my belief in God is wavering...

[ForsakenGemini]

Someone earlier said they were both atheist and agnostic. I beg to point out that this cannot be;

Atheism is defined as either the belief that God does not exist, or disbelief in the existence of God (semantics, but in certain circumstances they can make a difference.) Atheists are as firm in their belief that God does not exist as Christians are that He does.

Agnosticism is separated into two divisions: Passive and Active.
All agnostics recognize that the existence of God can never be proven nor disproven.

Passive Agnostics maintain this middle stance, riding the fence utterly and refusing to fall prey to either set of beliefs (yes, Atheism involves as much faith as any religion. So does science, for that matter. I recognize this even though I shun religion and embrace science wholeheartedly - so sue me.)

Active Agnostics, while for the most part maintaining an agnostic stance, may have a slight personal lean; for instance, realizing that God's existence can never be proven nor disproven, but believing that the nonexistence is probably a more plausible theory (but not willing to commit to the level of Atheism). Or, they may believe in some kind of unifying Life Force that flows through the universe which is equatable with but not the same as (a) God(s). AKA "not religious, but very spiritual."

By the way, if anyone has issue with any of this, please PM me and I'll be happy to talk with you. When I had AOL years ago I spent a vast deal of time in the Atheist chat room (no Agnostic chat room, what's up with that...) which was constantly "invaded" by Born-Again Christians and other Fundamentalists (once we had one of those hard-core Muslims). Thus it was invariably a theological battleground of unmatched proportions in which I was able to develop a very intensive insight to other religions that complemented my real-life experiences.

Moving on, I must ask how Christians can believe their God to be infallible when the Bible has several inherent contradictions; and if He was always present, why didn't the Mesopotamians or Ancient Egyptians worship and write about Him? (And don't say their gods, like Egypt's Ra/Amon or Osiris were actually their names for God, that's a circular argument; one might say the Christian system was based off of them (Osiris = God, Horus = Jesus, so on and so forth.)) Going along with that, why is there no mention of the billions of years the universe existed before humans came into being? Perhaps it was only written once humans were around to write it, but how then, if they had not been told the History of the Universe by God, did they know of His six days of labour and one of rest? And if He did tell them, then he lied. Not infallible. Again, this involves a lot of circular arguments and I'm not looking to start an endless thread; just pointing out some counterarguments.

For the record, I don't have any problem with people believing in whatever they damn well please. I only get offended (and VERY much so) when people try to convert me to their belief; it's one thing to have an intelligent theological debate in which ideas are posited and discussed rationally and calmly; it's quite another to have some moron shoving a cross in your face yelling "Leave this child's body, Satan! This is the House of God and thou belongest not here!" Or a comparable affrontation by way of trying to recruit me.

I do feel obliged to point out that religion throughout the thousands of years of civilization has been a very effective way to control the masses. Going back to Ancient Egypt, Pharaoh is equated nearly with the gods. Do as Pharaoh says or risk eternal damnation for disobeying the gods. It's not much different with today's Catholic Church: Is not the Pope "God's voice on Earth?" Disobey the Pope and disobey God, thereby condemning yourself to infinity spent in torment. Getting the picture? Now imagine this kind of influence in the "less enlightened" times, when people were by far more superstitious than we are today. (Not to say that we are not still highly superstitious, but the level has come down a fair deal.)

Finally, I would like to make one last comment for the record: I am 16, live in a very small conservative town in upstate New York, am a "traditional liberal," and consider myself mostly to be a Passive Agnostic; although depending on my mood, I may swing anywhere from Atheist to a level of Active Agnosticism very nearly approaching Christianity, but I can't bring myself to actually believe in such an institution.

-Forsaken

 

[linuxboy]

I find it's much more fun to view reality as subjective to the individual. Reality is based on belief instead of the other way around. It's nice because it means nobody is ever wrong, their reality is just a little different from yours. This view applies very nicely to religion as there is no evidence for or against the existence of "god" to mess with your confidence. If you belive in god, s/he exists. If you don't then s/he doesn't. Pick the one which makes you happy, as the "truth" doesn't really matter.

