Seeking Out A New Faith Or Religion Intentionally.

[ContraBardus]

Got distracted away from this discussion by other topics recently. Nice to see it's still here, and it's still leading to lots of interesting answers.

 

 

I always love challenging ideas. If someone says they know what it is to experience love, would you challenge that?

 

No. Love is a common factor in all people. Belief in a particular God, or any God is not. There is empirical evidence for Love. Though the 'feeling' itself cannot be quantified or measured, it does have evidence that it exists. It can be observed, though not directly, but indirectly, through people's actions and behaviors. We 'know' love exists because we can observe it's effects even if the feeling itself cannot be directly observed. I do not 'believe' in love. I know there is love, even if I did not personally feel it myself, I would still know it exists.

 

Much like how we know about planets, stars, black holes, and other things we cannot directly observe because of the effect they have on their environment. We know they are there, but not because they are directly observed. Love and other emotions are much the same, though not directly observed, their effects are noticeable indirectly and easily confirmed.

 

People do not 'know' that a God exists. They believe it. God does not leave indirect evidence of his existence. There's a difference between knowing something exists, and believing that it does.

 

I do not think that 'love' is a very good example in this case.

 

As a rational person myself, and one that understands the nature of perception and ideas of truth, I would argue that even the most rigorous of scientific evaluation, offering supportable evidences, repeatability, etc, still boils down in the end to a belief and not a knowing. The only way to have full knowledge is to have full knowledge. We don't, or can't ever have that with the tools we have, let alone our infinitesimally small access to everything there is to possibly know.

 

I think when someone says they know something, existentially, it's a valid statement. What isn't valid is when they say that knowing should be considered objective truth for others. It gets more complex after that...

 

I think there's a difference of philosophy here. I consider 'knowing' to be based on fact. Philosophical ideas are truth.

 

Truth is a belief that something is true. Fact is knowing something because of evidence or some sort of proof that it is a valid idea.

 

Truth is just not being dishonest. It's about what a person thinks, and it may be the same thing as a fact in some cases, then again, it may not be. Truth isn't about knowing something, but an honest belief.

 

I can be wrong about something and still 'believe' that it is true. It would still be 'truth' to assert that I believe it, even if the basis of that belief has no evidence or fact in it. I could be completely wrong, but I would still be telling the truth if I said I believed it.

 

For example, to me, 'God is not real' is truth. I believe that there is no God. However, I do not know it.

 

The same can be said of the opposite. A theists believes that God is real. To say that they believe it is truth, and honest. It is also not something they know, because they cannot prove, nor have they seen the existence of this God for themselves.

 

If I'm wrong about something I know, then I don't really 'know' it. A fact that is incorrect isn't really a 'fact', it's an error or faulty knowledge.

 

If I'm wrong about something I think is true and I am ignorant that it is not valid, then it is still a 'true' belief. It is still truth for me to state that it is my belief.

 

I consider 'knowing' to be based on fact, not truth. I do not consider truth to be unimportant by any means. There are a lot of things I consider true, but do not necessarily know are fact. I would not claim to 'know' these things, that's what the word 'believe' is for.

 

This isn't a completely black and white issue either. Sometimes an idea can be both, or partially 'true' or 'valid'.

 

For example. A statement that a philosopher wrote a particular passage. The philosopher writing the particular passage is a fact, there is evidence that he wrote it and a record that it was written down.

 

The statement may contain known facts, things that have evidence that they are true. Such as the Earth being round, or it revolving around the sun.

 

The substance of the statement on the whole might be true. An honest statement of the philosopher's beliefs and opinion that isn't really based on any facts, even though it may indeed contain factual elements. It may not be verifiable, as a complete fact on the whole.

 

So, there's a lot of gray area there as well. As basic ideas though, believing something is true and knowing that it is fact are two different things.

 

I don't believe in the 'supernatural' at all. I don't really like the word that much, because I think it presents a false level of 'existence'. If something does exist, it is by definition 'natural' in my view. Even if it is spiritual or even God if such things exist. They would still be natural phenomenon. I think they'd have evidence of some sort that would be detectable even if they weren't. Perhaps there is such evidence, but no one has found or proved it yet either.

