After A Year Without God, Former Pastor Ryan Bell No Longer Believes

[damnedifIknow]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by SYFROYH (a host of the General Discussion forum).

(RNS) Ryan Bell — the former Seventh-day Adventist pastor who spent 2014 living as an atheist — is ready for his big reveal.

After chronicling the last 12 months on his blog Year Without God, Bell — who now works as director of community engagement at People Assisting the Homeless in Southern California — announced in an interview with NPR that he no longer believes in God."

I think the best way I can explain the conclusion I’ve come to — and conclusion is too strong a word for the provisional place I now stand and work from — is that the intellectual and emotional energy it takes to figure out how God fits into everything is far greater than dealing with reality as it presents itself to us.

That probably sounds very nonrational, and I want people to know that I have read several dozen books and understand a good many of the arguments. I’d just say that the existence of God seems like an extra layer of complexity that isn’t necessary. The world makes more sense to me as it is, without postulating a divine being who is somehow in charge of things."

I would definitely do it again! And I’ll go a step further: I think others should do it, too. Anytime you can step outside your comfort zone, you will learn important things about yourself and the world. I’ve learned that atheists are not the miserable nihilists that many Christians think they are."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/04/ryan-bell-atheist_n_6397336.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[randys1]

1. How I stopped believing in the nonsense was when I asked myself how

crazy is it to believe the nonsense.

[PassingFair]

15. Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.

-Philip K. Dick

...who certainly had seriously pondered the nature of reality.

[LiberalLovinLug]

75. One of my favorite authors

Nice to see you still rocking that avatar PF!

[el_bryanto]

2. Why does this belong in the General Discussion forum rather than the religion forum? nt

[shraby]

4. Could be because it's about no religion?

[el_bryanto]

5. You should visit the religion forum if you think that it doesn't discuss this kind of story

And are you really claiming this isn't a story about religion or belief?

Bryant

[shraby]

8. Just because they discuss it there, doesn't mean it is a religion only theme.

[el_bryanto]

13. Why do the rules for General Discussion impose restrictions on posts about religion?

What is discussion of this story likely to lead to?

Bryant

[phil89]

86. It's actually about lack of belief.

nt

[el_bryanto]

90. You should visit the religion forum - it is dominated by people who talk about their lack of belief

And of course have very strong opinions on believers.

Bryant

[tkmorris]

34. Who cares?

Does it really offend you so much that it is here? If so, why?

[el_bryanto]

40. Well two reasons

One - people should follow the guidelines of the forum - if they don't like those guidelines, than well go post on another forum I guess.

Two - it creates anger and irritation to no beneficial effect.

Bryant

[Arugula Latte]

53. I see a lot of religious people arguing for the stifling of criticism of or negativity about

religion (not just here on DU but on the Internet in general) on the grounds that it is upsetting to people and offends people and "why can't they just keep it to themselves?" Under this view proselyting is just fine and dandy because Christians are supposed to spread the Good News, but when atheists speak out to counter this stuff they are called rude and militant.

[el_bryanto]

58. Both are wrong.

I don't thing DU Believer proselyte all that much, except in the case of Pope Francis, where most proselytizing takes the form of "He's saying some stuff about inequality I think is great."

I think if someone were to post a specific argument in favor of their faith in GD it would be shut down pretty quickly (and should be).

Bryant

[TheBlackAdder]

76. That penguin clip always makes me laugh. Thanks. nt

[Arugula Latte]

84. You're quite welcome!

[randome]

3. How does one 'live as an atheist'? Stop praying? Stop begging for miracles?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[shraby]

6. Easy, you just live the way you should live as a human being.

Treat other people equally, be fair to people you deal with, learn something new if possible every day, if in a position to do so, give of what you have. I could go on and on. Life isn't about praying, it's about doing.

[Krytan11c]

9. IDK

Judging from what he wrote, he took off his "everything I see is god's creation or bidding" lens.

It seems to me that he started to view life as just life, not some higher beings grand plan for him and the universe.

[immoderate]

10. I suspect he was very skeptical when he started. Then he had this "revelation."

--imm

[jeff47]

31. You stop going to church, and stop praying. (nt)

[randome]

59. That could describe agnostics as well as atheists as well as those who simply don't give a damn.

As well as plenty of Baptists and Catholics. This guy makes it sound like an either/or proposition. I think most people fall into that last category of not giving a damn one way or the other because they're too busy living their lives.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

60. There's still a difference between "I missed it" and "I'm never going"

Additionally, praying does not require going to a service.

[ohheckyeah]

70. He said what the difference is

is "is that the intellectual and emotional energy it takes to figure out how God fits into everything is far greater than dealing with reality as it presents itself to us." So he quit looking for how God's will fit into everything.

[dawg]

7. My faith is a lot simpler than he makes his out to be.

I have never thought of God as just some "being" who was micro-managing the universe. So I never gave any thought to how I needed to shoehorn God into individual situations.

Likewise, if you truly believe in a consciousness that is so far above the level of our own that we would refer to it as "God", then it would be ridiculously arrogant to think that our much more primitive minds would be able to adequately understand its nature.

(And yeah, I'm due beer and travel money, and many experiences. I know how this sounds.)

[tblue]

22. Agree. I don't think we can wrap our brains around God.

I've always wondered why anyone thinks they can with 100% certainty.

[TheBlackAdder]

83. Great Literature never tried to define God, since he was beyond human conception.

Even John Milton's "Paradise Lost" defined Satan, but left God undefined.

It is the hubris of man to think they can know anything about God or his actions. Especially when dealing with the Bible, which was created over four centuries, during a time when video and transcription did not exist, and everything relied on the fallibility of men (since women were not allowed input) into this discourse. Nothing in the Bible can be deemed as true quotations, since things were passed by word of mouth, embellished, omitted, or altered by personal biases.

[KittyWampus]

11. sadly, this person's initial and subsequent concept of God is quite childlike

Too bad he didn't spend a year trying to expand his concept of what "God" actually is.

[Orrex]

14. With respect, who are you to say that?

Please articulate your concept of "God" and how it is superior to anyone else's.

[KittyWampus]

79. what is more childlike than seeing "god" as an omnipotent father figure?

[Orrex]

82. With respect, who are you to say that?

Please articulate your concept of "God" and how it is superior to anyone else's.

[randys1]

16. So the person who concludes invisible man in sky, not real, is childlike?

[el_bryanto]

19. I guess your counterpoint would be that any belief in God is childlike? nt

[Orrex]

23. Belief despite an absence of evidence might be characterized as childlike.

Or, at the very least, as poorly grounded in demonstrable reality.

[el_bryanto]

24. When you see evidence you mean demonstrable evidence?

Some believers, myself included, might well say "Well I've prayed and felt the touch of God. I understand that's not enough to convince you, but it has convinced me."

Would you characterize that as a childlike attitude?

Bryant

[Orrex]

27. Yes I would.

Put simply, I do not accept that a finite human brain is qualified to conclude that a god exists based solely on internal perceptions.

[el_bryanto]

33. OK - so you would characterize DU Believers as Childlike, if they believe in a God.

This by the way, is why this subject belongs in the religion forum.

Bryant

[Orrex]

36. If they can provide evidence to justify that belief, then I will be happy to hear it.

Otherwise, in answer to your question, my answer is still "yes, I would."

That answer is no more disrespectful than accusations by DU belevers who in this context might call me closed-minded, stubborn, arrogant or the like.

[el_bryanto]

39. Do you think this sort of back and forth belongs in General Discussion or in the Religion Forum?

I mean we are at the stage where you are criticizing a certain section of DU for something they aren't likely to change - I'm certainly not going to stop being a believe because you feel like it's childlike. I don't know if any other DU believer will either. So what is the value of dragging this into the General Discussion forum?

Bryant

[Orrex]

44. It's not my thread, and it's not for me to say. I defer to the Hosts.

I'm certainly not going to stop being a believe because you feel like it's childlike. I don't know if any other DU believer will either.

And why should they/you do so? My assessment shouldn't trump their/your own rational consideration of the subject. I can only point out how my conclusion differs from theirs/yours and articulate the basis for my differing conclusion.

I wouldn't presume to have anyone accept as definitive my "feelings" regarding supernatural phenomena.

[el_bryanto]

45. Do you feel like it's wrong for believers to suggest that you are arrogant?

or does that fall into the same category as your observations on the lack of evidence of God?

Bryant

[Orrex]

49. Before I answer, let me ask a framing question

Do you think that it's wrong to suggest that belief despite of a lack of demonstrable evidence is childlike?

The answer depends upon the terms of the discussion and also the nature of the professed belief. If, for instance, the believer espouses belief in an omnipotent entity who has set forth a special plan specific for that believer, then I would have to say that such belief is far more arrogant than anything I might offer in response.