Well of course truth doesn't matter. I mean, if it mattered, people wouldn't have wasted their entire lives searching for it right, Oh wait. Oh but I suppose they were just acting out of an Oedipal complex and the necessity for wish fulfillment. Or that they are epistemically unjustified. Oh or that their senses are malfunctioning. Oh how about just calling them crazies and out of touch with the modern scientific worldview. Yep takes care of that nicely...

after all these years of defending religion and what not, i'm starting to change. i've already thrown out organized religion out as a bunch of crap, although I still believe in God, but i think I only believe because of fear. I suppose that's how it's always been (belief of fear).

do you believe out of fear or what?

There comes a time when faith is tested. There comes a time when what we thought to be so completely and irrevokably true fails us. We want to believe and we wish we could, but something pulls us away. We pray and pray, but God is just not there. We cry out for God but see nothing. Then we question f we really are just nuts. If we really have been wasting years of our lives thinking romantic ideas. I mean after all, truth is subjective, just enjoy and not even worry about this, right?

That's possible answer. However, my ignorant answer is different. These are the times that try men's souls. We then have a few options. We can reject everything we've thought before and try to start fresh. Or we can feverishly search for an answer in the multitudes of philosophies and thinkers that have existed (believe me, I know how that is) and come up with a different worldview. Or we can admit that this time is for us to seriously consider the nature of our and others' relationships with God and to fight until that understanding is obtained.

I could start spewing theological drivel at you and quoting profusely from the Bible about how you have strayed far from God and that God tempts no one and all that sort of stuff but that's really meangless if you just examine it and let it go. I'm more interested in actually understanding what has led you to this point and trying to see how you can continue from here.

I can argue just about as well as any of the people here until we get to epistemic circularity but see what this has done to your thread. People have posted stuff and did it really help? people have posted some advice and some scholastic wisdom gained over the ages but do you feel any better or do you have greater understanding?

I don't think so, although I may be wrong.

If you really want to discuss this, intellectual debates will likely get you nowhere, although they are necessary. What would help is human interaction, though I worry about how understanding religious leaders are.

All I can say is post more here and help me understand. My only conclusion thus far is more discussion and more direct experience of life combined with self awareness.

And no, I don't believe out of fear. I believe because God is Real.


Cheers !

 

[ForsakenGemini]

By the way; despite popular belief, Albert Einstein was not atheist or agnostic. Read a biography.
And a little off the topic, but nonetheless an interesting excercise that many here may enjoy: Try to prove I exist. For that matter, try to prove your best friend or mother exists in truth and is not in fact a figment of your imagination. I'd be interested to see what some of you come up with.

-Forsaken

 

[Maetryx]

<< Believe what YOU think seems to be logical. You are not the first person to have a disbelief in God. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Abe Lincoln, Mark Twain, and MANY other brilliant/important/significant historical figures have shown a disbelief in the Xian God (and other gods). >>



Believe what you think is good advice if you're thinking is correct. It's horrible advice if you're wrong. For example, Thomas Jefferson *did* believe in God. He believed in a deistic God that started the universe and then left it alone. Therefore, he didn't believe in miracles. But he did believe in God. But on second glance at your quote, I see that you specify a disbelief in the Christian God, and in that you are correct. Christians are theists, as opposed to Thomas' deism.

 

[Maetryx]

<< I find it's much more fun to view reality as subjective to the individual. Reality is based on belief instead of the other way around. It's nice because it means nobody is ever wrong, their reality is just a little different from yours. This view applies very nicely to religion as there is no evidence for or against the existence of "god" to mess with your confidence. If you belive in god, s/he exists. If you don't then s/he doesn't. Pick the one which makes you happy, as the "truth" doesn't really matter. >>



The problem with subjectivism, is that by it's own rules, it can't claim to be superior to non-subjectivism. Reality is not subjective. Our perceptions of reality are subjective. But my non-observance, or incorrect interpretation of an event does not cause the event to be any different in reality.

