Before Life, After Death and Religion

[Droopy]

Forewarning:

Due to the nature of this thread, you must abide by the following rules:

1. No trolling what-so-ever. Do not bait other members into arguments either.
2. Everyone has a right to express their views. Do not personally attack anyone for doing so.
3. You may disagree with a view but don?t start a fight over it. Disagree in a constructive manner.
4. Try not to use overly scientific or religious terms. Keep it simple so everyone can understand.

Introduction:

As suggested by 142857 over here, I have set this thread up to discuss the big issues: Before life, after death & religion. Originally, the purpose for this thread was to find myself a new belief system as I was getting more and more skeptical about religion. I have always had my doubts and questions about life and of course religion, but never really addressed them. That is what this thread will attempt to do.

Background on myself:

I was born into a Christian Protestant family. All of my family are religious to my knowledge. My grandfather is a retired minister and my uncle is an ?elder? in the church. Since religion runs in the family, I was expected to become a Christian myself, which I did at a very young age. Although this was of my own choice, I will admit that I was strongly encouraged into doing so.

With regards to whether I ?believed? it or not, I did at first. However, I have always had my doubts and questions to which I may never get answers. During my teenage years, I gradually slipped away from religion and going to church. This strengthened my doubts, skepticism and questions that I had. Fast forward to two months ago - while watching a heated argument on another forum about the topic and being amazed at how angry and hateful people were being about it - I decided it was time to question my religious views and see what the fuss was all about.

I started to watch videos on YouTube about religion, atheism and the like. This started when I seen a video that had been ?liked? on YouTube by a former friend of mine. The video was about contradictions in the bible and so I decided to have a look. To make sure the video wasn't lying, I actually found my bible, got it out and decided to look up the contradictions mentioned. The video was right. There were many contradictions to be found.

Hungry for more, I watched video after video after video about religion on YouTube. I quickly realised that the whole issue of religion was much bigger than I thought. There is an absolute mountain of videos to be found on the subject. It seems that in many videos, people are angry and bitter about it. I watched videos from atheists, Christians, Christians who had become atheist, atheists who had become Christian, agnostics and even Muslims.

Purpose of this thread:

So, with all of the above in mind, the purpose of this thread is to gather views, discuss and debate on the issue of religion, life, death and beyond. This thread was originally intended for another forum to address my religious views at the time. During the downtime of that forum, I thought about the issue a lot and watched many videos on it. I came to a conclusion before the thread could be made (on that forum).

My current position is that I am not of any religion, not even agnostic or atheist. I simply do not know how life begun or will end. Regardless of my ?current conclusion / position? this thread still serves a purpose. I hope that an interesting discussion and debate will arise from it.

To start the discussion and debate I will ask what everyones views are on religion and evolution.

 

[eon]

I'll contribute my viewpoint on this topic. I have always written about this in what I view to be simple terms that don't rely on understanding of religion or science per se. To explain my views on religion and evolution, I feel it is necessary to explain the labels and talk a bit about the idea of morality.

I am a post-theist. Agnosticism is really too weak a term, meaning that one is simply without belief/knowledge. Many atheistic individuals will refer to themselves as agnostic atheists. I really don't like that label.

I believe that morality is the idea we've learned throughout evolutionary history that how well one can do depends on how well one's neighbor does. We bond with each other and organize our societies socially and cooperatively.

Another way the mindset is referred to is skepticism, roughly defined as the avoidance of mystical beliefs in ideas that don't have large observably factual basis.

I simply live by a code of recognition that we know almost nothing. What we do know paints a picture of the history of the universe that makes sense, but it's a furious and coldly just universe. In this view of existence, the fact that we exist as we do is viewed as both the unlikely but also inevitable (1 out of billion billions), cosmically. A certain kind of gift, but one far too powerful to be harnessed by conscious entities.


My pragmatic issue with theism is the abstaction of love, the projection of these very humanized traits to the abstract, philosophical permanent soul (spirit) & soul parent (god) concepts. That was especially confusing to me as a child. I figured out santa didn't exist pretty quick also. I was very mad for being misled. This is one of my most vivid childhood memories.. confronting my mother about that.

