Lost my faith, might find it again...but might not

[Moai]

this talk of leprechauns and unicorns highlights something i'd like to try and explain. atheists think that proof for god is impossible, because god cannot exist. and theists are unable to offer any proof, because all the evidence they have is through their own experience. well, i am going to try to explain why looking for proof in a scientific way is the way to guarantee you will never find it.

 

Exactly. Because it doesn't exist. I can have a particular experience I cannot immediately explain and attribute it to god, and others can, and they we codify what the experience was, and then *poof* you've got a religion. That doesn't mean that the whole thing didn't start with a delusion.

 

most people believe that atoms exist, and most people believe that apples exist. most people, however, have never seen an atom, so their belief in the reality of atoms does not rest on direct experience. rather, it rests on a process that takes place exclusively in their mind - and this process has led most people to accept that everything they see is made of tiny building blocks - invisible to the naked eye - that look like mini solar systems.

 

now because most people have not seen an actual atom, their belief in atoms rests on the creation of a mental image of what an atom is like. and after they became aware of this mental image of an atom, they used the mind’s reasoning faculties to accept that the image is accurate and therefore atoms must exist. what i'm trying to say is that to believe in something you cannot see requires the intermediary steps of accepting the word of someone who claims to have seen whatever it is, and then making your own mental picture of that thing. once you have done that, you can then reason that the 'thing' must exist and your belief is based on this mental picture. the point being that people’s acceptance of the existence of atoms requires the intermediate step of a mental image.

 

Incorrect. First off, atoms are demonstrated to exist using equations, which are repeatable and checkable (if that's a word!). I need not make a mental picture, as you suggest, to conceptualize their existence. Not only that, we can smash things SMALLER that an atom--elementary particles.

 

And while I can't do the equations myself, nor can I smash particles, there are those who can, and I trust them. What they suggest actually works, so why doubt them? They are using science, so everyone in the field is constantly checking everyone else.

 

on the other hand, people’s belief in apples is not based on this kind of reasoning process. people do not have to use their reason in order to accept the existence of apples, they simply draw upon their experience. they have all seen an apple, felt its skin, smelled its fragrance and experienced the juicy taste. that being the case, few people would seriously dispute that apples are real. so even though people do have a mental image of apples - which they conjour up when they think of an apple - they do not need this image in order to accept the existence of apples. they have had a direct experience of apples and their acceptance is based on this experience with no intermediary in the form of a mental image.

 

I don't know. I have never been to France, but I am sure it is there. And when I think of France I don't conjure up a mental image of it.

 

as is always mentioned on threads such as these, people who believe in the non-existence of god have no experiential proof for this belief since it is not possible to experience that god does not exist - it is only possible to fail to have the experience that god does exist. it is not possible to experience the non-existence of anything, as it is not possible to logically prove that something does not exist. in other words you can experience an apple, but you cannot experience the non-existence of apples. the most you can say is that at this point you've not had the experience of apples, but that does not prove you could never have this experience.

 

Believe in the non-existence of god? I do not arrive at atheism the way you arrive at theism. There is no evidence for god or a "divine force" anywhere. So I do not postulate one.

 

And you are correct, you cannot prove a negative. That is why the onus is one the theist, as he is making the assertion.

 

similarly, the most atheists can say is that they have not yet experienced the existence of god - but if they rule out that such an experience could be attained in the future this is based on a mental image of the non-existence of a particular idea of god. thus, people who believe god does not exist do so based on a mental image that portrays a world in which god is not needed. so this non-belief in god is not based on direct experience but requires the intermediary of a mental image that tells them god is not necessary.

 

I cannot experience that which does not exist. I have had mystical experiences, and I have seen things that I cannot explain. But that doesn't mean that suddenly I am going to throw rational thought out the window.

 

it's probably true to say that most religious people have not experienced the presence of god either. their belief in god ALSO rests on a mental image defined by their particular religion - and this image it changes from religion to religion. the point is that whether people believe in god or not, their views are both likely to be based (and in the case of atheists, definitely based) on a mental image of god and not on direct experience. if people were to have a direct experience of the presence of god, their view of god would no longer be based on belief. it would no longer be based on the acceptance or non-acceptance of a mental image. thus, the existence of god would be no more mysterious to them than the existence of apples.

 

Definitely based? Nonsense. I have no mental image of god. Now, if you ask me what the god of a particular religion looks like I can tell you. I know what Thor was supposed to have looked like. But I have had no direct experience of Thor, obviously.

 

Whatever it is that you personally experienced, you are calling it god. That doesn't mean that suddenly your theistic system is based in reality anymore than Christianity or Islam is. You have faith that what you experience is god. Super. That doesn't mean that you aren't deluded.