[el_bryanto]

56. I think it's wrong in a public forum - where the are DU believers and DU atheists

I think in a religion forum or in the AA forum or even the interfaith forum it' fine (although I may be the minority on that last one) - but in a general room, I think there's no way you intend childlike as a compliment, and I don't see the value to having the discussion here.

As for the specific plan, i think it relies on what you mean by a plan specific for that believer. If I were to say "As one of God's chosen God has a plan for me, El Bryanto, but of course nothing for you Orrex" than of course that would be terribly arrogant. If i were to say "God has a plan for all his children - including me and you, than yes that's arrogant in the face of an infinite universe, I suppose - you could certainly paint it that way but I don't know that it's really an issue - the negative side of arrogance is one in which we set ourselves above each other.

Bryant

[Orrex]

61. If we were stuck in a general room, I would pursue the matter differently

But since we're in a discussion forum in which participation is entirely voluntary, I don't see it as a problem.
Again, I defer to the Hosts. If the discussion is allowed to continue, then I will continue discussing it.

As for the specific plan, i think it relies on what you mean by a plan specific for that believer. If I were to say "As one of God's chosen God has a plan for me, El Bryanto, but of course nothing for you Orrex" than of course that would be terribly arrogant. If i were to say "God has a plan for all his children - including me and you, than yes that's arrogant in the face of an infinite universe, I suppose - you could certainly paint it that way but I don't know that it's really an issue - the negative side of arrogance is one in which we set ourselves above each other.

Presuming to know the "plan" of an infinite being is tantamount to infinite arrogance, even if one claims to know only a fraction of that infinite plan. Further, presuming to speak on behalf of my role in that plan is equally arrogant.

I see no arrogance in the observation that a finite mind is inadequate to the task of internally proving the existence of the infinite when no other evidence is available. Is it arrogant to observe that a gallon jug is insufficient to contain the Pacific Ocean?

One's tone might be arrogant (see Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, for example), but when I've been called arrogant on this subject it has usually boiled down to the claim that I am "arrogant" because I don't accept the witness' testimony about the supernatural or the infinite. Also, since I have survived being called "arrogant" to my face many times on this very subject, I'm not greatly concerned that my postings here will damage the faith or psyches of the believers.

[el_bryanto]

66. I don't understand the first comment - this is the general discussion room?

As there are forums where you could discuss such topics, I don't see why they have to be brought up here.

Believing that there is a plan is not the same thing as saying I know what the plan is. It's simply a belief that there is a God and that he cares about us as individuals. I certainly wouldn't pretend to know what God's plan is for anybody else - simply to believe that he does have one.

Now I do belong to a specific religion so I do believe in the commandments of that faith - but I don't necessarily believe that God is going to condemn anybody who isn't a member of my specific faith.

Bryant

[Orrex]

69. Participation in GD is not compulsory

I distinguish this from a physical room or setting that one is unable to exit.

Believing that there is a plan is not the same thing as saying I know what the plan is. It's simply a belief that there is a God and that he cares about us as individuals.

Since no one in history has presented demonstrable evidence for this plan, I see no basis whatsoever for belief in it. Continued belief in something despite an utter absence of evidence is childlike. Can you name anything else of comparable scope and in which one might reasonably believe regardless of a complete lack of evidence?

I certainly wouldn't pretend to know what God's plan is for anybody else - simply to believe that he does have one.

If I told you that I am God and that I have a plan for everyone, would you believe me? On what possible basis could you deny my claim, since you've required no demonstrable evidence for your current belief?

Notwithstanding your admitted lack of certainty about the details, the fact that you proclaim your God to have a plan for me is still presumptuous and, to an extent, arrogant, though indeed far less so than someone who claims knowledge of that plan.

[el_bryanto]

72. So because I'm not required to participate in GD you should able to say whatever you like?

Am I understanding that correctly?

Also please be clear about something - I have what i consider to be evidence for the existence of God; it's just not demonstrable to you. I understand that my beliefs make me childish and arrogant in your eyes.

Bryant

[Orrex]

74. That is not my claim at all, so I have no reason to defend that claim.

I have stated repeatedly that I defer to the Hosts. If he Hosts determine that the discussion is out of place, I trust that they will lock it. If I post something that is considered unacceptable, I trust that a jury will hide it.