Outside the philosophical points that can really go any way you feel (since the root of believing them is the concept that they are not seen or experienced in any way by mortal humans, that the mode of existence is completely beyond the perceptive tools we physically posses), I just can't take any of the other beliefs and practices of religion seriously. Here's why: it's not how I would live after a shift to belief in the permanent soul. My definition of morality remains the same. The idea that one should believe these things through faith in unseen entities, and have love for this conceptualization of a soul parent being and look forward to the related afterlife is odd to me.

I feel it is dangerous when morality is being defined by something other than a person's own critical thought. It scares me to see the religious impositions on sexuality under the banner of morality.

When I try to explain why faith never helped me, I calmly explain that the ideas of soul and soul parent just confused me as a kid, that I prayed like I was supposed to and never felt anything. I explain that I don't believe auto-sexuality or homosexuality is wrong, and that both are natural tendencies that would be unhealthy to suppress. In response they tell me it is god's plan, he made men and women to love each other only, and get married to create families. They can never quite properly explain the reason auto-sexuality is immoral, the best they can come up with is that they feel it is mistreating the body that god gave you, similar to walking on nice carpet with mud all over your shoes.

It took me all of childhood and adolescence to "notice" that I was being swept along by the suggestions of others and that I had no real good reason to trust any of their beliefs. I felt it was unethical to give birth to a child and then impose the expectation on them to believe and think exactly as you do. When I raise a child my goal will be to let them choose what they would like to believe when it comes to these intensely philosophical concepts about existence. I want them to feel they have permission to be whatever they want to be. I never felt that I was given that when raised in the expectation of the religion, being taken to church every sunday and asked to commit to god at age 8.

I felt like I had been brainwashed by the time I got older. I was bullied all my life by these people, peddling their lies alongside some mildly acceptable concepts of charitable morality. By the time I was 19 they expected me to grow up and become a peddler too, to go out to some remote part of the world on a mission.

Due to my suggestibility, I think I just didn't know how to resist it during childhood and adolescence. I do recall vehement protest as a smaller child. What I'd do is avoid getting up and getting ready to go to church. I have memories of being forced out of my pajamas and into "church clothes" in the car parked in the church parking lot.

As an adolescent I did the only thing that made sense to me- thinking. I would always engage my church teachers with questions they couldn't really answer. I always did what I felt was right and to satisfy the authority of the church entities I simply concealed my behavior with deception. They were of course very interested in the behavior of the adolescent members. You were forced to attend interviews with the head leader of your city's church group, in which you had to certify your worthiness to participate in the various rituals and to receive the various divine powers to be given to you at certain age milestones. It was very easy to simply tell them you hadn't done anything unchaste. Once I was nearly an adult, I noticed that I didn't have to respect their authority anymore and I could finally emancipate myself from the entire system. Ever since then I've been moving along a path of free-thinking, and have arrived at the label of post-theist for a variety of reasons, the primary one being simple logic.

 

[142857]

Originally, the purpose for this thread was to find myself a new belief system as I was getting more and more skeptical about religion.

Hi Calvert,

Off to a good start. I hope that nobody comes in and hijacks the thread, and I will also attempt not to do so. If I get carried away and start rambling on then please pull me up.

Just two brief points to start with - it is morning mid-morning here and the deep stuff usually flows best late at night.
#1: you don't choose your beliefs, your beliefs choose you. I never ever got how some people could simply expect me to make a conscious choice to believe something. If you want someone to truly believe something then you need to convince them that it is true, not merely shove the idea down their throat, or threaten them with eternal damnation or whatever. Hopefully we are all grown up enough that we don't feel the need to convert Calvert to our way of thinking, but rather give him food for thought and let things take their natural course.
#2: Eon - absolutely brilliant post. I'll not even try to match that.

 

[hjasshj]

My grandmother is very Christian, she praises God on a daily basis, I don't do that, I only go to church once or twice every year, but I believe that Jesus Christ DID EXIST, same goes for God, like my stephfather siad; "There's so many events through the ages which have proven that some supernatural force sexists somewhere".

And by the way, if life evolved, it began in the ocean, but here's the question; Why are humans (besides small dogs) the ONLY beings who doesn't reject clothes?

And if humans are animals, how come humans don't take off their cloths at once, since it lies in animal anture to take off your clothes?

