I think it is a mistake most ExMos make, to assume if Joseph's Myth is bogus, then its either:

A. Join another church or
B. Become an atheist

What about C. None of the above?
More Americans choose, None of the above, as their religious identity, than any other identity, other than Catholic.

In this age of "Identity Politics" I see a huge portion of society choosing, None of the above, as the best way to have one less thing to get bent out of shape over.

Some exmo's become "spiritual without being religious" or "New Agers". Most have soured to organized religion (i.e. middle aged men in suits asking 13 year old girls if they masturbate, and, if so, how?)

Or just abandon any belief in a dude in the sky. I don't believe or not believe in a celestial being...I just don't care if there is one or not. Don't know if there is a word for that.

That's pretty much where I am.

Plus the schedule of meetings never conflicts with things I have to do.

Those people are called apatheist

I invented Laztheist. Seriously... You can ask Google...


Ha! I even mentioned it here on RfM:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1626793,1626844#msg-1626844

Plus, if I ever have to go into the hospital again, I can write "apatheist" in the part where they ask about religion!

(No, I don't think I would do that. It would be too upsetting to TBM DH, who still cherishes the notion that I am a Presbyterian, though deeply inactive.) Besides, would they put "apatheist" on your hospital wristband??

My file at Alberta Health Care lists me a having "no religious affiliation".

I learned something today,apatheist. The definition fits me perfectly. Getting into a discussion on religion with opposing views is a non-starter.

Most ex-MOs I have run into seem to be apatheist.

Another word is "agnostic". It can apply to someone who thinks there is no way of knowing whether God exists or not.

Yep. They’re really the same. Apatheism is a relatively new, and unnecessary idea. Agnostics don’t believe you can know if god(s) exist...which also implies not caring.

I believe in the Logos, that god is a mathematician. A sufficiently advanced alien would meet the defi ition of God and it would do the math and figure humans dont do the Eartht any good and it would lead us to figure out E=mcsq and give that info to a couple of the mist evil bastards ever born to hit the reset button until we learned bow not to be ome the first species to anihilate itself.

I think some people join another church as a decoy. I can think of several different people I went to high school with (former Mormons) that I learned through social media that they had become Jewish, mainstream Christian, etc. I know that some of it is fake. But it can easily get the TBMs off their backs if they realize that so and so is now Jewish. I just might try this tactic!

I think I fall into the agnostic category.

Really - I was not aware that you could become Jewish. Isn't that an ethnic group you have to be born into?

Anyway, I am a None of the Above who still believes in God and life after death based on modern evidence. Anything over 100 years old no longer counts.

I've known him for probably 20 years or so. He has always been a "seeker" in the religious sense. When I first met him, he was dating a girl who was Wiccan. When they broke up, he let that go, too.

For a long time, I didn't know where he had gone, religiously, but since about a decade ago, he and his wife have been Jewish. I don't know which variety. It seems to work for them.

My pal Gary's wife converted to Judaism after they married.

My body contains all the wetware I need to be in bliss. With performance of effective techniques, the nervous system will produce chemicals which, upon arrival in certain organs of the brain, will bring about all the experiences one associates with transcendental bliss and ecstasy. The body is the temple of divine mysticism.

I was an atheist for a long time before I could let go fear of the label.

I dislike fear, so if religion comes up, my atheist box is checked. Someone has be Luther-like in battling the status-quo of Rome. I may as well be one of them. I won't go all batsh## crazy or start a revolution, but I'm up to here with liars.

"None of the above" is thought or assumed to be apathy, and I'm about up to here with that as well. - I work with a woman on our team, who when challenged to do her job, will repeatedly say, "I don't care," in her attempts to push her work onto others. Of course, she won't say that to the Owner-gods, so others either do her work for her, or suffer the poor quality within the team effort. Her apathy extends to not giving a sh## how anyone else performs, and it's an infection. She is "nice" in extending that apathy to all manner of behaviors, so is viewed as 'the nice one."

I think it apparent that she cares a great deal how others view her, no matter her statements to the contrary. Mediocrity is her stock in trade. I quietly keep expecting standards of performance, and usually those standards are met to varying degrees. Some capitulate, and build their efforts on her lower standards.

Call me Luther, or Lucifer, or whatever you want, but I see this capitualtion as learned helplessness, and I have a daily "battle" against it.

Saying "I don't care about religion," - I would ask the source of one's knowledge of a "possible god(s)," if not a heavily indoctrinated society.

The alternative would be a personal god, a "god of one," and people are usually hospitalized for those claims, the caveat being, when they can garner a small follwing, most of whom usually wind up dead in that effort.

What are the actual, factual options?

a) A societal god (a god of many)*
b) A god of one, of which you harbor secret(s)*
c) No gods

How can "none of the above" now apply?

*It should be noted that a) nor b) are mutually exclusive, but the actual case is almost always a combination of the two.


Let the nurses wring their prayerful hands as they see me off to outer darkness, or hell, or whatever their caring hearts wish to believe. Now, THAT is apathy. I consider the greater risks to be in "not caring," all the while, caring very much.

Lucifer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are the actual, factual options?
> a) A societal god (a god of many)*
> b) A god of one, of which you harbor secret(s)*
> c) No gods
>
> How can "none of the above" now apply?

