Atheists Should Be Whatever They Choose

hqdefaultI read a post earlier called “Atheists Should Be Monks“. I’m not sure whether that author really believes what he’s writing or whether he’s trying to troll.

John starts off with a conversation he had with another atheist and he comes up with this premise:

 

  1. If God doesn’t exist, neither does evil.

Okay…I’m with you here, John.

  1. If evil doesn’t exist then ‘maximally evil’ is incoherent.

Okay…

  1. You’re using incoherence to accuse Christianity of incoherence.

You might believe in evil because of your religion, but several other religions would disagree with you and they have their own set of rules about what is good and what is considered evil. You have no tangible way to prove your religion is right about God and theirs is wrong. Both sets of tribes can simply claim their God said so and that’s the end of the argument.

Most atheists I know don’t use the word ‘evil’ but replace it with the word ‘ethics’. They may use the word ‘evil’ as an expression. Kind of like the way I say ‘bless you’ when someone sneezes sometimes.

He continues:

When your philosophy isn’t a philosophy…

When your thesis is ‘content free’…

Why are you blogging?

Because we sometimes have to answer the claims made by religious people who presume to tell us what we think, believe and what we can talk or write about.

Kind of like John is working up to do in a few short paragraphs.

There are many reasons to talk about religion. I may not believe in religion or a specific deity, but the politicians who govern might and that may affect how they operate. Nearly everyone around me believes in a deity of one kind or another, and in some cases, those beliefs shape how they act.

For example, you have people who burn others alive because they think they’re sorcerers:

BANGUI (Thomson Reuters Foundation) – Rebels in Central African Republic have kidnapped, burnt and buried alive “witches” in public ceremonies, exploiting widely held superstitions to control areas in the war-torn country, according to a leaked United Nations report.

And:

The torture took place between December 2014 and early 2015 under instruction from leaders of the mainly Christian “anti-balaka” militia that has been fighting Muslim Seleka rebels across the country for more than two years, said the report.

When more people can talk about the silliness of believing in sorcery, these kinds of incidents may decline or stop altogether.

That is just one example. But regardless, just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean you can’t talk about it or share the philosophies or ideas that you DO believe in. The difference is that those philosophies aren’t supposedly handed down by a deity and I can change them as new information becomes available.

You shouldn’t mind since you’ve no point of view of your own.

You blog because you’re smarter than the rest of us.

Smarter than everyone who has lived before!

They obviously have a point of view…that’s what they’re blogging about.

They don’t necessarily believe they are smarter than you or anyone else either. Just like your blogging doesn’t mean you think you’re smarter than everyone else. They are free to share their point of view and you yours.

You’ve got it all figured out.

Ummm…the only ones claiming to ‘have it all figured out’ are the religious.

Atheism is NOT, in fact, ‘content free’.

It’s brimming with arrogance, outrage, and irrationality.

It offers a lush landscape of bitter contradictions and depraved futility.

And evil.

Many of the atheists I’ve met are very concerned with ethics. Not the childish way the bible gives out rules that often don’t make sense or that contradict one another, but really looking at the heart of the matter and figuring out what causes suffering and how do we best combat that suffering.

Also, the very act of calling us evil shows why we need to discuss atheism – to dispell such backward notions.

Why else would you deliberately destroy the glimmer of hope you see in other human beings?

How is atheism destroying hope? Do you now lack belief in God because of what we have said? Is that why you’re so angry?

Are you fit to take God’s place when you’ve convinced us He doesn’t exist?

No, but maybe reasonable and rational discourse can take the place of irrational, contradictory and violent myths.

Will your non-philosophy speak to the soul of a dead child’s mother?

Atheism won’t, but other philosophies or ways of thinking might, such as humanism. I know when I lost my father, I found no comfort in people telling me it was for the best and I’d see him again etc. I’d rather take comfort in the likely truth – I’ll never see him again, which also makes the times I did spend with him more precious. I think we need to find ways to grieve that transcend religious babble and fake platitudes.

He ends with this piece of advice:

…at least do your part to combat wickedness…

…shut up.

Nah. We will keep talking. Reason will eventually rise to the top and religion will die out. Not because we have to burn, rape or torture people to convince them, like religions often resorts to doing. And certainly not because we have to tell the other side to shut up like you just did, but because we make the better arguments.

