I read in an on line thread that people who believe in God are more positive as they do not worry about their future because they trust in him. As opposed to people who don't because they live in constant fear/worry, which can cause depression.

Do you think this is accurate?

Any happy Agnostic, Athiest, or former Christians?

Believers do you think you would be depressed without God?

Trance City, I registered just to reply to your message.   Shame is no good.  It can lead to depression, drug addiction, and all kinds of problems.   If you are ashamed of something you did, talk to someone.   If you feel like you have wronged a person, talk to that person.   Chances are, they don't see it as a big of deal as you do.   Shame is toxic and incredibly unhealthy.   It's great to have God's forgiveness, but you need to deal with it on the "Earth plane" too.  No one is perfect.   Most people do things they are not proud of.   Don't be so hard on yourself.   Did you murder someone?    Did you steal from someone?   Lighten up and accept that you are not perfect and you sometimes do dumb things or get carried away, just like everyone else in the world.

Posted By Nisol on 16 Jan 2011 11:13 PM

I read in an on line thread that people who believe in God are more positive as they do not worry about their future because they trust in him. As opposed to people who don't because they live in constant fear/worry, which can cause depression.

Do you think this is accurate?

Any happy Agnostic, Athiest, or former Christians?

Believers do you think you would be depressed without God?

 

I can't imagine my life without God. If it could be proven without a shadow of doubt that God didn't exist, I would accept it, because the most important thing to me is the truth. To me though, God is Truth. His nonexistence, to me, is almost impossible to understand. Anyway, yes, my relationship with the Lord has definitely been the greatest thing imaginable in regard to my well-being. It would be a lie to say that I don't worry, feel depressed sometimes, etc. But when that happens I just give it all to Him, and I know that He will bring me through it. He's basically the best Friend I could ever have or will ever have.

Nick, I must respectfully point out some logical fallacies.
"atheist beliefs have too many holes for my liking. Firstly, they fail to explain how the world came into being. How did world come into being from nothingness? They might say that the world has simply always existed. Just how exactly did that work? They may simply concede they just don't know the answers to these questions. And then they might then go onto argue that I can't prove that God created the world, and neither can I prove that God has simply always existed. But I can say to you that the God explanation for this world's existence is much better than the non-existent explanation of the atheists. "
Ummm... the big bang? And technically, Christians don't KNOW that what they believe is true (God created the world in 7 days), they just believe the word of the bible. There isn't any physical proof for it. The big bang does make more scientific sense, and has more evidence.
"Secondly, to the atheist, love, justice and equality can be mere chemical reactions taking place in the brain. Yet at other points, they cite them as being universal truths, just like the law of gravity. Let me explain. The atheist might say that they can't that conceive a God would create a world with so much injustice and suffering. They, like the famous atheist come Christian, C.S.Lewis, might say that the world ought not to be as it is. Any would-be God ought to have created the world a little better than the one we know. The world 'ought' to be better. I ask, where did their just notion of what the world 'ought' to be like come from? Rather than citing chemical reactions, they call upon higher truths. At which point I ask them, where did these abstract truths come from?"
if God gave us those abstract ideals, and he's not living up to them, then what about that makes you happier? Do you not want some kind of higher morality instilled upon us in God?

This book - http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Souls-Studies-Between-Lives/dp/1567184855/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1295333057&sr=8-2  -- and this one --  http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Souls-Studies-Between-Lives/dp/1567184995/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295333057&sr=8-1   come closest to describing what I believe.  They made more sense to me than anything else I have read on the spirit world. I have been hypnotized twice, once a past life regression, and once a "life between lives" regression.   I thought they helped, but I am not 100% sure that it wasn't all just my imagination.  They explained some things about my life to me that nothing else has been able to.   Being hypnotized both shook me up and calmed me down.  Someday maybe I will say more?