 

it is true that the physical senses cannot detect the presence of god. yet demanding to see or touch something before assessing it as real is a denial of science, which tells people that there is more to this universe than can be detected by the senses. we know the senses have limitations. for instance, your eyes can only detect light waves that fall within a certain limited spectrum of frequencies. yet there are many waves which vibrate at higher or lower frequencies than we can detect. science can easily prove the existence of something that cannot be experienced directly by the senses - x-rays are a good example. many people have seen an x-ray image and thus have a direct experiential proof that such light rays exist. very few people would argue that x-rays don't exist, even though the senses can't detect them.

 

Except that x-rays can kill, and have. To deny that which I cannot se is not to deny science. You assert that there is a "y-wave" in the auditory spectrum. I say, "prove it" and then you design an experiment that demonstrates that "y-waves" do, in fact, exist. You fail. I can conclude that "y-waves" don't exist. You succeed. More experiments are devised, and all show that yes, "y-waves" exist. I would then accept "y-waves."

 

it is a fact that it is possible to extend the range of the senses so they can detect things which are beyond what the eyes can see and the ears can hear - just as science has extended the limits of the senses by detecting energy waves outside the limit of the physical senses.

 

Correct about science, wrong about people. Every person who has claimed to see and hear beyond normal perception has failed under laboratory conditions.

 

the faculties which humans have to go beyond the physical senses are where the proof of god rests. it is perfectly possible to experience the presence of the spiritual realm which lies beyond the material world. i have done it, which is what makes the question of the existence of god obsolete for me, just as the question of the existence of apples is obsolete.

 

There are no faculties beyond the senses.

 

what we call a mystical experience is not really mystical. it is a perfectly natural experience that uses our built-in ability to reach beyond the level of the physical senses. when you make use of this faculty, you can have a direct experience of a level of reality beyond the material world. and if you work to sharpen this faculty, you can have a direct experience of the presence of god which will leave you in absolutely no doubt whatsoever about god's reality.

 

yet explaining this to an atheist can feel a bit like telling someone who doesn't believe they can open their eyes that if they do, they will be able to see things. since they have lived happily all their lives behind closed eyelids, they cannot fathom out why opening their eyes would ever be necessary, so they convince themselves that people who claim they have opened their eyes are lying, or deluding themselves and they insist that the 'nothing' they have seen is all there could possibly be.

 

do you see that asking for proof of god's existence is pointless? there is either experience of god, or faith in either the belief or the non-belief of god. people who have experienced god no longer need belief. so the very act of asking for proof of god, shows you believe in the mental image that there can never be any. it is THIS which keeps you from having a direct experience of god - an experience which is beyond anything that can be understood within the narrow limitations of what is considered scientific proof.

 

No, it is not pointless. As you explain your particular belief system, it is just as silly as all of the others, with the same amount of evidence. Why should I follow you down your path--because you are so much more in-tune than everyone else?

 

Religion is the thing that causes men to fly into buildings, to blow themselves up on buses, or what have you. It prevents children from getting life-saving vaccines. Now, believers will say that people who do that don't know god, or see god in the wrong way, blah blah blah.

 

The fact is that they don't think so. They claim to know god's will. So do you. If I am to follow you, or the teachings you follow, or any religion, why is it pointless for me to ask you to prove it?

 

I can prove the benefits of my belief system. Religions, yours included, cannot.

[lonelybird]

People define God so many different ways that I think the word has completely lost meaning. Add love to the list of obsolete words also.

 

How can theists expect atheists to believe in God when they can't even define it themselves? It's ludicrous.

Without love, life is vanity, everything is vanity:)

[magichands]

Without love, life is vanity, everything is vanity:)

Without love, life is meaningless - that's for sure.

[lonelybird]

Without love, life is meaningless - that's for sure.

.......................

[bluetuesday]

That doesn't mean that the whole thing didn't start with a delusion.

 

nor DOES it mean that it started with a delusion.

 

What they suggest actually works, so why doubt them? They are using science, so everyone in the field is constantly checking everyone else.

 

why doubt them? because otherwise you have yourself a belief system based on other people's ability to define what is true. saying 'everyone in the field is constantly checking everyone else' is the scientific equivalent of using the bible to prove the bible is true. do you have another way?

 

I have never been to France, but I am sure it is there. And when I think of France I don't conjure up a mental image of it.

 

yes you do. if you have no concept of france you wouldn't know it existed. the fact you are aware of it and have never experienced it must mean you have some sort of concept of there being a france. this is a mental image.