This is very close to how I think. And I would and will argue that there is evidence for this. But it's not going to look like a fossil you can pick up and do testing on. It is a measurable effect based on individual and shared experience. That murky little inner world of experience. But its manifest reality is a real as that rock you pick up laying in a field. And it can itself be measured and examined and talked about, but it cannot be experienced or "known" by a discussion about it.

 

 

Well, this is one of those things I consider as a truth, and not something I know. I do not know that there is no spirituality. I've never seen any real convincing evidence for any supernatural claims. I'm not so sure that there is any such evidence.

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to put it simply. However, Absence of evidence when there should be evidence and there isn't can indeed be a very strong indicator that something does not exist or is not real.

 

I've got nothing against spiritual beliefs, and I'm far more open to general spiritual beliefs than I am to any particular organized religion.

 

I put far more stock, even if it's not much, in the idea of a general Deistic idea of God than I do into any named Gods. I don't find any detailed or characterized ideas of God to be very reasonable.

 

 

What's your impression of the so-called 'soft sciences'?

 

 

I don't trust them as much as harder sciences. I don't find them particularly invalid either. I prefer and put more stock and interest in the harder sciences like Biology and Physics than I do in Psychology or Sociology.

 

I do not think there is necessarily anything wrong with Psychology or Sociology. Both are important, and I do consider them valid science. I also think they sometimes get a bit off on some things because of the nature of individuals that cannot always be placed into categories or systems they use for people in general.

 

Mostly, they are valid and trustworthy, and I wouldn't refute their impact or work, or it's importance. I just find them less interesting and if there is a conflict between a Hard Scientific idea and a Soft Scientific idea, I'm more likely to think that the Hard Science idea is most likely the correct one.

 

Spiritualism without God is interesting as well. Even then the same, if slightly altered question remains. What made you think their version of spiritualism was more correct than the Christian view? What clicked about it and made it seem to make more sense than the other similar faiths?

 

 

I have to make a major correction for you here. Spiritualism and spirituality are two entirely different things.

 

In no way, shape or form would I use the word spiritualism in connection with my philosophical views or experience of spirituality.

 

 

Noted. I was aware of that, as I know of Houdini, but the difference between spirituality and spiritualism seems to have gotten blurred with time. Now I feel old. I haven't read anything about spiritualism since high school, and I didn't find it all that interesting.

 

Spiritualism is one of those things I never really put any stock into even when I believed in magic and spirits and such. It always seemed to be a scam to me right from the start, so I never did get very interested in the subject. It just seemed like a way for con artist to rip people off and prey on the stupid, or emotionally weak.

 

 

I've seen mention of people 'looking for a new faith' in this area several times before. Though, it does seem less common now, and more like most people either lean towards a particular belief immediately, or move in a particular direction over time and find something that fits with their views about God or the Universe as they exist at the time.

 

To try and put it into an analogy, it's as if someone is left with a key that doesn't work for the Christian door anymore, and they go looking for a lock that fits it.

 

Another way to put it is looking for relationship that fits you. You choose your friends because they meet you with where you are at, and with what you hope to become. It's all very natural in this regard. I don't go out seeking friends. Genuine friendships happen naturally. They grow out of mutual benefit.

 

I can see what you mean. Not the sort of analogy I'd use though. Not because there's anything wrong with it, but I'm introverted and don't care much for large groups. I do get what you mean, but relationships aren't as on the mind for me as they are for a lot of other people. I have a few good friends, and my family, but I don't really know a lot of other people.

 

I don't need large groups, prefer to work on my own, etc. I can deal with working with others, and I'm not fearful or uncomfortable with being stuck in a crowd or anything. I'm perfectly fine being on my own and am not particularly socially needy.

[Antlerman]

 

I always love challenging ideas. If someone says they know what it is to experience love, would you challenge that?

