Former pastor: I don't think God exists

[someoneyouknow]

At the start of 2014, former Seventh-Day Adventist pastor Ryan Bell made an unusual New Year's resolution: to live for one year without God. This, reflecting his own loss of faith. He kept a blog documenting his journey and has a documentary crew following him.

After a year, Bell tells NPR's Arun Rath, "I've looked at the majority of the arguments that I've been able to find for the existence of God and on the question of God's existence or not, I have to say I don't find there to be a convincing case in my view.

"I don't think that God exists. I think that makes the most sense of the evidence that I have and my experience. But I don't think that's necessarily the most interesting thing about me."

Today, Bell has a new job at PATH, an organization dedicated to helping the homeless.

"It's, I think, an expression of really the part of me that hasn't changed. I'm still the same person deep down that I was before. I care about justice and equality and I want to see opportunities spread more evenly in our society," Bell says.

Bell says he still feels like atheism is "an awkward fit," and also feels uncomfortable around his former Christian friends who are adjusting to his new views.

One of his biggest lessons from the year is "that people very much value certainty and knowing and are uncomfortable saying that they don't know."

Now he thinks certainty is a bit overrated.

"I think before I wanted a closer relationship to God and today I just want a closer relationship with reality," Bell says.

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/27/373298310/after-year-of-atheism-former-pastor-i-dont-think-god-exists

 

[LadyVer]

Reminds me of Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Scaheffer, founder of L'Abri.) Frank Schaeffer's MO is that there is no certainty, which many people can't understand, and which drives some people bonkers.

 

[Disgustipated]

How is this "poltical"?

 

[FGB]

Well, he certainly is going to get one!

He asked around everywhere except where he should have.

 

[Que]

I have been on a similar journey, so I can relate. Not out of an angry defiance of either tradition or m upbringing.

Rather I had some logistical reasons, and some distaste with cultural reasons to avoid communing with those that might influence my path to continue as it always had.

Most of my feelings that support my faith such as it is are based on the positive experiences I have felt where like Jules in Pulp Fiction I have felt the hand of almighty God (or luck) sparing my very life on several occasions or bring needed material blessing into my life by seeming happen-chance.

It actually could be "luck" as people term it. Intellectually, that is as good an explanation as any, and my rational mind finds that a quite reasonable point of view. But it doesn't 'feel" like that. Those feelings, rational or not are worth having if the provide forward motivation to walk your path with an integrity that feels complete.

One of m concerns from just a personal development point of view is that m version of faith seems entirely too fear based. Not something I believe from a theological perspective, but my own motivations over the years if I am rigorously honest are fear based. Fear or not avoidance of sin has been to my betterment, and had I avoided it more, things would have gone smoother still. Most sin that I would have any inclination towards are sins that I intellectually think are best to avoid. Stepping out on your monogamous relationship is a bad idea for a host of reason.

Now single, it is not quite so simple. I can and do attract the interest of nubiles, they have needs, I have needs.

I decided rationally that I was not going to rush into another relationship since the most significant one of my life lasted two decades. Better know what I need and want next time as well as what I do, and do not have to offer.

I further decided that I was not going to live a sexually aesthetic existence in the meanwhile.

I did not set out specifically to get laid but I had someone that I was giving shelter to, I could see she was amenable and one thing led to another. I found the experience transcendent. Not because the sex was somehow amazing, although it was nice in a languid, sleepy, aimless sort of way, it was transcendent because I felt alive, complete, and whole to be able to express myself sexually.

The thing that provided, for me some "evidence" that there are all sorts of ways to build a structure for one's morality was that I felt no guilt about the experience at all. Not even when her missing boyfriend finally called for her after a week. Not even when she wanted round two before he picked her up.

I felt rather serene and at peace.

Most faiths have some sort of maxim that one can see the efficacy of their beliefs in the lives and countenances of their adherents. Shouldn't one apply the same standard to the results from not adhering?

Life is about the journey, in my view, not the ultimate destination. My current frame on such matters is am I clear with the person about my intentions and will this be a fond memory for her and I twenty years from now. If so, I close, if not, I pass.

There is a line in "Closer" which I never really considered until I was (in my head) writing the coda for the sex blog Mrs. Query and I co-authored. In talking about his experience with his partner and their sexuality, he said "You bring me closer to God."

God if he exists gave us sex and it is Prometheus' fire. It warms as well as it destroys.

 

[FGB]

"Fear from Religion"

Indeed. A considerable amount seem to gleam just that from an involvement in "Religion".

One hears and can find the words "Fear God" but Why, I ask would Christians...his adopted children, fear him? True God is not a normal set of parents, yes God has attributes of a female too. It is true that if a parent loves their children they will chastise them for wrong doing and not listening to them.

Most of the time it takes doing something that a Christian would not normally do anyway. I'm paraphrasing now...(Although all things are legal for us to do, it is not good for feeding the Holy Spirit dwelling inside each of us and that is what we should be striving continually to do.)

Somehow this has morphed into a straight jacket of behavior which can be deadly to the Holy spirit that is implanted in the new and grows to maturity over time in Christians.

The changes that can take place in a person is well un,believable unless you observe it over a long period of time.

I happen to have a brother like that.

People seem to think God's rules (guidelines) change us to fit into Christianity but in reality the Holy Spirit changes us to the point that they are a reminder we bump into less and less as we go through life.

 

[Eilan]

Good for him!

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Reminds me of Frank Schaeffer (son of Francis Scaheffer, founder of L'Abri.) Frank Schaeffer's MO is that there is no certainty, which many people can't understand, and which drives some people bonkers.

