Hard question to answer. Especially since as I have gained perspective my point of view has undergone a series of metamorphosis. Long story short. I was brought up in the Holiness movement , mainly the Church of the Nazarene . But it's doctrine of Christian perfectionism caused me to develop a scrupulosity obsession , because I felt insecure in my relationship with God , and uncertain of my state of grace. After what culminated in a condition of anorexia mirabilis , I stumbled upon some writings by Robert Ingersoll , and Elbert Hubbard , which inspired me , and influenced me to be an agnostic atheist. I have largely been an atheist ever since . However now of days it's not due so much to emotional response , but rather because none of the various religions I have looked into adds up as being the truth , as I understand it , or makes complete sense to me. I mean I try to be considerate of other's opinions , and I am particularly interested in the concept of religious naturalism , but I still do not really understand the rationale behind it. Plus most people would still be inclined to consider that to be atheist anyway , as it does not include a belief in a personal anthropomorphic deity , but rather simply a metaphoric , philosophical absolute. But this sort of naturalistic pantheism is the only concept of divinity that seems to me to be even remotely credible , and why I am still in anyway still agnostic. But even then Richard Dawkins did state that he deems such pantheists to be "sexed up atheists" anyway http://www.pantheism.net/atheism.htm.
04 May 2016, 4:58 pm
