Confession of a former christian

I think that's a great short clip (under 5 min?) that puts a lot of religious bias and dogma into perspective. I didn't relate to all of the things he talked about, but definitely to some. I really liked how he would talk about something that seemed normal and acceptable to him as a christian, contrast it with something found very abnormal and strange to all of modern society, then immediately identify just how similar the two ideas really are.I was raised a Catholic, and spent a lot of my youth also attending a Southern Baptist church. The Pastor of the Baptist church was a neighbour, and he had 3 boys who were my age and we were all good friends.When I was 10 or so, I immediately picked up on the differences between the Catholic church I went to and the Baptist church I also visited. Although the implications of those differences just went right over my head. None of the ideas were all that important to me, nor did I really care one way or the other who believed what or who used what method to show their belief each week.When I was older, the existance of two such differing methods was implanted in my brain. I soon realized that they weren't even the only two, there were millions. And not a single one with any better connection to reality than any other. That's when I became a follower of reality. I thought about joining a certain religion, or maybe a few even. For their benefits do exist... a community, friends, people to talk to. But I soon realized that I couldn't do such a thing and be true to myself. It felt like I was lying to myself, and I couldn't honestly continue following other people when I knew they had no better ideas then I did. Actually, that wasn't the problem. The problem is that they wouldn't accept that they had no better ideas, they truly believed their baseless ideas were better. I couldn't bring myself to do that. I require a foundation connected to reality to base my values on if I'm going to tell someone my values are better.I also realized that the benefits that exist within religion are not only available from religion. I can have friends outside of church. I can have people to talk to without ignoring reality. I can even talk to an imaginary all-powerful being at any time without the need for religion.I learned to lean on ideals themselves instead of charicatures that embodied those ideals. I learned that having a relationship with something that represents infinite power-wisdom-caring-justice-whatever isn't as good as understanding those real ideals and how to gain power-support-anything from them directly.I learned to accept when reality showed me to be wrong. I learned how to learn from these mistakes, and how the process makes me a better person. I now almost hope to be shown wrong, because I understand that this is how real growth and understanding occurs. The self-confidence and mental-health provided from having the ability to welcome failure is a phenomenon I have never felt reproduced anywhere else in my life. It is so freeing, invigorating and powerful that it blows my expectations away everytime it happens again.I do still have faith. But only in things that seem to lend themselves to faith. Like love and hope. I believe in the real God. The one that either actually exists, or does not. The one God that is either all powerful, or is not. The one God that either has an intense desire to be a part of our lives, or does not. The one God who wants to throw millions of people into the firey pits of Hell, or does not. I believe in the real God. And as soon as that God lets me know Him, then I will know Him. Until then, reality is what is here, and it is reality that will guide me to truth.

Basically... God is more knowledgable and benevolent then we can ever hope to be, and therefore his will is best even if we do not understand (currently or possibly ever) the actual reasoning for why His will is best.This, actually, is an extremely good arguement for bowing to God's will.I'd do the same thing, actually. I'd just have to be shown two things first:1. This God actually exists.
2. This God actually is more knowledgable and benevolent then we can ever hope to be.So far, I've yet to be shown either of these points.
So far, I've yet to hear of anything reasonable that would even imply either of these specific points.Bowing one's entire moral philosopy to a known morally-higher power can be an acceptable course of action. It's also a very serious course of action. I'd hate to see anyone doing so without the required due-diligence. If you can no longer show Him to anyone else, then you no longer have proof for yourself, even. This should be understood in the sense that you possibly could have been fooled. A dream, a vision, an imposter-being, imagination, or perhaps the entity that was shown to you simply no longer exists as it did when it originally showed itself to you. You may even receive constant reinforcement of your personal proof. The fact remains, however, that without the ability to show this to anyone else, you are left open to the significant possibility of being personally fooled. I'd agree to this. Sure God could, sure any sufficiently powerful being could. Then, in order to make sure I wasn't being fooled somehow, I'd have to test my knowledge agaist reality. If I'm unable to duplicate the specifics, I cannot rule out the significant possibility that I am being fooled (through any number of means). Duplication of results may not be the best or only method of verification for testing against reality. But it is our current best known method, by far. For something as serious as bowing my moral philosophy to another being, I cannot honestly let such an obvious and powerful test go unpassed.Any serious course of action, such as bowing one's entire moral philosphy to another entity, should not be done if there is a significant chance one is simply being fooled.