 

No. Love is a common factor in all people. Belief in a particular God, or any God is not. There is empirical evidence for Love. Though the 'feeling' itself cannot be quantified or measured, it does have evidence that it exists. It can be observed, though not directly, but indirectly, through people's actions and behaviors. We 'know' love exists because we can observe it's effects even if the feeling itself cannot be directly observed. I do not 'believe' in love. I know there is love, even if I did not personally feel it myself, I would still know it exists.

It's interesting how in all the evidence offered for love, when I substitute the words "experience of God" for Love, how it seems to support that as well. Behold...

"There is empirical evidence for the experience of God. Though the 'feeling' itself cannot be quantified or measured [which is actually not true - it does register on EEG readings *see footnote below], it does have evidence that it exists. It can be observed, though not directly, but indirectly, through people's actions and behaviors. We 'know' the experience of God exists because we can observe it's effects even if the feeling itself cannot be directly observed. I do not 'believe' in the experience of God. I know there is the experience of God, even if I did not personally feel it myself, I would still know it exists."

 

Now, what we are left with is not an argument about the validity, the reality of the experience, but a choice of words and definitions. "God" is used to describe a mystical state of connectiveness with the world, with the Universe, whereas love, though of similar existential experience has connotations running all the way from human desire to universal compassion. So it is fair to make a distinction.

 

None of that argues for the validity of a particular mythology built up around that sense of the Divine. That's cultural. And is the experience of God as common as the experience of love? I'll put it this way, I'd say it's pretty borderless. Not everyone experiences love either, but it is widely common.

 

People do not 'know' that a God exists. They believe it. God does not leave indirect evidence of his existence. There's a difference between knowing something exists, and believing that it does.

When you're talking mystical experience, I'd say its really safe to say they 'know' they experienced something that transcends emotions, in the same way they know they experienced 'love'. For them however to say that the experience confirms a set of doctrines or mythologies surrounding the experience of the transcendent, is about as valid as saying because they experienced love it confirms Romeo and Juliet were real people, and not "just" created symbols to speak about love.

 

There is a big difference between evidence of experience as fact, and evidence of myth as fact.

 

I do not think that 'love' is a very good example in this case.

Still don't now?

 

As a rational person myself, and one that understands the nature of perception and ideas of truth, I would argue that even the most rigorous of scientific evaluation, offering supportable evidences, repeatability, etc, still boils down in the end to a belief and not a knowing. The only way to have full knowledge is to have full knowledge. We don't, or can't ever have that with the tools we have, let alone our infinitesimally small access to everything there is to possibly know.

 

I think when someone says they know something, existentially, it's a valid statement. What isn't valid is when they say that knowing should be considered objective truth for others. It gets more complex after that...

 

I think there's a difference of philosophy here. I consider 'knowing' to be based on fact. Philosophical ideas are truth.

I'm not talking about philosophical ideas. I'm talking about experience.

 

Truth is a belief that something is true. Fact is knowing something because of evidence or some sort of proof that it is a valid idea.

The establishing of fact is based on the belief that the evidence supports it. We cannot ever have sufficient evidence to conclude absolutely something as pure and unshakable fact, and subsequently that we 'know' something to be true. We believe something to be true, on a scale of lesser and greater certainties, but never absolute - certainly not through the use of our highly limited five senses or our man-made tools of investigation!

 

To say we 'know facts' is itself a philosophical (religious) belief, not fact.

 

But allowing for the use of the word 'knowing' in the conventional sense, it is perfectly valid to argue for subjective reality as a valid way of knowing. Someone can know they experienced what is called love, and someone can know they experienced what is called "God". Again though, this cannot be used to prove myths about those experiences as facts.

 

Truth is just not being dishonest. It's about what a person thinks, and it may be the same thing as a fact in some cases, then again, it may not be. Truth isn't about knowing something, but an honest belief.

Truth is both about the validity of the perception and the experience of reality. There is truth to be found in the systems of language and signs we use to speak about them. And as much as there is junk science, there is junk religion.