 

I cannot experience that which does not exist.

 

of course you can't and neither can i. one of us must therefore be deluded. i wonder which it is?!

 

Nonsense. I have no mental image of god.

 

nonsense. you could not decide there is no god without deciding what it is that doesn't exist. therefore you have a mental image.

 

Every person who has claimed to see and hear beyond normal perception has failed under laboratory conditions.

 

oh and lab conditions are the only way to go, right?

[sb129]

Its pretty clear that nobody on this thread is going to change their viewpoint.

 

Thats fine by me, I don't have a problem with theists per se, I don't look down on them because of their beliefs, as that is their choice.

There are alot of believers on LS who I respect for other reasons, and will still respect, despite their beliefs.

 

I personally feel that my life is fulfilled enough without religion or God.

 

Its the believers that think that as atheists we are somehow "missing out", or that we can't fully experience things such as love and happiness without believing in God that annoy me.

 

I can still live my life as a happy, loving, trusting, honest good person without a god or a religion in my life.

I can still accept the ups and downs of life without applying extra meaning to them (ie its Gods will, or that has happened because of mans sins or whatever)-things happen- thats life, the bad things happen with the good.

 

Personally I don't need validation from a superior being that I will be secured a good spot in the next life- this one is quite enough for me for now.

 

To me, there is not enough proof that a God exists. There is more proof that God doesn't exist.

Obviously, as with any argument there are anomalies on both sides, but the equilibrium for me swings in favour of there being NO god.

 

There are tangible events/evidence that show that religion is and has been the root of many many problems in our world, therefore i cannot condone it.

[lonelybird]

Its pretty clear that nobody on this thread is going to change their viewpoint.

 

Thats fine by me, I don't have a problem with theists per se, I don't look down on them because of their beliefs, as that is their choice.

There are alot of believers on LS who I respect for other reasons, and will still respect, despite their beliefs.

 

I personally feel that my life is fulfilled enough without religion or God.

 

Its the believers that think that as atheists we are somehow "missing out", or that we can't fully experience things such as love and happiness without believing in God that annoy me.

 

I can still live my life as a happy, loving, trusting, honest good person without a god or a religion in my life.

I can still accept the ups and downs of life without applying extra meaning to them (ie its Gods will, or that has happened because of mans sins or whatever)-things happen- thats life, the bad things happen with the good.

 

Personally I don't need validation from a superior being that I will be secured a good spot in the next life- this one is quite enough for me for now.

 

To me, there is not enough proof that a God exists. There is more proof that God doesn't exist.

Obviously, as with any argument there are anomalies on both sides, but the equilibrium for me swings in favour of there being NO god.

 

There are tangible events/evidence that show that religion is and has been the root of many many problems in our world, therefore i cannot condone it.

Well, apparently God and Holy Spirit do not like that:o , life without God?

[sb129]

Well, apparently God and Holy Spirit do not like that:o , life without God?

 

And your point is?

[Moai]

nor DOES it mean that it started with a delusion.

 

A belief for which their is no evidence has a very high probability of being a delusion.

 

why doubt them? because otherwise you have yourself a belief system based on other people's ability to define what is true. saying 'everyone in the field is constantly checking everyone else' is the scientific equivalent of using the bible to prove the bible is true. do you have another way?

 

Nonsense. Everyone checking everyone else is exactly the opposite of using the Bible to say he Bible is true.

 

I say that "x" is the explanation for a phenomena. I design an experiment to see if I am right. The experiment works. So, I claim that "x" is indeed the explanation for the phenomena. I publish my findings. Then, everyone else in the field in which I work does the best they can to prove me wrong. They duplicate my experiment, come up with their on experiments, etc. If my hypothesis holds up, it is accepted and becomes part of the working theory. If it does not, my hypothesis is rejected and it all starts over.

 

Science is self-correcting. So far, the scientific method is the best thing we have to determine exactly what is going on around us.

 

yes you do. if you have no concept of france you wouldn't know it existed. the fact you are aware of it and have never experienced it must mean you have some sort of concept of there being a france. this is a mental image.

 

You were describing concepts as "images" and they are not the same thing. Moreover, I am just taking someone's word for France being there, as I haven't been. Why should I trust them? Because not accepting the fact that France is there in the face of so much evidence would be silly. It is the same for the fact that all life shares a common ancestor, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

 

of course you can't and neither can i. one of us must therefore be deluded. i wonder which it is?!

 

It isn't the experience, it is your explanation that is the delusion.

 

nonsense. you could not decide there is no god without deciding what it is that doesn't exist. therefore you have a mental image.

