Search the Community

Well... As the title states, recently (as in June 2nd) was my first time going to Church. Now, having said that, I was taken to Church by my grandparents when my mother was in the hospital a decade or so ago back when I was a single-digiter. However this was the first time I, by my own will, attended Mass. And it was an otherwordly experience... First off: my initial intent was simply to find out when Sunday Mass is--so at around 2:00pm I headed out for my local Roman Catholic Church. I knew where it was because, a year or two ago, it was a place I handed my resume to back when I was green in the work world and I remembered how beautiful the church itself was; with twin statues guarding the front entrance, a tall and proud cross high above, and stained-glass windows facing the dirty streets around it. It was like a pear among a mine full of coals. However the office where one would "sign himself up" (so to speak--I am still quite ignorant of the proper terms and procedures) was closed and I noticed Mass would be held at 4:30. I was curious about whether or not I should wait (by the time I got there, it was around 2:30) so I checked out the beautiful interior architecture; from a wreathed statue of the Virgin to the massive cross bearing Christ over a tabernacle (also the day I learned what that word meant and what it represented) to the portraits of various saints along the walls that framed the upper church (there was a lower-roofed "lower church" underneath!). A church boy told me that confession was going to be held at 3:00, so I waited and then spoke to the reverend who helped educate me about how I can properly officiate myself as a Roman Catholic as well as gave me a brief confession which is when I briefly introduced myself as someone who was seeking wisdom and virtue after having left Socialism a few years ago. I don't recall much of the moment as it wasn't all that special, as it was more an introduction and guidance to entry rather than a proper confession. I then sat an empty pew and contemplated in prayer what I was doing, what it meant, and why I was doing it all. Ultimately I was going to Church not because I believed in God but rather because I believed in the word of God and the wisdom and power behind it. Eventually, Mass was time and sadly I was perhaps the only young person in the audience. It was mostly old people, surprisingly nearly all white. The only young people were a couple converts from India or Korea, though I kept to myself and mostly just spoke to the old woman behind me to help me keep up with the Mass (like what page number the priest at the podium was reading from, or the singer was singing from). Perhaps the most meaningful part, however, was when the reverend I spoke to earlier taught about the desire for recognition. He opened rather simply; "Have you ever spoken to someone, and then they look over your shoulder as if looking for someone more interesting? Or perhaps speak 'hello' to someone only for them to look away and ignore you?..." and from there proceeded to talk about the desire some have for recognition and then tied it to Jesus; stating something like: "Jesus did not do what He did for fame, but rather so that others might learn from Him". At the time I thought little of it as... isn't that common sense? Isn't it better to focus on doing good rather than seeking recognition for it? However when I spoke to my Father later on about it, he helped me realize how relevant it actually was. You see, the 4 reasons as to why I decided to go to Church were: Wisdom, Faith, Family, and Fraternity. Basically I wanted to improve myself and perhaps make some friends from among the parishioners over time. However... I was pulling the cart before the horse. I was going not for the strictest reason of seeking God (or wisdom) but rather for the effects of this. And that's why, when I went to Mass today (Sunday), I went with the singular purpose of leaving with wisdom rather than for the secondary gains that might come with seeking out the best folks in my area. And today's mass was largely the same as yesterday's but with a younger man (perhaps the pastor) giving it and sadly without the wise sermon in between the songs and readings. I focused more on the readings this time as they were the same as yesterday's so I could absorb it more. I think they were under "Corpus Christi" or something; I know the story went something like Moses sacrificing half his livestock to an altar of God and then sprinkling some of it onto the disciples followed by Jesus sending forth a disciple to arrange for passover in another disciple's house in a city. Not sure what wisdom I ought to extract from this, other then take it as part of a larger story on both sides. Perhaps next Sunday, when I go for Mass, the story will continue and become clearer to me (I ought to mention the masses are mostly scripted a year in advance, apparently). Overall it was a very enlightening experience with few distractions. I was quite anxious for today's mass as I was thinking last night whether I was doing it for the right reasons and whether or not I was being honest with myself. To be clear: I don't know if I believe in God or not. I am tempted to say I don't, yet a part of me is inclined to believe there is either due to an instinct to believe or the logic that something must have caused the Big Bang... ...And, if I don't really believe in God, then why I am going to Church? Quite simply: for wisdom, guidance, and a place to think over my week and prepare for the next. These things I got for myself and I am happy though still hungry. Tomorrow I'll be making a call for a meeting and stuff to properly initiate myself back into my ancestral church, and I will make it a regular thing for me to attend mass on Sundays. And, to be clear on the point of sharing this, I am curious what folks think around here. Both the atheists and the Christians. Am I doing the right thing in seeking wisdom from the Church and broadening my fountains of wisdom or am I perhaps being deceitful by not being fully a believer yet going to Church?

