Why I don't need God/Religion in my life

A group of agnostic and atheist fapstronauts to get come together chat about recovery.

  1. This is a very personal thread, and I'm just giving you my point of view. I'm not here to offend anyone who holds a belief in God, I'm just here to provide to you the reasons why I don't need God in my life, and why I don't even care if he exists.

    It may sound negative, to be an Atheist. It sounds almost like you've lost all hope in the world. The reason to live is something I had to find on my own after losing my faith 8 years ago.

    When I had God in my life everything revolved around pleasing God. So I had to keep tabs on what was right by him and what was not. Some aspects of me I knew were not ok with him, like my love for music, I listened to everything, even metal, and some music out there, like Marilyn Manson was a bit extreme at times, and sometimes it mocked religion and God, and it made me feel bad to listen to it knowing I would be pissing God off, but I really enjoyed the music.



    The point is, when I had faith I was with a lot of stress, trying to be someone I wasn't, and I asked God to forgive me every day, because I thought I wasn't worthy of him because everything I did was a sin.

    It's not after I lost my faith that I began to feel comfortable with having thoughts, even if it was to criticize the faith, God, the church, the bible, it didn't make me uncomfortable anymore because I didn't believe, but after a few years, this evolved.



    I no longer care if there's a god or not, honestly, if there is and he's exactly like the bible describes him to be (doubtful) I would probably end up going to hell to burn for all eternity.

    That said I just don't see myself kissing God's ass to be right by him. If God knows how I am, who I am, why would he expect me to be any different? Why would he want me to lie to him?

    If I said to God "I love you, I worship you" these would be lies, because I don't love him and don't worship him one bit, I am quite upset with how things are in the world, and I know that it's human effort alone that has made things better, and at times religion has made things more difficult along the way.



    I'm just saying, living under a lie, that I have to be ok with everything God asks of me in the bible, to live a life that is according to him good and give up on everything that I like in order to please him is no life at all. I agree if you leave things that harm you and harm others around you, but what harm does it give me to listen to a favorite song or have a friend who believes in another god or no gods at all? I am free to think and act according to my own sense of morality and don't have to answer to him anymore.

    I'm not here to promote my way of thinking but, I see a lot of topics about God here and I wanted to express what I thought. I think the Bible is a great literature of the past to contemplate on old cultures and customs, but other than that it's an outdated book on morality, outdated on science, inaccurate on history and quite horrid. I am glad I don't follow this religion any more, or any other as a matter of fact. I don't hurt others, I don't hurt myself, and by my own will I go through life, I have the love and support of friends, family. Life is not perfect, but that's ok.

    I am happy, and whatever you believe in, I hope it makes you happy too.
     
  2. Waldo101

    Waldo101 Fapstronaut

    1,017
    956
    113
    Good points.

    Even though I don't go church, I consider Jesus to be a role model.

    Personally, I think Jesus was cool because he was a liberal.
     
  3. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    Hmmm... you say you don't care whether there's a god or not, yet you write a long post about it.

    I'd say the kind of thoughts like whether God exists or not, whether we are souls, whether the universe is infinite, whether history has a goal, whether life has a meaning, are all hard-wired into us. When we don't play them out we feel a lack of development within ourselves.

    And so we feel the need to explore the deeper recesses of our own being. Once we do, we find gradations of belief; belief is easy and almost natural, or we suspend belief where there's always a tension, or most difficult is unbelief - the reverse of belief and almost unnatural, where we feel a dissonance within ourselves. I think these gradations coincide with how rationalist we are... for rationalism is itself a faith built on an initial purge of doubt. Needless to say, I graduated from philosophy to poetry.

    All philosophizing serves as a distraction from the banality of everyday existence. God help us the day we cease to do this.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
    Themadfapper likes this.
  4. Spiff

    Spiff Fapstronaut

    408
    780
    93
    You're going to abandon God and risk hell to listen to Marilyn Mason? I'd understand if it was Queen or something...;)

    Seriously though - I'm Christian and listen to secular music and have friends of various beliefs. I personally disagree with anyone who thinks you can't.

    Anna Karenina came up at a family discussion and a Christian relative told me I shouldn't read it because it has to do with adultery. I disagree - people I know who only do Christian music and books and movies and people etc have a very narrow perspective and are not very fun to be around.

    Peace.
     
    PurgeTheUrge and Themadfapper like this.
  5. Jesus has some interesting points of view but, his way is about giving all, being completely selfless, and it's a good thing but, being completely selfless is the extreme part of a spectrum, nothing that is absolute should be good, even if it's for the right reasons, sometimes being selfish is actually good.
     
