Introspection (Why I am Atheist)
INTROSPECTION
Digital photo by Desmet Patrick
In this short series I take an introspective look at my three decades as a practicing Evangelical Christian and discuss my crisis of faith which ultimately led me to renounce my past religious beliefs and learn to live life beyond the absence of faith.
Contents:
Wow...I can't believe you have had no comments. How long has this been out there for people to review? It is lonely being an atheist, especially in the USA. Not many of us, we are not popular. I believe most people just don't want to deal with thinking about the nature of existence, nor analyze how their religious dogmas square up with observable reality. It is easier to just go with the flow. Anyhow, just wanted to let you know that there are others who out there, like you, coping with living in the ongoing Dark Ages of the human experience.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Actually, I received tons of comments on this series when I published them as articles. I use Disqus, so all the comments show up on the actual threads. But Disqus doesn't work on individual pages that aren't part of the blog content, so you're the first to post on the actual page instead of the article, which you find after clicking the link. So thanks for the support!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rider in the storm. The biggest criticism I get about my Atheist views is from people who can't or won't deal with the possibility of there not being an afterlife. My family used to try to blackmail me by asking if I just didn't want to see them again when we all die. I also notice if you question a believer long enough, they're sure to call you names before more than even two or three sentences have been exchanged on the subject of the afterlife. Ain't that open-minded?
ReplyDeleteI observe extreme emotional investment on both sides of the argument. My family is a mix of Lutherans and Neo-Catholics. The holidays are a hoot. I cannot fathom why the beliefs of early man have previaled so long. I assume there is a brain chemistry imbalance reponsible for this mental illness called religiosity or even extreme atheism. (humor) A good dose of metaphysics always calms me. I like to put Decartes before the horse, so to speak. Also, Life of Brian seems to fulfil my religeous needs.
ReplyDelete"Brian: ...Will you please listen? I'm not the Messiah! Do you understand? Honestly!
Woman: Only the true Messiah denies his divinity!"
The testimony of Paul was that he was obsessed with killing and imprisoning Christians. He brought as much pressure to bear upon them as he could in order to get them to renounce Jesus Christ. Within a three day span he became the greatest evangelist and apologist for the person that he hated the most. Why did he change? He says he had a real encounter with Jesus Christ who had been put to death brutaly and publicly. He says his change was due to the fact that Jesus spoke to him, and a man came and prayed for him. Saul became Paul and was used to changed the world. He spent his entire life, and gave his life, for this message. His testimony and existence alone are a powerful proof of the reality of the Christian faith.
ReplyDeletePro-life...I believe that women have rights over their own bodies. When they use that right and it creates another life they have accepted the moral responsiblity to care for and nurture that life from conception (can't really exist without that being untampered with) at least through delivery. They can then hand over that responsibility to other care givers if they choose. The small number of women who are violated and become pregnant have a responsibility forced upon them and the full legal weight of the law should fall upon the person who has committed the crime. However, the life of a child should not be forefeited. Horrible? Yes. Desired? No. But in the fulfillment of giving life there may still be hidden joys and redemption for the initial victim.
ReplyDeleteEven if you say it's dependent on choice, then you'd have to acknowledge that the choice then must fall upon the woman and her doctor (a medical professional) on what the best course of action for the child would be. If there are medical complications that necessitate an abortion, then this would be a choice the woman would need to make in respect to her life and health.
DeleteUnborn things don't yet have choices. And you might see that as tragic, but that doesn't change the fact that putting protections on non-existent things is nonsensical. Then again, a lot of pro-lifers argue that the fetus has ensoulment. And that's an entirely non-scientific and non-medical argument meant to try and bypass the science that proves their life at conception claims bogus.
Most pro-choice people don't want abortion either. In fat, the majority of pro-choice people are against abortion whenever better options are available. The the fact remains, whenever you outlaw abortion, women's lives are put in danger and abortion rates go up.
Whenever abortion is available, women's lives are safeguarded and abortion rates go down.
If pro-life people understood the dynamics between health, happiness, and security better -- they might not argue from emotional appeals and might actually argue from well-informed opinions. But, when your starting arguments hinge on supernatural assumptions -- it's much harder to get to scientific facts.