I've included sections for whatever takes your fancy. Sorry it's long, but it's cool. With the rising popularity of Jordan Peterson and his attempt to translate the Bible outside of metaphor and into the realm of psychology and philosophy and whatnot, I thought I'd show you a bit of what I know. Should be a good read. I'll unpack just TWO WORDS for you: WHY DOES THE BIBLE COMMAND US TO 'FEAR GOD'? Because God represents truth. Period. Whether you believe in God or not, look at it that way. If God is what's true, he's what's real (truth irrespective of our limited understanding). That doesn't mean he's everything good and bad or nice or frightening. It only means that he's everything that is. Your interpretation of what is doesn't matter. He's only everything that has happened to you and will happen to you. There isn't any moral content there though, since it's not a matter of what ought to happen or shouldn't happen. It's what did and what does. So do you fear the truth? Yes, you do. Why? Because you're inherently self-righteous. There is some belief you have that creates a foundation for yourself that isn't true. In fact, all beliefs are like that. Everything you believe about yourself is a lie in some fashion. You don't quite understand what you are or who you are. You have labels for things, but delve into your understanding of those labels and you'll find some gap in your understanding. So you fear God in that he threatens to reveal the untruth, the lies you have about yourself or the biases you have or whatever. But at the same time, the truth is not a malevolent threat. It merely exists. It's just an 'is' and you're afraid of it. So then, if the truth isn't malevolent, how is it benevolent? Because it's knowing the truth that best assists you in literally everything. No matter how awful reality has become, it's understanding that reality that best equips you for it. So yeah, what's real can be awful and devastating and all sorts of bad, but it's only understanding it that will help you overcome it. Not knowing why it's happening will lead to ruin. Deceiving yourself into believing it's something other than it is will lead to ruin. So indeed, you have a fearful relationship to the truth. But you also have an adoring one, a loving one, a thankful one, an honorable one and a respectful one. Even regarding the worst thing that happens to you, it's only the truth that will allow you to overcome it. The truth of the origin of your depression. The truth of of WMDs in Iraq. The truth of which way to escape a burning building. It. Does. Not. Matter. The truth is always honest with us by definition. It's our relationship to truth that creates all these different feelings towards it. The reason 'fear' was chosen as the ultimate phrasing for this relationship is because it allows for all the others, but also puts us in our place with regard to truth. We have to submit to it. We're nothing in comparison to it. We owe it our survival. We owe it everything. It's not terrifying in the sense that it will harm us. It's terrifying in the scope of it's power. It's the sort of terror or awe that's inspired by a power beyond comprehension. And yes, we naturally fear that. Something beyond comprehension MEANS we can't ever understand it and thus the truth CANNOT prevail us - totally. So the truth - the ULTIMATE TRUTH i.e. God, is inherently terrifying to us. But he's no threat. Like the universe or reality itself, contemplated in all it's majesty - if we could, would drive us insane. Yet, comprehending it is exactly what we must do to survive. The reason Peterson talks of self-knowledge and death as the same thing, is because he's talking about shedding the ego such that we're able to better understand reality without bias. Christians phrase this as 'receiving God'. So as I see it, it's 'receiving truth'. Of course, there is no better way to receive the truth then when you eliminate your biases, your self-righteousness. But since the self is based on these biases, you have to 'die' in order to better receive truth. You have to give up the old biases, the old self-righteousness, and be REBORN as someone more humble. Someone less self-righteous and so more willing to understand truth. Hence the DEATH AND REBIRTH of Jesus as man's salvation. This is impossible to do since we've all some self-righteousness by design. Descartes proved that. (Cogito ergo sum). So instead, this 'new life' is one of introspection and vigilance against the self - the ego. So now whenever you're keen to believe something or impose something as true, essentially to assume or presume something, you stop yourself. Yes, you're always going to have the tendency to assume things and you're always going to have old assumptions you didn't purge. But so long as you remain vigilant you can take on less new assumptions and remove more old assumptions and so move closer to truth. And that ladies and gentlemen, is the EXACT same relationship we have toward truth when engaging the scientific method. We're agnostic about everything 'real' and the entire exercise is trying to prove ourselves wrong. It's trying to prove where we've got the model wrong - which is true by definition, rather than trying to prove ourselves right. The current model is always wrong. It's not 'incomplete' until you find where it was wrong. Where Newtonian Physics didn't work anymore or whatever. Then you hopefully fill in that gap (General Relativity in this case), and then you proceed to find where relativity is wrong and then determine the model to be incomplete once more. See, any belief you have is wrong. It's incomplete - always. You have to challenge that belief to discern so in the first place, and then take on a more true perspective should you discern how it was WRONG. Then you do it again and again. It's the death and rebirth cycle of Jesus. Over and over and yes, like the bible says, it moves you closer to God i.e. truth. And people still don't understand why science erupted from Christian Europe. Good Lord. And remember, that's TWO WORDS. HOW TO READ THE BIBLE AS AN ATHEIST: If you want to do this yourself: God is reality. Jesus is self (self-righteousness i.e. YOUR truth). Holy Spirit is the process of attribution (philosophical individuation). This probably doesn't make sense so: God is Conclusion. (Objective) - Rock Jesus is Hypothesis. (Subjective) - Paper Holy Spirit is Experimentation. (Predictive) - Scissors You can actually read the bible under this pretense. Read it as though the Holy Trinity represents the steps in the scientific method or the 3 states of knowledge you may possess. No matter what you pick, their relationship takes on a 'rock-paper-scissors' dynamic. Rock is what's real. Paper is what's believed about what's real. Scissors is the means of reconciling that belief with reality. Maybe even 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis', if you'd like. So long as the relationships the triad have to each other are the same, it's actually the same thing you're thinking about and referencing: the operation of thought itself. Blows your mind. 'Rock' is immutable and permanent (truth), but we're ignorant of it. (God, The Objective) 'Paper' is mutable and constantly being replaced (belief), but it is believed due to lack of alternatives. (Jesus, The Subjective) 'Scissors' is always a methodology (action), but it determines more of 'Rock' and so alters 'Paper'. (Holy Spirit, The Predictive) Finally, the whole damn thing follows the model of 'cause-effect-outcome' or 'cause-effect-purpose'. The reason outcome and purpose are necessary to this is that the 'outcome' or 'purpose' is a change in the state of reality itself. An effect doesn't exist merely on it's own but is a change in reality itself since it changes the entire universe. We don't like to think this way, but it does. This effect changes the state of the universe such that a repetition of that effect or indeed the cause of it, will actually be ever so slightly different. Think gravity, quantum threads, that sort of stuff. This theory was always embedded in our understanding of cause and effect since the 'bounds' of any subsystem of cause and effect (a thing) aren't real. As such, they alter the substrate in which such effects may occur again. So the 'outcome' of any cause and effect system alters the next iteration of 'cause' (Know more of God). In understanding the nature of that alteration, it brings with it a better understanding of the universe as you know it (Rebirth of Jesus). So you know more of the next cause and more of the prior one, since you know more of how the universe reacts to them. This is where everything becomes wonderfully and necessarily teleological as a matter of mind, though not necessarily of reality. Where attributions of purpose become necessary to any means of understanding and as a matter more of utility than truth. It's what allows for the progressive, growing nature of understanding (Holy Spirit leading to God). Really neat. GOD IS THE ULTIMATE MEME And yeah, such that each of these different things have been created in the search for truth or to catalogue it, that they've managed to assist humanity in survival i.e. interacting with reality in knowledge of what 'works', they've proven their utility and, dare I say, truth. But it's the truth in their relationship that matters. God ain't real. Nor Jesus or the Holy Spirit or, depending on who you talk to, objective reality and all that. But this single triad and the relationship it has within itself crops up everywhere that people have tried to determine what was true....and managed to find SUCCESS in it. Basically, since reality didn't kill them and so their ideas with