More to the point, about me

[Penelope]

Theomanic said:

I believe myself to be a very moral person, and it's not because I feel I have to be or God won't let me into his cool club when I die. I also don't think I'm a special or exceptional person. I was just raised to consider other people, and to think about what sort of world I want to live in.

My lovely husband is an atheist, and he, like you is a very moral, kind and compassionate man.

I am not religious because I want to get into God's cool club. I have no denomination....I don't think I am special or exceptional.....in fact I think you are. I have a sense of my own faults and I pray for help and guidance.

If you have grown up in a loving family with enough to eat and a comfortable life....then a shrugging off of the afterlife slips from the tongue so easily. So many thousands of people live short and brutal lives and suffer all kinds of adversity.....how can we just shrug our shoulders and say, well that is all there is mate.

It might be all there is.....but what if....just what if there is something more. I am convinced that we are eternal beings....and that is not cowardice...it can be quite a frightening thought in fact.

It's something you BELIEVE, despite all evidence to the contrary. That sort of power is incredible.

I believe what I believe because I have the evidence of my own experience. My prayers have been answered sufficiently enough to serve as evidence for me. I think the difference is that I would never uphold my denomination - I would never seek to convert anyone to be a believer...but I would be a liar if I sat around and nodded in agreement with you.........

We are a Godless country here.....we have no Bible Belt.....and it takes quite a bit of courage to admit that one is a believer......you do get held up to ridicule. But I would be a liar if I didn't speak up when challenged and I would be lost if I didn't keep searching because to me, it is what makes life meaningful.[/i]

[Penelope]

P.S.

I think people who insist that there is no God and no spiritual aspect to our lives are just as silly as the ones who try to pigeon-hole and categorise God and all things spiritual.

There is a lot more to life and to us than what appears on the surface and in fact 'Quantum Physics' seems to show that.

[Frank 013]

Sorry I have not been around lately but I had a problem with my computer.

Penelope
Well of course everyone's definition of love and compassion is the same unless you are a member of the Spanish Inquisition or something.

This had me laughing for quite a while!

Penelope
I suppose we were brought up from childhood to accept Jesus as the embodiment of good, even by the most irreligious parents. So we read all of these quotes and it never occurs to us to take them at face value. We always translate the meaning to mean something good.

Of course, the church has been guiding your thinking from a very early age.

RT
Penelope, this comment goes to the nature of religion as a bulwark of the status quo. The Romans required that all subject peoples worship the statue of the Roman Emperor. The Christian and Jewish refusal to do so was a main reason for their persecution. Roman polytheism could accommodate anything but intransigence.
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/persecution-russell.html comments "A regular accusation propagated against Christianity was that of atheism. Christianity, because of its monotheistic faith, would not offer the customary sacrifices and worship to other gods: a duty of Roman subjects.

This was what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned a biblical sense of history.

The Romans were one of the most religious tolerant people of that time. In addition to their own religion several foreign religions also had wide appeal in Rome. Including Mithraism from Persia, and the worship of several Egyptian gods, there were also many minor religions and cults that were very popular.

Only the Roman elite were expected to give regular offerings to the traditional roman gods.

Another thing, The Jewish and Christian persecution was mostly a result of their rebellious behavior not one of religious difference.

The Romans preferred to leave a conquered people's religion alone as long as the people did not cause any trouble.

Once Christianity was adopted as the state religion then the religious intolerance began.

IT may be true that the Romans called the Christians atheists. (Although I have never seen any such description in standard historical documents) If they did, they clearly did not mean it as we do today.

It would be like someone calling a Christian an atheist because they do not believe in Zeus. Technically it is true they are an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned. And if the Romans did use the term to describe Christians they surly did not mean it in the totally encompassing way that we do today.

Penelope
No Frank, you are wrong....some of us need to know that there is something bigger and better......I am convinced that we are eternal beings......it is Ok if you think we live for 75 years or so and die and that is the end of it.....but if one is quite convinced (although you cannot prove it to anyone else) that all of us go on in an eternal spiral...(note that I say spiral, not circle!) then it is absolutely necessary (for one's sanity) to find a way of going forward.

