Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why you think marriage has no meaning without religion. I didn't marry in a church or as part of a church, but I am married (36 years) and monogamous. Religion had nothing to do with it.
I went from Methodist to Agnostic by 20 and slowly made my way to Atheist. It took me longer to come out of the closet as an Atheist because it was not accepted in rural America in the 1970's. It isn't until the last 20 or 30 years that now it doesn't matter to most people. I married a woman that is half way between a Protestant and a Catholic; she hasn't figured out which one she favors. But we will be married 50 years in October. So I totally agree. We married at a Justice of the Peace and it cost $5; that boils down to $.10/year!
As far as relationships I retained one of the teachings from my Christian start - the Golden Rule. I saw no problems fitting that philosophy into my beliefs.
But love, again, is different to me as well. It's more a biological/chemical bond and not all those fluffy things. Maybe I'll get there again, but I'm not really seeing it.
Fluffiness is a biological/chemical sensation. So love can still be fluffy!
Don't forget that love is a social/intellectual bond too. And they don't have to agree with you on everything to be at compatible intellectual levels. To catch one of the best types of fish for you, you gotta have determined patience, an active and keen eye, and throw the bad ones back out quick before they stink up the place! The testing methods have to be varied because life is varied.
They always say "two heads are better than one" too! You know your wants and needs better than anyone though! Don't let "average" and "customary" consume and oppress you, but always learn new things!
I retained one of the teachings from my Christian start - the Golden Rule. I saw no problems fitting that philosophy into my beliefs.
Ah, the Maxim of Reciprocity. It's a great rule. I kept that one and have taught it to my kids. But they follow it because it "feels good to be good even if its hard" rather than because of fire and brimstone if they don't.
What I like about the Maxim/Rule is that it is nearly as old as written language. It is a key facet in many religions. And it is likely one of the few things I'd agree that religions should teach.
For me, it was a very gradual thing. I’m very content with where I am now. I had a religious upbringing and took it seriously. I grew up in a Mennonite community, went to a private religious school for 7 years, bible school, etc. then received instruction in the Catholic Church and was baptized. Late in high school and into college, I started questioning things.
Oddly enough it was my religious experiences that ended killing my belief. I grew increasingly bothered by the fact that the Mennonites and Catholics were so different in their beliefs and yet both claimed they were right. Obviously, that’s a problem, so I decided to discover the truth for myself. The more I read, the more it was the same, all religions were different but, for the most part, each one claimed to be correct.
I also became increasingly bothered by the fact that if I grew up in India, for example, I would most likely be a Hindu who believed that Jesus was just another of many deities and nothing special on his own. I read about a number of religions, bought many of their religious texts but no one’s evidence was any better than any one else’s. Religious belief is highly cultural rather than factual.
I decided to read some atheist stuff to get an outside perspective on it. I was moving in the direction of abandoning my belief but I think the nail in the coffin was when I read a book by George H. Smith, “Atheism, The Case Against God.” (https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-.../dp/1633881970) I realized after reading it that religion was one more superstition and that, at this point, I believed in nothing supernatural (I was a science major, biology, in college) and religion is, by definition supernatural.
Also, science gave me a method for answering questions about the universe we all inhabit. I firmly believe that all questions can be answered with two basic replies. The first answers are those provided through scientific inquiries. The second answer, that far too many people cannot accept is simply, “I don’t know.” I’m comfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer. Knowledge of the world around us takes a long time to accumulate. We have only been at it a few hundred years in earnest and understanding and getting correct answers is a slow process.
Too many people’s thinking is along the lines of I don’t know, I can’t understand, therefore it must be...insert belief of choice. I blame this on our educations, that schools do not produce critical thinkers, just consensus memory. We never were taught how to distinguish knowledge from belief and what is the correct place for each.
I retained one of the teachings from my Christian start - the Golden Rule. I saw no problems fitting that philosophy into my beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dspguy
Ah, the Maxim of Reciprocity. It's a great rule. I kept that one and have taught it to my kids. But they follow it because it "feels good to be good even if its hard" rather than because of fire and brimstone if they don't.
What I like about the Maxim/Rule is that it is nearly as old as written language. It is a key facet in many religions. And it is likely one of the few things I'd agree that religions should teach.
If only more people actually followed it.
Indeed, various articulations of the exact same concept are almost universal among religions, philosophies, and cultures, including in oral form among peoples who never developed written language. Thus, it almost certainly is a concept that has been ubiquitous in humanity since long before writing was first invented.
It's simply a survival mechanism.