I'm not placing a limit on God to do anything. I'm recognizing the existing limit within myself that needs to be tested for.What are you saying? That I'd do a test, and it may fail, but God would re-arrange my mind so that I think it passed? Or are you saying that I'd do a test, and God would re-arrange my mind (or the test) so that it would always pass?Either way, the test on myself would be positive. If I could always run the test, and it always came out positive, then I would no longer be so afraid of fooling myself. The chances of fooling oneself would be greatly reduced.I'm not restricting God in any way, I'm simply making an attempt to make sure I'm not being fooled. Being fooled is a very significant problem that needs to be tested for. For me, anyway. I get fooled a lot.I'm not 'testing God', I'm testing myself. If God can re-arrange anything so to make the test positive... that's great, that's exactly the kind of confirmation I'd be looking for.Or maybe you're saying God would re-arrange my thoughts so that I wouldn't feel the need/desire to run the test in the first place? This is possible. Then I'm no longer doing my due-diligence, and I shouldn't be bowing my moral philosophy over to anyone. Of course I'd do it if God makes me do it, but it doesn't remove the fact that I shouldn't make that decision myself, because I have not tested myself. Remember, I'm not testing God, I'm testing myself. I don't know about you, but I get fooled a lot. If I don't test myself, I'm not doing my due-diligence, and I'm not ready to make such a serious decision as turning-over my moral philosphy to another entity. Everytime I come across the knowledge that I can be fooled (in any way), I only re-confirm the fact that I need to test myself before making serious decisions.But yes, if God 'fixes me' so that I am never personally fooled any more in any way, then I no longer need to test for being personally fooled. Presently, this hasn't happened to me yet. Just this morning I thought I had my car-keys. But I didn't. I was fooled. I actually forgot that I had left them in my other jacket. So, right now, I still need to test myself for being fooled before I make any serious decisions.But, lets look at your last remark there one more time: I would like to be certain to the point where I can test myself (and get agreement from others) that I am indeed not fooling myself.
If that's no problem to God, then I have no issue.

Yes, it is me. Who else could it possibly be?This isn't a catch-22, it's just the way things are. I am me, and I am the only one capable of judging my thoughts, my actions and my senses. There are good ways and bad ways to do this. By testing myself to ensure that that I am only following the good ways, how is this a negative thing? No. All this test requires is that I can possibly be fooled. As is shown to me over and over again on a daily basis. Everytime I forget something, everytime I mis-interpret something, everytime I make a faulty or even misleading assumption... it shows me that I can be fooled. Since I know I can be fooled, I need to protect against this, the only way to protect against being fooled is to test for it. What sort of god do you know of that can be fooled? I am no god, I am simply a human being who is capable of being fooled. No. It's simply the recognition that I can be fooled. God has nothing to do with it. Well, perhaps God placed this ability-to-be-fooled upon me, but that has yet to be shown as well. However the ability came to be, I can be fooled and I need to test for such before I make any serious decisions.To do anything less would be foolish.What are you arguing against now, anyway? I thought you stated that what I was doing was fine: But perhaps I misunderstood you. Are you now stating that this level of certainty actually is a problem to God? Why would that be? Why would God want us to leave ourselves open to following false-Gods or maybe even just our imagination?

I agree. This does not follow from all the information we have about reality, here are some alternatives:1. God does not exist.
2. God (for whatever reason) cannot use empirical methods to indicate His existence to us.
3. God doesn't care to empirically indicate His existence to us.
4. There are other powerful beings preventing God from empirically indicating His existence to us.
5. Something we don't yet understand or know about.I don't see how your statement of reality ("God has it so that...") is more valid than any of these alternatives.