This is also a good argument; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cFD6NHbMH8

 

[Firnafth]

I am in a religious state fairly similar to Calvert's, so I look forward to the development of this thread.

I was raised in a very traditional, Roman Catholic family. I did not fight it: as a rather authoritarian and slow-to-change person, I accepted what my parents told me and did my best to follow along with it.

My first step away from this was when I became romantically interested in a Jewish guy who didn't like Catholics (although he apparently tolerated me). I never tried to convert him, but I decided quickly not to question his religious views so that he wouldn't get irritated with me. Thus, unlike some Christians, I decided that I did not want to convert other people.

Then, thorough some experiences I will not expound upon, I decided that praying to God did no good, and that the occasional good feeling I got from it was self-generated (I don't think, all other things considered, that I am a very spiritual person, unlike some of my family members).

The finishing blow was the religion class I took in college. It was a good class, but in this class I learned about other religions and also about how religions have some types of rituals in common. Of course, this made me wonder about the truthfulness of my (or anyone's) religion.

In addition, I became disenchanted with the Catholic group at my school because the priest there basically told us we were bad Catholics (and people) if we did not get involved in social justice work. To my everlasting guilt, I have little interest in social justice (if I decided to support a cause, it would probably be wildlife conservation, but I am just not an activist at heart). I felt like I was being told that my job of choice - scientist - was worthless.

That religion class, combined with the evidence-requiring attitude of scientists, destroyed most of what remnants of my faith had been left.

Unfortunately, I am really stuck because if my mom found out that I am questioning Roman Catholicism, she would be devastated, and I don't want to do that to her. I continue to go to church and pray a little so that I can tell her that I do so (and I wonder if I would have the guts to stop going to church anyway. I'd probably be so worried it was wrong I couldn't do it).

I am fascinated by morality, which to me encompasses religion because if there is a God who should be worshiped, it is right to worship God. Unfortunately there is no evidence for any sort of god (tales of past deeds and miracles can honestly be seen as mythical). People pray to God but I do not think that does any good either - some people pray and still have absolutely horrible things happen to them, did God ignore them? If God exists, I think he must be a whole lot more detached than suggested in the Bible.

I agree with 142857 in that it is impossible to force a skeptical person to believe something - I half wish I could just agree with Catholicism and move on, but I know it doesn't work that way.

eon, I think people had beliefs like those about sexuality for some reason, but whether those reasons are still valid is definitely up for debate. For a different example, I read somewhere that the Jewish taboo of eating pork may have come from the fact that it carried some kind of disease. We don't need to worry about this anymore, however. I am still very confused about what and why sexualities are right or wrong. The Catholic Church takes such a powerful stance on it, but the cultural pressure to be more accepting is intense, and as a result I am just confused. Finally, why is the universe coldly just? I don't know if I find the universe to be just at all.

 

[Droopy]

I just want to say that the posts so far have been rather interesting. I won't respond to every post in this thread but I will try my best to read them all.

I am in a religious state fairly similar to Calvert's, so I look forward to the development of this thread.

Good to know that this thread will possibly help others in addition to myself.

I was raised in a very traditional, Roman Catholic family. I did not fight it: as a rather authoritarian and slow-to-change person, I accepted what my parents told me and did my best to follow along with it.

I can completely relate to this. I didn't fight it either, apart from eventually slipping away from going to church because I didn't like it. I was made to go to Sunday school as a child too but eventually got out of it as I grew older.

Thus, unlike some Christians, I decided that I did not want to convert other people.

As a Christian, I never tried to convert anyone. I mainly kept my views and beliefs to myself unless someone brought the subject up. I can understand the need to spread the word and encourage others to become Christian, but I don't think anyone should be forced. Same applies to those "Angry Atheists" that I see on YouTube. None of them should be trying to force Christians to change their religious views by preaching hatred towards them. Again, this also applies to the extremist churches that you will find in America and elsewhere. I believe that in the absence of empirical evidence (either for or against) people should have a choice and whatever they decide should be respected.

Unfortunately, I am really stuck because if my mom found out that I am questioning Roman Catholicism, she would be devastated, and I don't want to do that to her. I continue to go to church and pray a little so that I can tell her that I do so (and I wonder if I would have the guts to stop going to church anyway. I'd probably be so worried it was wrong I couldn't do it).

