A question for Atheists

[Toad]

Wouldn't it be better if we just got on board with religion?

Are we really happier now that we are "free"? Is the cold harsh reality of atheism better than the loving hand of God? So who cares if he's not "real"?

Sometimes I feel so lost, I want to forget everything I know about science and religion and throw it out the window. I want to be an ignorant lamb and just follow something. Let it tell me what to do. Maybe I'll be happier that way.

It's kind of like the movie "The Matrix". Who gives a fuck if the matrix isn't real? I would rather be in the matrix then in the "real world". What's so good about the real world anyways? It's never sunny, people dress like bums, everything looks dirty, there is still corruption and crimes everywhere, and you have to fucking fight robots all the time.

[TheHmmmm]

If you're only addressing INTP atheists, then I apologize. However, from the perspective of an INTJ atheist, my reason for not converting is mainly indignant obstinacy. Once I picked the holes in religion, I couldn't possibly go back and join them in their faithful bliss. It would violate my principles and I would hate myself for taking their phony medicine (keeping in my that this is of course my opinion and perception of religion; if you can posit a sensible religion then by all means).

Also, I don't think any deity would accept me worshiping them for the sole expectation of return or out of pure fear. This is the aspect of Pascal's Wager that puts me off. Assuming the deity can see through the ruse of the common man, I doubt he would accept me knowing I didn't believe in him.

[echoplex]

Perhaps in some ways yes, but there are different ways of getting "on board". The way you're describing is not really belief, it's just pretending to believe (which I'm sure you know). I think this is difficult for primary thinkers like INTPs to do in the long term. Sure, for a while it would provide comfort, but our tendency to overthink would keep us always aware that we're just faking it, because deep down we'd know we don't believe. In fact, I'd seriously doubt our (INTPs) ability to keep up the charade.

And of course, there's also the issue of integrity, although I'd assume that's not much of an issue to someone who has chosen comfort over it.

You know though, you can still follow something without believing in god(s). Not all religions are theistic. (unless you mean "atheist" in a more general sense, as it's occasionally used; i.e. how people are called atheist when they're really just irreligious.)

[flow]

If your argument is: "Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?" Then I suppose you're right. However, I'm not ignorant, and I've found my own bliss through music, family, and friends. I don't need to pretend there is a god out there who has a plan for me and wants me to develop into a certain kind of individual. I just don't need it. It's entirely unnecessary for my own happiness and understanding of the world and the universe. I happily put my 'faith' in science, compassion, and the pursuit of peace. For me, god simply doesn't need to exist.

Even today I found myself somewhat distraught with my future, wondering if I'll ever get hired.. and I said to myself: It'd be a lot easier if I could just say 'please God, help me get a job!' But god isn't going to do anything, I have to get myself a job. So yeah, it's easy to want to talk to the guy upstairs and picture him to be in the heavens looking down on you and wanting you to succeed.. but in actuality, he's not above you, he is you. And you (or in this case, me) have to get your own job. I think of god as just another word for your subconscious.. but this has essentially been my 'belief' since a young age. Who's really listening when you're praying to god? You are.

[lace]

I'm always quick to doubt the supposed wit of those who imply that, not only are they more learned then some theoretical "ignorant lambs", but that their insights convinced them to abandon rationality altogether.

Your post just seems like 1 of a million other adolescent rants centered around uncreative angst and feelings of specialness.

Sorry,I was not convinced by your argument in favor of god.

[TheHmmmm]

I'm always quick to doubt the supposed wit of those who imply that, not only are they more learned then some theoretical "ignorant lambs", but that their insights convinced them to abandon rationality altogether.

Your post just seems like 1 of a million other adolescent rants centered around uncreative angst and feelings of specialness.

Sorry,I was not convinced by your argument in favor of god.

Where on earth did you draw any of those conclusions? He's just arguing on behalf of Pascal's Wager, which is arguable. This is certainly no "adolescent rant" and I don't hear him claiming to be more intelligent or superior to anyone else. His argument doesn't even sound convincing to himself it just sounds like he's a bit puzzled. Calm down a bit, there.

[Madoness]

An alternative - The Atheist's Wager
"It is better to live your life as if there are no Gods, and try to make the world a better place for your being in it. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, He will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in Him."

[Android]

It's never sunny, people dress like bums, everything looks dirty, there is still corruption and crimes everywhere, and you have to fucking fight robots all the time.

Sounds like heaven.

Anyways.. there's nothing stopping an atheist from experiencing religion. Some days I practice Buddhism.. others Taoism.. others Shamanism, but I'm an atheist through it all. The rituals of religion have a undeniably real affect on one's life (at least in my experience). Try practicing something, even if you don't believe in it. Trick yourself. The longer you do it the more real it feels. Take on the mantle of the absurdist and run with it. Sure, you know it's all false, but it still feels good. Hrmmm.. I'm drunk and stoned 3 ways.. hope that makes sense >_<. I might try to explain what I'm talking about more tomorrow.

[Anthile]

Well, I guess that any religion that includes a form of god is more comforting than atheism - for most people at least.


To explain myself, I have always been an atheist. Though it has been attempted to indoctrinate me in kindergarten and school but it apparently failed. For me the tales from the bible - and other so called holy books - have always been on the same level as fairy tales: interesting and sometimes even insightful but orientating my life after that seemed always kinda weird.
There are too many loopholes and inconsistencies but also the tendency that you have to buy everything from a religion. If God, then unicorns, demons and magic.
Also God's bad habit to not intervene in human affairs. Why didn't he prevent the Holocaust? Why didn't he say something during the crusades like 'Folks, killing innocent people in my name is not cool'. I mean, if someone would massmurder in my name I sure would be upset. I guess you could find countless examples.
After all I think that organized religion has done more harm than good.

This lead me to the reflection:
If God exists, he is not benevolent and thus there is no need to worship him.
If God exists and is benevolent, his influence is so small that it is complete insignificant whether we worship him or not.

When we consider that the Bible is true with regard to God's character that doesn't really compute which then lead me to the conclusion that the chance for God's existence is insignificant.


There are actually other reasons as well but I'm afraid those are too boring to read and rather uninteresting.

[ifelloverboard]

The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it allows infinite possibilities which makes it impossible to know if you've chosen the right God. We're talking a God with one head, God with two heads, mean God, nice God, God that likes the Beatles... that is why Pascal's Wager breaks down in light of the Atheists Wager.

On top of that wouldn't an omniscient God know that I'm not following him blindly rather just using it as an insurance plan? I'm fairly certain most God's don't accept followers who use them as insurance policies.

Do you remember what life was like before you were born? That's what it's like when you're dead. Most secular people aren't going to shift their entire life philos for humbling at the feet of a God for eternity.

God sure does have a large ego for being a God.

EDIT: What is an INTP Atheist? INTP is a category based on questions, it's not a catch all. People here have similar functions based on a test asking us the same type of questions. To think that the 16 personality types can quantify the nature of the human mind is absolutely absurd ESPECIALLY when it comes to philosophy.

[Adaire]

EDIT: What is an INTP Atheist? INTP is a category based on questions, it's not a catch all. People here have similar functions based on a test asking us the same type of questions. To think that the 16 personality types can quantify the nature of the human mind is absolutely absurd ESPECIALLY when it comes to philosophy.


It's just a reference point that we can assume our readers understand (it is an INTP forum). No one is saying that it covers every individual aspect of the human personality, just that there are some noticeable correlations. Take note that he asks for atheists in general, not specifically INTP.

[ifelloverboard]

It's just a reference point that we can assume our readers understand (it is an INTP forum). No one is saying that it covers every individual aspect of the human personality, just that there are some noticeable correlations. Take note that he asks for atheists in general, not specifically INTP.

Take note that I'm not referencing the original poster. It's not often I see someone use a contrary tone while their words are actually inline with what I was saying. Thanks.

[Adaire]

Who were you referring to then?

[ifelloverboard]

TheHmmmm and it was the first line that prompted that edit. The idea of an "INTP Atheist" and then letting us know this is coming from an INTJ perspective is like me saying "I don't know if you're a vanilla ice cream eating Atheist but from a chocolate ice cream eating atheist this is my point of view..." Now if we were talking about how a personality type indicator may lend itself to a philosophical outlook then that comment would hold credence.

As far as I knew the original post was just a pander to pascal's wager which has what to do with MBTI?

[contra_mundum]

Toad I agree with you completely. It's not fair all of those "god lovers" and "jesus lovers" get to have something to believe in, something to turn to when times get tough, something that constantly loves you and "shines his light upon you". It's not fair. I have nothing to believe in, no higher being to turn to when life sucks.

So as much as I hate and mock the sheep sometimes I wish I were the sheep. They do seem happier than me. If I could feel jealous I think I would be jealous of them.

[Anthile]

Toad I agree with you completely. It's not fair all of those "god lovers" and "jesus lovers" get to have something to believe in, something to turn to when times get tough, something that constantly loves you and "shines his light upon you". It's not fair. I have nothing to believe in, no higher being to turn to when life sucks.

So as much as I hate and mock the sheep sometimes I wish I were the sheep. They do seem happier than me. If I could feel jealous I think I would be jealous of them.


Well, the advantage is that you can say that your misery is somebodies fault and not just "because God says so". This means that you can actually solve these problems all by yourself - to a certain degree.

[NoID10ts]

Just some food for thought. This is an idea that has been gestating inside me for a while now, but I can't yet fully articulate it. Sorry if it just looks like rambling (maybe it is), but ...........

If there is no god, than it's logical to assume that the benefits that the religious reap from their religion are available to all of us because we are all human. It's a matter of finding those avenues that bring fulfillment and I suspect that those avenues are open to everyone without it being necessary to believe in God.

Can we not all get involved in a community of one kind or another? Can we not all feed the poor? Can we not all meditate and quiet our minds to the chaos around us? Can we not all be kind and loving and gentle with the people in our lives? Can we not be filled with awe at the universe we find ourselves in? Can we not all find it within ourselves to conquer the fear of death? Can we not all live each day to it's fullest? Can we not all forgive? Can we not all love?

For me, there is a freedom in knowing that what I do is my choice and my choice alone. There is no divine plan guiding me to good or bad things that I have no control over. There is no one looking over my shoulder. There is no spiritual judge analyzing my every thought and action to determine if I am righteous or wicked. I don't have to condemn someone because of their lifestyle. I'm free to make a contribution to the world in any way I see fit. I don't have some ancient text controlling my every thought. I don't have to anticipate a future where all things end in judgment and death, but I am free to imagine a future where anything is possible, whether good or bad. And for all those futuristic imaginings that seem good to me, I am free to work to make that future a reality. Is there not some comfort in those things?

But alas, this is the harder road, I think, and therein lies the rub. It takes more discipline and self management. It's just easier to let others do the thinking for us. It's easier to be controlled then to control. It's easier to succumb to a beautiful lie then accept a harsh reality. This is why atheism will probably never gain a majority foothold. Most people don't care about what is true, they just want to be happy. Is it too much to ask to have both?

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Once you have intellectualy come to a point where you've picked through the holes you find in religion, saying to yourself 'Oh well, I'm going to believe anyway' is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Once it's out, it's out and you need to find something tangible to hold onto (like a burning bush telling you to do things) that your intellect can accept. Otherwise you are just fooling others and yourself. Only you know if you can find happiness doing that.

[NoID10ts]

Once you have intellectualy come to a point where you've picked through the holes you find in religion, saying to yourself 'Oh well, I'm going to believe anyway' is trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

This is a great way to express it! I've been trying to find a way to articulate what it's like to no longer be able to believe and this does a beautiful job of it.

[The Fury]

I'm pretty happy being an atheist, I'm not afraid of death and so the idea of a some mystical saviour doesn't offer me anything. Life will always be difficult with or without belief in an imaginary being.

[sniktawekim]

" I want to be an ignorant lamb and just follow something"

hey man, easy with the words.. maybe theism is right?
i mean, its understandable that you wouldnt think so, but you seem quite confident in your views..

[Jesin]

If you're only addressing INTP atheists, then I apologize.
We rarely do, and never without specifying.