Advertisements

70 Comments

  1. Are you fit to take God’s place when you’ve convinced us He doesn’t exist?

    Is he fit to take the place of the garden gnomes that he (presumably) thinks don’t exist? Why the hell would I want to take the place of something that I view as logically contradictory and rationally untenable?

  2. Thanks for reading. I appreciate your response too.

    My article was a response to the idea that “atheism is content free”. You suggested that “we sometimes have to answer the claims made by religious people who presume to tell us what we think, believe and what we can talk or write about”.

    “Atheism is content free” was not my presumption. It was a direct quote from an atheist. Another atheist assured me that “atheism is not a philosophy”. I was not telling anyone what to think. (And you’ll get into trouble with some atheists for even using the word ‘believe’…)

    I believe that you and I are in agreement that atheism is NOT content free. You wrote that “Many of the atheists I’ve met are very concerned with ethics. Not the childish way the bible gives out rules that often don’t make sense or that contradict one another, but really looking at the heart of the matter and figuring out what causes suffering and how do we best combat that suffering”.

    Holding a position on ethics requires some kind of philosophical content.

    And I stand by the point that denying the existence of evil and accusing God of being ‘maximally evil’ is incoherent.

  3. Hello!

    I’m not sure I can address everything you’ve brought up here in detail, but I’d like to just bring up a few points that I think are important.

    First, I think people, and particularly Christians need to make a distinction between “evil,” and “wrong.” I personally think it’s more reasonable to view atheism in particular as “wrong,” as in “not true,” as opposed to “evil,” because I don’t necessarily see it as directly opposed to or offensive to God. Denying his existence doesn’t even necessarily oppose some of his directly given “rules” or commands, even those that are more specifically given to Christians (e.g. love your enemies). I think it’s possible to come to the conclusion that this is the best course of action just by logical reasoning. It’s entirely possible to be a pacifistic atheist, for example, and therefore, try and make peace with those who have offended you. On a larger scale, particularly in the case of war, this is obviously much more difficult from either perspective, but occasionally still possible.

    Second, faith that is coupled with logic, facts, and reasoning, is much stronger than “blind faith.” I didn’t believe that God wanted anything to do with me for a long time because I was waiting for big, spectacular miracles for years, while not noticing the answers to my prayers that he was enacting through people and natural events. I also believe that we can gain insight into the supernatural by studying history, physics, etc. At the same time, I think it’s just as important to look for and study aspects of the supernatural that can be experienced and understood, at least to some degree. To me at least, strictly supernatural creation makes as little sense as a series of completely random events that eventually got us to where we are now. Creation, and human existence make sense to me, only when the natural is coupled with a supernatural plan.

    Third, to address more specifically the reason for this post, I think Christians need to recognize that other religions and philosophies, including atheism, deserve respect. Furthermore, it’s important to remember that “religions” are generally communal, while “faith” is extremely individualistic. While Christians, and in my case Catholics all generally hold to the same belief “system,” it’s slightly different for each person. I don’t see that as a problem at all because every person is different and God wants to have a relationship with each person, so each person’s relationship is going to be slightly different. I’ve probably said this before, but I think it takes some serious guts to strongly believe that there is no God. I would just like to add, however, that atheists should not discredit perceived supernatural events, nor the personal experiences of religious people. I have had very important things happen to me that have drastically changed my life for the better, that I have (what I think are) good reasons to attribute to God alone. Because of this, I do think there is reason to believe that religions may (and have) drastically change over time, but will not die out.

    • Thanks for stopping by FG. Nice to see you and thanks for taking the time to make such a nice comment.

      Obviously, I don’t think atheism is either wrong or evil, but I respect your belief that we are wrong.

      You said: “Creation, and human existence make sense to me, only when the natural is coupled with a supernatural plan.”

      Why is this so? Why would you need supernatural anything to make sense of the natural?

      You said: “Third, to address more specifically the reason for this post, I think Christians need to recognize that other religions and philosophies, including atheism, deserve respect.”

      I think people should be respected but I don’t think any idea or belief inherently deserves respect.

      You said: “I would just like to add, however, that atheists should not discredit perceived supernatural events, nor the personal experiences of religious people.”

      I think they ABSOLUTELY should. Why wouldn’t they? People should just allow other people to believe in a lie because it may comfort them? Why wouldn’t we discuss possibilities of other people being wrong?