Please explain any physical or mental attributes you gain from religion that an atheist cannot have, not the belief mind you, but the end result.

Penelope
This does not mean that I do not appreciate your input. Thank you Frank.

That's fine... and you're welcome.

Penelope
I think people who insist that there is no God and no spiritual aspect to our lives are just as silly as the ones who try to pigeon-hole and categorize God and all things spiritual.

I think you will find that few atheists (none that I know anyway) will argue that there cannot be a god or gods, I do not rule out the possibility, most of us argue that the evidence at hand does not support one and that the books that religious beliefs are based on are terribly flawed.

In short atheists (in general) are not making any solid claims about gods; we are simply denying the claims already made.

Later

[Penelope]

Frank said:-

Please explain any physical or mental attributes you gain from religion that an atheist cannot have, not the belief mind you, but the end result.

I don't think there are physical attributes - unless all that kneeling keeps your legs supple....

I don't think it is about acquiring attributes at all Frank... I think it is just a way being.....a sense of direction.....You might not believe it from my posts Frank but people do comment about my serenity....sense of peace..I don't feel it myself and that old and well-known metaphore of the swan fits perfectly.....all graceful and serene on top and paddling like buggery underneath!!!!

Sometimes if I have a problem - I go into a retreat - in my own home that is.....I eat a careful vegetarian diet, drink water and meditate - and if I have been feeling uptight, worried or depressed...that feeling lifts.....or I feel calm enough to deal with a tricky situation....

I get the feeling of a higher power, a higher wisdom outside of myself....well of course, you and my husband will say it is my vivid imagination......or self-delusion......and since there is no way to convey the feeling in words I just have to accept that criticism. Still, my husband knows that I don't just do it or say it to be awkward.....I do it and say it to be truthful.

What a long answer to a short question eh? Sorry I've waffled on a bit but it is quite a release......

Let's say, that I, personally, feel as though I am a happier, contended, more cheerful old woman than I would have been if I had been an atheist.

[Frank 013]

Penelope
I don't think there are physical attributes - unless all that kneeling keeps your legs supple....

LOL

Penelope
I don't think it is about acquiring attributes at all Frank... I think it is just a way being.....a sense of direction..... You might not believe it from my posts Frank but people do comment about my serenity.... sense of peace... I don't feel it myself and that old and well-known metaphore of the swan fits perfectly.....all graceful and serene on top and paddling like buggery underneath!!!!

I believe that of you, but you might be surprised to hear that I have been described as having an old soul, and being very spiritual. (by those that I have not told that I am an atheist)

I exercise regularly and meditate, not in a spiritual way, but as a relaxing, stress relieving and mind clearing exercise.

Penelope
Sometimes if I have a problem - I go into a retreat - in my own home that is.....I eat a careful vegetarian diet, drink water and meditate - and if I have been feeling uptight, worried or depressed...that feeling lifts.....or I feel calm enough to deal with a tricky situation....

As do I (except I do eat meat) but my method is in no way religious, there are no gods involved, no pleading for assistance, I use it as a way to summon my personal strength.

Penelope
I get the feeling of a higher power, a higher wisdom outside of myself....well of course, you and my husband will say it is my vivid imagination......or self-delusion......and since there is no way to convey the feeling in words I just have to accept that criticism. Still, my husband knows that I don't just do it or say it to be awkward.....I do it and say it to be truthful.

And it may be true for you, but the fact that it is not true of everyone makes me wonder as to its universal validity.

Penelope
What a long answer to a short question eh? Sorry I've waffled on a bit but it is quite a release......

No problem, you answered my question just fine.

Penelope
Let's say, that I, personally, feel as though I am a happier, contended, more cheerful old woman than I would have been if I had been an atheist.

And I feel like I am a happier, contented and more cheerful middle aged man than I would have been had I been a theist.

Later

[Robert Tulip]

I do hope DWill hasn't got upset by people using his intro thread as a conversation starter. Oh, well, he did make some very interesting initial comments.

I mean, whatever beliefs these people may hold, in almost every case they seem propelled by them to be kind, open, and accepting. I have a lot of trouble believing that we as a society would be better off if the churches were emptied.

