Ex-Clergy realizing there is no god

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be very little on this thread about clergy becoming atheist/agnostic. Just a bunch of people making up stuff about Christianity (why not about other religions? Bigotry?) and people quibbling about the definition of atheism.

Wonder if OP got what she wanted out of it. If she was trolling and wanted bickering, then she did get that.

Some people just can't seem to help themselves.

Personally, I believe OP wanted to start a bit of a flame war in this thread. It's an inflammatory way to bring up religion ("ho ho your clergy has "realized" that there is no god, what now Christians?") Even then, I was pretty amazed watching this thread devolve from page 1. (I should point out that I'm neither Christian nor atheist. Just amazed at how bad this thread was.)

Yes and yes--OP was trolling, and this thread got pretty bad.

PS. If I were the type to run to the moderator, which I'm not, it would be interesting to know if OP was fanning the flames with those ridiculous "core tenets" of Christianity and statements about heathens.

Moderator would say no.

OK, if you're claiming either the "core tenets" or the "heathens" without claiming this thread itself, then you too are a bigot, or at least a neutral person who is a troll. Care to say which?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How is that worse than "Organized religion seems harmful"? And all the other anti-religion threads that pop up here all the time. One Stalin thread, and I'll give you the "Should atheists celebrate Easter" thread too, pales in comparison to the trolling against faith, and against Christianity in particular.

I really don't get the atheist sense of victimhood on DCUM. Atheist trolling on this thread alone (OP, the "basic tenets" ignoramous, and the "heathens" fool, outweigh that Stalin thread. But go ahead and nurture your sense of injury over the Stalin thread, if it fills some need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How do you know that OP was trolling vs. trying sincerely to understand atheists?

[Anonymous]

No one else cares about this trolling-not-trolling discussion!! It's going nowhere. Please move on.

Go back to page 7 and follow the rest of the theological discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one else cares about this trolling-not-trolling discussion!! It's going nowhere. Please move on.

Go back to page 7 and follow the rest of the theological discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one else cares about this trolling-not-trolling discussion!! It's going nowhere. Please move on.

Go back to page 7 and follow the rest of the theological discussion.

What theological discussion? Whether Dawkins can call himself agnostic and atheist at the same time, despite these appearing to be mutually exclusive?

This whole thread is a farce started by a troll. In 8 pages, not a single clergy person has come on to say they lost their faith, in fact one clergy person came on to reaffirm her faith. An atheist said she had once been Evangelical but lost her faith, however she was never a clergy person. Nobody has even said they knew a clergyperson who lost their faith. It seems doubtful OP even expected testimony like that, instead she just wanted to rile people up. So given that you're not the thread police, let the rest of us take it where we want to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How do you know that OP was trolling vs. trying sincerely to understand atheists?

Because that OP admitted it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one else cares about this trolling-not-trolling discussion!! It's going nowhere. Please move on.

Go back to page 7 and follow the rest of the theological discussion.

What theological discussion? Whether Dawkins can call himself agnostic and atheist at the same time, despite these appearing to be mutually exclusive?

This whole thread is a farce started by a troll. In 8 pages, not a single clergy person has come on to say they lost their faith, in fact one clergy person came on to reaffirm her faith. An atheist said she had once been Evangelical but lost her faith, however she was never a clergy person. Nobody has even said they knew a clergyperson who lost their faith. It seems doubtful OP even expected testimony like that, instead she just wanted to rile people up. So given that you're not the thread police, let the rest of us take it where we want to go.

It was a legit question, but veered off-course by a few different PPs.

Anyway, I thought the evangelical poster had some good insight. And the hospice minister. I don't control who posts on DCUM so you get what you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How is that worse than "Organized religion seems harmful"? And all the other anti-religion threads that pop up here all the time. One Stalin thread, and I'll give you the "Should atheists celebrate Easter" thread too, pales in comparison to the trolling against faith, and against Christianity in particular.

I really don't get the atheist sense of victimhood on DCUM. Atheist trolling on this thread alone (OP, the "basic tenets" ignoramous, and the "heathens" fool, outweigh that Stalin thread. But go ahead and nurture your sense of injury over the Stalin thread, if it fills some need.

