Why do LDS more likely to become atheist after losing faith

[Anonymous]

Thanks On Own Now. I get where you are coming from.

I do think that even though I am grappling with my belief in a God, regardless of which way I land I now feel like I need to do the right thing if I feel their is or is not a God – and “right” is the same if their is or is not a God.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I now feel like I need to do the right thing if I feel their is or is not a God – and “right” is the same if their is or is not a God.

I love that.

[Anonymous]

One of the more interesting alternatives to religion I’ve come across recently is Don Cupitt’s non-realist religion. Cupitt, a former Church of England minister, does not believe that there is an actual physical God but is still committed to the idea of “religion” or a system of belief that emphasizes doing good to one another and focusing on the rewards of that good in this life. His ideas influenced the founding of an organization in the UK called “The Sea of Faith” that welcomes all religious beliefs but focuses on how to make that religion create a better world. I’ve read several of Cupitt’s books (and even quoted him once on this discussion board).

His work was a revelation to me given that I had always considered atheists to be violently and aggressively opposed to religion. But here was a man who was for all intents and purposes an atheist (though I think Cupitt rejects that descriptor) who actually embraced what he saw that was a good in religion and even supported the notion that we NEED it (without all the God stuff). I certainly don’t buy into everything Cupitt says but if I were to leave the LDS faith, it would be for something like that: a life system that holds onto the notions that community and goodness and service on an individual basis can change the world in a big way.

Here are a couple of links for those interested: http://www.doncupitt.com/don-cupitt” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.doncupitt.com/don-cupitt and http://www.sofn.org.uk/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.sofn.org.uk/

[Anonymous]

This sounds a lot like being Orthoprax — which is something Ray subscribes to — although his version (or maybe even the official version) doesn’t exclude a belief in God — but the focus is on doing good.

I like the idea though. Of doing good to others and making that your matra, without getting caught up in so many other trappings associated with religion.

Religion does have a lot of “overhead” associated with it that is based on organizational needs, that distracts us from doing good to others. The non-profit work I’m involved in now has no building, minimal administration (paperwork) yet it does a lot of good. Further, the people involved get direct, indirect, short term and long-term benefits from serving.

I will have to read more about his author’s books.

[Anonymous]

To go back to some of the early replies and discussion of the one true church concept. I was asked to speak in sacrament for the first time. Over a text conversation a member of the bishopric asked if I would talk about my spiritual journey, I said “great, I will talk about 12 years old Southern Baptist Summer Bible camp at Rock Springs and people sitting around the campfire listening to someone sing ‘That old Rugged Cross’, but I don’t think that is what they want to hear about.” Uncomfortable silence on the phone for a while before the next text. I ended up with another topic and spoke about God and the Civil Rights movement. Anyway …..

I do think the move to Atheist comes from the church being so tied to the religious experience. I recall doing my daily reading one Sunday morning and being so blown away by a concept,gaining an understanding. I felt so spiritually alive and then went to church full of energy and hearing a parade of youth speakers talk about the temptation of R Rated movies, definitely a come down from the moment I had.

I can how as the church is taught someone could draw the conclusion that if you reject the church you have nothing left but Atheistism. I think not being from the church if you don’t like the one you are in you go to the Methodist down the block the other way. You walk in and see the couple you used to sit on the same pew with and tell them ” I wondered what happened to you guys.”

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

Using my definition of “know,” I know virtually nothing. I’m very comfortable with that, but not in this church.

Ann, I’m glad you brought this up. English is a terrible language. Honestly, I feel for everyone in the world trying to learn it as a necessary second-language. One of the issues in English is the over-re-use of like terms with slightly different meanings. For example, if you conjugate the verb ‘to be’ there are really a very small number of word forms like ‘was’ or ‘were’ that are re-used all over the conjugation map; and anyone who has learned a latin-based language can appreciate why that is bizarrely un-helpful.

But more to the point of ‘know’. In other languages that have a Greek/Latin background, there are often distinctions between two kinds of ‘know’. One is to know a fact, other is to know of something; to be familiar with it. In Spanish, for example, saber is to know a fact and conocer is more like having personal awareness of something. EX: I know who is teaching the class next semester (saber) and I know the professor (conocer). Conocer comes from that old GNO word tree that I mentioned earlier.

With that in mind, I prefer to think of spiritual knowledge as that which springs from personal experience rather than disembodied ‘facts’.