This is also a problem for me. I respect my family a lot and wouldn't want to upset or disappoint them by stating I'm no longer religious.

Everyone: keep your thoughts and questions coming. Feel free to add to this thread.

 

[petrossa]

I've written a few thoughts about it some time ago:

Untold thinkers have written insights with varying clarity concerning the role and functionality of religion in people.
In my humble opinion all parties get stuck in ever repeating card houses of logic defending their particular conviction thereby completely ignoring the core of the matter. What is religion to more or less objective standards?

The following biological facts, simplified a lot, shed some light on the issue.

There was once a mammal. It needed a lot of little bits of operating systems in order to let all components of its body function properly. Over time they became so numerous that it needed a system to coordinate the other bits . That system became so complex that it was capable to reprogram itself in order to be able to assimilate the ever increasing flow of information. It called itself: conscience.
Objectively impossible to determine if it exists, since conscience itself determines what are the criteria defining conscience.

That conscience, in an attempt to preprogram future acts of the body, starts tell a tale to itself.
A continuous flowchart enabling it by correlating previous events and by means of extrapolation to arrive at a predefined future action.

The conscience calls that tale: reality. Again objectively impossible to determine if it exists, the conscience stipulates what is reality. The one conscience determines the tale in which a supernatural being must exist a reality, the other determines it to be unreal.

In this one can distinguish two different main categories of belief:

First. The true devout believer.
Given the biological fact that belief has a physical origin in a brain structure located somewhere in temple area one can make a good case that belief in its origin/intensity is directly related to a more or less developed structure of the brain.
Accepting this, asking for respect for a religion and it?s rituals is the same as to ask respect because someone can talk, run, eat, defecate.

Discussions involving religions, and their place in society is meaningless, the believer is forced by its brain to believe. Once could compare it with homosexuality . This also finds its origin in the structure of the brain and is therefore futile to try to impose the feeling on a heterosexual, or persuade another to become likewise.

The only difference would be, as the brain structure controlling belief has no preference over one supernatural being for another, that a believer can be made to accept another religion. Whereas a homosexual has not that many options.

Second: The social believer.

The characteristics of this believer are one of educational, peer formed belief. This form of belief is just a concept created by indoctrination and as such is not really ?felt? to be true.
This explains why people can become apogees or atheists. An option lacking in the previous category of believers.

Unfortunately there are lots of people with a less developed notion regarding the origin and nature of conscience whom take themselves very seriously. So immensely serious that it is for them unacceptable that their existence has no meaning. And then they will look for something which will give their existence the grandeur they imagine it to have .

Old books such as the bible, koran, torah come in very handy, because just like the writings of Michel the Nostredame they can be interpreted in any which way to suit whatever you want to believe.

The simple solution that we simply are procreating little primates that exist because we exist is too humiliating to them.

We logically have an anthropocentric world view. We assume ourselves to be superior because we believe we are superior. A type of extreme ?dubito, ergo cogito ergo sum?. Other animals doubt also, take decisions, deceive, tease, play, have feelings of love, hate, joy etc.

Their philosophy of life we do not understand just as little as they understand ours.
But by their standards they sure can feel superior over humans with good reason.

 

[eon]

Finally, why is the universe coldly just? I don't know if I find the universe to be just at all.

I'm not 100% sure. It seems to me that maybe it is purely the opposite of just, only in that the concept itself is flawed in a universe that requires all inhabitants (theoretically) to perish. I always used that view of the universe as the basis for cold-justice. I find myself greatly interested in the paradox of symbiotic living. It is almost always the case that living comes at the expense of the perishing of other living things. The idea isn't yet fully formed in my mind.