If there is no god, than it's logical to assume that the benefits that the religious reap from their religion are available to all of us because we are all human. It's a matter of finding those avenues that bring fulfillment and I suspect that those avenues are open to everyone without it being necessary to believe in God.
I've held this opinion for a while now. Half of my response to "faith will change your life for the better" is "but that doesn't make it true". The other half is that there are substitutes.

Is there anything you can get out of faith (other than perhaps some idea about the afterlife) that you can't get in other ways?

[Cogwulf]

You don't have to believe in anyone elses god, think of a higher being or purpose that doesn't contradict anything you already know and believe in that, even though it's a product of your own imagination it will be no less correct than any other religion.

[Ermine]

I'm no atheist, but I don't think ignorance is bliss. Sure, ignorant people have less things to worry about, but they're much easier to use and manipulate. If you like being used and manipulated, be my guest. But it doesn't sound good to me, so I'd rather find my own bliss while not being ignorant.

[cuterebra]

This comic sums up how I feel about Pascal's wager very nicely:

http://cectic.com/comics/082.png

Of, and then there's also scientific integrity...

[del]

Apart from the absurdity of accepting a mythology as fact, the problem with religion is that it makes people easy to control.

Of course that's not a problem for people who've accepted a religion after a lot of critical thought, but that really doesn't seem to be what OP was after.

[Adymus]

Because once you see the bigger picture, you can't unsee it. How can you possibly become just another believer if you own mind won't even permit it?
I demand that everything make sense, even if I wanted to become another jesus freak, that is just not an option for me.

But that aside, I didn't become a skeptic because I was looking to get a warm feeling inside. I can't say I am happy with the cold truths and absurdity of reality, but I have accepted it, and hiding from it by trying to convince yourself that everything is just rainbows and lollipops is a pathetic cop out.

If I had to choose between existential depression and fearing a bearded guy in the sky is going to write me up for premarital sex, I'd pick depression every time.

[Ombat]

This has been said in some way or another, but what you're proposing Toad, doesn't exist if you truly don't believe in God. The only way you could "go back" to believing is if you never really stopped believing in the first place, or if you're only skeptical about God's existence, not really denying it.

In a scenario where you do decide to jump back on board with religion and accept an almighty power that ultimately guides and decides your life for you, I think you would probably become frusterated and feel more hopeless, because deep down, you know that your efforts in believing in something that doesn't exist has done absolutely nothing for you. Actually, it probably has done something to hurt you. For me atleast, it would do something terrible to my sense of integrity.

The one good thing that religion offers is a sense of community, but like Nod says, we shouldn't have to rely on religion to get a sense of community. Regardless, we are all here, right now, on Earth, and community should be established because of that.

On a semi-related note, the thing that pisses me off about religion is that you have to be good because God will smite you if you aren't. You should not kill people because you should not kill people, not because you will be sent to hell if you do. People should have their own moral conduct, not one that's written in a book for them.

[bananaphallus]

To answer your question, no. But in your opinion, what does it mean to belong to a religion? In what ways would your life or your prospects change? Would allegiance to someone else's dogma make you happier [if that's what your after]?

[cuterebra]

On a semi-related note, the thing that pisses me off about religion is that you have to be good because God will smite you if you aren't. You should not kill people because you should not kill people, not because you will be sent to hell if you do. People should have their own moral conduct, not one that's written in a book for them.

Knowing what a piss poor motivator the fear of punishment is, I am a lot less trusting of religious people. "Because it says so in a book" or "because I might go to Hell" are pretty flimsy reasons for a person to toe the line. Also, if you roll Catholic, it's no big deal if you break a few rules now since you can wash it away later with a few Hail Marys. And let's not forget 9/11 and all the other instances of violence caused by religious nuts.

My own morals are based on a lifetime of reading and thinking and observing and so I'm quite firm on them. I'll trust another atheist over a Christian any day.

[Da Blob]

Oh Great! another thread about how much smarter atheists are than us poor stupid ignorant uneducated deluded believers... I saw the holes too and blamed them on my sight, and my understanding and I developed insight and a better understanding instead of rejecting God. I do believe that we are to question our beliefs. That beliefs are to be abandoned when they are proved to be false.

[TheHmmmm]

Oh Great! another thread about how much smarter atheists are than us poor stupid ignorant uneducated deluded believers... I saw the holes too and blamed them on my sight, and my understanding and I developed insight and a better understanding instead of rejecting God. I do believe that we are to question our beliefs. That beliefs are to be abandoned when they are proved to be false.

You need to get this chip off your shoulder, here. Of course people are going to disagree with you and of course they're going to be passionate about it. Quit playing the "woe is me" role and learn to be comfortable with yourself. Believe it or not, atheists are still the minority so don't say that we bully you or that we pigeonhole you because it's absolutely false.

[Da Blob]

You need to get this chip off your shoulder, here. Of course people are going to disagree with you and of course they're going to be passionate about it. Quit playing the "woe is me" role and learn to be comfortable with yourself. Believe it or not, atheists are still the minority so don't say that we bully you or that we pigeonhole you because it's absolutely false.

No chip, I find amusing that so many assume that because that they're unable to believe in a god, that there must be something wrong or inferior about those of us that do.

Perhaps it is the atheists that are wrong? Perhaps it is them that have made the mistake? Maybe one can't believe because one's of own mistakes or inadequacies? There is something lacking within themselves?
It is a possibility, remote as it may be, that should not be discounted by an impartial, rational mind...

[contra_mundum]

I read about this study that showed a direct correlation between intelligence and atheism. Google it if you like. Furthermore the recent discovery of that ape-like creature "ardi" helps our cause even more and maybe even shows that there IS something wrong with all of you believers.

An INTP looks at the facts and says "no fucking way there's a god". Facts speak for themselves. You want to believe in something where there is absolutely no proof that it exists and you suggest that maybe we're the ones who are wrong?

Da Blob, you are right about one thing though. There is definitely something lacking within me.

[Ombat]

Oh Great! another thread about how much smarter atheists are than us poor stupid ignorant uneducated deluded believers...

It is a possibility, remote as it may be, that should not be discounted by an impartial, rational mind...

Just... in case you missed that.

There are many athiests that will attack you for your beliefs, that's true. There are also many theists that will attack you for your "non" beliefs, so I don't see this as one-sided in the least.

You're going to be insulted by someone arguing for the other side of your beliefs. Else it wouldn't be arguing.

[walfin]

On a semi-related note, the thing that pisses me off about religion is that you have to be good because God will smite you if you aren't. You should not kill people because you should not kill people, not because you will be sent to hell if you do. People should have their own moral conduct, not one that's written in a book for them.
Actually many protestants would concur with this. As far as I've seen, the argument is that you should do good because you "Love God" and "Love your neighbour", not because you fear punishment, and God will forgive you but you shouldn't take advantage of that anyway. Though the "love" exhortation doesn't really cut ice with an INTP.

An INTP looks at the facts and says "no fucking way there's a god". Facts speak for themselves. You want to believe in something where there is absolutely no proof that it exists and you suggest that maybe we're the ones who are wrong?
Well, which side has the burden of proof?

On a balance of probabilities I should think the most likely answer is "we don't know" (i.e. agnosticism, not atheism). But believing in a God isn't unreasonable either because inferences drawn from facts differ from person to person.

[sniktawekim]

An INTP looks at the facts and says "no fucking way there's a god". Facts speak for themselves. You want to believe in something where there is absolutely no proof that it exists and you suggest that maybe we're the ones who are wrong?.

you are telling me you dont believe in things without absolute proof?
its funny because if you try to argue that you dont, i could make you look like a fool.
if you tell me you do, your point, which you so arrogantly, and inconsideratly of the other side, raised -- is no longer valid.
sorry, i am a bit irritable at the moment, and i sensed condescension.

[ifelloverboard]

Many atheists when arguing quickly forget that the Christian's faith is based on believing without seeing and that same faith is what is their salvation so it almost always ends up as wasted time. None of the atheists I know would drop their entire moral compass on life simply because someone of a different philosophy presented a compelling argument.

If you want to change a theist you're better off talking about other subjects but using the same methodology that you approach religion to discredit it.

IF you really are interested in getting theists to listen to you I would recommend less investment in facts and figures and start reading up on how to influence other people. 7 Habits of Highly Effective People would be a good place to start.

Someone said something about how religion controls people and I wanted to add to that. Sovereign Nations implemented state religion for reasons that had little to do with the belief itself. That's an entire discussion but essentially state religion and the belief that whatever entity was watching over their land would then justify any actions the state wanted to do. Hey let's go to war and you're going to fight for us because God says so. That's much easier to do than say "Hey I'm a greedy fucker that wants to get more rich but keep your life the same, let's go to war" Of course Sun Tzu had a different approach of sharing the spoils of war but that had nothing to do with religion and now I'm getting way off topic.

Point is, I think religion did serve a function in the exploration, expansion and settling of civilizations. That age is gone though and as we continue to become more globalized and proceed in the future exploration wise and scientifically organized religion will eventually (hopefully) die off. I think superstitions and other little rituals will always be there but it as an institution and method of control I don't think will be here much longer.

[INTPINFP]

Sadly, when dealing with theists, it's not WHAT you say, but HOW you say it.:cool:

I think atheism is a big relief, when compared to the burden of having an omnipotent being, knowing your thoughts, knowing what you will do before you do it, and having an eternity of torture at the "everlasting fires of hell" if your thoughts are not pure, since God can read your every thought. Basically, you cannot think anymore. Your fear of hellfire, will, ironically, cause you to have impure thoughts. It's human nature. The more they fear something, the more they will think about it. Eg, if you read "do not think of the big fat elephant wearing a blue tutu", you will immediately picture the elephant in your mind. Which is why religion is such a detriment to IN types.

[Agent Intellect]

I see a lot of people talk about the science vs religion thing as far as atheism goes. I can't say that science alone can really turn somebody into an atheist, no matter how knowledgeable someone is in the sciences. I'm not even really talking about the fact that there are a lot of religious scientists (even through there are probably even more atheist ones, but that could simply be that more atheists are interested in science - but I digress).

To me, there does have to be something aside from 'examining the facts' to make someone not believe in a God of some sort. To me, science can really only make somebody agnostic - full atheism doesn't seem to be a very 'scientific' stance. I know for me, it was more of the philosophical questions and paradoxes that made me question the existence of God (although I'd be lying if I said that studying the sciences didn't help).

I do think there are probably people that are simply anti-theist, as opposed to atheist - they have a belief or conviction that there is no God rather than seeing no reason to hold a belief in the existence of God. These are people, like many fundie theists, who start with a stalwart conclusion - in this case that God does not exist - and then seek evidence to support this predisposition. I don't like to think of myself this way, and because of that my world view has often wavered between agnosticism and atheism, generally due to my own thinking, reasoning, and philosophy more often then science.

So, I guess the point I'm trying to reach through all this babbling is that it's foolish to think that because one knows a lot about science, or that one is an "intellectual" that it will ultimately lead to atheism. Nobody derives their beliefs about God from any objective, scientific examination of facts, but through their own reasoning and their own philosophies (although science may play a big roll in ones reasoning). It's wrong to say that one needs to forget all they know about science to become an "ignorant theist" because there are ignorant atheists and theist intellectuals/ scientists.

[NoID10ts]

I agree, AI.

When I left the faith, science really had very little to do with it. I left the faith because what I believed and what I saw and experienced were inconsistent. Science came into the picture when I started asking questions like "Okay, if there is no God, how do you explain X?" And I must admit, it did an admirable job once I learned to look beyond the Christian rhetoric I have been inundated with for years.

Science does not have to be at odds with faith, it's just that many of the Biblical claims cannot be taken literally given what we now know to be true. Even the historicity of some of the Biblical accounts have been shown to be sketchy at best, and downright false at worst. But faith is the name of the game, anyway, so even that isn't really insurmountable.

But given my observations and understandings about the world and the cosmos, I don't see any reason to make the jump to a belief that, at it's heart, is unapproachable by reason, logic, or observation. I can actually envision a belief in God, I don't believe that's the case, but I can conceive of the possibility. What is almost impossible for me to believe, however, is that there is a personal God that loves us and cares about us.

