The Reactionary Atheist

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I quit everything now writes: "I don't believe in any god anymore..."

For full quote see: (warning - post at link contains profanities)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/63cbe64e164f7085/9aaccb84be09c5d8?hl=en#9aaccb84be09c5d8

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

V writes:

This is a classic example of the path people take when they become a reactionary atheist. Such atheism is based in hate, distrust, vengeance, pain and despair. Not a good foundation to base atheism on if you plan to be an atheist.

First let me offer my compassion for the pain that 'I quit everything now' has suffered. Unfortunately my compassion offers little in the area of a real and lasting healing from that pain. Such a recovery has to come from within us. The sooner you can release the control and expectations 'I quit everything now', the sooner you can let go of the pain.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=613.0

Realize 'I quit everything now' that there are many flavors of atheists...natural atheists, personal atheists, explicit atheists, implicit atheists weak atheists, strong atheists, discovery atheists, reactionary atheists, indoctrinated atheists and of course the bad ass atheists with attitude aka BAAWA varieties.

But the defining characteristic that leads an atheist to peace is whether they are a 'spiritual and truth based atheist' or 'defiance ego based atheist.

See my opening post at"

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/125b41aa8fd2b87b/cf400bdf88ba1701?lnk=gst&q=conundrum&rnum=7&hl=en#cf400bdf88ba1701

If you wish to be an atheist, then be a 'strong atheist' one that can express themselves in detail as to why there in so God 'I quit everything now' .

If I was an atheist, I'd be in the strong atheist classification, since I can expound on such thoughts at lengths and can back them up with facts and reason

A 'weak atheist' on the other hand uses the reason they don't believe in God is the same reason they don't believe in the Easter bunny or leprechauns for example. Or in your case, your ego gets bruised and you get mad at God.

In any case, many theists think God is Santa Claus and must come through with their demands, just as we did as greedy children making up a long, impossible list for Santa to fill. They think it is Christmas day every day of the year! Well, if God does exist God does not work in that fashion where the egotistic demands of billions of people get granted every millisecond of the day and night.

Can you imagine if everyone's prayers were answered according to our self centered and conflicting demands? Everyone would be billionaires, some would sprout wings and fly or grow gills and live underwater and no one would grow old.

Death...no one would ever die...except ones "enemies" that the misguided might prayer for to die. Furthermore we would be the Gods as the real God would not know better than us. This is not how the world and spiritual laws work 'I quit everything now' .

In the bible it reminds us that God's way is not man's way, and we can all be very grateful for that, as we can see what has happened when demigods take power on earth.

Many women say they can't understand men, just as many men say they can't understand women. Well, to further distill this we can say that God's way is not man's way and man's way is not woman's way.

Every creature has it's way and when you can come to peace with this you will have an easier time digesting enlightenment. To start on your peace journey look for insight into the other creatures suffering and problems 'I quit everything now' .

This technique comes from my Buddhist practice. This is easier to do with men or women than with God. But it can still be done non the same with your higher power, as I mentioned above with the impossibility of satisfying all the demands of a selfish and conflicting world.

I would caution you to not become an atheist and only go so far as being a freethinking agnostic.

The reason for this recommendation is this. I've been around thousands of atheists over the last 10 years and I must say that on average, the atheist is the sickest, most hate filled haggard shell of a human I've ever come across...and I've been on over 300 forums over the last decade to support my statement 'I quit everything now' .

If you follow my posts you know I only speak the truth. You may not like to hear the truth, but that still does not change the truth into fiction.

So, I offer this recommendation to you in the hopes that despite your loss of faith in God, you do not become a hate filled atheist and in the process know all their is about everything under the sun 'I quit everything now' .

See - The Self Deified Atheist

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=630.0

See - What the hell would we need "spiritual values" for when we can have real values?

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

See - The Toxic Atheist

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/09c43744c6d6d2da/bde6b09e0e2e2ec3?hl=en#bde6b09e0e2e2ec3

My own journey leaving theism was a long one and had nothing to do with the reactionary brand of atheism driving me away from God.

