Ex-Clergy realizing there is no god

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm sorry, but this seems like splitting hairs. But along these lines, and lacking proof of God's non-existence, shouldn't all atheists call themselves "atheist and agnostic" too?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm sorry, but this seems like splitting hairs. But along these lines, and lacking proof of God's non-existence, shouldn't all atheists call themselves "atheist and agnostic" too?

Many do, but there are no rules. Besides "atheist" means not believing - so it is accurate.

People pretty much call themselves what they want. There are many people who barely follow the tenets of Christianity who still call themselves Christian - and there are lots of different kinds of Christians. A Christian is someone who believes in Christ. After that, it's up for grabs.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods. They might be a formerly Christian atheist, a loud, in-your-face atheist, a shy, retiring atheist, etc, etc,

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.