them, there was truth-content in what they believed. They operated FUNCTIONALLY with reality. They PREDICTED truth. Understand of course that 'God' was never originally written this way. Rather, we was edited into existence. What worked was kept. What didn't was scrapped. Whichever Christian survived, physically and socially, passed on his 'wisdom of God'. Those that didn't perished and so didn't pass their untruth on. So what the Christian represents is a modern-day 'social-species' with all prior iterations representing a social FOSSIL RECORD. Get it? Memes evolve with genes according to reality and according to their purpose: survival. Hence the bible, by virtue of it's longevity, is packed full of truth regard the nature of physical reality but more importantly: social and psychological reality. Though it's all masked in metaphor - nearly a different language. Anyway, this is how you read the bible as an atheist in an effort to become a cultural Christian. TRANSLATING THE BIBLE INTO A RATIONAL LANGUAGE I haven't decoded it, but I do know how to a good degree. I just need hands. I've done Genesis up to Adam's exile. Figure at this point I should start showing people. Peterson is being quite helpful, but the lens of a personality psychologist, while creating a far clearer image, is narrow in its scope. So he's very right about very little, which he admits to. Particularity is never a bad thing, but it's like understanding quantum physics without knowing anything about antibiotics - as a species. You can focus into an ever-greater understanding of just one thing, but in that way it becomes less and less integral to the whole. Better to use your knowledge of atomic structure to examine living tissue and so find and attack the bacteria we're so weak to. Something very little but also very true has great potential in other matters, but you have to know how to apply it there. So philosophy, in particular philosophical individuation (the nature of attribution and distinction) and ontology, could yield it. Stef could do it - I think. Imagine the prestige, to indulge in self for a moment. It wouldn't be a selfish pursuit either. You'd be able to link purpose with Christians of all sorts and unite libertarians across the religious spectrum. Even better, you'd also provide an ultimate arbiter, an ultimate standard that the more rebellious libertarians would be forced to yield to as a matter of logic and principle. You know, 'Unite the Right'. I'm not speaking crap either. This is how to do it. You reveal to these different 'sects' the nature of their belief and with that the congruity between them that they can't see. Their division is an illusion. It's been a matter of mind and not action/purpose for generations. They are divided only in motivation/intention. They will yield the same outcome together, but differ in their interpretation of it. So they infight based on false pretenses. But if you reveal to them that both of their interpretations are a skewed vision of the same thing, you can generate cooperation. Neither is likely to forsake their own interpretation, but they will come to see their interpretation in their 'rivals'. As it stands, I've found the congruity between Christians, atheists, scientists, libertarians, and MGTOW with a few hints unexplored in MRAs, 'centrists', classical liberals, ethno-nationalists, and I think a few others. It's always there, this triad - at least on the 'Right' or rather the 'Not-Insane' wing of politics. So anything but the Far-Left and hey! Wouldn't you know it? We're united on that front. Well gee-whiz. It's like we might just be standing for the same thing and not just AGAINST the same thing. I'm excitedly rambling. I do that. Oh yeah, I'd love to talk to Stef about this but he monologues about his own position (admit it, but it's good for the show) and this would most certainly be a teacher-student exchange that I'm not sure either of us wants to enter into. It would interrupt his flow and is, I think, something difficult to explain over Skype. Lucky for me, I'm local. I could actually meet in person too. Would love to. Imagine that? It would be nice if you guys read this and critiqued it. Though truly, take the triad to heart and start reading the bible or listening to Jordan Peterson's work on Genesis. Watch it sync up with Peterson. It would be uncanny were it not for the nature of memes I just talked about. Though again, tip of the iceberg. So such that anyone cares well, spread this around I guess. Hope it helps, if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Here are my thoughts on Stefan's video "Why I Was Wrong About Atheism" ( ) 1. “For the most part atheism is an outgrowth of faith in the modern god called the state.” Atheism is only and specifically the idea that there is no god it gods, it has no intellectual or philosophical content that would lead one to anything else 2. He hasn't proven that the nihilism and leftism of the majority of atheists is a cause of atheism or atheism is a cause of the leftism or nihilism. This is a chicken and egg thing that is pretty complicated. Do more people come to leftism and nihilism because of atheism, or are more people atheism because of leftism and nihilism? 3. Stefan's claim that religious people don't force him to do anything but lefty socialists do. “They [Christians] don’t force me to do anything. On the other hand, the lefties, by constantly running to big daddy government to enforce their moral conscience on everyone else, regardless of consequences, regardless of ethics, regardless of voluntarism, regardless of the need to choose that what is essential to virtue, socialist by running to big daddy government, well the force me to do lots and lots of things. They take my money, they bury me in regulations, they involve my cash in foreign wars, they do lots of god awful things, and if I try to follow my own conscience and do what I think is best with my recourses, well they support cats in blue showing up with guns to drag me off to jail because I am not paying my taxes.” Christians are in favor of war and taxes. According to gallop, “Protestants and frequent churchgoers most supportive of Iraq War”. Not sure where this idea that Christians are antithetical to the state is coming from and is being taken as a given. Atheists are 3.1% of the American population and the Government is more than 99.9% operated by religious people. [post=http://tinypic.com/r/2woxi6b/9][/post] I don't know how we square that circle. Even if we accept Christians are not forcing adults to follow their ideas, and are just asking them to submit to God or go to hell (how pleasant of them), they are forcing and brainwashing helpless children, which is child abuse. http://youtu.be/Xb2dZqgGm50 3.1% of the US is atheist. On the other hand here is the percentages of people who are Christian 86% in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The drop to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility if Christianity by shining light on 4. Throwing the baby (atheism) out with the bath water (leftist and nihilistic atheists). “We all seem to need an irrational authority to order us about and if we take away God, wushhh, into the power vacuum rushes the state.” Atheism is a new cultural phenomenon which has greatly expanded due to the Information Age. It is the rebellious teenager who has woken up one day and realized that his parents rules are authoritarian, abusive, and manipulative and decides that he is no longer subject to their rules. However, there is no other direction available to him to fill that void. He becomes the rebel without a cause. He finds his new rules in other lost teenagers, in the nihilistic programming of the media, in his leftist teacher who tells him everything is relative and there is no right or preferable values, well except altruism of course. The void left by his authoritarian parents is filled by chance and by whatever other ideological structure is already formed to step in. Christianity made up 86% of the US population in 1990, 78.6% in 2001, 70.6% in 2014 therefore the dominant cultural force we are living today came from a Christian dominated culture. The dramatic fall in Christianity to me indicates how the Information Age has destroyed the credibility of Christianity by shining light on its irrationality and dogma. However, as religion has disappeared from being the dominant cultural force, the only pre-packaged, ready to assimilate, ideology around to catch the rebels has been Marxism. Now we stumble across this teenager, what do we do? Do we cower in disgust at what the nihilist anti-intellectual culture and leftists teachers has filled him with and tell him to go back to his authoritarian abusive parents because at least he would have structure? Or do we teach him how to think? How to reason? How to rebuild a new structure on the solid foundation of philosophy? Stefan, we have to give these people who are leaving religion a new foundation, the right methodology of thinking - philosophy. Don't send people back to religion because you are disgusted with what the void of religion and what it has been filled with so far. Lets build the RIGHT structure, one built on reason, logic, consistent methodologies, and then fill this void as much as we can. Push back nihilism and leftism - demonstrate it to be the evil that it is. Do not retreat back to religious dogma and superstition as a form of structure. The change is going to happen regardless, and if we aren't there Marxism will continue to feed off of the rebels. You have made huge strides already to present a new way, a way of thinking, thoughtfulness, logic, philosophy, don’t give up now.

