Community > Posts By > mykesorrel

 
mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 03:27 PM





I'm pretty sure that Stephen Hawking is a "Strong Atheist" when it comes to the idea of a personified Godhead. He may be open to more abstract concept of spirituality though.

Same is true for Albert Einstein. He has a very clear quote on this:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." - Albert Einstein

So here we have Einstein proclaiming to be a "strong atheist" in terms of a personified godhead such as depicted in the Bible.

However, here we have Einstein proclaiming that is is not an atheist in general:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein


neither of these quotes can possibly be construed to suggest that eisnstein was an atheist. at best, one would reasonably conclude that einstein denied a belief in god but one thing an agnostic is is someone who has no belief in god. that an atheist has no belief in god either is moot. the difference being that an agnostic thinks that such a belief is not knowable where an atheist believes there is no god [strong atheist] or does not believe there is a god but could be convinced with enough evidence [weak atheist]. neither hawking or einstein can be pinned down to either with the quotes you used.


This is what i don't get about agnosticism and it like a train hitting a wall on atheistic forums, especially on Reddit. To me, agnosticism is opening to the idea of literally ANYTHING. We as as species can conclude that a consciousnesses exist, because we know ours exist and that our brain not suited to understand why we are here. To me, this is my opinion, agnosticism is basically shrugging your shoulder off what people assert that they believe is true. For instance, to be an agnostic, you can basically say "i don't know if Zeus exists or not, or i don't know if Santa Clause exist or not", we can conclude if something exist by merely evaluate its evidence; deviating ourselves of assumptions because of what someone made up (or because people assume God did because of ID) . Most atheists that i know, don't say "I know for a fact God doesn't exist", yes this may be a "no true scotsman" issue, but the mere definition of agnostic atheism is only one cannot conclude if God exist or not, but until evidence is shown there's no reason to believe.


could be the reason you don't get agnosticism is because you're defining the term incorrectly. a pure agnostic like me, einstein, hawking, bill gates, warren buffet, thinks that nothing is knowable in an absolute sense other than what we've experienced. agnostic atheism is a misnomer and an impossibilty. what you described is a weak atheist. being a little agnostic is like being a little pregnant. agnosticism is about the unknown and unknowable so in regards to your 'agnostic atheist' he cannot conclude if god exists and the agnostic side of him could not concieve of evidence ever possibly existing to give him a reason to believe. there simply is no such animal as an agnostic atheist. people will say otherwise but some speak of sasquach too.


You're making the labeling more than need be, also you making it seem as if agnosticism is the one true position (bringing up weak and strong atheism). Sort of like this kid in my religion class who said "Oh, no, i'm not an atheist [snirk], i'm a agnostic i don't know if God exist or not" and all the theists felt better, pff. Anyway, atheism is merely the *disbelief* in Gods, not the knowledge of knowing for a fact of this disbelief, but the conclusion of no evidence of the latter, period. An agnostic claims no knowledge, period. The knowledge comes from a theist proclaiming "the Abrahamic God exist", my reply "where is your evidence", "you just have to believe" - "well i don't believe your claims", it's as simple as that.


mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 03:01 PM
Edited by mykesorrel on Sat 07/23/11 03:04 PM





nice way to egg the pudding,,,no mention earlier of it being billed as 'christian' only

a prayer day by itself does not violate the constitution

if it is 'billed' specifically to one religion, ,that is quite different...


Not all religions pray. So it would be favoring those who do.



not all religions pray?

prayer: A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship


so which religion doesnt allow or have people in it who request help or express thanks to someone or something they worship?




::cough:: Buddism ::cough::



cough; buddhism is not a religion as they worship no deity. cough:

FSM bless you,

Buddhism is a religion/philosophy because of it's practices, traits it shares with religion and certain denominations of it, whether it fully is a religion or just simply a philosophy is irrelevant. You're preaching to choir on its overall ideology (being atheistic in a sense of not believing in God(s)), but thanks anyway. :wink:

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 12:35 PM



I agree with what you said earlier about circular logic

we can agree to disagree,, neither of us are changing what we feel and I think we have re iterated the same points long enough,,,flowerforyou


Touche, nice to meet you anyway the name is Myke. :)



ditto, name is Michel


Real name is Michael, now i just thinking you're biting off me. :p

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 12:31 PM

I agree with what you said earlier about circular logic

we can agree to disagree,, neither of us are changing what we feel and I think we have re iterated the same points long enough,,,flowerforyou


Touche, nice to meet you anyway the name is Myke. :)

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 12:26 PM








sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.