No one can say for sure what is true and what isn't true about the spirtual world. All we can really do is guess.   That is why I don't like people who try to spread the gospel to me.   You like it, terrific.  Don't force your beliefs on to me.    

So, Mr. Bird...

If you really believe that... WOW.  It takes more faith to believe that load of crap than it does to believe that there's an ultimate supernatural being.  And in case you didn't notice, there is no science to back up the big bang theory either.  Charles Darwin popularized the idea of biologic evolution as a way to explain the origin life... to explain God away.  Around 1930, Georges Lamaitre, the father of the big bang, said the origin of the universe was a “primordial egg” which exploded eventually creating our universe as we see it now.  The name “big bang theory” was actually a disparaging term given to the idea by astronomer Fred Hoyle a little while later. The question is, “What laid the primordial egg?  A primordial chicken?”  The point is, the big bang theory has no explanation of ultimate origin.  That is, it still does not explain where the matter and energy came from to cause the explosion. 

I think I spy a scientific/logical fallacy with your story, Bird man. 

Apparently I'm the resident atheist now. xD All right, to respond to the OP:

First of all, I dispute the idea that belief in God is equivalent to happiness. You seem to be referring specifically to Christianity--however, there are also negative things that are part of the belief system, such as hatred of homosexuals/nonbelievers [seems to be more present among Southerners, but is present nonetheless] and the idea of hell. The varying factors can be taken in either direction. General happiness seems to have more to do with your outlook on life, your attitude, how you take things, as well as uncontrollable factors--chance and whatnot. It is possible to be pessimistic as a Christian [I know a few] and optimistic as an atheist--I'll be presumptuous and take myself as an example. To me, belief doesn't really affect whether you believe things turn out okay in the end.

Second of all, trusting things will turn out okay does not equate to happiness. I know many Christians who are afraid of death, etc. The idea that there is a god doesn't necessarily mean you will automatically gain total peace of mind, doesn't mean you won't worry when a loved one is in the hospital, doesn't mean you won't be afraid if someone tries to mug you on the street. [I personally think that placing trust in some unknown being deadens one to the experience of life--it transfers the burden of consciousness.] Gaining supposed peace of mind is not restricted to giving up your future to a deity. I don't worry too much about my future--I believe in myself, my ability to rebound from mishaps, and I have a support system. When I worry about something, I go through possible scenarios, until I decide the mental energy will not change anything and focus on something else. I accept the randomness of chance and make plans accordingly. Some just worry more than others; perhaps a genetic disposition, perhaps a learned behavior.

To answer the question, yes, I am happy as an atheist. The idea of God itself is counterintuitive to me--maybe if I had been raised Christian, I would think differently, or perhaps I would still be questioning. My locus of control is myself and immediate sphere of influence. Faith in something that has never proven its existence to me seems a willful deadening of this rare experience we call life. Being an atheist brings me joy and vivacity, because I am aware this entire thing is precious, that it will never come again. I don't live for the promise of another life [Heaven, etc] as of yet unproven--I don't want to devalue this existence in favor of something abstract and idealistic.

Err, Nick, your claim that atheism doesn't make sense seems to stem more from you not actually endeavoring to understand it, because your arguments don't make sense to me? xD The Big Bang theory does not attempt to prove where we came from. It seeks to explain how the universe formed after the initial "explosion." To me, the theory is a lot more plausible than somebody saying [in an unknown language, too] "Let there be light" and creating the universe in seven days. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Genesis offers no explanation as to the universe itself--simply the creation of the Earth. The God explanation, to me, makes a lot less sense than a theory such as the Big Bang, because there is evidence for the latter and nothing to show for the former. There are also so many creation myths...it's hard to believe them all. xD Again, if there is proof that I have overlooked, I'd be glad to hear it.