 

[PanPaniscus]

Both my infants and junior schools were religious and they taught us to believe in god, I went a long with it. I wasn't a devout christian or anything, I just had a casual and actually quite weak belief in god and jesus. I didn't belief the Adam and Eve story and most of the other bible stories, I was still into evolution.
When I was 10 and just about to enter my last year of junior school I started to think more deeply about it and that lead me to be an atheist. There are 2 types of atheism Weak Atheist which is lack of belief in a god and Strong Atheist which is belief that there is NO god. Full stop.
I would say that I am a strong atheist and find the idea of any sort of higher super natural power to be very far-fetched. I also find the creation story to be the silliest thing I've ever heard of. Also, evolution didn't start with Darwin, people have thought about it and noticed it long before him, there were greek philosophers who said that animals evolved from the simplest sea creatures and changed over time. But the more recent religions had slowed down a lot of scientific progress which just gave us the dark ages.
All life on earth is related, whether it be distantly or closely, everything has some matching genes and basic DNA structure. This obviously points to the fact that somewhere down the line we all share common ancestors, and those ancestors split off into groups and over loooong periods of time small genetic mutations occurred (micro evolution) until it resulted in separate species (macro evolution.) There was no oxygen when the first life forms had evolved, the very first photosynthesising microbe had produced oxygen that would aid the rest of the process. People often mistake evolution as a "ladder" with man at the very top, this is not so. It is actually a tree with many branches spouting and all the current animals on the edge of the tree are just as evolved as each other, so far a slug is just as well adapted to its environment as dog or a human is. Also it hasn't ended, it's still carrying on and will do for as long as the earth has life. Which I think is awesome, I think it's a much more beautiful thing to be a result in all that change and to be related to all living things than to be created separately by a god out of dirt. The most compelling argument I find for evolution is the behaviour and appearance of non-human primates, have you noticed how everyone loves to see a young chimp play? How the monkey and ape exhibits in zoos are the most popular? We often find that we like apes and monkeys but are also unnerved by them for the very fact that they are so similar, if that close relationship isn't proof enough that life evolved then I don't know what is. What I don't like, is how so many people make the distinction between man and animals, as if we are a separate thing, then argue whether certain animals are persons or not and it gets complicated, we are all animals at the end of the day.

 

[hjasshj]

My parents or any person 30+ and maybe under that have perfectly happy and normal lives, I think most of them has hardly viewed any of the humans and monkeys stuff on Youtube, I don't think they would be as happy if they saw that as they are now, so if Darwin's theories and researches didn't exist on the net or IRL to be more exact, I can clearly remember the day when I saw some humans=monkeys s*** on Youtube, that day changed my life for the worse, and I think it would change EVERYONE ELSE'S life for the worse too, so, as I said a while back, if Darwin's theories and research didn't exist, humanity would be happier, I don't think It's good to look down upon humans to the point that you can say; "If you're an animal, take off your clothes, since it lies in animal nature not to wear clothes."

This is what I think at least, I felt like killing myself that particular fateful day, the pain I felt was unlike any other, emotionally, it couldn't be any worse, only

 

[142857]

My thoughts on Evolution and Religion.

To set things straight before I start rambling, I am a practical atheist. I am interested in religion, in God, in spirituality, but in the absence of solid proof I accept that there are things that are know, and many things that are unknown. I cannot consciously make leaps of faith, although I'm sure that I subconsciously do from time to time without realizing it.

Before Charles Darwin and the Theory of Evolution, the existence of God was considered by most scientists to be pretty much “proven” by the then dominant theory regarding life on Earth, “Intelligent Design”.

You see, if you look at all the life forms on Earth, almost invariably they appear to be nearly perfectly designed for their environment and for their ecological niche. It was beyond the scope of reason or understanding that such could have occurred without an intelligent designer. As such, “intelligent design” was considered to a “slam dunk” when it came to proof of the existence of God.

Darwin, of course, came along and threw a very big spanner in the works. He put forward the theory of evolution, of natural selection and sexual selection, he observed a great many life forms and observed how they had diverged from related species and made adaptations to their environment. And he successfully predicted things like the discovery of fossils linking mankind to the great apes. There is an immense and growing volume of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and yet some continue to doubt its veracity.

If you really want to disbelieve the theory of evolution, you can point to the fact that fossils cannot definitively prove that one species descended from another. You can point to the fact that there has never been a single proven, observed example of a beneficial mutation in nature (how you are expected to observe a mutation as it happens is beyond me). You can even say that the theory of evolution and the supporting evidence is the work of Satan.