  4. I think it is simple, atheism is the default state, it is a state of no belief in anything that is not of this physical world or any other physical worlds. Without religion being invented in the first place we would not have any words for non-believers. A Christian atheist concept is a load of rubbish in my opinion.

  5. John, you ask if carrots are atheists. Carrots as far as I know neither believe nor do not believe in anything. The same goes for pickles and probably all vegetables. The term ‘atheist’ only applies to the individual’s lack of belief in gods or a god. Similarly, you would be an a-unicornist if we were speaking about belief in unicorns. That’s it.

    Substituting negative connotations about such non believers in unicorns would not infuse the term with any other meaning other than a lack of belief in unicorns. That’s why you cannot separate the ‘theism’ part from the ‘a’ part without playing a very juvenile word game to misrepresent what the term actually means… for a motive other than honest inquiry.

    You have an agenda here to impose on atheists a set of beliefs they do not hold. You are trying to create a false equivalency between belief in some gods and belief in no gods as if both were states of .the same kind of belief. This is intentionally dishonest because you know it has no truth value. That’s why I asked you to prove this to yourself and state the core principles the supposed belief in no gods has so that when removed the ‘belief’ in atheism itself is dismantled.

    Go ahead. Do it, John. Stop prevaricating. Stop misdirecting. Stop avoiding what should be a very simple undertaking.

    I’ll wait….

    • Lack of belief in unicorns is the belief that unicorns do not exist. The word games start when you insist that a-unicornism is ‘content free’ or void of claims.

      And the word games quickly become incomprehensible when you keep insisting that we can have a simple discussion about what you DON’T believe.

      What’s so repellant about saying, “Atheists believe some stuff”?

        • Yes! We’re getting somewhere!

          Atheists believe lots of stuff. You said earlier, “However, that doesn’t mean I can’t hold to other philosophies, such as humanism, Buddhism…”

          You MUST hold to other philosophies because atheism, by your own definition, is content free. It is a void. It makes no claims. If that’s true…

          …it means atheism, as a world view, is as useless as a carrot. You need to embrace other philosophies in order to contribute to a conversation.

          That point has dawned on you. There are others participants in this thread who have yet to realize this truth.

            • I understand what you’re saying.

              If someone tells me that I must burn my firstborn with cigarettes to appease the cigarette elves, I would expect some evidence that these particular elves exist.

              But suggesting that I should burn my offspring is a CLAIM. My lack of belief in cigarette elves is also a claim. I’m saying, “I don’t believe cigarette elves exist”. That’s different from saying “I’m ‘content free’ in regards to elves.”

          • John B, you say as if teaching us poor heathens that if atheism is a null set, it means atheism, as a world view, is as useless as a carrot.

            Good. Grief. My forehead is getting bruised from me banging it on my keyboard every time you make another comment.

            It’s not atheists who promote the idea that atheism is a world view! It’s THEISTS and faitheists who try to sell this load of crap. It’s people like you who presume atheism contains some core principles other than a simple identifier of no belief in gods or a god who continue to believe what is not true: that atheism is itself a belief, a belief that possesses some as yet undefined core principles, a belief that that forms a worldview, a belief that justifies immorality and permits and urges its faith-filled followers to run amok raping and pillaging and eating the babies of the villagers. Your presumptions about atheism contains no shred of truth value, not a tich of merit, not a tad of insight. It is unequivocally wrong. You should do something about that deplorable state of ignorance about real life atheists.

            • If you are opposed to “a belief that justifies immorality and permits and urges its faith-filled followers to run amok raping and pillaging and eating the babies of the villagers…” then, event though I hate to say it… That’s a world view!

              If atheism is ‘content free’ then where did you get the idea that raping, pillaging and eating babies is wrong?

              WAIT! Don’t bang your head on the keyboard!

              It doesn’t matter where you got the idea to not pillage villages. The point is that it didn’t come from atheism. Agreed?

              • Right. Atheism contains no core principles. It’s a identifier of non belief in gods or a god. That’s it.

                It is the same default position regarding gods as you have towards, say, the Aztec god of the wind, Ehecatl. You have no reason to believe in this god any more than I do to change my belief status in yours. But what does it mean to call you an a-ehecatl? It means you don’t share any belief in Ehecatl.

                Are there any other core principles involved for you not to believe in belief in the existence of a god or gods? Of course not. All it means its that you don’t believe in Ehecatl. That’s it. That’s all.