I will mention right off, this post is not a proof or an attempt at proof of God's existence. And yet, I wonder if I can make godless atheists a bit more....god-full. I heard Stefan Molyneux offer a bit of a personal theory of what happened after Jesus Christ died, more or less presuming his tomb was raided by thieves and maybe--just maybe--the first Christians concocted an elaborate hoax to inspire universal morality and destroy moral relativism in what may have been the most crucial point in Roman history before the Fall. Personally, I've always thought that either Jesus was a Roman philosopher (like say, a 4th philosopher to take the torch from Aristotle) whose philosophy was made into a religion by his disciples in order to unite people too dumb to think philosophically, or he was a Roman politician who managed to become the object of worship because of his perceived boundless virtue. As to whether my or Stef's theories are even remotely true, I cannot say. It stands to reason that most likely if there is a God, he is very absentee and the Church greatly embellishes his involvement in man's affairs, or....well, either he is the God of Whites or the God of Jews in particular as both general groups of peoples grew to become the dominant races of the world (at least until recently). If there isn't a God than the raw horse power of the European genetic survival set was simply the best out there, and God was simply the simplification as to why Whites were so great in a time without genetic scientists to give definitive reasons for the behavioral and physical traits of the races. Around the same time as Jesus Christ was arguably the greatest ruler in European history: Augustus Caesar, First Emperor of the Roman Empire and the very basis for the word "Emperor" in most European languages. When the Roman Empire fell after 250 odd years of decay and ruin, the Holy Roman Empire was formed by Kaiser Charlemagne, the first Christian Emperor of Europe whose empire would last nearly 1000 years (if you include the Austrian and German Empires as being successor states of the old Holy Roman Empire). Christianity's purpose was essentially that of a bully pulpit used to propagate moral values to the illiterate and low-IQ masses. Whereas the three philosophers of ancient Greece attempted to use reason to enable rational activity, Christianity, perhaps from inception, realize the simple fact that all people are irrational and yet believe themselves rational, and that the majority of people will always find themselves subscribed to someone else's theory of ethics or dogma. Therefore, rather than attempting to convince the world to be good for goodness's sake, the Church essentially said "Be good or be damned", which was of course irrelevant to the good people who do good regardless, but critical for the "bad" people and the "morally relative" people who either could not be bothered or were too uncaring to work for a bigger picture. To conclude the topic's purpose, I have a simple set of questions; "Is Christianity a benefit for European civilization?" "Is it better for many people to do good as a result of a lie, or for a few people to do good as a result of a truth?" "Do the ends justify the means, and is Christianity a good means for spreading reason and virtue?" "If we are created in God's image, assuming He is real, who is "we"?"

Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/2015/11/05/religion-morality/ The article also provides direct source to the paper here: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901167-7 Although this isn't something unheard of for most here, it is interesting to see research like this going out to the public, and is useful to have in case you want to share it with people who make claims to the contrary.

In a recent podcast, Stefan asked the question: With the assertion that he would rather talk to Christians about morality because there are a lot of leftist determinist atheists out there that you cannot talk morality to. Besides being a false dichotomy, since I would only rather talk morality with people who derive it from logic, universals, and reasoned arguments, how can one even talk to a Christian about morality? Morality is one of the major things Christianity should automatically disqualify you from a philosophical discussion of over. While there are a lot of things that I will talk to Christians about, such as politics, economics, physics, personal issues, etc., morality is one thing I would rather not talk to Christians about. This is because Christians derive their morality from an all powerful god who blackmails them into either blindly accepting for an eternity in paradise or rejecting for an eternity in hell. In other words, Christian ethics are derived from a lie. They have short-circuited the need to prove anything about their morality, except for whether or not they know what god wants and can speak for it. How can you have a talk about morality with someone who's ethical premise is "god says so". Here is a moral gem from a Christian demonstrating his great ability to have moral conversations: And here is some actual truth about morality, from an atheist: So, can we create the possibly of moral choice through lies about ethics?

This was an amazing conversation, thanks to the caller and Stef for sharing it. It's certainly provoked a lot of thought and examination for me; I invite everyone to give it a listen. It's a long call but it is most certainly worth it.

I have an interesting opportunity as an atheist living in a Christian household. The people at my church have no inclination as to my leanings towards atheism, and yet I have been asked to host an adult Bible study. It started out with just a teen Bible study, where we discussed the question of God's existence. We did a few weeks of preparation and study of both sides and then at the end concluded with a debate. I very much enjoyed this, as many of these people had never had any contact with the other side. It really highlighted how foolish it was to try and prove God's existence, and during the debate this became very clear. In any case, it seems my study was appreciated well enough that I have been asked to host an adult Bible study. It's an interesting opportunity for me. I have a chance to subtly demonstrate the flaws in Christianity and provide some interesting discussion that most Christians will never get otherwise. And again, none of them know that I am an atheist. What topic should I focus on for the next month? I have to start planning out my lesson plans and I was wondering if I could get suggestions, especially as to how I can provide a critical view of Christianity that might sway people while still being invited back to host the study.

On another forum, the DailyPaul, there was a thread on the topic of "faith:" http://goo.gl/HdkDzBMyself (Enjoying The Deep End) and another member (Micah68) got on to a topic that he (Micah68) presented. You can go to the link and look at the back and forth there for full details into my thinking and his.Here is the argument. Having challenged him, he posted several different "versions" or "wordings" of the argument: Now I propose that the argument is fallacious. I propose that the argument ASSUMES that "personal realities" exist. I ask "How do we know that there is EVEN SUCH A THING as a PERSONAL REALITY?"I could equally posit a: "Feminine reality vs masculine reality," "Structured reality vs impulsive reality," "Joyful reality vs miserable reality," "Tasty reality vs bland reality," Bald reality vs hairy reality," etc....And does my mere proposing these "types of realities" therefore necessitate THAT THEY ACTUALLY EXIST? So there is actually a "Tasty Reality?"---- I see the argument as a "Begging the question fallacy." Because the premise necessitates the conclusion be true; that a "personal reality exists." The argument merely ASSERTS that "personal realities exist."----So can you guys jump in here with your thoughts? Let me know what your "position on the argument" is, and "if you think the argument is even valid or if it contains a fallacy." So do you think there is such a thing as an "impersonal reality" or a "personal reality?" Do you think these categories exist? And do you take a position on it; do you think reality is personal?I look forward to your thoughts.Thanks