Also, your claim of love, justice, etc, as chemical reactions in the brain is rather narrow in its view of atheism; I'm sorry the atheists you know have impressed this strict view of their beliefs onto you, because I kind of disagree with it. Yes, they are chemical reactions. That doesn't mean they're just that--to me, emotions are something that is wholly human, developed out of the spirit of human consciousness. They deepen the scope of life as I know it. They're precious because they are human, not handed down from some higher form. The idea of them sometimes cited as universal truths is a bit irrelevant to atheism, I believe. How did I develop my ideas of justice and love? Simple observation. Human empathy is a behavior that has evolved with us over the years, which has helped facilitate our survival. For example, the phenomenon in which rich people are less altruistic than their less wealthy counterparts--when you have enough money, you don't worry as much, and are therefore less vulnerable to circumstances--people who are constantly threatened band together, are more connected to others because they depend more on other people and thus are more empathetic, etc. Here's a link to the study: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more/

I believe these behaviors are innate within humans, but they require development. A teenager, for example, is usually not fully equipped with the ability to show love as much as an older person--perhaps not even be able to experience the range of emotions that someone older might. As one matures, so does their feelings and the way they act around others. Again, to me, this is developed, not handed down from a God. Emotions, truth, justice--these are abstract ideals that are refined, that are keenly observable. I believe these things not because a God says so, but because it makes sense, as humans grow and mature emotionally and intellectually. It's part of being human--discovering your own meaning, seeking ideals that underlie the principles of how we live, otherwise it's just automated and dull. Life is precious. Happiness is to be striven for, and these ideals are conducive to it. Yes, you can't be happy all the time--and I'm glad for that. I'm glad that there are bad points, in order for me to appreciate the good points. And when I'm stuck in a rut, I don't need to pray to a God and ask him to make me happy, or trust in him to make me happy--I do something about it, for myself. And when someone else is unhappy, I try to help them, too--because everybody deserves to feel better, no matter who they are, no matter what they believe.

Trance City, it seems your mockery of the Big Bang theory seems to stem more from popular view rather than an examination of the theory itself? The theory stems from the idea that the universe is expanding, which is an empirical fact. Therefore, it can be logically reasoned that there was once a starting point from where the universe had to expand. Of course there is, as of yet, no explanation of origin, which appears to be your point of contention--however, the idea that the universe started out someplace, and is expanding, and thus had a starting point, is not easily disproven through logic, I would think. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks for the link, Rogarn--very interesting. The idea that God created his own universe and has to abide by laws seems plausible; my only dispute with that is, why? I understand that it cannot be explained, that his reasoning/nature [at least, that's what other Christians have told me] is unknowable--and that's why the idea of God is counterintuitive to me.

Anyway, you guys brought up some interesting points. Sorry for the long response. If there's anything I missed/anything you wish to discuss, I'd be glad to read your responses. If anything I've said sounds disrespectful, I honestly did not mean anything by it, and I hope you'll forgive my oversight. Anyway, thanks for reading. Here's a cookie. ^_^

^^I don't know about anybody else but I really like it when Sakari gets started on atheism/religion... Maybe if no one has done so, I'll start a thread every week.

Ahaha. Erm, I hope that's a good thing? xD BirdsallSa and I were talking and he said he saw the topic and was like, "Oh man, I can't wait for Sakari's response" or something. xD I really don't want to offend anybody, I just, y'know, I have my own personal truths that seem to diverge a bit from the other posts in here, and I...need to get it out.

First of all, I dispute the idea that belief in God is equivalent to happiness. You seem to be referring specifically to Christianity--however, there are also negative things that are part of the belief system, such as hatred of homosexuals/nonbelievers [seems to be more present among Southerners, but is present nonetheless] and the idea of hell. The varying factors can be taken in either direction. General happiness seems to have more to do with your outlook on life, your attitude, how you take things, as well as uncontrollable factors--chance and whatnot. It is possible to be pessimistic as a Christian [I know a few] and optimistic as an atheist--I'll be presumptuous and take myself as an example. To me, belief doesn't really affect whether you believe things turn out okay in the end.