Don't forget the infamous nonconformist thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be very little on this thread about clergy becoming atheist/agnostic. Just a bunch of people making up stuff about Christianity (why not about other religions? Bigotry?) and people quibbling about the definition of atheism.

Wonder if OP got what she wanted out of it. If she was trolling and wanted bickering, then she did get that.

Some people just can't seem to help themselves.

Personally, I believe OP wanted to start a bit of a flame war in this thread. It's an inflammatory way to bring up religion ("ho ho your clergy has "realized" that there is no god, what now Christians?") Even then, I was pretty amazed watching this thread devolve from page 1. (I should point out that I'm neither Christian nor atheist. Just amazed at how bad this thread was.)

Yes and yes--OP was trolling, and this thread got pretty bad.

PS. If I were the type to run to the moderator, which I'm not, it would be interesting to know if OP was fanning the flames with those ridiculous "core tenets" of Christianity and statements about heathens.

Moderator would say no.

OK, if you're claiming either the "core tenets" or the "heathens" without claiming this thread itself, then you too are a bigot, or at least a neutral person who is a troll. Care to say which?

No. I'm the OP and I didn't post either of those comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How is that worse than "Organized religion seems harmful"? And all the other anti-religion threads that pop up here all the time. One Stalin thread, and I'll give you the "Should atheists celebrate Easter" thread too, pales in comparison to the trolling against faith, and against Christianity in particular.

I really don't get the atheist sense of victimhood on DCUM. Atheist trolling on this thread alone (OP, the "basic tenets" ignoramous, and the "heathens" fool, outweigh that Stalin thread. But go ahead and nurture your sense of injury over the Stalin thread, if it fills some need.

Don't forget the infamous nonconformist thread. G

If you want to feel victimized about 3 threads in the span of a month, nobody is going to stop you. Just don't pretend that it comes anywhere close to the abuse you guys dish out to people of faith on a daily, even hourly, basis. On just this thread, the misquotes and mischaracterizations are offensive. I don't consider myself a victim. Given the way atheists behave here, however, and the rest of you not calling out the bad actors, you need to get called out on this atheist victimhood thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we agree, then, that posters who don't *know* much about a religion should refrain from making declarative statements about that religion's requirements, commandments, or beliefs?

Does that go for non-religion too? Please don't make declarative statements about atheists and agnostics.

And maybe refrain from starting troll posts, too?

I'm PP and I didn't start this thread.

This was a legit question. How about Stalin?

Nope, I didn't start Stalin either. Moderator would verify.

I didn't say you did. That wasn't a legit thread. That OP was trolling.

How do you know that OP was trolling vs. trying sincerely to understand atheists?

Because that OP admitted it.

No, she didn't. (DT, is that you?) One of you even ran crying to the moderator who said she seemed legit if argumentative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I always wonder why atheists ask for proof of spiritual things. There isn't proof, that is why we call it "faith." If it was proven, faith would be paltry. I am not looking for proof.

They said it best in "oh brother where art thou"...everybody's looking for answers. I don't have any answers for you. I do believe the incredible complexity that is life and space is a manifestation of God, who is infinite. The cosmos only makes sense when you have some faith, because the answers just keep changing as the concept of infinite gets larger and more complex.

For you, what part of the cosmos is only explained by faith? Because I have yet to come across anything that is so overly complex that I need some mystical way to explain it.

just think of the sheer unlikelihood of our very existence. It's pretty awe-inspiring.

But I don't think there are any conflicts between science and Christianity as I believe it.

Also, I am always puzzled as to the logic behind atheism. I deeply respect agnostics because I think the big questions are really hard but by its nature, a divine power is hard to affirmatively disprove. it seems like the scientific mind would say "it appears very unlikely, but I can't rule it out." Thus agnosticism.

I feel like atheists are buying into the anti-scientific religious paradigm by allowing them to frame the terms of the discussion.

Dawkins says he's 99% atheist but because he can't disprove God, he (reluctantly) has to call himself agnostic.

Not true - he calls himself an atheist, with no reluctance. He knows that God, or any other unseen being, can't be disproved.

Atheist simply refers to lack of belief whereas agnostic refers to lack of knowing. Many people who lack belief in God who have thought it through think of themselves as agnostic atheists -- they don't know and they don't believe - though they may choose to call themselves one or the other.

I think some feel "agnostic" is a softer term, or one that suggests that they are still open to belief - and maybe some agnostics think that way. I think some people who call themselves atheists feel more comfortable in their non-belief. But it's all about belief -- not knowing.

You're wrong about Dawkins calling himself an atheist: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

Apparently he called himself agnostic in The God Delusion, too. Being that it's Dawkins, I doubt he was going for a softer term. Rather, if you read the article, it seems to have something to do with intellectual integrity--he is a scientist, after all.

No, he calls himself an atheist AND an agnostic -- he doesn't know and he doesn't believe. He mainly calls himself an atheist. The title of the article is "Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist" which is accurate, but the only reason it is a headline is because some people wrongly assume that atheists profess to know that god doesn't not exist -- and they don't -- that's a misconception. The article also states that “Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs” which is also stated in his book.

I remember when that article came out. Atheists were generally not surprised at Dawkins response, especially if they had read his book. Also many atheists think of themselves the same way.

Some quotes by Richard Dawkins
http://www.azquotes.com/author/3748-Richard_Dawkins

“We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.”

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all species are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable.”

And there are many more.

As a religious person, I find the above quote very interesting. In that 1) he totals up the sum of suffering in any given moment. But he's forgetting to sum up the sum of peace and joy. 2) he forgets the possibility that we are in a very natural, and fallen, state. The suffering is greater because of that state. (Possible that the potential for joy is greater also. 3) if you can't subscribe to the above two points, just remember there is something unique about the human experience. He focuses on animals, and yes, he's saying that's just the start of what pain he could sum up....but when he leaves out humanity in his list, he's scrapping the other side of the coin (the potential for human progress, what we can reason, what we can create, the fact we can feel love, what we can do for others who are suffering, etc etc etc).

In my form of Christian belief, I do believe in a fall, that there is a Christ to overcome it for us and with us, and that suffering was meant to be. There is peace and suffering, and the fact that they exist doesn't make me think that God doesn't exist.

Not arguing whatsoever. I would suggest considering some of the points I mention relative to Dawkins' writing.

An atheist and also not arguing: 1) I don't think he forgets to sum up the peace and joy -- he just doesn't mention it, perhaps (I'm not a mind reader) to show how full of suffering the world is and how antithetical that is to the existence of a loving god. 2) He doesn't "forget" that we're in a fallen state -- he was raised Christian - he just doesn't believe it. 3) He isn't leaving out humans; he's including us as animals, which we are, that experience the same suffering that he describes. Dawkins was trained as a zoologist, who perhaps (again, not a mindreader) is more prone to automatically lump us humans in with the rest of the animals. I didn't read it the way you did. I assumed he was talking about humans as well, but I wish that he had said "Humans and other animals" just for clarity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one else cares about this trolling-not-trolling discussion!! It's going nowhere. Please move on.

Go back to page 7 and follow the rest of the theological discussion.

What theological discussion? Whether Dawkins can call himself agnostic and atheist at the same time, despite these appearing to be mutually exclusive?

This whole thread is a farce started by a troll. In 8 pages, not a single clergy person has come on to say they lost their faith, in fact one clergy person came on to reaffirm her faith. An atheist said she had once been Evangelical but lost her faith, however she was never a clergy person. Nobody has even said they knew a clergyperson who lost their faith. It seems doubtful OP even expected testimony like that, instead she just wanted to rile people up. So given that you're not the thread police, let the rest of us take it where we want to go.

As far as I know, only one person ever has identified themselves here as a clergy person. It seems unlikely that clergy -- especially clergy who don't believe in god anymore - would find this thread.

And if you read more closely, you'd see that "agnostic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they tend to be complementary.