytically* about *certain aspects*. I’m not saying that faith “shuts brains down”; to me, it looks as if it “short-circuits” some parts. Most of the time it has little or no consequence; most people are usually too busy to think about the Universe and God and whatnot anyway.

                  I’m really sorry that the first time you have answered to one of my posts here had to be this way. I have a profound respect for you, and it saddens me to think that I might have made you feel bad enough to answer the way you did. Please accept my apologies.

                  I’ll make my best to improve my comment’s quality and clarity. I look forward to more conversations with you.

                  1. Shamus says:

                    I perhaps took more umbrage than was needed. I am no more immune to Thread Heat than anyone else. Let’s call it a wash. :)

                    As for the acceptance of God. I doubt this will really bring us to an understanding, but if you’re curious where my faith comes from: (This was originally going to be part of the post, but I was worried some people would feel I was evangelizing.)

                    I consider my conscience to be one of my senses. I can tell if something is light or dark, hot or cold, bitter or sweet, and in the same way I can sense when certain things are right or wrong. That night in 1982 – and even before then – I felt a strong impression that God Exists, that it is right to think so, and that denying so is wrong. I though this even though churches make me uncomfortable and the “Christians” I knew were jackasses. I knew this was the right thing to do, in the same way a child knows it is wrong to tell a lie before they even form the words.

                    Now, other people seem to feel so such impression. They have no problem denying God. I can’t explain why I feel this and they don’t. In some cases, perhaps they felt the same way I did at some point, but shoved the thought aside because it made them uncomfortable. The conscience can be trained this way. The first time you do something wrong, it stings. But with subsequent transgressions that sense of guilt fades or becomes dulled.

                    However, there are some people who seem to have no belief in God, even from an early age. I can’t know another person’s mind, but I am responsible for what goes on in my own mind.

                    If this is true of other Christians, then it probably explains the origin of the argument, “But… if you don’t believe in God, where do you get your sense of right and wrong from?” I realize that one is annoying (and I think Krellen covered it well in at least one thread here) but I assume that’s where it comes from.

                    So my belief in God is not the result of blind, random faith. It’s the result of following my conscience, even when doing so wasn’t the most comfortable or expedient thing to do.

                    1. krellen says:

                      I think I alluded to this sort of feeling of yours in a comment further down here (in that I’ve found this a common sort of feeling among the religious), but I just wanted to reflect a bit on some of your assumptions from the other side.

                      I was raised Christian. My mother wasn’t a minister while I was growing up – she heeded her call a little more than a decade ago – but she was still very involved with the church we attended and it was only after I left home for college that I stopped going to church every week. I just assumed there was a God; everyone said there was, and I really hadn’t reflected enough to think otherwise.

                      But I did start to reflect on it in college, and I had the opposite reaction you did, Shamus. I realised that I had been accepting God because it was what was easiest, due to my environment, not because I felt it was “right”. My conscience actually told me this belief was wrong, and I was driven to question faith, and ultimately turn away from it. On reflection, I realised that I had felt an unease and discomfort in all that time of faith, as if I knew something wasn’t quite right.

                      Now, obviously, I don’t consider the matter of faith to be a fundamental difference enough to make some people “good” for it and some people “bad”, but my innermost feeling on the issue is, in much the same way as you realised the opposite for yourself, that not believing in God is the “right” thing to do.

                      (Ultimately, my view of faith is sort of like the appendix: it was probably pretty useful once, and it doesn’t really do any harm except when it has an infectious flare-up, so why waste time railing against it?

                      Further note: I still have my appendix (and tonsils), and view doctors that go around cutting things out without need as dangerously unethical.)

                    2. DaveMc says:

                      This is really intriguing to me, the idea that your moral sense is (if I understand you) directly provided by God. That makes a lot more sense to me than the standard story, the one about morality coming from a book transcribed by humans — lots of problems with things being lost along the way, which the “direct from God” approach avoids. So that’s an interesting idea — I don’t believe a word of it, but it’s interesting! :)

                    3. Nathan Sanzone says:

                      “So my belief in God is not the result of blind, random faith. It's the result of following my conscience, even when doing so wasn't the most comfortable or expedient thing to do.”

                      For me, the exact opposite occurred, in that my disbelief in God was a result of my conscience.

                      I was raised in a Protestant family (homeschooled, even)””skip forward a couple of decades and I find myself serving communion to and praying for other members of my church’s congregation on Sundays, and it wasn’t even the sense of hypocrisy I felt that was an issue, but the realization that it was a betrayal of trust, to be serving this role in a ritual that might be deeply meaningful to other people, but had no meaning to me. It violated my sense of integrity.

                      So, I finally accepted that I was an atheist (and that I really always had been). I’d always thought that if I just had “faith”, that at some point I’d actually “believe”. I suppose I could have lived my whole life that way, if I hadn’t gotten more involved.

                      Advice to believers: if you value your faith, don’t question it too much.

        3. Scott (Duneyrr) says:

          Youth groups ARE nuts. When I was younger, I’d sit through the old-folks study of Acts instead; it was a much more reasonable group.

          As for believing in the resurrection, that’s that whole ‘faith’ part that comes up in the Bible. I am NOT being facetious. Faith is difficult to obtain and hold onto, and – when it all boils down to it – most of the struggles in the Christian walk are with this one concept.
          Unfortunately, some of the main tenants of Christianity do revolve around this point and while, as stated above, there are some denominations that don’t hold fast to this point, it is generally considered required since much of the New Testament revolves around the assurance of that belief.

          1. Mumbles says:

            It simply makes sense that you’d believe the core principles of the religion of choice. There are varying degrees, of course, but Christianity is based around Jesus as a savior. Since I can’t make that leap, I can’t consider myself a Christian.

            1. krellen says:

              I’ve made the same argument to my mother, which is why I know she (at least; I’m not sure how many others in the UCC agree with her) doesn’t view that as necessarily disqualifying one from Christianity.

              Obviously, I decided that I just didn’t consider myself Christian for whatever reasons, and I’m not sure we really need a reason to not have faith, but if this one niggling thing is really all that keeps you from embracing a faith you otherwise think you belong to, you may want to explore further options.

    5. ccesarano says:

      Actually, I think agnostics are the most rational of all. It drives me nuts when people bring up guys like Richard Dawkins when discussing cold-hard scientific logic and reasoning, or Hell, even the TV show Bones where the 100% rational female protagonist discusses how religion is illogical and the only thing to believe in are the facts and is thus an Atheist.

      To me, the most logical and rational perspective you can have is “all I know is that I know nothing”, and that even our scientific beliefs are flawed. Plus, absence of proof is not proof of absence, and thus while we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with our current scientific methods, it doesn’t mean he/she/it is not there.

      So to me, agnostics are perhaps the smartest of us all. I’ve always enjoyed discussing religion with what few agnostics I’ve met more than trying to discuss it with Atheists.

      1. Rutskarn says:

        I generally don’t talk about this on the internet, for reasons that are frequently obvious, but the discourse here is remarkably restrained and polite. So I’ll go ahead and contribute a little bit to this tangent.

        I myself take this position of agnosticism. I wouldn’t necessarily call it more “logical” or “rational” than other beliefs, because it’s always tricky to know why people believe what they believe and generally unwise to make assumptions about the intellectual processes that brought them there. I’d only go so far as to say it’s the position that makes sense to me.

        At the end of the day, if I was pressed into it, I could express what I *believe*. I trace these beliefs to evidence in my daily life, but that’s guesswork. Psychology has proven that people are generally very poor at accurately assessing why they think what they do about a topic. At any rate, I consider this belief irrelevant. It’s based on a vacuum of hard, correlative evidence in one direction, and the rational impossibility of proving a negative in the other direction. So I take the middle road, because it falls more in line with desire to approach things from an objective perspective, and it’s the most objectively verifiable position I can adopt. How I *feel* isn’t as relevant, to me, if only because it doesn’t seem like a good method of arriving at universal truth if everyone else feels differently, and unlike some beliefs, is unlikely to enrich my life or make me a better person. At least, not in a way that agnosticism can’t.

        You know what, screw it, I feel boring throwing in as another atheist/agnostic. I worship Skuldug, mole god of barbarian warfare. He lays armies asunder with a twitch of his cute button-wutton nose. Services are on Wednesdays at the roller rink.

        1. PAK says:

          I have so much trouble putting my agnosticism into phrasing this lucid, transparent, honest and passionate without being incendiery. But there you just did it. Thanks, Ruts.

        2. People can believe what they believe as long as they do not bother others with their belief. (and “bother” is very individual/subjective).

          Religion on the other hand I separate fully from belief, christian beliefs may not always be the same as christian religions, nor may Muslim beliefs always match Muslim religion, same with other beliefs/religions.

          Rutskarn, I used to be an atheist until I learned what agnostic was/meant, but eventually I even threw that term away too when I told the lutheran church I was in the registry of, to “delete” me from their registries (and they did, good ol’ socialist Norway *laughs*).

          My religious beliefs could be called agnostic, but since I’m 100% non-religious, even the use of the word agnostic is wrong.

          Instead I use the word Absurdist to describe how I see the world,
          and to inform others that I agree with the definition of Absurdism as to my life view or view of existence.

          If there ever was a Existiaism it would be Absurdism.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

          Note! I just now made Existiaism word up, it means the everlasting search for why we exist and why we come up with silly “isms” definitions to describe those searches in an attempt to make sense of at least something.

          1. X2-Eliah says:

            On a very remote tangent.. We had to read a few ‘famous’ (not really) books by allegedly ‘Absurdist’ authors.. From that I learned that Absurdism is more or less ‘I can do stupid stuff that makes no sense ‘cos nothing makes sense and I’m So Meta lol’…

            Not saying that’s anything what you meant, ofc, just a random recollection I had.

            On a more serious note – about searching for the meaning – Eh, imo, even if there is no greater plan, or big meaning applied to humans / me, I don’t feel that giving up is an option. If universe doesn’t present me with a meaning, then I’ll carve it myself, and live so as to be satisfied with how and why I live.

            1. PAK says:

              Your last paragraph here SO resonates with me. It speaks a little to the debate initiated by Retsam above about how one can be humanist without being theist.

          2. “Bother” cannot be defined. If I’m a fanatic it may “bother” me that someone, somewhere, MIGHT disagree with me. I might even go so far as to assume that this person exists without any evidence and go around torturing people until they admit that they’re heretics. After all, I’m feeling bothered, and God wouldn’t make me feel bothered unless there were heretics somewhere, right?! QED.

            People can believe whatever they want as long as they don’t use physical force on people who disagree with them. They can indulge in all manner of name-calling, rudeness, refusal to hire or work with or even look at people who believe differently. This does not interfere with the ability of other people to go about their lives.

            However, there is no religious group anywhere (although there may be individuals within the group who don’t care) that adheres to this standard. They *all* want to force their beliefs on other people SOMEHOW–by illegalizing abortion or homosexuality or insulting Mohammed or whatever. It’s not good enough that they are perfectly free to go out and attempt to convince people differently. No, there oughta be a law.

            1. PAK says:

              Jennifer, your final paragraph is not really defensible. Overbroad generalizations are not really useful things, especially when full of such outright bile for the vast majority of humanity

              There are plenty of religions that have no need to enforce their beliefs through law, as it would run contrary to underlying philosophies asking that individuals come to a realization of the truth through living their own life. See Hinduism, Buddhism, Unitarianism for some examples. I am sure there must be many others.

          3. ccesarano says:

            That’s assuming someone’s belief is founded in trying to find reason for being here, etc. I actually find Christianity fascinating as a philosophy first and as a history second. In fact, the biggest reason I continue to believe in Christ is because I find God to be fascinating.

            I believe, however, with most “fair weather Christians”, and those of other faiths and beliefs as well, you’re more likely to have religion out of habit.

        3. Cerapa says:

          I worship the great universal RNG that determines all that happens and responds only to sacrifies of goats during a full-moon.

          Skuldug sounds cool too though. Might have to rethink my beliefs.

          1. Blake says:

            Ah the mighty RNG, whose form is that of the divine icosahedron, and whose strength of will is inversely proportional to how much it matters.

        4. Mumbles says:

          Btw, Skuldug is the name of our future bowling team.

          1. Dys says:

            I want to see the team shirt, with a picture of Skuldug on the front, covered in gore, up to his cute button-wutton nose in the corpses of the fallen.

        5. “Psychology has proven that people are generally very poor at accurately assessing why they think what they do about a topic.”

          I know some cognitive psychologists who’d like to have a word with you. Yeah, people who have psychological problems are generally this way–that’s *why* they have psychological problems. And even then, their resistance to introspection is generally confined to one or two areas.

          Now, me, I’m an atheist because I don’t believe in the arbitrary. You can tell me all the stories you want about God creating the world and having love for his creation. I can equally tell you stories about invisible, undetectable space aliens controlling us with invisible, undetectable strings. Or demons that live under the earth. The story doesn’t matter because they are all the same: arbitrary. They can’t be proven and are meaningless.

          If, on the other hand, you tell me that you have noticed that going around murdering people doesn’t end well, that has meaning. We can look at what happens when people murder other people. We can look at what happens when they don’t. We can hypothesize a causal connection between action and results. We can test whether that hypothesis holds up. We can discover if there are exceptions and what they are. This leads somewhere.

          1. Rutskarn says:

            I stand by my statement. Human beings arrive at beliefs through a variety of complex processes that they often, in retrospect, misinterpret. Frequently this is little better than speculation.

            Take the following experiment. Individuals are presented with a puzzle. The experiment is somewhat complex, but can be simplified as follows without sacrificing any relevant details: individuals fall into two groups, one that is given a subtle hint as to how the puzzle is solved through a stimulus from the professor and one that is not. Over a very broad sampling size, the individuals who received the hint solved the puzzle much quicker–but when asked how they arrived at the inspiration, they provided any number of epiphany stories unrelated to the professor’s stimulus. When the hint was revealed, and the person was asked if they thought it had impacted their performance, they universally replied that they were certain it hadn’t. Here’s the thing: the possibility that this was just the subject’s unwillingness to admit they received a hint was eliminated by a follow-up experiment, in which another hint (in line with the previous confabulations, and substantially more obvious in form, but useless in function) was provided with or without the previous stimulus, and when the individuals did complete the puzzle, they were happy to credit the bogus clue while once again dismissing the effective one.

            A lot of what we think about how we think is, put bluntly, guesswork–frequently bad guesswork.

            Another experiment, less directly related but still enlightening: individuals are asked to fill out an elaborate questionnaire regarding their political and social beliefs, corresponding each to values (one through ten, for example). This questionnaire is confiscated, and is then substantially altered–in some cases inverting the answers given by the participants. It is then returned–without the subject being made aware of any changes–and they are asked to justify the set of answers they didn’t actually give. Very frequently, they do not notice a change has been made and casually justify beliefs they just indicated they didn’t possess. They are able to confabulate on a moment’s notice.

            This raises the question: if a person is able to instantly generate false-but-plausible justifications for why they’d possess any set of beliefs, including ones that are the opposite of their own, without skipping a beat, why should we assume we know why we believe what we do?

            1. TheRocketeer says:

              An ingenious observation, and one of many tenets of my conviction that everyone- everyone- should indulge in lifelong introspection and the formation of concrete principle.

              If you never examine what you feel or why, you can never understand it. And if you alter the foundations of your behavior according to convenience or mood, you can never determine their merit.

              Once you can establish convictions that you can easily identify, and which are internally consistent, and which you believe possess merit, it becomes almost trivial both to live by them and to test them, whether that test is against themselves, the world itself, and the core beliefs of others.

              Expect this process to take the extent of your life, at least.

        6. Dys says:

          I do dislike the idea that you can’t prove a negative.
          I’m pretty sure I can prove I’m not 8 feet tall, and without making direct measurements at that.
          I can prove there’s not a whale in my bathtub.
          I can prove the earth is not flat.

          I’m not going to claim here that I can prove the non existence of god, but equally I think it’s absurd to claim that it cannot be proven. Unless the gods’ existence has no influence whatsoever on this world, in which case said existence is a debatable point, and also entirely academic.

      2. Zukhramm says:

        But I don’t know nothing. I don’t know everything, I might not know very much at all, but I definitely do not know nothing.

        I’m not sure I agree with you that not drawing a conclusion based on previous observation is more logical and rational than doing so. And yes, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but I (and I think and hope most atheist) do not claim to have proof (actually I know a guy who does, I’ve asked many times but has never managed to explain it to me) because we don’t.

        There is no dichotomy between atheism and agnosticism. I certainly am both ans so are many atheists.

        Also I would like to know what those flaws in science you mention are.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          Correction: Know nothing about an “afterlife”, or a “god”, or any other related religious concepts. Is it possible to KNOW, without a shadow of a doubt, whether God exists? The idea of an agnostic is that it is NOT, and therefore they do not believe, because it cannot be proven. Or at least that’s how I would put it. That doesn’t seem to be quite how he meant it.

          1. Ben says:

            “The idea of an agnostic is that it is NOT, and therefore they do not believe”

            No, this is specifically an “agnostic atheist”. There is such a thing as agnostic theists, and in fact I’ve seen comments from some on this page.

      3. GiantRaven says:

        Personally, I don’t understand the whole idea that the existence of a higher power is ‘illogical’, and therefore ‘wrong’.

        From my eyes it seems that the existence of a being that created everything we know should shatter every facet of logical thinking we have, simply because they’re operating on a level that we can’t comprehend.

        1. It is illogical because there are no *facts* which point to this conclusion and no others. All claims of a “higher power” amount to this: “I cannot imagine any other explanation for fact X. Therefore God did it.”

          The fact that your imagination doesn’t cover this particular eventuality does not warrant claims of God any more than it warrants claims of ANYTHING. What it warrants is saying “I don’t know the explanation for this” and going on your way. Or maybe sitting and working on the problem until you come up with a testable hypothesis.

          1. ccesarano says:

            First, reading the comments above and the one below, I think I’ve clashed where I’m fascinated by Socrates and some of his philosophical lessons, but science can blow it out its own hole. :P I’m much more an abstract thinker myself, and part of my feeling is if someone were to approach me and keep asking me “why”, would I eventually hit a point where I’d say “I don’t know, I just do”? Allegedly, this is what Socrates did. He approached people, asked or saw them doing things, and then asked why until inevitably you hit that “I dunno, just the way I’ve always done it”.

            For me, belief in God is mostly founded in nothing happening spontaneously. Space is one big thing of emptiness littered with a bunch of somethings, and if you try to figure out where all those somethings came from you’d eventually reach the point where something would have to had come from nothing. This makes no sense, and therefore something outside of our existence must be there to have put it there.

            This is, of course, a gross simplification, and I know there’s a bunch of theories and other ideas into things like black holes that I’m leaving out. But any of those ideas have yet to dissuade me from my foundation for believing any God exists (foundation for the Christian God is much harder to simplify). I imagine plenty of folks could challenge my assertions quite easily, though.

            1. SolkaTruesilver says:

              This is, of course, a gross simplification, and I know there's a bunch of theories and other ideas into things like black holes that I'm leaving out. But any of those ideas have yet to dissuade me from my foundation for believing any God exists (foundation for the Christian God is much harder to simplify).

              Not to want to troll, but why don’t you just skip the pseudo-justification about explanation of where everything comes from, if you won’t actually accept theories that have been formulated?

              Plus, I do believe you kinda traps yourself into a dead-end that violates your own principles. Myself, I don’t accept the theory of God for the exact same reason you cite: I don’t believe in spontaneous existence. Therefore: Where God comes from?

              Believing in a God that Always Has Been is WAY harder for me to believe in than a universe where Energy/Matter spontaneously concentrated and emerged into existence out of [Yet Unexplained].

              Science actually points out the part that says [Yet Unexplained]. Religion just tries to stick stuff like “faith” to cover it’s own non-answers. If you do believe in morality, etc.. of religion, good for you. Don’t try to disprove scientific theory with it tho.

              1. Aldowyn says:

                Oh, wow. That just blew out a TON of peoples reason for why god exists. The universe exists because god made it, but why does god exist? How is saying that god exists because he’s GOD any different than saying the universe exists because that’s how it is?

              2. Cuthalion says:

                For something to have a beginning, it must be moving through time. If God, by his very nature, is unaffected by time, then he cannot logically have a beginning.

                If that argument is broken, it means Christianity has the same chicken-and-egg problem as naturalism. No better, no worse. If not, then trope averted.

                [I used phrases like “moving through time” and other such things that are probably not the scientifically-preferred way to talk about physics. Please understand that I’m just using simplified terminology that I understand and hope others will understand as well. I know time is affected by gravity, speed, that it can be sped up or slowed down relative to time in another area, etc. As far as I know, that doesn’t change this point.]