Actually, religious belief is highly correlated with happiness. Sociologically, we know that fellowship, diminishing existential despair, and resources gained through communal religious worship are useful for many people. Read the study associated with this blog post.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archi...ier_1.html

 

Second of all, trusting things will turn out okay does not equate to happiness. I know many Christians who are afraid of death, etc. The idea that there is a god doesn't necessarily mean you will automatically gain total peace of mind, doesn't mean you won't worry when a loved one is in the hospital, doesn't mean you won't be afraid if someone tries to mug you on the street. [I personally think that placing trust in some unknown being deadens one to the experience of life--it transfers the burden of consciousness.] Gaining supposed peace of mind is not restricted to giving up your future to a deity. I don't worry too much about my future--I believe in myself, my ability to rebound from mishaps, and I have a support system. When I worry about something, I go through possible scenarios, until I decide the mental energy will not change anything and focus on something else. I accept the randomness of chance and make plans accordingly. Some just worry more than others; perhaps a genetic disposition, perhaps a learned behavior.

Unfortunately, this anecdotal evidence doesn't demonstrate the larger phenomenon. Deeply religious people are less likely to worry.http://www.gallup.com/poll/144980/Religious-Americans-Report-Less-Depression-Worry.aspx Religious observance is also linked to longevity-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm, reduced chances of drug dependency for minorities-http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/faith%20matters.pdf ect.

I will agree that fundamentalist understanding of religious texts does influence homophobia. Ernst and other researchers have found a strong correlation between frequent church attendance and homophobia.

Both genetics and environment influence whether or not someone is prone to worry. This is a more popular assessment of the nature v. nurture debate on this subject.http://www.divinecaroline.com/22189/70448-don-t-worry-happy-anxiety-genetic

To answer the question, yes, I am happy as an atheist. The idea of God itself is counterintuitive to me--maybe if I had been raised Christian, I would think differently, or perhaps I would still be questioning. My locus of control is myself and immediate sphere of influence. Faith in something that has never proven its existence to me seems a willful deadening of this rare experience we call life. Being an atheist brings me joy and vivacity, because I am aware this entire thing is precious, that it will never come again. I don't live for the promise of another life [Heaven, etc] as of yet unproven--I don't want to devalue this existence in favor of something abstract and idealistic.

This is truly your choice and I respect it. I'm a Jew, I have no desire to convert people to anything.

Err, Nick, your claim that atheism doesn't make sense seems to stem more from you not actually endeavoring to understand it, because your arguments don't make sense to me? xD The Big Bang theory does not attempt to prove where we came from. It seeks to explain how the universe formed after the initial "explosion." To me, the theory is a lot more plausible than somebody saying [in an unknown language, too] "Let there be light" and creating the universe in seven days. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Genesis offers no explanation as to the universe itself--simply the creation of the Earth. The God explanation, to me, makes a lot less sense than a theory such as the Big Bang, because there is evidence for the latter and nothing to show for the former. There are also so many creation myths...it's hard to believe them all. xD Again, if there is proof that I have overlooked, I'd be glad to hear it.
 

You have a large misunderstanding of what the myth is trying to portray. It was never meant to be a scientific report on cosmology. Myths are metaphysical stories delivered with the intent to explain truths about the nature of life. You're almost undertaking a fundamentalist view of mythos. Karen Armstrong deftly explains how many atheists and fundamentalists are quite similar in their analysis of sacred texts.