The most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Subjectivism violates this basic law and dooms itself to a self contradictory death.

 

[Lucky]

<< If you're believing out of fear then you are believing for the wrong reason. >>




The only times I do have (some) befief in god is when I am fearful. Interesting.

 

[linuxboy]

The most basic rule of logic is the law of non-contradiction. Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. Subjectivism violates this basic law and dooms itself to a self contradictory death.

Oh come on. This fellow requires empathy. Not a philosophical debate. Plus, the fundamental assumptions of the relativist epistemology claim only extreme relativism in all cases, thus justifying their assertion. They are not bound by normal assumptions of logic due to their original premis. You cannot argue validity here, only soundness. That is, the truth or falsity of the premis. Since here you get into epistemic circularity, your law of non-contradiction is too far down the line. Let's stick with basics.

Dismal, if you want, please discuss what led you to this state. If you open up a little, maybe some good will enter.

Cheers !

 

[Maetryx]

linuxboy, from what I've read of your postings, we're on "the same team". I don't see how Dismal (or anyone else) could benefit from relativism going unchallenged. The relatavists notion that their relativism is one abstraction deeper than the law of non-contradiction, thus end-running it's necessity, is flawed because they have to use real non-contradictory logic to conclude that they have a superior position.

I see what you mean though. The two sides would each say that their basic premise was more basic than the other sides' basic premise. Which I suppose is what you mean by epestemic circles. Interesting. I still think that I'm right, of course, both pragmatically (that I bothered to do it) and logically (the content of what I bothered to do).

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< By the way; despite popular belief, Albert Einstein was not atheist or agnostic. Read a biography. >>



http://www.skeptic.com/archives50.html

Einstein was definitely an agnostic. It really makes no difference though because who cares? Should it really matter if he is atheist, agnostic, or a theist?

 

[linuxboy]

<< linuxboy, from what I've read of your postings, we're on "the same team". I don't see how Dismal (or anyone else) could benefit from relativism going unchallenged. The relatavists notion that their relativism is one abstraction deeper than the law of non-contradiction, thus end-running it's necessity, is flawed because they have to use real non-contradictory logic to conclude that they have a superior position.

I see what you mean though. The two sides would each say that their basic premise was more basic than the other sides' basic premise. Which I suppose is what you mean by epestemic circles. Interesting. I still think that I'm right, of course, both pragmatically (that I bothered to do it) and logically (the content of what I bothered to do). >>



You are exactly right. I just wanted to lead away from all of these philosophical discussions since they just cause havoc. Thus, I threw that random bit about circularity. I never said relativism is sound. Actually, quite the opposite, it doesn't hold up under scrutiny, especially pragmatically. I try not to take sides. I try to say what is accurate and valid.

Can we have something a bit deeper here? Intellectual abstractions are not direct experience. Dismal claims he does not feel God and finds nothing rationally or metapchysically compelling to even accept Descartes' dualism. I claim that all of this philosophical stuff will get him no closer. On the other hand, I assert that there is nothing but God.

Let's go deeper and get into it. There are some fine minds on this board Dismal. They are willing to help if you're willing to give a little.

Cheers !

 

[HombrePequeno]

Dismal,

If you're having doubts aboot your beliefs, take a look at other religions. If you're not sure you believe in a god but still want some form of religion try checking out Buddhism.

 

[zod]

My knowledge on Western religions "who goes to hell" list :

Mainstream Judaism - AFAIK Judaism actually does not have a very defined notion of a hell or an evil powerful being opposite God. I think that would go against most Jews strict monotheistic tendencies. Most of the truly stressed notions in Judaism is "be a good person and you'll be fine", so all heretics should be fine in "the world to come" or whatever.

Islam - Jews and Christians are people of the book. I think they have a more defined idea of Heaven and Hell. Heaven has lots of water and virgins. I am pretty sure people of the book are ok, not so sure about other folks, though.

Mainstream Christianity - Clearly defined notions of heaven and hell. Each human is born with original sin because of Adam's mistake with the apple. To remove this sin, one must accept Jesus as the Son of God and the idea that his death removed the original sin from your soul. The others sins can be worked off in purgatory i think (but not sure). Not everyone is entitled to a piece of heaven, only through God's grace can you get there.