[TheHmmmm]

I see a lot of people talk about the science vs religion thing as far as atheism goes. I can't say that science alone can really turn somebody into an atheist, no matter how knowledgeable someone is in the sciences. I'm not even really talking about the fact that there are a lot of religious scientists (even through there are probably even more atheist ones, but that could simply be that more atheists are interested in science - but I digress).

To me, there does have to be something aside from 'examining the facts' to make someone not believe in a God of some sort. To me, science can really only make somebody agnostic - full atheism doesn't seem to be a very 'scientific' stance. I know for me, it was more of the philosophical questions and paradoxes that made me question the existence of God (although I'd be lying if I said that studying the sciences didn't help).

I do think there are probably people that are simply anti-theist, as opposed to atheist - they have a belief or conviction that there is no God rather than seeing no reason to hold a belief in the existence of God. These are people, like many fundie theists, who start with a stalwart conclusion - in this case that God does not exist - and then seek evidence to support this predisposition. I don't like to think of myself this way, and because of that my world view has often wavered between agnosticism and atheism, generally due to my own thinking, reasoning, and philosophy more often then science.

So, I guess the point I'm trying to reach through all this babbling is that it's foolish to think that because one knows a lot about science, or that one is an "intellectual" that it will ultimately lead to atheism. Nobody derives their beliefs about God from any objective, scientific examination of facts, but through their own reasoning and their own philosophies (although science may play a big roll in ones reasoning). It's wrong to say that one needs to forget all they know about science to become an "ignorant theist" because there are ignorant atheists and theist intellectuals/ scientists.

I agree as well. I can say science had NOTHING to do with my departure from theism. It was mostly inconsistency and a failure to answer the "why's" of God in a way that was consistent with their doctrine. I honestly wasn't interested in knowing how the world worked; I was more interesting in learning if belief in God was reasonable, which to my scrutiny it was not.

[cuterebra]

It is not that learning all sorts of scientific knowledge turns scientists into atheists--it's that scientists learn to evaluate data critically, and so they begin to look at everything that way.

Not all scientists become atheists, but the majority of the credible ones are. I just googled it--the last survey in 1998 found 72% of scientists polled were atheists and another 20% were agnostic.

Neil Degrasse Tyson summed it up well: "The world looks different if you're scientifically literate."

[fullerene]

I don't think I would say that teachers of science (high school, college profs) have lied to me as much as people who take it on themselves to be religious teachers of various kinds (theology teachers, pastors, parents, etc), but they are coming pretty close. I'm thinking about making a list of all the various lies I've heard from one set of people or the other, as many as I can remember, as well as the teachings that seemed to have been proposed out of zeal rather than objective examination of those facts. I'm not sure I'll get around to it, but I think I'll make a thread and post it, if I do.

Three off the top of my head, though, cutebra:

1. In thermal physics, Entropy is defined in nearly every textbook (except Boltzmann's original work, which nobody seems to be able to read or translate because it's in horrific German) as the log of a volume in phase space, rather than the log of the probability of a composite system. This leads to many paradoxes where the math predicts hideously erroneous results for distinguishable particles. Knowing that they get the wrong answer when going through the statistics for indistinguishable particles, most scientists do laughable things--including claiming that colloids are indistinguishable, despite their being made up of 10^12 particles, and very obviously having unique structures.

2. One physics professor I have invented something called the "multiple histogram method", an algorithm used to efficiently compute some value. He published it, and physicists immediately welcomed it and it became the standard algorithm for that type of computation, but biologists and some other group (bio-chemists? I forget) ignored it completely. After talking to some of his bio-friends, they informed him that this was because no scientists from those fields will respect/use algorithms like that unless their names make an acronym. He renamed it something (I forget the full name) that spelled out WHAM, republished the same paper, and the scientists from those fields immediately adopted it and it became their standard method as well. It had nothing to do with the facts--they just didn't respect something without an acronym-name long enough to consider it.

3. I got into a discussion about postmodernism with one Computational Biophysicist at my university about a year ago (he's my advisor, so we talked a bit of philosophy), and he actually claimed that he thought the whole thing was a conspiracy amongst the Humanities professors in academia to say anything they wanted without their work being criticized or jobs being in danger. I was dumbstruck, and couldn't think of anything to say (after all, it's just a difference of opinion), so we ended our argument there. I was startled by his zeal, though, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that at all except "nobody could possibly be so stupid as to buy into that whole thing."


The idea that scientists are exceptionally objective, or evaluate all data critically, is..... well, I don't want to say it's laughable... but you're judging them by their ideal, rather than what they are, and you're judging them at a distance, rather than up close. As anyone who's been through an intro electromagnetism course will tell you, every charge distribution looks like a point charge from far away.

[cuterebra]

Cryptonia--note that I specified "credible" scientists. By this, I mean people whose primary focus is research that are both known and respected in their chosen field. This excludes high school science teachers and a fair number of those who teach undergraduate courses as well. Lots of quacks and cranks manage to publish articles--academia is rife with them--but they don't fit into the "known and respected in their field" category, either. I'm not saying that there aren't good scientists who are also believers, but they are in the minority.

Now, I don't have a PhD and years of grant writing under my belt yet, to be sure, but I do have a first author publication and I know and have known a number of scientists. I've done research (immunology), presented a poster, etc. and intend do start a combined PhD/medical residency program in another year or so after I finish clinical rotations. Call it what you will, but I wouldn't say I'm looking at all this from a distance through rose-tinted glasses.

[fullerene]

By quacks and cranks, do you mean people writing a textbook and going to MIT this weekend to give a talk on how all these paradoxes can be fixed if they just stop clinging to a questionable definition that's been widely accepted, despite clear, contradictory evidence, this whole past century?


I don't think any of those people I mentioned were Christians, for the record. I only have one professor who I think claims to be one (though not in class, his wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Griffiths_(physicist))says as much), so you're probably right about them being in the minority, but he wasn't any of those people in the above examples.

I just find the idealization of science and scientists extremely frustrating. Fantastic scientists are very often dismissive of new ideas before any evidence comes out at all (see Ernst Mach, who didn't believe in such nonsense as atoms), and even fail to weigh evidence objectively (Humphry Davy showed that ice cubes melted faster when rubbed together, even though there was nowhere for the "heat fluid" to come from, yet the theory didn't catch on for ~50 years--long enough for the new generation of physicists to replace all the old ones, whose reputations were tied up in caloric theory).

Scientists would like to be objective, impartial, etc., but that's just the ideal. In practice... well, there's a reason Max Plank said "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light [*titters*, Plank made a joke], but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I don't mean to argue with you in saying that most credible scientists are atheists (though I think that's much more true in Biology than Physics), but the idea that scientists critically analyze everything impersonally and objectively is a pet peeve of mine.

[Da Blob]

I seem to be in the minority. I think that both science and religion attempt to seek different aspects of Truth and Reality. I will freely admit that the antagonism between the two disciplines has been and is being provoked primarily by those who refuse to change their religious views to accommodate reality, so to speak. History is full of example of intolerance of any attempt to change the status quo, no matter what field of inquiry is suggesting that change.

I, personally, think it is a horrible error on the part of 'religious' people to think that we as a species know everything there is to know about God. It is like telling God, Himself, when a new scientific fact is revealed. "No that can't be an aspect of You, we forbid it!"
Very self-centered and egotistical, the humans are! For both Scientific and Religious fanatics reject the very Truth, they claim to seek...?

EDIT: From my POV, there are two universes, the Universe of the Object which is the legitimate realm of scientific inquiry and the Universe of the Subject, a universe that is not even acknowledged as existing by Science, perhaps because it is not observable and can not be measured. I think that religion has proven to be a valid means to investigate the realm of the Subjective Universe, which mathematics require be the more complex of the two Universes...


EDIT @: Afterthought. And perhaps that is the entire problem in a nutshell. I do not see the Bible as addressing the structures of the Objective Universe, perhaps it was a mistake of the religious thinkers (oxymoron?) of the past to believe that it did(?). However, the Bible does address the issues of the Subjective Universe in quite a comprehensive way. Matter of fact, it could be seen simply as a text on cognitive development from birth onward...

[cuterebra]

By quacks and cranks, do you mean people writing a textbook and going to MIT this weekend to give a talk on how all these paradoxes can be fixed if they just stop clinging to a questionable definition that's been widely accepted, despite clear, contradictory evidence, this whole past century?


Forgive me if you feel I insulted your mentor--it was not my intent.

I am not saying that scientists are always rational and objective--they are human, after all--just that they are less likely to believe in superstition. Maybe I'm wrong about the reasons why. Impossible to determine, I suspect. However, according to all the surveys I've read, it most definitely is the case. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

In my experience, even in the American South, most scientists in academia avoid the topic of religion in general and seem a bit embarrassed if the subject comes up at all.

[Artifice Orisit]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/6056/3f024f5f7fe527598cfe701.jpg

[INTPINFP]

I don't think I would say that teachers of science (high school, college profs) have lied to me as much as people who take it on themselves to be religious teachers of various kinds (theology teachers, pastors, parents, etc), but they are coming pretty close. I'm thinking about making a list of all the various lies I've heard from one set of people or the other, as many as I can remember, as well as the teachings that seemed to have been proposed out of zeal rather than objective examination of those facts. I'm not sure I'll get around to it, but I think I'll make a thread and post it, if I do.

Three off the top of my head, though, cutebra:

1. In thermal physics, Entropy is defined in nearly every textbook (except Boltzmann's original work, which nobody seems to be able to read or translate because it's in horrific German) as the log of a volume in phase space, rather than the log of the probability of a composite system. This leads to many paradoxes where the math predicts hideously erroneous results for distinguishable particles. Knowing that they get the wrong answer when going through the statistics for indistinguishable particles, most scientists do laughable things--including claiming that colloids are indistinguishable, despite their being made up of 10^12 particles, and very obviously having unique structures.

2. One physics professor I have invented something called the "multiple histogram method", an algorithm used to efficiently compute some value. He published it, and physicists immediately welcomed it and it became the standard algorithm for that type of computation, but biologists and some other group (bio-chemists? I forget) ignored it completely. After talking to some of his bio-friends, they informed him that this was because no scientists from those fields will respect/use algorithms like that unless their names make an acronym. He renamed it something (I forget the full name) that spelled out WHAM, republished the same paper, and the scientists from those fields immediately adopted it and it became their standard method as well. It had nothing to do with the facts--they just didn't respect something without an acronym-name long enough to consider it.

3. I got into a discussion about postmodernism with one Computational Biophysicist at my university about a year ago (he's my advisor, so we talked a bit of philosophy), and he actually claimed that he thought the whole thing was a conspiracy amongst the Humanities professors in academia to say anything they wanted without their work being criticized or jobs being in danger. I was dumbstruck, and couldn't think of anything to say (after all, it's just a difference of opinion), so we ended our argument there. I was startled by his zeal, though, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that at all except "nobody could possibly be so stupid as to buy into that whole thing."


The idea that scientists are exceptionally objective, or evaluate all data critically, is..... well, I don't want to say it's laughable... but you're judging them by their ideal, rather than what they are, and you're judging them at a distance, rather than up close. As anyone who's been through an intro electromagnetism course will tell you, every charge distribution looks like a point charge from far away.

1. Nerd talk.

2. Nerd talk.

3. More nerd talk.

J/k I'm just jealous.

But yeah, the reason I became an atheist is because of the scientific method, not because of some scientific theories, big bang, etc. I don't really know much about science besides the easy stuff like Heisenberg Uncertaintity, the structure of an atom, Evolution and the big bang. When you start going into particle physics and waveform wavelets I begin nodding off.

Anyway, I began simply using simple logic to analyze whether the truth of Christianity was true at all. First, I though "Why would a loving god send his creations to hell for eternity? Why does god say Jealousy is a sin, but say he is a Jealous God and if you worship any other god you shall burn in hellfire for eternity?" Furthermore, at this time I was also wondering upon the nature of self-awareness. I read a book about Consciousness by Daniel Dennet and I suddenly realized that we don't have free-will. I also thought, even if we did have free-will, why doesn't God make a world without evil, and allow us to choose between good and good, instead of good and evil, for example, choose between pancakes and waffles. That's still free will. The thought occured to me that if the God of the Bible did exist, he was a hypocrit and a sadist. He created the world simply for a source of amusement, like a contest to see who will go to heaven and hell. Then I realized that this God was not so different from other Gods, like greek mythology, Norse mythology ect. They were all ancient religions made to keep the people in check, using fear and peer pressure to keep the followers in check. If you ever visit a church, the atmosphere and pressure is strong and undeniable.

