| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Therion Ware" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2006 02:48:29 AM |
| Object: |
Conversion To Christianity. |
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
Intellectual honesty demanded that I address certain questions, and
the results are given below.
Is there a God?
The question is quite recent you know. Until about 300 years ago the
term "atheist" didn't mean someone who didn't believe, it meant
someone who believed wrongly. Until recently rational atheism was
impossible.
As Karen Armstrong says in "A History of God":
<start quotation> (Rather long, and a scan, so watch out for spelling
errors...and who said this would be easy?).
Indeed, by the end of the sixteenth century, many people in Europe
felt that religion had been gravely discredited. They were disgusted
by the killing of Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by
Catholics. Hundreds of people had died as martyrs for holding views
that it was impossible to prove one way or the other. Sects preaching
a bewildering variety of doctrines that were deemed essential for
salvation had proliferated alarmingly. There was now too much
theological choice: many felt paralysed and distressed by the variety
of religious interpretations on offer. Some may have felt that faith
was becoming harder to achieve than ever. It was, therefore,
significant that at this point in the history of the Western God,
people started spotting 'atheists', who seemed to be as numerous as
the 'witches', the old enemies of God and allies of the devil. It was
said that these 'atheists' had denied the existence of God, were
acquiring converts to their sect and undermining the fabric of
society. Yet in fact a full- blown atheism in the sense that we use
the word today was impossible. As Lucien Febvre has shown in his
classic book The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century, the
conceptual difficulties in the way of a complete denial of God's
existence at this time were so great as to be insurmountable. From
birth and baptism to death and burial in the churchyard, religion
dominated the life of every single man and woman. Every activity of
the day, which was punctuated with church bells summoning the faithful
to prayer, was saturated with religious beliefs and institutions: they
dominated professional and public life - even the guilds and the
universities were religious organisations. As Febvre points out, God
and religion were so ubiquitous that nobody at this stage thought to
say: 'So our life, the whole of our life, is dominated by
Christianity! How tiny is the area of our lives that is already
secularised, compared to everything that is still governed, regulated
and shaped by religion!'43 Even if an exceptional man could have
achieved the objectivity necessary to question the nature of religion
and the existence of God, he would have found no support in either the
philosophy or the science of his time. Until there had formed a body
of coherent reasons, each one of which was based on another cluster of
scientific verifications, nobody could deny the existence of a God
whose religion shaped and dominated the moral, emotional, aesthetic
and political life of Europe. Without this support, such a denial
could only be a personal whim or a passing impulse that was unworthy
of serious consideration. As F febvre has shown, a vernacular language
such as French lacked either the vocabulary or the syntax for
scepticism. Such words as 'absolute', 'relative', 'causality',
'concept' or 'intuition' were not yet in use. We should also
remember that as yet no society in the world had eliminated religion
which was taken for granted as a fact of life. Not until the very end
of the eighteenth century would a few Europeans find it possible to
deny the existence of God.
<end quotation>
What does it mean that rational atheism was impossible? Well, some
Christians might (and do) maintain that the fact that belief in some
form of God is universal to humanity indicates the reality of God. I
wouldn't go that far, but would say that what appears to be an
universally human inherent recognition of the Divine indicates that
the concept is worthy of serious consideration and cannot be lightly
dismissed as a socio-historical aberration peculiar to a particular
time, place and circumstance.
Do I hear someone mention Buddhism as a variety of atheism, and
consequently a serious exception to the observation posited above? But
Buddhism does not deny the existence of Gods, rather it thinks them
irrelevant to the quest for enlightenment and for want of a better
word, salvation.
Before detailing specifically why I have come to believe, I think it's
necessary to deal with some of the "problems" that Christianity in
general raises. Of course there are many varieties of the basic
religion, most of which are convinced that they are the one true path
to salvation. This section is likely to be both long and discursive,
but again, I think necessary if you are to fully understand my change
of heart.
That there are many varieties of Christianity is of itself sometimes
used as an argument against the existence of God. The figure of
25,000+ distinct Christian sects each of whom feel the need to
explicitly differentiate themselves from other sects is frequently
bandied about in alt.atheism. I don't know if this is the correct
figure, but whatever then actual number (and one suspects it varies
significantly on a day by day basis) it's certainly a large one, more
than enough to make the point.