Also, your claim of love, justice, etc, as chemical reactions in the brain is rather narrow in its view of atheism; I'm sorry the atheists you know have impressed this strict view of their beliefs onto you, because I kind of disagree with it. Yes, they are chemical reactions. That doesn't mean they're just that--to me, emotions are something that is wholly human, developed out of the spirit of human consciousness. They deepen the scope of life as I know it. They're precious because they are human, not handed down from some higher form. The idea of them sometimes cited as universal truths is a bit irrelevant to atheism, I believe. How did I develop my ideas of justice and love? Simple observation. Human empathy is a behavior that has evolved with us over the years, which has helped facilitate our survival. For example, the phenomenon in which rich people are less altruistic than their less wealthy counterparts--when you have enough money, you don't worry as much, and are therefore less vulnerable to circumstances--people who are constantly threatened band together, are more connected to others because they depend more on other people and thus are more empathetic, etc. Here's a link to the study: http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_poor_give_more/

This I already know. 

I believe these behaviors are innate within humans, but they require development.

Huge debate. We don't have enough proof to assert this premise. 

A teenager, for example, is usually not fully equipped with the ability to show love as much as an older person--perhaps not even be able to experience the range of emotions that someone older might.

Read "Nurtureshock." What the NYT reporters found when interviewing various scientists and social scientists is that teenagers do indeed love their families and are quite capable of showing it. That's part of the reason why teenage rebellion exists.  

As one matures, so does their feelings and the way they act around others. Again, to me, this is developed, not handed down from a God. Emotions, truth, justice--these are abstract ideals that are refined, that are keenly observable. I believe these things not because a God says so, but because it makes sense, as humans grow and mature emotionally and intellectually. It's part of being human--discovering your own meaning, seeking ideals that underlie the principles of how we live, otherwise it's just automated and dull. Life is precious. Happiness is to be striven for, and these ideals are conducive to it. Yes, you can't be happy all the time--and I'm glad for that. I'm glad that there are bad points, in order for me to appreciate the good points. And when I'm stuck in a rut, I don't need to pray to a God and ask him to make me happy, or trust in him to make me happy--I do something about it, for myself. And when someone else is unhappy, I try to help them, too--because everybody deserves to feel better, no matter who they are, no matter what they believe.

Many religious people believe that too. There has been a notable increase in interfaith work and tolerance-even among the Evangelicals. The majority of Evangelicals no longer believe their faith is the "only way." http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Trance City, it seems your mockery of the Big Bang theory seems to stem more from popular view rather than an examination of the theory itself? The theory stems from the idea that the universe is expanding, which is an empirical fact. Therefore, it can be logically reasoned that there was once a starting point from where the universe had to expand. Of course there is, as of yet, no explanation of origin, which appears to be your point of contention--however, the idea that the universe started out someplace, and is expanding, and thus had a starting point, is not easily disproven through logic, I would think. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter.

Thanks for the link, Rogarn--very interesting. The idea that God created his own universe and has to abide by laws seems plausible; my only dispute with that is, why? I understand that it cannot be explained, that his reasoning/nature [at least, that's what other Christians have told me] is unknowable--and that's why the idea of God is counterintuitive to me.

The religious beliefs of some groups stems from awe and the understanding that their is a limit to human intellect. I can understand why this might be counterintuitive for you and not for others. I personally have never had a problem with it because I know we're never going to be able to answer many of the big questions because they are beyond our cognitive abilities. The attempt of human beings to become deified entities through any method of inquiry is like trying to teach my dog Calculus. She isn't stupid, but some things will always be beyond her grasp.

Anyway, you guys brought up some interesting points. Sorry for the long response. If there's anything I missed/anything you wish to discuss, I'd be glad to read your responses. If anything I've said sounds disrespectful, I honestly did not mean anything by it, and I hope you'll forgive my oversight. Anyway, thanks for reading. Here's a cookie. ^_^

My chief concern about your religious posts is that you frequently analyze religion from a fundamentalist position.I find this disconcerting as only 20-23 percent of religous Americans are fundamentalists in their religious beliefs. http://books.google.com/books?id=WT...mp;f=false Critiquing various manifestations of religious belief is justified and even necessary in a healthy society. However, it is problematic to transfer the problems of one demographic to the entire social institution.