From what I have seen, the Christian fundamentalists cling to the idea of intelligent design and actually want it taught in schools (and they have been successful in some parts of the US). As far as I can tell Muslims are expected to believe in creationism, in Adam and Eve. Most modern Christians seem to believe in evolution to some extent, although many don’t believe that evolution can account for the diversity and wondrousness of life on Earth, and cling to the belief that God lends evolution a divine helping hand occasionally.

Best quote I ever heard on it went something like this: “In a finite system with finite resources, inhabited by life forms with an imperfect replication facility, how can there not be evolution?”. I pinched that from Gareth, founder of AFF, and I won’t claim it as my own as much as I would like to.

In my opinion the theory of “Intelligent Design” is a solid example of “God of the Gaps”. The idea that is still perpetuated by many, that anything which cannot be fully explained by science is evidence of the existence of God. If “Intelligent Design” was proof of the existence of God, then it follows that Evolution is proof of the non-existence of God. The truth is, of course, that neither position is correct.

The theory of Evolution DOES make it a lot easier to be an atheist, it does provide a means of seeing where we came from other than being created in God’s own image. But it DOES NOT prove the non-existence of God.

The bottom line is that science provides answers, religion provides meaning. In the past religion provided both answers and meaning, but I think that we have moved on from that. Humans are more inclined to look for meaning – science can maybe explain where we came from, but it cannot tell us “why” we are here (for those who need a “why”) and it cannot tell us the meaning of life (ditto).

“God of the Gaps” is flawed. Gaps in human knowledge do NOT prove the existence of God.

 

[142857]

That system became so complex that it was capable to reprogram itself in order to be able to assimilate the ever increasing flow of information. It called itself: conscience.

I am NOT the spelling police, I HATE spelling police.

But in this case, you say "conscience" when you mean "consciousness". Two very different concepts, and it would be confusing to anyone who didn't immediately grasp what you are talking about.

Great post by the way. I think you have jumped a few steps ahead in the discussion.

I am in no position to criticize someone's use of English when it is their 2nd language, as I have never managed to pick up even one 2nd language to even an adequate extent. Despite spending 8+ years of my life living and working non-English speaking countries.

 

[142857]

...evolution didn't start with Darwin, people have thought about it and noticed it long before him, there were greek philosophers who said that animals evolved from the simplest sea creatures and changed over time. But the more recent religions had slowed down a lot of scientific progress which just gave us the dark ages...

I agree totally. But wasn't Darwin the first to effectively show that it was "natural selection" and "sexual selection" that account for the diversity of life on Earth, rather than what many thought (and many who misunderstand the theory still believe) which was that evolution was the result of adaptations made over a lifetime and then passed to offspring, rather than mutation and selection of handy traits?

 

[Droopy]

Interesting posts everyone. Thanks to all who kept their posts constructive and informative.

Some questions to expand this thread:

With regards to the evolution theory, does that theory have an ending? In other words is there an afterlife or ultimate goal to reach?
In regards to Atheism, how do Atheists do things such as weddings and funerals, considering they lack belief?
Finally, with regards to Catholicism, how does everyone view the recent scandal(s)?

Remember to keep your responses constructive and no trolling or personal attacks.

 

[142857]

Interesting posts everyone. Thanks to all who kept their posts constructive and informative.

Some questions to expand this thread:

(1) With regards to the evolution theory, does that theory have an ending? In other words is there an afterlife or ultimate goal to reach?
(2) In regards to Atheism, how do Atheists do things such as weddings and funerals, considering they lack belief?
(3) Finally, with regards to Catholicism, how does everyone view the recent scandal(s)?

Remember to keep your responses constructive and no trolling or personal attacks.

(1) No. If the theory of evolution gave us an answer to the meaning of life it would be a religion rather than a scientific theory.

(2) I regard them as rituals that give comfort to some. There are examples of rabbis who are openly atheist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwin_Wine . So obviously some see value in the rituals and values and traditions associated with religion, without necessarily believing in a supreme being.

(3) I went to a Catholic boys' school that was full of scumbag priests and brothers who were not perhaps behaving as they should. Not long after I left 6 of the brothers were charged over inappropriate sexual conduct with boys. One of the brothers was on the front page of the newspaper a few years later, he killed himself on the day he was due to appear in court on charges of getting some boys drunk and sexually assaulting them. I was fortunate in not being particularly "cute", I was left alone. A funny outfit with a funny collar does not make you a paragon of moral virtue, apparently. The Catholic Church heirarchy that turned a blind eye and even propagated this behaviour through there policies should also rot in hell (if I believed in such a place).