Cool fact : Earlier in Christian history, infant baptisms were more rare. People (like Roman Emperors) waited, sometimes till they were almost dead, to be baptised. That way, they wouldnt sin from the time they were baptised to the time they croaked.


And correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

Oh, and I know plenty of atheists/agnostics (more atheists) that are over 15. Around 90% of my friends are atheists, in their mid-20s, and educated from top 4-year US universities.

 

[Goosemaster]

Definitely express your reasoning behind this dilemma if you want us to help you in a more productive fashion.

As for myself, I believe in God for myself.

In front of my eyes at around age 15, the church I had been going to since I was about 5 years old disgraced itself infron of me. It is a rather long story, but basically it eneded up in a HUGE fight in the chapel. From then on I knew that I would always find the scum of the earth waiting in churches hiding under the cloth.

This has made my faith stronger because I know now that I believe in God for my own reasons and not for anyone else's. THat day in church the entire church disgraced itself to a point of no return. Soon after I left and never looked back. God was in that that house, but no one was listening.

I really haven't gone to church since, although I frequently think about it. It is a shame that God gets such a bad reputation because of a lot of hypocrites who attend church for the women or other hypocritical reasons.

I however still believe in God because I believe in GOD and I do not care about those who failed me.

As for my "beautiful life," it hasn't all been great, but I find that in those moments, I am happier because I know that whatever it is I lose(a friend or something material) I will never lose my lord.

To Dismal: First of all, never choose to love God for fear. He is to be feared, but he loves you and that is why..well you know.

To anyone who wants to criticize me..go ahead.

I can defend myself ans you can, but what is the point if we are both wrong. Both your stories and religious points have changed through word of mouth. Just as you do, however, I believe that there is a basic truth to my beliefs and that will never change no matter how many generations that message traverses.

EDITED FOR GRAMMER/SPELLING

 

[ToBeMe]

Don't worry about what anybody thinks either here, or elsewhere..............do and believe what makes you happy and forget about! Nobody here can definately be right............just as nobody here can be proven definately wrong! Just follow what you truely feel..........................

 

[Cattlegod]

<< think of all those people who were druggies or criminals, and they "found jesus christ". clearly religion is a good thing in this situation >>



right back at you man, this argument doesn't work. what about all those people that kill and rape because god told them to?

 

[Elledan]

When looking back at history, one can make an interesting observation, namely that every civilization has known some kind of religion. Since not all of these civilizations knew of each others existance, the logical conclusion is therefore that an ideology like a religion is a necessary part of a developing civilization.

Because of the fact that religions are in fact very intolerant ideologies (they're based on one or more 'sacred' texts, which are always assumed to contain the truth), they form rigid structures, providing a developing civilization with a set of ethics, laws to judge and punish people and other things which form an essential part of every society. Everyone knows what is acceptable and what is not, therefore people can concentrate on other things, like building houses, creating tools and hunting, farming and keeping cattle.

New ideas which do not comply with the text(s) on which the ideology is based are forcefully rejected. This mechanism maintains the order in a society, because if the ideology would be discredited and thefore prove to be false, the society would crumble. Anarchy would reign.

Of course, due to Human nature, curiosity always plays a role in Human behaviour, therefore people will still research phenomena and everything else which makes them curious.

The new discoveries will be kept secret by many underground groups, which form a minority. This minority is unable to form a threat to society, but their ideas will be slowly accepted by the majority. If possible they'll be integrated into the ideology.

After many decades, people will start to realize that the ideology which has been followed blindly by almost everyone for so long is flawed. Some of these will refuse to have anything to do with such ideologies anymore and become a follower of another ideology, which systematically denies everything religions present as being the truth. Others will simply refuse to follow any of these intolerant ideologies, of these some will still keep researching the truth behind what these ideologies say is true, others will remain passive, yet still be open for new ideas, but they won't actively research any ideas presented by the ideologies.