The idea behind the argument is that many of the central beliefs of
these many Christian sects flatly contradict each other. Many US
Protestants, particularly the Fundamentalist denominations for
example, regard the single largest and perhaps oldest branch of the
Christian religion, the Roman Catholics as little more than "pagans" -
though seldom with any understanding of what the term actually means.
In this context "pagan" is a fight/hate word, used in the same way
that "atheist" or indeed "communist," and "anarchist" tended to be
historically used: and when you have a good insult, and are preaching
to the converted, precision is seldom a factor.
If there is a God who exists in objective reality, and who (and this
is central to the Christian message) **reveals** Himself to humanity -
how can this be? How can a message from God, an Omniscient entity who
presumably has some idea of how to get Himself (as it were) across, be
understood in so many distinct and contradictory ways?
The answer I feel that how the message is understood depends very much
on the context in which you receive it, and this in turn is absolutely
central and the determining factor in the variety of Christianity I,
to the best of my ability have come to both think and feel is closest
to the Truth and which thus demands my allegiance.
Protestant Fundamentalism is in my view very much a product of the
times and circumstances in which it evolved: turbulent social,
political and existential change. It is no accident that Christian
Fundamentalism is an almost entirely US phenomenon and little more
than a century old.
As Armstrong demonstrates in sometimes excruciating detail in both "A
History of God," and "The Battle for God" change of this nature
produces significant social stress and one of the traditional
responses to this is an appeal for a return to the religious and
social values of the past. It is an entirely human response, entirely
understandable, and almost always entirely inappropriate.
Inappropriate? Why?
Because for example in the instance of Christian Fundamentalism
(indeed, *all* Fundamentalism) it amounts to a way of not dealing with
societal change (or conversely trying to deal with it through stasis)
and of trying to understand the world in a way that no longer works,
and if nothing else religion must "work" in a wider context than the
merely personal if it is to be taken seriously.
*All* Fundamentalism is also anti-historical. This is to say, for
example that to, ah, mime, belief on the same terms as various
Biblical figures, *today* is simply ridiculous. It's ridiculous
because the socio-historical context in which such beliefs existed no
longer exist, and IMO simply cannot be sufficiently understood today
in a way that warrants that kind of belief in that kind of way. In
short you weren't there, didn't live that life and cannot have any
idea other than in the most general sense of how they believed, or
thought because these things were conditioned
More generally I reject Protestantism in general, to a large extent,
on the basis of my experience on Usenet (but there is a bit more to it
than that, and we'll come to that in a moment).
Frankly they're mad, if in some instances, in a societally acceptable
sense. People with no sense of time, place or circumstance, no formal
training, little sense of history and in many instances fewer social
skills presume to give a message to mankind based on their own highly
selective interpretation of the Bible.
When each man is his own Pope, eh?
And this is precisely what you see is in a good deal of, particularly
US, Protestantism. UK Protestantism is, of course, generally
harmless. These days. With certain and particular exceptions.
With this in mind, and similar objections in mind with respect to
Protestantism in general, I am compelled to announce myself a Roman
Catholic albeit in advance of my meeting with the local priest on
Thursday with a view to becoming a Catechumen. I'm told he's quite
sound, if a tad busy at this time of year.
Which is some of the background. But by no means all.
But the real question, the meat, is "why do *I* believe?". What
prompted the change in myself from "getting on for a militant atheist"
to someone who is at this point willing to embrace Jesus Christ
through the ministry of the Roman Catholic Church?
That's perhaps the most difficult question of all, and introspection
has rarely been my strong point.
IMO atheism is rational, justifiable, and in many instances moral. Why
I have rejected it in favour of a particular flavour of theism needs
to be explained in detail, IMO, But I've gone on for *long* time, in
this message, and that will have to wait for part II.
Which might take a day or two, as some of you may understand.
Rgds
TW.
.
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 05:54:10 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com...