Nothing about my position can be paraphrased as "I should be able to say whatever I like." Why would you misrepresent my position in this way?

Also please be clear about something - I have what i consider to be evidence for the existence of God; it's just not demonstrable to you. I understand that my beliefs make me childish and arrogant in your eyes.

What is the nature of this evidence? Because I would assert that evidence that can't be demonstrated isn't evidence. Revelation, for instance, is not evidence. Personal reflection is not evidence.

Unique perception is not evidence. Internal realization is not evidence. Special insight is not evidence. More specifically, it is anecdotal testimony and far from compelling. And if you would suggest--as you have--that the existence of your God has a direct bearing upon me, then compelling evidence is indeed required.

As I've stated, a belief is childlike if it persists despite demonstrable/empirical evidence for that thing. The fact that you believe in something in the absence of evidence doesn't make that belief arrogant, though the particular nature of that belief and what it entails for others can certainly do so. Since you profess knowledge of God and the fact of his plan for me, but for which you can present no evidence, I find that belief to be arrogant.

Would you prefer that I use the term "empirical" rather than "demonstrable?" I'm comfortable with that restatement, if you are.

[el_bryanto]

80. A few points

The problem with the whole defer to the hosts bit is that it presumes you have no responsibility to uphold the rules as an individual. I think that posts on religion - whether negative or positive - should be regulated to the appropriate forums. A post that was positive about religion would be just as divisive (if not more so) as one, like this, that is negative towards religion. Since I agree with the rationale behind the rule I think you and I and everybody who participates here has a responsibility to support that rule (for the same reasons that Israel Palestine and Gun Control posts should be regulated to the appropriate forums.

You seem to disagree - i.e. you won't challenge the Hosts if they lock a post as off topic, but you feel like this one, and ones like it should be allowed in General Discussion - what good do you see coming of this sort of discussion?

I think that demonstrable gets to the issue more than empirical does, but I understand why you might prefer empirical - I'm fine either way. Also I stated my beliefs in regard to you once you asked me what they were - I don't necessarily think it's ideal to impose my beliefs on someone else. While earlier I did find some value in participating in the religion forum and engaging in these discussions, i've come around to the belief that it's a waste of time, at least on these forums. It just creates anger and resentment, and I'm good enough at being angry and resentful without participating there.

As it is, I don't find being called repeatedly childlike and arrogant necessarily enjoyable.

Bryant

[Orrex]

89. In fairness...

I only repeated my claim re: arrogance and childlike-ness because you repeatedly asked me about it. I wouldn't otherwise have repeated the assertion because there would have been no need.

Since I agree with the rationale behind the rule I think you and I and everybody who participates here has a responsibility to support that rule (for the same reasons that Israel Palestine and Gun Control posts should be regulated to the appropriate forums.

That's fair enough, I suppose, but I'm obliged to point out that you are likewise participating in this discussion with me.

GD is home to an enormous number of divisive discussions on a wide range of topics, and we could as readily ask "what good will come of them?" Some of these could doubtless be better conducted in their corresponding Groups or Forums, while others seem to be of sufficient general interest to justify their presence in GD.

The current topic is of interest to me, so I continue to reply. It's not my role to second-guess the Hosts as to its venue. That would seem to be arrogant and presumptuous.

[el_bryanto]

91. You are right - having made my point earlier - i should shut up and discontinue this conversation nt

[hfojvt]

71. most people believe in the dwarf planet Pluto

without having any more evidence for its existence than what is written in books about it, and there are probably many more examples.

[Orrex]

77. That's clearly a false analogy, and I have to think that you know this.

They do not believe in the dwarf planet Pluto. Instead, they accept the likelihood that the dwarf planet Pluto exists, based upon independently verifiable evidence. If you can present independently verifiable evidence for the existence of God, I encourage you to do so.

If you draw an analogy between any physical object that one can--in theory--verify independently and an immaterial entity that can't be verified, then that analogy is false.

Even if you formulate the analogy with a more nebulous claim, such as "Napoleon loved Josephine," then the analogy still fails. My response to the claim would be "I suppose that it's likely, but it's of minimal significance at this late date," whereas the existence of an infinite God with a special plan for me would be of immediate and paramount importance, so I'm hardly willing to equate it with a couple's romantic life from a few centuries ago.