                1. ccesarano says:

                  Pretty much this. While I can grasp God emotionally based on his presence in the Bible and understand his mind as best as I can (which I think is intentional due to being created in God’s own image), I cannot grasp him physically. This same argument I imagine can be used for certain scientific theories and ideas, but what I know of God is he created this universe. It’s like being a programmer and programming a world and A.I. to live within it. The A.I. can only do what it was programmed to do, and cannot grasp outside those boundaries.

                  I believe we have a bit more freedom in understanding our surroundings, but because all of our experience in life is within this universe relegated by certain rules, our natural instinct is to apply those rules to God. But he created the rules. He is not restricted by them, but designed them. How can we comprehend a being beyond all of that?

                  This is also why I’m technically open to the concept of other religion’s “Gods” existing, just not being actual Gods like the Christian God.

                  On another note: whenever I watch those scientific space shows and black holes come up, I wonder if we were to go through a black hole we’d find God on the other side.

                  Then I inevitably think “What does GOD! need. With a star ship?”

                  1. SolkaTruesilver says:

                    You just substitute Universe for God, that’s all. You anthropomorphise the explanation (or lack thereof) by saying stuff that is just as likely to apply to anything else.

                    God always has been. Well, if that’s the case, why can’t the Universe?

                    You make a leap of logic (leap of faith?) by jumping to conclusions that reassures you, but the flaw in the logic still exists. Now, I really don’t mind people having faith and using it to live moral, ethical and healthy lives. I just don’t like religious mythology being used as substitute to scientific theories.

                    There simply is nothing that points out the existence of a Will that might control it all beyond our collective imagination and tendency to create fairy tales to explain what we can’t yet understand or phantom. Before, it was Thunder and Lighting, the Milky Way and Winter/Summer. Now, it’s the birth of the universe.

                  2. Dys says:

                    Out of interest, why would an AI be unable to understand that it is a simulation?

                  3. Cuthalion says:

                    Well… I don’t think that’s how black holes work. But that’s not the point you were making. :P

                    @Solka, the difference, I think, is that from ccesarano’s and my perspective, the universe consists of these rules, rather than contains them. Therefore it is bound by them and cannot have always been. God contains the rules rather than consists of them, and he is not constrained by them.

            2. Zukhramm says:

              Still you end up with one thing either always having existed or starting to do so for reasons we don’t know.

            3. Aldowyn says:

              “Why does the Universe exist?”

              “I dunno, it just does!”

              Some people come up with the answer as “Because God made it”, and then you ask the question “Why do you believe that?”, and many of those same people would come up with the answer “Because someone had to.” Then there are many who don’t think someone DID have to, that it just did because that’s the way the world works.

            4. DungeonHamster says:

              Ah, Prime Mover argument, how I love you. Granted, all that it really demonstrates is that at some distant point in the past something existed that was infinite, but Aquinas is still my hero, even if he did draw slightly broader conclusions that some of his arguments warranted.

            5. Dys says:

              So far as I understand cutting edge quantum physics, which is admittedly not very far at all, nothing has a distinct propensity to explode.

              I think the important point here is that there are two approaches to answering the question ‘where did the universe come from?’
              The first says ‘I dunno, God did it?’
              The second says ‘I dunno… let’s find out!’

      4. Brandon says:

        Except that we know lots of things. How can you not draw conclusions from observations? How on earth can we learn to interact with the physical world around us if we decide that nothing we observe or experience has anything predictive or explanatory to teach us? That would be a kind of universal learned helplessness.

        I think it is healthier to say that we know only what we know, and as we learn more what we know will change. The world is largely constant, but our understanding of it is limited, and really, practical application of science and observation is only useful when it is somewhat predictive. As soon as something fails to be predictive we have to reevaluate and change our view of the world.

        This kind of world view, which I think best represents the union of atheist and agnosticism, is a lot of work. It’s a lot easier to accept what someone tells you about the world, or to make one set of observations about the universe and decide that for your purposes that’s perfectly adequate. The real thinkers, both religious and non-, are the ones who constantly question themselves and the world, and constantly reevaluate.

        This is not unique to atheists. Some of the most thoughtful and hard-working religious thinkers do the same. They use different criteria in their questioning, but by constantly trying to reframe what they know and by searching for what’s missing or what doesn’t match up, they are trying to ensure that what they know or believe is current and considered and, for them, as close to “truth” as they can get.

      5. kikito says:

        I’m an atheist. Let me try to explain my logic.

        Logic requires a starting point. A set of assumptions. It all boils down to which ones you start out with.

        I will start with religion, because it is simpler to explain. Religious logic has at least one very clear assumption: A God/s created/was involved in the creation of the Universe. An everything else derives from that.

        If you make that assumption, then you can ask: what created god? And that’s were logic starts being a bit blurry or confusing. If you say “God always existed” then why not “save the step”, and just assume that the Universe always existed? The other option is even uglier: if something else created God… then what created that something else?

        As a programmer, I hate infinite loops, so that last option looks incredibly unappealing.

        And that’s my personal exploration of the God Assumption.

        “Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and thus while we cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with our current scientific methods, it doesn't mean he/she/it is not there”

        You claim to know nothing about the Universe, yet … there is actually a implicit assumption in your comment. It is that “The Universe, even if we know nothing about it, can have a reason to exist”. You build your reasons uppon that.

        But a very similar development happens if you use that line of thought. Let’s assume that there is a reason. If that “something” exists, then has it always existed? Otherwise … what is its reason to exist?

        We’re back to the “has always existed/infinite logic loop” situation.

        Then there’s the last option: that the Universe has NOT a reason to exist.

        I’ve tried to use that as an assumption, and … well, the logic makes more sense to me. Once I removed the need of a reason, the “incoherencies” or “infinite loops” are no more.

        And that’s pretty much it. Religious people assume that the Universe has a property, you are assuming that the it could, and I’m assuming that it can’t.

        I choose that particular starting point because the logic built on top of it seems less incoherent; less brittle. Why did you choose yours?

    6. Alex the Elder says:

      I went through the same basic experience as Mumbles (I was first tenor in the Methodist church choir in high school), except I went through several different religions (including Christianity twice) before giving up and, while I privately consider myself a “weak agnostic” by Daimbert’s terminology*, I still can’t say I’m not a believing Christian anywhere that it can be traced to me IRL, even to my own wife, for fear of family and/or professional consequences. (I live and work in the southeastern US.) When my son starts asking questions about this sort of thing in a few years, I will be forced to tell him things I don’t believe, for fear that he’ll repeat what I DO believe, it’ll be traced back to me, and I’ll be forcibly cut out of his life.

      * (I believe that it could be that all the gods exist, or some of them, or none of them, but none of them own me, and it’s unprovable and immaterial in any case and people can do what they like as long as they don’t force it on other people)

      1. Aldowyn says:

        … oh sheesh. That’s a dilemma. Is it really that bad?

        I don’t know your situation, but I DO know that I think it would be morally criminal to tell your son that you believe something that you don’t believe, even if you don’t push it on him. I know that this might make it harder for you, if you treat something said by some random dude on the internet with any respect, but… I feel I have to say it.

        My first impulse would be this: Are you sure your wife would reject you because of that, and that it would have such far-ranging consequences as you think it would?

        1. Alex the Elder says:

          Well, when I say “personal and/or professional consequences”, I mean more like relatives no longer engaging in small talk, being left out of meetings and passed over for promotions, that sort of thing – unpleasant and painful, to be sure, but nothing catastrophic. For letting my beliefs slip to adults, that is. I’m pretty sure that if I interfered at all with my son’s growing up with solid Catholic, or at least Christian values, I’d be out on my ass. (Needless to say, my wife is not going to be taking the same approach with introducing her child to religion that Mr. Young’s mother did.) Cue Marge Simpson: “I have a responsibility to raise these children right, and unless you change, I’m going to have to tell them that their father is, well, wicked.”

          That’s my main issue with Christianity as it is practiced in the United States. The factual and philosophical underpinnings of the actual belief system are mostly an academic concern; what does real damage is that Christianity is unfailingly used to separate the world into “us” and “them”. Even if it doesn’t rise to the level of religiously motivated oppression like what the politically active wing of the Christian mainstream advocates, even just saying “we’ll keep to ourselves because they don’t follow God” introduces schisms and difficulty into the life of society.

    7. Bret says:

      Ever read anything by G.K. Chesterton?

      I mean, Lewis’s apologetics stuff is more or less a given for most people, but I find Chesterton’s arguments are also worth a look.

      Equally important, the man could write like nobody’s business, and he knew how people work better than almost anyone.

      And he liked them! I mean, most people who write about these things, humanist or no, look on the American Idol, Twilight, Michael Bay film set with pity or disdain. Human nature is messy.

      Chesterton, he loved democracy, pulp novels, bad jokes. Thought being as common as dirt a positive virtue.

      Aside from all that, though? You’re doing the right thing. I mean, my angle, if you can honestly believe Christianity is true based on the evidence, that’s the best thing.

      But if you think, again based on evidence rather than gut feelings, that it isn’t?

      Well, the only honest, moral, and proper course is to disbelieve and admit it publicly. Hypocracy of that sort hurts everyone.

  29. Juggernaut246 says:

    I have always have found genuine stories (not the glurge written by fundies) of coming to faith or faith carrying someone through a dark time uplifting even though i don’t share those beliefs. It sounds to me that coming to faith really helped you and your family come out of a dark place.

    Also I hate that it has to take courage to talk about faith on the internet, Especially on your own site. Of all the things that annoy me about being an Atheist its that I get lumped with all these trolls so often that any time i discuss faith with someone I have to put all these conditions and caveats before anything I say.

    Count me as another person who has been enjoying your Autobiography so far!

    1. Aldowyn says:

      Ah, faith having value in and of itself, even if it’s wrong. I can agree with that.

  30. Exetera says:

    Why did you end up attending church, rather than just reading the Bible yourself?

    Did any lingering feelings about the pastors’ children (or even the pastors) a few parts previous affect your feelings about religion in this episode?

    (Also: how did a fiery conservative church end up having an event in a skate park?)

    1. Shamus says:

      1) At 10? I had never read a Bible before. It wouldn’t have entered my mind that I COULD read it on my own, even if I knew where to get one. In those early days of my faith, the only Bible I knew was the KJV, which is almost impossible for a youngster to understand.

      I was well into my teens before I began to read and study on my own.

      2) I’m not sure how much Amelia and her kind shaped my perception of the faith. It’s so hard to judge.

      3) I believe the owner of Skate Castle was a Christian.

      1. Kevin says:

        The KJV Bible is often almost impossible to understand as an adult.

        1. Methermeneus says:

          I always thought the KJV was fun. The misuse of “thees” and “thous” (often used for plurals, when it’s a second-person singular), and some of the wild translations are hilarious, especially when you know what it’s supposed to say.

          My favorite example has always been Job 30:29. The NLV says “I am a brother of jackals, and a companion of ostriches.” (It actually does make sense in context, odd as this sentence may seem.) This is pretty much exactly what the Hebrew of the Tanakh says. The KJV says, “I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.”

          The funnier part of this is actually the owls: תנין (tinnîn) can mean “sea monster” and thus interpolates to “dragon,” although it’s also a plural of תן (“tan”), which means “jackal.” Both have linguistic precedents (e. g. Arabic “tinan” (wolf) and “tinnin” (sea monster)). (Some people complain that newer Bible versions are inconsistent in translating this word, but it’s not unheard of to have two words with wildly divergent meanings that have common consonants but different vowels, and thus look the same when written in an abjad.) However, I have never found any translation for יבנות ×™×¢× ×” (īvnōt ya’ănah) but “ostriches.”

          (I would present the Septuagint as further proof (the word there, στρούθοι (strūthoi), means unequivocally either “ostrich” or “sparrow,” definitely not “owl”), but this very sentence is a condemnation of the Septuagint’s accuracy, as the word replacing “tinnîn” is σερήνη (serēnē), which doesn’t mean anything as far as I can find, doesn’t exist in any other document (or even elsewhere in the Bible where the same Hebrew word comes up), and is usually translated as “monster.”)

          1. Zukhramm says:

            Interesting. Are you saying both words could mean both dragon or jackal, or that it’s just a funny coincidence that the word for owl is similar?

            My Swedish translation says jackal and owl, so no ostrich there.

          2. BenD says:

            Would the KJV have been written with people who had never experienced ostriches in mind? Some translations of the Bible are clearly culturalized, some more than others, for ease of the readers (although if this was the KJV’s intent, it did a lolarious job).

            1. Aldowyn says:

              How the HECK can those two sentences mean the same thing? That’s implying that DRAGONS have the same cultural connotations as jackals, which I just reject as out of hand.

              1. Dys says:

                Oh, I don’t know, predatory monsters…

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  Dragons are mythical creatures, feared and respected for their immense power and majesty.

                  Jackals are carrion-eaters.

                  The connotations are entirely different.

          3. DungeonHamster says:

            I’m not much of a Hebrew scholar, but it always stuck me as amusing how many puns there were in the Old Testament. Esther’s got some pretty good ones, if I recall aright.

            1. Cuthalion says:

              King Saul calling his son Jonathan a “son of a perverse and rebellious woman” flows a lot better in Hebrew, too.

        2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

          Can you read Shakespeare? If so, you can read the KJV. I’m not implying that the English is the same type, but the KJV really isn’t that difficult if you’re willing to try– same as some random bit of flowery prose. Of course, I’ve been exposed to the KJV for practically all of my literate life, so I’m a skewed sample.

          1. Shamus says:

            For contrast: At ten, with no religious background, the KJV was opaque to me.

            1. Dys says:

              I doubt many ten year olds could read Shakespeare either.

              1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

                True, but this is under Kevin’s “hard to understand as an adult” quote.

            2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

              A person of average intelligence and fluency in English who puts his mind to it can read the KJV (note the importance of a desire to read it). I’d recommend it, starting with John. That book starts with metaphor but gets simpler pretty quick.
              By the way, this is a dead thread, so I just want to suggest Hebrews 10:10-25 in relation to church attendance, Shamus.

          2. Scott Schulz says:

            Shakespeare is arguably more difficult to understand than the KJV in the sense that his vocabulary was prodigious (~18,000 different “words” around ~3,000 of which he coined – estimates vary based on the definition of “word”). The KJV, contrawise, has about 6,000 using similar metrics. The reduced vocabulary of the KJV was intentional: the inention of the ttranslators was that it be read by as large a group of English readers as possible.

            But 400 years is a lot of time for a language to evolve, and so our ability to understand the language dimishes with time.

            Of course, vocabulary is not everything when it comes to understanding, and issues like Christian theodicy remain fairly opaque whatever the translation. And that does not even address things like Trinitarianism, a fairly essential part of most Christian sects, which arose after the Biblical texts were written, and, thus, while it does have Biblical roots, the doctrine does not exist at all within the Bible itself.

            1. Zukhramm says:

              A text with reduced vocabulary might very well be harder to understand since losing words might lead to stranger, less common or just more awkward forumlations.

              Also, Shakespeare wrote in English as opposed to being translated to, which might also be a factor in which has language harder to understand.

              1. Aldowyn says:

                Heh. Newspeak, anyone?

                I’m thinking that, with the example of the KJV, 6000 is PLENTY of words.

      2. Blake says:

        Forgive my ignorance, what does KJV stand for?

        1. X2-Eliah says:

          Kentucky… Jackal… Vivisection. It’s a really rather gruesome book, I’m told.

        2. Bret says:

          King James Version.

        3. TheRocketeer says:

          “King James’ Version,” namered after the fellow who commissioned it. It has been in use for centuries because it has been in use for centuries. And because, due to that age, it sounds fancy or smart. It is to be regarded as a timepiece and not a reference.

        4. Shamus says:

          King James Version, probably still the most common English translation of the Bible.

          Then there is the New King James Version (NKJV), which is the same translation, but they’ve gone through and cleaned up the archaic sentence structure and replaced the occurrences of “thee” and “thou”. It’s still a bit stiff to modern ears.

          The second most common (in my experience) is the New International Version (NIV), which is a different translation, designed to be readable to modern English speakers.

          At the opposite end of the spectrum from the KJV is The Message, which is an extremely readable, flowing translation that will re-word or re-arrange things to get the general IDEA across, at the possible expense of (perhaps) losing some information.

          This barely scratches the surface. Some translations are just paraphrase of earlier works, while others are raw translations from the Latin Vulgate. And of course you’ve got people bickering over translations. Apple vs. Microsoft. Xbox vs. Playsation. Nothing new under the sun, etc.

          Here is a verse (chosen somewhat randomly) from the KJV:

          John 5:19 in KJV:

          “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do : for what things soever he doeth , these also doeth the Son likewise.”

          Same verse, from the MSG:

          “So Jesus explained himself at length. “I’m telling you this straight. The Son can’t independently do a thing, only what he sees the Father doing. What the Father does, the Son does.”

          So… yeah. Big difference. I find the MSG to be a little too “street” for my tastes, but if I was teaching a 10 year old and these two were my only choices, I’d reach for the MSG over the KJV every time.

          1. DaveMc says:

            A little “street”, indeed! Does Jesus use the word “dude” at some point in the MSG version? I both hope and fear that he does. :)

    2. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

      Not a skate park; a roller rink. The former has bad rep and so isn’t really appropriate for a church service; the latter has roller derby, but that isn’t an ingrained cultural connection like a skate park is.

  31. krellen says:

    In my experience, the “Jerk” Christians are a minority, but a highly vocal one. The fact that the good-natured Christians feel so tentative about speaking about their faith and their beliefs may in part lead to why the internet appears so hostile to people speaking about their faith and beliefs – in the experience of the internet, the ones doing so tend to be of the Jerk variety, and therefore all people doing so are assumed to be of the Jerk variety.

    Non-Jerks need to speak up more.

    1. DanMan says:

      It’s the same thing with Muslims. They’ve been labeled as terrorists, especially in American culture (it doesn’t help that they have problems with Israel, when America politically supports Israel). I’d argue it’s the same with politics and Republicans and Democrats.

      The vocal radicals make news people are willing to pay to watch and read about. It makes more money to write stories about “crazy man believes storm caused by devil” than “religous people were nice to homeless beggar”

      1. krellen says:

        Personally, I’d be more apt to buy the paper flying the headline “Religious People Nice to Homeless Beggar”, if only because it’s so out-of-place as to be infinitely more interesting.

        1. Isy says:

          This “old news” story might catch your interest then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8AwPp1OOKQ

          1. krellen says:

            That’s pretty cool.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              … wth is wrong with the comments? Wow. It looks like it’s basically a bunch of people going “GO ISLAM!” Did it get linked by some popular islamic something or other?

              I can totally see that making headlines, though. Seems noteworthy to me.

              1. krellen says:

                Fun fact: did you know that, while charity is encouraged by Christianity, it is in fact one of the Five Pillars of Islam? The Zakat is essentially a wealth-redistribution tax, wherein non-believers pay for the right to keep their own beliefs, and wealthy Muslims pay to support the poor Muslims in their community.

    2. SolkaTruesilver says:

      The “Jerk” anything are always a minority. Jerk French, Jerk Americans, Jerk Muslims, Jerk Christians, Jerk Chinese, Jerk Habs Fan…

      But they always draw attention to themselves because of the very reason we call them Jerk, and give a bad name to the group they are part of.

      The scary part, however, is when such Jerk manages to get himself in a position of genuine power (through politics) and gather followers among the non-Jerk demographic part of the population.

      1. Ingvar M says:

        Very OT: When I see “Jerk $THING”, I invariably think of food. That made the previous post both hilarious and scary.

        1. X2-Eliah says:

          Take the cannibalism perk!

        2. Aldowyn says:

          you realize OT could mean off-topic AND on-topic? Just saying.

    3. KremlinLaptop says:

      That pretty well summarizes the problem most — if not all — religions have. Where the vocal minority and possible extreme minority get 99% of the focus even if they make up only 1% of the followers, so why the attention? Because these people are far more interesting, everyone likes a bit of controversy.

      Honestly, the same ideas can be applied to Muslims, where people seem to think they’re all at the Gap for the suicide belt special, to Christians, where people think they’re all loading up on guns for the DOWNFALL OF ALL CIVILIZATION, to Atheists, where people think they’re all sleeping on a big stack of books by Dawkins and contemplating how to show all ’em religious folk just how the penny drops.

      And the non-jerk muslims, christians, atheists, et al just frown and move along.

      Basically, if you don’t speak up people will tar you with a bigger and bigger brush until you all look as guilty as the nuttiest among you. Just say something.

      EDIT: OH COME ON. IT WAS ONE LITTLE TYPO-FIX AND THE COMMENT IS BACK IN MODERATION? I challenge you to a duel for making me feel silly. Also going through all these comments must be hard work. Good job!

      1. It’s not because these people are more interesting. It’s because they’re more consistent in their beliefs so the other members of Group X have no means of arguing with them. Nice Christians have no basis for telling the “Jerk Christians” to shut up–and they’d have to forfeit their self-assigned title of “nice” by even doing so.

