The religion you rejected - why did you reject it?

[wellwisher]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

I used to be Liberal when I was young. I rejected that religion, as I got older, since it was too much based on emotional thinking and not enough on common sense and logic.

Not all religions are about divine beings. Buddhism does not have gods, but it is called a major religion. It is closer to philosophy. Other types of religions have humans playing god; humans defining universal right and wrong based on revisionist history. Revisionist history is where man gets to control the narrative of time and therefore history. Emotional thinking, without common sense, appears to allow this type of time backward religion.

Let me give an example, when we are young, such as a teen, you will do stupid things that are risky. But this is normal for that age, since one lacks experience and will often need to learn from the school of hard knocks.

As we get older we stop doing such things, since we have learned from our mistakes. However, this final understanding and 20/20 hindsight was not available to you when you were a teen. We grow from naive and young into wise and old. The teen does not start with the wisdom of old age and 20/20 hindsight anymore than the people of the past could see the future of today.

Revisionist history lives in an alternate reality where you start with the wisdom of old age; today, and grow young; past, with all the wisdom of today somehow available to you as a child. The result is the children of history are misjudged to have 20/20 hindsight of old age. Revisionist history does not see teens making and learning from mistakes, but judge them as adults of today; old growing young.

The AntiChrist, which is part of a religious prophesy, will make alterations in times and law; revise history for his own benefit; judge the past by the present and ignore the naive teen years of humanity. Instead this revision will be use to punish people, out of the natural vector of time, as though the teen knew the future; wise old man in a teen body.

 

[Windwalker]

No religion. et al

Then why did you claim at the beginning of this thread that your religion was secularism? Why not just state the way it really was for you? You were just some non-religious kid who didn't really think about or really believe in God, like any other typical kid.

Why then claim you had some sort of religion of secularism then when it was really just being a normal non-religious kid? That's not even a belief in secularism at all. It's just being a kid.

 

[Windwalker]

God doesn't cease to exist because you don't believe in him.

There is a saying I quite believe is true. "The god you don't believe in, doesn't exist". That's as true for you, as it is for the atheist. For you they don't exist. For the atheist they don't exist. No real difference there.

 

[Windwalker]

I used to be Liberal when I was young. I rejected that religion, as I got older, since it was too much based on emotional thinking and not enough on common sense and logic.

Being a liberal is not a religion. You have liberal and conservative Christians, for instance. Christianity is their religion. Liberal and conservative are simply their approaches to the same religion.

BTW, I prefer to see liberalism as based upon compassion. You may call that emotional thinking if you wish. But is that a bad thing? Should compassion be a matter of logic and reason to you, or should be a matter of the heart?

I believe Jesus taught his disciples to start thinking more with their hearts instead of what their "common sense" might otherwise tell them, didn't he?

Not all religions are about divine beings. Buddhism does not have gods, but it is called a major religion. It is closer to philosophy.

Not true. Mahayana Buddhism, and particularly Tibetan Buddhism has scores of deities. And make no mistake, it is very much a religion, complete with rituals and doctrines, practices, symbols, scriptures, and the like:

"Buddhism includes a wide array of divine beings that are venerated in various ritual and popular contexts. Initially they included mainly Indian figures such as devas, asuras and yakshas, but later came to include other Asian spirits and local gods (like the Burmese nats). They range from enlightened Buddhas to regional spirits adopted by Buddhists or practiced on the margins of the religion. Notably, Buddhism lacks a supreme creator deity."​

Buddhist deities - Wikipedia.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF AN ATHIEST


ChristineM said : "It's more a case of i have no valid evidence that there is a god, do you want to prove that wrong?"

CLEAR replied : A) The strict Atheist has a belief that no God exists.
The strict Agnostic does not know if a God exists or not and does not take a strict position on either existence or non existence of a God.
(All three of these definitions are independent of whether the person has or does not have valid evidence) (post #62)

ChristineM now replies : Atheist: one who disbelieves or lackd belief in the existence of God or gods. (Post #73)

Hi @ChristineM

Yes, NOW you've got it right Christine

Clear

 

[Clear]

Hi @Windwalker

Windwalker said : "But I would not go so far as to as to call atheism itself as a religion. It simply doesn't qualify. It has no central authority, no core teachings or philosophies, no common practices and rituals, and so forth. It's those things that define a religion."