Yes, this is true. An omnipotent god also wouldn't work with number 4. Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything to the contrary.Perhaps I should note that all the alternatives I listed are also only opinions.I suppose it's up to us all individually which assumptions about reality (if any) we should be making.The problems start when people try to prop their assumptions up as 'better' than other assumptions (or none at all) based on their own subjective feelings. I should point out that I don't think you've done this.

Testing myself against being fooled certainly is not impossible. Here's an example:I think my car keys are in my pants' pocket.
Test: check pocket
Result: no keys
Conclusion: I was fooled, my keys are not in my pants' pocket.That's not impossible at all. It's a rather mundane daily occurance. Saying such a simple task is impossible does not help build yourself as an authority on describing reality. I most certainly do not assume there is nothing else to do. I test to see if I am fooling myself, and the test has always come out negative, therefore I must do something because no one else will.You keep declaring things about me when I've told you over and over again that you are incorrect. You should try dealing with reality, it's much simpler, you don't have to remember all the made-up stuff in your imagination. Again, I most certainly do not. Please stop imposing your imaginary views of how other people 'must live' onto how I live my life in reality.I do not suppose anything about God whatsoever. As soon as God demonstrates His existance to me in a way which leaves me in no doubt, I'll be perfectly happy to start a wonderful relationship with Him. So far, this has yet to happen. Of course not. And I've told you plenty of times that I don't suppose this, I don't suppose anything about God. I believe in the true God of this reality. Not the one made up in your head. When will you start listening to reality instead of listening to your imagination? That's fantastic. Again, though, I don't set my sights to any level, I simply test for things I've learned that I need to test for (I get fooled a lot). But if God can grant me a level of certainty that's even above what I'm asking for, that's great. This doesn't change the fact that it hasn't happened yet. It also doesn't change the fact that I can be fooled, and I still need to test for being fooled until God grants me a level of certainty that no longer includes such a high chance of being personally fooled. What you've said here is patently false:Common-to-mine observations of others absolutely does increase my certainty that I am not being fooled. I could be imagining something. If others observe it too, the chance of me imagining it is greatly decreased.Yes, common observation does tell me that others are seeing the same thing in the same way. That's exactly the kind of assurance I'm looking for. I can be fooled very easily. If others observe the same thing, it's possible that we are all being fooled equally, but the chances of this are much lower than the high-chances of me being personally fooled. Even better is if I can get multiple people reproducing the same observations over and over again. Once this happens, there has never ever been a case where this knowledge has been shown to be fooling anyone.Of course, that may just mean that the entire solar system (or even universe?) is being fooled... but that's getting into the realm of being paranoid. I don't.
I've told you I don't.
I've shown you I don't.
All I do is recognize that I have faults and that I need to test for those faults. As soon as you or anyone else shows that this is an incorrect course of action, I'll abandon it. You have yet to do so. The very fact that I'm willing to abandon my methods as soon as you show that they are incorrect proves that I do not hold myself up as any sort of god.What sort of 'god' are you talking about that has faults, recognizes those faults, gets help from others to prevent those faults, and is willing to do anything else anyone (including you or any supreme entity) can show them to improve upon those faults?Calling such a person a 'god' totally re-defines the word 'god' to be the exact opposite of how it's used in common language.And I still don't understand what you're arguing with me about now. I thought you said God had no problem granting me a high level of certainty? So what's the problem? If God is going to grant me a level of certainty greater than what I'm hoping for... what's the problem?Of course, it hasn't happened yet. Maybe your argument is with God for being slow? I suggest that you should work on your patience. I have no problem waiting for God. I am in no rush to hear from a possibly non-existent entity. Reality is the way it is, any appeals to our imaginations will not change reality. Either God will attempt to demonstrate Himself to me, or He will not. Either God exists, or He does not. It really is much easier living within reality. What exists within reality is set, we cannot change it with our will alone. I will wait to be contacted by the real God that actually exists in this reality (if He even does exist). I have no interest in being contacted by the God that only exists within iano's imagination. I don't even understand how such a thing would actually work.Edited by Stile, : Added a new title