        Heck, telling other people they’re wrong is considered “jerk” behavior by most people, no matter how accurate that assessment is.

        My policy is simple: if you voluntarily self-identify with a group that includes people who want to hurt me, I consider you a potential threat. I will never fully trust you, and I will always be prepared to defend myself against you. The end. You may be nice. We can even be friends to an extent. Try to press your drivel on me and you’re out the door, because I won’t tolerate it.

        Heh, the local Jehovah’s Witnesses stop by here to give me literature all the time because I’m polite to them. (I won’t let them in the house, granted, but they haven’t asked to come in yet, either.) If they want to give me literature, that’s fine. I get junk mail all the time from local restaurants and dentists, too. A little more won’t hurt me. They seem like nice people, for the most part, however, if they ever get pushy I’m shutting the door in their faces.

        Of course, I react the same way to people who try to give me pushy diet advice, too.

        1. Shamus says:

          Tidbit: JW’s don’t vote, don’t participate in politics. So in a lot of ways, they’re less of a threat to your freedoms than (say) the TV preacher who will never knock on your door.

          I’m actually finding this aspect of the JW’s to be very compelling: If I don’t vote (or exercise other political power) nobody can accuse me of “forcing” my ideas onto them. You can – in theory – talk with people all over the political spectrum without them regarding you as “the enemy”.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            JW’s actually seem pretty reasonable in their evangelicalism to me. Not pushy, and not pushy is fine. Some people don’t like being bothered, though.

            1. Aldowyn says:

              GAAAAH I said that?

              EVANGELISM. Where did this “evangelicalism” come from? I must scrub my brain…

          2. Alex the Elder says:

            And if one does a good job of establishing credibility for that pose, that greatly frees one’s hand to use backchannels to do exactly what one claims not to be doing. Or maybe I’ve been reading too much Terry Pratchett.

            As for the politeness of JWs, I’ve only been visited by them once at our current residence, and while they were very polite and accepted my demurral that this is a Catholic household, they were strangely insistent on wanting to take the patio furniture on our front porch as a charitable donation. Weird.

          3. Dys says:

            I have never been overly bothered by Jehovah’s Witnesses. They have something they want to talk to people about and they go out and do it. They always travel in pairs to be safer, they’re generally more scared of you than you are of them. I have a kind of respect for anyone who can regularly knock on the doors of strangers, an activity which would terrify me utterly.

            1. Rockbird says:

              They do have pamphlets with really freaky pictures in them, though.

              :)

    4. Alex the Elder says:

      In religion, as in government and business, it’s the jerks who have the force of will and personality to take charge.

      1. Dys says:

        And yet in theory their small numbers should give them little heft in a democratic society. In fact you could view the democratic process as a jerk-filter, which prevents power concentrating around the vocal minorities. In theory. It does require an informed and engaged citizenry though.

  32. Jeremiah says:

    “I've been to some for weddings and funerals”

    I first read this as a clever reference to “Four weddings and a Funeral.”

  33. Cerapa says:

    This is a very interesting read for me. I have never had much contact with religious stuff.

    I live in Estonia. Which is quite frankly NOT religious, in any shape or form. After looking it up on Wikipedia to get more information, apparently it is the least religious country in the European Union, at least in 2005.(cant say im too suprised) I assume its because the crusades and the related stuff are a really, really, really big part of Estonian history.

    Anyway, I basically had no contact with religious people until I had ready access to the intrawebs and its many inhabitants. It was always a thing that existed somewhere and used belief. This threw it into the exact same pile as Santa.

    I never really believed in Santa. All the beards were obviously fake and you got the presents you told your parents you wanted. Religion and god being in the same pile meant they got thrown out of the window too.

    What I did believe about religion, was that it built all these really nice churches. This lead to me thinking that Religion was a good motivator, but childish in itself.

    I still pretty much treat it the same.

    I am really interested in what actually lead to you believing in a god?

    1. adam says:

      I know you didn’t ask me, but I believe in God because it makes sense to me. It makes sense to me that out of all the trillions of years in all of the trillions of universes that have existed for an infinity of time, open or closed, flat or round, there would be a race of beings that evolved to control the destiny of not only themselves, but of creation itself–a race of beings that can create and seed new worlds, galaxies, universes with new life (including beings like themselves), a race of Gods that have an understanding of physics and science so profound and technology so advanced that, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, it appears to be magic. Why can’t this be possible? Why shouldn’t it be?

      If we can believe that we humans, with all our amazing science and architecture and philosophy and creations and technology, evolved from lifeless primordial soup in a few billion years, why can’t we, given ten billion more, evolve into something resembling God? Why can’t God be a member of a benevolent, technologically advanced race of humans highly evolved far beyond anything we can currently understand? Why can’t He, given His own and His people’s path to technological and moral and scientific perfection, prescribe to us, His children of His own craftsmanship, a method of reaching that same perfection?

      Atheists insist on asking “Why would God exist?” I feel like I’d be foolish to imagine He can’t.

      1. Aldowyn says:

        Well that’s … unusual. So God EVOLVED? That seems rather… far-fetched, to tell you the truth.

        If God can evolve, then why would someone need to have created us?

        1. adam says:

          Well at the risk of making this argument about semantics and breaking it down too much, what I’m trying to express is something that we don’t quite understand. When we say God is eternal, perhaps what we mean is that GodHOOD, once attained, is eternal. Or perhaps when we say eternal, we’re referring to only our universe–God gave birth to our universe. That doesn’t mean He didn’t have a beginning in another universe. When we talk about eternity, we’re talking about time as we understand it. I’m sure God’s understanding of time is quite different. We have to put things in terms we understand, otherwise it’s just mystic nonsense, to be rejected by the logical and the rational.

          As far as how God got His “start,” again, that goes back to our understanding of time. It’s possible that you’ve always existed and will always exist as well, just not necessarily in your current form. That would make you eternal. I’m not claiming this is the case, just a thought.

          To address why we would need to be created, this is like asking “If humans evolve, why should we need to procreate?”

          I really don’t think it’s unusual at all. God isn’t magical or supernatural. He’s a man, but a perfected man. Ideal. And what more inspiring idea than that we can reach such a state ourselves?

      2. krellen says:

        One of Isaac Asimov’s best stories is one wherein he invents God. The ultimate computer is asked to reverse entropy. Long after the heat-death of the universe, it succeeds. The story ends classically: LET THERE BE LIGHT.

        1. kikito says:

          That story is The Last Question. It’s one of my favourites, and one of the reasons why Asimov is my favourite writer.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            Yep. Big fan of Asimov, too.

            Nightfall is interesting, too. What would the night do to you if you had never seen nor even heard of it before?

      3. Cerapa says:

        I dont call that god. Gods definition for me is: Ultimate creator. First thing that exists.

        That, I call a good goal. The eventuality of progress and life.

        1. adam says:

          Totally fine. I just think that God, having created us “in His own image” would allow us the opportunity to not only live in His presence, but become like Him. Why would we have to be second class citizens forever? In which case, logically, we’d have our own children we’d create “in our image.” Which would make us Gods. And so on.

    2. Cuthalion says:

      If you were asking Shamus specifically, then you didn’t ask me, but oh well. :P

      I believe in God because it makes more sense to me than no God. Specifically, I believe in the Christian idea of God because he makes more sense to me (and the ideas and source text of Christianity make more sense to me) than any other I’ve yet encountered. I think belief in Jesus is the most rational I’m aware of.

      While rationality is the foundation, there are less reliable (I assume) reinforcements I’ve encountered in my experience, the experience of friends and acquaintances, etc. While I would be hesitant to believe merely because of anecdotal evidence, it does confirm it for me.

      (I don’t mean “rational” in the sense of “scientific” — testable, disprovable. I mean it in the sense of “logically consistent, both internally and as it relates to everything else”.)

    3. Bret says:

      Well, if we’re going open mic night here, might as well join in.

      The bit that sticks with me more than any other argument?

      Lewis’s bit on Christ. That there were three options, from what the man said.

      1) Maniac, on par with someone who claimed to be a poached egg. He grows up in a monotheistic culture, where the gulf between God and man is nigh-infinite, and goes “Oh. That sounds like me. Only I’m his son. Somehow.”

      Not technically impossible. But it requires throwing everything about human nature right out, since nobody (but NOBODY) called him a madman after talking. And not many say it since. Guy was more on the ball than anyone else around.

      2) Something worse. Pathological liar, long term schemer, or something unspeakable. This one hits a problem at the Cross. He didn’t take a word back. No con is worth that. Demon doesn’t hit that hurdle, but that requires the supernatural, and doesn’t slide in easy with how the man acted.

      3) He was who he says he was, as fundamentally impossible as that may seem, as much as it might blow a belief structure to bits. Now, this one that fits the evidence best, awkward as it may be. He pulled miracles(seeming, maybe, but they convinced his enemies as much as his buddies, so that’s a heck of a con). His followers went from cowardly nobodies to the sort willingly heading to death, a revolution that inspired Rome to religious persecution (New hobby for them, if you look at the history. Fascinating stuff).

      Now, there’s some other angles people go for. Didn’t exist (which don’t jibe with as much historical evidence as we have for most things wider accepted) I have some sympathy for. Sometimes things happen, fake people come into play.

      But if anyone pulls the great moral teacher bull, that I don’t have time for. Just saying it would be nice if everyone was nice, paid taxes proper, and helped widows and orphans isn’t the sort of thing that gets you executed, even in those days. And the estimated dates for the gospels doesn’t allow as much historical cruft as you’d need to completely bury the story (And nobody would want to, not with that style. It’s just a heresy that gets you killed for nothing. Proper story if you were telling it then would involve more stomping Romans and less hanging out with tax collectors). Everyone who goes looking for the “Real” Jesus either gives up or just starts arbitrarily assuming their own prejudices are true.

      Man could be a madman.

      Could have been a monster.

      Or, as seems at times terrifyingly likely, he could have been on the level.

      There aren’t other options. He didn’t leave them.

      1. Cerapa says:

        Who is Lewis?

        All in all, I found this reply very confusing.

        1. Eärlindor says:

          I think he’s referring to CS Lewis?

      2. krellen says:

        A lot of people called him a madman.

        1. krellen says:

          Just to add a bit: Pilate’s defence of Jesus to the crowd was essentially “he’s just a harmless madman, why do you want him dead?”

      3. Alan De Smet says:

        Jesus as delusional holds up just fine. There is no reason that someone with a major delusion can’t be charismatic. It’s the same route as a con-man, but with the benefit of having no potential discovery of the lie. Add in an era with weaker logical reasoning and it’s entirely possible. In this day and age Marshall Applewhite managed to convince 38 people to join him in suicide to meet up with space aliens. Why couldn’t Jesus have convinced a more theologically and scientifically primitive people with a far better message?

        Jesus as con-man works, but is a touch odd. Option one is the con-man who starts believing his own lies (which is really the delusional route). Option two is “I have no possible way out of this, so I might as well play it straight.”

        There is at least one other option, possibly blended to the others: an inaccurate history. We can validate some details of the time, but not everything, and darn near nothing about Jesus’s life specifically. All we have are a handful of gospels, all written after the fact. We face human memory, which is notoriously poor. Eyewitness accounts of events mere months earlier are unreliable in court cases, why would men writing years later be better at it? Mark and Luke’s books are second-hand accounts. The events of Jesus’s birth had to be second-hand. Given all of this, there are plentiful opportunities for error. Mundane events could be misinterpreted as miracles. Parables could be misinterpreted as facts. It’s even possible that intentional falsehoods were inserted for some purpose.

      4. kikito says:

        Couldn’t he just be an invention?

  34. Skyy_High says:

    I have to say, if you lose any of your readers because they are offended or enraged by anything in this blog post, you’re better off without them. There’s nothing here for even a staunch atheist to rationally demean.

    1. DaveMc says:

      Right on.

  35. mac says:

    I’m an atheist, I don’t care* what people believe as long as they’re nice about it (and not in a douchy, “But I know I’m better than you” way), and I’m really enjoying this series. Thanks. :)

    Just thought I’d chime in

    Oh, to the posters discussing Mormons and JWs in Europe, Mormons are, for whatever reason, quite common in Ireland. There’s one more data point :p

    *Not exactly true. I do “care”, in the “curiosity” sense of the word, but not in the “concern”/”alarm”/”think of the childerun!” sense.

    1. kmc says:

      Really? Huh. You learn something new every day. (About the Mormons in Ireland.) *Heads to Wikipedia…*

      1. mac says:

        Yep, you see them fairly often, going door to door. It’s a little funny seeing pairs of fresh faced boys in suits with ‘Elder’ on their badges.

        Huh. I checked the 2006 census and it shows ~1200 in the south (Wiki says they claim 5000 in the north, but I’ve never seen them evangelising). In that case, they’re not so common (1200 is ~0.3% of the south) but they’re really visible…

    2. Ingvar M says:

      I know there’s more than one Mormon church in Stockholm and I distinctly recalling seeing “Elder $Surname” signs on quite a few missionaries. Not necessarily on a daily basis, but at least a couple of times a week.

      1. Brett says:

        My father was a Mormon missionary in Norway in the 70s. Apparently the Norwegian word for “Elder” is also a reasonably common male first name. So all the people that he stopped to talk to asked why all of the Mormon missionaries had the same name. They thought it was some weird cult thing.

  36. Vect says:

    I’m a believer of letting people believe what they want as long as they keep it to themselves. That or as long as it doesn’t involve animal/human sacrifices to gain favor with the ruinous powers or what have you. I also believe in higher powers that humans aren’t likely to fully comprehend, benevolent or otherwise.

    Me, I’m a Roman-Catholic, albeit not a particularly devout one. I ended up as one because my mother was one and she’s the only one of her family who has a particular faith.

  37. TightByte says:

    I’m only going to say that I’m writing this with equal parts curiosity and trepidation, because after having read Shamus’ post and some replies to it, I’ve decided to forgo the disclaimer based on points of view expressed above: It should be possible to state an opinion without first having to offer disclaimers. But I’m curious as to whether what I write will remain for very long. :-)

    What I will say is that, being an atheist myself (as were several others who have posted comments), I’m often disappointed to see how certain zealous atheists (just like the zealous representatives of whichever religion they may be in the process of denouncing at the time) fail to “sell” atheism. Mind you, I’m absolutely not saying that anyone _should_ try to sell it, but many atheists frequently seem wont to try and force their opinion on others — again, just as would the very same religious types who most infuriate them — without providing a very compelling reason why anybody ought to allow themselves to be convinced.

    At the other end of the spectrum, I’m always a little bit disheartened when I hear about someone — and I explicitly, specifically do _not_ mean Shamus in this case — who have come to their choice of religion through a process of escaping some hardship. As an example, I believe that Alcoholics Anonymous do a very important job, but I wish they were able to do it without the tie-in with religion, or, as I believe they call it, “a higher power”.

    I wish I could do justice to this quote, but I only half-remember it: Richard Dawkins, in a television programme, say something along these lines: “Some people look around them and say, ‘There are more things in heaven and earth’, but I look around and see the wonder of life, the unfathomable miracle and intricacy of evolution, the almost endless complexity and variation that is everywhere around us, and I ask, ‘What more do you need?'”

    To sum up; I wish that such spiritual ballast as a sense of community, a healthy dollop of tolerance, ethics and morals, compassion, modesty, appreciation, respect, … and other such words I could add to make the list even more superfluous … were not so commonly claimed as being the province of (certain) religion(s). I wish that all those things were entirely commonplace and not contingent on being the padding of some faith’s teachings, because then, people might arrive at their chosen perspective from personal choice more so than from personal need, and if nothing else, there’d be far less need for anyone to articulate what they believe or to care about what anyone else might believe.

  38. Josh says:

    The one thing that struck me about this is that you made such a monumental (and, it sounds like, life-long) decision at age ten. When I was ten, I believed all kinds of dumb things, and I’m glad that I didn’t latch on to any of them that I wasn’t willing to question later. :^) I’ll be curious to hear in later chapters if you questioned and reaffirmed your youthful faith, or just stuck with it because it was comfortable and familiar (and there’s not necessarily anything wrong with that), or what.

    Thanks for posting this stuff, btw.

    1. Ingvar M says:

      At age ten, I had acquired (and lost) Christianity and flirted with a couple of other faith frameworks, but was wavering mostly between “atheist” and “agnostic”.

      1. Michael says:

        Similar story with me, as well. From the time I was able to understand what religion was I had struggled with it.

        Catholocism, pantheism, Wicca… if you can name it, chances are I’ve tried to see the world through that lens.

        It wasn’t until my junior year in high school that I had made a decision – nothing. I had decided to believe in exactly nothing.

        While the principles of many religions speak to me (Buddhism was a big one, Zen particularly) I could never bring myself to actually believe.

    2. Retsam says:

      Speaking as someone else who became a Christian at a young age (though in my case, it was more like 5), I’ll say that being an active Christian is, at least in my experience, anything but comfortable, in most cases.
      So, not to necessarily try to answer for Shamus, but I’d say the fact that he still calls himself a Christian today means that he has questioned and reaffirmed his faith. It’s not something that happens once or twice in your lifetime, but on an almost daily basis.

      I grew up in the 90s, and perhaps the attitude and culture was different back when Shamus grew up, but from his description of the reception that his mother received, I’m guessing it wasn’t particularly different.

  39. Daimbert says:

    I’m technically a non-ritualistic Catholic, meaning that I believe in God but don’t think that the specific rituals and doctrines are all that important as long as one tries to live as Jesus asks. Growing up in a Polish community, religion was taken pretty seriously and was mostly Catholic, which has left me with a preference for the “High” churches you talk about, but I have no issues with other forms. All of this as well as my philosphical background has left me a very odd theist. And yet, for the most part, few people — even those who read my blog and my discussions of religion and theism — would have any idea that I’m religious, let alone what religion I have. Mostly, this is because it doesn’t come up, like it doesn’t come up on this blog much. But there is a part where I feel that I shouldn’t talk about my religion as it might cause problems. I wish that more of the time it would just be not relevant as opposed to not encouraged.

  40. Mincecraft says:

    It’s okay Shamus, This didn’t actually strike me as preachy in any way.

    The only thing I’m worried about is that as a 10 year old you let a stranger in your house, Bit dodgey wouldn’t you say?

  41. James says:

    Shamus, just wondering, how would you describe yourself religiously nowadays?

    1. Shamus says:

      Devout, non-denominational Christian? An “internet” Christian? (Because our fellow like-minded believers are people we only know from the internet.)

      1. Chairmaster Frog says:

        Would you say that you’re non-denominational, non-institutional, then? I’m curious as to whether you’ve had any experience with a non-denominational, non-institutional Church of Christ.

        1. ccesarano says:

          I’ve always answered this question with “I follow the Bible”.

          1. Dirk Has Plans says:

            An even more accurate answer would be “I follow parts of the bible.”

            1. Chairmaster Frog says:

              The most accurate answer is “I follow the New Testament.”

              As a further point, shouldn’t we all just call ourselves Christians? I don’t mean this is the Universalist way (that everyone will be saved and that all forms of religion are just separate people’s ways of worshiping God) I mean this as shouldn’t people who call themselves Christians look at the New Testament, discern it, study it, and not only do what it says but actually believe it to be the right way to do it? As Christians, shouldn’t we follow the New Testament, not because we fear hell, but because we love the Lord and Christ? As Christians shouldn’t we love and respect people, always putting them before us, being content with what’s given to us? As Christians, shouldn’t we only hate sin? Shouldn’t we want to tell everyone about the Lord and the chance of freedom from sin while not forcing it on anyone, rather letting them decide on their own?

              Can I stop asking rhetorical questions?

              1. BenD says:

                But… isn’t the gap between Christian denominations often made of disagreements about author intent or meaning in regards to numerous passages of the New Testament, and/or varying viewpoints of the apostles? Am I missing something? I am not Christian so I might be missing something. But my thinking would be that you’d still have those arguments.

                1. Chairmaster Frog says:

                  When it comes down to it, there are relatively few big arguments when you don’t try to cut the Bible fit into what other stuff you want to do. When you make what you want to do the Bible, then the big arguments deal with musical instruments in worship and such things as kitchens, recreation centers, and the like that are used to “draw in” people. I know someone will bring up a few more things that are argued over, but I’m just bringing up basic arguments among those people who call themselves non-denominational Christians. And these are divided into institutional and non-institutional, usually.

                  Man, I am terrible at explaining something so it’s not confusing.

                  When it comes to author intent… well, when we assume that something is written by people inspired by a Supreme Being, it would be foolish to assume the Supreme Being isn’t consistent.
                  Example: There was a priest in Kalenberg that, when he read through James’ epistle, he tore it out of his Bible and threw it into a stove (Martin Luther makes a reference to this in The Licentiate Examination Of Heinrich Schmedenstede, July 7 1542) because it didn’t make sense with what he believed. He thought that if it didn’t make sense with what he had drawn from other parts of the New Testament that it didn’t actually belong in the Bible. The thing is that what James teaches is taught here and there throughout the gospel accounts and epistles, making it consistent with the rest of the New Testament. It was the priest’s ideas that didn’t agree with the rest of the New Testament, and he didn’t want to admit it.