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
April Fool to you too! :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 06:43:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:54:10 -0500 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff
("Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com...
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
April Fool to you too! :)
Madam, you know too much!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
Help An Imaginary Being Today. Visit www.saecb.com .
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 06:54:35 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:hats22dq28glja0r4ltg9phfc49nuu4fv1@4ax.com...
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006 06:54:10 -0500 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff
("Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com...
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
April Fool to you too! :)
Madam, you know too much!
What can I say? It's a curse :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VW" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 10:20:48 AM |
|
|
I almost forgot that today was a major holiday for atheists. And a happy
April 1 to you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
02 Apr 2006 12:22:24 AM |
|
|
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
Happy All Fools' Day to you too! :-)
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 04:20:45 AM |
|
|
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 05:12:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
Help An Imaginary Being Today. Visit www.saecb.com .
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
02 Apr 2006 12:28:37 AM |
|
|
In article <k3ls22hb6kob04l1s1dsi5ue46jafh73pr@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Been there, done that, wouldn't do it again for anything.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Buddhism because it's more of a philosophy than a religion. If not I'd
be some variety of pantheist.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Siobhan Burke" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
03 Apr 2006 11:01:40 AM |
|
|
In article <k3ls22hb6kob04l1s1dsi5ue46jafh73pr@4ax.com>,
autodelete@city-of-dis.com says...
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
The Society of Friends--they actually seem to do some real
good, and stay out of people's faces about it.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Shinto. If I've got to pray, I'd as soon pray to my
grandmother as anyone else.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. www.video2cd.co.uk. Your 8mm films on DVD.
Help An Imaginary Being Today. Visit www.saecb.com .
--
Siobhan - a.a. #2201
hellflower@earthlink.alMayne.net (Now a real address, if you ice
the alMayne.)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
precipitate.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 05:45:01 AM |
|
|
In article <k3ls22hb6kob04l1s1dsi5ue46jafh73pr@4ax.com>, Therion
Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> declared...
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
If all that is required is lip service "oh, yeah, I'm a member of
the xyz denomination", then I'd throw a dart at a dart board and
whichever religion I hit would be the one I joined. If I had to
actually attend their services, then I'd go with whichever one
had the shortest and most infrequent services. If they are all
the same, then I'd resort to the dart board again.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 10:44:12 AM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <k3ls22hb6kob04l1s1dsi5ue46jafh73pr@4ax.com>, Therion
Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> declared...
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
If all that is required is lip service "oh, yeah, I'm a member of
the xyz denomination", then I'd throw a dart at a dart board and
whichever religion I hit would be the one I joined. If I had to
actually attend their services, then I'd go with whichever one
had the shortest and most infrequent services. If they are all
the same, then I'd resort to the dart board again.
--
Greg
----
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
greg00 -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Greg,
You're not thinking very strategically.
If I were forced to attend a church, I would choose the church which
would do the most to elevate my financial position and social status.
Isn't that how most people choose their religion?
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 09:45:03 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:12:31 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Roman Catholicism. As Talleyrand (wasn't it?) put it when asked why he
didn't become a Protestant, "I have lost my faith, not my reason".
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Wicca and/or Thelema. I like to stick with what's familiar! ;-)
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mama" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 06:32:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:12:31 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Would Unitarian Universalist count? I can stomach them better. I can
only keep my trap shut for so long. I'm liable to find myself being
lynched if forced to go to a xian church.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Deism, of course. The outdoors, creation, etc. is the "bible". No
crap to read. Allowed to think for oneself. No creeds, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
01 Apr 2006 11:26:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:32:08 GMT, Mama
<wackymomma@childrenstation.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:12:31 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Would Unitarian Universalist count? I can stomach them better. I can
only keep my trap shut for so long. I'm liable to find myself being
lynched if forced to go to a xian church.
If it is, that's the only one I could possible stomach, but I won't
pretend I believe in Jesus. I would have to throw up first.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Deism, of course. The outdoors, creation, etc. is the "bible". No
crap to read. Allowed to think for oneself. No creeds, etc.