[Anonymous]

Rickinks wrote:

I can how as the church is taught someone could draw the conclusion that if you reject the church you have nothing left but Atheistism. I think not being from the church if you don’t like the one you are in you go to the Methodist down the block the other way. You walk in and see the couple you used to sit on the same pew with and tell them ” I wondered what happened to you guys.”

If I’m understanding you right, I agree that there’s not a lot of room in the LDS psyche for church-shopping or -hopping. I had a non-religious (can’t say whether she was atheist or agnostic) friend who came back to religion through the Presbyterian church, and then kept experimenting and has ended up a Catholic. But maybe that actually goes to prove the point that a lot of people are drawn to the one true church concept.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Ann wrote:

Using my definition of “know,” I know virtually nothing. I’m very comfortable with that, but not in this church.

Ann, I’m glad you brought this up. English is a terrible language. Honestly, I feel for everyone in the world trying to learn it as a necessary second-language. One of the issues in English is the over-re-use of like terms with slightly different meanings. For example, if you conjugate the verb ‘to be’ there are really a very small number of word forms like ‘was’ or ‘were’ that are re-used all over the conjugation map; and anyone who has learned a latin-based language can appreciate why that is bizarrely un-helpful.

But more to the point of ‘know’. In other languages that have a Greek/Latin background, there are often distinctions between two kinds of ‘know’. One is to know a fact, other is to know of something; to be familiar with it. In Spanish, for example, saber is to know a fact and conocer is more like having personal awareness of something. EX: I know who is teaching the class next semester (saber) and I know the professor (conocer). Conocer comes from that old GNO word tree that I mentioned earlier.

With that in mind, I prefer to think of spiritual knowledge as that which springs from personal experience rather than disembodied ‘facts’.

I can’t imagine learning English as an adult and have loads of respect for those who do. “Terrible” is true, as in inspiring dread and awe.

I wonder how church materials translate into languages with many words for “know.”

Why do we have to (I mean, the church wants us to) take the spiritual knowledge from our personal experience serving and studying as proof of the disembodied facts?

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

So where would you consider someone taking Pascal’s wager?

With Agnostics. Pascal’s Wager is fundamentally flawed in my mind because it suggests that a person should live a godly life in case there is a God. My approach is that it’s even more powerful to try to live a godly life with neither the expectation nor the hope of reward. I’m choosing it entirely of my own volition not out of fear that someone might be watching me.

Pascal’s wager was basically just a subjective decision matrix where he laid out what he thought the possibilities and expected consequences in each case were. So it doesn’t surprise me that some atheists would not find this very compelling if they have already settled on the idea that God doesn’t exist as the answer (I.E. there is no real decision left to make or come to terms with in that case). However it sounds like what Pascal was really trying to say is that he actually took both possibilities (that God does or doesn’t exist) seriously and as far as he was concerned the tie-breaker was that the supposed eternal consequences easily outweighed any downside to living a religious life for a relatively short amount of time even if this turned out to be based on a false belief (the perceived risk/reward trade-off made sense to him).

I certainly don’t agree with this particular idea (eternal rewards/punishments essentially raising the stakes of making the “right” decision) because even if we assume God exists that doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be a final judgment or that we have any reliable way to know exactly what God wants and expects (if anything) because with all the different religious groups making contradictory claims it’s not exactly an obvious choice to assume God favors the specific doctrines of any one group over the others. So the main thing I take away from Pascal’s wager is not that this is going to apply to everyone very well in its original form but simply that I like the general approach of facing the possibility of being wrong and considering whether I can live with the results in each case. For example, I personally wouldn’t have any regrets if it turns out I was wrong to believe in God but there are certainly some religiously motivated decisions (tithing) I would regret if they are based on a false belief.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

OON wrote:

But more to the point of ‘know’. In other languages that have a Greek/Latin background, there are often distinctions between two kinds of ‘know’. One is to know a fact, other is to know of something; to be familiar with it. In Spanish, for example, saber is to know a fact and conocer is more like having personal awareness of something. EX: I know who is teaching the class next semester (saber) and I know the professor (conocer). Conocer comes from that old GNO word tree that I mentioned earlier.

In Portuguese, I think of Saber being about knowledge and Conhecer being about relationships. In testimonies, someone would SABER that the church is true and Conhecer that God loves them as an individual.

In my case:

Não saber about the church, but yes to

Conhecer a relationship with God.

[Author]

Posts