 

[PanPaniscus]

With regards to the evolution theory, does that theory have an ending? In other words is there an afterlife or ultimate goal to reach?
Nah, all life is pretty much finite and will come and go, they won't go on forever. Also evolution won't end until the sun becomes a red giant and too hot and close to the earth to support life. In terms of ultimate goal, the purpose/goal in life is to carry it on, which is what natural selection is all about really.
In regards to Atheism, how do Atheists do things such as weddings and funerals, considering they lack belief?
I like weddings, but I don't want to be married when I'm older, just live with someone. Of course, there are secular weddings and funerals, so in a secualr funeral there will be no mention of religion or "ashes to ashes dust to dust" verses, someone will just talk about the person's life and their memories of them.
Finally, with regards to Catholicism, how does everyone view the recent scandal(s)?
Well, all I can say is that catholics are kind of ruining it for themselves. Their reputation has gotten eve worse than usual recently because of careless members of the church ****ing it up for the rest of them.

 

[142857]

I stopped believing in God not all that long after I stopped believing in Santa Claus. I was raised a Catholic and went to Catholic schools, maybe that had something to do with it.

I actually went for years thorougly convinced that no sensible person could possibly believe in God, that all adults were just pretending to believe in God, that deep down they all new that it was a sham. It did occur to me how strange it was that priests led a life of celibacy and service to God, when they can't possibly believe in the stuff they get up and pray/preach about every week.

And, of course, I played along just as I thought everyone else was doing. Saying that I believed in God, never expressing doubt.

It wasn't until I was in my late teens that it actually clicked that most people really did believe. Then I went through a period where I thought a lot about God and His true nature, as if I could "think" a way to the truth. I never got anything out of praying and the Bible always seemed like a bunch of primitive stories that contradicted each other and didn't make a lot of sense in the light of modern science. So I never really believed in "God the person", but I did for a while waver between atheism and believing that there had to be "something" out there to explain the unexplainable.

I was 27 years old when my mother died and I remember going outside and looking up at the sky and just feeling a deep sense of complete nothingness out there. I have been a "practical atheist" ever since. And the funny thing is that, since then, I have had a stronger interest in religion and spirituality than ever, it is somehow more interesting coming from a position of disbelief.

 

[Firnafth]

I agree with previous responses about evolution.

I don't know how atheists view rituals, although I think that rituals in themselves are somehow comforting to people. Maybe even some atheists want to give more meaning to things by enacting them in rituals.

Scandals in the Catholic Church: I've thought for a long time, even when I was more expressly Catholic, that being Catholic doesn't mean you are a good person. There are Catholics who are bad people, and there are non-Catholics who are good people. Even as a Catholic, it's ludicrous to think otherwise, because some people don't know about Catholicism and are still good people, and some people were raised differently and are still good people. Are these people automatically going to Hell? No way! Also, as we can see, some Catholics are bad people, because even if all Catholic rules are right, obviously some who had been taught them did not take them to heart.

Come to think of it, though, this train of thought probably had something to do with where I am now. Once you start thinking that your religion doesn't have any special ability to make people good, the purpose of it seems much reduced. At least to me.

 

[Firnafth]

Here's a question about afterlife.

About the Afterlife - does anybody else find the concept scary? Sometimes I imagine that I die but I am still conscious, and I will go on
and on
and on
and on
and it never ends, ever - it just really scares me! The human mind is not made to understand infinite things.

I can't decide whether I am more comforted by the idea of just ending at death, or of persisting indefinitely. Both are scary when I think about them.

 

[142857]

^I tend to agree, after a million years just about anything would start to get a bit boring. After a billion, or a trillion....

I remember as a kid, discussing with other kids what we would like to do after we die. Heaven seemed like such a boring, grown up place We all pretty much decided that after we died we would ask God to let us come back again... as kids... but with unlimited freedom to do things like eat ice cream whenever we wanted to.

One thing to consider is this. If heaven exists, is it part of our universe? Does it have 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time? Is time even relevant to God, or to those who are in heaven?