Wiccan sounds like fun, and it has cool symbols. I used to be a deist
when I was younger. It was cool - no church, nothing to do but just
say that you think there is a god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mama" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
04 Apr 2006 08:09:28 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2006 23:26:01 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:32:08 GMT, Mama
<wackymomma@childrenstation.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:12:31 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Would Unitarian Universalist count? I can stomach them better. I can
only keep my trap shut for so long. I'm liable to find myself being
lynched if forced to go to a xian church.
If it is, that's the only one I could possible stomach, but I won't
pretend I believe in Jesus. I would have to throw up first.
Same here.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Deism, of course. The outdoors, creation, etc. is the "bible". No
crap to read. Allowed to think for oneself. No creeds, etc.
Wiccan sounds like fun, and it has cool symbols. I used to be a deist
when I was younger. It was cool - no church, nothing to do but just
say that you think there is a god.
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 11:47:18 AM |
|
|
Just refuse! -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 12:53:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:47:18 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 01:12:39 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 10:47:18 -0600, Libertarius
<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do? Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse? To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 04:06:16 PM |
|
|
On 7 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0700, wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do?
No.
Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse?
Would you?
To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
No it's not. Atheists just elect to deny God in face of all the evidence.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
08 Apr 2006 09:52:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 16:06:16 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0700, wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do?
No.
Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse?
Would you?
To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
No it's not. Atheists just elect to deny God in face of all the evidence.
All the evidence?
You keep saying this, over and over again. Each time we ask you to
show us one single example from this list of evidence you have
imagined.
To date, why is it that you have not been able to provide one single
example of this evidence?
If you have an example of this evidence, why don't you provide it?
We're waiting...................
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 10:33:14 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0700, wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do?
No.
That's not a "Yes" or "No" question, duke.
Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse?
Would you?
Answer the question, duke.
To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
No it's not. Atheists just elect to deny God in face of all the evidence.
Just as you deny the evidence that says that God (and the rest of
existence) was sneezed out of the Great Green Arkleseizure. You also
deny the impending coming of the Great White Handkerchief.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
DanielSan, American-American
*****
"Bender, stop destroying the universe."
Turanga Leela
*****
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "Torture has never been a reliable means of *
* extracting information.... One wonders why it *
* is still practiced." --Jean-Luc Picard *
****************************************************
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 05:23:16 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0700, wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do?
No.
Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse?
Would you?
I don't think I would. I've never been in a situation where
someone was threatening to kill me before.
To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
No it's not.
It's exactly the same, duke - it's about claiming to believe
things that you don't believe.
Atheists just elect to deny God in face of all the evidence.
Whenever you are asked to provide this evidence, you
have none.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "High Miles" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion |
07 Apr 2006 04:33:09 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 7 Apr 2006 11:12:39 -0700, wrote:
Just refuse! -- L.
Why? That's spiritual suicide.
duke, if a ruling government forced you to become, say, a
moslem, what would you do?
No.
Would you live a lie to
preserve your own life, or would you refuse?
Would you?
To some
atheists, that's what the question "which religion would
you choose, if forced to?" is exactly like.
No it's not. Atheists just elect to deny God in face of all the evidence.
WHAT evidence ?
Where is it ?
In that story book of myths ?
Or in the minds of frightened, under evolved humans ?
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
He was just a man.
And he's dead now.
So who cares ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
06 Apr 2006 12:08:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On 1 Apr 2006 23:26:01 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:32:08 GMT, Mama
<wackymomma@childrenstation.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:12:31 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 10:20:45 GMT in alt.atheism, *nemo* (*nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
In article <hafs221p4hkj3j848l52hk6621a3n28rmq@4ax.com>,
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
At Midnight last night I converted to Christianity.
You and every other atheist who wants a little attention this day.
"Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie"!
I'm thinking of going in for Scientology. Far more reputable than the
Super Adventurers' Club.
If I had to choose a religion, I think it'd probably be Roman
Catholicism. If a non Christian one, Buddhism (very attached to the
food....) or maybe one of the proper Occult traditions,
Anyway, that raises a question that might be a fun exchange:
Suppose for the sake of the argument you (ah, after 12, so "we"),
plural, atheists, *had* to choose a religion on pain of death by slow
torture, or whatever, which one would you choose?