[INTPINFP]

Just some food for thought. This is an idea that has been gestating inside me for a while now, but I can't yet fully articulate it. Sorry if it just looks like rambling (maybe it is), but ...........

If there is no god, than it's logical to assume that the benefits that the religious reap from their religion are available to all of us because we are all human. It's a matter of finding those avenues that bring fulfillment and I suspect that those avenues are open to everyone without it being necessary to believe in God.

Can we not all get involved in a community of one kind or another? Can we not all feed the poor? Can we not all meditate and quiet our minds to the chaos around us? Can we not all be kind and loving and gentle with the people in our lives? Can we not be filled with awe at the universe we find ourselves in? Can we not all find it within ourselves to conquer the fear of death? Can we not all live each day to it's fullest? Can we not all forgive? Can we not all love?

For me, there is a freedom in knowing that what I do is my choice and my choice alone. There is no divine plan guiding me to good or bad things that I have no control over. There is no one looking over my shoulder. There is no spiritual judge analyzing my every thought and action to determine if I am righteous or wicked. I don't have to condemn someone because of their lifestyle. I'm free to make a contribution to the world in any way I see fit. I don't have some ancient text controlling my every thought. I don't have to anticipate a future where all things end in judgment and death, but I am free to imagine a future where anything is possible, whether good or bad. And for all those futuristic imaginings that seem good to me, I am free to work to make that future a reality. Is there not some comfort in those things?

But alas, this is the harder road, I think, and therein lies the rub. It takes more discipline and self management. It's just easier to let others do the thinking for us. It's easier to be controlled then to control. It's easier to succumb to a beautiful lie then accept a harsh reality. This is why atheism will probably never gain a majority foothold. Most people don't care about what is true, they just want to be happy. Is it too much to ask to have both?

People often associate atheisim with purposelessness and no life after death. If we market the occult and possibility of reincarnation we might have a chance

[Toad]

I was just listening to some gospel hymns and I suddenly just remembered my stay at a Christian boarding school. I remember how safe I felt when I believed in God. It's such a wonderful feeling. You can't blame people for wanting it. But I realize now that it's just a feeling...But I really wish I could go back to that.

Edit: I also remember the guilt that would come when I did something "wrong". It was like I was always thinking that God was watching me.

It's funny how music can bring back so much memories and emotions.

[Da Blob]

Ummm It is perhaps sad but the best times of our lives are "Just feelings", I do not think that which is inside our heads and hearts that are not in the form of words/symbols should be discounted as somehow lesser or perhaps invalid when compared to the words and conscious thought that also shares our brains. It is most likely because we can not share 'feelings', but one can share words...

I have to admit that my belief in God stems from these 'feelings' that can not be expressed in words. However, very few of the experiences that make up the substance of our lives can be expressed adequately in words. I think that Poets have a greater grasp of the human reality than philosophers do...

BTW - Music can exert a powerful force, but then again, how can one objectify the power of that force considering that is within a person's mind that force is displayed? Therefore, the power of music is discounted as a legitimate field for scientific study. If you can't measure it, it can not exist - scientifically. A simple fact that seems to trip up so many pretenders who advocate science as reality...

[Madoness]

BTW - Music can exert a powerful force, but then again, how can one objectify the power of that force considering that is within a person's mind that force is displayed? Therefore, the power of music is discounted as a legitimate field for scientific study. If you can't measure it, it can not exist - scientifically. A simple fact that seems to trip up so many pretenders who advocate science as reality...

No. But somehow antiscientific people would like to think it is so. Day by day you seem to more of a person to fit that category.
Music exists, therefore.... I'm not sure about a god. Can it be scientifically presented as existing as music is? Music does exist, so what people do influenced by it is a whole another matter.
Drugs exists, some people have religious experiences using LSD or something similar. In my mind because the causer of delusion in known, it has a bit more validity against something that has not.

"So called pretenders who advocate science as reality" is not the right way to put it. It is the most realistic way to see that we call reality as it can be checked.
Science is an ongoing process, so it can never be called reality but a pursuit to understand why the world is like it. If some aspects are validated, checked, and rechecked and gone through a roller-coaster ride being checked again by independent scientists, it comes to being a theory, having just an opinion against it is not an alternative for it (again missing links and stuff like that are not invalidating but saying some things considering the theory are not yet known, even if these links come to be known and would invalidate existing theories), then just having an opinion that does not have any real background, roots to dig up, is nothing more than being purely antiscientific and should not therefore have a real saying in it. Now if thoughts should have roots to dig, it should be a whole another matter, so try not to be against scientific method but present something that invalidates existing theories, something that can itself be checked.

[Tink]

I am an atheist. There's no such thing as God. That's a basic conclusion.
But..I have no qualms with people participating in religious pursuits providing they are doing so in a moral/ethical and socially positive way. I also have no problems with introducing children to a simple and good religion if it means they will be armed with the positive aspects of religion. Religious people have been shown in research studies to be happier and to have stronger family bonds and cope with disasters much better than atheists.

[Death]

I refuse to talk without my lawyer....

YouTube- Al Pacino Speech on Devil's Advocate

[Mental Disarray]

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. I don't believe in god for a minute. I'm not empty. I'm a generally happy guy. If you can't act as a responsible, moral human being because its the right thing to do, then you don't need god. You just have shitty character. You can't blame someone for wanting it, but I can get pissed when they try to tell the rest of us they have to follow their silly, arbitrary rules. Truth is far more important than anyone's silly delusions.

If you need god to help you cope with the same shit the rest of us have to deal with, then keep it to a personal, private god. There's a lot of better ways, though. Religion never made me feel any better. If this is the best an all-powerful, all-loving god who's capable of defying all laws and logic can do.. we're FUCKED! ;)

Sorry to be harsh. I hate religion.

(P.S. if you didn't have so many posts, I'd be calling poe.)

[transformers]

I don't believe in truth for truth's sake. If believing in God helps you deal with life, then more power to you. The fact is we all have our delusions when it comes to dealing with problems, whether it's false pride, false guilt, or a belief in God. I would wager that it's not even possible to live a completely logical life, entirely divorced from our emotional, psychological sides. Human beings were not built that way.

[Mental Disarray]

We all have our delusions. But theirs a huge difference between a boosted ego and a belief in an imaginary, homophobic, mysoginistic, racist, genocidal archaic remnant of a more savage culture who's sense of "love" is eternal torment to those who don't obey. Complete denial of observable reality isn't justified because I like to tell people I'm 6' rather than 5'11.


It may not be possible to live a perfectly logical life, but if we didn't do something because we wouldn't be perfect at it then there'd be no point in doing anything. If ignorance really was bliss, we'd all have been better off in the dark ages. I'll take Reality.

[Chimera]

I'm not one for debating religion, because half the time I have no idea what I'm talking about. :P
I was raised in a Christian family though, and stopped believing in a god a few years ago. I have no ill will toward any religious people unless they make a point of being stupid...it's the same standard I have for anyone else.

A week or so ago, my family went to "our" church for the annual fall supper that they host. I was a little apprehensive, as I haven't stepped foot inside that building for a little over a year, and I have only just begun to be vocal about my agnosticism/atheism. Not to mention, I retain respect for a few members because of their genuinely kind hearts.
So I step through the doors, and who is greeting people but the preacher himself? (He's one of the respected described above.)
He didn't have any words for me; he just clasped my hand with a knowing look in his eyes and smiled.
All through dinner, I was constantly aware of the general ambiance of peace in the people around me. The sense of community stunned me. Many times I would just sit back and bask in the warmth of it all.

Surrounded by all that, I can understand the attraction of religion. I can understand the want to belong in such a place. In the future, I imagine I'll float in and out of the church community. Knowing that I'm welcome, but not required to show, is refreshing. As for believing in god, people can do whatever the hell they want...who am I to judge them? My logic points to the conclusion that there is no god, and their logic says there is. It's nothing to get upset over.

[Da Blob]

Excuse me, but I am still amazed at the number of people that have not gone out searching for God that feel comfortable stating that "There is no God". It seems extremely egotistical to me to discount the lives and experiences of billions of other people? How can one do that and still consider oneself honest? Is it some kind of attention seeking ploy?

Of course there is a God! It is just a matter of definitions. There are all manners of images and definitions of God and perhaps each person has a personal definition based on their own experiences. However, one has to consider themselves to be a god to even say there is no other God. How many years did it take, of study and investigation before one started to state such a thing?

Of course, I suppose if one pretends there is no God as Others' master, One can also pretend there is no Satan as one own Master. The so called evils of religion are extremely over-rated and the benefits are ignored. What is it within those that choose to downgrade believers as inferior human beings that is fed by making such statements?

I am sorry if there are not enough wonderful believers hanging around with atheists to perhaps show them that "God is Good", However, it would only take a few minutes to find such people if one wanted to find them, it could take longer in finding those people's God...

[Chimera]

With utmost respect, Da Blob, using arguments about people finding god can easily be flipped.

Excuse me, but I am still amazed at the number of people that have not gone out searching for Logic that feel comfortable stating that "There is God". It seems extremely ignorant to me to discount the discoveries and rationalizations of billions of other people? How can one do that and still consider oneself honest? Is it some kind of security seeking ploy?

Again, not meaning to be rude, but in the end it's belief against belief. I find peace and beauty in places where you find god. One isn't more right than the other.

[Inappropriate Behavior]

*temporarily leaves the sick of God threads club*

Excuse me, but I am still amazed at the number of people that have not gone out searching for God that feel comfortable stating that "There is no God". It seems extremely egotistical to me to discount the lives and experiences of billions of other people? How can one do that and still consider oneself honest? Is it some kind of attention seeking ploy?

Of course there is a God! It is just a matter of definitions. There are all manners of images and definitions of God and perhaps each person has a personal definition based on their own experiences. However, one has to consider themselves to be a god to even say there is no other God. How many years did it take, of study and investigation before one started to state such a thing?

Of course, I suppose if one pretends there is no God as Others' master, One can also pretend there is no Satan as one own Master. The so called evils of religion are extremely over-rated and the benefits are ignored. What is it within those that choose to downgrade believers as inferior human beings that is fed by making such statements?

I am sorry if there are not enough wonderful believers hanging around with atheists to perhaps show them that "God is Good", However, it would only take a few minutes to find such people if one wanted to find them, it could take longer in finding those people's God...

First, while some here may not have made an extensive search for a god, some have and have still not found anything that might be evidence of a god. I would go so far as to bet that there are many who have "found god" not through personal searching but by way of being raised to or out of some need for something in an otherwise troubled life.

While I never begrudge someone who has been to some form of "rock bottom" then turning hir life around through god, I also have to look at it as a mere mechanism. They don't believe they themselves have the strength to so they "turn their life over" to a powerful being to lead them out of the darkness so to speak. I know from personal experience that one can change their lives themselves but others need an aid. That aid comes though not an external force, but an internal one. I wish I knew more about psychology but it is something akin to say cancer patients who are shown certain techniques that have profound psychological benefits as opposed to their sliding into deep despair. While "positive" thinking is no cure-all, it has shown to have benefits that seem to correlate with higher survival chances. I see no reason as yet to see a renewed belief in god as any different than a psychological belief.

Good for them for turning things around, but I believe the individuals deserve far more credit then they give themselves.

I've met "wonderful belivers" (some here on this forum) and many of what I call pretend believers (who seem to be the majority but of course, I live in the US "Bible Belt" where they are as fake as Michael Jackson's nose). Sincerity is great, but it does nothing in my view to show that there is any actual truth behind it all.