Posted By Sakari on 19 Jan 2011 05:57 AM

mixedjewgirl: Thanks for the response!

"Actually, religious belief is highly correlated with happiness. Sociologically, we know that fellowship, diminishing existential despair, and resources gained through communal religious worship are useful for many people. Read the study associated with this blog post.
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archi...ier_1.html"

^ Interesting study. However, it shows the social aspect of religion--attending church socials and making friends among the congregation--is really what tends to make people happier. There is no necessary correlation between belief in a supreme deity that will take care of things for you in the end and happiness; rather, it appears to be the support system that one has built through going to church. The percentage of people who go to church regularly but have no close friends in the congregation and are most satisfied would thus be most likely to be unaffected by this social phenomenon--and you will notice that this percentage is exactly the same as those who rarely or never go at all. As the researcher said, "Our study offers compelling evidence that it is the social aspects of religion rather than theology or spirituality that leads to life satisfaction." This statement is not related to religious beliefs, but rather to the aspect of religion that backs up the theory that humans are social creatures, and as such need interaction.

"Unfortunately, this anecdotal evidence doesn't demonstrate the larger phenomenon. Deeply religious people are less likely to worry. http://www.gallup.com/poll/144980/Religious-Americans-Report-Less-Depression-Worry.aspx"

^ However, if you observe the percentages of worry/stress/sadness/anger in moderately religious people, you will find that they are consistently higher than those of nonreligious people. Therefore, you are correct in your claim that deeply religious people are more likely to be happy; yet moderately religious people are, from the data, most likely to be unhappy, which negates the idea that God is integral to happiness, as well as the idea that nonreligious people are in fact unhappier than religious people at all.

"Religious observance is also linked to longevity-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/05/990517064323.htm, reduced chances of drug dependency for minorities-http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/faith%20matters.pdf ect."

The study about life expectancy again details the frequency of church going, and therefore is correlated to level of social activity, not necessarily steadfast belief in a deity. It seems to be a social phenomenon, not necessarily something to do with convictions. Had the study focused on one's actual convictions, instead of frequency in attending church, and connected it to longevity, it would be more convincing to me, because frequent church attendance doesn't necessarily mean steadfast faith in God--some people in the study would primarily go to church for the social aspect, etc. Their actual faith in God, while important, is not the key ingredient that influences their happiness, as demonstrated in the first study you gave me. Therefore, the study is irrelevant to the question in this thread. The other one is really long, so I'll have to get back to you on that. xD

"I will agree that fundamentalist understanding of religious texts does influence homophobia. Ernst and other researchers have found a strong correlation between frequent church attendance and homophobia."

As shown from the studies, frequent churchgoers [which appears to be what counts as "deeply religious"--this, however, I disagree with, because those who are deeply religious are not necessarily the most spiritual or accepting people, and homophobia is showcased in this regard] are happier, yet frequent churchgoers are also linked to homophobia? I'm sure there is at least some overlap here. Somehow, to me, this seems extremely selfish--some will go to church, and be happier, but some of those people will also discriminate and make lives miserable entirely due to their religious faith. I'm not saying all frequent churchgoers are homophobic, but if in different studies frequent churchgoers are a) happy and b) homophobic, it doesn't make for a very compassionate world, does it? As an atheist, I feel no need to actively engage in hatred of homosexuals, and I feel that religious belief is one of the main causes of this discrimination.

"Both genetics and environment influence whether or not someone is prone to worry. This is a more popular assessment of the nature v. nurture debate on this subject. http://www.divinecaroline.com/22189/70448-don-t-worry-happy-anxiety-genetic"

^ Mmhmm, as such, a religious environment cannot be counted on to influence one's happiness or not, because it also relates to development and lifestyle choices, perhaps even social choices--such as going to church. Again, faith does not seem to have that great of an impact.

"This is truly your choice and I respect it. I'm a Jew, I have no desire to convert people to anything."

Thank you.