there is a difference in not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence


and believing in NO THING because there is no evidence


,,,for example, In ancient times, I could have said 'I know the earth is not round'

merely because, at that point in history, there was no EVIDENCE that it was,,,,but I would still be wrong and delusional to believe that just because something had YET to be proven to exist that it meant it must not exist


I cant remember who said it but 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'


Still using realism for supernatural, huh? We know the earth exist so to analyze the specifics of it being wrong or flat is just. There is no evidence ANYTHING supernatural, so there is no reason to believe anything supernatural exist. To elaborate more, we don't have evidence of aliens existing, but we know humans exists, and the probability of their being life is reasonable to account.



using realism for supernaturalism? no

using logic to explain why someone who presumes to KNOW of something 'not EXISTING' merely because of an absence of evidence

is the same as someone who presumes to KNOW of something Existing in spite of an absence of evidence


we know the earth exists,, we also know humans exist
to analyze the specifics of the earth being round or flat is just
as is to analyze the specifics of HOW and WHY humans came to exist


As stated before, there is a difference between knowing and not accepting because there is no evidence. Essentially i can assert to you this is all a computer stimulation and we are in some kind of Matrix, would you believe me or not? Would you say it is improbable? IF so why would it be improbable? Point being as silly is the idea might seem, people would come to that conclusion because there is no evidence. And yes you are, this is like your third time doing the "i'm going to use a realistic analogy to bring fourth a supernatural one". But what God do we have evidence for, or what supernatural thing do we have evidence for to conclude a deity does exist? Why should i take it seriously or even scientist for that matter? We have models of the beginning of why we are here, to simply say God did it because of your bias belief in one is not different then any other religion, or ancient Greek who didn't understand thunder say "Zeus did it". To be honest, i'm half way done this circle argument. Like i said before, funny you won't even consider the possible of a God not existing, i been to both sides of the plane, can you say you really dug deep into scientific evidence or are you just using wishful thinking, because you don't understand the universe - really hope that is not the case.



I consider it, and it doesnt make sense to me. Im sane, Im logical, I have a decent IQ, A student in school. No mental or intellectual deficiencies,, I just believe its the most PROBABLE truth.

I am not a God to have any absolute truth, but I do live life on certain foundations , otherwise called my 'truth', which are based upon experience and those things MOST PROBABLE.

the point JB made however, was someone who says they KNOW God doesnt exist is no more/less delusional than someone who says they KNOW God does exist

,, however much their egos push them to believe otherwiseflowerforyou flowerforyou


Yes, but deep in you heart i'm pretty sure you believe in FACT a God exist rather than one don't. So in retrospect, wouldn't that make you Delusional? Or would you be a "agnostic Christian"? :heart:



deep in my heart,,lol

my heart feels there is a God , of course

but , I explained how that works in terms of 'absolute truth'

90 percent of what is 'true' is 'believed' to be true because it seems most probable from what one experiences and reads,,,,

my faith in God being true is no different than anothers faith that He isnt true

they discern its most probable(that he doesnt exist) from what they experience and read

I discern, for the same reason, that he does exist


I dont walk through life on shaky foundation, or waiting to be proven 'wrong' on the things I believe,, so this serves as my foundational 'truth', although I realize I cant KNOW absolutely anymore than I can know that Pluto exists(existed), I have seen neither for myself and must rely on the integrity of those who have taught and written about it,,,


I disagree with this, it's like saying atheism is a faith, i don't have faith that God doesn't exist. It's almost like saying i have faith the SnowMan Jukaka doesn't exist hidden on MT. Everest. How can you be proven wrong on a negative, especially on something you already agree on without evidence? That's like saying you are waiting for someone to prove Zeus don't exist and until then you will believe the contrary (which i'm assuming you mean). So basically, what i'm gathering is you have an integrity of people, who wrote a Bible, containing many things found rational improbable of happening, but people who dedicate there life work in science is more so improbable of being true than that of stuff like, Noah Ark?