I've discussed atheism with several Christians I know, including two of my brothers. A common question that comes back at me is "what if you're wrong?" My reply has normally been along the lines of, "I'll take responsibility for my life, if I'm wrong then so be it." However, after some further thought, I think it is important to understand what motivates the question. For those who believe in hell, being wrong on the question of god means you're screwed. Pascal's wager comes into play for many people, and one of my brothers actually said words to the effect: 'If I'm wrong then what? I live a happy life and die, no real consequence. If you're wrong, well then you'll face judgement and potentially eternal suffering.' The implication is that you should hedge your bets and believe, just in case. This is, of course, a face-palm situation, but after some thought I'd like to just share what I think is a better answer to the original question. Q: "What if you're wrong?" A: "What are you afraid of?" Exposing the fear behind the question will likely lead immediately to a defensive stance. Most, if not all, people who believe are motivated by emotion, so engaging those emotions is necessary in order to have any impact. I recall Stefan Molyneux saying people cannot be reasoned out of a position they weren't reasoned into. So where reason fails, my thought then is that engaging the emotions might have some effect. From here, the conversation could basically go anywhere but I think there are two lines: 1. Believer denies being afraid, "I'm not afraid, what are you talking about?" In this case remind him, "the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom," and "do not fear those who can kill the body and not the soul, fear the one who can destroy both the body and the soul in hell" (typing this quickly I'll put in scripture reference later if people want them). If that doesn't work, then make the obvious connection for him, "you aren't afraid of being sent to hell?" At this point whether he accepts that he is afraid or not is irrelevant, you've made the important point and connected the dots, so even if he ends the conversation he will come to a challenging conclusion later on if he thinks back over it. Once he accepts that he is afraid, provided he hasn't ended the conversation then: 2. Believer accepts he is afraid of god, "Yes I fear God, as should you." Now is the point where you might make a moral argument against the god concept, stating that threats of violence and coercion are immoral. Perhaps tell him that he has been manipulated, and that fear leads to irrationality. The original question "what if you're wrong?" is a sign of stockholm syndrome, or the uncle tom epithet. It reminds me of Theon Grayjoy in Game of Thrones and his relationship to his torturer, his fear of 'master' caused him to resist when he had the opportunity to be rescued by his sister. I think it is important to show empathy, most Christians have buried their fear so deep that they no longer remember it. I recently reconnected to my fear of God and hell from childhood and it wasn't pleasant. I hope someone finds this helpful. Best regards, Josh

Hello FDR! A few months ago I was Christian Missionary newly commissioned to go to Belgium for two years to teach people about how great my religion was. I was surfing the tubes one day and came across FDR. The very first video I ever saw was Stefs proof's against God. That video slapped me in the face and dragged my brain down one wall and up another. After I watched it once, I watched it two more times. I was faced with an obvious choice that Stefan presented in his video, either I except his logic and reason or I go back to my delusion. Well, there was no way I could actually go back. I knew for certain that the logic was too well layed out and air tight. I was very moved by Stefan's points and knew I had an obligation to reality and to my personal well being to leave the religious nonsense behind. The reasoning helped me make the leap from questioning christian to confirmed empirical driven atheist. This was a long leap due to the depth of involvment I was in inside the church. And FDR has helped every step of the way. I've lost so many friends and the community of a church it is truly tragic to feel so detested when just months ago I was cheered and respected by hundreds and hundreds. I am deeply happy to have found FDR because it raised me out of my delusion, and so elegantly fit with my already deep Anarchist convictions (though of course beleiving in a God is actually anti anarchic). I'm certain right now I'd be stuck in Belgium for two years going around trying to convince people to become a religious psychopath like me. Right now I'm trying to get out of my debt I am in for the travelling expenses as a missionary. But as I become more finacially stable I will increase my support more for this show as my life has literally been saved in all practical senses from the tragedy of living to die. Thank You Stefan and Thank You FDR and community!