*back to club :D*

[Mental Disarray]

Let's give this a try, Da Blob. By your logic, in order to know that there is no such thing as a 2-sided triangle, I would need to know everything that there is to know about triangles. Does this mean that I believe in 2-sided triangles because I can't summarily disprove them? Or maybe I'm unsure about the existence of 2-sided triangles? No.

I can come to the conclusion that there aren't 2-sided triangles through simple logic. First of all, is a 2-sided triangle a necessary object in physical reality? No. Second of all, do I have any physical evidence of 2-sided triangles? Absolutely not. Finally, its not about definitions. If everyone could make their own definitions of things, everything would be subjective, noone could agree and society would fail. I can define a triangle. A triangle is, by definition, a 3-sided polygon. By this definition, I can decide that a 2-sided triangle is illogical. So, I've come to the conclusion that a 2-sided triangle is an object that lacks any evidence in physical reality, is illogical and is unnecessary.

Are you agnostic towards or a believer in 2-sided triangles, unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible ninjas and Krishna? Probably not. See my point?

[Da Blob]

*temporarily leaves the sick of God threads club*

Well, thanks first for the tone of your response IA. There were a couple of legitimate queries in the rant I posted...

First, while some here may not have made an extensive search for a god, some have and have still not found anything that might be evidence of a god. I would go so far as to bet that there are many who have "found god" not through personal searching but by way of being raised to or out of some need for something in an otherwise troubled life.

I agree those who settle for their father's god or ancestor's god are proper subjects to ridicule. They seemingly do not care enough to find out for their own selves what God is all about, but rather use that inheritance for purposes other than meeting spiritual needs, like perhaps justifying oppression or social injustice...

While I never begrudge someone who has been to some form of "rock bottom" then turning hir life around through god, I also have to look at it as a mere mechanism. They don't believe they themselves have the strength to so they "turn their life over" to a powerful being to lead them out of the darkness so to speak.
As an Addiction counselor, I never met an atheist that was able to recover from addiction. They did not believe in gods, so they could never admit that their addiction had become the god they worshipped and obeyed. I think it was a barrier of false pride and egotism, that prevented so many of them from taking the path offered by the Higher Power to recovering from addiction and other self-destructive behaviors...
Again, Faith and Belief are very real, very powerful psychic forces especially when targeting a Higher Power.

I know from personal experience that one can change their lives themselves but others need an aid. That aid comes though not an external force, but an internal one.
But I preach the internal Subjective God....!

I wish I knew more about psychology but it is something akin to say cancer patients who are shown certain techniques that have profound psychological benefits as opposed to their sliding into deep despair. While "positive" thinking is no cure-all, it has shown to have benefits that seem to correlate with higher survival chances. I see no reason as yet to see a renewed belief in god as any different than a psychological belief.

Well, if you ever look at the Bible, it is worthy of note that Jesus did not take credit for miraculous healings, but rather stated on a number of occasions, "Your Faith has made you whole..." I think that everyone can apply their own faith towards healing with beneficial results


I've met "wonderful belivers" (some here on this forum) and many of what I call pretend believers (who seem to be the majority but of course, I live in the US "Bible Belt" where they are as fake as Michael Jackson's nose). Sincerity is great, but it does nothing in my view to show that there is any actual truth behind it all.

The truth is the benefit both now and in the future that believers reap as the consequence of obeying God's command "To Love"!...

*back to club :D*.

[Madoness]

Excuse me, but I am still amazed at the number of people that have not gone out searching for God that feel comfortable stating that "There is no God". It seems extremely egotistical to me to discount the lives and experiences of billions of other people? How can one do that and still consider oneself honest? Is it some kind of attention seeking ploy?

We could start my d*** is bigger than your contest again.
I'm still amazed how all powerful god is not helping out millions of people that would need help and quite sure they have searched for god to help them out.

Of course there is a God! It is just a matter of definitions. There are all manners of images and definitions of God and perhaps each person has a personal definition based on their own experiences. However, one has to consider themselves to be a god to even say there is no other God. How many years did it take, of study and investigation before one started to state such a thing?

No, you got it wrong. Even if god exists, or one is calling other certain people of Satan because of it, he has to have some sort of explanation other than taking billions of people and their experiences. If so, do not leave out other experiences for not finding a certain god that you find suitable. Oh yes, there a lots and lots of situation like these.
This is not about 'he who shouts the loudest'.

By the way, we can almost all (in theory) experience god under certain narcotics.
That experience would not however be valid in the eyes of something existing or not.

Of course, I suppose if one pretends there is no God as Others' master, One can also pretend there is no Satan as one own Master. The so called evils of religion are extremely over-rated and the benefits are ignored. What is it within those that choose to downgrade believers as inferior human beings that is fed by making such statements?

It is first of all pretending when something that does not exist is built from thoughts.To pretend is to create an imaginary characteristic or to play a part It would be quite hard to pretend something to not exist if it would stare at your face. I'm not sure about others, but I am not seeking to downgrade believers. I do not however find it cool if believers downgrade others because of their religion.

I am sorry if there are not enough wonderful believers hanging around with atheists to perhaps show them that "God is Good", However, it would only take a few minutes to find such people if one wanted to find them, it could take longer in finding those people's God...

First of all... if god exists. I would put premise on him being all powerful. It would be stupid to think otherwise. Next, God is just and then I would thing about him being good or not.
Now, if these statements would be all true. Some aspects of our life could not exist yet they do. God would almost seem out of his character.
Or god would be good only towards those who bark a certain way?
Did not your god say in the bible he gave certain people delusions so they cannot find him. It would be illogical to expect from them to find God.

"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." II Thessalonians 2:11-12 (KJV)
"...Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations. I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isaiah 66:3-4 (KJV)


Quite a beautiful way to limit people, limit those who probably would need him the most. At least in the eyes of a believer. But who cares because they're evil right?

[Inappropriate Behavior]

As an Addiction counselor, I never met an atheist that was able to recover from addiction


From age 18 to 25, I drank daily. It got to a point where I drank close to a half gallon of liquor a day. I also smoked pot all day long (including while at work) while doing other drugs when I could (coke, acid etc.) I quit when I finally looked around at the squalor that was my life. I did see a psychologist who recommended AA and I went twice. I couldn't swallow the turning my life over to a higher power thing so I basically quit those habits (except for rare occassions when I'll have a drink) without it. It is possible, but like I said I understand how others might feel they need some external influence. I would just suggest that it may indeed be they themselves that actually do it. The belief being just a mechanism that helps them do it.

[Toad]

From age 18 to 25, I drank daily. It got to a point where I drank close to a half gallon of liquor a day. I also smoked pot all day long (including while at work) while doing other drugs when I could (coke, acid etc.) I quit when I finally looked around at the squalor that was my life. I did see a psychologist who recommended AA and I went twice. I couldn't swallow the turning my life over to a higher power thing so I basically quit those habits (except for rare occassions when I'll have a drink) without it. It is possible, but like I said I understand how others might feel they need some external influence. I would just suggest that it may indeed be they themselves that actually do it. The belief being just a mechanism that helps them do it.







I never knew you had addiction problems. It's nice knowing someone has been in my shoes before :)

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I never knew you had addiction problems. It's nice knowing someone has been in my shoes before :)

I thought I made that somewhat clear a long time ago shortly after you joined. Ah well, that's what I get for sometimes being vague. :o

[Da Blob]

We could start my d*** is bigger than your contest again.
I'm still amazed how all powerful god is not helping out millions of people that would need help and quite sure they have searched for god to help them out.

Okay, I still do not understand where this "all powerful God' concept keeps popping up - the only persons i heard refer to it are atheists(?). Perhaps there is a religion somewhere that preaches it, but it is not a Biblical concept of any importance. In fact, the reason for all these people suffering pretty much is our responsibility not God's. The dominion and authority to rule this world was given to Adam and his descendants, the power to do man's will on Earth and not God's will was inherent in that gift. Needless to say, we have proven to be inadequate in governing and providing for ourselves. We should be the one taking care of those other humans. God is currently helping billions of people, but doing it His way. As far as collateral damage, it is most likely unavoidable, I imagine things are about as good they could be considering the nature of fallen man...

No, you got it wrong. Even if god exists, or one is calling other certain people of Satan because of it, he has to have some sort of explanation other than taking billions of people and their experiences. If so, do not leave out other experiences for not finding a certain god that you find suitable. Oh yes, there a lots and lots of situation like these.
This is not about 'he who shouts the loudest'.
I am not sure exactly what you are asking and I do not know if I could supply an answer concerning God's motives for the manner in which He does things. I do know that if an individual chooses not to believe in God, it is possible to do so without being struck by lightning (temporarily at least). I personally do not know of anyone that went on a serious spiritual quest, that did not find something of value. It was not often Christianity - but often enough... Our lives on this planet is a very, very temporary condition. I am approaching the end of my life and it seems like such a brief time that I have been here. I have experiences that have led me to believe in a spiritual dimension to our universe. I am not alone in these types of experiences, somehow, knowing everything that we call 'reality' is just some temporary state of being causes one to hunger for a different state of being that is not so temporary...

By the way, we can almost all (in theory) experience god under certain narcotics.
That experience would not however be valid in the eyes of something existing or not.
The experience is real, as real as any other experience. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that perception of God must involve an altered state of consciousness, because no perception of Him is apparent in the mindless state of consciousness we employ to deal with the hum drum routine of a boring life...


It is first of all pretending when something that does not exist is built from thoughts.To pretend is to create an imaginary characteristic or to play a part It would be quite hard to pretend something to not exist if it would stare at your face. I'm not sure about others, but I am not seeking to downgrade believers. I do not however find it cool if believers downgrade others because of their religion.
Agreed, there is a lot of pretense exhibited by most religious people. Some of it is out and out hypocrisy- for others it is just wishful thinking - that if one pretends long enough it might become 'real'. This is basic human nature, it can be seen everywhere, not just in church...


First of all... if god exists. I would put premise on him being all powerful. It would be stupid to think otherwise. Next, God is just and then I would thing about him being good or not.

Well, one, I do not think that God is all powerful, and two, God is not just, He provides rain for the evil and the good. Truth of the matter is, that if God was big on being Just, there would not be very many people on this planet. I think everyone has broken a commandment and Justly, could be punished for doing so. God is merciful and Mercy rejoices against Justice...

Now, if these statements would be all true. Some aspects of our life could not exist yet they do. God would almost seem out of his character.
Or god would be good only towards those who bark a certain way?
Did not your god say in the bible he gave certain people delusions so they cannot find him. It would be illogical to expect from them to find God.

There always has been a demarkation between the good and evil. Evil people have it even worse than the rest of us in many ways- subtle ways, like in sleep and dreams.
Yes, once God has ceased to believe in the humanity of certain individuals, those individuals begin to lose the remnants of their humanity and the associated gifts of humanity which include a possible relationship with the Creator.

Quite a beautiful way to limit people, limit those who probably would need him the most. At least in the eyes of a believer. But who cares because they're evil right?

They had their chances, but refused to repent....

[Madoness]

Okay, I still do not understand where this "all powerful God' concept keeps popping up - the only persons i heard refer to it are atheists(?). Perhaps there is a religion somewhere that preaches it, but it is not a Biblical concept of any importance. In fact, the reason for all these people suffering pretty much is our responsibility not God's. The dominion and authority to rule this world was given to Adam and his descendants, the power to do man's will on Earth and not God's will was inherent in that gift. Needless to say, we have proven to be inadequate in governing and providing for ourselves. We should be the one taking care of those other humans. God is currently helping billions of people, but doing it His way. As far as collateral damage, it is most likely unavoidable, I imagine things are about as good they could be considering the nature of fallen man...

So god is helping, in the way we cannot understand. That is like saying there is a village under the sea, but we can never get there, but there certainly is. But we can never question the village existing because there is no way to get there.

I am not sure exactly what you are asking and I do not know if I could supply an answer concerning God's motives for the manner in which He does things. I do know that if an individual chooses not to believe in God, it is possible to do so without being struck by lightning (temporarily at least). I personally do not know of anyone that went on a serious spiritual quest, that did not find something of value. It was not often Christianity - but often enough... Our lives on this planet is a very, very temporary condition. I am approaching the end of my life and it seems like such a brief time that I have been here. I have experiences that have led me to believe in a spiritual dimension to our universe. I am not alone in these types of experiences, somehow, knowing everything that we call 'reality' is just some temporary state of being causes one to hunger for a different state of being that is not so temporary...

