Ouroboros Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 until very recently I had no idea how different the UK was from the states in religious terms. (or is it only recently that there has been this difference?) Christians are very much in the minority in the UK and evangelical born again types are really rare. One of MY struggles is that I am struggling to leave the christian fold partly because I think I like being in a minority! - I'm struggling to immerse myself in the mainstream because I've enjoyed swimming against the tide. I have a tendency in a debate - to take the side that doesn't have so much support. (I was overwhelmed for a moment then to type - 'Go Jesus!' just to redress the balance slightly :-) ) Not that I don't like to be around a few like minded peeps (are there ANY other english people visiting this site?) but I'd rather be with a few - taking on the world. WOW - it sounds much more exciting coming out of the christian closet in the states ..... (I am being a tad facetious here - not really wanting to dismiss anyone who is really struggling with such a big life changing step and possible facing broken relationships and some loneliness ... just a bit of reframing ... just musings ...) It's funny, I'm the same way. In Sweden (strongly atheistic) I was a hardcord/fundie christian (very small minoritet, probably 10,000 total, against population of 8.5 mil.), and I get here to US, and after a while I become agnostic/atheist. What the heck is wrong with me? Do I just like being different? (Actually I think I do....) I can't remember it was this bad when I first move here, so probably the neo-con etc have gained ground and made people take the christian view point. We'll see at the next election, if they win again or not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted May 27, 2005 Author Share Posted May 27, 2005 It's funny, I'm the same way. In Sweden (strongly atheistic) I was a hardcord/fundie christian (very small minoritet, probably 10,000 total, against population of 8.5 mil.), and I get here to US, and after a while I become agnostic/atheist. What the heck is wrong with me? Do I just like being different? (Actually I think I do....) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I used to think that maybe I didn't have any firm beliefs. For example - I am likely to sound left wing if I find myself in a group that is predominately right wing and vice versa. Its like where there is an overwhelmingly held certainty about something I'm more likely to doubt it. I think it might be that I assume that where a minority are going against the mainstream they are more likely to have thought about it more rather than just 'going with the flow'. Its like I'm more impressed by a stance that has been fought for or has required a lot of thought. I'm impressed by people who stand up for a belief that has been costly to them in some way. Doesn't necessarily mean I would find their beliefs impressive - just their courage for going with their convictions. I think my tendency for saying 'yes - but what about ...' rather than agreeing (even if I probably agree) is that I don't want to leave any stone un turned. I want to make sure that all the options are on the table. I recently shared my concern that sometimes I put an opposing viewpoint forward - just for the sake of it, with some friends. The general consensus was a very nice one - that I like to see fairness in an argument and for all views to be considered. Before I could stop myself - I found myself saying ' yes but is that necessarily the case - maybe I just ....' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 I used to think that maybe I didn't have any firm beliefs. For example - I am likely to sound left wing if I find myself in a group that is predominately right wing and vice versa. Its like where there is an overwhelmingly held certainty about something I'm more likely to doubt it. I think it might be that I assume that where a minority are going against the mainstream they are more likely to have thought about it more rather than just 'going with the flow'. Its like I'm more impressed by a stance that has been fought for or has required a lot of thought. I'm impressed by people who stand up for a belief that has been costly to them in some way. Have you ever thought about becoming a stock trader? Traders with this contrarian mindset are often predispositioned to more successful than the crowd, who is usually wrong. I am a trader myself, so just thought I would mention it. Your statement also reminds me very much of a relationship I had with a girl in Italy. We were best friends, but if she argued white, I would argue black and then vice versa. Both of us would debate our position fervently but we both noticed that a few days later, after thinking through the other's point of view, we would find ourselves coming closer to middle ground. It was quite amusing. BTW, if you like to debate, try moving to Italy. They love it and it is a surefire way of gaining their respect - mind you, it can be loud, but it must be respectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 Traders with this contrarian mindset are often predispositioned to more successful than the crowd, who is usually wrong. Sheesh! I just noticed my grammar in that sentance and had to rewrite it: Traders with this contrarian mindset are often predispositioned to BE more successful than the crowd, WHICH IS usually wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted May 27, 2005 Author Share Posted May 27, 2005 Have you ever thought about becoming a stock trader? Traders with this contrarian mindset are often predispositioned to more successful than the crowd, who is usually wrong. I am a trader myself, so just thought I would mention it. Your statement also reminds me very much of a relationship I had with a girl in Italy. We were best friends, but if she argued white, I would argue black and then vice versa. Both of us would debate our position fervently but we both noticed that a few days later, after thinking through the other's point of view, we would find ourselves coming closer to middle ground. It was quite amusing. BTW, if you like to debate, try moving to Italy. They love it and it is a surefire way of gaining their respect - mind you, it can be loud, but it must be respectful. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No one has ever suggested to me that I become a stock trader! I have just fallen off my chair laughing. (I have issues with money and am a dunce where sums are concerned) I am also too hesitent about actually making a decision. But I love Italian lifestlye - big dish of pasta, glass of red wine, full table of guests AND a passionate (yet respectful) debate - HEAVEN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 27, 2005 Share Posted May 27, 2005 No one has ever suggested to me that I become a stock trader! I have just fallen off my chair laughing. (I have issues with money and am a dunce where sums are concerned) I am also too hesitent about actually making a decision. But I love Italian lifestlye - big dish of pasta, glass of red wine, full table of guests AND a passionate (yet respectful) debate - HEAVEN! It's funny that you guys bring up Italy too, because my siblings called me the "little italian". I use my hands a lot when I talk. I'm very vivid and animated when I get into a passionate subject. If the Italians can discuss loudly and still be friends, that's my kind of people then. I can get loud too, and push the subject. Plus I try to throw in curve balls into the subject to see if people have their belief founded. Then of course I get curve balls back, and I have to check myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted May 27, 2005 Author Share Posted May 27, 2005 So the world is divided into two groups of people after all ... (1) the Italians - who argue passionately (but respectfully) illustrating their conversation with elaborate hand gestures (yep that's me as well) whilst eating the best food in the world .... and (2) everyone else. (p.s - my first ever job was as a waitress in an Italian restaurant. This also happens to be where I met my hubby - and I assumed he was Italian ... something to do with his colouring and the fact I overheard him swearing in Italian) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokmer Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 Heitant, your attitudes and journey sound very like mine. Welcome! -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 So the world is divided into two groups of people after all ... (1) the Italians - who argue passionately (but respectfully) illustrating their conversation with elaborate hand gestures (yep that's me as well) whilst eating the best food in the world .... and (2) everyone else. (p.s - my first ever job was as a waitress in an Italian restaurant. This also happens to be where I met my hubby - and I assumed he was Italian ... something to do with his colouring and the fact I overheard him swearing in Italian) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Love it! Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted June 1, 2005 Author Share Posted June 1, 2005 I've been thinking a bit more about this 'divided into groups' stuff. I've been noticing how 'tribal' christianity is - I found myself humming one of the songs that is really popular at my old church - it didn't have the greatest lyrics - just one line 'Our God reigns ... Our God reigns ... e e e eigns ... our God reigns!' and I suddenly realised that this was just a version of, 'our teams best ... our teams best e e e est ... our teams best' - or any football chant or school song or whatever. Its all about wanting to be part of the 'greatest' tribe. I think this is related to my thread about language (I really am crap at keeping thoughts all segregated into different threads) - The real meaning in so much that we say (or sing) is not in the obvious surface meaning of the words used. Group membership is such a driving force in most of us. I guess it has been a survival thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Quite often I'm annoyed with the behavior of the people on this forum myself. But the personalities and behavior here have no bearing whatsoever on the matter of deconversion: it doesn't matter how nice we are in the question of "Does God exist?" You can have rational reasons to be Christian, and you can have irrational ones. You can have rational reasons to be an Atheist, and you can have irrational ones. The irrational reasons don't matter. What matters is which side stands higher on rationality and reason. In my research, it's Atheism. But I will leave that up to you to find out. I recommend George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" and "Why Atheism?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alice Posted June 3, 2005 Author Share Posted June 3, 2005 Quite often I'm annoyed with the behavior of the people on this forum myself. But the personalities and behavior here have no bearing whatsoever on the matter of deconversion: it doesn't matter how nice we are in the question of "Does God exist?" You can have rational reasons to be Christian, and you can have irrational ones. You can have rational reasons to be an Atheist, and you can have irrational ones. The irrational reasons don't matter. What matters is which side stands higher on rationality and reason. In my research, it's Atheism. But I will leave that up to you to find out. I recommend George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" and "Why Atheism?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> OK, this response might not seem to be connected to what you've said at all - I think this might be quite an individual response ... I get all prickly when I hear things like 'irrational ones don't matter' and I'm trying to understand why this is. I was raised in a home where 'emotions' were seen as base and irrational and to be disregarded - whilst 'reason' and 'logic' was considered to be of higher value. All good 'age of enlightenment' stuff. The weird thing was this was also a home where the conclusions my parents had reached - along lines they believed were rational and intellectual - was that the Bible was the actual word of God and that this being the case - obedience to the laws within was the only sensible course of action and rebellion was a dangerous and base emotion to be controlled and erradicated. Thus leaving the church and looking for an alternative world view has been a little confusing for me - because I don't automatically see this distinction between irrational faith on one side and rational freethinking on the other. (I notice that you comment on the fact that there is cross over - with irrational and rational reasons on both sides) Again this might be a cultural thing ... the 'fundamentalism' of my childhood was a kind of victorian age hangover not a happy clappy emotional kind of fundamentalism (although I've served my time in this stream as well) My Father and his churchmanship was of diligent study, of not relying on 'feelings' and emotional responses - but on 'reasoning' your way through the complexities of chritianity (always based on the false premise that the Bible was the inspired word of God and therefore not to be doubted ... which is why logic seems so fragile to me - there was logic to his beliefs) We were always being fed apparent proofs and archelogical evidence for the truth of the historic accuracy of the scriptures. I never paid much attention to these arguments and the reason for this is that I never really cared about whether or not things in the past had actually happened in a literal sense or not. Subsequently - since leaving the church exposure to archelogical evidence or contradictions in dates and factual details produces little reaction in me (whereas I know some people who have spent years believing in the inerrancy of scripture are shocked when they read secular alternative evidence) I sometimes flinch from rationality and reason because it sounds like it might be dry and unfeeling. I want to use my intellect - I want to be rational - but this wanting is emotional in its origins. I have a suspicion that most of our actions - even when we say they are directed by 'reason' are really motivated by our emotional responses. After all - a well reasoned intellectual rational argument is nothing more that a series of words - that make no difference to anything unless we connect with the words emotionally aren't they? Maybe the problem I have is with the assumption that was taught me in my childhood that emotions are necessarily irrational and bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts