Register

I Don't Believe In God

Jesus Is Not God, But I Still Love My Boyfriend.

By: OreoMath
Written on June 24th, 2012
By: OreoMath
Age: 18-21 , Male
287 people have read this story

Your Response

By clicking "Post", you confirm that you agree to the Terms of Service of Experience Project, Inc.
29 responses
  • maxximiliann

    I agree. We all "should have good reasons to believe in strange things." For instance, per the atheistic worldview, the universe came from nothing, by nothing for nothing. You don't really believe everything just "poofed" into existence now, do you?

    Jan 31
    1 like
    • maxximiliann

      God didn't wave anything into existence. Over the course of an unimaginably long period of time, God used His energy to create all matter and energy within and without the universe.

      Now, the simple reason why the universe couldn't have just "poofed" into existence is because, were that even possible, why isn't everything and anything "poofing" into existence ex nihilo sine causa? Why aren't dinosaurs, for instance, popping out of thin air, devouring everyone in sight? Why aren't we afraid of elephants suddenly popping into existence in the sky and crushing us as we walked down the street? If nothing can in fact produce something why would it discriminate? In the end, such an argument is nothing more than special pleading.

      Since something can't come from nothing, then the natural questions that follow are, “Where did the universe come from 13.70 billion years ago?” and “What caused it to come into existence in the first place?” Whatever this cause is, it must possess certain necessary properties in order for it to be the cause of the physical space-time universe.

      Therefore

      (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
      (2) The space-time universe began to exist 13.70 billion years ago.
      (3) Therefore, the space-time universe has a cause.

      (4) The cause of the universe is a transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being.
      (5) A transcendent, beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent good personal being is the definition of God.
      (6) Therefore, God caused the universe to exist 13.70 billion years ago.


      Now, let’s take a closer look at this. First and foremost, this cause must itself be uncaused. Why? Because an infinite regress of causes is impossible; it can’t be turtles all the way down. (Lookup “Hilbert's Grand Hotel” if you're interested in a more in-depth analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2W2vduP22Q)

      Second, this uncaused cause must transcend space-time because it itself created space-time. It is therefore, spaceless.

      Third, since this uncaused cause exists beyond space and time it is must be a non-physical or immaterial cause. Why? Because physical things exist only in space – they have dimensions.

      Fourth, this uncaused cause must necessarily also be timeless for the simple fact that it itself doesn't exist in space-time.

      Fifth, it must also be changeless. As I'm sure you're well aware, all matter exists in a state of constant flux. This is especially apparent at the atomic level. Since this uncaused cause is immaterial it is not subject to the same forces that affect matter, therefore, it is unchanging.

      Sixth, this uncaused cause is obviously unimaginably powerful, if not omnipotent, for it brought matter, energy, space and time into existence completely on its own.

      So, to sum up, whatever it is that caused the universe to come into existence 13.70 billion years ago it must be beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging and omnipotent.

      But we're not done for there are two more properties of this uncaused cause that we can deduce from what we know of the universe. For this we have to take a closer look at cause and effect. Here's what I mean: if a cause is sufficient to produce it's effect then the effect must also be present. The two are joined at the hip, so to speak. You can't have one without the other.

      Let me borrow from an illustration to make this clearer. “Suppose that the cause of water’s freezing is the temperature’s being below 0°C. If the temperature were below 0°C from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. Once the cause is given, the effect must be given as well.” (http://bit.ly/WQtgZY)

      The issue is, if we have in fact a timeless, transcendent cause why isn't the effect permanent as well? In other words, if this timeless, transcendent cause actually caused the universe, why hasn't the universe always been around? How can a cause be eternal but its effect commence a finite time ago? We know the universe is about 13.70 billion years old but we've also deduced that whatever caused the universe must be transcendent and timeless.

      The only way this is possible is if this timeless, transcendent, uncaused cause were also a free agent – a being with free will who can act of its own volition. As we all know, free will is the hallmark of personhood.

      Last but not least, this beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent being must also be unimaginably good. Why? Suppose we concede for the sake of argument that he’s evil. Since this being is evil, that implies he fails to discharge his moral obligations. But where do those come from? How can this evil being have duties to perform which he is violating? Who forbids him to do the wrong things that he does? Immediately, we see that such an evil being cannot be supreme: there must be a being who is even higher than this evil being and is the source of the moral obligations which he chooses to shirk, a being which is absolute goodness himself. As such, there must necessarily exist a supreme being who is all powerful, all good and all loving; One who is the very paradigm of good.

      So here we arrive at this uncaused cause of the universe 13.70 billion years ago that is beginningless, spaceless, immaterial, timeless, unchanging, omnipotent and personal being who is all good and all loving.

      This is the very definition - of God :)

      Feb 1
      1 like
    • maxximiliann

      You are welcome to prove otherwise, provided, of course, you permit me to critically assay your reasoning. What's your case God is not all-good and all-loving?

      Feb 1
      1 like
  • runningliberal

    Your boyfriend might be interested in the story I wrote about what the Bible says about homosexuality. It really isn't as clear as many homophobes would have you believe.



    In the meantime, quit trying to convert your boyfriend. Don't you find it annoying when him and his mom try to convert you? Not everything has to have a good reason to it. If that were the case, humans wouldn't act nearly as strangely as they do. I agree with Nephari that you want this relationship to last, you have to agree to disagree with him, and further, to even make it something that you avoid discussing. Even though I feel differently about firearms and guns (being raised with them my whole life) than my gf does, we do our best to avoid talking about it, and generally, we don't. It isn't a big deal. And as long as whatever philosophy one chooses to try to life by involves trying to help others and make the world a better place, that's pretty much how I feel about that as well.

    Aug 29, 2012
    1 like
    • OreoMath

      I agree not everyone has to have a good reason for believing what they believe. But anyone who want to have an accurate picture of what is real cannot avoid the need to have good reasons backing up what he/she believes.


      My boyfriend and I both agreed that we want to find out what is True. Knowing this, then, yes, he needs to have good reasons for what he believes, there is no way around it. As the metaphor goes: The map is not the territory, but if you want the map to reflect the territory, you need to walk the territory and not draw lines where you have never been. Maybe this explains my frustration? My boyfriend is one of the smartests persons I know; he has very reasonable opinions about what he knows and he doesn't speculate or pretend to know about things he is not familiar with. And we both have teamed up to find the Truths about the universe and life. However, when it comes to religion, he compartmentalizes and all of a sudden his mind turns strange and irrational and he forgets that we are trying to get at what is True, not at what *want to be True.*

      Aug 29, 2012
      1 like
    • runningliberal

      I think the most rational thing insofar as religion is to let people believe whatever makes them feel good about themselves, as that is the purpose of religion more or less. Not all people are capable of handling the truth, and in fact, I don't think you've found it yet either.

      Aug 29, 2012
      1 like
  • SpeckledBilagaana

    I find it very curious that Zenny123 chastises you for imposing your views upon others, when that is *exactly* what s/he's doing!



    "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

    Aug 11, 2012
    2 likes
  • Zenny123

    Ok... hum.. You have a lot of opinions. That is great and I support your right to have all the opinions that you want to have, except when it requires something of someone else. You do not have the right to place expectations on others. The statement that bothered me that you made was “he refuses to admit that we should have good reasons to believe in strange things”. A word from the wise, the moment you use the word ‘should” you are heading down the wrong path. We don’t need to have good reasons to believe anything especially if it suits our needs at a given time. You don’t get to control how he or anyone else thinks and maybe you need to figure out a way to let that go and deal with your own frustration rather than change or challenge him.



    Religion is a person thing and none needs to provide explanations for their view to anyone. You said he never tries to impose his views on your, but you are trying to impose a view on him, not a religious view, but a view on believe.

    Aug 9, 2012
    1 like
    • OreoMath

      "We don’t need to have good reasons to believe anything especially if it suits our needs at a given time. You don’t get to control how he or anyone else thinks and maybe you need to figure out a way to let that go and deal with your own frustration rather than change or challenge him." This is good advise. Thanks!