Of course there's certainty; you were certainly born and you will certainly die. What he meant was: most people are stupid fucks who believe preposterous shit and assume everything is preposterous.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I am no Bible thumper, but there's a certain amount of arrogance in the view that we know everything when we're proven wrong almost daily. I especially like the part where he claims to have examined the majority of arguments, when in fact there is no arguments grounded in proof on either side. But I suppose if he wasn't a believer he did the right thing, as opposed to being a hypocrite, and wonders how long that he was such.

"We" are proven wrong almost daily?
You have a mouse in your pocket dumbass?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Well, he certainly is going to get one!

With God, or with reality?

 

[KingOrfeo]

At the start of 2014, former Seventh-Day Adventist pastor . . .

But, what about the real pastors?

 

[KingOrfeo]

I especially like the part where he claims to have examined the majority of arguments, when in fact there is no arguments grounded in proof on either side.

No, there aren't, in the scientific sense of "proof," and it's hard to imagine how there could be any, whether God exists or not.

There are arguments for the existence of God grounded in logic, but they're all fundamentally flawed.

Remember, the burden of proof is not on the atheists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the existence of God is very definitely an extraordinary claim, cultural acceptance notwithstanding.

 

[KingOrfeo]

How is this "poltical"?

It's an American-based board. Despite the First Amendment, politics have never been separable from religion here.

 

[unregistered]

 

[MikeD93]

Why cant there be a God? What harm is there in believing in God? Its what people do with their beliefs that is the problem.

Gandhi even pointed this out when he said, " i like your Christ but not your Christians they dont act like their Christ"

The same goes with evolution vs creationism. Why couldnt a creator use evolution as a way to make things be.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since there is no proof, why isn't their claims as equally extraordinary?

Because the single most important insight of the modern scientific revolution is that the pathetic fallacy is indeed a fallacy, that non-human things are not human in any sense. Animals have only animal minds, and the forces of nature are entirely mindless. No evidence has yet been found to indicate otherwise. Therefore, any claim to the contrary is an extraordinary one.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What harm is there in believing in God?

That would be a better question if you substituted "point" for "harm."

 

[FGB]

Because the single most important insight of the modern scientific revolution is that the pathetic fallacy is indeed a fallacy, that non-human things are not human in any sense. Animals have only animal minds, and the forces of nature are entirely mindless. No evidence has yet been found to indicate otherwise. Therefore, any claim to the contrary is an extraordinary one.

There is nothing like starting an argument or explanation with the result first.

There is no God because there cannot be a God because there is no God has always amused me.

That argument went out the door for me in circa 1972 when an angel sent from God intervened and no doubt in my mind saved my life.

I was sacred speechless for a few hours and had to change a blowout but, I'll take it.

I will never forget the voice of that angel, they are diffidently not human. Their vocal range and power are greater than ours. They can also speak telepathically at the same time the same words they say vocally. They have the power to cause you to act independently of thought when busy doing something.

Not something you can mistake or easily forget.

 

[phrodeau]

Did God cause the blowout?

 

[KingOrfeo]

There is nothing like starting an argument or explanation with the result first.

There is no God because there cannot be a God because there is no God has always amused me.

Do you have even the slightest idea what a non-sequitur that is?

That argument went out the door for me in circa 1972 when an angel sent from God intervened and no doubt in my mind saved my life.

How do you know it was an angel, and not a devil, or some supernatural being outside Judeo-Christian mythology, or an ET with a sick sense of humor, or your own hallucination?

In any case, that event might have convinced you, but it means nothing to anybody else.

 

[Que]

Why cant there be a God? What harm is there in believing in God? Its what people do with their beliefs that is the problem.

Gandhi even pointed this out when he said, " i like your Christ but not your Christians they dont act like their Christ"

The same goes with evolution vs creationism. Why couldnt a creator use evolution as a way to make things be.

That is the very question that those that are so adamant that there is no need for faith in this world can never answer. "What is the harm?"

You will notice the lawyer doesn't answer that question instead he insists on re-framing it "What is the point?"

The "point" varies by the person. Some people need something to believe in. What is the "point" of a lottery ticket? I can show you that statistically speaking you will not win. I will bet you an amount of money you wish that you will not win. Those that buy lottery tickets feel there is a point in doing so.

Those that have lost loved ones find solace in the idea of an afterlife. You cannot tell me there is "no point" if it assists someone with the grieving process.

For some people the "point" is to have a framework from which to build a meaningful, moral life.

What I want to know is what is the "point" of those that denigrate religion in such a smug fashion? Do they all think that the are the first generation in human history to be too "smart' for religion to play a part in their culture?

 

[someoneyouknow]

The same goes with evolution vs creationism. Why couldnt a creator use evolution as a way to make things be.

If the claim is that God got things started, what created God? You can't just say, "It's always been", that's a cop out, particularly when the fundies keep whining about the supposed gaps in the fossil record.

As stated above, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show the evidence for a divine being. If you're claiming it exists, you're the one who has to show the evidence. That's how science works.

 

[Que]

If the claim is that God got things started, what created God? You can't just say, "It's always been", that's a cop out, particularly when the fundies keep whining about the supposed gaps in the fossil record.

As stated above, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show the evidence for a divine being. If you're claiming it exists, you're the one who has to show the evidence. That's how science works.

Faith has nothing to do with science. Faith by its very nature is a belief in something that is unknown and cannot be proven. If there was evidence, no faith would be required.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Faith has nothing to do with science. Faith by its very nature is a belief in something that is unknown and cannot be proven. If there was evidence, no faith would be required.

No. Every time a rocket explodes on launch it got there via faith.

Jumping with a parachute is faith.