D
i used to be a Catholic, i'm now an atheist, i'm much happier now
- Status
R
ralphinal
Guest
I am 99% sure that he can. At one time, a priest was required to say mass every day. There would have to have been priests who were hermits or simply alone. Even today, there are priests who spend time alone, withdrawn from the world. What do they do?
L
Layman
Guest
“I llike to get away from ALL people & be alone with him and nature”
Distracted, may I recommend you remain in contact with humanity; being a hermit is a rare calling.
It’s quite easy to go off yer nut if there’s no one around at all to draw attention to your behaviour. I think even Christian hermits used to meet up occasionally, probably for Easter, at the very least.
I wonder would this be a fair test, a test of sanity: you can handle yourself just fine if you’re in a noisy party; you can be the kind of guest that gets invited back.
Distracted, may I recommend you remain in contact with humanity; being a hermit is a rare calling.
It’s quite easy to go off yer nut if there’s no one around at all to draw attention to your behaviour. I think even Christian hermits used to meet up occasionally, probably for Easter, at the very least.
I wonder would this be a fair test, a test of sanity: you can handle yourself just fine if you’re in a noisy party; you can be the kind of guest that gets invited back.
D
distracted
Guest
i wish people would stop putitng words in other posters mouths… I never said i was alone all the time… although the way people act, it is definitely a temptation…
L
Layman
Guest
My apologies if you were offended. The advice was well meant.
I am a loner, by nature. My advice was directed at myself also. I try not to be angry at other people; they have their agendas, which are not the same as mine and which it is their right to follow. I have no right to be angry with them. I can see their exterior behaviour, but I can’t see their interior state.
I live in a very busy, diverse city. Just recently I went outside after being cooped up for a while, and I noticed it took at little time to adjust.
I am a loner, by nature. My advice was directed at myself also. I try not to be angry at other people; they have their agendas, which are not the same as mine and which it is their right to follow. I have no right to be angry with them. I can see their exterior behaviour, but I can’t see their interior state.
I live in a very busy, diverse city. Just recently I went outside after being cooped up for a while, and I noticed it took at little time to adjust.
D
distracted
Guest
thanks for the apology… not everyone here is so “big” to do that…
Weird… i could have written the same thing…
God bless…
S
Skenned
Guest
Your bring up many different issues in your story of coming to atheism.
You sound disillusioned because your attempts to establish a relationship with God have been unsuccessful. I would just point out that the relief you feel in abandoning your attempts is also a “feeling”, and by the way, does not resolve your situation. You equate spirituality, faith in God I presume, with sentimentality. This is definitely in error and may be the source of why your attempts were unsuccessful. I also think there have been many holy people who have experienced the “spiritual desert”, and perhaps this was happening to you? I know I experienced something similar to this.
You go on further to say that you wish you had focussed on changing yourself instead of putting effort into changing your life. This statement sounds confusing. My understanding of prayer, which is what I think you were engaged in previously, is that it will affect a change on your external life, but only when it affects a change in yourself. For me prayer changes my way of looking at issues so I can then change my life.
I don’t believe as you say that there are “inner compulsions” to believe “erroneous beliefs”. Quite the contrary, I think we are sometimes compelled toward and influenced by our erroneous selfish desires, but are drawn by reason and seeking the good to believe the truth and in God.
As for morality and how it relates to God, I’m sure an atheist can be a moral person, but that morality will eventually boil down to a conditional imperative. By my way of thinking, morality must come from God, the ultimate good; otherwise, it is a morality that will have limits, and most likely those limits will be trumped by the immediate good, i.e., selfish desires, of the individual. Therefore, I see an atheistic moral system as always being relative and will always be compromising according to the subjective view of the individual. You say that it’s ok as long as you choose the “good thing”. My question; good for who?
May I suggest reading “The Everlasting Man” by Chesterton, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, or “The Penses” by Pascal.
You sound disillusioned because your attempts to establish a relationship with God have been unsuccessful. I would just point out that the relief you feel in abandoning your attempts is also a “feeling”, and by the way, does not resolve your situation. You equate spirituality, faith in God I presume, with sentimentality. This is definitely in error and may be the source of why your attempts were unsuccessful. I also think there have been many holy people who have experienced the “spiritual desert”, and perhaps this was happening to you? I know I experienced something similar to this.
You go on further to say that you wish you had focussed on changing yourself instead of putting effort into changing your life. This statement sounds confusing. My understanding of prayer, which is what I think you were engaged in previously, is that it will affect a change on your external life, but only when it affects a change in yourself. For me prayer changes my way of looking at issues so I can then change my life.