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 12:13 PM






sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.




there is a difference in not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence


and believing in NO THING because there is no evidence


,,,for example, In ancient times, I could have said 'I know the earth is not round'

merely because, at that point in history, there was no EVIDENCE that it was,,,,but I would still be wrong and delusional to believe that just because something had YET to be proven to exist that it meant it must not exist


I cant remember who said it but 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'


Still using realism for supernatural, huh? We know the earth exist so to analyze the specifics of it being wrong or flat is just. There is no evidence ANYTHING supernatural, so there is no reason to believe anything supernatural exist. To elaborate more, we don't have evidence of aliens existing, but we know humans exists, and the probability of their being life is reasonable to account.



using realism for supernaturalism? no

using logic to explain why someone who presumes to KNOW of something 'not EXISTING' merely because of an absence of evidence

is the same as someone who presumes to KNOW of something Existing in spite of an absence of evidence


we know the earth exists,, we also know humans exist
to analyze the specifics of the earth being round or flat is just
as is to analyze the specifics of HOW and WHY humans came to exist


As stated before, there is a difference between knowing and not accepting because there is no evidence. Essentially i can assert to you this is all a computer stimulation and we are in some kind of Matrix, would you believe me or not? Would you say it is improbable? IF so why would it be improbable? Point being as silly is the idea might seem, people would come to that conclusion because there is no evidence. And yes you are, this is like your third time doing the "i'm going to use a realistic analogy to bring fourth a supernatural one". But what God do we have evidence for, or what supernatural thing do we have evidence for to conclude a deity does exist? Why should i take it seriously or even scientist for that matter? We have models of the beginning of why we are here, to simply say God did it because of your bias belief in one is not different then any other religion, or ancient Greek who didn't understand thunder say "Zeus did it". To be honest, i'm half way done this circle argument. Like i said before, funny you won't even consider the possible of a God not existing, i been to both sides of the plane, can you say you really dug deep into scientific evidence or are you just using wishful thinking, because you don't understand the universe - really hope that is not the case.



I consider it, and it doesnt make sense to me. Im sane, Im logical, I have a decent IQ, A student in school. No mental or intellectual deficiencies,, I just believe its the most PROBABLE truth.

I am not a God to have any absolute truth, but I do live life on certain foundations , otherwise called my 'truth', which are based upon experience and those things MOST PROBABLE.

the point JB made however, was someone who says they KNOW God doesnt exist is no more/less delusional than someone who says they KNOW God does exist

,, however much their egos push them to believe otherwiseflowerforyou flowerforyou


Yes, but deep in you heart i'm pretty sure you believe in FACT a God exist rather than one don't. So in retrospect, wouldn't that make you Delusional? Or would you be a "agnostic Christian"? :heart:

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 12:01 PM




sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.




there is a difference in not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence


and believing in NO THING because there is no evidence


,,,for example, In ancient times, I could have said 'I know the earth is not round'

merely because, at that point in history, there was no EVIDENCE that it was,,,,but I would still be wrong and delusional to believe that just because something had YET to be proven to exist that it meant it must not exist


I cant remember who said it but 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'


Still using realism for supernatural, huh? We know the earth exist so to analyze the specifics of it being wrong or flat is just. There is no evidence ANYTHING supernatural, so there is no reason to believe anything supernatural exist. To elaborate more, we don't have evidence of aliens existing, but we know humans exists, and the probability of their being life is reasonable to account.



using realism for supernaturalism? no

using logic to explain why someone who presumes to KNOW of something 'not EXISTING' merely because of an absence of evidence

is the same as someone who presumes to KNOW of something Existing in spite of an absence of evidence


we know the earth exists,, we also know humans exist
to analyze the specifics of the earth being round or flat is just
as is to analyze the specifics of HOW and WHY humans came to exist


As stated before, there is a difference between knowing and not accepting because there is no evidence. Essentially i can assert to you this is all a computer stimulation and we are in some kind of Matrix, would you believe me or not? Would you say it is improbable? IF so why would it be improbable? Point being as silly is the idea might seem, people would come to that conclusion because there is no evidence. And yes you are, this is like your third time doing the "i'm going to use a realistic analogy to bring fourth a supernatural one". But what God do we have evidence for, or what supernatural thing do we have evidence for to conclude a deity does exist? Why should i take it seriously or even scientist for that matter? We have models of the beginning of why we are here, to simply say God did it because of your bias belief in one is not different then any other religion, or ancient Greek who didn't understand thunder say "Zeus did it". To be honest, i'm half way done this circle argument. Like i said before, funny you won't even consider the possible of a God not existing, i been to both sides of the plane, can you say you really dug deep into scientific evidence or are you just using wishful thinking, because you don't understand the universe - really hope that is not the case.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 11:48 AM

In Japan millions of Buddhists pray to Amida Buddha, the Buddha of Infinite Light


Not in tradition sense that Perry is inclining. In that ready, he makes deliberate remarks on his agenda (citing Jesus multiple times), you can ignore it if you want to.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 11:46 AM


sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.




there is a difference in not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence


and believing in NO THING because there is no evidence


,,,for example, In ancient times, I could have said 'I know the earth is not round'

merely because, at that point in history, there was no EVIDENCE that it was,,,,but I would still be wrong and delusional to believe that just because something had YET to be proven to exist that it meant it must not exist


I cant remember who said it but 'absence of proof is not proof of absence'


Still using realism for supernatural, huh? We know the earth exist so to analyze the specifics of it being wrong or flat is just. There is no evidence ANYTHING supernatural, so there is no reason to believe anything supernatural exist. To elaborate more, we don't have evidence of aliens existing, but we know humans exists, and the probability of their being life is reasonable to account.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 11:42 AM



nice way to egg the pudding,,,no mention earlier of it being billed as 'christian' only

a prayer day by itself does not violate the constitution

if it is 'billed' specifically to one religion, ,that is quite different...