"You have a large misunderstanding of what the myth is trying to portray. It was never meant to be a scientific report on cosmology. Myths are metaphysical stories delivered with the intent to explain truths about the nature of life. You're almost undertaking a fundamentalist view of mythos. Karen Armstrong deftly explains how many atheists and fundamentalists are quite similar in their analysis of sacred texts."

What, exactly, was the myth trying to portray? If these myths are metaphysical stories, then I fail to see how belief in a deity influences anything. What makes it "more right" than any other mythology? It seems to me that if you agree with a story told in, say, the Bible, it literally happened, but if it didn't, it was allegorical. People who don't take a fundamentalist view of it pick and choose what they like best about religion, which I disagree with. Not eating shellfish in Leviticus is spirited away with claims that it was a different time period, a different order, we're different--yet the same book is cited as a source of homophobia. The "sacrifice" of Abraham's son is shocking and repelling to me--why would I ever want to trust in a God that asks me to do something like that? Except some people state it's allegorical, that it's about sacrifice and love of God, and shouldn't be taken literally. Jesus didn't walk on water; it was a translation error, etc. I could do the same exact thing with Harry Potter and say Harry's quest is an allegory for bravery and courage and whatnot. If the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, and is only intended to show people "the way," then I would argue that every story attempts to depict that--the struggle of the human condition. Perhaps if it is allegorical, then maybe the idea of God is an allegory for human love. Please explain how this view of things does not, in fact, negate the Bible's validity at least somewhat.

"Read "Nurtureshock." What the NYT reporters found when interviewing various scientists and social scientists is that teenagers do indeed love their families and are quite capable of showing it. That's part of the reason why teenage rebellion exists."

I didn't state that teenagers couldn't love their families. I stated that due to the level of maturity their emotions are at, how they show these feelings are not necessarily the best/most mature way, and they learn how to show it as they grow older. You provided an excellent example--teenage rebellion could be a manifestation of not knowing how to exactly express their love the way a mother would to her child, or a spouse of twenty years to his/her partner. How one experiences and deals with emotions matures with experience, and to me, such maturity is in no way connected to a deity.

"Many religious people believe that too. There has been a notable increase in interfaith work and tolerance-even among the Evangelicals. The majority of Evangelicals no longer believe their faith is the "only way." http://religions.pewforum.org/reports"

Yet other religions are noticeably different from Christianity in general; are they wrong as well? Simply because tolerance exists does not mean there will not be some delusion of superiority--obviously, if someone's faith differs from you, you will still think you are "more right," especially if the other person does not believe in a faith at all. If all religions seek to perpetuate this all-loving idea, then I fail to see how a deity is necessary.

"The religious beliefs of some groups stems from awe and the understanding that their is a limit to human intellect. I can understand why this might be counterintuitive for you and not for others. I personally have never had a problem with it because I know we're never going to be able to answer many of the big questions because they are beyond our cognitive abilities. The attempt of human beings to become deified entities through any method of inquiry is like trying to teach my dog Calculus. She isn't stupid, but some things will always be beyond her grasp."

Of course there is a limit to human intellect. That doesn't mean I have to gather up all of the things I am ignorant about and leave them to some mysterious being to figure out. Simply because there is no way to understand a particular thing does not mean there actually is something out there that watches everything I do. I am also awed by others' achievements, by beauty, by serendipitous chaos, what have you--this does not point in any way to a supreme being. I find this eagerness to chalk it all up to one thing, one "reason," to be too simplistic, discarding reason for insipid acceptance. I don't see the logic in the jump from "I don't understand" to "There must be a God."

My chief concern about your religious posts is that you frequently analyze religion from a fundamentalist position.I find this disconcerting as only 20-23 percent of religous Americans are fundamentalists in their religious beliefs. http://books.google.com/books?id=WT...mp;f=false Critiquing various manifestations of religious belief is justified and even necessary in a healthy society. However, it is problematic to transfer the problems of one demographic to the entire social institution.