Regarding your definition of religion.

Authority : While an Atheist may or may see themselves as a central authority, why are you implying that a religion must have a "central authority"?
It makes no sense to me that a religion MUST have a "central authority".

Core teachings or philosophies : If a religion believes that there ARE NO core teachings or philosophies then why would you insist that religion must have "core teachings or philosophies" in order to be a religion. I don't understand why you would insist on "core teachings" required in an individual's personal belief or personal religion.

Common practices or rituals : Similarly, why would an individual's personal religion require a "common practice" with others? Why does your concept of religion require "rituals" in order for an individual's religion to BE a religion?

Certainly those things do NOT define a personal religion.

You seem to be describing what most religions seem to have rather than allowing that what occupies a person's Supreme interest might lie outside any "central authority", lie outside "core teachings" and lie outside of rituals.

Clear

 

[ChristineM]

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF AN ATHIEST


ChristineM said : "It's more a case of i have no valid evidence that there is a god, do you want to prove that wrong?"

CLEAR replied : A) The strict Atheist has a belief that no God exists.
The strict Agnostic does not know if a God exists or not and does not take a strict position on either existence or non existence of a God.
(All three of these definitions are independent of whether the person has or does not have valid evidence) (post #62)

ChristineM now replies : Atheist: one who disbelieves or lackd belief in the existence of God or gods. (Post #73)

Hi @ChristineM

Yes, NOW you've got it right Christine

Clear

I always have had it right, you want make changes to the definition of atheist, thats your problem, not mine

 

[Sand Dancer]

God doesn't cease to exist because you don't believe in him.

So Krishna, Zeus and Odin exist as well? Good to know.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

Willful ignorance and loyalty to outright falsehoods.

 

[Clear]

REGARDING THE DEFINITION OF AN ATHIEST

ChristineM said : "It's more a case of i have no valid evidence that there is a god, do you want to prove that wrong?"

CLEAR replied : A) The strict Atheist has a belief that no God exists.
The strict Agnostic does not know if a God exists or not and does not take a strict position on either existence or non existence of a God.
(All three of these definitions are independent of whether the person has or does not have valid evidence) (post #62)

ChristineM now replies : Atheist: one who disbelieves or lackd belief in the existence of God or gods. (Post #73)

Clear responded : Hi @ChristineM
Yes, NOW you've got it right Christine


ChristineM responded : I always have had it right, you want make changes to the definition of atheist, thats your problem, not mine.

You didn't change your definitions in the two versions above?

O.k.

Clear

 

[Kenny]

Then why did you claim at the beginning of this thread that your religion was secularism? .

All in context of Revoltingest question

 

[Windwalker]

Hi @Windwalker

Windwalker said : "But I would not go so far as to as to call atheism itself as a religion. It simply doesn't qualify. It has no central authority, no core teachings or philosophies, no common practices and rituals, and so forth. It's those things that define a religion."

Regarding your definition of religion.

Authority : While an Atheist may or may see themselves as a central authority, why are you implying that a religion must have a "central authority"?
It makes no sense to me that a religion MUST have a "central authority".

Core teachings or philosophies : If a religion believes that there ARE NO core teachings or philosophies then why would you insist that religion must have "core teachings or philosophies" in order to be a religion. I don't understand why you would insist on "core teachings" required in an individual's personal belief or personal religion.

Common practices or rituals : Similarly, why would an individual's personal religion require a "common practice" with others? Why does your concept of religion require "rituals" in order for an individual's religion to BE a religion?

Certainly those things do NOT define a personal religion.

You seem to be describing what most religions seem to have rather than allowing that what occupies a person's Supreme interest might lie outside any "central authority", lie outside "core teachings" and lie outside of rituals.

Clear

You're using the term religion differently that I was. The OP was talking about some recognized religion you used to be a part of that you left. With your definition of religion, you could call stamp collecting and model airplanes someone's religion. I don't think that's what the intention of this thread was about.

But as far as atheism goes, again that does not qualify as a religion that anyone joins. I did of course recognize someone may treat their atheism with a religiousness, a religious zeal, like a fundamentalist does with their adopted beliefs which they treat as God itself. Again though, the thread was talking about institutional, organized, or recognized religions, not someone's so-called "personal religion", from what I could see.

Let's put it this way, if someone said to you they were a Christian, and they believed Jesus was an extra terrestrial space alien and taught that stealing was good and that Donald Trump was God's Messiah for the Age, would you recognize them as Christian? So as I said, if atheism is a religion, that what is its core beliefs, what are its values and morals, what are its teaching, if any?

The only thing I can see as a commonly held and recognizabe belief is non-theism. But that's not really a religion then is it, any more that a Hindu is a Christian because they believe that God exists. Right? There are things that make these different religions, no?

 

[Watchmen]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

Mormonism. It’s demonstrably false and since I’ve been out I’ve never been better physically, mentally, and emotionally.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So Krishna, Zeus and Odin exist as well? Good to know.

There can be only one.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There is a saying I quite believe is true. "The god you don't believe in, doesn't exist". That's as true for you, as it is for the atheist. For you they don't exist. For the atheist they don't exist. No real difference there.

The question isn't what I believe or what you believe. The question is who exists in reality. We do not create reality by thinking on it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Inspired by this thread: The religion you believe in - Why did you choose to believe that religion?

I'm not talking about religions where a passing familiarity was enough for you decide they weren't for you. I'm talking about religions that you were once immersed in: the ones you seriously considered a participated in, or where you were a full member.

If you are no longer a part of a religion you were once in - or were at least on a path toward - why did you reject the religion?

Church of England.
Initially it just seemed very hypocritical to me. People went to Church and spoke of God, but I saw little consistent evidence of any real belief.
I also loved history, even then, and Henry VIII creating a new Church because of an argument with the doctrines of the old seemed a clear pointer to the fact that adults didn't really believe either.
(Again, I later gained a more nuanced understanding, but 11 year old me wasn't completely off the mark)

I was still in prayer school at the time, 11 maybe?

When I was at Uni I re-approached Christianity through adult eyes, since I generally don't trust my 11 year old self to make permanent life-altering decisions. But I remained an atheist, if for more nuanced and diverse reasons.

 

[Windwalker]

The question isn't what I believe or what you believe. The question is who exists in reality. We do not create reality by thinking on it.

But if someone does not believe that God exists, then God does not exist to that person. And that's the point. Their reality does not include God. So in reality, we do create our own realities, our own lived experiences, but what we believe in or don't believe in.

You don't believe that? What about yourself? Was your lived reality changed after you began believing in God? What changed? Your beliefs changed. Not God. God did not exist to you in your reality before you believed. Then after you believed, God know existed and changed your reality.

That's how this works. What we believe, does in fact create our realities for us. This has nothing to do with whether something exists objectively. It's about your subjective, lived experience of what reality is to you. And that is your reality. Reality to us, is what we see it as, what we believe it to be.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

So Krishna, Zeus and Odin exist as well? Good to know.

I wanted to comment on the gods you mentioned because they are among the many deities I've been learning about since I began practicing Wicca and polytheism. The negativity I encountered as a Christian eventually led me to Wicca and, later, polytheism, both of which have been very positive experiences for me. After being constrained to one God as a Christian, learning about these other gods has been fascinating, and I feel liberated. I don't feel pressured to worship a particular god or goddess, nor do I feel pressured to always live morally upright in order to placate a very vengeful and jealous God who threatens to damn me to hell for all eternity if I don't play by his rules. I don't feel intimidated by any deities, nor do I fear the wrath of any deities. Being a Wiccan has been liberating, and unlike when I was still a Christian, there is no longer any fear, guilt, or shame hanging over my head (click here to read my prior post). Anyway, the point of my reply was to comment on the gods you mentioned. I kind of got off track a bit, so I'll end my post now.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But if someone does not believe that God exists, then God does not exist to that person. And that's the point. Their reality does not include God.

Wrong. Their reality includes God whether they believe it or not.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You don't believe that? What about yourself? Was your lived reality changed after you began believing in God? What changed? Your beliefs changed. Not God. God did not exist to you in your reality before you believed. Then after you believed, God know existed and changed your reality.

I never remember not believing in God. As soon as I was able to reason I believed he existed, so that never changed for me.