                Expand the name of the particular god to a term that refers to belief in any and all gods – theism (“belief in the existence of a god or gods”) – and add the same little ‘a’. That ‘a’ negates any similar belief as you would have as an a-ehecatl. That’s all. That’s it. The ‘a’ is a negation and not a positive claim for the negative. That’s why Dawkins is quite honest to call himself an agnostic atheist. He is a fully fledged, 100%, atheist. Does this mean his non belief is equivalent to the claim that he believes that there is no god? No. On a scale from 1-7 for the strength of his belief that there is no gods or god, he claims a 6. See the difference? Claiming no belief is a statement about belief. Stating there is no god is statement about knowledge. Two different things.

                Theists, agnostics, and faitheists love to reform into their own image atheism not as it truly is – a lack of belief in gods or a god – but as reversed claim that there is no god. Sure, some atheists are stupid enough to fall for this sleight-of-mind trick intended solely to change the lack of belief that atheism means into a knowledge claim that there is no god or gods. But most atheists are honest enough to immediately correct the false accusation with what the term ‘atheist’ actually means: simply a case of having no belief in gods or a god.

                That’s why I continue to ask you to produce the core principles other than a lack of belief that you continue assert without merit lie at the heart of atheism. Without that you have nothing but your own false accusation based wholly on your own misrepresentation of what the term means.

                • Okay. For the record, I do not believe that non-belief is belief. I’m trying desperately to not construct more straw men. In order to avoid misrepresenting you, I gotta ask:

                  1) Would you be able to confess something like, “I believe atheism is true”?
                  2) If ‘yes’, can you articulate what truth atheism describes?
                  3) How do you understand atheism as being ‘content free’ and describing truth simultaneously?

                  • Look at your first question:

                    1) Would you be able to confess something like, “I believe atheism is true”?

                    Here’s the problem: you presume the conclusion and restate it as if a premise.

                    A state of non belief is a default all of us share until we think there’s good reason to invest belief in something. Does it make any sense to you to invest belief in non belief? No, of course not. So the first question is incoherent… unless one presumes atheism is a belief (which is assuming the conclusion you want).

                    I do not think non belief is ‘true’ any more than I think ‘blue’ smells like a bicycle. Non belief is a lack of belief – in this case, no belief in gods or a god which defines me as an a-theist. I have no belief in gods or a god. Do I think there are any gods? No. I think there are no gods based on how I assign likelihood and the likelihood seems very remote… especially when we start talking about local ones and the evidence brought forth to support the hypothesis. Assuming, ‘Therefore God’ is not based on any reasonable evidence because there is none. That’s a brute fact. So the hypothesis is unencumbered by evidence and so it is not tethered to reality but exists in the minds f those who choose to believe in spite of there being no evidence. I think this willingness comes attached to all kinds of pernicious effects and so I advocate against empowering faith-based belief in the public domain.

                    So I can ‘confess’ that I think a lack of belief in gods or a god is quite a reasonable conclusion because the likelihood of there being a god is so remote as to be very close to zero yet the pernicious effects from investing power to these faith-based beliefs are central to much unnecessary suffering. Atheism contains no equivalent investment; it just describes a lack of faith-based belief in such gods.

                    • Okay.
                      Let’s me use an earlier example from the “Tildeb Library of Illustrations” and demonstrate how I would answer the three questions.

                      1) Yes. The statement, “I believe A-Ehecatlism is true.”

                      2) The truth described is my total lack of belief in the existence of the god Ehecatl.

                      3) Therefore, A-Ehecatlism is not totally ‘content free’ as it encompasses my belief (which is zero) in the god Ehecatl.

                      Come on, Tildeb. You’re making this way harder than necessary.

                      An ideology that is absolutely content free would look like this:
                      ” “

                    • So now non belief is an Ideology: non beliefs according to the John Branyan dictionary are now “a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society.”

                      My poor forehead.

                      Okay, then John, we’re back to you describing the beliefs of non belief.

                      If you could just answer my original question, and tell us what constitutes the core principles of non belief that you absolutely insist are there then we could save exchanging thousand of useless words (because all of mine seem to have no effect on your thinking whatsoever).

                      I’ll wait…

                    • Welcome back, Tildeb.
                      You could go a long way toward relieving your headache if you’d quit trying arguing that atheism is not a belief.