      Aug 9, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      I guess I should explain a little more about why I think that we should have good reasons to believe in what we believe. If someone hands you a bottle full of some liquid, you would like to know what is inside before drinking it. If you believe that it is healthy juice but have no good reason to believe so (say, there is no label and the person who handed it to you is suspect) then you might get in trouble.

      I think it is the same with everything else. It is best if your beliefs correspond with reality. I see that you do have a point when you say "We don’t need to have good reasons to believe anything especially if it suits our needs at a given time" but I am a little skeptical. I think that as a general rule it is best for everyone in the long run if we base our actions on justified beliefs because only then they will have a significant long term and benefit for humanity. While believing in this or that might make you feel good, it is still risky, just as with an unlabeled bottle, to believe things on insufficient evidence.

      That said, I am probably a hard core rationalist, and not everyone is like me... I think that being rational is part of a person's flourishing, and wishful thinking is just developmental. I know it sounds horrible when you think that that almost everyone believes in superstitions and or religions... but I think a good case can be made for the claim that having the habit of justifying your beliefs and ideas will allow you to do more effective and real things all throughout your life.

      Aug 9, 2012
      1 like
    • Zenny123

      But that is YOUR belief system, it does not need to be everyone elses. Maybe you need to explore why that is so important to you. maybe this man is not who you wish him to me. This is not drinking an unknown liquid. It is about his choice to believe what he wishes about religion. You are imposing your view on him, and you are being reather judgemental of his beliefs.

      There is a huge body of work about about beliefs that I can not go into here. There is one article titled "pretending as a way of getting through the day". There is so much work that looks at human thought in this way. Humans are not always rational.

      Aug 9, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      Thanks for the reference!

      What do you mean by belief system? I think that there are rational opinions in matters of metaphysics, philosophy and religion. For one, it is an established fact that no religion has put forward quality evidence to support their wild claims. This is not my opinion, but a well grounded notion that will be true throughout the ages for the millions of years ahead.

      What is my opinion and "belief system" is that I think it would the desirable that people become more rational.

      I agree that most people are not rational and they don't need to... at least is not hurting them all that much, and I can see it can help them in difficult times.

      I am, however, inevitably drawn to the search for Truth. My boyfriend and I have agreed to disagree... his mom keeps sending me Christian books because she really thinks it is important that I believe in Jesus and all that. And I think it is important that we are rational. Now, I am not judgmental in the sense that I think it is wrong to believe in such things, but I think it is irrational. What can I do? Pretend it makes sense? If a person tells you need to praise a cracker or you are damned for ever and ever, well, it is rational to dispel that as a myth, even if that belief helps the person lead a good life.

      Aug 9, 2012
      1 like
    • Zenny123

      The belief system that you are imposing is simply that evidence is required for belief. It is not a must to follow any belief system. The fact that many follow it also does not mean it is required to follow it either. Your desire that people become more rational is simply your desire and nothing more. If people want to worship plant pots that is their choice. Your position that you have a better way, and that they "should" follow your advice and be rational, is wrong and arrogant. People innately know what is right for them in many cases, their subjective experience informs them and you can never know their subjective reality. You feel rationality is right for you, accept that it is not therefore right for all.

      You are drawn to the search for truth. How can you accept that for many people truth is very personal and something that is felt not thought. Simply because there is not a test that can be conducted or “proof” is irrelevant to them. It also does not make it less true. Truth is a personal experience.

      The point is your view that it is irrational means nothing. You voice the view as if it is important and it is not. It is important to you. It is simply a view like any other, no more no less. My wish for you is that you gain the insight and clarity to really understand this. I do not suggest that you pretend it makes sense. This is not an all or nothing, black and white issue. I suggest that you smile and decline to engage in a discussion about religious views. I would suggest that in addition to being drawn to the search for truth you are also drawn to debate and being right. It will only end in your declaring how you feel it’s irrational and that is going to cause conflict and disharmony. There is no other way that any person can receive the comment that their view is irrational.

