Interesting Relationship We Have Here…

This woman seems completely bat shit, and I wouldn’t trust her account on anything. Perhaps because she seems to be gullible, I’m guessing the husband gave her the money as a compromise, is actually not an atheist, or has a disorder like manic depression (far less likely).

I don’t see how someone can be an “ultra-atheist”, we all lack that certain belief equally.

Actually, I think what’s going on is this. God is in a bidding war for the husband’s soul. How much money would it take for you to believe… a hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

How can I get in on THAT DEAL??? Ka-CHING!!!

There’s a difference between an informed atheist and an ignorant atheist. If what she said about her husband is true, it sounds like Cletus has the same case of “atheism” that Kirk Cameron constantly claims to have had before being converted.

Ignoratheist? Is that a word?

I agree with Aj about the woman being batshit, which isn’t unusual (sorry Mike C) for new Christians. They often go bonkers and lose all perspective on reality and normal life. I knew a number of mixed (believer/unbeliever) couples when I was younger, and the churches did everything possible to discourage this, because the couple is “unequally yoked.” They made the unbeliever feel totally unwelcome and inferior, even though they claimed they were welcoming and loving to the unbelieving spouse, it was only because they wanted to convert the person. It’s really sad when one spouse becomes a born-again or evangelical or fundie Christian and the other doesn’t because the church will basically tear the marriage apart, by making the Christian member feel so inadequate, like she (it’s almost always the woman) is not doing the right things or her husband would come into the fold. And by treating the unbeliever like a worthless piece of shit who isn’t worthy to be married to the wonderful Christian spouse.

If my husband went “back to the Lord,” I’d leave him in a minute. And he’d probably do the same thing if I did. Why? Because we know the bullshit that would ensue. Been there, done that. Not again, thank you very much.

from reading the previous posts it seems this womans mother has terminal cancer. she’s prayed, her church friends have prayed, they’ve even gone to a special ‘healing room’ where strangers pray. so far, she seems to have come to acceptance, with a vague hope of divine intervention. no miracles yet.

what lessons do we take from this? that god coverts the souls of unbelievers more highly than the ones already signed up? that the soul of a seemingly greed motivated man takes precedence over one who is suffering? that god only helps them that pay the church? that god held shares in Yahoo? is god a capitalist?

‘it’s all about me’ believers really do my nut…

MikeC, I guess I apologized because you don’t seem nuts to me, but by saying that new Christians are nuts, I was insinuating that there’s something wrong with that behavior and with the religion — Christianity — that embraces that as normal.

I’m interested to know if newbies in the emerging church (is that the right name?) are less nutso than newbies in the kinds of churches I went to. Or is going off the deep end a common element of conversion experiences? Also, how do people in your church deal with couples that are “unequally yoked”, or is it a non-issue?

This has christian Just-So story all over it.

I’m going to have to call bull**** on this one. I think she’s either making it up, which is more than likely. I think we all thought she might be making it up as soon as we started reading.
Christians also don’t seem to understand what an Atheist is or what it means. A lot of born-again will claim they were atheist (like Kirk Cameron) when really they were just not religious before. They think that because they’re faith is stronger now that they must have been atheist when it was weak.
She might have not been an atheist before, she could have been a Christian who just didn’t attend church much. Her husband might not be an atheist now.
I still still think this story is made up though. I think we all know how this story is going to end, her husband is going to be born-again.
There actually is a book about a husband who allegedly tried to prove to his wife that god didn’t exist and in the process went born-again and wrote a book. Again, bullsh*t. Someone told me about it back in school.

A week later my husband, a stock broker mentioned he made a little bit of money in a trade and I replied “well that doesn’t surprise me, because I prayed God would give us some money.”

I *really* want to know what the husband was thinking at this point.

Who cares about that bullshit? I *really* want to know what stock he was trading!

This account is clearly not being reported objectively. The whole thing is suspect and sounds like it was written to promote church member donations. I think it’s mostly fiction. As a former marriage counselor I’ve learned that one spouse’s characterization of the relationship is far less than half of the truth. If there is even a shred of truth to the way both people are portrayed, then they are “equally yoked” as equally childish and self-centered, but it is impossible to actually know from this nonsense what is really going on.

I told my husband I wanted him to decide on the amount to give back to God. But I told him “remember what you give will effect what you get back!” Trust God and let Him show you how He loves you!

Ah there it is. Surprise, surprise. The old “The more you pay God the more He pays back” scam. The preacher will hold onto God’s money in the meantime.

Prosperity theology bankrupted my father. Or I should say got him so deep in debt that he nearly bankrupted his parents bailing him out 3 different times in his life.

He SHOULD have declared bankrupcy. But old-fashioned man that my dad is, he’d rather have a co-dependent love-hate relationship with his father over who controls money and their financial future than, you know, fixing things himself.

I’m sure he prayed about it often, and then counted on hitting the lottery or similar windfall.

I guess I have him to thank for some of my skepticism. I saw him go though financial troubles based on his church, his pot use, his failed lazy-ass “get rich quick” schemes. Then I saw he buy into multi-level marketing, nothing-down real-estate ventures that never happened…

PT Barnum would have something to say about my father.

MikeC, thanks for that answer to my question.

Mike said,

Since the emerging church has a lot to do with shedding the negative baggage of conservative Christianity, the passion I find among “newbies” in the EC tends to be the exhilaration of new found freedom to ask questions and have doubts, to be oneself in a faith community and to not have to hide one’s flaws or feel judged, to be more inclusive of and open to differing points of view, and to be part of a community that actively practices values of compassion and justice. The common refrain in the EC is “I had always hoped faith/religion/church could be like this, but I thought I was the only one who thought this way.”

Yep. Well said and very true. A second touch…

However, in some of the other comments, I see a bit of a double standard here. I don’t mean to get off topic, but this has been bothering me. I was criticized in previous threads when I commented that if someone claims to have converted to atheism from Christianity, I thought that they were never a true believer to begin with. I took that into consideration and worked hard to get over that mindset.

So how is it okay for atheists to claim repeatedly that people who converted to Christianity from atheism were not really atheists? That somehow indicates to me that you don’t truly “respect” us as you claim….?? That’s that uneasy feeling that I keep having which leads me to believe that I will never be an equal to you in your eyes. It’s that same kind of thinking among Christians looking at non-believers. The hypocrisy and the facade that I ha… I mean, dislike with great intensity.