                      Tildeb: “I lack belief that there is any furniture in this room.”
                      Me: “So you believe there is no furniture in the room.”
                      Tildeb: “No. I just lack belief in furniture in the room.”
                      Me: “Okay…That means the same thing as belief in no furniture…”
                      Tildeb: “No. I am not making a statement of belief. I’m stating a non-belief.”
                      Me: “Okay. Non-belief in furniture is the belief in NO FURNITURE.”
                      Tildeb: “Show me a piece of furniture that can be removed from an empty room!”

                      Everybody believes things, Tildeb. If atheism is TRULY without content, a void, a ‘non-belief’…then there is no reason to argue with theists.

                      In order to argue against the BELIEF in God, you must BELIEVE that the existence of God is false.

                      How would you respond if I said, “Christianity is not a belief, it’s a lack of belief in atheism”?

                      I’ll wait…

                    • “I don’t believe…” is a statement about a lack of belief. That’s it. That’s all. The content part about the lack of belief itself is dependent on what follows. This is not a difficult concept, John B.

                      Theists love to conflate the two common definitions for the term ‘belief’ and use them interchangeably as you’ve done here to try to misrepresent and malign atheists, as if expecting reality to align with the empirical claims made by various religious beliefs is itself a different kind of unjustified belief fraught with danger and immorality. The common definition of belief is “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists,” what most people understand to be evidence-adduced belief. This, theists cannot abide when it comes to their religious claims… because they know perfectly well reality does not support them.

                      Belief of the religious kind is synonymous with ‘faith’, a kind of belief that requires no evidence from reality but is based on assumption, assertion, and imposed confidence. This is why I try to always clarify which kind of belief I’m referring to by adding ‘faith-based’ for theistic claims.

                      Am I using a faith-based belief about the reality of some furniture? If so, then I require no input from reality; i will simply believe something to be the case, grant it a either a very high level of confidence or even certainty and then ignore anything reality – or you – has to say in the matter. But if I wish to find out if there really is furniture in the room, then I will allow reality to determine my level of confidence in the claim. Show me the furniture, I’ll alter my belief to align with the evidence – an evidence-adduced belief.

                      See the difference, John? Non belief in reference to theistic claims is free from anything other than a lack of faith-based belief. Non belief in reference to reality is free from anything resembling reason and concern for what is the case.

                      So when you conflate atheism to be belief in nothing, you’re returning to your a priori erroneous claim that non belief in your theistic claims is another kind of theistic belief. It’s not. It’s free of THEISTIC content altogether.

      • Lack of belief in …. is the belief that…

        You keep saying this and I keep challenging you to demonstrate it.

        Here’s the problem, John B: you – not I – claim that a lack of belief is a belief. Now, seriously, think about that. Again and again, you insist that a lack of belief is a belief.

        Because you can;’t seem to wrap your head around why this is a mistake, let’s treat it seriously for a moment and ask reality if this is true? Can a lack of something be that something?

        Okay, head over to the bank. Try this reasoning out on a banker. Convince the banker that a lack of money is a kind of money and see how convincing you are without evidence.

        Head over to a food bank. Try it out on a hungry person: Convince the person that a lack of food is a kind of food and see how convincing you are without evidence.

        Try it out on the relatives of a dead child. Convince them that a lack of life in their child is really a kind of life and see how convincing you are without evidence.

        Now do you see the problem with your thinking? You’re trying with word games what reality simply will not demonstrate on your behalf: a lack of something is not equivalent to a kind of that something. Ever. That’s why you cannot do what I continue to ask you to do: demonstrate with evidence that the belief principles upon which you think non belief contains actually does contain them. Show the banker the kind of money a lack of it possesses. Show the hungry person the kind of food a lack of it possesses. Show the grieving people the life a lifeless body possesses.

        By inserting a possessive claim for a term that denies possession, you are only playing a deceitful word game. Get over it and fix your thinking. It’s broken.

  6. Hey GC. I’m technologically inept, so the computer thingy keeps sending me to the bottom. 😦

    Anyway…

    It’s a little bit difficult to answer some of your questions given that from your point of view, I’m inherently wrong, and vise versa. I’ll do my best. 😀

    “Why would you need supernatural anything to make sense of the natural?”