 

To use the language of science, which is about the discovery and models of explanation of the objective natural world, to evaluate the validity of imparted subjective understanding of existential experience, is as misplaced and inappropriate as religion saying science has it wrong about the age of the earth! Its tools of investigation are about measuring the outer surfaces, not the subjective interpretation of the interior spaces of reality. That is a matter of interpretation of being, that is philosophy, that is faith, that is the mystical, that is existential knowing, whether that is 'knowing love' or 'knowing the Divine'.

 

 

(more later)

 

* Footnote:

Fischer's circular model also takes into account the phenomenon of trophotropic rebound. This is a term he uses to define the process of person, when at the peak of ergotropic arousal, passing from ecstasy into Samadhi, the last stage of yoga. this is explained as a "physiological protection mechanism." It is suggested that the process might be the same process producing Pavlov's transmarginal inhibition. Passage from samadhi to ecstasy, rebound in the opposite direction, is also possible.

Gellhorn and Kiely (1972) show evidence for unpredicted increases in heart rate and EEG when experienced yogis pass from samadhi to ecstatic states. Corby (1978) also reported an increase in autonomic activity during mediation for experienced meditators.

 

...

 

Fischer (1972) further speculates that the closer a person moves to the self the more time he or she will spend in the non-verbal right hemisphere. With the increase in arousal in either system the rational "I", which is specific to the prepositional, verbal left hemisphere, will receive less attention as the "self", specific to the intuitive non-verbal right hemisphere, receives more attention. Fischer uses studies of psychedelic drug induced religious experiences to provide evidence for his theory. He observes that as drug induced arousal along the continuum increases the syntactical structure of language becomes more simplified.

 

Fischer weaves together his whole neuropsychological theory by suggesting that the loss of freedom to interpret subcortical activity can also be seen as a freedom from the confining rationality of the left-hemispheric "I." He continues that at moderate levels of arousal the core "self" and the interpretive "I" begin to communicate. The expression of their communication is represented in the subjective symbols of dreams and hallucinations. Fischer (1971), claims that it is these symbols that are the source of art, literature, science, and religion.

 

So what you see here, at least in regard to mystical and religious experience, is that there is definite measured effect. One can argue from a philosophical reduction stance that the religious experience is not *real* because there are physical 'causes', and that one can induce drugs to stimulate the brain to create the effects, but that is a flat and narrow a view of human experience as saying that love has no truth to it through experience because you can pump a drug into you to give you those same feelings, that any perception of reality based on those are illusions, or worse, delusions.

 

It's the content of the experience and its subsequent effect, its manifest reality in the heart, mind, and actions of the individual that is what defines the reality of Being, that give Life dimension, flavor, and value. None of which are scientific truth or so-called 'facts'. But they are *reality*.

[Vomit Comet]

What is 'spirituality'? The term gets bandied about so much these days, and it's so terribly vague. Does it go beyond simply sitting on one's porch and admiring the sunset while thinking deep thoughts about general existence? Does it allude to a set of metaphysics that doesn't quite make the cut-off for being a 'religion'? I really don't get it.

 

And to quote one of my favorite lines:

 

"Spiritual? You're not spiritual. That Kanji tattoo of yours really says 'Moo Goo Gai Pan', and the last time you prayed you were waiting for the pregnancy test results!" - George Carlin.

[Shyone]

What is 'spirituality'? The term gets bandied about so much these days, and it's so terribly vague. Does it go beyond simply sitting on one's porch and admiring the sunset while thinking deep thoughts about general existence? Does it allude to a set of metaphysics that doesn't quite make the cut-off for being a 'religion'? I really don't get it.

 

And to quote one of my favorite lines:

 

"Spiritual? You're not spiritual. That Kanji tattoo of yours really says 'Moo Goo Gai Pan', and the last time you prayed you were waiting for the pregnancy test results!" - George Carlin.

I think you have described "spiritual" very well. Who cares about metaphysics. It's joy, beauty, sorrow, love, and peace.

 

And tattoos do not mean you're spiritual.

[Antlerman]

What is 'spirituality'? The term gets bandied about so much these days, and it's so terribly vague. Does it go beyond simply sitting on one's porch and admiring the sunset while thinking deep thoughts about general existence? Does it allude to a set of metaphysics that doesn't quite make the cut-off for being a 'religion'? I really don't get it.