Linda,

What I’m interested in is his thinking, not lables. Lables mean nothing if they aren’t indications of what someone’s thinking, what they believe and how they feel.

We don’t know how this guy feels… what he’s thinking before vs. now.

His wife describes him as being an atheist. Now, first off, this isn’t necessarily his self-discribing term. Christians, esp conservative ones, haul off and call people “atheist” in a negative sense. HECK, the first Christians were called atheists! Unless this guy defines what he believes, we don’t know. He might be a deist. He might believe in Spinoza’s God. He might believe in a universal consciousness-spirit. He might be a bright, but then again, he might not. He might be an agnostic-atheist. He might merely be a nontheist.

We don’t know what his thinking was or is. It is not “disrespecting” him to wonder or speculate, provided that we’re clear that it is only speculation.

What WOULD be disprespecting him would be if he came here and said that he used to be an agnostic-atheist materialist rationalist and changed to a Christian, and we said “no, you COULDN’T have really been one.”

That’s seriously disrespecting a dialogue partner, and presuming a duplicitous or intellectually or ethically compromised conversant. No good way to try and create a dialogue for understanding… it does nothing but poison the well of discourse.

Linda,

However, in some of the other comments, I see a bit of a double standard here. I don’t mean to get off topic, but this has been bothering me. I was criticized in previous threads when I commented that if someone claims to have converted to atheism from Christianity, I thought that they were never a true believer to begin with. I took that into consideration and worked hard to get over that mindset.

You don’t convert to atheism, you convert to religions, you lose beliefs to become an atheist.

If you’re say that, then you’re saying a hell of a lot of people, many people here, are lying about their account of previous beliefs. It’s like you’re saying that no one ever changes beliefs, or doubts their beliefs. That’s blatently untrue. I only bring up people who were believers but are now atheists when people tell me that you can only combat “bad faith” with “good faith”. There’s plenty of Christians, even fundamentalists, who say they believed everything, that are now skeptics.

You’ve got to consider the source of this individual case, someone who seems crazy, is talking about someone else’s actions not a first hand account of belief. Is the account plausible? I’ve only heard of sudden conversions by atheists to Christianity, from crazy Christians who believe all sorts of bullshit in the first place. It doesn’t seem plausible to me, and I’ve never heard a geniune account of it. Accept in the obvious cases of certain types of epilepsy and manic depression. I’ve never heard of a sudden loss of beliefs either.

We seem to be constantly having dishonest Christians writing about how Darwin converted on his death bed, or reading about the manipulation of Antony Flew (which was shamelessly defended on this blog of all places).

“Everybody lies”

I suspect the whole thing is made up. But if not, I would be willing to bet she is looking for an excuse to wander. Some Christian male friend has entered the picture. I live in a Bible belt area (don’t ask), and have seen this scenario several times, where I never saw anything like it before. One friend was an atheist who’s wife got religion suddenly from some concerned neighbors who were praying for her soul. She ended up fucking the neighbor. The other was a catholic wife who jumped ship and became a Pentecostal lunatic running off with her new “real” christian boyfriend.

I want to say that I absolutely respect linda, and I don’t go out of my way to speculate about this guy and his beliefs. I did it to demonstrate to Linda (and possibly others) what I see as a possible respectful way to do so without negating others rights to be listened to as they attempt to honestly portray their own feelings.

Siamang reinforced the point that the story’s description of the broker’s process of his thoughts and feelings are second hand, lacking important details and as a whole seems fraudulent.

I wouldn’t say fraudulent, but I would say missing key perspective details, especially if the word “atheist” in the story is taken to apply broadly to people on this website who use the word to describe themselves… we would very likely see a disconnect between him and his process and beliefs and the people here. Unless, indeed, we are not privy to a deeper internal philosophical change that is happening to him.

Wow, thank you, Richard, for your analysis.

There’s an old Korean saying that the interpretation of a dream can be better than the actual dream itself. Your rephrasing is so much better than my original comments for sure! 🙂

Please allow me to clarify what my thoughts were on this. I wasn’t just referring to this particular thread. I absolutely agree with most of the comments about Jennifer and her husband, as far as that goes. I agree it is a ridiculous story.

My observation, which may be unfair or incorrect, comes from the overall impression I get from all of the threads combined.

I have noticed in the past threads that it is the general feeling among atheists toward someone who became a believer that “You/he/she could not possibly have been a true atheist to begin with.” Claire, isn’t that what you said about C.S. Lewis? Similar skepticism and doubt surround any discussion that has to do with a fomer atheist turned Christian. Correct me if I’m wrong.

And AJ, maybe I did not use the right terminology, but you’re only talking semantics. The fact remains that it seems completely acceptable and logical to you when a Christian “loses” their faith, but you find it impossible to accept that a true atheist can suddenly become a believer. That’s just how it looks from where I sit. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.

For the record, I’ve never been outright disrespected on this blog, although I cannot say the same for some of the other Christians. You all have been very fair and respectful in your comments to me, some of them (siamang, for example) much more kind than I had ever expected.

However, our words are not necessarily a true indicator of how we feel underneath. Please know that I am not generalizing all of you. But I can often conclude from what people say to and about others in various situations what their overall attitude is toward different issues and people. Here again, please challenge me if I’m out of line.

With that in mind, isn’t it true that most of you believe that our faith in God is foolish and unfounded? If that is, in fact, true and since our faith happens to be a large part of who we are, would it be wrong to assume that you see us as foolish and yourselves as wise? Wouldn’t the logical conlusion be, then, that those who see themselves as wise cannot honestly look at those who they consider to be fools with a heart of respect?

I only ask because these are the same questions I asked of myself when I was challenged (not too long ago) by some of you after I made similar comments in reverse. It made me realize that many Christians feel that way about non-believers, despite their good intentions to “respect” them.

Linda,

And AJ, maybe I did not use the right terminology, but you’re only talking semantics. The fact remains that it seems completely acceptable and logical to you when a Christian “loses” their faith, but you find it impossible to accept that a true atheist can suddenly become a believer. That’s just how it looks from where I sit. Again, correct me if I’m wrong.

As a courtesy, I did add onto my statements on the subject my experience of having “never heard of a sudden loss of beliefs either”, hopefully preempting your supposition. In special circumstances, due to disorders, sudden changes in belief can happen.

With that in mind, isn’t it true that most of you believe that our faith in God is foolish and unfounded?

Almost certainly unfounded, completely groundless, zero evidence. Depends what the beliefs are and why they’re believed whether I would call them foolish. I would say a Deist that is compelled by design or first cause arguments to be mistaken in reasoning. Wishful beliefs, certainty of others “revelation” and the accuracy of scripture, superstitions, fit well with what I think foolish means.

It’s also pretty clear that numerous people conspire to guide and coerce young children into beliefs protected from critical thinking. It’s harsh to call someone foolish when that’s the reality, but the beliefs are certainly foolish.

Humans are susceptible to attaching metaphysics to imagined agency, statistical biases that aid superstitious thinking, and young children like to believe in supernatural entities.

How do you feel about others unfounded beliefs, some of them conflicting with your own?

Siamang, I do appreciate your open mind. And I believe you, for whatever it’s worth… 🙂

And AJ, I hope you don’t think that I was challenging you directly. I was just throwing my thoughts out there for everyone. When I said “you,” I meant a general and generic ‘you.’ I know you are always brutally honest with your thoughts, and I appreciate that very much, as I have stated before (more than once.)

How do you feel about others unfounded beliefs, some of them conflicting with your own?

That’s a good question and a difficult one to answer. It depends on who gets to decided what is considered unfounded. And it also depends on whether their beliefs threaten the safety and well-being of others. We do have to defend oursevles against threats. Other than that, I’m with siamang in that I know I don’t have all the answers. I cannot discredit what others believe just because I don’t agree with them. I’m always open to the possibility that I could be the one who’s got it wrong.

I try to keep in mind that Christianity or the Bible is not the end-all and be-all to the truth. I believe the truth is sprinkled throughout the whole universe, even in the words (and hearts) of atheists, if that makes any sense…

Linda,

I hope you’re joking about burying your head!

Everyone is prone to the same cognitive biases and it’s always good to have people looking out for them. I’m not sure I agree with you, but when you raised the point it still prompted me to go back and look at the question from a different perspective and I’d bet many others did the same. That’s a great thing to happen in a discussion like this, thanks.

Linda,

With that in mind, isn’t it true that most of you believe that our faith in God is foolish and unfounded? If that is, in fact, true and since our faith happens to be a large part of who we are, would it be wrong to assume that you see us as foolish and yourselves as wise? Wouldn’t the logical conlusion be, then, that those who see themselves as wise cannot honestly look at those who they consider to be fools with a heart of respect?

I cannot answer for “most of us” because anyone trying to speak for most or all atheists is probably going to get dissent from the ranks. I can only speak for myself.

For me, the term “foolish” is so laden with value judgementality that I never use it to describe a person’s thoughts or beliefs. I only use it on rare occasions to describe actions or behaviors that could have been avoided but result in human suffering or endanger human well being, be it the person’s own or that of others.

Because the popular description of God makes it impossible to prove or disprove its existence, thoughts or beliefs about that cannot be shown to be correct or incorrect, only well founded or unfounded by acceptable evidence. From there branches off the endless debate over what is acceptable evidence. So such thoughts or beliefs I cannot call foolish or wise. Some of them may be shown to be self-contradictory or internally inconsistent, but it is only the actions or behaviors that might come from them I might call foolish or wise, and that would depend on the outcome.

I also never consider someone a “fool.” I can describe my own or another’s actions as being foolish, but to assign “fool” to someone assumes that nothing but foolishness will ever come from them. I have worked very closely with many people, getting to know their worst secrets, their worst behaviors. Some have been appalling. A very few have made me angry. Many have made me inwardly slap my forehead and think “What the hell were you thinking?” but I have never considered any of them to be fools or in some intrinsic way to be inferior to me. I do my own foolish things often enough to know that I cannot judge them from somewhere above. I can only observe what has worked and what has not. Whether with my clients or with Christians, it is definitely with, as you call it a “heart of respect” that I do whatever I can to work with them to make situations better.

Linda,

That’s a good question and a difficult one to answer. It depends on who gets to decided what is considered unfounded. And it also depends on whether their beliefs threaten the safety and well-being of others. We do have to defend oursevles against threats. Other than that, I’m with siamang in that I know I don’t have all the answers. I cannot discredit what others believe just because I don’t agree with them. I’m always open to the possibility that I could be the one who’s got it wrong.

Lets say that if you’re a rational person, and I would think most people are who can function in human societies, we evaluate the likelihood of hypotheses on past observations, we make predictions, inferences, using logic and reason. From there we can say that there are possible systems that will reduce error, bias, and get closer to the truth.

There’s a problem with a system that can make contradictory observations with the same authority. A system that makes no predictions, no falsifiable claims. A system that allows for no reasoned questioning despite the claims of some. A system that establishes the existence of things that not known, not understood, not defined, some claim that those things aren’t even possible.

It’s not as if the value of claims can not be involved in the ethics. If beliefs threaten the safety and well-being of others, it’s because you don’t take them as true. However, if the beliefs were founded in something, evidence, then the consequential actions of such beliefs would be justified, would not threaten the safety and well being of others. It matters whether it’s true or not.

You should discredit what others believe if they don’t supply you evidence and reason, even more so if they say they don’t need to supply those things. That’s not to say what they say isn’t true, you can still always be open to the possibility that the claims are true, but await a reasonable presentation to persuade you. You don’t have to accept, you morally shouldn’t accept, groundless claims.

I try to keep in mind that Christianity or the Bible is not the end-all and be-all to the truth. I believe the truth is sprinkled throughout the whole universe, even in the words (and hearts) of atheists, if that makes any sense…

No, not really.

Claire,

You are right. You are always fair and open-minded. I respect and admire that more than you know. Sorry about misquoting you regarding C.S. Lewis.

Where the problem crops up is that some people can’t live with that, and yes, sorry, they are usually christians.

I agree with you. As Writerdd pointed out, even the term “fool” used in conjunction with a lack of belief came from the Bible. I’m still not sure who actually are the fools, though. The Christians call everyone fools that do not believe what they believe, but the belief is not the same even among the Christians reading the same scripture. So they can end up calling each other fools, and they often do. Hmm…

some, like you, can be very tolerant

I don’t know if tolerant is the right word to use in my case. If that’s all I aimed for, I would have never come here in the first place and/or would have left a long time ago.

Claire, you also said,

– they insist that their religion is so completely central to everything they are and do that if someone doesn’t respect the religion, they can’t respect the person. I’m kinda wondering if that isn’t part of what’s happening here? Or am I off base?