      I think that you can attend events and participate, not because you believe it, but because you accept it is important to your bf and his mother. In the end which is more important, that you were theoretically correct based on evidence or that relationships are maintained and you demonstrated respect for those who you care about?

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • Zenny123

      I think your very best response to the mother and your bf is that you can not promise anything, but that you will attend church because you care about your bf and want to be with him and you will maintain an open mind. Say nothing beyond that, certainly don't refer to peoples views as myths. Your comment above "it is an established fact that no religion has put forward quality evidence to support their wild claims. This is not my opinion, but a well grounded notion that will be true throughout the ages for the millions of years ahead" is plain and simple disrepectful and arrogant. It also does not matter.

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      You bring really good points, and I will seriously consider following your suggestion. "I think your very best response to the mother and your bf is that you can not promise anything, but that you will attend church because you care about your bf and want to be with him and you will maintain an open mind. Say nothing beyond that, certainly don't refer to peoples views as myths."

      I do prefer peace and love over conflict over silly debates...

      But I must admit it still conflicts me. Research has found that atheists have essencially the same personality traits as believers, except on two dimension: Theuy are more open (score higher in openness), and they are less agreeable (that is, they are less likely to overlook what they think is false and move on). This is both good and bad. Good because is draws people closer to a rational view of their surrounding (which, in turn, helps more people in the long term; we cal talk about why if you don't believe me), and bad because it causes disagreements, which are intrinsically uncomfortable for some people.

      So it is difficult for me to be more agreeable... Rationality is central to my outlook on existence, and, I do think that it is better to be rational when you make decisions. Being rational is not being emotionless or cold. It is about having a mental map of the world that matches the territory. And in order to build a map, you need to walk the terrain. Belief on insufficient evidence is, after all, like drawing at the edges of you map "Here be dragons" and THEN invest all your resources and energies to get to that place because you anticipate that there ARE dragons over there even though you just invented them.

      Just like the bottle with an unknown substance in it, belief on insufficient evidence has and does harm around the world. Think of Heavens Gate and Scientology. Of course it does not necessarily cause harm. Maybe it causes more good than bad in the world... that I consider as an important possibility. For instance, people do derive a lot of joy out of the beauty and ineffable feelings that a sense of religiosity causes. I think that is fantastic! But I also think that you can get that without having to believe on insufficient evidence. For instance, Buddhist practitioners do not have to believe anything they are told, but are encouraged to walk the terrain of conscious experience and make their own map of what is good and bad.

      The fact that what I say sounds arrogant doesn't make it less true, though... for example, most people have a hard time thinking that there is anything true about Scientology. It is all made up. And it is good to recognize that, for Scientology can break families apart and lead you to financial bankruptcy. Christianity is certainly less detrimental to a person's life, but the sort of evidence that make people convinced that it is true is the same kind of evidence that make people believe in Scientology. The method to discern truth from falsity is broken in both cases. Yes, yes... I am arrogant. I build a cognitive defense against mind viruses. It may not matter, as you say, for most people.

      Your point on the relativity of truth is well taken, but I disagree (mind you, I have a low agreeableness score! I don't disagree because I like to disagree, but because I actually prefer to voice what I know... at least I think I know). Philosophical relativism is simply misguided. There is a matter of fact about the composition of this universe. Again, with the map-territory metaphor, "truth is relative" would be like saying that there is no matter of fact about the shape of the territory. If you think so, you will drown by thinking that sea is land. On the other hand, "truth is relative" does make sense if you really want to say that "people have different maps" which is true. But how you make your map does make a difference in whether you will arrive to where you want or whether you will hit walls you never knew were there.

      I appreciate a lot that you share this view though. This makes me think a lot: "I would suggest that in addition to being drawn to the search for truth you are also drawn to debate and being right. It will only end in your declaring how you feel it’s irrational and that is going to cause conflict and disharmony. There is no other way that any person can receive the comment that their view is irrational."