Double-blind scientific studies have shown that the archetype psychedelics induce genuine religious mystical insights. See the Good Friday Experiment at Boston University's Marsh Chapel on April 20, 1962, conducted by Walter N. Pahnke and assisted by Timothy Leary using psilocybin. See also the 2006 Johns Hopkins University's experiment with psilocybin conducted by Roland R. Griffiths et al. All the below works are available in full for free at the website of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) at http://www.maps.org/books/pahnke/ . Walter Norman Pahnke, Drugs and Mysticism: An Analysis of the Relationship between Psychedelic Drugs and Mystical Consciousness, Ph.D. thesis at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (June 1963). Rick Doblin, "Pahnke's 'Good Friday Experiment': A Long-Term Follow-Up and Methodological Critique", Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1991), pp. 1-28. R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, U. McCann and R. Jesse, "Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance", Psychopharmacology, Vol. 187, No. 3 (August 2006), pp. 268-283, doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0457-5. R. R. Griffiths, W. A. Richards, M. W. Johnson, U. D. McCann and R. Jesse, "Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later", Journal of Psychopharmacology, Vol. 22, No. 6 (August 2008), pp. 621-632, doi:10.1177/0269881108094300. There is an ultimate insight provided by the archetype psychedelics (e.g., LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT, etc.), but most people only catch glimpses of it, and are unable to hold on to that insight as they come down from the psychedelic. Which, even so, is still an utterly profound and life-transforming experience. Those who have had an entheogenic dose of an archetype psychedelic are typically familiar with the experience of having a transcendental sense of understanding, of everything in the universe making perfect sense, of there being a deep interconnectedness and purpose to all things, but as they come down, the typical case is for that deep sense of understanding to be lost, and to be merely left with the impression that one once understood the great secret of existence. If one is able to give the correct name to this ultimate insight, and further, to properly understand one's own relation to it (i.e., to give the correct name for oneself), then it is possible to bring this ultimate insight down with one: for then one has the terminology, the label, for this ultimate insight and one's own relation to it, which greatly facilitates apprehension and cerebration of the matter. That ultimate insight is this: You are God. It's all just You. You are all that exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist. You are the totality of existence, forever and all times. Now of course the conscious portion of your presently limited viewpoint is not the totality of existence, it is just a finite subset of the infinitely greater consciousness of God. But at the ultimate level, you are that greater consciousness, i.e., God. You are God experiencing and discovering Yourself. Thus, the word "entheogen" is quite an apt name for the archetype psychedelics. An equivalent formulation of this is that God, who is existence itself, is the Logos: i.e., computation, logic, thought, reason, cogitation, ratiocination, cerebration. That is, God is logic itself, i.e., mathematics itself. And mathematics is infinite. God is Georg Cantor's Absolute Infinite. And the set cardinality of God is that of the continuum: 2^aleph-null. Interestingly, God has been proven to exist based upon the most reserved view of the known laws of physics. For much more on that, see Prof. Frank J. Tipler's below paper, which in addition to giving the Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, also demonstrates that the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and the Standard Model of particle physics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point (the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity identified as being God): F. J. Tipler, "The structure of the world from pure numbers", Reports on Progress in Physics, Vol. 68, No. 4 (April 2005), pp. 897-964, doi:10.1088/0034-4885/68/4/R04, bibcode: 2005RPPh...68..897T http://math.tulane.edu/~tipler/theoryofeverything.pdf Also released as "Feynman-Weinberg Quantum Gravity and the Extended Standard Model as a Theory of Everything", arXiv:0704.3276, April 24, 2007. Out of 50 articles, Prof. Tipler's above paper was selected as one of 12 for the "Highlights of 2005" accolade as "the very best articles published in Reports on Progress in Physics in 2005 [Vol. 68]. Articles were selected by the Editorial Board for their outstanding reviews of the field. They all received the highest praise from our international referees and a high number of downloads from the journal Website." (See Richard Palmer, Publisher, "Highlights of 2005", Reports on Progress in Physics website. http://webcitation.org/5o9VkK3eE , http://archive.is/pKD3y ) Reports on Progress in Physics is the leading journal of the Institute of Physics, Britain's main professional body for physicists. Further, Reports on Progress in Physics has a higher impact factor (according to Journal Citation Reports) than Physical Review Letters, which is the most prestigious American physics journal (one, incidently, which Prof. Tipler has been published in more than once). Tipler is Professor of Physics and Mathematics (joint appointment) at Tulane University. His Ph.D. is in the field of global general relativity (the same rarefied field that Profs. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking developed), and he is also an expert in particle physics and computer science. His Omega Point cosmology has been published in a number of prestigious peer-reviewed physics and science journals in addition to Reports on Progress in Physics, such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (one of the world's leading astrophysics journals), Physics Letters, the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, etc. For a great deal more regarding the physics of this issue, see my following article: James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf Additionally, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology, which is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) of God's existence per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE), which is also required by the known laws of physics. The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos. James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: [email protected] , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ge.tt/3lOTVbp