And when I said,

I believe the truth is sprinkled throughout the whole universe, even in the words (and hearts) of atheists, if that makes any sense…

AJ, you said,

No, not really.

First of all, I do not subscribe to religion, so it most definitely is not central to everything I am. Christian is something that I AM, not something that I do or hang onto. As Richard said, I cannot speak for anyone else but myself. We are all individuals.

To use another example, let’s say that I’m a Martian in a human body. I came and told you that’s what I am. You then tell me that it’s an illusion and there’s no such thing because it’s scientifically impossible. You keep insisting that I have to prove it to you for you to believe me. But I can’t. All I can do is tell you that’s what I am. I didn’t choose it. It just happened to me.

And then I see some other Martians behaving in some radical ways that I do not agree with. You have some bad encounters with them. Whenever you speak to me, you keep referring back to your own experiences and draw unfair conclusions about Martians in general. I know in my heart that those behaviors are unnecessary to be a true Martian, and some of those Martians are not really Martians anyway.

I don’t see how someone who has the wrong conclusions about Martians can look at any Martian and take them seriously in a respectful way… ??? When I see a group of people making fun of Martians in general (as it often happens here), and I’m doing my best to love them because I love humans as well as the Martians (maybe more so), I get really confused about my own Martian-ness. I laugh along with you because some of it is really funny. And humans have so much more fun than Martians.

But every once in a while, I realize that we are all laughing at Martians, which is my identity. It suddenly becomes clear to me that you will allow me play with you. You do and will “tolerate” me, to use Claire’s word. But I wonder if you will ever see me as one of you. After all, tolerance and politeness is much different than love and respect. Then I remember that’s how most Martians think of humans. I become disillusioned, and I am overcome with sadness at the reality of the situation. The big picture sometimes does not look so pretty to me.

Yes, this is just a blog. It’s not real life in any real sense. The relationships here are not what you would consider real. But it’s real to me, because many of us are more honest here than we have the guts to be out in real life. So if we cannot cross the barriers here… if we cannot love each other here, then what chances do we have out there? Am I just being “foolish?”

First of all, I do not subscribe to religion, so it most definitely is not central to everything I am. Christian is something that I AM, not something that I do or hang onto

Sorry, but that “I’m not religious, I just love the Lord” line is tired already. It was already tired in the late 70s. I can’t believe people are still using that line and thinking that it says something.

It is nothing but a delusion for you to claim that you are not religious.

Ah, finally! I get the real dose of AJ! Yay! 🙂

AJ, it’s obvious you do not understand me or my language. First of all, I was not defending Christianity, my beliefs or anyone else’s. I was not talking about who’s more right or who’s more valid. I was just pointing to the fact that people here seem to associate certain behaviors with a label. It seemed to me that some of you make assumptions based on what you think you know. (Maybe I’m also guilty of that, who knows? But isn’t that why we’re talking?)

And let me emphasize again that I was not addressing YOU specifically. Gosh, you’re tough!

if you’re going to use the term to describe yourself you’re going to have to define it.

I’ve been trying to define what it means to me in as many ways as I could, but you don’t seem to be listening. Nothing is good enough for you.

Being a Christian does not give your position any legitimacy.

I didn’t say it did. Maybe I should stop referring to myself as a Christian? I just want to help people see perspectives other than just their own. Would it kill you to be nice to someone (say, a Christian?) for once and give them half a chance to like you?

When I use the term Christianity, I am basing that on self-identified Christians, the history and evolution of the commonly referred to “Christian” religions.

Yes, that’s exactly it. People like Mike C. and other Christians here are trying to show you something different. But you have your wall up based on what you already know.

I’m sorry, but I’m not going to accept what’s in your “heart” on the matter.

I don’t know how to respond to that. If you can’t accept my honesty and my genuine efforts, I don’t know what else I can give you.

This whole conversation started (which I almost regret) because I thought I noticed a double standard and a conditional “friendliness.” I was not addressing you, AJ, anyway. You are definitely NOT one of the friendly atheists and you never claimed or pretended to be. So good for you! If nothing else, I admire you for your unpretentiousness. I always know what to expect with you. No guessing games. And that’s good.

I actually agreed with Jen that it’s borderline insane, but my friend who believes that particular thing truly is the epitome of common sense and sanity. How do I reconcile this?

It’s not really difficult to reconcile if one understands the idea of compartmentalization. This is where we put certain cherished ideas and beliefs aside in our minds and give them special treatment.

So, for instance, I’m a natural skeptic. I’ve never fallen for a financial scam or a metaphysical “jump on the bandwagon” idea (like The Secret) or a New Age health idea that hasn’t been tested. My “skep-dar” kicks right in when someone starts talking to me about the wonders of alternative medicine or the plausibility of ghosts and UFOs and I want to see the proof: Give me some studies, or a consensus or some good evidence. Otherwise, I’m not buying in.

However, for 30 years religion was “off limits” from my natural skepticism. Because of many complicated factors (early indoctrination, family loyalties, my social life exclusively in the church, strong taboos on questioning and doubt), I simply never applied logic and skepticism to my Christian beliefs. I felt they were so elemental to me as a human being that they were beyond scrutiny.

It took a huge, huge mental breakthrough for me to realize that I was using poor evidence (stuff like personal spiritual experience and biased anecdotes) to prop up my Christianity. Once I did realize that, the beliefs collapsed quite quickly – though it took some years to come to terms with that.

This is why we see rational, intelligent people living their lives based on religion that is unprovable at best and blatantly illogical at worst. They’re not fools, they’re just compartmentalizers, like I was.

Linda – ok, sorry, my use of the words ‘religion’ and ‘tolerant’ apparently derailed what I was trying to say, so let me restate it:

Where the problem crops up is that some people can’t live with that. And the irony is that it’s not that they can’t extend slack to others (some, like you, can be very accepting) but it’s when that acceptance is directed at them – they insist that their belief is so completely central to everything they are and do that if someone doesn’t respect the belief, they can’t respect the person.

I changed tolerance to acceptance when I rewrote that, does that help? And is that revised version what’s happening here?

As usual, the words are getting in the way. I’m sorry you think of ‘tolerance’ as something cold and unfriendly, because that’s not how I see it. I see it as a giving people space to be themselves. And the way you and some other people use ‘love’ as something that should be extended to all people indiscriminately seems overwrought and weird. I’m just not going to love someone I don’t know, ever.