              2. Dirk has Answers says:

                That’s all well and good, but it might be psychologically unrealistic to expect all that of people — especially women.

    2. Patrick the Heretic says:

      Based on the number of responses to this and other like posts, the amount of regular followers and overall feel of this online blog…. I would classify Shamus’ religion as ‘Cult Leader to a frigthening contingent of dangerously intelligent internet nerds’.

      And I mean that in the best possible way.

      1. DanMan says:

        He knows! He must be sacrificed to the technology god that is Shamus

        1. ccesarano says:

          I think you meant “sacrificed to SHODAN”

      2. Michael says:

        Cult leader? Sure, let’s add it to the résumé.

        “Mmm, yes, this is a very impressive résumé, Mr. Young. It says here you’re a USA Shogun and you’ve started a prosperous religious movement.

        My, and you’re an experienced programmer!”

      3. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

        I thought we were a pack or murder or something? There was a post a while back where the comment thread discussed it.
        And I’d hardly call us dangerous. Maybe Josh or Rutskarn, but they’re too busy shooting random computerized people to do anything dangerous in the real world.

        1. Avpix says:

          If Spoiler Warning ever ends, we’re all doomed.

      4. Kian says:

        I don’t mean to focus too much on what is meant as a joke, but still. A Cult Leader would describe someone whose word is unchallenged and leads a group with a unified belief.

        Reading through the comments, it’s clear that people enjoy the blog not because Shamus tells them what to think, but because it provides a space where ideas can be discussed without the annoyance of trolls and extremists souring the discussion. That would be the exact opposite environment that a cult leader would want to create.

        Rather, his role would be better characterized as a ‘moderator’, I think.

        1. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

          Yeah. We definitely have a lot of viewpoints around here, and Shamus lets us express them. I don’t even know if people come trolling around, because he blasts those comments. There’s a great environment to discuss things at this site.

        2. Terran says:

          Shouldn’t that be: “The Great Moderator” ?

          Shamus; you need an impressive hat!

          1. Mom says:

            If we can find one big enough.

  42. Rayen says:

    I’ve never been one for church. If it flosts your boat whatever but you won’t find me there. I’ve never railed against christianity or islam or anything really. faith in my opinion is a very fluid thing. one that will change and reform throughout your life. chirstianity and religion and general are good things to have, they provide stability and direction.

    At times though i do have a problem with church. It seems to me a outdated and defunct tradition. In the early days christians gathered because they were persecuted by the romans and chirstian writings were rare so everyone had to read from the same book. Later when the majority of christians poor peasant farmers they went to church because bibles were still rare and even if they had one they were illiterate and could not read it themselves.

    However both of those problems have been solved. Everyone (generalizing here) can read, and the bible is the most produced book in the world. These fire and brimstone preachers seem more interested in keeping there congregations coming through fear (so they can keep getting a paycheck) insead of teaching them of the great and good. this in my opinion often leads to bad things. things that in the past lead to the crusades and that now leads to well… some “interesting” people and ideas.

    for the record i hover somewhere between mahayana buhhdism and my own brew of chirstianity. although the belief-o-matic says i’m a neopagan druid… thats more of a class though really.

    http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Quizzes/BeliefOMatic.aspx
    cause it’s fun sometimes.

    1. krellen says:

      One of the central tenets of Islam is the community – the Salat (the daily prayers) are specifically designed to give a Muslim a connection to the community of Islam even when physically disconnected from the community. You cannot divorce the community from the religion.

      While it’s not a central tenet of Christianity, this is also still a very important part of many Christian ministries. There is a fundamental need for community inherent in humanity, and the church helps fulfil that need for many people. It’s hardly outdated.

    2. Retsam says:

      Your understanding of the early church is somewhat flawed. Yes, part of the reason for meeting together was persecution, and part of it may even have been a shortage of scripture (though I’m a little skeptical on that one), but that was never the primary purpose. While Christianity is certainly an individual decision, it was never meant to be something to be done alone.
      -As was quoted above, Hebrews 10:25 states “not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.”
      -Acts 2 describes the early church, even before serious Roman persecution got underway:

      They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts

      -Jesus himself established the rite of communion, saying “Do this in remembrance of me”.

      Honestly, I think the idea that Christianity could be something that you just keep quietly to yourself, or do alone would have been found laughably ridiculous. Early Christians didn’t meet together because of persecution, they met together despite persecution, because meeting together was important enough to risk their lives for.

    3. Rayen says:

      @krellan @retsam to clarify, and i debated whether i should mention it in my OP or not; I don’t have a problem with church in the communal sense. People coming together to meet and socialize isn’t something that will at anytime be outdated, church covenings included. I feel church is outdated in the sense that you need to sit in a hall and listen to some guy drone for hour, sing some godawful music, and then ask god forgiveness in front of everyone to prove that you do.

      In my perfect world we wouldn’t go to church because we’re supposed to or becasue we want everyone to know that we’re christians, we would go because we generally want to and it would be a place to learn independently or in groups with a free exchange of ideas. in my opinion a teacher is far superior to a preacher.

      1. X2-Eliah says:

        we wouldn't go to church because we're supposed to or becasue we want everyone to know that we're christians,

        Well, that’s really an issue with the people, not the church itself..

        1. Aldowyn says:

          The churches that I go to solve this problem pretty handily by having classes for the adults, usually in between services (early and late), as well as having small groups that are often basically like bible reading clubs.

          My grandfather is actually the teacher of the international class at a pretty prestigious church (it’s right next to Oklahoma Christian), so I kind of know how that works. (Hmm. It would be so easy to cyber-stalk me with that… *shrug*)

  43. ccesarano says:

    Late in the year a guy knocks on the door. I'm the only one home. We live in a bad neighborhood. It's nighttime. I have no idea who he is. He's a grown man. I'm a little kid. Both rules and reason say that I should give him the shove, but I let him in. He reads me a few versus from the Bible. John 3:16, and a bit of Romans. He talks about God, tells me about Jesus.

    This stands out to me. Given what we know of you from the past several years recounting of your own life, this seems incredibly out of character for you. I feel like there should be more said here, but it is possible you don’t remember why you let him in.

    It’s actually comforting to know you’ve had the background that you have. I’ve gone to a variety of Churches myself, and most of the time when I hear testimonials to belief, it ends up being “Well, I always went to Church, but never really believed, y’know?” I think the only Christian I’ve ever known that started out Atheist or something was the pastor of my first Church. He was also a very intelligent man, and his sermons were a lot like College lectures. He had a thesis, and his sermon went point by point explaining it.

    Unfortunately, this is rough when you’re a kid, and most people prefer the more charismatic Churches. It wasn’t until I was older that I was able appreciate his methods, and because of his background it always encouraged me.

    Still, I was never sure what to believe until I was 18, and even then it took me until I was 20 to understand that Christianity was, to me, the proper faith. But I find value in my doubt, too. Every once in a while I question myself and my reasoning, and others have said this is dangerous. But I like learning about other religions, and more about my own, because it has actually given me more cause to believe in Christ as the years have progressed.

    It’s just frustrating to find so many Churches that want to encourage the emotional comfort of God, and warning of the “dangers of intellectualism”. I understand that faith is belief in something no matter how unbelievable, but it makes it tough to find a proper Bible Study to try and sit down and understand God.

    1. Cessarino, I think it depends a lot on the church you attend and the people you hang out with.

      I came from a very different background from the one I am now in (grew up severe Roman Catholic with emphasis on guilt and being in church on Sunday instead of salvation), ended up in the Southern Baptist church thanks to Shamus and then we have moved through a few denominations and finally to here where we are now which I should probably write about on my own site instead of here. Due to those experiences as well as the fact that we do for the most part fellowship via internet we have met quite a few “saved by grace” sorts who have incredible testimonies and are not of the “grew up in church” club. In fact, thinking over my friends even those who “grew up in church” have moved to where God has lead– no sitting on your laurels types.

      As Shamus said, we are “internet” Christians. There are no locals that we can find and Know of that share our current understanding of the Bible and belief set but we have developed a fairly diverse and interesting set of online like-minded, intellectual Christians– people who are willing to sit down and READ the Bible, research its roots and pray together and figure out what it REALLY means not just what some book in the Christian book store SAYS it should mean. So when you imply “intellectual” Christian, you might say that is what we are. :)

      1. ccesarano says:

        I might have to join whatever you guys are doing then, because that sounds awesome.

        1. Eärlindor says:

          I also am very much interested.

      2. Falcon says:

        You mean starting and leading a weekly small group bible study at my church to do just thus was unnescisary? I could have done the same online? Man that was a lot of time and effort wasted ;)

        Kidding kidding, but seriously Heather (or Shamus) I’d be interested in hearing more about this Internet church.

  44. TSHolden says:

    But these three points form a plane, and by moving around on that plane I can view Christianity from a lot of different angles and extrapolate a lot of other kinds of churches.

    THIS. If you want people to get a feel for something as big as Christianity, you need to give them multiple points of reference. No religion is a single point or even a single line, they all come in mulch-dimensional forms.

    If you really want your children/friends to think about faith, take them to several places, at least once. Let them see (for themselves) what is out there, so they can use their own brains to start figuring things out.

  45. Kevin says:

    Thanks for sharing this Shamus. I’ve been looking forward to hearing how you became a Christian, as I am one myself. Although I often try to keep it to myself out of fear about how people will react.

    I became a Christian when I was 15, and have now been one for longer than I have not. I wish that everyones experiences with churches could be like mine. My church is more like the fire hall church you attended in it’s culture, but for me it’s about the people. I have never been told that I have to do something or have to stop doing something, and have always felt loved. It makes all the difference having supportive people around you as you grow and explore your faith.

    Thanks again Shamus, for everything you have been sharing in this series.

  46. anna says:

    Based on this background, and with the foreknowledge that you eventually moved away from ‘corporate church’ culture, I’d be interested to know your thoughts on the Unitarian Universalist church. Have you ever been to one, by chance? It remains the only place I’ve seen Christians, Pagans, and Heathens talking openly about religion together without (metaphorical) swords between them.

    (Although, notably, I hear that UU churches vary a lot in their overall atmosphere and culture, even though they are nominally part of one organization)

    1. PAK says:

      FWIW, I’m a practicing UU and my home congregation fits well with your description. (We’re in a small agricultural community in Southern California.)Of course, we do end up arguing sometimes, mostly because we all love debate–but it’s never in bad faith, and everyone goes home happy at the end of coffee hour.

      That’s not to say we’re in any way impervious to the internal tensions that arise in churches. We very nearly lost our minister due to a vocal minority nastily badmouthing her behind her back (mostly people who weren’t actively attending at the time)…but interestingly, when the board called for a vote of confidence from the membership we found 92% fit. And this is with Pantheists, Deists, Atheists, Agnostics, Pagans, a couple of Bhuddists and a Sufi almost all loving one leader with open minded but professedly theistic tendencies somewhat informed by her love of Hinduism.

      The positive power of tolerant community! Gotta love it.

      1. anna says:

        Yes, that sounds pretty excellent. What I am actually thinking of in terms of potential UU intolerance is in the form of stories I’ve heard about less than welcoming receptions that some trans women have received at some UU churches. Likely this is just isolated congregations who happen to be less accepting than the majority of UU groups, though, because I’ve gone to a couple different UU churches here in NC and they have never been anything other than warm and friendly.

        1. PAK says:

          Yeah, that’s pretty disheartening. One of my very best friends was raised in my congregation (I only checked it out and joined about six years ago) and she fell away for various reasons, one of which was what she perceived as hypocrisy in the larger UU movement in terms of LGBT tolerance. She’d heard some similar stories as what you put forward.

          As it happens, our congregation is rated by the UUA as a “welcoming” congregation–we strive to be especially inclusive of LGBT persons and have several homo- and bi-sexual members (not as “controversial,” I realize, as a transexual person).I persist in the hope that such stories of gender intolerance don’t represent the majority of my fellows, which my friend was unable to do. I think in this regard I’m helped by the fact that the church was something I discovered on my own after already carrying around a lot of pessimism about what I thought church could be; unfortunately my friend had her illusions shattered, as someone who spent most of her life with an idealized view of what this church was.

          As ever, the work goes on! Hopefully those women eventually found the community they were seeking.

  47. hardband says:

    It’s a shame you’d ever have to put the warning at the begging, but that is how some people get when any sign of religion is made, which is sad considering there is nothing wrong with a discussion of beliefs and the like, except for the fact that people can’t comprehend others not agreeing with them. Oh well, thanks for sharing this as always!

    1. Aldowyn says:

      Cynical Shamus is Cynical. He doesn’t believe that he’s worthy enough and lucky enough to have attracted such an awesome fanbase as he has, thus he believes that he needs to do that to warn us of internet-type-people.

      Excuse me for putting thoughts in his head :P

  48. Reet says:

    Yeah, I don’t mind religion in general all that much. I mean, sure it causes a lot of conflict but it can be a force for good too. It’s not really for me mainly because I’m far too lazy to spend time practising it. These games aren’t gonna play themselves after all.

  49. Newbie says:

    I'm able to separate Christian ideas (which I embrace) from Christian culture (which I will soon grow to despise).

    This, this is the way it should be.

  50. Jarenth says:

    Shamus, I understand why you usually block religious and political discussion here, but I can’t pretend I’m even a little surprised that this post has spawned several hundred comments worth of polite debate and anecdote.

    I’m really curious how many angry comments you had to block, but I hope you’ll never tell me.

    1. krellen says:

      At least one that got through his automatic filter that has since been removed. I saw it, and understand why it was removed – discussion following that line would lead no where productive.

      1. Retsam says:

        I saw one, too, though it may have been the same one.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          The fact that you can’t see really any bad ones probably means that there aren’t that many – Shamus does have limited time, after all.

  51. PAK says:

    Shamus, all of these autoblography posts have been great, but this one in particular is so important. That an American, on the internet, could spark so much civil, positive dialogue about the core questions of ultimate reality and what motivates the human condition–what a spiritually progressive act! It almost makes me believe the world has real hope for moving forward. Even those of us that do not share your specific theology can me inspired by your story of how your need for meaning shaped your personality and gave you some of the tools to end the Dark Year. THIS is what the sharing of religious beliefs should be about.

  52. LadyTL says:

    Honestly Shamus, if more Christians had been like you I might have stayed Christian. I grew up Methodist and had exposure to the Catholic Church in high school but I could never get over the disconnect between what the bible said and how the Christians around me acted particularly my own parents. I still get nagged at by my father to come to at least Christmas service when I told him 5 years ago that I am not christian anymore. I do not want to spend several hours beign bored out of my mind with a bunch of people I do not know just to make it appear he has the perfect family for a night. I do confuse people though when I try to explain what I am. I am an omniquantist agnostic with paganistic leanings. It is funny though to see which word people choose first to admit they don’t understand. I could just say I am agnostic but I don’t feel completely agnostic so what do to.

    1. X2-Eliah says:

      Hm, what’s the ‘omniquantist’ meaning there? Kind of certain about the other two, but this.. belief in being no more than one / possibly one or more deities? Omni-quanta.. ‘one of many’? or ‘one amount’?

      1. LadyTL says:

        It’s a belief that on the quantum level all religions are right we just perceive that as different things. I first saw it in the webcomic Freefall and thought it made perfect sense. http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.htm This is mostly due to alot of the religions having alot of the same core beliefs.

        1. Peter H. Coffin says:

          Related to that the non-religious would be a lot more comfortable around the religious if the religious were actually better at following their own principles. It’s the failures that cause everyone the problems.

  53. McNutcase says:

    Thank you for being willing to put this information about yourself on the internet. It’s never easy to talk about religion in an environment like the web, where people have so much opportunity to be nasty without consequences.

    I’m glad your religious beliefs have helped you live a good life.

  54. Joe Cool says:

    Thank you for that post, Shamus. I’m always interested in what led people to their faith. As a cradle Catholic, I can never completely shake the feeling that I believe what I believe just because my parents taught me to, no matter how much I study and come to agree with the teachings and truths of the Church. I always find it interesting to read about how other people believe much of the same things that I believe for similar reasons that I believe them, even though their backgrounds are completely different.

    Also, a great big shout-out to your followers. Most of the recent discussions on religion that I’ve seen on the internet have been nothing but hate and bile. When I clicked through my RSS feed to read the comments on the article, I was thinking to myself “isn’t life too short to read internet discussions of religion?” but I’m glad I did. You have over 200 comments of respectful and informative discussion.

  55. Megabyte says:

    I had gone to different denominations as a child and had ultimately stopped attending when I couldn’t reconcile the differences in their presentations of Christianity. I had not considered that there is a sizable difference between Cristian IDEAS and Christian CULTURE. It was the ideas that had kept me interested and the differences in culture which I couldn’t understand. Thank you, Shamus. You have given me a lot to think about.

  56. Vladius says:

    I’m a Mormon. (TM)

  57. Daemian Lucifer says:

    I dont want to debate religion here,for numerous reasons.I will only comment on this sentence:

    “She's decided to not talk about religion with my brother and I, and instead allow her sons to, “Find the truth on their own.””

    Thats how I think every parent hould approach the issue.One thing that truly disgusts me is when people brainwash children into believing what they believe before they are old enough to understand any of it,no matter if its religion,politics,or something else.

    I am really grateful to my parents that they neither forced me to have their believes,nor let other family members implant theirs.Though my country is more loose when it comes to religion,politics is a major drive here,and Im glad Ive managed to stay out of it.

    1. toasty says:

      Thought: Children are designed to be indoctrinated, frankly. That’s how their brains work. My mom is fond of saying, “someone is gonna influence my children, so it had better be me!” I think there is nothing wrong with parents passing on their beliefs, and even holding Children accountable to their rules as long as they live under their roof (that last one is perhaps just something I hold, its not something that is set in stone, I’d say). Because, the truth is, if my parents didn’t imprint their religious beliefs on me, someone else would have. Personally, when I have kids, I’m going to teach them what I belief and they are going to Church, no questions asked. THat doesn’t mean that at some point I will stop “making” them go to Church, (probably when they hit their teens) but it does mean I will be imprinting my beliefs on them. Because if I don’t, someone else will.

      1. Brett says:

        I agree. Refusing to teach your children about your religion because they “need to find out for their own” is like refusing to teach your children the times table because they’ll understand it better if they discover it themselves. Well, maybe, but if you’ve got some hard-won knowledge of things that you could impart to your kids and make things a little easier for them, then why wouldn’t you share it with them?

        1. Dys says:

          Sorry, I hate to bring this in here, but I cannot let it lie.
          Times tables are not a matter of opinion. Mathematics is a body of hard won knowledge constructed at great expense in time and effort by many people over many years. It is, bluntly, not a matter of argument.

          Teaching your children indisputably true things is not analogous to teaching them your religion.

          I don’t disagree with teaching a child religious beliefs, for the reasons raised above, children learn things. I do feel uncomfortable with the idea of a child being told not to think about those beliefs, but that’s a more specific concern.

          1. Joe Cool says:

            I think the problem here is many people don’t think I know what I think I know, and they don’t think I should teach it because they don’t think I know it, but that begs the question that I agree that I don’t think I know it, which I think I do, so I think I should teach it. You know?

            In English: so I shouldn’t teach my children things I know to be true because other people don’t think they’re true? What if I think my beliefs are just as true as the times tables? Someone else may hold them to be just opinion, and I understand that my beliefs are not as easily seen, but just because a truth is harder to see and understand doesn’t make it less true. Why should I not pass on what I know to be true, just because others don’t think it’s true?

            I’m reminded of a certain atheist who converted to Christianity, and upon conversion was angered that no one had taught him the truths of the Christian faith when he was young. He said that after 40 years of inquiry and searching for the truth, he arrived at what the Church has known for 2000 years. It was unfair, he thought, that he should have spent so much time and effort to deduce what Christians have known for millennia when someone could have just taught and explained it to him as a child.

            To paraphrase, “Christianity is a body of hard won knowledge constructed at great expense in time and effort by many people over many years.” (Well, it’s more than just knowledge, but you get the idea.)

            Also, please don’t read a harsh tone into my words. I’m trying to say this as lightheartedly as possible. I mean no disrespect.

            1. Nick says:

              There’s a difference between teaching something as a matter of opinion and teaching it as absolute truth. Mathematics is an abstraction and thus had that kind of absolute truth, within it’s own predefined rules.

              So you are both partially correct IMHO – religion should be taught, but it needs to be taught with a reasonable range of possibilities. Doing it too young, when children just accept what they are told, is basically brainwashing them into that religion if not done very carefully and is why people feel a bit uneasy about it

      2. Daemian Lucifer says:

        So that means I should imprint my knowledge of differential equations onto a 4 year old just because if I dont,someone else might imprint them with shakespeareian poems,neither of which an average 4 year old can grasp.