There is no choosing to believe. It follows the same path as love. You cannot choose to love, you cannot choose to believe.

The experience is real, as real as any other experience. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that perception of God must involve an altered state of consciousness, because no perception of Him is apparent in the mindless state of consciousness we employ to deal with the hum drum routine of a boring life...

Experience is real, hallucinations that are experienced are not. Giving opinions based on those hallucinations would not be a good point to take.


Agreed, there is a lot of pretense exhibited by most religious people. Some of it is out and out hypocrisy- for others it is just wishful thinking - that if one pretends long enough it might become 'real'. This is basic human nature, it can be seen everywhere, not just in church...

It is a lot easier to pretend something that does not exist to exist rather than what does to pretend not to exist. Even with wishful thinking it is hard to overlook the evidence (if there is) and pretend x to not exist.

Well, one, I do not think that God is all powerful, and two, God is not just, He provides rain for the evil and the good. Truth of the matter is, that if God was big on being Just, there would not be very many people on this planet. I think everyone has broken a commandment and Justly, could be punished for doing so. God is merciful and Mercy rejoices against Justice...

Deuteronomy 7:1-4 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Oh the mercy, oh the mercy. Merciful he is not.

There always has been a demarkation between the good and evil. Evil people have it even worse than the rest of us in many ways- subtle ways, like in sleep and dreams.
Yes, once God has ceased to believe in the humanity of certain individuals, those individuals begin to lose the remnants of their humanity and the associated gifts of humanity which include a possible relationship with the Creator.

They had their chances, but refused to repent...

So the possibility to find God is taken away from them by God and He chooses for them delusions to follow. Within this lifetime a chance is taken. Therefore, these are not people willingly 'following Satan', God left them no opportunity to see otherwise, 'evil' people are already destined, they will not see the light because God takes the opportunity to 'get better' forever.

Whom are you trying to enlighten, those who already are or those who would need (help that is)? Same people who are most likely already in the category where they cannot ever be 'saved'. Your God himself limits them and makes you effort pointless. Or you already know that.
God is not where he is needed the most?

Oh, by the way, does it not take away free will? Destination is set.

[Yellow]

From age 18 to 25, I drank daily. It got to a point where I drank close to a half gallon of liquor a day. I also smoked pot all day long (including while at work) while doing other drugs when I could (coke, acid etc.) I quit when I finally looked around at the squalor that was my life. I did see a psychologist who recommended AA and I went twice. I couldn't swallow the turning my life over to a higher power thing so I basically quit those habits (except for rare occassions when I'll have a drink) without it. It is possible, but like I said I understand how others might feel they need some external influence. I would just suggest that it may indeed be they themselves that actually do it. The belief being just a mechanism that helps them do it.


I have always struggled with this. I know that getting people in a religion or some sort of higher-power-warm-fuzzy-family type support is supposed to help them get over addictions. Heck, I've pushed people to do it (one of the only ways to get highly impressionable people off Meth). In my counseling courses they discuss the importance of spiritual development for chemical dependency. But it makes me feel like such a hippocrite. What helped me the most to quit all that crap, was my own godless epiphany that I had to get off my ass and take care of my own problems, alone. If I had somehow been capable of going the god route, I would most likely have gone right back as soon as things got rough again. So what now? I'm supposed to tell everyone to depend on external influences when I know that it will only be a band-aid? Its very frustrating.

[Da Blob]

So god is helping, in the way we cannot understand. That is like saying there is a village under the sea, but we can never get there, but there certainly is. But we can never question the village existing because there is no way to get there.

The help that God provides me is mostly internal, but that is hard to judge for there is no way of knowing the pain and trouble I have avoided by obeying his guidance. I have peace of mind, I have Joy, I have hope, specifically I have hope of a reunion with those Loved Ones of mine who have already died, I have a sound mind, I have very few fears, I have patience, I have Understanding - with all these things God has helped me and is helping with. I had none of these when I was an atheist.
To be honest, i do not know how much Love I have. I never had children and I am reclusive by nature, so in the final balance I may yet be found lacking...


There is no choosing to believe. It follows the same path as love. You cannot choose to love, you cannot choose to believe.

But you do choose to believe. A wise person periodically reviews his or her belief system to find out which beliefs are valid and which are not. For example, At one point in my life I believed in Santa Claus, but now I do not. At one point in my life I believed I would get at least one PhD, now I do not...
I think you may be correct in whether there is a degree of choice in Love. It certainly seems that we have very little choice in whom we love. I love my family and not because I have made a decision too. I loved my first wife, God have mercy on her blackened soul.... I seem to have been stuck with the fate of loving unlovable people...
I think that choosing to Love may be simply choosing to call different persons "MINE!"

Experience is real, hallucinations that are experienced are not. Giving opinions based on those hallucinations would not be a good point to take.

Ummmm yes they are, not all drug induced experience is hallucination, sometimes indeed it is revelation. Hallucination is just a form of dreaming. The experience of dreaming is a real experience, even though it involves non-real environments. Obviously there is truth in what you say and usually you find that people who speak of such things mentions the experience was drug induced, as a sort of disclaimer.
Again though, so much of what goes on in our brains involves chemicals or drugs so to speak. To discount all drug induced experience as not being valid would discount 95% of what occurs naturally as far as mental activity. There are mental ruts and the whole idea of providing medication (drugs) for mental disorders is to cause an altered state of consciousness that might lead to less self-destructive behavior. It would seem to be a 'no-brainer' to me that encountering God would require some sort of altered state of consciousness. That is the point of prayers, fasting and meditation - to move one's mind away from mundane concerns and the consciousness focused on such...


It is a lot easier to pretend something that does not exist to exist rather than what does to pretend not to exist. Even with wishful thinking it is hard to overlook the evidence (if there is) and pretend x to not exist.
It would seem so logically- but i have yet to see the pattern in RL. At least there are a lot more people in Denial of real problems, than those merely imagining facets of reality(?)



Oh the mercy, oh the mercy. Merciful he is not.

sometimes providing a quick death is an act of Mercy

So the possibility to find God is taken away from them by God and He chooses for them delusions to follow. Within this lifetime a chance is taken. Therefore, these are not people willingly 'following Satan', God left them no opportunity to see otherwise, 'evil' people are already destined, they will not see the light because God takes the opportunity to 'get better' forever.

Oddly enough, this can be seen as an act of Mercy. They are allowed to live out the rest of their pitiful lives and seek whatever small pleasures they may. One has to realize that God does not give up on a person until it is a hopeless case. He knows the future, He knows when a person is beyond His reach. He knows those who have abandoned Hope. Again, this is just a wise thing to do, nor do I perceive that there is any joy in abandoning a soul to its own devices.

Oh, by the way, does it not take away free will? Destination is set
No, it is an example of the exercise of free will. Some have chosen not to want to believe in a beneficial God. Their minds are completely made up, they will never consider the issue for the rest of their lives, even if suddenly surrounded by miracles. It is such as these that are given over to reprobate minds, carnal minds and the minds of the beasts...

..

[Madoness]

The help that God provides me is mostly internal, but that is hard to judge for there is no way of knowing the pain and trouble I have avoided by obeying his guidance. I have peace of mind, I have Joy, I have hope, specifically I have hope of a reunion with those Loved Ones of mine who have already died, I have a sound mind, I have very few fears, I have patience, I have Understanding - with all these things God has helped me and is helping with. I had none of these when I was an atheist.
To be honest, i do not know how much Love I have. I never had children and I am reclusive by nature, so in the final balance I may yet be found lacking...

Good for you if this is your way. But do not paint the picture of atheism because of your personal lacking of these things when you were an atheist. As bizarre as it may sound, we do have joy, sorrow, compassion.

But you do choose to believe. A wise person periodically reviews his or her belief system to find out which beliefs are valid and which are not. For example, At one point in my life I believed in Santa Claus, but now I do not. At one point in my life I believed I would get at least one PhD, now I do not...
I think you may be correct in whether there is a degree of choice in Love. It certainly seems that we have very little choice in whom we love. I love my family and not because I have made a decision too. I loved my first wife, God have mercy on her blackened soul.... I seem to have been stuck with the fate of loving unlovable people...
I think that choosing to Love may be simply choosing to call different persons "MINE!"

I cannot choose to believe in something that I have no evidence for. Only if there would be enough information I can believe in it, but there is no act of choosing. You can consider something being believable or not but you cannot choose to believe. As you do not believe in Santa any more. Why? Try to choose to believe in him. It will not work this way.

Ummmm yes they are, not all drug induced experience is hallucination, sometimes indeed it is revelation. Hallucination is just a form of dreaming. The experience of dreaming is a real experience, even though it involves non-real environments. Obviously there is truth in what you say and usually you find that people who speak of such things mentions the experience was drug induced, as a sort of disclaimer.
Again though, so much of what goes on in our brains involves chemicals or drugs so to speak. To discount all drug induced experience as not being valid would discount 95% of what occurs naturally as far as mental activity. There are mental ruts and the whole idea of providing medication (drugs) for mental disorders is to cause an altered state of consciousness that might lead to less self-destructive behavior. It would seem to be a 'no-brainer' to me that encountering God would require some sort of altered state of consciousness. That is the point of prayers, fasting and meditation - to move one's mind away from mundane concerns and the consciousness focused on such...

Drug induced experience... if one sees or feels God under the influence, it is still not more than a hallucination. He/she has not seen God but a hallucination. As autumn leaves near the trees, one might see them as money (under the influence), but for a fact, they still are not.

sometimes providing a quick death is an act of Mercy
What would you need. There are passages with slower deaths/commands to kill. Still merciful? How is a command 'show no mercy' an act of being merciful?

Oddly enough, this can be seen as an act of Mercy. They are allowed to live out the rest of their pitiful lives and seek whatever small pleasures they may. One has to realize that God does not give up on a person until it is a hopeless case. He knows the future, He knows when a person is beyond His reach. He knows those who have abandoned Hope. Again, this is just a wise thing to do, nor do I perceive that there is any joy in abandoning a soul to its own devices.

Was it not said that God chooses their delusions? He chooses their pitifulness. He is not letting them be as they want but chooses for them the only way to be.

No, it is an example of the exercise of free will. Some have chosen not to want to believe in a beneficial God. Their minds are completely made up, they will never consider the issue for the rest of their lives, even if suddenly surrounded by miracles. It is such as these that are given over to reprobate minds, carnal minds and the minds of the beasts...


Only thing that is completely made up here, is Gods mind. It would be foolish to restrict something that can never happen. Only if it could it can be forbid. It would make no sense restricting you to lick chocolate ice cream while being on the sun. Only if it would be possible this restriction would make sense.
By the way, in your example. for them not seeing miracles fits quite nicely in God's put restriction. Are you sure they cannot see them because God is not letting them?

[Da Blob]

I cannot choose to believe in something that I have no evidence for. Only if there would be enough information I can believe in it, but there is no act of choosing. You can consider something being believable or not but you cannot choose to believe. As you do not believe in Santa any more. Why? Try to choose to believe in him. It will not work this way.
There is evidence if one to view it as such. There is no evidence that Beauty exists. Others contend that there is no such thing as Love and that people who believe in Love are 'deluding " themselves. There is no evidence that you exist as a conscious entity etc. and etc.
It comes down to the desires of one's heart. Who do you want to be? Again, it is obvious that any relationship with God has to be an Honest one. However, it is not really honest to expect God to supply evidence according to man's standards? It seems to me that the universe of the believer is so much larger than nonbelievers. We have spirits to contend with, as well as all these other things that can not be proven to exist such as beauty, Love and a Great Friend...


Drug induced experience... if one sees or feels God under the influence, it is still not more than a hallucination. He/she has not seen God but a hallucination. As autumn leaves near the trees, one might see them as money (under the influence), but for a fact, they still are not.
I do not know, I do see your point, but i have had some marvelous drug-induced experiences, that had nothing to do with hallucinations - quite the opposite, i found that certain drugs can act as anti-hypnotics and dissolve the self-induced trances that are a part of everyday life. Besides a person does not have to be on drugs to have hallucinations... However, you are correct about the relationship between hallucinations and objective reality. It is possible to 'see' things that are not there while or on drugs, or stressed out, or just being paranoid...