It suddenly becomes clear to me that you will allow me play with you. You do and will “tolerate” me, to use Claire’s word. But I wonder if you will ever see me as one of you. After all, tolerance and politeness is much different than love and respect.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by seeing you as “one of us”. In the narrowest sense, of course, you aren’t because you aren’t an atheist, but I think you mean it in a wider sense, but I don’t know exactly what.

You can have, from me, acceptance, politeness, and respect – which is all I give to anybody here, and not all of them get all three (or even one, on occasion). None of them get love (see above for why not). I’m not sure what more you want from me, or any of us.

She even told me she was doing it, and was happy with that double standard. It’s not unconcious in her case, she chose to think that way and only apply her reason and intelligence to things outside the bible. I hope some day she gets beyond that, but that’s up to her.

Yeah, I’m unfortunately all too familiar with that mindset. In the kinds of churches I attended, that lack of independent thinking is actually blatantly encouraged and seen as a kind of badge of honor. You’re a “true faith warrior” or something like that.

It’s like your religious beliefs are sacred, holy, and beyond any kind of base, “human” scrutiny. God’s ways are far above ours, and we shouldn’t try to understand him on a human level because that’s what prideful doubters and scoffers do, and we don’t want to be like them.

Some are. And others (like myself) go through the same process of deconstruction that you describe and yet emerge with their faith both intact (more or less) and de-compartmentalized.

Without jumping on you and telling you what you supposedly feel…

Maybe you aren’t as skeptical a person as Karen describes herself. I mean for her, she was a powerhouse skeptic… except in her religious life. So she had to put a firewall between the two.

It’s possible that you aren’t built the same way… so no firewall needed. The whole “show me state” “prove it or shove it” skeptic deal isn’t maybe your deal.

Maybe you aren’t as skeptical a person as Karen describes herself. I mean for her, she was a powerhouse skeptic… except in her religious life. So she had to put a firewall between the two.

Exactly. Which is what led to the mother of all midlife crises, which resulted in a meltdown of that firewall and the demolition of what my therapist called a “split-self personality.”

It wasn’t much fun. I don’t wish it on anyone else!

It’s because I’ve ultimately come to see that all of my beliefs are in essentially the same boat as my religious beliefs, that I haven’t felt quite as compelled to jettison my religious beliefs. We live in a world of possibilities, not of certainties, and I’m just fine with that.

To subordinate the facticity of “all of [your] beliefs” in order to match “[your] religious beliefs” in order to salvage them may make sense to an idealist, but not to someone who treats facts. The gap is too great between stubborn facts that can reach out and bite you and beliefs that can be blasphemed all day long without repercussion. This is the chasm that you cannot bridge without faith. You have chosen, as far as I can tell, for no good reason, to believe. This is a matter of will not knowledge. No modern person can ignore the facts that force themselves through any epistemology. There’s too much corroborating evidence for that. Crediting epistemology is either a rationalization post facto, or a simple blunder.

MikeC,

That is, I have been skeptical even of my own skepticism. This is what I mean by having a humbled epistemology – which is one of my descriptions of what it means to be “postmodern”.

Before I leap to conclusions, can you tell me what it could possibly mean to be skeptical about skepticism? I can’t begin to imagine what that might look like, I wonder if you must be using some new definition of the words.

When you write that, I read it as you saying that you’ve placed so many checks to eliminate biases and errors that you’ve reached the conclusion that the best way to understand reality is to just make stuff up.

I mean, “sceptical about scepticism” sounds zingy, and has the aura of extreme scepticism, but it doesn’t parse at all. Not in any way I understand. I hope I’m missing something.

Claire said,

I changed tolerance to acceptance when I rewrote that, does that help? And is that revised version what’s happening here?

Why is it so hard to respect the person AND their beliefs? I really don’t think you can separate my beliefs from who I am, because I am who I am largely because of my beliefs. I found myself not able to respect an atheist (at least not to my own satisfaction) until I could completely accept and respect the fact that they were a non-believer. And as I’ve stated, I worked through it.

As usual, the words are getting in the way. I’m sorry you think of ‘tolerance’ as something cold and unfriendly, because that’s not how I see it. I see it as a giving people space to be themselves. And the way you and some other people use ‘love’ as something that should be extended to all people indiscriminately seems overwrought and weird. I’m just not going to love someone I don’t know, ever.

It’s not that I find the word ‘tolerance” cold and unfriendly. The efforts required by that word just does not seem enough to me. Not enough if I want to make a change… make a difference. No, love is not something that I extend indiscriminately. But when I do extend it, it’s real and genuine. And anyway, I don’t think we’re speaking of the same kind of love.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by seeing you as “one of us”. In the narrowest sense, of course, you aren’t because you aren’t an atheist, but I think you mean it in a wider sense, but I don’t know exactly what.

I mean not being treated as a label. Being thought of as just someone who may have different beliefs but still a fellow skeptic who can use logic and reasoning to draw conclusions. And you were not who I was addressing. I don’t know why we are having this debate.

I’m not sure what more you want from me, or any of us.

Absolutely nothing. Not even respect. Love and respect are given, not asked for, expected, or demanded.

I was just observing, thinking out loud, and throwing questions out there that I asked myself recently. I was not accusing anyone, nor was I asking for a change…

I am days late to the party, but I think I will jump in- why not? I have already been quoted despite my complete absence from this thread.

Why is it so hard to respect the person AND their beliefs? I really don’t think you can separate my beliefs from who I am, because I am who I am largely because of my beliefs.

I think this kind of goes back to the discussion on that German pig book the other day, where the debate ended up being in part about if respect should be earned or assumed. I think I was raised to respect certain people on principle: the old, for outliving all their friends; the deeply religious, for shunning the material world; those in power, for earning their higher-up positions in the world, and teachers, because teachers had a vested interest in convincing us to respect them. In retrospect, I am not sure that was the best thing for me, because it wasn’t until I reached a certain place in my development that it occurred to me to question authority. Maybe that is something that everyone goes through, and maybe a psychologist would say it is better to set certain people on pedestals only to knock them down later.

I do think respect is something that has to be earned- I suppose I am using the definition of respect that goes like this: “esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something I have great respect for her judgmentconsidered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: ”

So I believe I can esteem you, Linda, for having the ability to come here day after day and communicate with atheists without preaching. However, I may esteem you for your abilities in one area (say, communication and politeness) instead of another (say, your ability to reason in a way that I agree with and your skills at Scrabble.)