 

Again, I do have a concept of what God is, were one to exist, but that isn't the same as a mental picture. And there are many definitions of God. All of them do not exist.

 

oh and lab conditions are the only way to go, right?

 

Yes. If someone is communing with spirits or remote viewing or whatever, they should be able to do it in conditions that eliminate another explanation. And nobody can. Go figure.

[Morning Star]

I'm not sure I understand what he means.

 

 

I thought it was really straight forward.

[Morning Star]

It isn't that I have no faith, it is just that I have no faith in god. And no, people don't think atheists are the same as far right-wing Christians. They see them as worse. As if morality comes from religion.

 

Morality comes from within and no I don't think people hate atheists. People may not understand your views and cannot understand where you are coming from and that makes them nervous. Most people I would think use religion and spirituality as guidelines on how they live their lives. Atheists have no guidelines in that respect so people may question that.

 

As far as right wing Christians, the majority of people do not accept the idea of mixing religion with politics to make political gains. For myself I despise anyone who does and anyone who claims they are on the high ground. Anyone who is a real Christian knows that Jesus, religion or spirituality is not about that.

 

Just curious but what exactly do you have faith in? To me science is not faith based but factual based and I wonder what you mean that you have faith, in what?

[sb129]

Morality comes from within and no I don't think people hate atheists. People may not understand your views and cannot understand where you are coming from and that makes them nervous. Most people I would think use religion and spirituality as guidelines on how they live their lives. Atheists have no guidelines in that respect so people may question that.

 

As far as right wing Christians, the majority of people do not accept the idea of mixing religion with politics to make political gains. For myself I despise anyone who does and anyone who claims they are on the high ground. Anyone who is a real Christian knows that Jesus, religion or spirituality is not about that.

 

Just curious but what exactly do you have faith in? To me science is not faith based but factual based and I wonder what you mean that you have faith, in what?

 

Can I answer too?

I have faith in love, family, and friendship. I listen to my heart, and I listen to the hearts of others around me. Its just not a god telling me what is right or wrong.

I have some friends and family who are VERY spiritual and religious, and that is fine, I still love them we agree to disagree.

Atheists still have guideline we are still aware of what is right and wrong. We have a judicial system (and yes, I know its based on some religious doctrines) to guide us.

[blind_otter]

Can I answer too?

I have faith in love, family, and friendship. I listen to my heart, and I listen to the hearts of others around me.

 

I do too. I just assume that all that you describe above is God. Love, family, friendship, you, me, "the heart" (whatever that means).

 

We have a judicial system (and yes, I know its based on some religious doctrines) to guide us.

 

Forgive me, but this gave me a little giggle. I have an exH that was unjustly imprisoned (IMO) in federal prison for 3 years.

[sb129]

I do too. I just assume that all that you describe above is God. Love, family, friendship, you, me, "the heart" (whatever that means).

 

It IS to some people. Thats OK by me. Its just not to me....

 

 

Forgive me, but this gave me a little giggle. I have an exH that was unjustly imprisoned (IMO) in federal prison for 3 years.

Yes well I never said the judicial system was perfect! And for that matter, neither am I.

i have been known to break the odd little law here and there...

Sorry to hear about your husband

[Moai]

Morality comes from within and no I don't think people hate atheists. People may not understand your views and cannot understand where you are coming from and that makes them nervous. Most people I would think use religion and spirituality as guidelines on how they live their lives. Atheists have no guidelines in that respect so people may question that.

 

Well, studies show differently. George Bush Sr. said that he didn't think that atheists should be citizens of the US.

 

The vast majority of Americans would rather vote for a homosexual from ANOTHER political party than an atheist from their own.

 

I live in the West, where there is a great deal more tolerance for atheism than, say, in the Deep South.

 

As far as guidelines go, they are the same as a believers and come from the same place. I can use the history of the Church as an example. There was a time when witches were thought to exist, and people were tortured and killed based on that belief. Over time, the idea of witches became silly (the book still says that "you shall not suffer a witch to live", by the way), and if I were to suggest to a Christian that we should burn witches, they will say, "A Christian wouldn't do that." But, the fact is, Christians HAVE done that. The moral sense that says that killing someone who is witch is wrong does not come from the Bible--in fact, it is that moral sense that defines the morals of the Bible, not the other way around. This being so, why do yo need the religion?

 

I think people have a dysfunctional view of religion in the first place. Religion makes men fly into buildings, it make men hunt down others because they worship in a different way, it makes them exploit women--I can trace almost every social ill to religion. And yet people consider it important, and valuable in some way.