Not all religions pray. So it would be favoring those who do.



not all religions pray?

prayer: A solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship


so which religion doesnt allow or have people in it who request help or express thanks to someone or something they worship?




::cough:: Buddism ::cough::

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 11:39 AM


sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.


Instead of saying "come on" maybe you could rally the people together to stop the decline that has taken place since 1962.

I say as an American bring on any peaceful rally you can make happen to bring us back to our senses.

Have you even looked at the rise of crime since "62" historically?


The most i can do is what i can. I send my donation for the cure for cancer, walk for aids, among a lot of other things. If i could do something of this magnitude or participate i'd be the first in line. I don't have the stronghold of governor Perry, nor am in any position (trying to find a stable job and finish graduating), hopefully i can eventually, but time will tell.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 10:48 AM
Edited by mykesorrel on Sat 07/23/11 10:53 AM
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - citation please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion/print :

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."


As far as Stephen Hawking:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven


mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 10:36 AM


Amen Sister. flowers

I feel like I just read a spiritual testimony of an atheist. bigsmile


:wink: flowerforyou


I applaud.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 10:34 AM
Edited by mykesorrel on Sat 07/23/11 10:35 AM
sure, no real scientest would make such a claim but a strong atheist claims that there is no god at all, which makes him/her every bit as delusional, according to psychiatry, as a christian who claims god created everything.


Really? Really? A person not believing into something because there is absolutely no evidence is delusional, wow.

seems that you ,like most americans, missunderstand the 'separation clause' in the first amendment. perry is the governor as a profession. he is not 'the government.' as any citizen he is free to speak openly about his religion so long as he does so outside a government sponsored venue.


He is using his government power to enforce thousands on senseless prayer, to distract his true agenda - so i guess the president of the united states can do the same. Firstly, even Christians should object to this, why would you want someone to represent you in this fashion, i can see why other countries look at us with a scratching head. A stadium full of people praying, smh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNdQF9zr3yA - i mean come on.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 10:04 AM
Edited by mykesorrel on Sat 07/23/11 10:05 AM



I'm pretty sure that Stephen Hawking is a "Strong Atheist" when it comes to the idea of a personified Godhead. He may be open to more abstract concept of spirituality though.

Same is true for Albert Einstein. He has a very clear quote on this:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly." - Albert Einstein

So here we have Einstein proclaiming to be a "strong atheist" in terms of a personified godhead such as depicted in the Bible.

However, here we have Einstein proclaiming that is is not an atheist in general:

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." - Albert Einstein


neither of these quotes can possibly be construed to suggest that eisnstein was an atheist. at best, one would reasonably conclude that einstein denied a belief in god but one thing an agnostic is is someone who has no belief in god. that an atheist has no belief in god either is moot. the difference being that an agnostic thinks that such a belief is not knowable where an atheist believes there is no god [strong atheist] or does not believe there is a god but could be convinced with enough evidence [weak atheist]. neither hawking or einstein can be pinned down to either with the quotes you used.


This is what i don't get about agnosticism and it like a train hitting a wall on atheistic forums, especially on Reddit. To me, agnosticism is opening to the idea of literally ANYTHING. We as as species can conclude that a consciousnesses exist, because we know ours exist and that our brain not suited to understand why we are here. To me, this is my opinion, agnosticism is basically shrugging your shoulder off what people assert that they believe is true. For instance, to be an agnostic, you can basically say "i don't know if Zeus exists or not, or i don't know if Santa Clause exist or not", we can conclude if something exist by merely evaluate its evidence; deviating ourselves of assumptions because of what someone made up (or because people assume God did because of ID) . Most atheists that i know, don't say "I know for a fact God doesn't exist", yes this may be a "no true scotsman" issue, but the mere definition of agnostic atheism is only one cannot conclude if God exist or not, but until evidence is shown there's no reason to believe.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 06:30 AM

I was agnostic as a child then became an atheist at the age of 13 cause i came to the conclusion that there is no God,period.Theres more to the story but i don't feel like typing the whole thing.