I may be approaching this from a different angle than you. Perhaps you think faith is a virtue, and I think it is a flaw in your character. I can still like someone who isn’t perfect, and I can even esteem them while realizing that they are simply human. This is fantastic for me, because most of my friends are religious in some way, and I can still have respect for them, or not have respect for them but enjoy their company anyway.

Mike: That is, I have been skeptical even of my own skepticism.

Adrian: Before I leap to conclusions, can you tell me what it could possibly mean to be skeptical about skepticism? I can’t begin to imagine what that might look like…”

Mike: I just mean that I try not to have too high opinion of my own cognitive abilities.

That opening part was reassuring, Mike but then you finished with this:

As a skeptic I question everything, but then I also take another step back and ask whether those skeptical questions are themselves the right kinds of questions, or whether perhaps they themselves are being skewed by some unseen bias or limitation or false assumption.

I don’t want to alarm you, Mike but even though you probably are simply a very vigilant and diligent observer of your own thought processes, you might have a developing case of Cognitive Cul-de-sac Disorder, formerly known as Carosello’s Autoreflection Syndrome. The disorder usually reaches its critical stage with a thought process something like this:

“I say I’m a skeptic, but am I really a skeptic? What evidence do I have that I am a skeptic? I should not just take my own word for it. Wait, my wanting to find evidence for my being a skeptic before I believe it seems to be a pretty skeptical thing to do. But oh wait, that’s sounds circular, and skeptics really hate circular thinking. After all, if I say, ‘I know for certain I’m a skeptic because I have my doubts about it and need evidence’ that is self-contradictory. I can’t be certain and have my doubts at the same time. Hang on a sec, if it’s self-contradictory it can’t be circular. Dammit, neither work. How about if I was once skeptical about being a skeptic but now I’m not? But if I’m now sure, am I still a skeptic? Hmmm. Maybe I could ask other people who know me if I’m a skeptic. Naw, testimonials aren’t very good evidence either. I remember somebody once said I was a skeptic but I didn’t just automatically believe him. I asked him for evidence but he just looked at me funny and slowly backed away. Is there a skepticometer I could hook myself up to? But then how does one calibrate a skepticometer without…….”

After several days of this the victim collapses from lack of food and sleep and is hospitalized, given heavy doses of Haldol and put on a regimen of intense psychotherapy and training in tightrope walking with the aid of a parasol, augmented by lessons in shadow boxing and mime. After several months most patients are able to return to society and live a basically normal, productive life with the exception of having a morbid fear of amusement parks or fun houses that feature a hall of mirrors.

It’s probably nothing, Mike but just to be on the safe side you might have that looked at. 😉

Mike,

I just mean that I try not to have too high opinion of my own cognitive abilities. I know how often I am prone to error, bias, and simple limitation.

I agree with Richard, that’s a great start. If you truly understand just how deeply we are all prone to error and bias then I don’t see how you cannot adopt scepticism.

Then you say:

I can reason my way into or out of just about anything, which leads me to believe that reason itself is not always the most reliable tool.

Whoah, whoah, hold on there. Is this another instance where you’re using “reason” to mean something like maybe “convince” or “persuade”? If so, I do wish you’d use a better word because if you apply the sceptical principles your first two sentences require, then reason can’t drive you to any conclusion. If not, then I don’t think you understand scepticism because if you use reason in conjunction with basic sceptical principles, then no, you cannot reach any conclusion. That’s the point. Something must be missing here, am I just not getting something?

That’s not to say I can’t know anything, but what I do think I know I hold tentatively and provisionally, always open to the possibility that I could be wrong. As a skeptic I question everything, but then I also take another step back and ask whether those skeptical questions are themselves the right kinds of questions, or whether perhaps they themselves are being skewed by some unseen bias or limitation or false assumption.

This is what I simply don’t understand.

Sceptical questions are things like “do I have sufficient evidence for this?”, “have I eliminated all the biases I can?”, and “what other possible explanations can fit observations and what can I do to eliminate them?” These are all a part of the process of eliminating biases. Yes, it’s possible to ask them and still have some biases remain, but you paint this story as if you’ve become so extremely sceptical that you doubt whether it’s valuable to ask these questions.

How can that be? While they may not be complete, surely they must form a part of any system of honest inquiry by someone aware of our innate human biases.

Can you give an example of some of these sceptical precautions that you, in your extreme scepticism, don’t think apply?

Mike and Adrian,
I won’t belabor this any longer, but I think perhaps the confusion about Mike’s statements about his skepticism and his reasoning and rationality is coming from a slight difference between his and our use of the word “skepticism.” To me at least, skepticism simply means demanding a high standard for evidence before believing in something. What one does with that evidence once one has it is an entirely different matter. A person may use logic or reason or rational thinking about it, he may ignore or discount it, guess, fantasize, intuit or whatever. The point is that I (and maybe Adrian) don’t think of skepticism as a specific thought process such as for example logic is. Skepticism is just holding to a level of standard for evidence.

Mike seems to use the word skepticism more broadly to include the thought processes such as logic, reason, etc. along with the stringent requiring of evidence. So in that way he could be narrowly “skeptical” (being humble, avoiding over confidence, being circumspect) about his broader “skepticism” (applying logic, reason, rationality, etc.) to questions about life and the world around him.

I hope that helps rather than muddling it worse. Otherwise as Adrian says let’s drop it at least for now. Sorry, Mike if I’m way off.

Thus I have learned to be “skeptical” (i.e. “being humble, avoiding over confidence, being circumspect”) of my own rational abilities.

Okay, thanks for the definition. Like your use of “reason”, it sounds like you are using a colloquial meaning of “skeptical” and not the philosophical one. Considering our conversation, I naturally assumed the latter, and not the former. Instead of talking about the philosophical system of seeking evidence and reason for belief, you’re almost treating “skepticism” as merely a synonym of doubt.

This is especially apparent when you say:

But then, once I’ve done that, I need to also question the answers given by those new angles, lenses, etc. as well with the help of other lenses, angles, etc. – hence, being “skeptical of my skepticism”.

Here, you can only be talking about “doubt”, not about philosophical skepticism. Still, as long as we’re on the same page.

I think you’re trying to say is that you must continually scrutinize any conclusions you reach. That’s cool.

I don’t see you being skeptical of skepticism itself, and in your elaboration you don’t even hint at this. On the contrary, you seem to want more skepticism, not less. You’re definitely not skeptical about skepticism, you’re just applying skepticism to skeptical conclusions, a very different thing.