It does go beyond responding to the sunset and considering the nature of being, though that is very much part of its essence. In a simple word, its connection with experiential being, in connection with yourself and the entirety of existence. It's a sense of groundedness within, its an elevated perception above the activities and functions of our social existence and base survival, moving us to a state of interconnectedness, not just rationally, but in sense. It's existential being.

 

Metaphysics are simply theoretical constructs about transcendent reality. But they are not the substance of spirituality. At best, some way to talk about it.

[Guest xandrani]

I've learned to not look to the religion, but to the truth in me. If from there I find something that squares with me, then so be it. Great. But it has to be found in you, not in some group. It's an introspective journey into your own heart, wrapped in the sacred truth of sincerity with yourself.

 

I don't think it's ourely an internal journey of truth as we don't exist independently of others. I look inward and then outward, I look outward and then inward... it's a continual cycle. Just looking introspectively can make us egotistical without realising it, as of course looking in is about us. However as you didn't totally detail the process you follow (as it was supposed to be a short answer I guess), maybe I misunderstood you?

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

What is 'spirituality'? The term gets bandied about so much these days, and it's so terribly vague. Does it go beyond simply sitting on one's porch and admiring the sunset while thinking deep thoughts about general existence? Does it allude to a set of metaphysics that doesn't quite make the cut-off for being a 'religion'? I really don't get it.

 

And to quote one of my favorite lines:

 

"Spiritual? You're not spiritual. That Kanji tattoo of yours really says 'Moo Goo Gai Pan', and the last time you prayed you were waiting for the pregnancy test results!" - George Carlin.

That's the point, it's supposed to be vague, so it can spread out like a net and catch as many peoplefish as possible. Look at the term spirit, it's as abstract and vague, and multi-meaninged as it can possibly be. It's that way because it's the way to get people to believe it.

[Vixentrox]

Spirituality - A term that can be used to come up with gimics to sell to the guilable. Magic rocks, sacred trees, spirits on the wind. If a few idiots believe it there will be a dumb asses waiting to part with some hard earned cash for magic trinkets be it a cross, a dreamcatcher, some prayer beads.

[Antlerman]

I've learned to not look to the religion, but to the truth in me. If from there I find something that squares with me, then so be it. Great. But it has to be found in you, not in some group. It's an introspective journey into your own heart, wrapped in the sacred truth of sincerity with yourself.

 

I don't think it's ourely an internal journey of truth as we don't exist independently of others. I look inward and then outward, I look outward and then inward... it's a continual cycle. Just looking introspectively can make us egotistical without realising it, as of course looking in is about us. However as you didn't totally detail the process you follow (as it was supposed to be a short answer I guess), maybe I misunderstood you?

I'm glad you asked. Yes, that is a misunderstanding of it, but a good observation about pure introspection alone.

 

Actually, it's not about looking deeply into your ego, about the journey into your personality - which can lead to egotism as you said. It's about seeing beyond your own ego by journeying inward past artifices of self-identity, the clutter of our thoughts and interpretations and responses and feelings, etc, to states of pure being beyond all that.

 

It's at points like this that we realize that our consciousness becomes aware of an interconnection of ourselves with others, as we move beyond that ego. The result of it is to move beyond ourselves into the world, and recognize the world as part of us and us of it, and others.

 

So as you say, very much it includes others. It's the goal. But its not done by trying to find it in others or through others, its in finding it beyond our egos in the state of our pure being. As we set ourselves, our thoughts aside, then we see, then we participate.

 

Frankly that's there in all religions, down deep below the surface of signs and symbols. However the down side of that is if someone stops at the symbols pointing to it, as the goal, the end truth in themselves - the signs as truth, then it is very much a religion of ego.

 

It's becomes about them 'being saved', something they can look in the mirror and proudly claim for themselves, rather than actually understanding what that means - freed from your ego to be part of life and love and the world. That is what spirituality is, plain and simple. It's the life of that "spirit" inside us, and its fruits are the end of ego and becoming Life itself.