  6. The concept of god intrigues me but completely unrelated to religion. A god of dogmas, religions, dos and don'ts, it's a god that I simply do not respect. A god that prefers one race above all the others in the world, and comes into contact with humans too late into our evolution.



    The concept of a creator intrigues me only as far as to, what kind of creator?

    This stretches from a force that has no consciousness, to a boy in a room from a higher dimension who makes a science project titled the universe. And we just happen to be a big computer simulation.

    These are just thoughts though, there's really nothing that keeps me up at night.

    The whole point of the thread is, that if tomorrow the god of the bible were to come down to earth and speak to me, and confirm to me all the bible says is true, I wouldn't be at awe, I wouldn't be afraid or humbled, I'd be completely dissapointed.

    To think a god like that made all this...tragic.
     

  7. Reasons I lost my faith were fueled by increased knowledge of science. My dislike to god and his ways came out of my own way of thinking, yet I was too afraid to admit that when I believed.

    I read the bible and I was very disgusted with what I read. I simply repeated to myself "God's way is higher than ours" "It is God's will" it was my way to block my true feelings, that god was simply a huge dick.

    But I digress, I am very satisfied with being free to think and feel however I want, and I do love Bohemian Rhapsody and We are the champions.
     
  8. You've just introduced an absolute. Are you ready to change your views now?
     
  9. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    If you are not just being rhetorical, this would be the 'Satanic view'.
     
  10. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    If there were a god of the philosophers, that could be thought but unknown, it only seems reasonable that He might choose to reveal Himself in some such fashion as He saw fit.

    Of course, just this possibility takes quite an act of imaginative these days; that is, to overcome the clutter of knowledge we've become so accustomed to.

    I'll have a look at that Christopher Hitchens video later~~
     
  11. Headspace

    Headspace Fapstronaut

    1,219
    2,015
    143
    @Latinboy32 you also claimed to not believe in an afterlife yet made a thread about our favorite afterlifes ;) I didn't say it there, because you didn't want it to be a discussion about whether or not there is/could be/isn't one, but now it just triggered me to read this.
    I will also use this opportunity to say that I think the idea of souls being able to be born but not die looks quite asymmetric, and for the afterlife to not be a totally crowded place I would believe that if there is life after death, there also has to be life before birth (as in reincarnation). And I believe we and our souls are eternal in some way, but so far I find it incredibly difficult to become more detailed about it.

    I haven't been raised very religiously, and while I was fascinated by some aspects of religion, what I heard didn't really convince me. As a teenager, I considered myself an Agnostic for a while (just another rationalistic view), until I became familiar with Asian spirituality, which seemingly made a lot more sense. I then believed in a "god, but non-personal god" for a while, but this is just nonsense. Now I think this my thinking was a reaction to the anonimity we humans have created among ourselves in the world we live in.

    Regarding science, I would like to ask a few philosophical questions that can make one think:
    - What are the laws of physics? How do they relate to the physical world? Where do they come from?
    - How do you explain that the mathematical time, t, does not contain the division of time into past, present & future as ever-morphing entities? (Physical cosmologists wonder about the direction of time, but hardly anyone ever asks for the present.)
    - How do you explain that we perceive colors, sounds etc. when there are no colors and sounds, but only electromagnetic waves and sonic waves in the physical world?
    - Moreover, all our ideas of electromagnetic waves and sonic waves rely on memories we have from perceptions in our consciousness. Like, we have certain images in mind when we speak of them, and these images wouldn't be there had we been born blind. A blind person will may be remember them in terms of sound or touch, heck, even smell may be, who knows. But what will they look like once you eradicate every last bit of consciousness from our idea of such waves? Every reality which is thought to be completely independent of the observer has to be completely unimaginable to the observer, i.e. us. So, what does it consist of? Does a reality like this exist in the first place?
    - What do you think about Einstein's saying that it is your theory that decides what is physically observable in the first place?

    You don't have to answer them, it's all fine. But I am a physicist myself and these are things I wonder about. Science is powerful in conquering the physical world, but it does not know the metaphysical.
     
  12. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    I'm not sure whether I can be bothered watching a 'champion' for the atheist cause. For that matter, I can't be bothered watching a champion for the theist cause. It seems to me, we are outsourcing our intelligence every time we resort to so-called specialists.

    Just as I think our own rationalistic representation fails us in metaphysical matters, so too I think 'representatives' of this kind doubly fail. It reflects our failure to grapple with the issues at the existential level.
     
  13. Seems like a long winded way of saying "I'm lazy. Sorry not sorry".
     
  14. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    That's a lot of questions, which goes to show you need a philosophy of science. Given the requirement for philosophy, that would make a mockery of any worldview which would reduce us to natural processes. An intelligent subject has to be at the center in order for science to even start making sense.

