Why I'm not a Christian anymore. What about you?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]I'm not saying that knowledge and experience play no role in our decisions... I have no idea where the hell you got that from. :| And even if they do have the same general structure brains differ. Physically, the differences between them can account for different decision making between different people. Yes, you weigh your decision and study various outcomes. And then you make a decision. This is irrelevant; what matters is whether it is possible that you could weigh your decision, study possible outcomes, and then choose a different option... something which you have no way of proving.Funky_Llama

I thought we called that memory.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

Did you even read my examples? How could any of those things happen if it's emotions that control the brain and not the brain that controls emotions? Are you trying to tell me that those brain parasities are psychic? Do you wish to suggest that psychotropic drugs work via magic? And just what exactly is your explanation for Phineas Gage's personality change that occured immediately after his orbitofrontal cortex was obliterated by a railroad spike being shot through his skull? Also, why do people with destroyed amygdalas not show fear? I'd say that's an open-and-shut case of the brain causing emotion and not the other way around.

AirGuitarist87

You mean just psychosomatic illnesses in general? Those are caused when people misinterprut their sensory input leading them to believe that something is wrong with them when in reality there's nothing wrong at all.

As for the placebo effect, there has been some neurobiological research on that. I'm not familiar with any of it, but there is research out there if you care to read up on it. Here's an article that looks like a decent start:

Welcome back to atheism! ;)bean-with-bacon

I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in God. Also, even if I did believe in God, I would not worship him, for a reason so brilliantly stated by Epicurus:

bangell99

I was never a Christian and I'm still not.

well I'm not a christian because I decided that I needed to find the right religion for me if there is one. Not al religions are bad and your should study them and their teachings before choosing the right one for you, if there is one. Also you should think fo the teachings of those religions apart from the actions of the followers since the religion is not the religouse but separate from them. All people should experiment and read the tachings of places that interest you if not all of them the main books ofcourse. Making a generalized decision on all religions before even getting to know about them and their teachings and just going off of what their "followers" do is wrong. study them for yourself and make you right choice for you even if that means there isn't one. Good luck everyone in their search for something for them.

I am also agnostic because I have not researched enough on my own yet to make my choice knowledgeably.

Just becuz someone doesnt believe in god doesnt mean they are atheist, it just means excatly that, they dont believe in god.RTUUMM

[QUOTE="RTUUMM"] Just becuz someone doesnt believe in god doesnt mean they are atheist, it just means excatly that, they dont believe in god.foxhound_fox

Well, the OED defines it as the belief that there is no God, so definitions vary.Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="the_foreign_guy"]Science can't explain emotions and why people fall in love.AirGuitarist87

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]For the record....science does not answer this question. It merely says a chemical reaction occurs. This should not actually surprise anyone. But that is far from proving conclusively that the reaction causes the emotion.

If you cannot divine that you make choices then that is that. I can.

LJS9502_basic

The choice is not inevitable because I weighed my decision and studied various outcomes. I'm not a mindless drone. Period.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"] Chinese woman with only the right hemisphere along with a French man with a brain 1/4 the normal size.AirGuitarist87

Yeah, the french man they're talking about was borderline retarded and, from what I remember from reading another article about him, he was unable to completely care for himself (the whole reason he had an MRI was because his behavior had suggested brain damage).

Finally, you missed this part:

"It seems that the brain's plasticity adapted to some damage."

This isn't unheard of. It's expected actually. It's why people can recover from strokes and other brain damage. A lot of the brain is redundant and as a result other areas of the brain can pick up the slack left by a destroyed area. In adults there are usually still some negative effects left over, but children tend to recover very well. The chinese woman was likely born with that brain damage so her brain was able to adapt completely (assuming that the story isn't exaggeratting when it says she's "normal").

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]Welcome back to atheism! ;)RTUUMM

Agnostic here. I come from a protestant background but my parents weren't especially religious, I mean we didn't go to church or anything growing up, so I was free to explore the ideas of religion on my own. Ironically enough now that I've established my beliefs, I went to a Catholic college andall of my religious friends love to question me on my beliefs.

I don't buy that following Jesus makes you happy... Jesus promised persecution to his followers- not happiness...

there was a time when I attempted to really follow Christianity- and altho I was happy sometiems, I don't think I was really any happier than I am now.

Scoob64

Jesus said they would be persecuted, yes - but then told them to "rejoice and be glad" (Matthew 5:12). If someone truly approaches his fellow man with love, then he will not be daunted by self-interested people who have not yet seen the love of God, and thus who reject Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, mercy, and generosity.

I'm not speaking of following Christianity - by which I mean all the rites and rituals that humans have cooked up around it - but rather of following Jesus, in taking his words and examples to heart and truly striving to live them as best as one can. That, at least from my personal experience, is what I believe will bring someone happiness, provided they truly do believe in his message in their heart.

[QUOTE="bangell99"]

I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in God. Also, even if I did believe in God, I would not worship him, for a reason so brilliantly stated by Epicurus:

Wozmcfc

Only if someone has not studied philosophy and the myriad counterpoints to that argument. :P No offense, but I always get a little annoyed when people repeat that argument as if it were a groundbreaking idea that no one had ever come up with before.