You should know that most people who say they’re “skeptical about skepticism” are in fact saying that they doubt that (are skeptical of) a system of scrupulously gathering evidence and accounting for human biases (skepticism) can lead them to the truth. They say this, as far as I can tell, because skepticism leads people away from their pre-selected conclusions and so are looking for plausible-sounding reasons to say faith is an alternate means of knowing. By using their phrases, you’ll end up conveying their meaning which may not be what you want!

AJ,

Flattery will get you everywhere, however you already know that I’ll consider your answer a complete evasion of the question.

It wasn’t flattery at all. I meant it. And yes, I did know that you would think that… Let me try again to answer your questions without being evasive, although you may end up thinking I’m crazier than you thought. 🙂

That’s experience that suggests that you believed what they were saying. That seems rather circular to why you think an atheist has said something true, because you have believed a few atheists.

I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to come to an agreement. I look at everything from outside in (or do I mean from inside out? i’m confused. 🙁 ..) Anyway, as I don’t put much value in material things or objects (although I find them fascinating), I take a piece of information and look within for answers. In the same way that we advance in science, history, law, or anything else in life, we can only base our conclusions regarding spirituality on what we have already seen, heard, touched, or experienced. Basically what we already “know.” Outside of that, we continue our search or wait for what’s still to come.

When we stumble upon new information, we hold it up to everything that we know already and draw our conclusions based on what makes sense or what works. As no two minds are alike, we may end up with discrepancies. Add on top of that the fact we are using different parts of our brain to look at things (what I mean by different angles), we end up misunderstood, frustrated, or just plain annoyed.

You seem to look at everything externally when I want to look at everything internally. There’s no right or wrong. I have a very hard time communicating what it is that I want to say, as what comes out never seems to meet my satisfaction. With that in mind, let me bounce off my thoughts at the risk of sounding judgmental, and/or completely off my rockers…

I don’t believe there are too many truly free thinkers. Just because someone claims that they think freely does not make them free. In my opinion, a truly free and genuine thought requires that thought to be thought with everything (all pre-existing knowledge) and nothing (a blank canvas) at the same time. I find that many people have a difficult time with the nothing part.

Remember the phrase that I referred to before on another thread? RES IPSA LOQVITVR. I adopted it as my motto a few months ago. I cannot give you an evidence… ‘the thing that speaks for itself’… All I can do is try to BE it and present myself as the thing that speaks for itself. So shall I call myself an “enigma” instead of a Christian? If you are looking for consistency, I cannot give that to you. That “nothing” part keeps transforming me into something else. Bits of new information that came from atheists on this blog contributed to my transformation process and became a part of the big blob of truth in my mind.

Why do you talk about true Christians, and “not really a” Christian?…

…Is it because you have reason to believe it so, or is it because you’d prefer it to be the case?

In my mind, I have reason to believe so. I am either all or nothing with everything. You accuse people of picking and choosing what they want to believe according to what’s convenient or what others are saying to them. I am in constant battle with that. I know my freedom (in thought) comes from Christ. Only when I understood that freedom was I able to reject religion as it was taught to me.

To me, freedom with boundaries and rules is not freedom at all. Grace that requires works is not grace at all. Unconditional love with the condition of belief is not truly unconditional. The hypocrisy in Christianity makes me want to jump off of that cliff into atheism.

My confusion is when I feel like I’m the only one. How can I hold onto my freedom to think freely when I am constantly bombarded with what everyone else thinks, especially those who have all the education and the credentials? I end up wondering if I’m the one who’s wrong or… crazy.

I’m here talking to people and peeking over the edge of that cliff, and I don’t see much freedom there either. Different words are used, and maybe even more elevated ones, but the hypocrisy and the lack of “nothing” exist there as much as the Christian camp. So I basically am between a rock and a hard place. I end up choosing the lesser (or free-er) of two evils to hang out with. There’s so much more fun in freedom. 🙂

AJ, from what I’ve seen, you are not afraid to be different. You don’t follow the “rules” of engagement. Speaking your mind honestly is more important to you than being accepted for what (or how) you say. I admire that because I am often not that brave. I was not being disingenuous. I don’t “flatter” people just for the sake of flattery.

Jen,

Thank you for your eloquent thoughts. I never looked at faith as a character flaw… interesting. I guess it’s one way to look at it.

Claire, you said,

Step one is to stop labelling yourself. Seriously, it helps. If you constantly identify yourself with a label, people will see you as that first and as you second.

Exactly. That’s what I was trying to say on the thread about atheist t-shirts, for which everyone jumped on me. And what’s the deal with the scarlet letter A? Don’t answer that. I know we’ve been down that road before. I’m agreeing with you. The fact remains, though, that eveyrone desires to identify with something, be a part of something, or be a member of a larger group. I don’t know if we can ever live without the labels. *sigh* 😕

accidentally double posted.

AJ,

Why do you believe the Bible? Why do you believe Jesus wanted this? Describe what the system of belief was like before Jesus, and what Jesus advocated.

Wow… that’s a challenge. I purposely try not to memorize or quote scripture as much as I can, because I believe in the ideas contained therein instead of the words. Besides, I’m not a theologian or a scholar. But since we came this far and I don’t want to give up now, I’ll try my best to answer those questions:

Please keep in mind this is how it looks and makes sense to me. But I’m only one person. One thing I do not do is listen to someone else’s word and follow it as if it were my own. As we discussed before, we hold up all new information to the knowledge base that already exists and process them in a logical and practical way. But I have to first clean out all of the unnecessary or incorrect data that may affect the new piece of information. If any part of the pre-existing data base is from a second-hand knowledge, and more information is added because of and on top of that knowledge, it could throw off the whole system. There is so much information out there that are referenced to what someone else has said, as if referencing someone who claims to know or who has the credentials somehow makes that information true beyond doubt. I want to keep an open mind about everything. I take the words of experts with a grain of salt. I want it to make perfect sense to me before I make it part of my database.

(I suddenly have a new thought about my everything and nothing theory. But I’ll have to process it first. I’ll get back to you.)

The problem arises when what makes sense to me and what makes sense to you are two different things. There are people who claim that Jesus the man never even existed. What do I do with that?