What did drive me away was from an earnest and hard pressed search to get closer to God.

I was Catholic for 50 years and am now a freethinking agnostic. I don't think there is a God, but I may be wrong. I am about 85% atheistic in my views.

It all started for me many years ago when an ex-Krishna / Wicca massage lady told me that Jesus was not born on December 25 and the Christians adopted that day to steal it away from the pagans holiday. Then she told be it was the same with Halloween.

A few years later I found out that the gospels were not written by the apostles or men that even knew Jesus.

Then I came across Freke's book 'The Jesus Mysteries.' I started to study the beginnings of Christianity and how the Nicene council was nothing more than a political convention to find out who had the best spin on Jesus.

I wrote to a few professors such Bart D. Ehrman and others asking about The Jesus Mysteries. Their reply was it wasn't worth reading or just nonsense.

Relieved that such talk was hogwash, I drifted back to religion for some time until the next crack showed up at my door.

I was on a Buddhist forum eSangha (where I was eventually banned) and the discussion turned to Jesus. Someone mentioned the 'Jesus Never Existed' website and then this forum came about so I joined.

Then talked with an ex-rabbi dizax that guided me into more detailed biblical study.

Meeting that ex-rabbi was a major turning point in my life of religious beliefs, as I had never bothered to 'really' study what the foundation of monotheism was based on. I only bought the religious hype and did not know the facts.

Then one day read in the news that the church abolishes limbo. This did not go well with the concept of the truth is that which does not change.

Then watched some shows on the History Channel about religion that gave me more insight by exposing the lies.

I talked with some Christian members at the forums.

Sometimes their argument's were really insane. One Christian argued that the ancient coal and fossils were planted by the devil to trick us so we would not believe in God and go to hell.

Other were smarter and less extreme. One in particular was most knowledgeable. He said the bible was the perfect word of God EXCEPT the creation story which he viewed as myth.

Well, if we start to pick and choose what is real or lies in the bible...where does it end?

I started to talk with many atheists and listened to their stories. All good questions they proposed and the theists could never begin to answer them.

I started listening to some of Ken Humphrey's programs:

http://jesusneverexisted.com/ken-Alchemy.mp3

http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=190&mode=thread%22(der=0&thold=0

http://jesusneverexisted.com/kenwfm.mp3

As I continued to study religion and the bible in particular, I could see very clearly now that all religion is man made and flavored with the ego's of men.

And after about 7 years of developing cracks in my Catholic foundations, I decided that I would make a change in my way of life, sided on the path of truth and left the church evolving into a truth based Agnostic Freethinker.

I still use many tools from spiritual as well as religious sources.

If the tool can be tested for truth and does not require faith, then I make use of it if it promotes inner peace. (I should say it does take 'faith to test' sometimes, but once you start the test, the need for faith evaporates.)

See True Freethinking

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=470.0

Also See: Peace tools for atheists, agnostics and theists

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=4.0

Good luck with finding peace with this topic 'I quit everything now'

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,114 • Replies: 26

No top replies

People don't "plan" to be atheists. It's nothing more than a lack of belief in irrational supernatural magic.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

People don't "plan" to be atheists.

Is it a condition that is the result of an accident?

0 Replies

Perhaps--to the extent that learning to think logically, and then applying a logical standard to scriptural superstition could be described as "accidental."

0 Replies

Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

A person who doesn't understand the concept of god may believe in the biblical personified god.

But atheism comes from the same lack of understanding of the concept of god.

To dismiss what you cannot comprehend can be just as foolish as to embrace it.

The theist says "I believe"
The atheist says "I don't believe"

For both of them belief is the thing they relate to.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wilso wrote:
People don't "plan" to be atheists.

Is it a condition that is the result of an accident?

It generally doesn't occur to those who didn't suffer early childhood brainwashing. While atheism doesn't occur as an accident, theism is clearly a result of calculated indoctrination. You know, the same form of psychological abuse that your own children will obviously suffer.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Atheism and theism are two sides of the same coin.

A person who doesn't understand the concept of god may believe in the biblical personified god.

But atheism comes from the same lack of understanding of the concept of god.

To dismiss what you cannot comprehend can be just as foolish as to embrace it.

The theist says "I believe"
The atheist says "I don't believe"

For both of them belief is the thing they relate to.

You're basically full of sh!t.

0 Replies

Your argument is flawed, Cyracuz, hopelessly flawed.

"Hot" is a description of the degree of activity of electrons in a body of matter. "Cold" is a statement of relatively less activity. "Heat" can be said to exist to that extent, whereas "cold" can only be understood relative to heat.

The theist says "I believe there is a god." An atheist simply says, "I don't agree." To be unwilling to believe is not the equivalent of espousing a belief, no matter how smug it makes you feel to make the suggestion.

All the foregoing comes with the warning that there certainly are militant "atheists" who deny that there is any god, and are the flip side of the theist coin, because they are claiming that what they believe is a fact.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Wilso wrote:
People don't "plan" to be atheists.

Is it a condition that is the result of an accident?

Like discovering fire and the wheel?

0 Replies

set wrote:

"Hot" is a description of the degree of activity of electrons in a body of matter. "Cold" is a statement of relatively less activity. "Heat" can be said to exist to that extent, whereas "cold" can only be understood relative to heat.

And how would you understand the word "atheist" if you had no concept of theism? Atheism is the "cold" to the "hot" that is theism.

Quote:

The theist says "I believe there is a god." An atheist simply says, "I don't agree."

Yes. And they both assume that their understanding of what they're arguing over is correct.

For myself, I relate to the concept of god as a philosophical function. The word I prefer for it is Krishna, and Krishna simply means "all-attracting". I am certain that if you explore this concept without the motive of defining it as something impossible (which atheists tend to do), you will find that it is not a question of belief. God is merely a concept that can be utilized to gain a beneficial perspective on existential issues. Same as pretty much any concept known to us.

0 Replies

Actually, leaving aside the militant atheist whom i've already described, the atheist is simply someone who is "without god," and they are so defined by those who assert that there is a god. Had they any plausible evidence, i would be a theists--in that they don't (none that i have ever heard of), i remain "atheist," without god (which is all the term means), and am only that to the extent that someone else labels me that way.

I don't argue this with anyone. If someone asserts to me there is a god, i have no comment. If they insist upon their point, and ask me if i "believe in god," i simply reply: "No." I don't argue it with anyone, and this is not a matter of my "understanding." I "believe in" traffic lights because i have many years experience of them, and so do not doubt my "belief." I take it on a kind of faith that people will stop at traffic lights, based upon the same many years of experience. This differs from blind faith, which has no evidence.

Your insistence upon your point is childish. The assertion of a belief, and the refusal to accept that belief, and not equal and opposite "beliefs." One is a belief, the other is the absence of belief. It's a shame you can't understand the distinction, because my experience tells me you are intelligent.

0 Replies

Yes, "atheist" means "without god", and if that is how you prefer to view existence it's fine by me.

But my personal opinion is that it is foolish. Just as foolish as digging a hole with your bare hands when there's a shovel lying next to you.

I guess I am somewhere in between atheism and theism.
If you ask me I will say that there is no god in the sense of a supreme being that created the world and all things in it.
But as a concept which can be used to create an abstract framework for dealing with complex and abstract issues, god is entirely real. And if you can understand and communicate this concept in a way that doesn't contradict any empirical evidence of any kind, why on earth would you want to discard it if it's useful?

But I also understand the points you make. Maybe we're talking around eachother...

0 Replies

Perhaps we are. However, i would seriously doubt that there is a concept of god without which one could not " . . . create an abstract framework for dealing with complex and abstract issues . . . " In fact, i rather suspect that you would be needlessly complicating the examination of any issue by introducing a god into the investigation.

Your metaphor of digging a hole with one's bare hands when there is a shovel lying next to one was egregious and unnecessary. Unless and until you can demonstrate that there are any issues which are not purely theistic for which a concept of a god is necessary to the discussion, that simply constitutes an idle insult. I understand that it is probably not your object to insult.