I don’t believe as you say that there are “inner compulsions” to believe “erroneous beliefs”. Quite the contrary, I think we are sometimes compelled toward and influenced by our erroneous selfish desires, but are drawn by reason and seeking the good to believe the truth and in God.
As for morality and how it relates to God, I’m sure an atheist can be a moral person, but that morality will eventually boil down to a conditional imperative. By my way of thinking, morality must come from God, the ultimate good; otherwise, it is a morality that will have limits, and most likely those limits will be trumped by the immediate good, i.e., selfish desires, of the individual. Therefore, I see an atheistic moral system as always being relative and will always be compromising according to the subjective view of the individual. You say that it’s ok as long as you choose the “good thing”. My question; good for who?
May I suggest reading “The Everlasting Man” by Chesterton, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, or “The Penses” by Pascal.
I
I_Believe
Guest
Catholicism ruins everything doesn’t it ? Everything mundane that is.
It’s a choice. Live for today, or live for eternity
It’s a choice. Live for today, or live for eternity
1
1234
Guest
angelfrog,
–suggestion to all, actually. When making a long exposition, break it up into paragraphs, even tho’ in theory, it’s all one line of thought.
I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but it’s a lot easier to read, and correct!
I, too, am an atheist. I enjoy posting because I enjoy writing and controversy. And the RCC and the Anglicans, my former denomination, are interesting.
My observation, from reading this and other forums (fora,actually) , is that there are a lot of miserable Catholics out there. If it’s not matters of faith, it’s morals, in that the RCC proscribes common actions as sins, such as masturbation and birth control, which are commonly practiced and not a problem to virtually all other mainstream denominations, who are lot more concerned about things like war and peace and the environment.
Also, it isn’t ‘easy’ being an atheist. It’s a lot easier being a member of some denomination, even in name only. You have to reason everything out for yourself as an atheist, although there’s the infidels internet discussion board, staffed by a lot of very intelligent, well-read, polite people, if you want exegesis.
People misunderstand atheism, so if you get into religious discussions, always unwise, you have to defend yourself constantly. You have to seek other venues for social interaction outside of a church, although the Unitarians include a lot of atheists.
–suggestion to all, actually. When making a long exposition, break it up into paragraphs, even tho’ in theory, it’s all one line of thought.
I know, it’s not grammatically correct, but it’s a lot easier to read, and correct!
I, too, am an atheist. I enjoy posting because I enjoy writing and controversy. And the RCC and the Anglicans, my former denomination, are interesting.
My observation, from reading this and other forums (fora,actually) , is that there are a lot of miserable Catholics out there. If it’s not matters of faith, it’s morals, in that the RCC proscribes common actions as sins, such as masturbation and birth control, which are commonly practiced and not a problem to virtually all other mainstream denominations, who are lot more concerned about things like war and peace and the environment.
Also, it isn’t ‘easy’ being an atheist. It’s a lot easier being a member of some denomination, even in name only. You have to reason everything out for yourself as an atheist, although there’s the infidels internet discussion board, staffed by a lot of very intelligent, well-read, polite people, if you want exegesis.
People misunderstand atheism, so if you get into religious discussions, always unwise, you have to defend yourself constantly. You have to seek other venues for social interaction outside of a church, although the Unitarians include a lot of atheists.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Interesting; I was an atheist almost all my life and found the main benefit to be the one-size-fits-all answers the dominant popular culture provides through schools and most entertainments. But we talked so much about reasoning I decided to put my shoulder to the wheel and reason for myself for real, and my atheistic view began steadily crumbling. I currently write about that experience and about the reasoning I do today, and about how the dominant culture – an eighth to a ninth of the people spread over seven-eighths of the airwaves and magazine covers, due to consumption patterns – presses all beliefs other than materialism into the closet. I guess we allsee it differently.
V
villagelane5
Guest
I understand your disbelief but can’t accept it. You are not alone in the way you think. Many have travelled your road your taking, not to their benefit. Your belief system has it’s origins in the non-existence of God. A kind of disappointment in how Life has been sort of “unfair” This kind of reminds you of that other thief crucified to the left of Jesus who angrily wanted Jesus to save him from pain. But non-existence is predicated on one thing: The existence of God!
U
uncommon_sense
Guest
I think you have to accept disbelief, I for example have made my choice not to be a part of any religion but I believe in God and am willing to deal with the possibility of going to hell and making a choice rather than just joining a religion that I don’t really believe in. I think people have to make choices in life, people who understand that can accept anything, people who can’t accept people not accepting what they accept (PM me, i’ll explain that later, LOL) are the people that think with one part of there brain, these are people that drink the cool aide with Jim Jones.