What would you need. There are passages with slower deaths/commands to kill. Still merciful? How is a command 'show no mercy' an act of being merciful?

Who knows maybe it does not, maybe it prevented long term suffering at a later point in time. It would be a difficult role to fulfill -knowing the future. One would have to do some incomprehensible acts to prevent larger catastrophes of the future....(?)

Was it not said that God chooses their delusions? He chooses their pitifulness. He is not letting them be as they want but chooses for them the only way to be.
Perhaps God is also ruthless. In the natural world very little is ever wasted, everything gets recycled fairly quickly. I imagine that for those humans who decide not to follow God that He does have an alternate use for them, of which, delusions must play a role... but to be honest i do not know. I would have to look up the scripture - see what the original Hebrew said and then look at the context. Most likely He was referring to specific men at a specific time - not all men at all times...

Only thing that is completely made up here, is Gods mind. It would be foolish to restrict something that can never happen. Only if it could it can be forbid. It would make no sense restricting you to lick chocolate ice cream while being on the sun. Only if it would be possible this restriction would make sense.
By the way, in your example. for them not seeing miracles fits quite nicely in God's put restriction. Are you sure they cannot see them because God is not letting them?

Actually in the Book of Romans, it says just that... However, I was referring to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus...(I looked but could find the specific passage in Romans) Romans is a good read though...


.

[Madoness]

O'Brien's manner grew stern again. He laid his hand on the dial. "On the contrary," he said, "you have not controlled it. That is what brought you here. You are here because you have failed in humility, in self-discipline. You would not make the act of submission which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a lunatic, a minority of one. Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston. You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be truth, is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble yourself before you can become sane. "Do you remember," he went on, "writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four?"

"Yes," said Winston.

O'Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

"Four."

"And if the Party says that it is not four but five - then how many?"

"Four."

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston's body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O'Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

"How many fingers, Winston?"

"Four."

The needle went up to sixty.

"How many fingers, Winston?"

"Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!"

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

"How many fingers, Winston?"

"Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!"

"How many fingers, Winston?"

"Five! Five! Five!"

"No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?"

"Four! Five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!"

Abruptly he was sitting up with O'Brien's arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O'Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O'Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O'Brien who would save him from it.

"You are a slow learner, Winston," said O'Brien gently.

"How can I help it?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
:borg0:

[Razare]

I think it makes most sense to discover your own religion as an NT type. If you try to follow along with a well established religion, it'll never work because of all the logical fallacies in the doctrine and in the actions of that religion over time.

Seek your own based upon your observations of reality and discover your own faith in it. It's the only way a hardcore logical type is ever going to find faith because we are intellectual leaders, not followers.

[Toad]

I think it makes most sense to discover your own religion as an NT type. If you try to follow along with a well established religion, it'll never work because of all the logical fallacies in the doctrine and in the actions of that religion over time.

Seek your own based upon your observations of reality and discover your own faith in it. It's the only way a hardcore logical type is ever going to find faith because we are intellectual leaders, not followers.

Very nicely put Raz. I like how you called us intellectual leaders :D

[Trebuchet]

I think it makes most sense to discover your own religion as an NT type. If you try to follow along with a well established religion, it'll never work because of all the logical fallacies in the doctrine and in the actions of that religion over time.

There is one well-established church that might work. I was raised Unitarian Universalist. UUs all seek their own path to truth and meaning. Some believe in God, some don't. The emphasis is on respect and tolerance and the interconnectedness of everything.

There's a UU joke: A bus full of Unitarians crashes, and the passengers all die. They find themselves at a signpost. One sign says, "To Heaven," one says, "To Hell," and one says "To a Discussion on the Existence of Heaven and Hell" and they all go that way.

It is a very left-wing "religion," - quotes included because there is no required doctrine - which suits me but wouldn't suit everyone. There are usually a lot of philosophers and professors attending, plenty of atheists, and UUs can also be Jews or Buddhists or Lutherans or whatever else they believe.

The "Universalist" part of the name refers to universal salvation, a belief that either there was no Hell or that it was empty. "Unitarian" originally referred to one God rather than a Trinity, but neither of these beliefs is a required part of it now.

Oh, and I am an atheist, and agnostic (I could be wrong, after all) and I like talking about stuff like this.

[Toad]

So UU's are basically a group of people who come together to discuss religion? Who leads this "church"? What unites you guys?

[Cassandra]

Is the cold harsh reality of atheism better than the loving hand of God? So who cares if he's not "real"?

If there were a god it is not loving. It is colder and harsher than its abscence.

However, I see your point. Does this mean you still believe in the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairie, Santa Claus, etc...because it makes the world seem nicer?

Really, I do not understand most people's desire to remove unpleasantry from the world. The truth needs no padding.



So UU's are basically a group of people who come together to discuss religion? Who leads this "church"? What unites you guys?

Their mutual search for truth, whether or not they agree.

ALL HAIL JOSEPH PRIESTLY (founder of Unitarianism)

[Trebuchet]

So UU's are basically a group of people who come together to discuss religion? Who leads this "church"? What unites you guys?

Good, insightful questions. And not a bad description, if kind of oversimplified.

We are united by seven principles. UUs affirm and promote (http://www.uua.org/visitors/6798.shtml):
The inherent worth and dignity of every person
Justice, equality, and compassion in human relations
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
The goal of world community and peace, liberty, and justice for all
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

So we try to figure out what is right, and act that way, and defend other people's right to do the same. Do we agree on what is right? Not always, but surprisingly often. We try to understand and tolerate each other's differences, and extend that to the world at large. We try to help each other when needed, serve each other and the community, and make our lives meaningful.

Some UUs are Humanists, who focus on how to make the world a better place, often are atheists, and tend to be political. Some are Spiritualists, who frequently believe in God, higher powers, and souls. Some are both. This isn't a formal split, just my own observation.

King John Sigismund of Transylvania in the 16th century was a Unitarian (not a Universalist), and the only king ever to be one. His country had a lot of different Christian factions, and they didn't get along, so he issued the Act of Religious Tolerance and Freedom of Conscience (http://webuus.com/timeline/Sigismund_Toleration.html), which allowed each congregation to interpret the Gospel according to their understanding of it, without suffering threats or abuse.

Universalism in America came with English Universalists who believed a loving God would not punish anyone in hell for eternity, and all would be reconciled eventually. The Universalist Church of America was popular in the late 18th century, and worked to create schools, separate church and state, abolish slavery, and support women's rights.

Unitarian Universalism (http://www.uua.org/visitors/ourhistory/6186.shtml) was a formal joining of the two in 1961, and have worked for civil rights of all kinds ever since. The UUA officially supports same-sex marriage, for example. So contrary to popular belief, not every belief is acceptable to UUism. Those who consider women unequal to men or oppose same-sex marriage will find themselves very unwelcome.

No one person sets doctrine for the Unitarian Universalist Association. There are some paid administrators for financial matters, and a General Assembly that makes decisions about policy or goals for the UUA as a whole. Each church or fellowship (whichever term they prefer) governs itself otherwise. But they own some properties and so there are finance guys, and a president and vice-president, like in any large organization.

A woman who lost her sister in the tragic killing at the Knoxville Tennessee UU church (http://www.uua.org/visitors/ourhistory/6186.shtml) was devastated, not just at losing her sister, but because she didn't think UUs could be accepted by God. Her pain was very upsetting to me, and I offered to pray for her sister, which I did as sincerely as I could, because I wanted to comfort the woman, even if she was quite hostile to me for being a UU. As a UU, I think you should do what you can in the world.

[ozzieflipflop]

We can't be "children" forever. At some point in our lives we need to grow up and be the adult. The world can be a crappy place, but (sorry to use a cliche') beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Humans are especially human and the planet and it's inhabitants will never be perfect....take an interest in the goings on, but don't be annoyed at what you see. Let things be, especially if you can't change them, or do what you can if you can make a difference.
(In my humble opinion, religious belief is based on fear and ignorance.)

[Agent Intellect]

(In my humble opinion, religious belief is based on fear and ignorance.)

Not all people with religious beliefs have them out of fear or ignorance. To some people, it seems as obvious as the sky being blue. Belief in God may be comforting, but so is a hot cup of coffee, but I don't drink it out of ignorance.

[ozzieflipflop]

if you believe the sky is blue, are you not ignorant?
Your logic...God = comfort, coffee = comfort, coffee is real therefore God must be too??????

[shoeless]

the problem i, personally, have with this thread is all the blanket statements being thrown around. (religion is based on fear and ignorance, religious people are sheep/ignorant lambs, etc.)

this subject has a... uh, a special place in my mind, because i was raised in a religious household. my dad is a goddamn chaplain. i was raised with a fear for god, with guilt for all my "sins" and wrongdoings, blah blah blah... a lot of that had to do with the fact that i never "felt" what i was supposed to be feeling -- praying to god was basically just reciting words to my ceiling, as far as i was concerned -- and, all in all, i had a horrible experience with protestant christianity. fucking horrible. it made me miserable, and it still does to this day, years after i have acknowledged to myself the fact that i don't believe in god.

(for the record, i don't consider myself an atheist. i consider myself agnostic. because, even though i don't believe in a god, i don't deny the possibility of his existence either -- or not even "God"s existence but the existence of some kind of spiritual being, or force, that more or less controls the universe -- but i digress)

despite my horrible experience with religion, i simply cannot accept statements like "religious belief is based on fear and ignorance", because that implies a certain inherent quality -- a finality, that all religious belief is based on stupidity, and all religious people are stupid, which, frankly, is a complete dick thing to say. as much as i can't stand my dad, as much as the man has tortured me with his religious bullshit -- i can still respect other peoples' beliefs, because i know that my experience was not the experience. i know that religion and spirituality can do and has done a lot of good for the world. writing it off as "fear and ignorance" is just, wrong.

personally, my next personal-research-project is to look into other spiritual subjects separate from christianity (just because of my experience with it) -- stuff like buddhism, and chakra/astral projection/aura reading/etc; i do believe it's possible for these things to have merit, even scientifically to an extent (which is why i'm going to research it) and do not require "blind faith".

good religious leaders do not promote blind faith. they promote the questioning of your beliefs, and having your faith remain strong through that questioning. so seriously guys -- get off your high horse. it drives me crazy reading some of this stuff, and i have every reason to agree with you.

but that's just me. i can't accept finality in anything, so, i dunno.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I haven't read this thread, but as for the original post, I think whether God is real is paramount in the decision to accept religion or not. Absolutely essential. If I lived in the Matrix, I would not accept the fake reality.

I am a little surprised this would even be questioned in a forum of INTPs.

[Agent Intellect]

if you believe the sky is blue, are you not ignorant?

I don't have to believe the sky is blue, because I can see that it's blue. To some people, everything that happens is 'proof' that there is a God - the very fact that there is an everything. To them, if one was raised to believe that everything happened by natural means, then they would be ignorant of God.

Your logic...God = comfort, coffee = comfort, coffee is real therefore God must be too??????

No, my logic is that things that people find comforting are not necessarily done out of fear. Sure, there are fear based religions and/or religious beliefs, but religion does not build itself solely on the basis of fear as you stated earlier.

[Waterstiller]

Religion. It's a filter for the Spiritual.

The problem with most religions, imo, is that they believe their filter is the only right one. I like Taoism, Zen Buddhism, UU, and others that break away from the 'use my filter or else' approach.

I don't like most religion because by its nature it's forcing you to ignore other perspectives on such a foundation level that it completely affects your consciousness. In a religion certain roads are usually closed off. Ideas are censored out of fear that you'll 'fall from God's grace' or whatever the specific punishment/deal/law is in that religion.

I'm not an atheist, but I was for a few years after leaving Christianity. I like the term Ignostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism)that was introduced to me somewhere on this forum awhile back. Going from "Christian" to "Atheist" required a large buildup though. I originally stopped going to church because it was so hypocritical to me, and then I stopped reading the bible because aspects of it were cruel, sexist, racist, and completely irrational. But I still slightly believed in God for awhile until something clicked. When it clicked, I abandoned a lot of things that shouldn't have been abandoned though. Like prayer, which was my main form of meditation and a fantastic Ne exercise for problem solving and personal growth. Praying for others was also a socially acceptable way to voice my appreciation and care for others, and it was alienating for awhile to lose that. As I regained a sense of the spiritual I began praying to Nobody. I still call it prayer because it taps into a ritual that has been present across my entire life, but I understand it better as a form of meditation.

As for spirituality, I have my rituals. They're not rigid and I don't even really like talking about them because they're personal. I think ritual is best when arisen from inside one's self or freely chosen. I like an adopted ritual if it's not forced; ie that there are no 'should' behaviors enforced. Reverence is a great feeling, but I also think it needs to retain a certain context and understanding that other people revere other things. I like the idea of doing things that people have been doing for thousands of years; some rituals are like banks in such a way; knowing that so many people over many years have been doing the same thing to reach a certain place is overwhelming at times.


Normally I stray from these topics, but I've been feeling increasing conviction to try to bring down the arbitrary walls between "Theist" and "Atheist" in a non-threatening manner. Actually, if anyone could point out how this post could be less threatening, I'd appreciate it.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I don't have to believe the sky is blue, because I can see that it's blue. To some people, everything that happens is 'proof' that there is a God - the very fact that there is an everything. To them, if one was raised to believe that everything happened by natural means, then they would be ignorant of God.

No - you believe that the sky is blue because you believe in the validity of your senses. This is exactly the same form of belief and faith that some of us have in God.

I am one of those people that consider existence itself an inherent demonstration of God.

[Madoness]

No - you believe that the sky is blue because you believe in the validity of your senses. This is exactly the same form of belief and faith that some of us have in God.

I am one of those people that consider existence itself an inherent demonstration of God.

It has a little bit do do with the senses, but if all.... who see colors (who don't have certain color blindness) describe it as the sky is blue and you are also seeing it so, it most likely is, ignorance would be the questioning in most cases. More so, we can also get to valid explanations and conclusions why does the sky seem to us as being blue.

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

This is not exactly the case with God. Even if a person is 100 percent sure, there still are no ways to explain if,how,why he/she/it would exists. No real theories can be built because the description of him/her/it is mostly described as being outside of these kinds of our understanding, things we cannot somehow question.

Though I'm certain for a believer god(s) exist anyhow, there is no proof for them needed, that is, other than personal experience that can be questioned. But for them god(s) have proved existence beyond a doubt because the mind is set to get the wavelenghts (interpret situations) to receive the proof they want, proof what others would see somewhat differently.

[Da Blob]

Wouldn't it be better if we just got on board with religion?

Are we really happier now that we are "free"? Is the cold harsh reality of atheism better than the loving hand of God? So who cares if he's not "real"?

Sometimes I feel so lost, I want to forget everything I know about science and religion and throw it out the window. I want to be an ignorant lamb and just follow something. Let it tell me what to do. Maybe I'll be happier that way.

It's kind of like the movie "The Matrix"...

It is rather odd how few have bothered to answer Toad's initial question to atheists... Noddy's response was a notable exception...

I continue to respond to these type of threads, even though it seems at times that it is an utter waste of my rapidly disappearing Time on this world. I have an image of myself 'preaching' to a congregation of Zombies. And the truth is, by Biblical definitions, that is exactly what is occurring, I am addressing the spiritually dead, the ones that are blinded by self....

Yet I have compassion on Zombies, having been one my self at one point in time... Besides if zombies are truly lost - why is then that so many are attracted to threads like this one? These threads are consistently amongst the most read threads on the forum. INTPs are interested in spiritual matters - Are they like moths to flame?

Why are so many, seemingly, vehemently opposed to God and His believers...? It would seem that the logical response would be apathy, not criticism and condemnation...

It is actually, potentially, a matter of spiritual growth to abandon one's childish beliefs in gods and replace them with a more mature, more encompassing set of beliefs, reaching the next, of many, stages of Faith. Yet I do not see many instances of this process, 'in process' on this forum. There are, of course, notable exceptions...

I think the problem is that everyone believes and worship a 'god' of some kind. It is just that atheists and agnostics do not acknowledge the gods of their lives as being their gods or being gods at all, for that matter.... They call them 'ideals" or something else. This places their gods in a position of ultimate safety, where it can not be attacked, criticized or ridiculed. The associated image is a young child caught in the act of thief, hiding the loot behind his or her back, then denying that there is anything at all being hidden.... I think this is the reason for the vehement, ugly accusations, atheists are defending their hidden gods with religious fervor and zealotry...

So for a few, the real cynics and skeptics among us, these threads are just an example of one type of fervent zealots conflicting with another set of fervent zealots and therefore the source of some amusement...

[Madoness]

et I have compassion on Zombies, having been one my self at one point in time... Besides if zombies are truly lost - why is then that so many are attracted to threads like this one? These threads are consistently amongst the most read threads on the forum. INTPs are interested in spiritual matters - Are they like moths to flame?

Why are so many, seemingly, vehemently opposed to God and His believers...? It would seem that the logical response would be apathy, not criticism and condemnation...

It is actually, potentially, a matter of spiritual growth to abandon one's childish beliefs in gods and replace them with a more mature, more encompassing set of beliefs, reaching the next, of many, stages of Faith. Yet I do not see many instances of this process, 'in process' on this forum. There are, of course, notable exceptions...

I think the problem is that everyone believes and worship a 'god' of some kind. It is just that atheists and agnostics do not acknowledge the gods of their lives as being their gods or being gods at all, for that matter....

On a fair game, everything is accepted if all would be following the same rules. Try to find a politician in your country who can be openly criticizing a belief system of yours and still be able to work on on political matters. Can you? How many politicians are openly not Christians in US? Though we can find lots of examples of American politicians criticizing atheism, there are little or no otherwise from active politicians.
This forum here is somewhat out of the normal laws so the views are distracted from the norm a bit.

And yes, atheists and agnostics do not find a superior being in their lives. Can there be a god of an inanimate kind? I'm now aware.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

This is not exactly the case with God. Even if a person is 100 percent sure, there still are no ways to explain if,how,why he/she/it would exists. No real theories can be built because the description of him/her/it is mostly described as being outside of these kinds of our understanding, things we cannot somehow question.

Though I'm certain for a believer god(s) exist anyhow, there is no proof for them needed, that is, other than personal experience that can be questioned. But for them god(s) have proved existence beyond a doubt because the mind is set to get the wavelenghts (interpret situations) to receive the proof they want, proof what others would see somewhat differently.

First, understanding foo is not the same as believing that foo exists. There is only one kind of belief, and it can be considered as involving assent to specific statements. Believing in a specific idea of how, why, what, and so forth has nothing to do with whether you believe in foo's existence. They are each their own independent beliefs, each involving their own separate statements.

Secondly, I never use the term proof unless I am talking about logic or mathematics, which is just applied logic. Proof is absolute, objective, and incontrovertible by nature. Very few things called proof are proof, almost nothing called proven is proven. I suggest you adopt this usage, especially in scientific or philosophic discussions; I think it is the most rational.

The Pyrrhonists withhold certainty from all statements. Solipsists consider only the self to be certain. I think one of these two approaches, but nothing less sceptical, is correct. To speak of proof beyond this, it must be qualified: proof based on premises.

uhhhhhh yeah i'm an intp

[Madoness]

First, understanding foo is not the same as believing that foo exists. There is only one kind of belief, and it can be considered as involving assent to specific statements. Believing in a specific idea of how, why, what, and so forth has nothing to do with whether you believe in foo's existence. They are each their own independent beliefs, each involving their own separate statements.

Secondly, I never use the term proof unless I am talking about logic or mathematics, which is just applied logic. Proof is absolute, objective, and incontrovertible by nature. Very few things called proof are proof, almost nothing called proven is proven. I suggest you adopt this usage, especially in scientific or philosophic discussions; I think it is the most rational.

The Pyrrhonists withhold certainty from all statements. Solipsists consider only the self to be certain. I think one of these two approaches, but nothing less sceptical, is correct. To speak of proof beyond this, it must be qualified: proof based on premises.

uhhhhhh yeah i'm an intp

I was talking outside of my personal view. I'm not a Christian, therefore this was my conclusion so far how things may be from, another person's view.

And actually the first question after reading was, are you really an INTP? Because nobody here is so certain about his/her views. The finality of decisions.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Hm. I've always considered my drive for precision, conciseness, systematization, &c. to be greater than my discomfort with final decisions. Although the latter does come through when I schedule social gatherings, or something.

Unlike most INTPs I like authority and will seek it out or create it if it is not immediately present.

I am more a P than a J in all other respects though.

[Waterstiller]

And the truth is, by Biblical definitions, that is exactly what is occurring, I am addressing the spiritually dead, the ones that are blinded by self.
Who are you to decide who is spiritually dead?

[Da Blob]

Cool, there is something in the previous comments, if I can get to it and find the right words..

First of all I am a Solipsist. Nothing can exist or be proven to exist except Self. Cogito, Ergo Sum. My God is more real to me than the members of the forum... What I mean by that it seems to me that that the natural state of man from a perceptual POV is one of isolation and solitude. For example, say an Other wants to prove to Me that She or He also exists. That proof is to physically touch Me. However, I never experience anything other than my self, a sensation of 'pressure' on my own skin - nothing is proven... And "So It Goes". I think that all so-called disorders of the 'autistic spectrum', as well as most sociopathology simply reflects this reality of a Solipsistic Universe.

So, if this is the case, what are gods in a Solipsistic Universe? Seemingly a necessary component of some kind, because even the atheist, Sigmund Freud, attributed psyche to the need fulfilled by god... So, my suggestion was, that every 'sane' person must have and utilize this dimension of the universe, but just label, represent or symbolize it in different words. One person's god might be another person's orgasm...;)

I would suggest that god at simpliest terms is a relationship. A relationship that everyone has with their own god, whatever that might be... Higher Power or whatever. The entire problem seems to be caused by those who cling to the illusion that we do not exist in solitude, but actually share a universe of some kind. If we share a universe, then, we must also 'share' a god.... However, how does one go about sharing a god?

EDIT: What kind of god can there be in a Solipsist Universe? How can there be a 'relationship' in a Solipsist Universe with a sole/soul inhabitant. The answers are simply in this, for all humans both atheists and theist, 'god' is a manifestation of the dream, the fantasy, the theory of all that which is encompassed by the word "We". We, of course, is an utterly meaningless word, an empty word, a symbol of a mere hope...

And yet why do we hope for "Us'? and why are we not content in our solitudes...... If, indeed solitude is all there really is? The proof of the existence of "we' is the proof of the existence of 'god' in a Solipsistic Universe......

[Da Blob]

Who are you to decide who is spiritually dead?

Sorry, no offense intended, the concept of the state of Fallen Man as being spiritually dead, is like a foundational concept in the Bible... However, for those who believe in neither God or spirits, there should be no cause to take offense(?)

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

I may be in some sense either a Pyrrhonist or a solipsist - but that just means that I recognize that every single decision I make is founded in belief, not certainty. I still believe in God, and he exists no less or no more than he would if I were less sceptical.

Thus I'm not sure if I understand the concept of a "solipsistic universe".

I also acknowledge that something need not be thought proven to be true, and further, that something need not be thought proven to be considered knowledge.

[Da Blob]

I may be in some sense either a Pyrrhonist or a solipsist - but that just means that I recognize that every single decision I make is founded in belief, not certainty. I still believe in God, and he exists no less or no more than he would if I were less sceptical.

Thus I'm not sure if I understand the concept of a "solipsistic universe".


Subjective Universe, Primary Self, Ptolemaic universe, Original Self, Right hemisphere self, consciousness, soul, POV, seat of experience - these are all synonyms of that which is referred to as the S. U.

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

Oh I see. Not a solipsistic conception of the universe (as in, all things; the World), but the subset of the universe which can be called solipsistic or subjective.