Hello all-- I hope this message finds you all well. This is my first serious post on this forum, the topic is an effort to externalize events that have been very close to my heart, as well as my lifelong effort in search for truth in spite of the plethora of "blinders" that have been installed on the chariot of my mind for the sake of my father's emotional comfort. To start my name is Matthew, aged 22, African American. I have lived in Columbus Ohio all of my life, and currently a struggling (REALLY struggling) musician. I play the violin, forte in avant-garde music and deconstruction. I mention this because it's indicative of how my mind works: to harness logic to render a given subject down to it's purest expression, or to unveil its objective Truth. I believe that it is this drive that led me into the many religious traditions I've learned about and practiced, as well as my final leaving of the concept of creator all together. Like most, I was raised in a Christian household. If my father was not reprimanding me as a small child, he spoke of his religious philosophy ad nauseum. I naturally was extremely inquisitive, and the first occupation I wanted to be was a scientist-- I really LOVE to learn. I learned very early not to question the words of my father, not for any threat of violence ( though that did occur) but because I really seemed to cause harm to him personally when I ever questioned him, and he would disassociate himself from me for some time. I would rather a beating than to be alone. I remember one time I asked him if I could have a dog (I was around 3), and he said "maybe". I was ELATED, he didn't say yes, but he didn't say no either, so "maybe" in my head was obviously more positive than "no", so if I was a good boy, "maybe" I could sway the verdict to "yes!" someday. Time passed, and he said nothing of it-- maybe he forgot? I reminded him, asking again. "Maybe" in his light tone again, but I was a bit more skeptical this time. I kept asking, and got the same answer; now "maybe" was getting pretty annoying, and I started to just want a straight answer. One day I asked him again, and he said "maybe" where I quickly responded "so maybe means no right? Every time you say maybe I don't get anything." I'll never forget the look on his face, he was genuinely shocked speechless, probably because I didn't talk very much at time and the information I had gathered from my observations were pretty concise for a 3 year old. My mom was present at the time and instantly started cracking up, bellowing "He really gotcha there Mark, whatcha gonna say to that?". I saw him lower his head and narrow his eyes(tense) with unmistakable disdain, avoiding eye contact with me. I made the silent choice then to never do that again, I never wanted to hurt my Dad. Needless to say, he stopped talking to me for some time which was really painful to me, especially since I was alone for most of the day anyway. Later on, Dad would speak to me about religion A LOT. Not only did he believe in his doctrine, but believed he had performed many miracles himself! As a kid this captured my imagination, and really inspired me to study religion with all I had --"Maybe" then I could control my universe as well? He spoke on glossolalia (tongues), prophecy, hinted on Revelations, and the spiritual sight (the seeing of demons and angels) along with all the usual indoctrination. This particular instance of which I am about describe I'm sure has sealed my fate, and realization of my own "atheism" (for lack of better words). Around the age of 9 or 10, My Father would randomly take me to the side to solidify my "belief". Shortly after this series of lectures I under immense emotional strain and fear of damnation decided to be baptized. Back then he was still much taller than me, and I remember him casting a shadow over my face as he laid out his huge, bulky fists in front of me. "Choose" he would say in a deep voice "Choose, your fate, choose your master, life or death, good or bad, God... or Satan." The air was tense, I felt the fate of being held in the balance. My father's eyes were indifferent, though I knew what choice he'd rather me take. Naturally I chose "God", and he'd smile and walk away-- phew! This happened a few more times (didn't I just save my soul yesterday?), until he took me aside to the living room to introduce me to the point of SUBMISSION. The television was off, the lights dimmed (or they seemed to be). That familiar sense of tension was in the air, Father paced back and forth in front the broken fireplace. He spoke in a low, grave tone and started to elucidate the virtue of unconditional surrender, it's eternal imperative of a "true" christian for a couple hours. As usual, I simply did not possess the attention span to follow everything he said, and I started to feel quite frustrated and scared-- was I missing something? This is cosmic knowledge here and my flesh is simply too weak to withstand the divine logos! He asked me finally, "Imagine you are before the Lord, Christ at his right hand-- how would you greet him?" I smiled and bent my knees-- "NO. You need to be on your face." or something to that effect. It took awhile, but I finally got groveling down. Father smiled and left, leaving me completely overwhelmed, but relieved. I want to express my journey to atheism because I have an annoying need to share my true thoughts, but the journey is simply too long to put in a single post. I would love to see what you guys on here think about this so far, if there are any thoughts you would like to add. Thank you

Vice: The Best Little Hell House in Texas Just read this and it's incredibly depressing. Just wanted to share it and see if it wouldn't get a discussion started.

Hi All! I have done a lot of exploring, thinking, reading resources on both sides, and testing, and I have been convinced that atheism is true. This is where I got my start. Perhaps this isn't surprising to a community of skeptics (and indeed, things seem so much clearer now), but I was in pretty deep.If you compare religion to drugs, when I hear most former believers' stories compared to mine, it is like I was snorting cocaine and heroin every day in amounts that would give someone who didn't have a tolerance an OD, and gone off that hearing people talk about how they tried marijuana a few times and managed to quit. Yes, both were addictions, and it's a good idea to get off both, but the degree doesn't even compare when you're talking about serious believers compared to nominal Christians. I lead worship frequently, prophecied, spoke in tongues, heard "words from God", prayed for miraculous healing, read the bible and prayed every day. I was completely surrounded by faithful believers. I still am for the most part, though I am changing that bit by bit. I have even felt a few withdrawal syndromes. But I am staying strong. I plan on putting together a huge "coming out" letter as soon as I am up to it. I just wanted to provide you with two resources that were incredibly helpful to me in making my decision. 1. One book I read on the Christian side is "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist". It is probably the best, clearest laid out arguments for a creator God in general and the Christian God in specific, such as they are. There is a genius review, just posted by some guy on the internet that goes through it point by point, and devastates it: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p98.htm2. Another one, if you have charismatic believers who believe in healing like I did, is this documentary, which explains many of the techniques of such healings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JGUFmY9gIE Those and a good amount of more skeptical reading of the Bible were probably the most helpful things in changing my mind.Both of these are I think more effective in that they approach the topic respectfully and with what Christians can see as an "open mind". People listen much better if they feel respected and heard. The God Delusion is a great book, but good luck getting a Christian to read that objectively, unless they've already got their foot in the door like me. This may not work for everyone, but I thought I would share what worked for me in case it helps anyone else out there. Thanks for reading, Stefan (not that one) P.S. I am still looking into secular morality, and I find it to be fascinating. Any recommendations for good works there (aside from UPB)?

This is a blog post that I wrote about the effects of the Christian doctrine "Substitutionary Atonement." I've been blogging about the trauma produced by religion since I've left the mythology of Christianity. I'd love to get your thoughts on the post. Also, If you have any suggestions for posts, please share! Enjoy! http://www.goddisorder.com/2013/08/substitutionary-atonement-how-it.html