1
1234
Guest
Logic and reason are the backbone of atheism.Interesting; I was an atheist almost all my life and found the main benefit to be the one-size-fits-all answers the dominant popular culture provides through schools and most entertainments. But we talked so much about reasoning I decided to put my shoulder to the wheel and reason for myself for real, and my atheistic view began steadily crumbling. I currently write about that experience and about the reasoning I do today, and about how the dominant culture – an eighth to a ninth of the people spread over seven-eighths of the airwaves and magazine covers, due to consumption patterns – presses all beliefs other than materialism into the closet. I guess we allsee it differently.
Just becaue one is an atheist doesn’t mean one is a materialist. The least materialistic people I know have no religion. The most materialistic people I used to know(when I was working), who spent the most money, often were religious. How they justified this I never knew–I certainly didn’t ask them.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
Logic and reason shattered my atheism.
The word materialism has two different meanings. One is, as you are familiar with, the love of money. The other is across-the-board rejection of the supernatural. Thisi s also called “naturalism”, but naturalism also means rejection of the manmade and also nudism, so calling it materialism is actually less confusing. Materialists tend to conflate the concept of materialism/naturalism with the concept of rationality. In fact they are unrelated and ultimately incompatible. For deeper discussion, see any of an extremely large number of existing threads in Philosophy and Apologetics.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Hello Friend:
Find comfort in the fact that you aren’t the first who has had doubts about God. Forget about religion for a moment, I’d like to simply try to make a case that God exists.
C.S. Lewis in his book “Mere Christianity” tells us about a moral law man has been under since we first walked this earth. Even our non-Christian ancestors were under this law, even though they never heard the word of God and even though Christ was not yet born.
We have this voice inside that compels us to save the drowning child. Even if we don’t try and save the drowning child we wished we would have. Our ancestors who did not know God were under this same law. Has it ever been noble to hate the ones who treat you the kindest for example? No, of course not.
This is what separates us from lower creatures. This inner self can only come from God.
Another interesting example is the universe .Forget about the old argument that the universe is so big and great that there has to be a God. A more scientific argument begins with the idea that everything that happens has a preceding cause (cause and effect).
This isn’t just a philosophical principal its an absolute physical law of the universe, proven by physicists such as Einstein.
We have a pretty solid, although still incomplete, understanding about how the universe was born. We are pretty sure that it began with an explosion (we can see images of the big bang in our most powerful telescopes). We also know that if we reverse the big bang everything collapses into nothing.
So from absolutely nothing our universe was created. Now if every event has a preceding cause then something had to cause the universe to be created, however, as far as we can observe before the universe there was nothing. That first cause of the universe was God.
Anyway I hope I at least provided something interesting to keep in mind. Whatever you decide I hope all the best.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
No, it isn’t, disproven by physicists such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Kocher, Freedman, Weihs, Rowe …
C
Charlie_Zeaiter
Guest
What’s the point in believing in God?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
You’re wrong. You are referencing quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principal, which proves cause and effect. In fact when the very men you cite showed cause and effect to be true it was Einstein who thought the idea was nuts. How can events if separated by time & space have a causal relation with each another? So Einstein set out to prove them wrong. In the course of his work to debunk the theory he wound up proving it right.
If you would like I’ll get out my physics books and provide more detailed information and citations? Let me know.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Just to clarify:
The idea that Einstein initially disagreed was that two events separated by time and space could have a causal relation with one another. For example, in quantum mechanics the act of measuring the momentum and location of a particle in itself changes its momentum and location. Quantum mechanics tells us the observable universe is somewhat random, and that its randomness is because of this cause and effect relationship.
The idea that Einstein initially disagreed was that two events separated by time and space could have a causal relation with one another. For example, in quantum mechanics the act of measuring the momentum and location of a particle in itself changes its momentum and location. Quantum mechanics tells us the observable universe is somewhat random, and that its randomness is because of this cause and effect relationship.
U
uncommon_sense
Guest
so in order to BELIEVE in god I have to be a part of an organized religion? I mean I could see if I said “I believe and have a loving relationship with god”, but just the belief in god requires a membership in organized religion. And lets say that I did have a loving relationship with god, If I believe and at least think I have this relationship with god would it really matter to me that I’m not also apart of a religious denomination, unless people that have religious awakenings and find god for some reason have them with a certain religion doing the awakening which would not make sense because most religions like to claim that there religion is the right religion, which would mean that there are different gods because there are so many different religions with different people who do have religious awakenings and find god. Why is it that in America people who find god most likely become Christian and in the middle east people most likely become Muslim and so on, anyway nice question Zeaiter.
- Status