      It may be difficult, but I think there is a way people could actually welcome criticism. If two persons agree that they want to find out the truth, whatever it may be, then disagreement is essential. That said, if indeed a person does not really care about what is true, then so be it... Arrogant, arrogant :P

      For the sake of the relationship with my bf, it might make a lot of sense to follow what you suggest. That is, shutting up. But if I am forced to speak, I don't think I could lie and agree with what my better sense tells me is incoherent. Maybe I should also learn to lie like this? What do you think?

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      Just to clarify a tiny bit: You say "It is simply a view like any other, no more no less." And that is what I can't agree with. If you show my a map of Venus and you tell me "this is the Earth" it is not simply a *different view* of what Earth is like. It is a view that is very far from the true shape of the Earth. You can't pick a random set of digits and say "this is the number pi". I hope you see my point here. Maybe you have reached the conclusion that even disagreeing internally with a view is wrong, but I think that thinking that all views on the world, Scientology and Astrology included is simply madness :P

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      Just another analogy: If Christianity was true, then IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL to believe in it. And you see, if Christianity was true, then rationality is precisely what you would need. If there were good reasons to believe Christianity was true, then rational Muslims and rational Hindus who are looking after the knowledge of Truth would end up converting to Christianity. So you see, in this case rationality would actually save you from eternal damnation. And furthermore, if you believe Christianity is true, then trying to convert your son's boyfriend is perfectly rational.

      So I don't think we disagree on that respect. I think that they believe Christianity is true because they think that there are good reasons (not only psychological by epistemic) to think it is true. But they are mistaken (arrogant me!) because the evidence is lacking and mystical experiences of all religions can be explained with neuroscience.

      Anyway, I am still in conflict. Thanks for helping me out. It is just that I don't know how to balance the importance of truth and agreeableness with others.

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • Zenny123

      I am not discussing your view ABOUT religion. I am discussing your view that we ougt to be rational about our belief systems. This is a very different question, different discussion, and deals with the very different premises.


      I do understand your discussion about rationality, I might even share your view on rationality, but you can not impose that on others and this is what you are doing.

      I see the issue here as your views and not at all your bf choices. Based on all that you have revealed about your views I would expect the relationship will not last. And to clarify I never suggested to lie or pretend. A diplomat you are not.

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      "I do understand your discussion about rationality, I might even share your view on rationality, but you can not impose that on others and this is what you are doing. I see the issue here as your views and not at all your bf choices"

      This makes your point much more clear to me. You bring up a point of genuine importance. I have to think about it... I my have some nasty character traits I don't see with clarity. Can you clarify what you mean by imposing the view? What makes it different from sharing? And what makes it more uncomfortable or disharmonious?

      I am not asking to excuse myself, but to grow and learn and work towards harmony...

      If it makes you happy, your criticism is probably going to help me a lot :)

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • Zenny123

      The difference between sharing a view and imposing a view is the use of words like , should and ought. You are not only sharing your view, you are declaring that all should be rational and stating that thier view is irrational. Simply you do not have a right to tell others they are irrational, did they ask for your view on their religion? You do not know at a deep level thier reasons for the affiliation with the faith, nor should they have to rationalize that to you. it is important to them and this is all that matters, no matter how foolish you feel it is. You clearly have a hang up on this. it seems to me that you want to change your bf and make him the rational person you think he should be. How SAD is that? It also demonstrates a pathaloigical issue of control that you have.

      You are not simply sharing your view. The other really important aspect that makes imposing different than sharing is sharing is mutual and welcomed, imposing is not. I doubt your bf or his mother enjoy or welcome your declarations.

      Let’s imagine how we would go about alienating someone shall we? First identify something of value to that person and then criticize it, tell them they are irrational for valuing what they do, and continue to chip away at that agenda. This is exactly what you are doing but it is not towards someone you want to alienate it is towards someone you care about and voicing your view about religion and rationality is more important to you than that relationship. Amazing really.

      Can’t you see how you are damaging your relationship? I am amazed that you can’t see that, you are clearly a bright person, but this is plan and obvious. Hey it’s your choice, but do not be surprised when you turn around and your bf has moved on. Have you ever been told you have Asperger’s? Many of the things you are saying are typical of the black and white thinking that is part of that disability.


      This is NOT about your not being Christian. This is about you being judgemental, critical and controlling.

      Aug 11, 2012
      1 like
    9 More Replies
  • msfancypants

    I respect your beliefs. I am very curious to know how you feel about the Higgs-Boson, if you have a moment.

    Aug 6, 2012
    1 like
    • OreoMath

      I don't feel it is more interesting or revealing than the existence of electrons are. Our current physical science postulates the existence of certain particles, and that is a model that seems to explain very very well what we observe and make excellent predictions. So I imagine that electrons do exists, just as probably the Higgs-Boson. It is really fascinating to find out how the universe works, but it has very little to do with theology... if anything, it leaves an unemployed God, for we don't need anything supernatural anymore to explain how things happen.

      Aug 6, 2012
      1 like
    • msfancypants

      Thank you for taking the time to reply.

      Aug 7, 2012
      1 like
  • Nephari

    Maybe its cruel but surely he does notice how homophobic the Bible is? Despite the thousand justifications he may have about how "the translators made errors". "its the old law" etc?



    Being hostile/contemptuous ("How can you believe that pack of lies? The Bible is BS!") will not cause him to rationally think, it will merely provoke an emotional response probably similar to "What do YOU know, you haven't FELT IT!"



    I admit now I laugh at how...dumb I was back then, but then I also remember that as a former fundamentalist, back then I was totally brainwashed.

    Jun 29, 2012
    2 likes
  • Nephari

    You never know if your boyfriend will start doubting his faith.

    I know it's probably really frustrating that he can't see how irrational his faith is.



    But that's because the brain is wonderful at handling cognitive dissonance. My boyfriend put up with almost 6 years of me swinging between:



    - intensely devout - to the point that I tried to break up with him twice over the verse "Do not be yoked with unbelievers" even though I loved him VERY MUCH.

    - moderately devout - but feeling very guilty

    - angry & doubting Christianity - but struggling to make sense of it all

    - nearly leaving Christianity - I've lost count, he won't tell me the number, but ultimately returning due to "rationalizing" it all away because I was terrified shitless about Hell



    until it finally dawned on me the terrible answer I 'knew' for several years but dared not say aloud "How could an all-loving God do this? God is cruel."



    "Do I want to worship this cruel God even though I will damn myself to Hell? No."



    Then the even more terrifying thought "What if God...does not exist?"



    All along, my boyfriend unknowingly (he truly did not know :) ) had been prodding me along/ By us simply talking and discussing with respect, he opened my mind to the awareness that there were completely different perspectives out there! Sure I knew atheists existed and they didn't believe in God, but I didn't know anything more indepth.



    After my terrifying "conclusion" that "God is unjust", I truly thought I was damning myself. It took me research to realise that God is man-made and accepting that was tough. However the fear rapidly fell away, as I found LOGICAL answers to the EMOTIONAL reactions that faith created.



    Eg - "Speaking in tongues" is self-hypnosis of a kind, Prayer is essentially meditation, "praying for healing" is a strong placebo effect, "being slain in the Spirit" is also self hypnosis, worship music is calculated to play on our emotions etc



    It may be a long road for your boyfriend but I hope he will get there. :) And then, he will have YOU to thank. :)



    TLDR: I had a similar religious background as your boyfriend, I came through it, I hope he does too. :)

    Jun 29, 2012
    2 likes
    • OreoMath

      This definitely adds a lot to the conversation, Nephari. It is very interesting what happened to you. All the swings, and how you were afraid of even thinking certain things for fear of Hell. Yeah, Hell is so made up. This is the one thing I've told my bf I'm not agnostic about. God may exist in some strange and bizarre way so that our stories make sense... maybe, probably not. But Hell would only ever possibly exist if it was the case that God existed AND he was seriously evil beyond belief. A good God would have as the absolute highest priority the eradication of Hell. I have concluded that Hell cannot exist because only God could create an infinite thing and that God would not create an infinite thing of torment. While he respects this idea, he doesn't want to give up his belief in Hell... and I guess it is 'just in case.'