Because the "societal God" is just a euphamism for "patriarchy" maintained by group think, tribalism, and delusion, disguused as "faith".
Its identity politics, us vs. The world false dichotomy, because we are all, us.
B. What's the difference between a "God of one" and a delusion?
C. Like Sagan said, "An atheist would have ti know a lot more about the Cosmos than me."
IOW, how do yiu rule out anything in a universe, 96% composed of a giant mystery we call, "dark energy/matter" fir lack of a better term?
The Higgs Boson meets all the rewuirements of a creator god.
It is everywhere and nowhere, up until we detected it with the LHC. It is omnipotent and the creator that is responsible fir creating everything.

It is somewhat of a dichotomy if we remove atheist and substitute agnostic, in my opinion. We perhaps have different definitions of words. I view agnostics as those who really are not interested in religion or worrying if god exists or not. Agnostic in my mind is indifference and yet could have some spiritual leanings. That covers a broad spectrum of views. Atheist is too specific of a term for a binary choice.

C. What is wrong with simply taking responsibility for your own actions, learning as much as you can, and living a good life? We are all capable of this. If you still need training wheels as an adult, you haven't gotten very far.

I am so tired of grown-ups with security blankets.

Surprised you didn't see this.

Well in that case, anything and everything can be a security blanket. However "being tired of something" means you yearn for something better. It means you are considering priorities rather than sticking with the status quo. It is the first step to doing something about it--to explore new possibilities. How on earth is that a security blanket?

Surprised you didn't see this.

No, I read it as "I am happy that I'm irritated at how childish others are, because that makes me more mature than them."

And yes, any ego consolation is a security blanket.

Apparently you read yourself into it.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it is a mistake most ExMos make, to assume
> if Joseph's Myth is bogus, then its either:
>
> A. Join another church or
> B. Become an atheist

What makes you think we've "assumed" any such thing?

I reasoned my way out of mormonism, by comparing claims to evidence.
Then I took on other religions in the same way -- and their claims fell as flat as mormonism's.

So did all the 'god' claims that abound, even the deist-flavored-type -- like the ones you often promote about 'Spinoza's god' or the Higgs boson as 'creator god.'

I didn't become an atheist by assuming anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/30/2017 11:55AM by ificouldhietokolob.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What makes you think we've "assumed" any such
> thing?
>
> I reasoned my way out of mormonism, by comparing
> claims to evidence.
> Then I took on other religions in the same way --
> and their claims fell as flat as mormonism's.
>
> So did all the 'god' claims that abound, even the
> deist-flavored-type -- like the ones you often
> promote about 'Spinoza's god' or the Higgs boson
> as 'creator god.'
>
> I didn't become an atheist by assuming anything.

Pantheist is different from Deist. Einstein was a Pantheist as was Spinoza and Sagan who said, "Yes I believe in God, if by the word, 'God' you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the universe."

I believe in the pantheist 'god' of Sagan which is the god of Aurelius, Logos. (Logic, the immutable laws that govern the universe)

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge." Carl Sagan

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." Einstein

I don't believe in a personal God either. But I do admire the structure of the world so far as our science can and does reveal it.

koriwhore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Pantheist is different from Deist. Einstein was a
> Pantheist as was Spinoza and Sagan who said, "Yes
> I believe in God, if by the word, 'God' you mean
> the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern
> the universe."

It is immensely tiring that you consistently take the opinions of these people and twist their meanings to suit your beliefs. And even when it is pointed out that you are making contextual errors you persist.

Pantheism is not belief in god, it is the deification of reality. It is no different than you and I worshiping the sunset, the reverence that we feel for the sunset does not imbue the sunset with supernatural powers.

Sagan rejected the notion of absolute knowledge, choosing his words carefully so as to demonstrate that he dismissed the idea that anyone could know anything when there was a such a massive lack of data. The fact that he refused to call himself an atheist is a direct result of him refusing to say that he knew something that he couldn't know. It has nothing to do with god, whom he rejected with much more fervency than he did philosophical atheism.

Einstein, who was perhaps a little less measured with his words than Sagan also rejected atheism on the grounds that such a firm statement couldn't be backed up. In saying that he believed in the god of Spinoza Einstein was expressing a measure of admiration for the things that he himself didn't understand. Again the reverence he gives the universe in not an acceptance of the supernatural. It is admiration.

Spinoza offered a philosophical foundation to the idea that the things that we don't understand, and potentially cannot understand are greater than we are. Spinoza rejected duality in a spiritual sense and instead pondered how everything was connected. Spinoza didn't believe in god, Spinoza believed, emphasis on believe, he believed in the Grand Unified Theory.

>
> I believe in the pantheist 'god' of Sagan which is
> the god of Aurelius, Logos. (Logic, the immutable
> laws that govern the universe)

Beyond being a deist, Marcus Aurelius was a polytheist. Sagan was at a minimum agnostic and said so many times. Logos is a concept not a god. Logic is a rhetorical device and not a god. The unchanging laws of the universe neither govern the universe, nor have been proven to be unchanging.

>
> "A religion old or new, that stressed the
> magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern
> science, might be able to draw forth reserves of
> reverence and awe hardly tapped by the
> conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a
> religion will emerge." Carl Sagan

I think you read something different in this quote than I do.

>
> "I do not believe in a personal God and I have
> never denied this but have expressed it clearly.
> If something is in me which can be called
> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for
> the structure of the world so far as our science
> can reveal it." Einstein

Already explained above.

>
> I don't believe in a personal God either. But I do
> admire the structure of the world so far as our
> science can and does reveal it.

Your admiration doesn't equal god, it equals admiration.