 

It's unfortunate that ideas of 'spirituality' have been so trivialized and politicized as to illicit hardcore skeptical responses that take that baby in the bathwater and blindly toss it aside. Definitely the bathwater needs to be ejected. But the baby is the truth of ourselves.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

I tried Deism after I left though I am just as happy and I have more wonder and awe towards the universe since embracing atheism

[lunaticheathen]

Is it looking for another faith, or is it looking for higher meaning? I would argue that someone leaving Christianity and looking to the science and reason alone as the path to enlightenment, are doing the exact same thing. It's not a matter of mythic versus scientific. It's the internal intent that is identical. Some just find that a philosphy of scientific reductionism or materialism fails to talk to them existentially/spiritually, as much a Christianity failed to also. Those truths are not about facts on the ground, but light in the heart.

 

That may be the missing puzzle piece.

 

<snip>

 

Another way to put it is looking for relationship that fits you. You choose your friends because they meet you with where you are at, and with what you hope to become. It's all very natural in this regard. I don't go out seeking friends. Genuine friendships happen naturally. They grow out of mutual benefit.

This completely rings true with me, in regards to my own spiritual journey. Yes, words like "spirituality" and "spirit", "soul", even "god" and "energy" are thrown about so much that they have lost, or simply gained confused meanings. But I feel very deeply that my search after leaving Christianity was simply the way I had to go. I'm not built for an atheistic/purely materialist worldview. The thoughts did cross my mind, I entertained them, but I just couldn't stay on board. Other feelings and things were nudging me, begging for an audience as well.

Right now, my own funky blend of pagan beliefs/practices suits me. It's always evolving and growing, and I really don't belong to any one group with a set of rules. I also feel like I was just going back to the real me, that Christianity was simply a fluke, a dark and scary alley I stumbled into on my journey. And I'm much better now.

[ClaraOlive]

I'm a non-spiritual atheistic agnostic, and several times I've started to seek out a non-theistic religion, but always ended up abandoning the idea because no sort of spirituality (however you want to define it) makes sense to me or is something that I want to participate in.

 

I keep looking because I want to be part of a community. I've tried different groups with sports and volunteering, but there's no sense of "fellowship"- the attitude is "this is something I do once a week and then I go home and live my real life until next week" (also it always seems like people in volunteer groups are all 70 and I'd like to know some people my own age).

 

But it always seems like spirituality is a part of even non-theistic communities, and that's a big turn-off for me.

[Shyone]

I'm a non-spiritual atheistic agnostic, and several times I've started to seek out a non-theistic religion, but always ended up abandoning the idea because no sort of spirituality (however you want to define it) makes sense to me or is something that I want to participate in.

 

I keep looking because I want to be part of a community. I've tried different groups with sports and volunteering, but there's no sense of "fellowship"- the attitude is "this is something I do once a week and then I go home and live my real life until next week" (also it always seems like people in volunteer groups are all 70 and I'd like to know some people my own age).

 

But it always seems like spirituality is a part of even non-theistic communities, and that's a big turn-off for me.

Just a thought.

 

Atheists that get together don't have do discuss religion or be spiritual. It's a question of activities, and some people who happen to be atheists like to do fun stuff (or at least interesting stuff).

 

Look over activities you think you might enjoy and get involved. Helping animals, homeless, AIDS patients, the local NPR station, health related activities, etc. The Christian organizations that do this will be obvious, but the ones that don't advertise religion are quite possibly secret atheists.

[ClaraOlive]

Look over activities you think you might enjoy and get involved. Helping animals, homeless, AIDS patients, the local NPR station, health related activities, etc. The Christian organizations that do this will be obvious, but the ones that don't advertise religion are quite possibly secret atheists.

 

This is what I was trying to do by getting involved with sports groups and (non-religious) volunteer groups. I have enjoyed the activities, but haven't really found that those groups move beyond activity into community.

 

For example, the church that my parents attend meets three times a week (as most Protestant churches seem to do). They have prayer meetings and a phone gossip prayer chain. They have small groups that meet for meals once a month. My mother is on the Fellowship committee, which provides meals to any members who are sick or going through hard times. My father used to lead a Boy's Brigade group (like a cross between boy scouts and AWANA).

 

While I don't necessarily think it's healthy to let an organization take over your entire life, there was a lot of chance to get closer to people because of multiple scheduled opportunities to interact with them.

 

I travel for work a lot, so in these once a week things, it's very hard to get to know anyone. To me, a community is one where you don't just show up and work on a cause or common interest, but one where there's also focus on members helping each other and getting to know one another. I've never been part of a volunteer group like that- the focus was always on helping someone else and if you developed friendships, that was just a side effect.

 

I've been looking at the UU church again, and while the spirituality does put me off, it's attractive insofar as there's a strong focus on community.

 

ETA: I'm probably about 70% introverted- so I'm not highly social and I don't love meeting new people or spending a lot of time with people I don't know. But I'm not so introverted that I don't want any friends. That's why I favor scheduled group activities, because in a group, I don't have to talk as much and with a schedule, I don't have to spend a lot of time having the internal battle about whether I want to go or not, and hopefully the same people will keep showing up. It's my impression that it's easier for people to show up if something is always at the same time and in the same place than if it gets rescheduled a lot.

[Objet_trouve24]

It's debatable to me whether I was intentionally looking for a new religion or not. My ex-fiance who was greek pagan, was such a wonderfully nice person, that I wanted to be like her. I respected her religious views, and she encouraged me to look into hers and some others.

 

I rejected christianity largely because my understanding of what I believed was the correct way for me to live (my philosophy), was telling me to be someone the religion said I should not be. I became convinced, based on my experience with good and plentiful evidence, that homosexuality was normal, and not evil, and that christianity was lying to me about sex and gender. I became convinced that sex outside of marriage isn't really bad, and can be a good thing. I became convinced that many christian beliefs were designed to control people, and that more people were being hurt than helped. I became convinced that science was more believable than the bible. I became convinced that the god I followed would be considered far worse than Hitler if held to the same standards as I was. When you are that convinced, even pretending to believe is impossible.

 

Part of why I wanted to believe in something when I first left christianity was because I was really scared, and had no one to turn to. Looking into other religions helped me get through the scary phase I had to go through thanks to leaving the faith, but it became so much more than that.

 

The reason I believe in Asatru has to do with the nature of Asatru (and the definition of "belief"). I believe it is almost a sure thing that my gods are just symbolic, and if that is the case, I don't see a problem with that. I know praying might be nothing more than a placebo or self fulfilling prophecy, and I'm ok with that and see no reason why I can't use it to my advantage. My religion has a creation and end times story, but they're both most likely symbolic (especially the creation story), and I am ok with my desired afterlife not happening if it doesn't happen. My religion teaches that it's more important to live in the true present than obsess too much about after I die.

 

What does my religion offer? Good advice for living my life right now. A way that I can live that will help me be the person I want to be. It's part of how I try to live up to my ideal for myself. It helps keep me calm when I feel panicked, helps me figure out which action would be best (or no action at all). My church (I'm Unitarian Universalist as well) gives me a community, a support system, and helps me live peacefully alongside people who are different from me.

 

How about for the art? I like the poetry and stories in the Eddas. What's wrong with following a religion in part because it offers aesthetic value? Or how about because it helps you feel close to your ancestral roots?

 

I don't see why religion has to be literally true, absolute, and the only way. I think it's pretty much just judeo-christian religions that are real sticklers for that. I know people who were very literally spiritually touched by the FSM concept (especially the eight "I'd really rather you didn'ts"). What's wrong with that?

 

So why shouldn't I follow this religion? The only answers to that I've ever heard are "because it's crazy to believe in invisible people" (which doesn't really apply to my faith, since my gods are symbolic), and "because you shouldn't let a church control you" (which I don't, in fact my church tries so hard not to control it's congregation that they have attendance and financial troubles). What exactly can absolute disbelief in gods and spirituality of all kinds offer that will be better than the life I live now?

 

I very rarely talk about my religious beliefs, so I hope I expressed myself ok here.