[ohheckyeah]

73. Matthew 18:3

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

[CTyankee]

25. The SO of a friend of ours confided in me that she prays to the Virgin every day.

It was at an Ivy League football game here in New Haven and she was a bit in her cups, but still very serious about her faith. She described how it helped her live her life day by day. I listened very quietly to her and did not judge. She stirred a real pang of humanity in me and I can tell you that it humbled me. All I could think of was how she sounded, so comforted in this daily ritual.I guess everybody finds their comfort in something and who am I to judge?

[Orrex]

32. If someone tells me that they draw comfort from such belief, I don't contradict them.

If someone tells me that I should therefore believe, then I call them out for it. If someone invites me to debate the matter, then I will happily debate it.

Further, if we're discussing the issue in an open forum, then it would be intellectually dishonest to invoke such personal experience either as a trump card against refutation or as a means of guilting one's opposition into silence.

[CTyankee]

37. Yes. She wasn't proselytizing in the least. She was saying it simply and sincerely.

I'm actually happy for her. Everyone has to find their own peace, I figure...

[Orrex]

38. Carl Sagan made a point along these lines

I'm paraphrasing badly, but he stated something to the effect that he wouldn't argue with a grieving widow while she spoke to her deceased husband at his grave; to do so would be pointless and inexcusably cruel. Similarly, I didn't interrupt my grandfather's funeral to ask what's up with all of the chanting and incense.

Context and venue are everything when determining the appropriateness of the response.

[CTyankee]

42. well, I was a bit surprised that this came up at a tailgate in the Yale Bowl's parking lot...

while Princeton was beating the Bulldogs in a surprise ending. I guess she was opening up because she was a bit tipsy. She's a nice woman...

[Orrex]

47. LOL. Sounds to me like you responded correctly.

If you'd gone after her about it, you'd simply have looked like an asshole, and you wouldn't have convinced anyone of anything else!

Where we used to live, on warm evenings I would take my young sons to a nearby church parking lot to ride their bikes & big wheels. I was routinely approached by members of the church who would invite me to join or otherwise participate in church activities. I always declined, but I made a point of not being a jerk about it. Their behavior was IMO entirely appropriate for the venue, and I would have accomplished nothing if I'd argued with them about the nature of faith. At most, I'd have gotten banned from the parking lot.

[CTyankee]

98. You would laugh at some of the conversations I had in the Yale Bowl parking lot

in the 4th quarter after some folks got juiced...Yalies and non Yalies alike. Every other year is Harvard-Yale in the Bowl and that's always good for some interesting behavior...plus it's at the end of the season so it's cold and dark by that point in the fall...

[dhill926]

54. sensible....

[randys1]

97. God is something children are told to believe in so they will behave

If an adult insists on continuing this belief, I am not sure what to call it.

[el_bryanto]

99. By that you mean you aren't sure what to call it

Or you don't want to say it outloud in a public forum?

Bryant

[randys1]

100. what do u call it?

[el_bryanto]

101. I call it faith I suppose. nt

[randys1]

102. Which is a way of re-framing the issue to make it more palpable to adults

[el_bryanto]

106. So you prefer child-like then? Passive aggressive bullshit. nt

[Scootaloo]

103. When I was like, four years old, I was super into dinosaurs - still am actually

But at the time, there was a cartoon out, called "Denver, the Last Dinosaur," about a dinosaur that gets thawed our or something, and befriends a team of plucky kids - as out-of-time dinosaurs do, I have gathered.

One of the advertisements for this cartoon showed the dinosaur skateboarding around his town, then jamming on a guitar, with the voiceover proclaiming, "SEE Denver the last dinosaur rock out like a blast from the past!" or... something like that.



Being four years old, I was certain that a real live dinosaur was coming to town, to put on a concert. I pestered my parents to take me to see this wonderful, magical thing. They turned me down. and boy was I angry. didn't they know that one does not see a corythosaurus break out a guitar solo every day? But no, they wouldn't take me, and no, I wouldn't listen to their explanations that it wasn't real. Of course it was real, the television told me so!

Now i'm quite a bit older and wiser in the ways of television, cartoons, and ultra-hip dinosaurs, and now look back at this childish certainty with amusement.

Tell me how someone's belief in an undetectable being turning the dials and controlling reality is more mature than the belief that a dinosaur will someday perform a concert for you.

[el_bryanto]

105. Jesus I never thought about that. Thousands of years of religious tradition is just like a 4 year

old believing a dinosaur will perform a concert for you. Jesus you are smart. You should write a book about how stupid and childish all believers are.

Bryant

[KittyWampus]

81. ah, no… the concept of god as an invisible man in the sky is childlike.

That is pretty clear in what I wrote in my first post.

[Orrex]

94. But why is that concept childlike?

As opposed to, say, the notion that our souls reincarnate according to Samsara?

[randys1]

96. Sorry, but that twisted logic doesnt fly here or anywhere, you want to believe in

the invisible man who sees all, fine

But pretending YOUR position is the mature one, and mine of not believing isnt, is laughable

[Moonwalk]

29. Okay. I'll bite, as you seem to know. What is "God" actually?

[KittyWampus]

87. Well, some different ideas that are a bit less childlike are:

God is the sum of the Laws that rule the Universe and thus best understood through numbers and systems like geometry.

Or God is all pervasive and thus is electromagnetic energy.

Or God is the sum of all sentience and thus in Consciousness.

Cue the Grateful Deads "Eyes of the World"

[Moonwalk]

104. So, it sounds like this guy was right to become an atheist, as it would seem...

...that according to your definition of god (actually), atheists are among the biggest believers. I mean, they believe in the laws of the universe and geometry. They believe in electromagnetic energy. They believe in the sentience of at least the beings on this planet (can't yet prove there's any anywhere else, but the probability is good--why such sentence has to be combined in order to be god, but close enough to believe that there are a great many sentient beings, yes?)...doesn't that make Atheists believers in the actual god (by your definition) whether they say they are or not?

[vlyons]

52. God is a concept -- in your mind

Why do you think there are so many different religions? Because there are so many people with different concepts, all thinking that their concept is the true and right one. Totally subjective. The question is not, "Is there a god out there (where ever there is)?" But rather, "What concept of god do you generate in your mind?" And then, "How do you embody your concept of God and then act in the world based on that concept?"

There is no supreme God or being in the universe, who is above the laws of physics and acts outside the time/space continuum. There is no male or female parental figure, who makes impossible things happen. If you want stuff to happen, then you, we, us have to make it happen.

[KittyWampus]

85. Very sensible post. And I would actually say there's so many religions

because Truth or Reality is like water. It's invisible and colored by the glass container that holds it. Which means I agree with what you wrote Just said it from a different angle.

[phil89]

88. Oh so there's an objective version of what god is?

What on Earth are you talking about?

[KittyWampus]

93. the esoteric view of the universe is quite similar amongst all cultures throughout time

So I would say there is an objective version of what god is and one can find it by exploration.

[seveneyes]

12. Just say Maybe

Just when they think they have it all figured out, none of them can show evidence that a god does, or does not exist.

[Orrex]

18. It's not necessary to show that a god doesn't exist

One is perfectly justified in saying "the evidence is insufficient to justify my belief in a god." Others are free to accept or reject that assessment, but if they claim that the evidence does justify belief, then it's up to them to demonstrate it.

Further, one could easily believe in a god but still deem that god unworthy of worship.

[phantom power]

17. "the existence of God seems like an extra layer of complexity that isn’t necessary"

indeed

[LiberalLovinLug]

95. I thought this was a strange conclusion personally

I think the world is so much more complicated without the adherence to some organized religion. You live by the edicts of a single book that is proclaimed by church leaders to contain any and all answers. And not only that, but they, the leaders, the pastors and clergy are the ones that choose and pick out the verses and interpret them in simple terms for the congregation..that seems like the easy way out. Every complication in life you run into, there is an answer for it. And if you are still confused, you can go to your church leader to break it down for you. Even when things go wrong in your life or tragedies in the world can be explained by "all things work together for good to them that love God". Growing up in this atmosphere I heard this all the time. Along with statements like "this may seem so unfair to you or .... but God has a plan and actually in the long run this has happened for a reason, its all in God's plan which is ultimately for your benefit" or some such nonsense.

No, its so much more difficult and complicated without easy answers.

Like when my dad died from a form of Dementia. A fundamentalist evangelical Christian all his life. Always voted Conservative obviously. Never drank a drop of alcohol. Took care of himself. His reward for that is just a couple of years into retirement he gets diagnosed with Dementia. This reward is also shared by my mom who has had her dreams of post retirement life with her partner destroyed not to mention lost companionship in her later years. They were in love their whole lives. One of those older couples that still held hands. What was the "good" in this happening? This was the final nail in the coffin for me as far as blind acceptance of some kind of all-knowing, caring, loving God that is always looking out for out best interests. If there is a God, then he is more likely one that enjoys pulling legs off of insects to see what happens. Even in the Bible itself God commands that our main purpose in our short lives he's granted us is to "glorify Him". l Cor. 10:31: "Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." So if He does exist I will take my chances because I could never bow down to someThing like that. He is not only mean but arrogant beyond belief.