When you feel like it, i'd love to read it.

mykesorrel's photo
Sat 07/23/11 06:20 AM


Whether it be an agnostic, atheist, theists or whatever. How did you come to your conclusion that there's a higher force, there is no higher force, there's God(s0), or there isn't God(s)?

Disclaimer: This don't need to evolve into a debate, more so stories on the path you took to your conclusion.


I was raised Baptist and Catholic simultaneously. Baptized to both religions, one at birth and one at about 7 or 8. One religion on my mothers side and the other on my fathers. It never really meshed with me when I was young this being in the sky who scares the bejesus out of everyone and watches you all the time. Then as I got older and started realizing what they were teaching then I really started questioning everything. It is not feasible that mankind was born of incest, scientifically or otherwise. A being of this magnitude would not curse women nor treat them as second to a man knowing she is the creator and carrier and raiser of life itself. This god doesn't understand women, nor respect women, nor consider them of much worth at all. This god has a temper over not being held above all else? Childish and manish, not goddishslaphead As I grew to understand the bible I realized it was all man, no god.

I spent most of this time being as a classified agnostic but I felt deep down that there wasn't a god or gods. Confused and feeling as though I was committing sacrilege for not having this faith of this belief. I search for the right religion figuring maybe my issue was with the Christian god but still did not find that epiphany of feeling this being or beings. It was a weight on me spiritually having to suffer the Christian religion. Shackling me to falsehood and hypocrisy.

I was diagnosed with MS in 2002 after having some severe symptoms that were misdiagnosed for a few years before. I got very sick, lost everything and ended up basically homeless. But was too sick to really change anything. My friend took me in, she had a mat on the floor in her basement which was basically a storage room. I was too sick to change anything there. I laid in the basement and was so sick that I asked god to take me. It had been months since I could enjoy anything in life, feeling so terrible every day with no hope of change in sight, I was ready to let the fight go. It was during this time of extreme stress and sickness that I felt/realized completely and spiritually that there is no being in the sky but there is the energy in each of us. I could feel mine as weak and tortured as it was. I could also feel that I wasn't going to die. It was no miracle believe me I was still as sick as could be but letting go of the false idea of the being in the sky took a weight off my spirit and it was one less stress for me to deal with. It lifted me at that level and that made the other stressors a bit easier.

As my spirit became healthier through analysis and searching after this epiphany I started to work on this life energy that I felt. I realized that when I gave out positive energy (interactions) with those around me even though I was so sick, it made me feel better. My physical did not improve for two years but spiritually I grew and grew. When I found the helpful information I needed to help myself out naturally with natural "medicine" and my body started to get better, my spirit was strong enough to help make all the connections between physical, emotional, mental and spiritual and I was better than before I got sick. Not physically what would be considered "normal" but I appreciated that I could walk still, I almost lost it, I appreciated that my mind cleared enough to pay my bills, I appreciate that although there will always be pain, I am able to get through it with the power of my mind and spirit and not narcotics, which I refused all along. Etc....

So after all of this, the energy of life that I identified and feel and that interacts and reacts to others energy is still with me. I feel spiritually free of the shackles of religion and more at peace with myself and the world around me. I feed my spirit and others positivity and I feel the return of the positive.

And here we are. There is no larger than life being in the sky that beats us down with impunity and denies us being human with guilt trips and hypocrisy.

And it is good:thumbsup:


This was an amazing read.

I would have to say the same happened to me. I put the experience up in "who are you".


Hey, your profile pic and that grey stormy pic is awesome. Well, i wanted people to share their experiences, i mean, if you look at the Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) - which i'm researching more - he found his path, but he had specific steps he had to reach it and let it absorb him. Whether you started out rocky in your early life and something sparked it, there's always a beautiful story behind it.


mykesorrel's photo
Fri 07/22/11 07:54 PM

smokin smokin


Nothing like a beautiful women who smokes, the joy!

mykesorrel's photo
Fri 07/22/11 07:45 PM

i didn't pick my path, it picked me



The point of this post is elaborate.

mykesorrel's photo
Fri 07/22/11 07:27 PM

so you bring the browinies to the 420 thread, and i'll twist one up...smokin


HAHA, na man i use firecrackers I LOVE THESE THINGS. I made my ex-friend eat it, she was giggling for 5 hour straight, it was hilarious. I'm eating some on my bus trip next weekend to Toronto, wweeeeee.

That's how I roll when I am bouncing on my fourteens!

:)


I can see i'd be laughing the whole time smoking/eating with your.