20-23% is still a large amount of Americans. In addition, about half of the moderately religious Americans agree with the religiously influenced choices that fundamentalists make, so religion's impact on limitation of society [as I see it] still plays a dramatic part in society. I really do want to understand this difference; could you explain to me what non-fundamentalist religion does, exactly, that differs yet still needs a religious text, and how is it not negated by the fact that it picks and chooses its messages, instead of acknowledging the contradictions in said text? If religion is not taken from a fundamentalist standpoint, then what does the non-fundamentalist standpoint offer that my understanding cannot arrive at on my own? Love people. Help them as much as possible. I am significant, but also insignificant. I will die eventually. I seek my own meaning and purpose. Higher power--does it matter? There is no evidence; what I am principally troubled by in religion is that, contrary to everything else in our lives, people exalt not-knowing and blind trust, going through complex mental gymnastics in order to keep their views. I understand what you are saying about transferring one demographic to an institution; however, my disagreement with non-fundamentalist religion is that it seems to be unnecessary, if all we are trying to do is get a better life and hope for the best in the afterlife that has, again, no evidence to vouch for its existence. However, that is probably where we will agree to disagree, because you will rely on faith, and I will rely on reason, and this is an irrevocable matter of choice. Anyway, thank you so much for the response!

TheJan, I hear what you're saying. I believe in love and helping people, but I don't think the love has to be manipulated into becoming a consciousness, that it extends to someone who created everything. I really liked your metaphor of the "net of love"--it seems to be a way to transcend the selfishness of being a human and pave the way for a deeper life. I'm not sure if it's "out there" in the open, but I believe we can tap into this potential within ourselves, and we don't need a deity to do that.

Homophobia is the new dreaded condition.   It replaced racism.   Which replaced sexism.   In a thread above I said I find gay men can be catty and bitchy.   I'll stand by that statement.   I have been insulted more in my life, and treated worse by gay strangers than any other group.   I don't go to church.  I don't care if their behavior is right or wrong.  (I don't think it is wrong, btw.)  I care if they are nice to me.  I have had some great gay friends, and I am sure I could have this conversation with them without them caling me a homophobe. 

Some sterotypes are sterotypes because they are generally true for a segment of society.   Guess what, Irish Americans drink a lot.   Guess what, black neighborhoods have more crime.  Oh you say it is poverty?   Is it?   I have lived in poor white neighborhoods and poor black neighborhoods, and I can tell you the poor black neighborhood had more violent crime.  Guess what, Chinese kids are better students.  Oh wait.  We're allowed to generalize Chinese students as being better students.  

People don't want to face the truth, if it is politicaly incorrect, and so they blame the messenger.   Sterotyping all people who find gays annoying is just as bad as sterotyping gays.  Not everyone who finds them annoying is a fundamentalist Chirstian, closet homosexual, who was abused as a child, and cheers when gay hate crimes are committed.  They just want that to be true, so they can ignore the crticism.   I think some of the gays who are most sensitive to criticism, might be sensisitve because they themselves think their behavior is wrong.   Maybe they were raised in an environment where gays were looked down upon and they internalized that way of thinking.   I also think those are the kind of gays who are the most mean. 

And no, I don't feel sorry for them.  Because we all have our own crosses to bear, and frankly, most people just don't talk about gays that much.  Most people don't care.  They have their own lives to lead and they have to buy milk on the way home and get to work early and drop off the kids and pay the mortgage.   People are self-centered.  Most people couldn't care less about other people.  People don't spend their lives wondering if homosexuality is wrong. Gays flatter themselves to think people care that much.   If homophobia was such an issue, Ellen wouldn't be such a popular show. 

(One reason I like the Irish is they don't whine and cry every time someone makes an anti-Irish statement.   Instead they make jokes like "God created whiskey to keep the Irish from taking over the world.")