[tritsofme]

20. Very strange man. How does someone "live" as an atheist?

If I'm not mistaken, your heart beats just the same regardless of your beliefs.

The story just seems weird and the guy very narcissistic to me. Talking about his personal beliefs as if it were some sort "big reveal" that is earth shattering news or somehow significant to others,through the year long "process"

The story and behavior in the article seem just as annoying to me as the sort of Christian evangelizing he claims to be leaving.

[Luminous Animal]

30. You can read the start of his journey on his blog...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/yearwithoutgod/2013/12/31/a-year-without-god-a-former-pastors-journey-into-atheism/

I've been reading it for about the last 9 months.

[ileus]

43. You live to convince others they're wrong....

In this case this guy is hoping to make some cash from his "story", and people are tripping over themselves to share it.

[phil89]

92. I think you live differently

when there is no magic god to appeal to for forgiveness. You and you alone are responsible for your actions.

[Zorra]

21. "Anytime you can step outside your comfort zone,

you will learn important things about yourself and the world."

[EEO]

26. Even as a child I knew it was bullshit. Catholicism didn't take.

[AngryDem001]

63. Same here.

Even as a kid, I knew that it was all bullhockey.

[Quantess]

28. At least he found himself a new job!

He doesn't have to rely on preaching for a living. Good for him.

[ileus]

35. I'd stop believing if they wanted me to eat the way those 7th dayers do.

[Nye Bevan]

41. And some people move in the opposite direction.

OBAMA:
Yes. Absolutely. It was during a daytime service. And it was a powerful moment. It was powerful for me because it not only confirmed my faith, it not only gave shape to my faith, but I think, also, allowed me to connect the work I had been pursuing with my faith.

GG:
How long ago?

OBAMA:
16, 17 years ago. 1987 or 88

GG:
So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA:
Yeah, although I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/008/obama_religious_beliefs_views

[valerief]

46. A year without god is like a year without processed sugar. You get healthier--and better teeth. nt

[LuvNewcastle]

65. I think that GHW Bush probably nauseates God.

I believe that God is much more pleased by the actions of a lot of atheists than it is with many believers.

[Enthusiast]

48. You're all going to hey-yall!

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." —George H. W. Bush

Yeah, Pappy, that's a fine measure of freedom you advocate there.

[liberal_at_heart]

50. As I've been told before threads about religion don't belong in GD.

[iandhr]

51. I consider myself to my agnostic.

Though I know many wonderful people who are "of faith" who try to do right. I guess "living without god" means doing similar stuff but without doing through the lens of religion.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Man is the only animal to have found the ONE True God....several of them. Mark Twain

[LWolf]

57. Or

he doesn't think "God" as he's been conditioned to perceive "him" exists.

I find it a bit irritating that any conversation about "God" assumes a mainstream Judeo/Christian definition, as if the mainstream majority simply can't think beyond it.

[blkmusclmachine]

62. If god knows everything, why did he create satan, cancer, and Republicans???

[AngryDem001]

64. Why did he create the Palins?

(shudder)

[project_bluebook]

67. With so much evil in control

Its hard to believe that there is a God unless the wall street banksters paid him off?

[CJCRANE]

68. Everyone means something different when they say "God".

I know someone who helps others based on their faith. From what I can tell, this person thinks their works are necessary to get into heaven.

I met another person who believes in establishing a theocracy, through force if necessary, and that person also believes they are doing good and that their works will get them into heaven.

So what these people do is based on their concept of God and what God wants them to do. So it's based on a kind of personality.

I read about Zen Buddhism which has a code of ethics independent of deity. This gave me a lens to see the compassionate side of Christianity and Islam (and I assume Judaism, from which they are derived). But this again, is probably my own personal projection of what these religions mean and the person who wants a theocracy would not agree with my interpretation. The other person might also not agree with my concept that heaven and hell are more a state of mind than a destination.

[Bonx]

78. A year well spent.

Congrats Mr. Bell, on your newly acquired spiritual and intellectual independence.

[aikoaiko]

107. Locking

The GD SOP prohibits OPs about religion. Please consider reposting in the religion group.