Some more decades later, depending on the acquired knowledge (curiosity; science), those who still blindly follow any of the intolerant ideologies will become a minority. They won't disappear for a long time, but their influence on society has become almost non-existant.

 

[JohnCU]

Whoa, I go to bed and wake up with a 90 thread discussion (with some very big words ).

linuxboy: I will try to explain more about why my belief is wavering. I've always had this shaky relationship you could say with God (my mom forces me to go to church on occassion, so I just sit there and listen to the preacher drone on and on). In this technological age, I just find it hard to have a God admist the endless amounts of materalistic objects. Like to me, I really find it hard to believe in a Spiritual world that doesn't exist within the confines of our universe.

Of course, there is the constant bullsh!t that goes on in the world which makes me wonder what the hell kind of God creates a world which breeds murderers and killers and all the other types of idiots out there.

A lot of things add up to me to make me think that God is a deistic God, like someone else mentioned. Praying doesn't do anything, which would confirm this deistic view.

 

[mithrandir2001]

ForsakenGemini - The quality of your writing and thinking belies your stated age of 16. New members like you are most welcomed in our community.

 

[fjorner]

If you profess to not believing in anything, how can you justify believing nothing?

Nobody "needs" an organized church, and they are not a required facet to being a spiritual person.

However, it is selfless to give your time and energy to a certain congregation, and through others try to find and see the influence of a higher power.

(edit grammar)

 

[Danman]

My parents have been making me go to a Catholic church and in the past year I have been thinking it is a bunch of crap. I just can't see how it is applied to my life.

 

[JohnCU]

A friend suggested a few minutes ago that I read about Pascal's Wager, and it's a pretty interesting proposal.

It consists of four statements:



<< 1. One does not know whether God exists. >>



<< 2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist. >>



<< 3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist. >>



<< 4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God. >>

 

[Jen]

i have never felt right about religion myself. if there is a god then i will see this god when i am dead if not then i am dead



Jen

 

[Juniper]

I think that religion is just the big picture to group people together to believe in a common thing. (or cause?).

I'm a catholic, I live within walking distance of a catholic church. But I have not gone to a mass for >1 year. I have friends who travel all the way to this church just to assist to the mass. I used to feel guilty when they ask me why I don't go to mass. I don't feel like that anymore now though. I think its no one's business to judge me upon this. My belief in god is great and I think thats enough to keep me going.

 

[Elledan]

<< A friend suggested a few minutes ago that I read about Pascal's Wager, and it's a pretty interesting proposal.

It consists of four statements:



<< 1. One does not know whether God exists. >>



<< 2. Not believing in God is bad for one's eternal soul if God does exist. >>



<< 3. Believing in God is of no consequence if God does not exist. >>



<< 4. Therefore it is in one's interest to believe in God. >>

>>


A very important fact is overlooked with this, however.

Nowadays are around 1000 existing religions on this planet, of which only a small number has just one god. Now, which religion do you choose? Which god do you pray to?

And what about the countless religions which have vanished? What happened to the gods of these religions? Were they fake? Then what does qualify one to say that the god(s) of his own religion is or are real? If one says that the gods of other religions do not exist, then the god(s) of his own religion do(es) not exist either.
If one states that perhaps all gods ever created by man are merely different parts of the same force/being, then all religions together should form an image of this force/being. This does not appear to be the case, though, so at least some religions are indeed 'fake'.

The logical position when faced with such a situation is agnosticism. One can neither prove nor disprove.

Also, the 'rules' by which one lives should not solely be part of an ideology (religion). Logic and common sense should be more than enough to live by.

 

[linuxboy]

linuxboy: I will try to explain more about why my belief is wavering. I've always had this shaky relationship you could say with God (my mom forces me to go to church on occassion, so I just sit there and listen to the preacher drone on and on). In this technological age, I just find it hard to have a God admist the endless amounts of materalistic objects. Like to me, I really find it hard to believe in a Spiritual world that doesn't exist within the confines of our universe.