        I just wont go further into this,because Im very jaded about this topic and its better for me to shut up.

      3. … or you could explain that many people have different or no religious beliefs? Pah, similar Daemian I’m going to shut up now because I have very negative experiences of people trying to force beliefs on me

  58. Slothful says:

    I always get a little weirded out when people talk about “christians” as an independent group apart from the norm, since I’ve always thought that in America, everyone was supposed to be considered a christian by default until it was specified otherwise. Most of us celebrate Christmas, so we’ve gotta be christian, right?

    I guess that mostly just comes from how I grew up with little to no religion to really show me what religion was all about. My family never went to church, although my grandparents went regularly. For a while I was an atheist, because I somehow got it in my head that religion and science could not coexist peacefully (I now believe differently). These days I still stay away from most religious type things though. I’ve been to a catholic mass once, and they practically did jumping jacks with how many times they stood up and sat down.

    1. Robyrt says:

      Although America is much more Christian than many other places, most people do not regularly attend church, and there are big theological, political and cultural differences between Catholics, mainline Protestants, and evangelical Protestants. Almost everyone can agree on Christmas, though, so it gets a lot of press. :)

      1. krellen says:

        Many people celebrate Christmas without the Christianity even, because it’s an excuse to be jolly during what is usually considered an unpleasant season and it’s a great excuse to get and give gifts.

        1. Raynoo says:

          Eat good food, light colourful lights, see your family, get presents. Everyone can relate to that. Even Japanese :)

          1. Aldowyn says:

            Christmas, as opposed to church, has been so commercialized it’s just sad. But, since there are so many other winter holidays in other religions, it doesn’t really matter.

            Christians can celebrate Christmas as the birth of christ, and everyone else can celebrate it as the giving of gifts and good food.

            1. krellen says:

              As my new favourite show recently put it: “The meaning of Christmas is that Christmas has meaning.”

            2. Boison says:

              I read a short analysis of Christ’s birth according to the Bible. They laid out some pretty solid proof that he could not have been born in the wintertime. Apparently, Christmas was a thing celebrated across many religions (under different names, of course), and the Romans sort of adopted it from there. (All this may be common knowledge. I have never really cared much about the Bible.)

              My family has been entirely atheist since my grandmother died, but we still observe christian traditions at christmas. Adorning the tree with angels and stars and the like. It’s kinda wierd when you think about it, but it’s tradition, so we rarely notice. It’s mostly about spending time with the family, and eating a really tasty and unhealthy dinner.

              1. krellen says:

                The rituals that surround Christmas are mostly Pagan, taken from the old Solstice celebrations.

                1. Shamus says:

                  Which IS widely known, and which causes all sorts of hilarious things. On the super-conservative side you actually have two factions: Those who don’t want to celebrate Christmas, because it is “pagan”, and those who are super-militant about making everyone say “Merry CHRISTmas” instead of “happy holidays”, in order to take the day “back” from the pagans.

                  And then there are people like us: We don’t think of the day as “Christ’s Birthday”, because that’s a little silly. It’s “Present Day” or “Happy Family Decorate Funtime Day” to us. Also, we don’t have a tree, because of allergies and hassle.

                  I kind of hope that if we aim just right, we can annoy both groups. :)

                  EDIT: I don’t actually mean “annoy”. I meant to say “bless them in a spirit of brotherly love and friendship”, not annoy. I don’t even know why I said that. Silly me.

                  1. Aldowyn says:

                    Take it back from the pagans that we originally took it from?

                    Yes, that makes PERFECT sense.

                    Anyways, as a lot of you probably know, the best guess for the date of Jesus’ birth was actually in the fall sometime. They moved it to the winter because they figured it’d be easier to convince the pagans to celebrate a holiday they already had.

      2. X2-Eliah says:

        Somehow I think more people celebrate the coca-cola-red-fat-santa-must-buy-gifts Christmas than the quiet time of true religious Christmas.

  59. I would note, Shamus, that by the 1980s the religious right was actually pretty well-established, though not the juggernaut it was now. It didn’t take long after Roe v. Wade, for example, for there to be a specifically religious conversation about it: I absolutely recommend “Becoming Justice Blackmun” about the life of Harry Blackmun, who was a very interesting figure in that he began socially conservative but ended up having some very liberal ideas about class equity, government provision, etc.

    1. Shamus says:

      I would actually trace the conflict not to a specific decision, but to the cultural shift of the 60’s. A large part of a generation shrugged off their parent’s values and did their own thing. The people in charge ignored this, and continued on with the attitude that, “Of COURSE America is a Christian nation. I mean, it says so on the money, right? So passing this law with Christian values is the obvious thing to do!”

      Roe v. Wade was probably the first big battle, but there have been more battles since then, and I have the sense that each battle pushes the two sides further apart. I really do think the two sides are angrier now than they were in 1981. (Although, I was 10. Maybe age and the internet have simply brought me closer to the flames, and the fire is still the same size.)

      1. Scott Schulz says:

        The first big battle in US was the Constitution itself, particularly, the passage of the Bill of Rights. Then there was Absolition, women’s sufferage and Prohibition all of which and their opposition were in part based on religious divides within Christianity in America. Last century was marked by the Scopes Trial in particular well before Roe v. Wade. The so-called Moral Majority of the Eighties could foam at the mouth as well as any of the current Christian Right hate-mongers. We didn’t start the fire as St. Joel sang round about then.

      2. CaptainBooshi says:

        I just wanted to say that I really agree with your position here. The 1960’s seems like a long time ago now, but I would bet that in a 100 years, everyone’s going to look back and see the last 50 years (and who knows how much more of the future) as a reaction everything that happened then.

        I mean, most people don’t even realize that before the 1960’s, both our political parties were completely different. The South was considered so Democratic that the idea of them voting for Republicans was a joke.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          I always laugh at this. I’m thinking the difference is that the political emphasis has changed from a societal one (civil rights) to a economic one. Democrats are essentially liberal, while Republicans are essentially conservative. The south used to care more about civil rights, a matter they were very conservative on, so they were Republican, but now economics matter more, the civil rights issues being solved (mostly. ATM the main fight is gay rights, I believe, and that’s not as regionally split), and the South doesn’t have many big businesses, so they lean Democrat.

          1. Jason says:

            The South definitely does not lean Democratic at all. There are a few swing states, and some Democratic districts, but the area as a whole is quite Republican.

            1. Corsair says:

              Yeah, the only real Democrat state in the south is Florida.

              1. Aldowyn says:

                I got really confused writing this. Too many different variables. There was a point there. I forget where it was.

                I would say consider it stricken since I screwed it up so much.

      3. krellen says:

        We didn’t start the fire. It was always burning, since the world’s been turning.

        (EDIT: Scott’s comment above was awaiting moderation when I posted this. Didn’t mean to steal your thunder, Mr. Schulz.)

        1. Scott Schulz says:

          Not at all: brilliant minds run in concentric circles, as they say. It was my fault that the e-mail hit the moderation queue anyway since I included the link to my blog.

      4. Hitch says:

        Everyone else thinks Billy Joel and I was reminded of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbd3E6tK2U

        I think that says something about me, but I don’t want to think about what.

        1. krellen says:

          Maybe it says you’re English?

          1. Dys says:

            And have excellent taste in comedy.

      5. toasty says:

        Its really scary realizing that the 60s, the point when the first baby-boomers came “of age” might have begun a major social shift that vastly revolutionized not only America, but all of the West. And here I am, a son of the last of the Baby Boomers (my mother was born in 1960), about one and a half generations later. I can’t really understand how fundamental that shift was, because it has already happened, in so many ways. (sadly my parents aren’t a HUGE help cuz they were little kids when the hippie movement hit, and they’ve been adults living in the third world for the past two decades. Kinda out of touch with American society).

  60. SyrusRayne says:

    Edit: To preface this; I’ve been enjoying these insights into your life, Shamus. They’re intrinsically valuable even simply because they offer a different perspective.

    You know… This makes me think. I’ve considered myself an atheist for most of my life, but I’ve never really… /Thought/ about it. I just decided one day. I didn’t go to a bad church or anything, but religion (Christianity) was always something schools tried to shove down my throat.

    For context, I live in a part of Canada that’s fairly recently (Last 10 years, less?) filtered out prayers at the start of school and that type of thing. So every morning we’d have- /have/, mind you- to pray, and the like. I really resented it, though. I hated being told what to think. I’d rather think I do good things because I want to, not from fear of punishment.

    Nonetheless, faith is something I don’t mind seeing in other people. It’s never a bad thing.

    1. kikito says:

      “Nonetheless, faith is something I don't mind seeing in other people. It's never a bad thing.”

      Well… never… never… ehem…

      1. Aldowyn says:

        faith itself isn’t bad. It’s what you do in the NAME of that faith that is bad.

        1. Corsair says:

          As a general rule, when bad things are done in the name of religion, they’re usually not actually obeying the edicts of that religion, so they probably don’t really have much faith.

  61. Methermeneus says:

    The way your mother approached letting you and your brother choose or not choose religion as you pleased reminds me of how my own parents went about my and my brother’s religious upbringing. My mother claimed that her lack of religion was a consequence of going to Catholic school, while my father was an antisemitic Jew; both remained somewhat spiritual and insisted that my brother and I should think about what we wanted from a religion before deciding for ourselves what to be/do. When we really started thinking about it and suggesting that maybe we should go to church, my mother helped us find the many churches in our area (New Jersey is both densely-populated and highly diverse, so there was a lot of choice), and we visited several of them, some quite a few times. We had already had a fair smattering of Catholic and Methodist experiences through our local Boy Scout troop, and on our search we also explored Baptists, Pentecostals, Lutherans, both Reform and Conservative Judaism, Unitarians, and several others, for about half a year, before we settled on an Episcopal church. I never really considered myself Episcopalian/Anglican, so much as I felt that that particular congregation and reverend matched what I felt Christianity ought to be about. (Even if it did get boring when the bishop came by (sermon length x2) on Easter Sunday (sermon length x2 again).)

    My views on religion in general have shifted radically from those days, through quite a lot of study and self-reflection, but I still find that I like hearing how the right church experience can save someone from darkness. Although I no longer believe, I see nothing wrong with those who do (and not in the condescending way you requested not appear in your comments, but in the way that they merely believe differently than I do), and for all the vitriol in the news about the “Christian right” and the atrocities some people commit in the name of religion, it’s always pleasant to hear about the people who (rightly, in my opinion) speak of the community they find in their churches and the uplifting message of their faith.

    Basically, although I myself am an atheist, it is because of people like you and a couple of my friends that I don’t cop that dismissive attitude that you warn about at the top of this post. You are free to believe whatever drivel you want to believe, but this is not drivel, but a message that moves you, even if it doesn’t move me like that anymore.

  62. Jesus Christ! That’s the most tragic thing I’ve ever seen!

    The skatecastle website is ATROCIOUS! Good lord, do they think it’s 1996?! Save these poor people Shamus! Save them from themselves!

    1. Peter H. Coffin says:

      They’re all like that. Seriously. It’s almost an industry standard that every skating rink website has to be garish, with too-large fonts, side-scrolling text, and overly busy graphics. This is one of the better ones.

      http://www.seskate.com/rinks/ has a list. Your eyes will be bleeding before you get to California.

      1. NihilCredo says:

        Why is that, though? I know almost nothing about skating culture, so I wonder why is so markedly different from, say, biking or rock climbing? (Including the fact of having a particular ‘culture’ at all, I guess.)

        1. X2-Eliah says:

          It’s a mystery of life, and not one taken to n answer..

          Why do chavs have their pants at their knees and their arses hanging out? Nobody knows, it’s the culture! Why do skating rink websites look like leftovers from before the Internet became even vaguely modern? Nobody knows, it’s the culture!

          1. Aldowyn says:

            I think it’s just skating RINKS. Which I don’t think are nearly as popular as they used to be. So maybe they are LITERALLY relics from the 90’s.

  63. Ander the Halfling Rogue says:

    I love hearing people’s salvation stories. Thanks.
    Also, I’m glad you’re keeping these autobiographical posts going. Can hardly wait for the post on how you met your wife. Those stories are cool, too.

  64. Jon Ericson says:

    What I love about this conversion story is that it seems you became a Christian purely by coming into the presence of Jesus. If you ask me, the problem with most churches is that they don’t talk about Jesus enough. As soon as you start talking about anything else with the “Authority of the Church” you are in very dangerous territory. If you read the gospels, you’ll see Jesus spent far more time attacking religious leaders for using the law as cover to abuse the poor than he did condemning fornication. (Not that he was in favor of illicit sex: it just wasn’t the biggest problem the majority of his audience faced.)

    Not to sound like a nag, but you really ought to attend some sort of church in person. The internet is awesome and there are tons of resources available that didn’t exist even a year ago, but unless you are in a place that has no churches at all, you really are missing out by not rubbing shoulders (even cold ones) of other Christians. I’m passionate about this because I made the same mistake in college. I thought going to a Bible study and student ministry was a substitute for an inter-generational church and I nearly shipwrecked my faith as a result.

    It also reminds me of the Ivy League schools that kick ROTC (official military training organizations for those nonUSAians among us) off campus, which is exactly the wrong response. Since corporate churches will continue to exist, the socially responsible thing to do is to infiltrate their ranks. (That said, many important revivals have come from essentially house churches and who am I to say you are not on the ground floor of something great?)

    About the analogy of disparate local churches being points on a plane: Would you say that the plane represents the Universal Church—the bride of Christ? My local church is currently struggling to incorporate traditions that didn’t feed directly into our little branch of Christianity. It’s humbling to consider that, for instance, Quakers and Greek Orthodox churches worship the same God we do. I’m not really aware of any religion that can claim anything like that sort of diversity in praxis. What’s remarkable to me isn’t how fractured Christianity is (though it is fractured), but how unified it is (and will become if the ancient prophecies hold true).

    1. Alex the Elder says:

      I would imagine that Mr. Young’s allergies and schedule have something to do with his not attending church services.

  65. MisteR says:

    I learned a lot from all this.

  66. Paul Spooner says:

    I'm able to separate Christian ideas (which I embrace) from Christian culture (which I will soon grow to despise) and lay the groundwork for a lot of the thinking I'll be doing over the next thirty years.

    Right! I’m in the same boat here. I attribute the bad “Christian culture” to a major lack of religious persecution in the US. It’s culturally easy to believe, so there are a lot of fakers. Not that the church community would be perfect in hardship (as evidenced by the letters to the churches, Revelation especially) but I suspect the disparity between ideas and culture would shrink under pressure.

    Also, I recall what Chesterton said, that the Church is the one human “club” which would continue to exist even if all of its members left or were killed. Since God is the center of the true church, we have confidence that, though it may be practiced poorly, Acts 2:42 will continue in joy and strength. God still seeks worshipers.

    I admire the spirit, and truth, of what you have said. Ride on Shamus! Further up, and further in!

  67. Jason says:

    I have to disagree with you about Christianity not being so controversial in the early eighties, Shamus: that’s when the religious right really started to pick up speed, and dozens of politicians (like Ronald Reagan) founded their careers on that.

    1. Shamus says:

      As I said elsewhere, the flamewar had begun by then, but my impression is that it was not as hot as it is now.

      1. NihilCredo says:

        Perhaps also you were not yet of voting age, so you paid less attention to it?

      2. Tizzy says:

        My guess is that the positions are more firmly entrenched on both sides now: more litmus tests, more unwillingness to deviate from established lines, if you’re not with us you’re against us. Not for individuals, of course, but this is what the social dynamic looks like.

        Just a guess, but it makes sense since the generation who’s drawn the battle lines is taking a back seat to generations who have been raised always knowing them, and thus taking them as more non-negotiable than the people who had to come up with them.

        BTW: fascinating and thought-provoking read, as always. Thanks, Shamus!

  68. klasbo says:

    The problem I have with theism of any kind is not the individuals belief in an unprovable entity in itself, but rather the institutionalization and power hierarchy, and the resultant anti-intellectual and anti-progressive mindset. Organized religion more often than not ends up being about population control, even though it may not set out to be (See the blatantly misogynistic views of the the major monotheistic religions). No amount of good intentions can counterbalance the amount of hostility expressed by people who identify as members of a major organized religion. The more sinister side to this is when the anti-intellectual & non-critical thinking (which is necessary for the fantasy world) leaks out into the real world: Denying the basic human rights of women and those who embrace their sexuality is despicable. I don’t want other peoples’ beliefs to start imposing restrictions on anyone’s personal life.

    On an individual level, a belief in the supernatural (yay, unicorns!) requires an inconvenient amount of denialism and rationalization for it to be reconciled with any empirical/logical thought system: Saying that god exists because “why not” is equally (in)valid as saying that god doesn’t exist because “why not”, and the latter is the “equation” on its simplest (and therefore preferred) form.
    It’s like making a PS3 controller work on linux: it’s possible, but why would you?

    The concept of a god is an inconvenient abstraction with no practical application, which is most often manifested in a whole lot of negative & undeniable social side-effects.

    (As a side note on the whole “literally the bible” vs “story time bible” debate: If you christians can’t agree on the fundamentals of your belief, then what are you for?! If the bible isn’t to be taken literally, then none of it is, and the “believers” of a non-literal bible are just rogue theists. You can’t cherry-pick the parts you believe and the parts you don’t. Atheists can get away with this because of the non-specific and decentralized nature of non-belief. Being an atheist is awesome like that.)

    1. Shamus says:

      “If you christians can't agree on the fundamentals of your belief, then what are you for?!”

      So, by your logic: Because other people disagree with me, my beliefs are invalid?

      Have you ever read the Bible? It is a long, complex document that goes WAY beyond do’s and don’t’s. It spans many centuries, languages, nations, and cultures. It’s thousands of times larger than (say) the U.S. Constitution, and people can’t agree on THAT.

      1. klasbo says:

        Your beliefs are not invalid because of other people’s disagreement with them (though they may well be for other reasons), but trying to group people who do not take the bible literally into the collective and badly-defined group of “christians” seems wrong.
        If you don’t take everything in the bible literally you’re a rogue theist that cherry-picks parts of the bible as a foundation for your faith. If you chose to call this a “christian”, then the definition is so broad that it’s useless.

        This isn’t about the dos or don’ts exclusively. For example the concept of “hell” is one that wildly differs between sub-groups of christianity. Originally it refers to Gehenna, a valley outside jerusalem that got very warm due to combinations of climate and air flow, and was used as a landfill. “Going to hell” basically meant being dumped on the blazing hot landfill after being executed, and not “burning for all eternity in agonizing pain”.
        These are basic parts of christianity that should be a simple matter of finding the facts, but have rather been mangled through generations of storytelling and scaremongering for the sake of creating a story. And My Little Pony has a story, too.

        And then there are people who believe the story of Noah’s ark, literally. How can people reject the literal-ness of some parts of a “holy scripture”, but not the rest?

        And the US constitution is not a matter of faith and does not deal with the pursuit of the “truth”, nor does it include blatant manipulation of facts to better suit the needs of those who seek to control the uneducated people (Or maybe it does, I’m from Norway, so I don’t know too much about it). I can’t see where you’re going with this comparison, so I can’t respond to it in full.

        (Another side note: The Sharia (?) claims to contain several scientific “facts” that were revealed to Mohammed, many of which are simply untrue, and others that are things that are easily observable and require no divine intervention. The belief that Sharia is holy law and exclusively the word of Allah requires the belief that arab scholars at the time were clueless idiots, which simply isn’t true either. How’s that for anti-intellectual!)

        1. Jon Ericson says:

          Now wait a minute. Are you calling us anti-intellectual or not? Surely the sign of an anti-intellectual community would be having cookie-cutter beliefs. It seems unfair to criticize a group for blindly accepting the Bible on the one hand and not agreeing about what it says on the other.

          I’ll do one better than Shamus’s US Constitution example. People disagree about what Google’s motto (“Don’t be evil”) means in various situations. Should they put book scans online or not? What about street-level pictures of your house? If we can’t agree about a three and a half word motto, a 66 book volume spanning a dozen or more genres might be an intellectual challenge as well.

          I find your comments about religion to be mostly caricature and unconstructive.

          1. klasbo says:

            This is about how the mindset that lets you rationalize away the existence of a god can let you rationalize away a whole lot of other things. The anti-intellectualism stems from the defensiveness a lot of people feel when they get into issues that confront their beliefs. Have you ever tried discussing neurology and free will with a devout christian? It was pretty non-constructive, and that wasn’t because of me…

            The bible discussion was a side note trying to show that basing your life on a work of fiction is like basing your life on any other work of fiction. Of course we would disagree about how to live our life if we based it on My Little Pony, but that’s because it’s all fiction anyway.