0 Replies

It was not my intention to insult you. I am simply offering my point of view, and I appreciate you offering yours. I did not get to where you can percieve me as intelligent by not listening to other people's ideas and thoughts. So I will try to rise to your challenge. Smile

Quote:

Unless and until you can demonstrate that there are any issues which are not purely theistic for which a concept of a god is necessary to the discussion, that simply constitutes an idle insult.

Well, to put it simply: The term "god", as I understand it, means "everything percieved as one holistic "process" in which there are no distinctions because there is nothing to contrast it against."

Another word for "everything" might be "universe", but that implies a myriad of dualistic counterparts, all with individual existence independently from eachother.

It is merely two different ways of contemplating the same thing. To me, when contemplating the mystery of "self", it is helpful to have a concept to contrast it against. It is the contemplation of dualism vs non-dualism, and this issue is philosophic, not theistic.

My experience is that this approach to the issue has reduced the number of conflicts in my perception and helped me gain more peace of mind and a higher appreciation of life.

0 Replies

That was useful, in that you have provided a definition of god as a rationale for the claim that "god" is a useful concept for the consideration of abstractions. I would probably, however, avoid using such a definition of god, because of all the historical baggage which attaches to the concept of god.

However, i would submit to you that cosmos can be defined in exactly the same way, because there is nothing against which the cosmos can be compared.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
Wilso wrote:
People don't "plan" to be atheists.

Is it a condition that is the result of an accident?

It generally doesn't occur to those who didn't suffer early childhood brainwashing. While atheism doesn't occur as an accident, theism is clearly a result of calculated indoctrination. You know, the same form of psychological abuse that your own children will obviously suffer.

I wonder what growing up in a house with an angry, spiteful person like yourself would be like?

If your child DARED even think there MIGHT be a God, I can imagine the verbal and emotional abuse he or she will endure.

We've seen plenty of evidence of it here, so don't even think of denying it.

0 Replies

Quote:

I would probably, however, avoid using such a definition of god, because of all the historical baggage which attaches to the concept of god.

Yes, that might be a good idea. My reason for using the term god in this way is that when you have this definition in mind, all the things theism says about god take on a new meaning.

For example, the statement that "god is omnipotent" can be understood as meaning "everything that is possible is so only within god".

Another way of doing that would be to read the bible, for instance, and replacing the word "god" with the word "cosmos". I think it's important to understand that the personification of god in the various religious texts is a narrative technique. When Moses is talking to god he isn't actually engaging in dialogue. He is merely contemplating the world without the existential center that is "self". He sees without motives or ambition.

0 Replies

You have a rather generous view of the detachment of Moses. Religious scripture predictably asserts that god is a discrete personality, and that when one talks to god, one is actually talking to god.

The concept "god is omnipotent" is one of those cases which i would describe as a purely theistic issue.

0 Replies

I agree with that. God's omnipotence is a theistic issue.

Quote:

Religious scripture predictably asserts that god is a discrete personality, and that when one talks to god, one is actually talking to god.

Yes, but this is the interpretation sanctioned by those who would maintain the christianity of emperor Constantin. The christianity that was devised as a means to rule people. But that's not true religion. It's politics, and those who believe in it are being ruled by man, for man's selfish ends.

There is more to be said here, but I have to go to bed now. I am traveling north early in the morning. Thank you for a rewarding discussion. Let's resume another time.

A good night to you. (or day, or whatever it is where you are Smile

)

0 Replies

While we've been chatting, i've been browning some meat and onions, and making a tomato sauce to go on pasta. Also baking some chicken breasts. Soon i will go to get The Girl from the subway station, and then i will cook the pasta, and we will have our dinner.

I have always been amused by the assertion that Constantine was a christian, a contention for which there is no direct evidence, and for which the inferential evidence is flimsy. The Nicean Council was definitely a political conclave, for however the christians now wish to portray it, and it is evidence of just how canny Constantine was.

However, i would point out that a personified god was central to Jewish theology before the christians ever came along.

I look forward to your further comments.

0 Replies

The Reactionary Atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know