I was raised a Christian and was tought it's beliefs all my life. I finally left it when I knew that I couldn't trust one religion out of countless others. Most Christians focus too much on the eternal punishment by always mentioning god's wrath in hell and saying all non-believers will be going there. In fact I don't believe in hell (It's actually called Hades or Sheol) because I don't see a god of love doing such a thing to his creation.

The Quran says that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are the 3 religions that received revelation and are as you say "right". It also says that this doesn't mean all other religons are dammed. We don't know who's going to hell or not and just because your Hindu for example doesn't mean your dammed to hell.

I was raised a Christian and was tought it's beliefs all my life. I finally left it when I knew that I couldn't trust one religion out of countless others. Most Christians focus too much on the eternal punishment by always mentioning god's wrath in hell and saying all non-believers will be going there. In fact I don't believe in hell (It's actually called Hades or Sheol) because I don't see a god of love doing such a thing to his creation.

dog64

You don't have to believe in eternal damnation in hell in order to be a Christian - in fact, most early Christians didn't. ;)

[QUOTE="dog64"]

I was raised a Christian and was tought it's beliefs all my life. I finally left it when I knew that I couldn't trust one religion out of countless others. Most Christians focus too much on the eternal punishment by always mentioning god's wrath in hell and saying all non-believers will be going there. In fact I don't believe in hell (It's actually called Hades or Sheol) because I don't see a god of love doing such a thing to his creation.

GabuEx

You don't have to believe in eternal damnation in hell in order to be a Christian - in fact, most early Christians didn't. ;)

I think it's safe to say that 90% of todays Christians do, since the term hell is used in many Bible translations. What I'm really wondering is if that's the accurate term to use.

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

Genetic_Code

I don't believe it was meant to be taken 100% literally. There are many examples of Jesus using illustrations and metaphors. For example, the Bible talks about god having eyes, hands, and feet, but god is a spirit so he obviously has no such things.

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

Genetic_Code

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="dog64"]

I was raised a Christian and was tought it's beliefs all my life. I finally left it when I knew that I couldn't trust one religion out of countless others. Most Christians focus too much on the eternal punishment by always mentioning god's wrath in hell and saying all non-believers will be going there. In fact I don't believe in hell (It's actually called Hades or Sheol) because I don't see a god of love doing such a thing to his creation.

dog64

You don't have to believe in eternal damnation in hell in order to be a Christian - in fact, most early Christians didn't. ;)

I think it's safe to say that 90% of todays Christians do, since the term hell is used in many Bible translations. What I'm really wondering is if that's the accurate term to use.

Well, what matters is not really the English word used, but rather what is meant by the word. If one studies history, one will find that, like I said, the vast majority of the earliest Christians did not believe in hell in the form of something akin to an eternal torture chamber. It wasn't until the Roman government and the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of eternal damnation as their official doctrine and declared all other opposing doctrines heresy that that doctrine became mainstream. From there, it was a simple matter of using that doctrine as a weapon against their political and religious opponents - "Don't oppose us, because that's opposing God, and you'll be punished eternally if you do that!" The officially sanctioned Latin translatrion of the Church - the Vulgate - was the first translation in which the phrase "eternal punishment" appeared in plain text.

And that is, in a nutshell, why so many Christians today believe in eternal damnation - eventually, the records of what transpired waaaay back were lost, and no one really questioned the translations of the Bible that included the phrase "eternal punishment".

Why must one take the Bible literally to qualify as a true Christian?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

foxhound_fox

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

Genetic_Code

Because anyone can take the Bible figuratively, even non-Christians.Genetic_Code

A Christian, to me, is really nothing more than one who trusts in and follows Jesus. If you want to put up arbitrary restrictions in what one must do before you will consider that person a Christian, you can go right ahead, but all that will really do is make communication difficult. :P

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

I don't know of any true Christians, because no one I'm aware of follows and believes the Bible 100% literally. Not even the so called fundamentalists.

LJS9502_basic

You know every religion says that they are the right ones

If you dont follow your religion literally than you dont really believe it to be "the absolute truth" thus you arent a true follower of the religion, depends on your definition of a true follower. If you dont personally agree to some things in scriptures then to be a true follower as it says in the scriptures itself, you have to "submit to whatever God wills".Bluff_Master_2

You know every religion says that they are the right ones

Lief_Ericson

If you dont follow your religion literally than you dont really believe it to be "the absolute truth" thus you arent a true follower of the religion, depends on your definition of a true follower. If you dont personally agree to some things in scriptures then to be a true follower as it says in the scriptures itself, you have to "submit to whatever God wills".Bluff_Master_2

Jesus used parables in his lessons again and again. For example, there's the story of the lost son, and the father who welcomed him back after he squandered all of his wealth (Luke 15:11-32). One does not accuse Jesus of lying if one does not believe that this son and father actually existed in reality, for the simple fact that the reason for telling the story was to illustrate a key point that those listening needed to understand, not to instruct those listening in something that actually happened in reality.