            1. Jon Ericson says:

              Ah. So when you say “anti-intellectual”, you simply mean “disagrees with me”. Given your unusual terminology, I can agree with you that Christians are “anti-intellectual”. Of course, so is everyone else in the world. ;-)

              Just so you know, the combative, abrasive, and (dare I say) close-minded brand of atheism you are displaying isn’t really helping the atheist’s cause. Talking about “My Little Pony” and “unicorns” and whatnot makes me think you must be about 12 with the maturity of a 6 year-old. I’m pointing this out, not to score points, but to give you a taste of what your comments appear to someone outside of your own head.

              I urge you to reread NihilCredo’s response:

              Planting seeds of doubt is just about the best that one can hope to achieve through writing, and even then it takes an Epicurus or a Voltaire to be able to do that in short form.

        2. toasty says:

          “If you don't take everything in the bible literally you're a rogue theist that cherry-picks parts of the bible as a foundation for your faith. If you chose to call this a “christian”, then the definition is so broad that it's useless.”

          A) its true, but people do it anyways, what’s a man gonna do? Tell people that they have to stop using titles? Its a wonder people even bother with the word “Christian” anymore. I hardly use the title, I’d just say “I believe in the Bible.”

          B) The thing about what you say is “what does litterally mean?” The Bible is an old book, written in a bunch of old languages that few people can read. Some of the words and phrases in the Bible, even the wisest scholars, do not understand (there are lots of footnotes: “the meaning of this hebrew phrase is uncertain”). Trying to say that we should take everything in the Bible Litteraly is all well and good until you consider a few things:

          I) Old Testament Law was clearly meant for a people group that the Church really isn’t anymore (The Israelites, who are now the Jews). This doesn’t mean that we should IGNORE Old Testament Law, but we can’t take it litterally, especially the stuff about sacrifices and things, which Jesus clearly abolished.

          II) Prophecies cannot be taken literally, cuz they are visions, dreams, they are open to interpretation. Sure, there are generally accepted things that come about, but we can’t really know for sure. When people talk about beasts with horns and serpents flying out of the sea and women riding beasts and things, it gets a little confusing and hard to follow.

          III) Let’s take Genesis. Some people claim we shouldn’t take this literally. They have some very good reasons. For instance, if we assume that the Hebrew nation isn’t entirely up to snuff on Science and Physics the way God is (cuz… He’s God, ya know), it might be a waste of time trying to explain the details of evolution and the like to these people. Its easier and just as effective to say, “In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth, etc.” Does this mean that God created the world in a literal 100% 6 day period or a long period of evolution? I don’t know. But I’m not going to believe anyone that says one or the other with 100% certainty, because YOU CANNOT BE CERTAIN. At least, as far as I can tell.

          So there you go, some reasons why its hard to take everything in the Bible literally. (PS: This is coming from a charismatic leaning Christian who grew up in an AG church in Bangladesh, the son of a Baptist and a women who’s family left the Catholic Church early in her life in favor of the Charismatic Movement).

          1. klasbo says:

            “Does this mean that God created the world in a literal 100% 6 day period or a long period of evolution? I don't know. But I'm not going to believe anyone that says one or the other with 100% certainty, because YOU CANNOT BE CERTAIN. At least, as far as I can tell.”

            I’m pretty sure you can (be certain). We might not be there right now, but sitting on our asses and saying that “magic man done it” isn’t being useful. THIS is the kind of anti-intellectualism I despise above all others.

            Go take a look at the real world, and see what wonders you find. Don’t go read an ancient and archaic text in the hopes of enlightenment.

            1. Shamus says:

              You are being pushy and confrontational. You’re also not really mounting a very coherent argument. You were banging on about literal interpretations, and when countered you just discarded the entire book as an “ancient and archaic text”.

              What I’m seeing here is not so much an engaging conversation, as an angry person with an axe to grind.

              I said don’t post mad. I meant it.

        3. Eldiran says:

          Dude. When someone says they are not taking a part of the Bible literally, they mean they are interpreting it figuratively. That doesn’t mean they ignore it entirely. If the name Gehanna is used as a metaphor for Hell, why does that invalidate what is being said about Hell?

          A document can have literal portions and metaphors and still be true and sensible. When I write that “the sun rose” I don’t literally mean the sun rose up, or moved in any way. I mean that the earth rotated in such a way that the sun became visible on the horizon.

          There is no contradiction in saying that the language of the Bible is not 100% literal.

          EDIT: I clearly got ahead of myself, as adam’s sixth point summed it up much better than I did.

          1. klasbo says:

            Now this is getting us somewhere. You’ve pointed out that literal and non-literal doesn’t cut it, and you’re right. If there were points to be had, you’d get some.

            Let’s use a new division: fiction or non-fiction. What parts are fiction, and what parts are not? Is the story of Jesus fiction? (Hint: see Mithras) The letters in NT aren’t fiction (at least the ones I’ve read aren’t). Genesis is fiction (that one is pretty obvious). So should you treat the existence of a god as fiction or non-fiction?

            Basing that most fundamental belief on an ancient text seems ridiculous. You have to be able to come to that conclusion without the need for holy scripture, and this is where things start to fall apart.

            1. Eldiran says:

              There, fiction and non-fiction are the proper terms for what you want to evaluate. I disagree with you about Genesis, but an example of a perfectly legit piece of fiction in the Bible would be Jesus’ parables.

              Many Christians have reasons to believe in God other than just the existence of the Bible. (Although the text itself and all the history leading to it is itself a not insignificant reason to believe.)

              As an example, one reason to believe in God might be the existence of morals. You can see some debate about a universal moral standard in earlier threads, but I find the existence of a universal moral standard requires a Good God.

              Proper belief is founded in a combination of facts and logic.

              (I don’t claim to have all the facts or all the logic, myself, but I try my best.)

        4. Zukhramm says:

          The idea that if a term defines a broad concept, it’s useless is pretty odd to me. Should we throw away the word animal and only ever discuss species? Should we never speak of earth or the nations on it and only use the names for individual towns?

      2. krellen says:

        Piggybacking on this: there’s a reason there’s so many different Christian sects, and why Protestants are even further subdivided beyond the already divided Protestant/Catholic/Orthodox line.

        Lumping them all together into a single group of “Christians” is exactly the same as them lumping us all together into a single group of “Atheists”. If we get the freedom of decentralisation, so do they.

        1. Atle says:

          Except they make positive claims about the truth, and there can be only one truth.

          Atheist makes negative claims about the truth, and there is no conflict in denying hundreds of religious claims at the same time.

        2. klasbo says:

          I realize in retrospect that I should perhaps have been more clear on grouping all monotheists together. But you have a fair point.

          Though there is one major difference: All variants of christians/muslims/jews/other claim that their interpretation of the scripture of choice is the “correct” one, where the scripture is the same across the major group boundaries. The content (or at least the source for content) is the same across boundaries, and so the major disagreements just further suggest the flaws of the source material.

          Atheists don’t have a shared source material. The resultant humanism is about looking for the truth, and not claiming that you have it.

          I hope this clarifies.

          1. krellen says:

            You’re claiming that all those people don’t. When it’s your truth being denied, that’s no different than claiming you have the one single truth.

    2. toasty says:

      “On an individual level, a belief in the supernatural (yay, unicorns!) requires an inconvenient amount of denialism and rationalization for it to be reconciled with any empirical/logical thought system: Saying that god exists because “why not” is equally (in)valid as saying that god doesn't exist because “why not”, and the latter is the “equation” on its simplest (and therefore preferred) form.
      It's like making a PS3 controller work on linux: it's possible, but why would you?”

      Such a statement is one I’m not sure I can agree with, but in order to draw out your thoughts further would require a large amount of discussion and debate, which would go beyond my patience for using the comment system on this website.

      “The concept of a god is an inconvenient abstraction with no practical application, which is most often manifested in a whole lot of negative & undeniable social side-effects.”

      The practical application is the assumption that if there is an afterlife, there is a guy who you want to get on the goodside of, IE God, cuz he’s get you to the good place. That’s a very cynical way to look at religion, its one I personally detest. But its a reason.

      I don’t think there are any manifested negative and & undeniable social side-effects. People do evil in the name of almost anything. The Nazis and the Communists didn’t need Religion to tell them that they could kill people. The Church can become corrupt, so can most organizations (see a lot of Developing World Countries and their governments). I can’t think of one negative thing that has come about in society that hasn’t come about as a result of us simply being Human. Being what we are.

      (As a side note on the whole “literally the bible” vs “story time bible” debate: If you christians can't agree on the fundamentals of your belief, then what are you for?! If the bible isn't to be taken literally, then none of it is, and the “believers” of a non-literal bible are just rogue theists. You can't cherry-pick the parts you believe and the parts you don't. Atheists can get away with this because of the non-specific and decentralized nature of non-belief. Being an atheist is awesome like that.)”

      What Shamus said. The basics of the Bible are clear: God “sent” “Jesus” (words in quotes because people argue what they mean) to “save” us. Everything else, EVERYTHING ELSE is debated about because … people like to argue. Most Christians say that God sent his Son, Jesus, who is a member of the Trinity (the Holy Spirit is the other member) to save us from Sin, which came about because Adam and Eve disobeyed God. But there are some fringe groups who use the title Christian that don’t say that, 100%. There is a LOT to debate about, in my mind, its what makes Christianity so amazing and interesting. There are some fundamentals most can start with, but from there, you get to build your own ideas, with your own mind, and understand things in a way that others don’t. We then get to bring all of that together and try to reconcile it with each other’s ideas. A lot of times, sadly, this ends poorly (Theological debates are generally a very messy business), but sometimes it ends amazingly.

    3. adam says:

      First point: You say that because religion has engendered bad stuff (misogyny, persecution of unbelievers, etc), you don’t see the point of it at all. What about all the good religion does?

      Second point: Many religions and Christian ones in particular are focused around the idea of salvation. While the concept of what exactly salvation is varies from person to person and religion to religion, the social conservatism you reject is not inherently about discrimination. It’s actually about inclusion. You don’t like people’s beliefs imposing restrictions on others’ personal lives, but that’s exactly what we do every day in a hundred different ways all over the world. Atheist activists lobbying for removal of any mention of God (no matter how generic) from government property under a demonstrably fallacious interpretation of the 1st Amendment is the same basic concept as religions insisting that government not redefine the concept of marriage.

      Third point: You classify theism as supernatural. In some religions and belief systems, it may be. That doesn’t mean it is in every religion, or that a god itself is necessarily a supernatural being.

      Fourth point: Not many people contend for the existence of God on the basis of “Why not?” The reasons people believe in God are many and varied. You’ve picked one out and attempted to make it characteristic of a movement involving billions of people and thousands of belief systems. Does not compute.

      Fifth point: The concept of God has no practical application? Well that’s a pretty sweeping statement. Do you have anything to back that up?

      Sixth point: I’m not sure how you can claim that if some of the bible is literal then all of it must be. That’s a pretty silly stance to take. You can most certainly choose to interpret parts of the bible as literal and parts of it as figurative. I have no idea why you think this is somehow wrong or irrational.

      1. klasbo says:

        “What about all the good religion does?”

        Yes, what about it? I haven’t heard of any good that religion does that is undoable without religion, but I hear of all the bad religion does every single day.

        “Third point: You classify theism as supernatural. In some religions and belief systems, it may be. That doesn't mean it is in every religion, or that a god itself is necessarily a supernatural being.”

        “Supernatural: Something that is neither visible nor measurable.”
        People have tried to show me god. It hasn’t worked. People have tried to show me unicorns too.

        “Fourth point: Not many people contend for the existence of God on the basis of “Why not?” The reasons people believe in God are many and varied.”

        And all of the ones I’ve heard are wrong. I have buckets of ammunition against these, but this isn’t the time or the place.

        “Fifth point: The concept of God has no practical application? Well that's a pretty sweeping statement. Do you have anything to back that up?”

        I’ll ask you the same thing…

        “You can most certainly choose to interpret parts of the bible as literal and parts of it as figurative.”

        Then how do you decide which is which?!

        1. Daimbert says:

          “Yes, what about it? I haven't heard of any good that religion does that is undoable without religion, but I hear of all the bad religion does every single day.”

          I also haven’t heard of any bad that religion does that you can’t do without religion, which is the main counter to this Weinbergian response.

          “Supernatural: Something that is neither visible nor measurable.”

          That’s not, however, the definition of supernatural that people are using. For example, ghosts traditionally count as supernatural but are, in fact, commonly thought to be visible at least part of the time. And unicorns, BTW, aren’t really considered to be supernatural, but instead non-existent.

          ” “You can most certainly choose to interpret parts of the bible as literal and parts of it as figurative.”

          Then how do you decide which is which?!”

          The same way we do it for Plato’s dialogues, or even for historical accounts: with a lot of hard work and aligning of sources and external evidence. This is not a problem that is unique to religion; philosophy and history, at least, both have similar issues. It’s not always easy, but a requirement to do so says nothing about the field of study or about whether the effort is worth it.

        2. adam says:

          Daimbert ably responded to your first point. The rest of my points are simply complementary to his.

          “Supernatural: Something that is neither visible nor measurable.”

          Under this definition:
          Black holes–supernatural (we can measure their effects, but the black hole itself?)
          Dark matter–supernatural (see above).
          Higgs boson–supernatural.
          Supersymmertric strings–supernatural.
          etc.

          Some of these things may not actually exist, but we don’t consider them to be supernatural. We consider them to be currently beyond our ability to see and measure.

          “And all of the ones I've heard are wrong.”

          And all of your rebuttals I’m sure I’ve heard, and I’m perfectly capable of poking holes in all of them. But you’re right, not the time or the place. Suffice it to say, belief or non-belief in God is a decision, not compulsory based on the evidence, or lack of. Any notion otherwise belies a gross overconfidence in one’s own powers of perception and deduction.

          I can give you a personally practical application of the concept of God: my parents wouldn’t have married if not for the concept of God, and I, presumably and in my current condition, wouldn’t be alive. Practical enough for me.

          Daimbert has the last point as well.

    4. NihilCredo says:

      “It's like making a PS3 controller work on linux: it's possible, but why would you?”

      … because Trine is awesome?

      Joking aside, you’re quite simply not going to change anyone’s mind with a long blog comment, so I would urge you not to try. It’s not as simple as just discussing an empirical fact; that may be what is ultimately at stake, but the ideas involved are tangled together with so many cognitive biases, affect heuristics and emotional needs that the way to show an intelligent person that they’re wrong about the existence of God-like beings has basically nothing to do with how you would show them that they’re wrong about any other part of the natural world.

      Planting seeds of doubt is just about the best that one can hope to achieve through writing, and even then it takes an Epicurus or a Voltaire to be able to do that in short form.

    5. DungeonHamster says:

      Just something I find amusing, and please don’t take this the wrong way, but I always laugh a little inside when someone calls the primary, almost the only, institute of learning in Europe for many centuries “anti-intellectual.” I mean, come on! Abelard! Aquinas! Mendel! Monks to the man! For goodness’ sake, medieval learning barely rated Scripture over Aristotle! The very idea of “Dark Ages” was a myth propagated by Enlightenment (and to a lesser extent Renaissance) thinkers who saw themselves as heirs of Rome and Greece and everything in between a waste of time. Great stuff.

      Also, I think I’m fairly safe in saying anyone who believes that Christ died and rose again and salvation through grace not by works can call themselves Christian without much fear of contradiction.

      1. Dys says:

        While the church was the main instrument of knowledge for many centuries after the final fall of Rome, it also tended to destroy any ideas it did not like. The church has never been terribly interested in truths which are contrary to church doctrine. As such, it makes a terrible custodian of knowledge, though admittedly better than none.

      2. Joe Cool says:

        This. I get very, very tired of the old “religion is anti-intellectual” rubbish, when the opposite is so easily seen. To paraphrase SF author Michael Flynn, the religious people of the middle ages held reason in such high regard, that they held that God behaved rationally.

        Also, something else that said SF author also pointed out recently: heliocentrism, evolution, and the Big Bang were all discovered by Catholic religious (Copernicus was a canon, Darwin a monk, and Lemaitre a priest).

        1. adam says:

          “the religious people of the middle ages held reason in such high regard, that they held that God behaved rationally.”

          Plenty of people still believe that God behaves entirely rationally–and that if He didn’t, He would cease to be God.

    6. Dys says:

      You make a lot of assumptions in this post, not least the monolithic nature of religion. If I believe Christ existed but was in fact a furry green walrus with powerful subliminal hypnotic skills, I would still be able to say I was Christian. You may be confusing faith with church. The latter being authoritarian, the former freely personal.

    7. Joe Cool says:

      Oh, Shamus, and your commentors had been doing so well until now. I was almost ready to start believing that one could have a productive, respectful discussion about religion on the internet. But it only takes one fly to ruin the honey, and one troll to ruin the conversation.

  69. Anachronist says:

    While reading your Dark Year postings, until this one, two things kept coming up in my mind:

    1. First I thought “Shamus should stop writing this for free and start a book about it instead. It’s just the sort of thing that might end up on ‘Oprah’ and earn him millions. Painful, dark, yet engaging and interesting.”

    2. Until now I wondered whether there was a religious background to the difficulties with your babysitter, psychiatrist, their odd fixation on your sexual organs and their outrage at the possibility that you might touch them. To my knowledge, that sort of moralistic bullying is often associated with a religious background combined with an insecure need to control what other people do.

    I have always believed that a religion is a deeply personal thing, and you have to find your own and make it work for you, there’s no one-size-fits-all. I’m glad you found what works. It is a pleasure to read and understand the journey that led you to your faith.

    1. Chairmaster Frog says:

      People like that babysitter need to go sit down with a ham sandwich and rethink their lives. I’m thinking there’s a lot more wrong with her life than she’d admit and than she can (responsibly) get out of and she’s just using Christianity as a conduit for her hatred and loathing.

      And maybe Shamus should compile this into a book. There are probably more than a few people who’d buy it.

  70. Mincecraft says:

    “404 – Number of comments not found.”

    Heh. Never seen that one before, of course, it will be gone now

    1. Nick says:

      I quite enjoyed ‘EXACTLY. FOUR. HUNDRED. COMMENTS.’

      1. Aldowyn says:

        I wonder if there was one for 420?

        1. Shamus says:

          Nope, but I just added one, along with a smattering of others. :)

          1. Aldowyn says:

            I would ask if we could see a list, but that’s part of the fun! :)

  71. bassdrum says:

    First off, this autobiography has been fantastic so far, and it helps to put the present you in context in an extremely enlightening way. I approve.

    The point of this comment, however, is in response to your statement that you “separate Christian ideas (which [you] embrace) from Christian culture (which [you] will soon grow to despise)”. I don’t consider myself a religious person, but my parents both regularly attend church (my father was raised Catholic, my mother Methodist). They too faced this same issue: while they believe in Christianity, they were constantly upset by the behavior of the Catholic Church and their fellow Catholics.
    We lived in Maine, and that state recently had an election about whether or not gay marriage should be recognized and legal. My parents had been upset with the Catholic stance on homosexuality for years, but when the bishop announced his intent to spearhead the opposition to legalizing gay marriage, they determined it to be the last straw and left the Catholic Church.
    Instead, they began to attend protestant services with people whose culture represented them better (I believe that they began attending a Presbyterian church?). There, they were able to express their Christian faith without the frustrations of the Catholic culture they were so enraged with.

    The point I’m trying to make with this is that, if you haven’t already, you might consider exploring various other Christian faiths with cultures more representative of your personal feelings. As far as I can tell (and I don’t claim to be an expert in any way; far from it, in fact), each separate Church holds nearly identical beliefs–the differences seem to spring largely from their methods of expressing it and their overall attitudes.
    Please don’t misinterpret this as an attempt at converting people or attacking any faith; I merely urge you and others to find a faith that represents not only their beliefs, but also who they are as people.

  72. Hitch says:

    Wow. I’m really late to this party. There were over 350 responses by the time I saw this post and 430 by the time I finished skimming through them.

    I was amused by comments early on that it’s now easier to identify oneself as an atheist than a Christian (capitalization intentional). I guess it varies greatly by where you live. Around here, it’s assumed that everyone is Christian, or at worst one of the other religions that might have their hearts in the right place but chose the wrong God. But I’m not comfortable at all trying to tell people I don’t fear the cosmic bully they worship.

    That said, I have a great deal of respect for religion. I try (and sometimes fail) to live a moral life. Just like most Christians. Anything that helps other people do the same is okay by me, as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me. It helps that by simply not declaring otherwise, I can pass for Christian.

    I don’t know whether it’s the readership here, our heroic efforts of moderation on Shamus’ part, but I’m really impressed that anywhere on the internet can have this discussion without degenerating into nothing but flames.

  73. Aulayan says:

    I'm able to separate Christian ideas (which I embrace) from Christian culture (which I will soon grow to despise) and lay the groundwork for a lot of the thinking I'll be doing over the next thirty years.