Generally, those who refrain from bashing in their neighbor's head are less likely to have their head bashed in by a neighbor. I say 'generally' because the Golden Rule is hardly infallible, as it requires an ability by Person A to fully understand the wants of Person B. A Christian might think that most non-Christians want, on some level, to be 'brought to the Lord' [hint: we don't]. Attempts to spread democracy are often predicated on the notion that all people yearn to live in a democratic society, while in fact many people simply do not - which is why such attempts often fail. Myriad other examples abound. So while the rule has some usefulness, it also has significant limitations which must be recognized.
Anyway, it is not an idea that originated with Christianity or any other specific religion, as its commonality across cultures makes clear that it originated far back in the history of our species before we were inventing things like religion. The idea that we need an ancient book to inform us of this notion, and that we're incapable of following it unless we fear retribution from the cosmic despot around which the book is predicated, is of course nonsense.
Regarding the references to the golden rule, I remember reading a version of that in another religious text that I though made a subtle but very important distinction. The one thing about the golden rule that bothered me is, what if I don’t like the things you do? Just because you might like having them done to you doesn’t mean I’d enjoy it. Example, I was saved therefore others would welcome being saved.
Anyway, the variant I read simply said do NOT do a thing to others that you would not wish done to yourself.
I was 26.....it was 2007.....
I had been a practicing muslim....but a hypocrite at the same time....kinda like a lot of other muslims you may meet (for example, i had a gf )
Anyways, After reading The God Delusion, the "switch was turned on".....i started diving into youtube videos on the topic; i watched virtually everything i could get my hands on from Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Same Harris, Daniel Dennett, etc. and boom, it was done. The 'transformation' was virtually instantaneous....only took a few weeks/months for everything to fully click into place.
I must say that it is somewhat more difficult now than it was before 2007.....It's more depressing to live among so much ignorance and stupidity.....When you're living as one of the stupid and ignorant, you simply can't see the problem as clearly as when you step outside and take a look in!
Of course you have to be realistic. And, I agree that there is a lot of self-preservation. We will always meet those that proclaim themselves to be religious and are willing for physically force others to believe or die. Some religions factions still practice that today.
There were not too many tears shed when Madalyn Murray O'Hair was murdered back in 1995. I had a cousin that was married to her son for a while. Of course it was money that lead to her murder and not hate. But many did not miss her. Even today she still has haters.
That said; the Golden Rule makes us better people and takes away from our distractors. It is a good start for the OP and his need to relate.
For me, it was a very gradual thing. I’m very content with where I am now. I had a religious upbringing and took it seriously. I grew up in a Mennonite community, went to a private religious school for 7 years, bible school, etc. then received instruction in the Catholic Church and was baptized. Late in high school and into college, I started questioning things.
Oddly enough it was my religious experiences that ended killing my belief. I grew increasingly bothered by the fact that the Mennonites and Catholics were so different in their beliefs and yet both claimed they were right. Obviously, that’s a problem, so I decided to discover the truth for myself. The more I read, the more it was the same, all religions were different but, for the most part, each one claimed to be correct.
I also became increasingly bothered by the fact that if I grew up in India, for example, I would most likely be a Hindu who believed that Jesus was just another of many deities and nothing special on his own. I read about a number of religions, bought many of their religious texts but no one’s evidence was any better than any one else’s. Religious belief is highly cultural rather than factual.
I decided to read some atheist stuff to get an outside perspective on it. I was moving in the direction of abandoning my belief but I think the nail in the coffin was when I read a book by George H. Smith, “Atheism, The Case Against God.” (https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-.../dp/1633881970) I realized after reading it that religion was one more superstition and that, at this point, I believed in nothing supernatural (I was a science major, biology, in college) and religion is, by definition supernatural.
Also, science gave me a method for answering questions about the universe we all inhabit. I firmly believe that all questions can be answered with two basic replies. The first answers are those provided through scientific inquiries. The second answer, that far too many people cannot accept is simply, “I don’t know.” I’m comfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer. Knowledge of the world around us takes a long time to accumulate. We have only been at it a few hundred years in earnest and understanding and getting correct answers is a slow process.
Too many people’s thinking is along the lines of I don’t know, I can’t understand, therefore it must be...insert belief of choice. I blame this on our educations, that schools do not produce critical thinkers, just consensus memory. We never were taught how to distinguish knowledge from belief and what is the correct place for each.
My $0.02.
It is the $00.02 that is pretty much the rationale of atheism. The stages you went though are pretty much all the stages of rationale there are. The hardest thing for believers to understand is that not having a lockdown scientific explanation is not evidence that God mustha dunnit. And that any case for a possible cosmic creator
does not mean it has to be the go of the particular religion they have, all the others being man -made delusions - if not Satanic lies. That's a hard one for them to get too.
In fact, talking as a lifetimer, I wen through all these stages, but not as a believer asking awkward questions, but as a non -believer considering whether religion had a case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