      One thing that makes me think that he'll eventually come out of it in a rational way is that he is actually very reasonable when we discuss. I have come to realize that people can believe that they believe without really believing. In his words "since things don't make sense anyway, I choose to simply go along with my upbringing, and it helps me." And that's why I think he believes that he believes: if he actually believed he'd say "I can't explain why, but Jesus is God and this is true" rather than "I can't explain why I believe, but I do." You see the difference?

      But we'll see. In your case, 6 years it took, so I imagine the process takes a long while for most people.

      Oh, also, I sent an e-mail to his mom because she's been giving me many Christian books recently that I've read and disagreed with. I sent her an e-mail explaining that so far Hinduism does look like an equally substantiated religion, so I am genuinly uncertain about why Jesus in particular is necessary... specially given that I know amazing people who are Hindus and Muslims and they themselves feel God and claim their own religion is the only way to God. I am glad that she took it well, I meant it so that she could understand that I am not being just rebellious or ungrateful by not becoming a Christian... that the worry is genuinely intellectual and thoughtful. She said she'll get me more books :D Hehehe...

      Jul 3, 2012
      1 like
    • Nephari

      You see, to you who have grown up non-religious, and me who has now seen the "light of reason", Hell holds no more fear. It is like a story told to scare children into submission.

      But for him, it is real. Even if he doubts, like you said, there's the "Just in case" - Pascal's Wager.

      Faith is emotional, just like love, it is not logical at all. What they do not yet realise (and what I am slowly coming to realise :) ) is that the emotional highs they attribute to an encounter with God, is the working of their own minds.

      Since you say he is very reasonable, it means he probably is already doubting or at least open to the idea.

      Is he fond of books? I'd suggest the God Delusion, The History of God. I'm sure ex-christian(or ex-[any religion]) sites will have lots of reading list suggestions but I've only read those two.

      Or you could bring up the "arguments" the God Delusion raises. You probably know his arguments (Morality is not God-given etc) innately but for someone raised all their life in Christianity...leaving it would be a very scary thing because their entire world-view is turned upside down and well...you feel incredibly helpless.

      The History of God for me was very interesting. I first picked it up as a devout Christian out of curiosity to understand the shared roots of Islam, Judaism and Christianity. I came away convinced (back then), that religion was man-made but God was still real. It was only after I deconverted when I re-read it again for confirmation/validation of "God is man-made".

      Your question to your boyfriend's mother is a GOOD one haha. :P Perhaps it will prompt her to research.

      There's a quote I really like:
      "There are many reasons why people leave Christianity, but the most common reason for a very serious Christian to leave is through research. Ironically this often happens when research is carried out in order be a better exponent of Christianity. This happens to apologists, theologians, missionaries, ministers, fundamentalists and liberals. The broad spectrum from professional to lay Christian of all Christian types."
      https://sites.google.com/site/leavingxtianity/

      Yes...may your BF and his mother find and read many books hehehe. :P If you like, you could even read an apologetic's book with him perhaps. Your mindset/view towards the arguments it presents would likely be rather different from his - maybe even a perspective he never realised could exist. ^^

      Jul 4, 2012
      1 like
    • OreoMath

      I ordered The History of God and I should be getting it soon :) Thanks for all the advise and for sharing your own experience.

      I do not want to push him at all, just discuss whatever we are both interested in in any given time :) The fact that you are happy about de-converting really makes me hopeful that we can all leave religion as ancient myth... perhaps we will even improve morality and ethics without religion because we will be able to have a modern conversation about ethics rather than just rationalization of old doctrines.

      Thank you, and may you be free of suffering and take of yourself with ease :-)

      Aug 10, 2012
      1 like
    • Nephari

      In hindsight, The God Delusion might be too harsh a book. Nothing against Dawkin but he gives the impression of being rather aggressive. I hope you and your bf's love stays strong and may your path be a smooth one! :)

      Aug 14, 2012
      1 like
    1 More Reply