This statement makes some big assumptions. First of all, the idea that without religion, society will be worse. The implication is that without religion, people are worse. Which in turn implies that people need religion to be good. That idea is ... frustrating, to say the least. Being moral is not something that requires religion. Being good to other people doesn't require a God, it requires respect and civility. These are things children should be taught by their parents. No divinities need apply. I believe myself to be a very moral person, and it's not because I feel I have to be or God won't let me into his cool club when I die. I also don't think I'm a special or exceptional person. I was just raised to consider other people, and to think about what sort of world I want to live in.

This thoughtful comment from Theomanic got me thinking about the etymology of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology says "It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; likely from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine." Hence, religion is what 'reconnects' us to an ultimate truth. My own view is that the ultimate truth is the existence of the universe, and the complexity of human links to reality are religious in essence. People have often mistaken their own projections for the reality of a connection to the ultimate, and the "cool club" is probably the biggest such delusion. Eternal life is about bringing the ultimate into the midst of the world, not escaping from the world into an imaginary paradise. The trouble with such projections is that they harden into dogma, and DWill's impression that believers are open and accepting becomes a superficial thing, only present while the dogma is unchallenged.

This brings me to the second statement made here: I really feel you are supporting people believing in false religions to make them be good. Would you prefer your children grow up believing things that are not true, to make sure they are good people? I know I would prefer to have bad honest kids, than good deceived kids. I find my feelings on this matter somewhat hard to verbalize. It just seems to extremely important to me to walk through the world with your eyes open. While you say you have a hard time thinking the world would be better off without religion, I say the opposite. I believe the world would be better operating on fact and not faith. How can you expect reason from people whose lives are built upon the unreasonable?

This is tough, and a dilemma. There is a value in social cohesion even when it is based on false ideas. However, falsity is a pernicious pathology which eats away at moral fabric like a cancer. To my mind, the worst such cancer of faith is the belief in the virgin birth. It has underpinned the cohesion of Roman Catholicism, but seems to me to have the purpose of separating Jesus from his full humanity, and so stands in flat contradiction to the dogma that Jesus was fully human. My view is that the future belongs to knowledge rather than belief, so we should dump all beliefs which cannot be reconciled with scientific evidence. I happen to think that most of the Gospel can still be salvaged on this basis as Jesus was quite a miraculous guy. I previously mentioned the parable of the wheat and the tares

[DWill]

This is all good stuff for me to consider, so thanks to everyone who wrote. I think one of my difficulties in ascribing to religion such a legion of ill-effects is that, when we observe places/eras in which religion didn't operate (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and others), we see horrific happenings. To what source do we assign those horrors? It doesn't seem a sufficient answer to say that in these instances ideologies assumed the power of religion, as that answer beggars the question. So I look for something in our nature to explain the way we can act that transcends the association of many of these abuses with religion. In other words, I doubt in some instances that such an abstraction as [/i]religion can really be a cause. If someone can either knock this down or add some clarity to what I might be thnking, I would welcome that!

[Penelope]

Listen!!! Isn't this absolutely wonderful. I am going to post a considered reply in an hour or two....

We have a thinking person in America, A thinking person in Australia (or two) a kind and thinking person in Canada....and a dippy woman here in England........Please, please, please let us keep in touch......

[Mr. P]

This is all good stuff for me to consider, so thanks to everyone who wrote. I think one of my difficulties in ascribing to religion such a legion of ill-effects is that, when we observe places/eras in which religion didn't operate (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and others), we see horrific happenings. To what source do we assign those horrors? [/i]

The source is the blind adherence to faulty dogma. That is what religion and these things have in common.

[Penelope]

Frank, Robert, Theomatic, DWill, Mr P

We are communicating....at last...I think....and that is a special thing.

This is not linear thinking....like letter writing was in the past.

This is 'THE INTERNET' .....We must think of this as an opening out....as in the many petalled lotus.....not competitive thinking....points scoring...but a sharing of ideas and an opening out.....blossoming....let us blossom.

I am not deluding myself that it will be World shattering.....but I think it will help us...as people. Well, it will help me....