It's not intended to be 100% literal....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

It's not intended to be 100% literal....

Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why must one take the Bible literally to qualify as a true Christian?Genetic_Code

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why must one take the Bible literally to qualify as a true Christian?Funky_Llama

*shrugs* Perhaps to be a true Christian you have to believe certain parts of it literally (God existing I'd take as rather important, for a start >_>).Funky_Llama

To be perfectly honest, I have better things to do than to worry about whether or not I'm a "true Christian". :P

Well, what matters is not really the English word used, but rather what is meant by the word. If one studies history, one will find that, like I said, the vast majority of the earliest Christians did not believe in hell in the form of something akin to an eternal torture chamber. It wasn't until the Roman government and the Roman Catholic Church adopted the doctrine of eternal damnation as their official doctrine and declared all other opposing doctrines heresy that that doctrine became mainstream. From there, it was a simple matter of using that doctrine as a weapon against their political and religious opponents - "Don't oppose us, because that's opposing God, and you'll be punished eternally if you do that!" The officially sanctioned Latin translatrion of the Church - the Vulgate - was the first translation in which the phrase "eternal punishment" appeared in plain text.

And that is, in a nutshell, why so many Christians today believe in eternal damnation - eventually, the records of what transpired waaaay back were lost, and no one really questioned the translations of the Bible that included the phrase "eternal punishment".

GabuEx

So, most translations of Bibles today are in error?

What's also interesting is many Christians have a different look of hell. Some say it's where all non-believers go, others say it's only a place for Satan and his demons, and others say only people who do evil go to hell (even if you're not Christian, you're saved as long as you commit no serious crimes). Is it possible that hell exists? Well, sure, as they say anything is possible and the book of Revelation seems to fit the bill. But I really don't believe it, for reasons mentioned.

If you dont follow your religion literally than you dont really believe it to be "the absolute truth" thus you arent a true follower of the religion, depends on your definition of a true follower. If you dont personally agree to some things in scriptures then to be a true follower as it says in the scriptures itself, you have to "submit to whatever God wills".Bluff_Master_2

So, most translations of Bibles today are in error?

dog64

Yes, although a notable exception that is not in error in that respect is Young's Literal Translation, a translation that was first published in 1862 and whose purpose was to be as literal a translation as possible.

What's also interesting is many Christians have a different look of hell. Some say it's where all non-believers go, others say it's only a place for Satan and his demons, and others say only people who do evil go to hell (even if you're not Christian, you're saved as long as you commit no serious crimes). Is it possible that hell exists? Well, sure, as they say anything is possible and the book of Revelation seems to fit the bill. But I really don't believe it, for reasons mentioned.

dog64

Well, I think that the Bible is pretty clear that some place described as a lake of burning sulfur exists, but I also think there is ample evidence that it is a place where souls go to be purified who did not come to appreciate the beauty of Jesus' teachings before they died, not a place where souls go to be tortured eternally.

[QUOTE="Bluff_Master_2"]If you dont follow your religion literally than you dont really believe it to be "the absolute truth" thus you arent a true follower of the religion, depends on your definition of a true follower. If you dont personally agree to some things in scriptures then to be a true follower as it says in the scriptures itself, you have to "submit to whatever God wills".foxhound_fox

Are you saying that an omniscient God couldnt write a book 2000 years ago that couldnt be falsified in "any" way ever?:? There's only one conclusion that an omniscient God did not write the bible and well that pretty much destroys it's credibility as far as containing "the truth" is concerned.Bluff_Master_2

[QUOTE="Bluff_Master_2"]If you dont follow your religion literally than you dont really believe it to be "the absolute truth" thus you arent a true follower of the religion, depends on your definition of a true follower. If you dont personally agree to some things in scriptures then to be a true follower as it says in the scriptures itself, you have to "submit to whatever God wills".GabuEx

Jesus used parables in his lessons again and again. For example, there's the story of the lost son, and the father who welcomed him back after he squandered all of his wealth (Luke 15:11-32). One does not accuse Jesus of lying if one does not believe that this son and father actually existed in reality, for the simple fact that the reason for telling the story was to illustrate a key point that those listening needed to understand, not to instruct those listening in something that actually happened in reality.

Well, I think that the Bible is pretty clear that some place described as a lake of burning sulfur exists, but I also think there is ample evidence that it is a place where souls go to be purified who did not come to appreciate the beauty of Jesus' teachings before they died, not a place where souls go to be tortured eternally.GabuEx

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why must one take the Bible literally to qualify as a true Christian?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="dog64"]

So, most translations of Bibles today are in error?

GabuEx

Yes, although a notable exception that is not in error in that respect is Young's Literal Translation, a translation that was first published in 1862 and whose purpose was to be as literal a translation as possible.

But if that area of most Bibles is in error, then how can you put faith in any other parts of the Bible, and what parts to take literally or and those that are not? The Bible is supposed to be the flawless word of god, but it sure doesn't seem to be flawless.