    And this is why I wouldn’t even think of a reaction post where I’d want to debate ideas. You did a lot of thinking. And you separated ideas from culture. Both of these are a lot of work, and both earn you a lot of respect.

    I’m still doing a lot of thinking, at 31, trying to figure things out. I have a feeling I’ll never quite get a grasp, for various reasons, but those who can (especially those who can while doing lots of thinking) earn nothing but respect from me.

    1. toasty says:

      I think that’s one of the reasons that “Faith” has the title “Faith.” At one point or another, you just have to jump in there and say “I believe.” All the thinking in the world won’t get you there.

      I commend you for thinking though, I (Religious Studies major here!) wish more people thought about things like this. Most just follow what their parents taught them.

  74. Svick says:

    Wow. Being able to think about religion like this when you were 10? I find that very mature.

    It took me much longer to be really able to think for myself about this. Being from a Catholic family, the turning point for me was when I was supposed to go to Confirmation, when I was 18. I realized I don’t really believe in all those rites, symbols and “historic” figures (be it the saints or Jesus). I felt like going would be a lie, so I didn’t.

    Now I believe that God probably exists. What I’m pretty sure is that he doesn’t care what you think about him. Or whether you go to church on Sundays (which seems to be really important to my grandma). He only cares how you treat other people.

    Really thanks for this post, Shamus. It made me think about what I believe again. I should do that more often.

  75. Mom says:

    *One Wednesday she takes us to Skate Castle (which still exists!)

    Two weeks ago I took Shamus’ step-grandfather to the store. He is 81. As we passed Skate Castle he asked “Do they still skate there?” Skate Castle was one of the “spots” when he was dating. I learned at that time there were 4 skate rinks in our town. Skate Castle is the last one operating.

    1. Shamus says:

      If I time-travel back to World War 2, it would be possible to stop at Skate Castle for a couple of laps? Astounding.

      1. Mom says:

        I am not sure exactly when it opened. Gma and Pappy were married in 1947.

      2. TheRocketeer says:

        This may explain why shrewd Baptists so often set up shop in roller rinks, of all places: it sets up an inconspicuous outreach that could outlive even its founders!

        1. ClearWater says:

          I thought you were going to say: to catch news from the future from all those time-travellers going back to see the rink when it had just opened.

          1. TheRocketeer says:

            Only Episcopalians time-travel. In the interest of impartiality, they primarily do so only to expose rigged game shows, which, as recognized in 1998 as the only evil every religion agrees on, makes the correction thereof an unaissailably righteous endeavor.

  76. Kalle says:

    When I was 10 I told my teacher I was an atheist so I’d get out of walking to church with the other kids for the school christmas pageant. I was mostly doing it to get out of a boring activity but I never did see the point in it all. Never. Religion is just something I’ve always found completely alien. My parents were mostly apathetic about religion and didn’t care what I believed (though they did give me a stern talking to about trying to skip out on school activities). It was something other people did and it was traditional but that was it.

    I know it’s arrogant but part of me does feel superior to all those people who can find that space where they just let go and accept, where the need for answers seems to become more important than how you come by those answers. Maybe I’m lacking something. Since I’m in a definite minority among the human race that’s certainly an option. All I know is that I’m happy to live in a society where I can, mostly, tell religious people to mind their own business if they start intruding on me or what I’m doing. I don’t particularly care about trying to be the arbiter of right and wrong, I’m happy with live and let live.

    1. adam says:

      There are people who don’t simply accept, but come by their answers about God the same way they come by answers about anything. Just because your experience with believers has led you to think that they’re weak, that they fill in gaps with sorcery, but that doesn’t make it so, or the case everywhere. It’s not just arrogant, it’s wrong.

  77. Maldeus says:

    MALDEUS SMASH PUNY RELIGION WITH VIEWPOINTS OPPOSED TO MINE! MALDEUS STRONGEST THERE IS!

  78. Ryan says:

    Shamus, this is wonderful to read. I agree with you on quite a few levels here- your commentary on the societal problems present in the conservative baptist community are particularly spot on. And as a Christian who frequents geek circles, you can grow to feel a little unwelcome at times- this is extremely encouraging.

    1. toastymow says:

      See, the thing is, I haven’t felt that yet because I’m a religious studies major and have a pretty good grounding in Theology and Logical and can understand philosophy, even if I haven’t had any formal training with it as a discipline separate of theology. Of course, I’m constantly ashamed at how easily Christians often allow Atheists or followers of other religions to run all over them in debates. Its shameful, really, after two thousand years of apologetic, most Believers still can’t answer some very basic questions about their faith?

  79. Melf_Himself says:

    A 10 year old getting converted by a charismatic door-knocker sounds… terrible, honestly. The fellow should not have tried to manipulate a child, for all his knowledge against your parent’s wishes. At that age you could really have ended up as any one of a dozen different religions depending on who knocked on your door and what country you happened to live in.

    For this reason I’m looking forward to hearing how your perspective evolved as you became older.

  80. burningdragoon says:

    Man, this post and all/most of the comments are very interesting. I really enjoy reading this kind of stuff from different sides (when it’s civil anyway).

  81. Brian says:

    Great post, Shamus! Your brief overview there sounds to me like God gave your family some profound graces. I’ll chime in with the other commentors; if you do decide to post some more developed thoughts on religion, let us know where to find it!

  82. nehumanuscrede says:

    Man I’ve tried and tried to figure out the belief / religion thing. I just can’t do it. Believe me, there is a HUGE part of me that hopes I’m wrong and there is more to life than what we have here. Big time wrong.

    What keeps getting in the way is the realization that beliefs come and go depending on what era we live in. We giggle a bit at the folks who believed in Zeus, Anubis, Odin and the like. Yet, were we to have lived in that era, that is where our beliefs would align. Millennia from now, I wonder if those folks will look back on us the way we look back on those in history. What will be the ‘ accepted ‘ religion of the future I wonder.

    I find reality to be harsh and uncaring. There is nothing magical about it. Amazing and wondrous things seemed to be common place back
    when the religious texts of the world were written. Yet today, the standard miracle seems to be a Jesus sighting on a piece of burnt toast or the like.

    Too many religions all claiming to be the one ” true ” religion complicate matters a bit. According to Muslims, everyone else is an infidel and doomed. Same for Christianity and the rest. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t conundrum.

    My answer is to leave them all be and just try to live my life the best way I can. Try not to be a complete ass and treat everyone with the same respect I would ask for. Hope for the best if / when the time comes I guess.

    1. krellen says:

      I don’t giggle at them. If I was forced to choose a god, I would happily join the Cult of Athena.

    2. Joe Cool says:

      According to Muslims, everyone else is an infidel and doomed. Same for Christianity and the rest.

      Well, I can’t speak for other Christian denominations, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “‘Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.” (CCC Paragraph 1260)

      So, according to Catholics, you don’t even have to know that their is a Catholic Church in order to be saved.

    3. adam says:

      “Same for Christianity and the rest.”

      Not true.

      1. krellen says:

        It’s not even true of Islam. Go back a page and look for my comment on the Zakat for evidence.

  83. Sean Riley says:

    Whomever made the decision that you would go to those two different churches with their two wildly different theologies did you an amazing service. No matter if you live the rest of your life committed to Jesus, eventually reach a point (as I did) wherein you could simply could not reconcile your beliefs and become an atheist, or if you have another sudden insight and convert to another religion; no matter what, you have had your mind sharpened and your life enriched by seeing those two wildly divergent sides of the same coin, and I smile at hearing the story.

  84. Arkeph says:

    Even though I didn’t stick with it, I think my experience with religion was ultimately a positive one, and I’m glad you found it fulfilling too, Shamus. Reflecting on my own past faith, I must say that it did sort of set the trajectory of my adult life, and in a good way.

  85. Reet says:

    Throughout most of today I have repeatedly been checking back to see when Spoiler warning was going to be put up but I think I just realised the reason it hasn’t been posted yet. This article has over 600 comments! He must be moderating so hard he doesn’t have time to go to the toilet!

  86. Tamayn says:

    when you said church on a Wednesday, I immediately thought of CCD, probably better known as Catechism. I think it’s great that you were given the opportunity to experience religion from a few different fronts. Like you said, most people have the view of one religion and that’s it.

  87. Dys says:

    SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE?!
    I knew this one was going to get a lot of attention, but holy crap, that’s got to be some kind of record?

    Not sure where the line is drawn between intelligent, reasoned comment and… the opposite of that, quite sure I should know a word to go here. Damn. Anyway, best tread lightly.

    Guess the subject in hand is really only the effect of religion on your own life, which seems to have been quite positive. I wonder if it would have been so much if you were less adamantly self determined, more inclined to listen to authority. Or if you had not been given such a broad education in the various church forms.

    I imagine the most dangerous aspect of religion is its tendency to refuse questions, which is not a function of faith, but of the institutions of power which grow up around it. So long as faith is tempered by doubt it remains positive, as soon as that doubt fades and certainty appears, it becomes exceptionally dangerous.

    Now I have to go read as many of those near seven hundred comments as I can stand. No doubt there are more now than when I started typing.

    1. Lalaland says:

      I’m putting money on this thread hitting the 1000 post mark, there is no finer kindling for a forum war than religion.

      Regardless of how well reasoned and sensitively handled the original topic or post is (and this was a nice personal non-judgemental account of one person’s faith), at least a few people will descend into the depths of a flame war.

    2. Sekundaari says:

      Well, now it has passed the last proper DMotR strip, 731 vs 708 as I write this. I wonder if any other posts have more comments.

      Yet this post has only two pages of comments… I believe that means less than 100 comment threads. Yeah, there’s some discussion here.

  88. Thor says:

    Wow, Shamus! I guess you found a way to increase the number of comments on your site.

    Personally, I am an atheist but I really don’t care what others believe as long as they don’t try to force it on me. Thanks for telling the story.

  89. Dys says:

    Hah! I made it through them all!
    I shall have to check back tomorrow and see if the conversations are still ongoing :)

    I am an atheist, never been anything else. It seems like a lot of these comments say something similar, on either side of the discussion. It makes me wonder if religiosity or lack thereof is an inherent trait in each of us. No doubt some people convert one way or the other, but it also seems a lot like we each have a certain propensity to belief.

    I do like this kind of discussion though, and again, respect for the moderation. I am once again listening to A History of Western Philosophy. I think that belief in gods is fundamentally misguided, but accept that I may be missing something which I can’t grasp, but is natural and obvious to others. Seems important to attempt to understand what it is that makes people believe such things.

  90. MichaelG says:

    You need a new summary line for your comment count. Instead of “There are now n+1 comments, where n is a ridiculous number.” How about “Jumping Jehosaphat! Did someone mention God?”

  91. kikito says:

    It’s funny, I got the exact same reaction – “THIS is what I was looking for!” which pointed me on the exact opposite direction; as an atheist.

    It happened as I was watching one episode of Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos”. I can’t recommend that show enough.

    In two or three simple phrases, Sagan disarmed the whole argument of God and Creation. And did it logically, without a trace of disdain or disrespect (a constant in the series).

    I’ve been fortunate enough to find that exact extract on the interwebs:

    Pursuing the question courageously

    I was born in a Christian-but-not-really-doing-anything-Christian family, and was already a bit skeptical – had too many unanswered questions.

    The Universe is wonderful and vast. It’s natural to try to answer the “why are we here” question. Answering “God did it” looks like … a cheat, an easy escape. If you answer that, you are not really trying.

    1. adam says:

      I love Carl Sagan and I’m pretty familiar with his thoughts about God, but in this clip he’s not really arguing against God. He’s simply arguing against a limited understanding of God, of God’s effects and God’s behavior. He’s arguing against common religious beliefs regarding God.

      Oh, and by the way, Sagan was not an atheist.

      1. kikito says:

        I was agnostic before becoming atheist. The agnostic phase wasn’t worth mentioning, as it was more like a “transition” phase to me.

        Carl Sagan had his own definition of atheism (as well as God). To me it basically means “not believing in the common beliefs associated to God”. But that’s just boring semantics.

        1. adam says:

          I have to disagree that it’s semantics. I don’t see how differing definitions of the nature of God are semantics. Sagan may not have believed in the standard, Judeo-Christian concept of God (a “white guy with a beard sitting in the clouds”), but that doesn’t mean that he wasn’t open to the possibility of a nexus of creation from which flow laws that form a universe amenable to intelligent life, or something along those lines.

          Sagan was certainly skeptical of the evidence-less assertion that there is definitely a standard, anthropomorphic God. But the other side of that coin was that he could not say definitely that “something” that could be considered God didn’t exist. A member of a higher evolved or developed race of beings, perhaps. Perhaps a computer that’s running simulations of which we are a part. Atheism, to me (and apparently, Sagan), says “if I can’t see it or touch it or measure it, it can’t exist.” It’s a pretty bold–and anthropocentric–stance to take. Too bold, if you ask me.

          1. krellen says:

            My view is that to believe in something that you cannot touch or measure, you need to have reason to assume something of that nature should exist. I simply do not see any unexplained phenomena within the universe that requires the existence of a god or any other higher power, and thus view the fact that I have no sense of a higher power as evidence that there is, in fact, no higher power.

            Something made things fall to Earth, even before we knew what it was. There is cause there to believe in something that caused things to fall, even if we don’t know what it is. I cannot, in my life, claim the same for God.

            Most theists I have discussed the issue with do not believe in a God they cannot sense; when I’ve discussed it, they always mention how they had an experience in which they felt God, or that they feel God in the world every day – they don’t believe in God without proof, but they sense a proof that I cannot and that they cannot fully explain to someone that does not sense it as they do (the experience is somewhat akin to trying to explain colour to the blind). They actually have evidence that they feel compels them to trust in the existence of God; it’s not just a “meh, why not?” idea.

            I feel no need for a God to explain the universe, thus in absence of evidence of a God, why should I believe in one?

    2. Jon Ericson says:

      Sagan’s words loosely paraphrased:

      If we say that God has always existed, why not skip a step and say that the universe has always existed?

      That’s a pretty good answer except for the minor detail that modern cosmology has found that the universe began to exist in the Big Bang. I feel like Sagan has taken the easy way out here. He’s cheating, if you will. Many ancients were perfectly happy with a universe that always existed and didn’t need creating, but they were ignorant of the evidence that strongly suggests the universe has a beginning. It’s odd to me that the greatest challenge to modern atheism, the Big Bang Theory, is often viewed as a challenge to creationism instead. A quirk of history, I suppose.

      Modern attempts to reinstate the steady-state theory of the origins of the universe create far more complex answers than simply asserting God (a steady-state entity by definition) created it. If you don’t mind me saying, I’m a bit skeptical about non-God theories of creation—too many unanswered questions. ;-)

      But I appreciate Sagan’s rather soft and unassuming approach to the question. We can all learn a lot from him.

      1. Eldiran says:

        I think the implication is that the condensed matter that ’caused’ the Big Bang always existed, and that perhaps nature “loops” and eventually the universe as we know it will condense again and result in another Big Bang.

        That’s just my understanding of the theory though.

        1. krellen says:

          The Big Crunch has been called into deep question since we discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not decelerating as the Big Crunch presupposed.

          There is the theory of the Big Freeze, but I’m not sure how much I can believe that one either, as it presupposes that this expansion will extend towards all matter, whereas as best as we can currently tell, it simply exists between galaxies and not within galaxies.

          So frankly, at this point, Science simply doesn’t know where we will end, or even for certain where we began, even if a heck of a lot of evidence points towards a single-point explosive beginning. The Big Bang is simply the best model we have for now.

          1. Eldiran says:

            Aye, I’ve heard about that (the accelerating part) but I wasn’t aware it was well-founded enough to discredit the Big Crunch.

            Haven’t heard of the Big Freeze though, so I’ll have to go look that up.

            1. krellen says:

              It’s empirical fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. There’s no debate on that.

              What that means is debatable, but unless it reverses (which, for all we know, it might, as we don’t have an explanation yet for why it’s accelerating), the central premise of the Big Crunch (that gravity will eventually pull everything back into one big lump) has been disproven.

              1. Eldiran says:

                Good to know. Personally I hope that if the Big Crunch is ever found to be true, that it was because the universe behaves like the screen of Asteroids. :p

                1. krellen says:

                  That would force a quite radical rethinking of reality indeed.

                  Also, I lol’d.

  92. Thomas says:

    It was nice to hear how your whole family came with you

  93. Stranger says:

    Damn, over 800 comments? I guess this topic really hit home.

    At any rate, I’d just like to offer my thoughts on this. I was brought up almost entirerly secular, religion was never a big deal for my parents. Several bad experiences with Christianity over the course of my life has now led me to abandon the concept entirerly as unsalvagable. I consider myself atheist, bordering on anti-theist, though I usually dont act on that since changing peoples minds about spiritual matters is about as futile as sticking a straw into the permafrost and trying to suck up the Arctic.

    I dont like religion. I can respect religious people who at the very least try to live up to the ideals they preach, but I dont respect religion itself. I find the behaviour of most church communities rather disturbing and bordering on cult like. It may just be my overall dislike of other people that makes me feel like that though. But most importantly, I find the teachings of the various denominations disturbing. I simply cannot get past a lot of the stories that seem to be handwaved with “God did it, so its okay”.

  94. popovitz says:

    So, what is your opinion on letting children essentially choose their faith as you did? It seems to have worked out for you, and myself I may add, however did you feel any negatives from not having that faith at an earlier age or was it more of something that once you had it, the faith enhanced your life?

  95. DaveMc says:

    Thanks so much for posting this, Shamus. I’m an atheist, myself, but it’s moving and, I don’t know, instructive to hear about people’s faith and how it came to be.

    This is going to seem like faint praise, but I plan to make it less faint later. To my fellow atheists, let me recommend that you ponder a list of things that Shamus is *not*. He’s not: a dangerous fanatic; an ignorant fool; a rage-filled hatemonger; a pitifully deluded soul in need of your help; and much more. I mention this because if you subsist on a steady diet of Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris (like That Guy who shows up in comment threads and on forums), you might tend to assume that all believers are one or more of those things. Internet Commenter Guy, Shamus does not need you to save him from his swamp of ignorance and delusion. I think it’s valuable to be reminded of that.

    I don’t know Shamus personally, but from reading his blog for years, it’s clear to me that he is a decent, caring person with a strong moral compass and a strong concern for the welfare of others. If someone has all those traits, then he is (morally) my brother, and what do I care how he got that way? When debates get too strident, we need to take a step back and think about the example of real people, and things like this post are an important way of enabling people to do that. So, again, thank you for sharing it.

    Atheists can get into a state where we go around with our hackles up all the time, because there’s this common debating stance that claims that we must be wildly immoral, lacking an external absolute source for all morality to flow from. It’s nonsense, but so is the response of saying, “Oh, yeah? Well, *your* morality sucks!” (Internet Commenter Guy, I’m looking at you. Also Hitchens.)

    If people aren’t free to believe whatever they want, that’s a problem that needs solving. If people try to replace science with religion in the classroom, that’s a problem that needs solving. People living decent, caring lives while believing in God is *not* a problem that needs solving. Religion’s worst excesses can be pretty bad, but then again so are the worst excesses of atheism, or any group or philosophical position. It’s good to remind ourselves that it’s not very productive to judge every group by its worst members. Religion’s failures are loud and public, but its successes tend to be invisible. Until, that is, something like this post comes along. So, again, thanks for this.

    1. DaveMc says:

      Thinking about this some more (and I have been: this story has really stuck with me), I realize that I haven’t matched Shamus’ level of candour, myself. When I said that I’m talking to “fellow atheists”, I should have admitted that I was actually directing my comments at *myself*. I’ve been falling into the ignoble habit of vaguely classifying all believers as fools (or worse), which is lazy and unfair. I think that’s why I was so affected by this post: it pointed out to me that I was being unfair to a whole group of people who have done nothing to deserve it. It’s always useful to get a different perspective on things.

      Things on chest: off. I think I can move on, now. :)

  96. Rockbird says:

    Personally, growing up in Sweden i have encountered very few practicing religious people. A kind of unthinking agnosticism comes pretty naturally to most of the people I’ve talked to.

    Personally I like to think my position through, and I am a pretty solid atheist.

    I kinda find the discussion of morals from/without religion a bit disheartening. From my point of view, morals are not a thing that actually exist as anything more than a subjective value judgment. That’s the beauty of it – if people act with kindness and respect towards one another for no other reason than that they decided for themselves that that is the right thing to do, is that not something incredibly beautiful? That’s what drives me; I’m sure others share that belief, but I’ve never seen anyone express it quite in that way.

  97. PhoenixUltima says:

    Holy crap, 890+ comments? I mean, I know why this topic would balloon like this, but WOW.

    Forgive me if it’s been asked (there is no way I’m checking every comment to see for myself), but have you ever contemplated other views on life and life after death? Islam, Hindu, Judaism, Atheism, Whatever-else-ism? Not saying a person has to explore every possibility before setting on their own personal answer (I sure didn’t), just genuinely curious.