    This is kind of hard to explain. My understanding of natural creation, and even physics in general isn’t great. What I do know is that the universe originated from a singularity, which then exploded, producing a heck of a lot of stuff in a relatively short period of time. I’m good with this so far. The obvious next question is: how did it get there? A scientific explanation I’ve heard is that, according to a multiverse theory, when a universe “dies,” it creates a singularity, and therefore, a new universe is born. This still brings up the problem of infinite regression. How did the “first” universe get there? I guess without a supernatural “beginning” you just have to be comfortable with the idea of something always just being there, whatever that something might be. I could probably even get used to this idea eventually. It would be much more difficult for me to get used to the idea that humans developed the creativity and capacity to understand abstract theories and ideas that we now possess completely by chance. On a more personal level, I’ve always just sort of felt like there was something or someone “there,” whether I understood it as the God I now believe in or not. I’ve always just sort of had some sense of the supernatural. Call me crazy if you want to. 🙂

    “I think people should be respected but I don’t think any idea or belief inherently deserves respect.”

    Yes. This is closer to what I meant. However, from a theistic standpoint, I do think that there are aspects of truth in most religions/philosophies. It just so happens that I think Christianity is the “most true.”

    “People should just allow other people to believe in a lie because it may comfort them? Why wouldn’t we discuss possibilities of other people being wrong?”

    This is definitely a hard question to answer because I don’t want to assume anything. I’m totally cool with people thinking I’m wrong. I’m the only Christian among my closest friends. That’s not really the point I was trying to make. The point is that my personal experiences are very real to me, so for lack of a better word, it’s just kind of annoying when people try and explain them away as wishful thinking or some kind of emotional weakness.

  7. “This still brings up the problem of infinite regression. How did the “first” universe get there? I guess without a supernatural “beginning” you just have to be comfortable with the idea of something always just being there”

    And yet you’re comfortable believing in a supernatural entity that was always there.

    What is more likely, that a magic being has been there forever or the natural universe?

    “I could probably even get used to this idea eventually. It would be much more difficult for me to get used to the idea that humans developed the creativity and capacity to understand abstract theories and ideas that we now possess completely by chance. ”

    It’s not chance. It’s natural selection and many animals demonstrate the same capabilities that we do to varying degrees.

    “However, from a theistic standpoint, I do think that there are aspects of truth in most religions/philosophies.”

    Agreed. That doesn’t mean they’re beneficial or true though.

    And I think you’re cool beans, FG. 🙂

  8. Pingback: I Don’t Believe Nothing – The Comedy Sojourn

  9. I am not an Anti-theist. In fact i support others and their religion in many ways for many reasons. Some of your comments in this post do start to blur the line between atheist and anti-theist(in which there is very much a difference). However you hit the nail on the head with your answer to ‘why blog’–“Because we sometimes have to answer the claims made by religious people who presume to tell us what we think, believe and what we can talk or write about.”

    I think this is the reason majority of atheist bloggers hold(excluding those who seem to want to “prove” atheism). Fact is people are still murdered for not holding belief in other peoples gods. Atheists are told they’re devil worshipers, or that they only believe what they see. Atheists are told what they do or do not believe by theists simply because they fall under the title atheist? Atheists still feel the need to hide themselves from the world around them.

    I’ve said it before and ill say it again. The title Atheist only describes one thing- a lack of belief in any gods- nothing more and nothing less. Until the world understands that, I will continue blogging so will many of my fellow atheists.

    Decent post. Good-life to you.

  10. Emm. “Faith” is just another word for “assumption”. Anyone who has an assumption at their core of their paradigm, and does not recognize it, compromises their entire reasoning process. Just as maintaining one lie can only be done by creating more lies to deny all contrary evidence.

    So, ya, politicians shouldn’t be irrational people.

  11. I agree 100% & I hate when religious people accuse me of being a devil worshipper & other dumb shit when clearly I believe in neither deity. Its also annoying when they believe you need to believe in some type of god in order to carry a moral compass. We don’t need to believe in something fictional in order to have empathy. I really liked the last part where you mentioned finding better ways to grieve versus relying on cliché religious sayings. When I fell out of my faith I found myself struggling to comfort people when they were dealing with the death of a loved one. Not because I didn’t care, but because I didn’t know what to say. I know that nothing I could say could fill the void of their loved one & I didn’t wanna repeat the same corny phrases that I don’t believe in. What do you suggest for this? What are some new things we could say?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s