You see, this experience is not yours alone. The current prevailing atheism was largely embraced by the intellectuals of the 1920's and 1930's. Recall the whole modernism mess. People could no longer believe in a Church of churches who were so detached from real experience and humanity. Remember Joyce and Ulyses and Portrait of an Artist as a young man (which I suggest you read). One's faith and belief is shaken by the assertion of a materialistic outlook. The psychological drive to conceive of immaterial souls or a dualistic outlook is just no longer there so were are forced to accept the prevailing worldviews because after all, we are products of our times and require some sort of social cohesion, whether driven by biology or environment. In other words, of course you won't like to be forced to go to a Church and listen to ignorant propogandists (which many of the preachers are).

It is very hard to remain with a traditionalist faith. Yet, let's look into whether the straight rationalistic answer suffices or whether the purpose of religion and its experiences are forsaken if your disbelief takes a stronghold.

Elledan is right in some respect, all "civilizations" (I cringe at that word since Elledan seems to place a valuation on it in defining goals for concrete actions) do have a religion of sorts. I assert that the reason they do that is because God is real. What do I mean by that? By that, I mean, that the experiences of the mystics are fundamentally a part of the universal human experience and placing metaphysical or physical valuations on it only takes away the direct experiences. This was a large part of Jesus' message. He rebuked the Pharisees for being learned men and not letting the people experience divinity and the Kingdom of God (which is within you). He said that were are all gods (I don't want to look up passages here but they are there) but at the same time are fallen short of the glory of that ineffable which is a part of living.

You seem to find it hard to believe that the spiritual exists. I seem to find it hard to believe that anything other than the spiritual exists. Why? Because God to me is Real. I could cite a dozen or so philosophical arguments and all that jazz but that doesn't ultimately matter. What good is it for a man to gain the world (understand the wisdom of the ages) but to lose or harm his own soul? I am quoting with metaphysical implications but think about it. Does it make a difference if we call God 2+2=4 or a warm feeling around the heart if the universal experience is Real? If it is real, I think we should pursue it. Now it seems to me that this is what everyone tries to argue about. Fundamentally, we each experience an objective reality. Granted, this may be colored by culture or our own temperament but it is Real. What we should pursue then is the real. But our individual differences compel us to claim what we see as real as some sort of absolute solution to the existential dilemma. Sadly, this often leads to a "my book is better than yours" argument. Recognize this and benefit from it.

Take Elledan here who is logically compelled to choose a empirical solution. Should he choose differently? I won't get into that. But his own ego compels him to not accept inferior solutions. The problem here is that this can lead to an absolutist stand and we have a "my absolutism is better than yours" argument again.

To restate, this can be the beginning of a large growth in your personal development/spiritual life. I would not deny the existence of God even if it seems to be unwarranted because that is not too justified epistemically. I would, however, strive to experience that which makes us human and which allows us to see totality and perceive with the eye of the heart. If you do that, you'll be ina good place. If you pursue wisdom and shut out your emotions and other non-rational faculties, I see real danger ahead.

Then again, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Of course, there is the constant bullsh!t that goes on in the world which makes me wonder what the hell kind of God creates a world which breeds murderers and killers and all the other types of idiots out there.

The intellectual problem for theodicy is a great one. Not all problems can be solved with the intellect, not that we should abandon it right away.

A lot of things add up to me to make me think that God is a deistic God, like someone else mentioned. Praying doesn't do anything, which would confirm this deistic view.

Prayer cannot be futile by the psychic reality is fosters. Deism may make sense but it was only used to explain creation without even touching the problem of existense. If you can come up with way to solve the problem of existense with purely deistic means (they espouced an emphasis on reason), then that may be a solution. However, I find it to fall short of the true core of meaning.

Let me close with saying that it's hard enough living in this post-modern nightmare of a world without having to encounter again the problem of the loss of God. Do not succumb to the zeitgeist and archetype of the modern era by adopting their mottos and stances. Every age has had its struggles and challenges to overcome but every person must ultimately decide whether living an avergae life is adequate. If it is, then do so. If not, then seek and you shall find.

Cheers !