    1. krellen says:

      While it’s not a direct answer to the question, this comment probably covers it.

  98. SteveDJ says:

    Ok, this is offtopic, yet related to this particular post… How? The dice counters showing the total number of comments are sporting a 500-sided die! Sure, it is just made up — but now I want one!

    (Plus, with 100 more comments, this is just a guess, as it has never been seen before, but we are likely to see the rarest of the rare – a 1000-sided die – right Shamus?)

    1. Shamus says:

      There isn’t yet a 1000-sider. Four years ago, when I wrote the dice roller, such a thing would have seemed like ridiculous optimism. I’ll add one when we have a thread that breaks 1000. :)

      1. krellen says:

        The gauntlet is cast. We must generate 100 more comments on this thread.

        1. Daemian Lucifer says:

          Onwards to victory!

          But,if that fails,lets make Shamus start another religious topic.How about:Civilization 4 and its seven religions.

          1. Sekundaari says:

            Yes! And, to show the uniquely neutral approach to the different religions the game has, every religion must only be referred with Religion1, Religion2 etc. The ordering based on how many beakers worth of tech you must research to reach it, at minimum. Then the religious buildings and other stuff follow naturally: Religion4Temple, Religion7MusicBuilding, Religion3Monastery, Religion2Wonder.
            Religion5Technology. Religion6MusicBuildingDoubleConstructionSpeedResource.

            1. krellen says:

              One of the reasons why I vastly prefer the Civ4 Mod “Fall from Heaven” (I use Fall from Heaven 2, actually) over vanilla Civ 4 is their take on religion. Each religion is completely unique from the others, with different themes and flavours in themselves. It leads to a great deal of replay, because not only are there X many different cultures to play as, but each culture plays dramatically differently based upon which religion it adopts (some cultures have better synergies with certain religions, of course – elven tree worshippers are more synergistic than elven money worshippers, for instance.)

              As a bonus, they are fantasy religions in an entirely fantasy setting, so no one gets offended.

              1. noahpocalypse says:

                Linux penguin worshippers?

                Ugh, let’s not go there. Terrifying.

                1. krellen says:

                  That is the best definition of the Illians I’ve ever heard.

                  1. noahpocalypse says:

                    ? Who are the Illians? Some guys from the mod?

                    I just thought Linux penguin worshippers was funny. Any semblance to characters, fictional or nonfictional, was actually completely unintended.

                    1. krellen says:

                      The backstory of the fantasy world is a world emerging from an Ice Age brought about by the death of the god of winter. The Illians are the civilisation (playable) that worship the last prophet of the god of winter, who seeks to ascend to become the new god of winter.

              2. Sekundaari says:

                Oh, I agree, FfH2 is awesome. Not just the religion thing, but everything else. If only the AI could really use everything well…

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  I I must get this mod sometime. A good excuse to play civilization 4 again!

                  1. Daemian Lucifer says:

                    The mod was so popular and good that it is incorporated into the beyond the sword expansion.

                    1. krellen says:

                      Well, sort of. One of the scenarios included with Beyond the Sword is essentially the backstory of the mod. You still have to download and install the mod separately.

            2. Daemian Lucifer says:

              But that would defeat the purpose.How are we to start a 1000+ comment thread when people cant just chime in and say “But Confucianism isnt really a religion” if its mentioned only as religion3(obvious nerdbait)?

        2. noahpocalypse says:

          Quick- he who wishes to cross the bridge of death must answer these questions three ere the other side he see!

          Now, uh… Who wants to ask a question?

          1. Daemian Lucifer says:

            WHAT is your name?

            1. noahpocalypse says:

              noahpocalypse!

          2. SteveDJ says:

            WHAT is your quest?

            1. Daemian Lucifer says:

              To see 1000+ comments in this post.

              1. noahpocalypse says:

                WHEN… will Project Frontier see the light of day?

                1. krellen says:

                  When it’s done </blizzard>

                  In three months </valve>

        3. DaveMc says:

          I’ve been doing my bit. 932, after my last post … quadruple digits, here we come!

  99. Avilan says:

    Being a Swede my attitude to religion is definitely different than that of most people from the US of A, which i one of the most fundamentalist Christian countries in the world. This is not an opinion, it’s a fact.

    We are a Christian nation; that is to say our fundamental values for the last 1000 years (we were one of the last regions to become Christians in Europe, 600 years after Ireland, for example) are based on the Bible, but it really don’t show in day-to-day life. Only 4 percent of the population goes to church more than once a year.

    My wife is American and a Believer, but she is not a fan of organized religion. I am an agnostic leaning towards Atheism. Basically I consider the existence of God(s) utterly irrelevant.

    I find that most people that wears their religion on their sleeves (figuratively, not literary; most ministers and priests I have met have been very cool people), the people who announces they are Christian before you even get their name, tend to be… very not Christian. Petty, hypocritical and often acting in direct violation of the New Testament.

    I realize that a vast majority of my American friends are religious, but that does not bother me because to me that is a private matter between them, their minister / priest and their God(s). As long as they don’t get preachy or condemning, we get along fine. Of course I would never dream of questioning their faith, in return.

    Anyway, I find religion extremely interesting, but I have never been interested in becoming religious.

  100. noahpocalypse says:

    I just noticed that it’s not autobiography, it’s autoBLOGraphy. Anyone else not notice?

    1. DaveMc says:

      (Raises hand sheepishly.) I noticed that somewhere around instalment 9 or so … Heh.

      1. krellen says:

        There was a discussion in the comments about what to call it back when Shamus was talking about how he was going to do it.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          It took me a while, yeah. Nice pun.

  101. Spike says:

    This was actually the first page of your blog that I read, Shamus. I don’t usually read stuff on Twenty Sided, but now I think I just might start. I just wanted to say that I am glad to have you as a brother in Christ, and I’m happy that I’ll get to meet you someday. God bless you and your family.

    1. noahpocalypse says:

      You know what?

      Ditto.

  102. noahpocalypse says:

    Yay! Column #3! We can do this!

    1. Paul Spooner says:

      Not with ten thousand men could you do this. It is folly.

      1. Daemian Lucifer says:

        What about a few dozen nerds?

        1. noahpocalypse says:

          We could strike several thousand with that kind of asset.

          1. Corsair says:

            These nerds are now the ultimate power in the universe.

            I suggest we use them.

      2. noahpocalypse says:

        Never fear! THE NERDS ARE HERE!!!

      3. krellen says:

        With 10,000 men it’d be easy. Each one would only have to contribute 1/10th of a comment.

        1. Daemian Lucifer says:

          You mean just like th

          1. krellen says:

            Something like

            1. Daemian Lucifer says:

              So we ag

              1. Corsair says:

                This reminds me a bit of Candle Jack, y’know that old meme that

                1. Daemian Lucifer says:

                  Oh dont start with candl

                2. Noah C. says:

                  Hey, I saw that on an old episode of Freakazoid that my dad showed me. Is that a meme?

      4. DaveMc says:

        Now, if we had two and a half hobbits, we’d be all set.

      5. Corsair says:

        We can simply walk into one thousand.

  103. noahpocalypse says:

    Flamebait time:

    Which is better, Star Wars or Star Trek?

    Go!

    1. noahpocalypse says:

      I prefer Star Wars, though in all honesty I haven’t seen much of Star Trek. I mainly enjoy the story in Star Wars. (Plus I haven’t seen any laser swords in Star Trek!)

    2. krellen says:

      Star Trek is an actual hopeful look out upon our own future (so long as you ignore the last couple seasons of DS9 and the non-entity that is Enterprise), while Star Wars is a nostalgic look back at pulp sci-fi serials full of adventure and swashbuckling. They’re not even competitors, except inasmuch as they both have the word “Star” in their titles.

      But Star Trek is better. It encompasses vastly more media and captures much more of the human experience. Plus it’s an. EXCELLENT. excuse to – talk. like. this!

      1. noahpocalypse says:

        Meh. I don’t see no laser swords in that there universe; It’s not much of a hopeful dream then in my opinion!

        1. krellen says:

          Laser swords are dangerous. You’ll put someone’s eye out!

          1. noahpocalypse says:

            Uh. That’s the idea.

            1. Corsair says:

              The thing is, Star Trek is -too- hopeful. This isn’t an optimistic ‘Things will get better! Humanity is good!’ it’s ‘JOY SUNSHINE WONDER EVERYTHING CAN BE SOLVED BY THE POWER OF PATRICK STEWART.

              I mean, it’s not completely absurd. Patrick Stewart -is- awesome. But I think DS9’s more realistic look at it was superior.

              1. krellen says:

                Before Stewart, there was Shatner.

                1. Aldowyn says:

                  And after Star Trek, there was no Shatner.

                  What?

                  On topic (as if!): They’re both interesting. Star Wars (as in the movies. KotOR is completely exempt from this) is more of a fantasy type sci-fi. Just turn “the force” into magic, and you can see what I mean.

                  Star Trek is much more classically sci-fi. They tackle a fair amount of typical sci-fi themes, and it’s usually on a much smaller scale (ironically, sci-fi is often on a much smaller scale than fantasy. Fantasy has huge armies – sci-fi is usually a lone ship wandering around getting into trouble, or something similar)

    3. Daemian Lucifer says:

      I didnt like star wars that much when there were just 3 films in there.But Ive enjoyed kotor 1 and 2 very much.Same,I didnt like star trek that much either,except for ds9 which was great.So,do I prefer kotor or ds9?Well both were great,but kotor is a video game,and therefore superior.So Id say,oddly enough,that star wars is better.

      1. Aldowyn says:

        I personally LOVE the backstory in KotOR. Bioware did more to flesh out the universe of Star Wars than Lucas ever did. (By a LOT. I love hearing about the origin of the Jedi and the Sith. Korriban is a gold mine)

        BTW: SWTOR?

        1. Daemian Lucifer says:

          “BTW: SWTOR?”

          Not gonna happen.I dont like mmos.Did try out quite a few of them,even was in beta of one,but never got into it.Not even warcraft got me to play an mmo,and Im a blizzard fanboy.

  104. noahpocalypse says:

    Time for some more… Not flamebait, but certainly some kind of bait:

    In how many ways art thou a nerd/geek?

    1. Daemian Lucifer says:

      Nerd is not the same as geek.Here,take a test.

      1. noahpocalypse says:

        I’m aware of the difference; that’s why I used both. :)

        1. Corsair says:

          The difference between Geeks and Nerds is that Geeks don’t like being called Nerds, and vice versa.

          1. Aldowyn says:

            Huh, the test broke.

            I’m a nerd, and a geek. Not so much a dork (that one’s fallen out of usage, I think. It’s certainly more negative than the others are now)

            Personally, I think the difference is mostly one of just context. Like a computer geek or a video game nerd.

  105. noahpocalypse says:

    Alright, real flamebait time:

    Which programming language is the best?

    1. noahpocalypse says:

      I like C++ because of its conciseness. Python is too wordy, and Java isn’t portable enough.

      1. Cuthalion says:

        I laughed out loud.

  106. Al says:

    There are too many comments to read them all, so forgive me if someone has answered this question elsewhere.
    I have seen some posts where atheists have stated that they believe in evolution.
    I have seen other posts where atheists have stated that they do not believe in God because it cannot be “proven” that He exists.
    I can only assume that if both statements are not applicable to all atheists, then there must be at least a subset of atheists which would agree with both of those statements. My question is directed at that subset.
    I am curious. Evolution is a theory because it has not been “proven”. There is certainly a great deal of evidence to support the theory and my intention is not to debate that here. However, the fact is that it has not been proven yet. Thus, someone who states that they believe in evolution must make a leap of faith that the evidence to prove the theory exists and will one day be discovered.
    So my question is why do you require proof of the existence of God and not proof of the theory of evolution?

    1. krellen says:

      “Theory” in science means something different from “theory” in colloquial English. When you say “theory” colloquially, you’re actually closer to the scientific definition of “hypothesis”.

      Theories are proven facts that reliably describe observed phenomena. The word “law” is used for proven facts that describe fundamental forces of nature. Evolution will never become a “law”, and the “Theory of Evolution” is not so named because it is unproven. I make no leap of faith to believe in evolution.

    2. Daemian Lucifer says:

      There are different kinds of theories in science.The one most people think of is the regular unproven and untested theory,like string theory.Its basically an explanation of a phenomena that hasnt been tested/cant yet be tested,but it will/can be tested in the future.And like krellen said,these are usually refered to as hypothesis.

      Then there are theories that have been tested,like the newtonian theory of gravity,relativistic theory of gravity,and theory of evolution.Now,newtonian theory of gravity was considered to be correct for a very long time because it matched the data observed here on earth.It has been replaced because it isnt correct in some circumstances.However,its still being used because most of the time it reflects our world.

      Evolution is like that as well.It might be proven to be wrong,that is true,but the amount of data that supports it is so immense that any theory that replaces it will,partially or completely,include it in itself.Furthermore,what we are calling theory of evolution now has gone through that process a lot of times,so what was described by its creator is only a small part of the theory we have now.

      However,the thing that connects both of these,and this is the crucial part:These theories are all verifiable.This means that sooner or later,any scientific theory will be tested.God,on the other hand,is not verifiable.That is,god as an omnipotent being is not verifiable.Creator,as a limited but technologically advanced being,is.

  107. Daemian Lucifer says:

    And 1000.Shamus,pay up!

    1. Aldowyn says:

      Aww. I missed it. Who made the 1000th comment? Also: Pay up? Did he promise something?

      1. Noah C. says:

        Yeah, woo!

        He said he’d make a 1000 sided die for the comments thing if it hit 1000.

        Shamus, you should add a new line for 1000 comments. Maybe something along the lines of ‘OVER NINE-THOUSAND(minus 8000)!!!’? Just an idea. It could show that for everything above 1000, assuming that HTML supports variables like that. Either way, it does need something special.

        1. Aldowyn says:

          Personally I am a fan of the idea of just saying “Did someone mention religion?

        2. Daemian Lucifer says:

          There is a special comment for 1000.

          Also,photobucket still remembers my login after all this time?Wow,thats awesome.Especially since it would probably take a few minutes for me to remember the username and the password.

          1. SteveDJ says:

            Actually, I think that’s what it said for 900, too (as I added the 900th comment that provoked Shamus’ promise of a shiny new die!) — probably just something for every even hundred or so.

            Edit: Alas, I didn’t take a screenshot of 900 – so it might have been something else – but I do remember it was a one-off special statement only on that specific number).

      2. Daemian Lucifer says:

        I did,oddly enough.Came here when a game crashed,saw 997 comments,responded to one,and suddenly there were 999,so I took the shot.

        1. noahpocalypse says:

          Congratz then.

  108. noahpocalypse says:

    Still waiting on that d1000. ;)

    1. SteveDJ says:

      Finally got back here to check — looks like we finally got our d1000. Although, it sorta looks more like a dinner plate or something… but the gold is a nice touch… :-) :-) :-)

      (maybe if there was a larger image to scrutinize…)

  109. Neil Roy says:

    Again, we share many similarities in upbringing with a single parent, hard times in school and now this as well. I am not a fan of modern “churches”, but I do have my beliefs, but after actually opening and reading my bible, I realized that many of the current so called “Christian” churches do not follow all of what their own bible teaches. My own beliefs are based on the bible 100%. One good example that contradicts what most Sunday keeping churches believe can be found in John 3:13 or the fourth commandment. I won’t comment further because it usually leads to arguments, usually both Atheists dislike me because of my beliefs, and Christians dislike me because I don’t follow their traditions, fun times. ;)

  110. Pyrite Town Boy says:

    I’d like to tell my story.

    I was raised in a very liberal Christian household. Although we didn’t hold any animosity or hostility towards people who disagreed with us, or homosexuals or anything, our parents still took our religious upbringing quite seriously. Church almost every Sunday, lots of family activities with a religious slant etc. (of particular note, family meeting and planning every Sunday with prayer.)

    Our brand of Christianity was very much of the “Jesus loves you just the way you are” variety, so our attitude to spirituality was pretty relaxed. I stopped going to church in my teens, and instead joined a youth group with guest pastors, christian rock, youth ministration and the whole shebang. Even then, I rarely paid attention during the talks, mostly I just went for keeping up appearances.

    Fast forward to my late teens. I went to a boarding school for a year before I attended university. One day, I decided to actually look up some Atheist content to see what they actually think. I just wanted to understand their reasons. I came upon Dusty Smith’s youtube channel, Cult of Dusty, and watched a few of his videos ranting about religion.

    I wanted to check my facts, and during my googling I found a page that does a quick and concise summary of all the OTHER religious figures throughout history that share aspects with Jesus. Other Sons of God, other virgin-births, other martyrs.

    That was the first major blow to my faith. I made a teary-eyed, sobbing phone call to Mom where I blurted out that I didn’t believe anymore (in hindsight, it certainly was the start of my road to unbelief). Mom got very concerned, but she also took it very calmly. Dad bought me a book (C. S. Lewis’ ‘The Screwtape Letters’. Never finished it) that he hoped would help.

    This moment faded into memory, and I eventually backtracked. Later that same year, when I went to my first actual service in quite a while, I got that feeling of euphoria and elation, and concluded that I simply hadn’t been spending enough time with God. Back home the next year, I started actually reading the Bible for the first time in a while. I had decided that I wanted to make sure I actually knew what I believed in. The Old Testament wasn’t exactly fun to get through, and although Jesus was a lot more agreeable, I still had some objections that wouldn’t let go.

    My doubt came back eventually, and once again my parents were totally cool with it. They explained this as a necessary process where my “childhood faith” needed to evolve into a proper, mature understanding of what it meant to be Christian.

    So I started asking questions. My dad possessed a degree in theology, so he was good at answering me, but he couldn’t quite settle my doubts, and the more I thought about it, the more it all started to fall apart. I also got a small job, serving as a translator in my church, since there happened to be a few members of the congregation who didn’t speak Norwegian (my nationality). Being an English student, it was very valuable experience to get the chance to actively apply myself, but of course, I also got the full content of the pastor’s speeches in ways I hadn’t since childhood, and having to translate it as accurately as possible forced me to think about the implications of what I was saying.

    So there was this one service, where the preacher was talking about what it meant to serve God. The way he described it was essentially as process where serving God made your “true self” come to the light. When you followed God in all things, the story went, your “earthly self” would diminish, and your “true self” would be revealed in Christ.

    To me, this sounded like one thing, and one thing only: Brainwashing. I mean, seriously, it’s a raw deal you’re getting as a Christian, “there’s something wrong with you, and only I can fix it. You need me, you’re worthless without me, I’ll punish you if you try to leave me.”

    So I had just translated for the preacher, and as the music kicked in and the congregation praised god with song, I sat down on my knees, and wept by myself in the corner room I sat in.

    If I couldn’t believe in God wholeheartedly, I was going to Hell… but what if Hell didn’t exist? What if there was no God?

    I renounced my faith essentially right then and there. I told my family about it later that same evening. I’m extremely fortunate to have a family who doesn’t let the fact that I’m an Atheist stop them from being my family. I’m still their son and older brother, and they still love me.

    The more I learn about the historicity of the Bible, the more I train up my reasoning skills and go looking for evidence, the less and less credible it’s looking to me. I now try to live my life as positively and open-minded as I can. I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself an anti-theist, per se, more so an anti-organized religion something or other.

    The core factors that make me more comfortable with being an Atheist are that, first of all, it is the most honest position I can take. At this point, I’d be lying to myself if I tried to continue believing in a personal God of any sort. Second, the way I see it, religions tell people to divorce themselves from who they are as human beings. Third, even though religion is not inherently a bad thing, I have no use for it personally.

  111. Charlette says:

    I go to the Catholic church. What I like about being a Christian is that you have to be nice to eachother.

  112. Leah says:

    I think not liking church is not a good idea, and not knowing about God is not a good idea.
    If you don’t know about God, you wouldn’t know who created the world, who created you, and the solar systems. Like the one with the diamonds!

  113. Colin Kint says:

    Hey! personally I don’t like to spend words on religious matters but here you’ve explained things in a mannered way. One more thing- using religion for political purpose is a very bad sign to the humanity. God save us all!

    From
    scooterlay

  114. SG says:

    Skate castle site is cute.

Thanks for joining the discussion. Be nice, don't post angry, and enjoy yourself. This is supposed to be fun. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*

You can enclose spoilers in <strike> tags like so:
<strike>Darth Vader is Luke's father!</strike>

You can make things italics like this:
Can you imagine having Darth Vader as your <i>father</i>?

You can make things bold like this:
I'm <b>very</b> glad Darth Vader isn't my father.

You can make links like this:
I'm reading about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darth_Vader">Darth Vader</a> on Wikipedia!

You can quote someone like this:
Darth Vader said <blockquote>Luke, I am your father.</blockquote>

Leave a Reply to Nyctef Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.