    Now with the subject ensconced, we see that scientific theory is derivative of intelligence, and not the other way round. All these theories serve as models, they don't have explanatory power as much as they have predictive power; they enable our technology to expand in titanic terms. They serve us well until a better theory comes along. Thomas Kuhn is the best thinker I know of in the field of philosophy of science.

    As for time, I think it's relative to us in a sense - there's a past [memory], present, and future [anticipation]The Scholastics used to draw a distinction between existence and essence. As a subject we experience time existentially. On he other hand, the essence of time would be experienced objectively, and that may require a super-mind to perceive/ ground it. Did I just invent another argument for the existence of God? Nah, I'm sure it would all be there in the Scholastics. But its all theories and models once again. These guys invented the process, without which we wouldn't have science.

    Perception. You seem to be thinking within the Lockean paradigm, where a distinction is made between primary and secondary qualities. The primary ones are the mechanical physical ones [so-called objective in Newton's universe], and the secondary ones are those of color, sound etc that are supposedly subjective. Amazing to think this idea goes all the way back to the eighteenth century, and is perhaps a little outdated. But thanks to the split between philosophy and science it seems to have survived to this very day.

    More sophisticated is what developed on the continent in the twentieth century with phenomenology. The precursor to this is Kant, who while taking the Newtonian science seriously marries it to both a philosophy of science and a metaphysics. A delicate balance that could not last. But this is the direction I'd point you if you are interested in understanding the underlying principles of the scientific method.

    The Einstein theory you refer to is also found in Kuhn. The idea being that we order the mass of phenomena by the theory we have in mind. The theory actually dictates what will and won't make sense to us. It serves like a screen. The better theory, will be the one that is most workable or efficacious... not the one that is 'true'. The import of this is that it leaves the metaphysical questions quite open-ended. Scientists who don't see this are either ignorant or dogmatic.... which are perhaps the same thing.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017
  15. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    You miss the point. I dislike all apologetics... on whichever side. I was even critical of C.S. Lewis, who is the great champion of the Protestants.

    The above post is long-winded.;)
     
  16. Then I misspoke? Nothing that is extreme?

    It's like, eating too much is bad, too much of anything is bad.

    Sorry, English is not my first language
     
  17. I quote different people who say things I agree with but with a much more insightful way of saying it.

    If I can't accept that wisdom exists outside of myself then I am simply practicing solipsism.
     
  18. I simply take into account how the "metaphysical" has not been truly able to answer anything about the universe, for instance, the supernatural is usually invoked when ignorance is present, hence people use god of the gaps.

    People used to not know why people got sick and die, and they believed they were cursed. Then modern medicine came along and taught us that there are these microscopic life forms that can make you sick, and things like vaccines can help you fight them off.

    Every time science pushes the frontier further, a new gap is born, and god is simply pushed in there for no reason. Humanity has discovered the origins of the observable universe up to the very moment the Big Bang happened, and what did religion do? They asked "What happened before the Big bang? Conclusion=God."

    I don't need a supernatural explanation because it's value is equal to ignorance, I rather say to all your questions about physics "I don't know, no one knows" than to insert another god of the gaps in there to pretend it's an answer, when it's not.
     
  19. Buzz Lightyear

    Buzz Lightyear Fapstronaut

    2,690
    2,889
    143
    Yes, we all habitually do this. But there may be an important principle at stake. If pure reason can not objectively and definitively state it one way or the other, then it may be an exercise in futility to endlessly debate what is unknowable in those terms.

    But what would not be futile, is a practical dialogue, or a discussion, which engages you existentially, and artistically, where other faculties besides pure rationality, such as the rational imagination, might begin to resonate. This is why in the past rhetoric was considered a significant factor, if not the most significant.

    The tragedy for us today, in the modern scientific world, is we have lost sight of the aesthetic dimension of reality. And this dimension can only be experienced existentially. Personally, I think this is the very bridge to belief.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2017

  20. All religious topics end up diverting into existential conversations and what is this and where it came from and how it came to be as if, it has anything to do with what I feel about God.

    There could be an all powerful, creator up there and I simply do not care.

    My life works without any miracles along the way, the universe works with it's natural laws just fine, and society works with a modern, secular morality that doesn't need any influence from religion.

    Simply put, why would I insert god where he no longer matters in any aspect of my life?

    I like to debate and to discuss important topics, but it doesn't mean I'm trying to find an "answer" when it comes to this sort of topic my mind is really made up.

    If I were to worship a god this god would have to come down and start doing shit for me to admire it lol It's like Thor in the avengers, he came to earth and started fighting some aliens right? Then thank you Thor! lol
     

Share This Page