What makes sense to me is this:

The system of belief before Jesus was everything you read in the OT. People were controlled by religious leaders who strictly adhered to the rules written in the scripture. i.e. The Ten Commandments. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out as social animals what we like and dislike, what works and does not work in order to co-exist together. I now believe that the moral code and the written “rules” came as a result of many years of trial and error by humans living together in tribal settings. (I have an ongoing thought project about morals – but that’s another subject.) As we progressed through history, human nature to seek power over others produced religion and religious leaders. Did religion exist before the religious leaders or the other way around? Hmmm… There are leaders and there are followers. The followers need instructions and guidelines in order to follow. The leaders need rules, rewards, and punishments in order to control.

I can keep going, but I don’t know if this is what you’re looking for. And I’m thinking as I’m going along. I like this homework, but I can do it somewhere else if you want me to stop. I have a feeling it won’t be short and sweet… (or maybe it will end up to be simpler than I thought, who knows?) But I don’t want to waste your time if you think it’s off target.

Linda,

I have to jump in here to make a few comments in regard to your definition of religion. First how I classify things as religions; they usually have three parts:

1. Belief in some kind of supernatural entity or force.
2. Revealed knowledge or sacred truths.
3. Some kind of ritualistic behavior.
I think most religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.) hit each of those parts in some way. Most flavors of Buddhism do too, but some like Zen lack part 1 so that might not be a religion. I suspect your version of Christianity also hits all three parts. 1 and 2 might be easy to see, but do you have a 3? If you’re going to church and praying I think so.

From what you have written I think the thing you are criticizing is not “religion” but “organized religion”. If you disagree with my definition of religion, I’d like to hear how you define it. You do write, “Whenever someone is chasing the shell of the thing rather than the essence of it, then it becomes meaningless and what I classify as religion.” but I’m not sure I understand it.

You also say things like Darwinism, Environmentalism, and Patriotism can be religions. By my definition, I have to disagree, since those things lack the most important part 1, belief in some supernatural entity or force. Can you give an example of a “religious Darwinist”? I’m not even sure “Darwinists” exist anymore since Darwin’s theory of evolution has been modified and extended. Just like there aren’t any “Newtonists” anymore since Newton’s theory of gravitation has been superseded by Einstein’s.

Now some case might be made that some people, for example the Social Darwinists, did make a religion out of Darwin’s theory. They thought that Darwin was prescribing how life should be lived instead of just describing how life has changed. But, even in that case I claim those people are following an ideology, not a religion because they lack part 1, and don’t seem to do much part 3 either.

So I think “ideology” is a better word for those fanatic patriots, environmentalists and so on. Sure some people might say “baseball is my religion” but they mean that in a figurative sense. Until they start praying to a shrine built to Babe Ruth that is. 😉

I’m not sure I understand your three parts completely:

1. What if you did reach your beliefs on your own, and you happen to be in a mass of people who also reached their beliefs on their own. It seems like you can’t help believing what the masses do. And sometimes the masses are right. About 80% of Americans believe the Earth goes around the sun (sigh), and hey, that majority is right!

2. The A + B = C idea is kind of vague to me. Doesn’t that overlap with your part 1?

3. Well, we agree on that one!

Originally you said things like Environmentalism and Darwinism could be religions. What are the ritualistic behaviors there?

I don’t believe that most religious people actually believe in a god. I think it’s more likely that they hope for a god.

You could be right, but I can’t read people’s minds so I take their word for it when 90 or so percent of Americans say they do believe in God.

Having faith in a higher power/being/energy/whatever beyond ourselves in itself is not a religion

Right, that would only hit part 1 of my definition. But very few people stop there. Most think they know the nature of this higher power and what it wants (part 2) and then do something about it regularly (part 3).

Religion requires more than one person.

Imagine there is one last worshiper of Zeus out there. He visits his temple regularly and prays to the Greek Gods. I would still say he is religious.

Prayer for me is a time of cleaning out what clutters the mind and getting it back in focus.

That sounds like a ritual to me. Atheists can do rituals too, such as if I meditate regularly, but without parts 1 and 2 of my definition that won’t be a religion.

I still claim that if your definition of religion includes things like environmentalism or Darwinism then it isn’t a very useful definition. Of course you are free to define words as you want, but it may impede your ability to communicate with others. If you talk to a random person on the street and say “Bob is very religious” I don’t think any one will think “Gee, maybe Bob is a fanatic environmentalist”.

The word “ideology” is perfectly suited to the task, and I think your real beef is with organized religion.

OK, thanks for the clarification on your points 1 and 2. But I think there are Christians, for example, who don’t follow the herd, or expect A + B = C, but are obviously religious.

Regarding your recycling and Darwin Day examples, I think those fall under the categories of “habits” and “customs”. We could get into a semantics debate on the overlap and differences (maybe draw some Venn diagrams too!) between habits, customs and rituals, but I think the typical person on the street has a general idea of what they mean. Gathering to pray, signing worship songs, meditation, burning incense at an alter, crossing yourself, etc etc are all rituals in my book. Brushing your teeth, jogging, and blogging are habits.

You can make a religion out of anything.

I agree to some extent, but not every custom, habit or ideology is a religion in my view. The word just loses all meaning. I don’t think Elvis worship is a religion yet, and any celebration of Darwin is still a million miles below that.

As a matter of fact, the way the American calendar revolves around holidays in itself is a religion, don’t you think?

As you might expect, I don’t. 😉

Yes, but the fact remains that it started with more than one person. It takes more than one to become a religion.

I have to disagree there. Why can’t it start with one person? If I suddenly had a revelation from a god that no one has heard of, and I start praying and communing with this new god all by myself I think it is perfectly reasonable to call what I am doing religious.

Sure we can call things like flossing to be my morning ritual, but I think that is speaking figuratively not literally. People also say, “He watches American Idol religiously”, but it’s just a metaphor! The guy isn’t literally praying to Simon.

Linda, I get what your saying so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on the semantics.

I don’t think my definition is clear (there are always grey areas of course!), and it certainly doesn’t stop discussion. Example: gravity seems easy to define, yet the world’s smartest physicists are still trying to figure out how gravity works in the quantum world. Besides all definitions break down into circular references. (Are there words in dictionary definitions that aren’t in the dictionary? Is that why they put pictures sometimes? Haha)

As for God spawning religion, my guess is that it’s human nature. One person tells another about their revelation, and soon enough a whole oppressive bureaucracy is born. That happens with other human affairs as well, not just religion.

Is it possible to reject religion altogether and still have God?

Sure, but you can’t tell anyone about it! 😉