 

As far as right wing Christians, the majority of people do not accept the idea of mixing religion with politics to make political gains. For myself I despise anyone who does and anyone who claims they are on the high ground. Anyone who is a real Christian knows that Jesus, religion or spirituality is not about that.

 

There you go. "Real" Christian. You arrive at the definition of "Real" Christian by a moral sense totally outside of your faith. Those who would impose a theocracy on us read the same book as you, and get a different answer. Most Americans were disgusted by Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that 9/11 was a punishment for our moral failings, true, but a sizable number agree. There are enough people who WANT a "revival" or theocracy to make them a very dangerous group. They can swing elections, and that is why politicians pander to them.

 

These men think that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Think about that for a second. I read somewhere that if you do the math, that would be the same as saying that San Francisco is 28 feet from New York. 54% of Americans agree with them about that, and something like 80% do not accept the fact of evolution. And why not? Because of religion, a misplaced adoration of a book written by ignorant shepherds 2,500 years ago.

 

If another city is attacked, most Christians would interpret that as a sign that Jesus is returning. So, in point of fact, they would welcome such a thing. Please explain who that is a justifiable moral position.

 

Just curious but what exactly do you have faith in? To me science is not faith based but factual based and I wonder what you mean that you have faith, in what?

 

I don't have faith in the sense that a believer would use that term. I think I have just a much faith in tangible things as everyone else; that is, faith in mankind, etc., but I do not believe in the supernatural whatsoever.

[Moai]

Can I answer too?

I have faith in love, family, and friendship. I listen to my heart, and I listen to the hearts of others around me. Its just not a god telling me what is right or wrong.

I have some friends and family who are VERY spiritual and religious, and that is fine, I still love them we agree to disagree.

Atheists still have guideline we are still aware of what is right and wrong. We have a judicial system (and yes, I know its based on some religious doctrines) to guide us.

 

Good post! But I wouldn't say that our system of justice is based on religion at all. For example, murder is wrong whether God says so or not. That idea may be in a religious book, but that doesn't make that a specifically religious concept.

[sb129]

Some. I said based on some religious doctrines.. maybe its a chicken or egg thing.

 

You are right though, you don't need god to know right from wrong.

[sunshinegirl]

Hi everyone,

 

It's the Original Poster here, resurrecting my old thread that gathered an incredible steam and life of its own.

 

Well, I am back because I am not a whole lot closer to any answers, yet I think I need to figure some out. I say that because in the last couple of years I have started dating agnostics/atheists who have made me really happy in a lot of ways.

 

I still don't really miss church or thinking about spiritual things, and yet when I think about getting into dating relationships with people who don't really have a spiritual bent, I start to worry about the longer term. What if I am in a weird temporary rejection phase, but in a few years I "snap" back into my old comfortable beliefs/church/practices? What if my whole outlook changes if/when I have kids - which is what happened to my mom, who married my dad during her self-described "backslidden state". She "came to" when she had her first child and realized she was responsible for the spiritual upbringing of her kids.

 

Am I supposed to hold off on dating anyone until my questions settle out, and I really know what I believe? And how will I know that if I ever reach that point, that those beliefs will remain stable?

 

I really just have no interest in dating Christian men. I am so far outside the fold at this point that we don't have much in common anymore. Plus, I haven't been attracted or interested in Christian men for years -- I just intellectually and interest-wise mesh much better with men who aren't all focused on faith and religion (maybe it's related to some much-needed intellectual independence I crave -- I actually don't want to be with a partner who thinks I should believe a certain way or do certain church-y things).

 

Still, looming over my head is the traditional admonition not to marry an unbeliever. See, it's weird, what's currently remaining with me of my church upbringing is fear-based - the "don't ruin your life by making this horrible mistake" stuff; the "what if you're wrong? you're a huge sinner and definitely going to hell now."

 

Okay, so I don't quite know how to formulate the questions in my mind. I guess it's driven by my dating life right now, and trying to be thoughtful about what I need in a partner on the spiritual side of things. Do they have to be open to raising their kids with some kind of spiritual upbringing?

 

For instance, I still carry around this idea of doing bedtime prayers with my kids. But why?? I am not actually convinced that God answers prayers. Or that God is who I always thought he was, or that he even exists. So is it tradition, familiarity, the security I had as a child myself in believing God was protecting me? Would I miss doing that with my kids if I married a serious agnostic/atheist?

 

Or do I just need to pull from my faith roots the values and practices that are meaningful to me, and maybe leave behind the more formal theological ideas about God/Jesus/trinity, etc?

 

Sorry for rambling. Any comments that might help me make some sense of this would be really appreciated. Thanks.