Actually let's make that two questions:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Would Unitarian Universalist count? I can stomach them better. I can
only keep my trap shut for so long. I'm liable to find myself being
lynched if forced to go to a xian church.
If it is, that's the only one I could possible stomach, but I won't
pretend I believe in Jesus. I would have to throw up first.
Same here.
Or if the theocracy is a bit broad minded:
Which non-Christian religion would you choose? Why?
Deism, of course. The outdoors, creation, etc. is the "bible". No
crap to read. Allowed to think for oneself. No creeds, etc.
Wiccan sounds like fun, and it has cool symbols. I used to be a deist
when I was younger. It was cool - no church, nothing to do but just
say that you think there is a god.
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mama" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
06 Apr 2006 04:01:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:08:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
None that I am aware of.
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
And so on. I know.
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
No one, if they are honest, can provide "a clear and concise
definition" of god. They can only provide speculations or answers
based on someone else's ideas of god(s). Nor have I been able to find
any "objective supporting evidence for its existance".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
10 Apr 2006 07:00:00 AM |
|
|
Mama wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:08:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
None that I am aware of.
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
And so on. I know.
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
No one, if they are honest, can provide "a clear and concise
definition" of god. They can only provide speculations or answers
based on someone else's ideas of god(s). Nor have I been able to find
any "objective supporting evidence for its existance".
....and you won't ever find any ........
--
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mama" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
17 Apr 2006 10:25:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 22:00:00 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey59-@-yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Mama wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:08:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
None that I am aware of.
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
And so on. I know.
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
No one, if they are honest, can provide "a clear and concise
definition" of god. They can only provide speculations or answers
based on someone else's ideas of god(s). Nor have I been able to find
any "objective supporting evidence for its existance".
...and you won't ever find any ........
No, probably not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
07 Apr 2006 02:01:03 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:01:29 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:08:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
None that I am aware of.
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
And so on. I know.
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
No one, if they are honest, can provide "a clear and concise
definition" of god. They can only provide speculations or answers
based on someone else's ideas of god(s). Nor have I been able to find
any "objective supporting evidence for its existance".
So why the deism or agnosticism? [curiosity]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mama" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
17 Apr 2006 10:25:07 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Apr 2006 12:01:03 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:01:29 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:08:28 -0700, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 01:09:28 GMT, Mama <wackymomma@childrenstation.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
I had considered myself a deist for over a year, but labelling myself
more of an agnostic deist a few months ago. Now I'm not sure if I
still consider myself a deist at all. I don't rule out the
possibility of a creator god(s). I just don't think that's a logical
conclusion anymore.
Objective evidence the universe was manufactured?
None that I am aware of.
*Who* manufactured the manufacturer?
And so on. I know.
A clear and concise definition for the g-o-d letter string and objective
supporting evidence for its existance is what?
No one, if they are honest, can provide "a clear and concise
definition" of god. They can only provide speculations or answers
based on someone else's ideas of god(s). Nor have I been able to find
any "objective supporting evidence for its existance".
So why the deism or agnosticism? [curiosity]
It's been a process. I guess you could say I had to wean myself from
theism, if that makes sense. (You wouldn't believe all the theistic
groups I jumped around before I came to realize that the whole lot was
a bunch of hogwash, and that not a one of them were ever going to make
sense logistically.) I chose deism because that was what made sense
for me and seemed to "fit" me (for lack of a better term) at the time.
When I made my original post, I wasn't sure if I could consider myself
a deist any longer. Agnostic deist was more an attempt to try to
label what I was during my transitional stage away from deism. After
I answered your questions above, it pretty much removed any doubts I
had of whether I still considered myself a deist. I don't.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: IF you had to choose a religion WAS Re: Conversion To Christianity. |
02 Apr 2006 02:19:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 00:32:08 GMT, Mama
<wackymomma@childrenstation.com> wrote:
Which variety of Christianity would you choose? Why?
Would Unitarian Universalist count?
Not at my local UU Church, or at any of the others I've seen.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
