Seperation, loneliness, never bring good images to mind.
But then sometimes, people as myself, have been able to see what I missed in my path of christendom. From a boy of 7 saved, grew up in church, to a boy of 15 doubting his salvation, to a mere young adult, 18 feeling the first seperation of my supreme being.
It was a couple monthes ago, a golf tournament. I had played them all summer and not even came close to using my talent I had away from these tournaments, it was my mental game, the pressure. I couldn’t cope. Somewhere between the time of my round one day, my 2nd to last round of the summer, I was playing excellent. I had just a couple of holes left, and I was set up perfectly for a birdie. I asked God for help, I just wanted to finish in the 70’s at this state championship. I choked, screwed up and turned a promising birdie into 2 strokes worse, a bogey. I was furious at God for this, "God this was my last tournament to play good in probably!(doubting my last of course), “#$@! you God!” – Even to type it feels of such a disrespect.
I spent my next few weeks in church, shaking my head at this stupid Christians for believing in a God, how stupid I said to myself. “God doesn’t exist, besides, he doesn’t treat me right” I said, “See God, I don’t believe in you anymore!” Arrogance and Ignorance had invaded my life.
But this seperation from God was painful, so much to say hope was gone, everything was gone, I finally got to experience life without God. Something that should be unexpected for someone who believes you can’t lose your salvation… But I held bitterness, I knew I needed to tell God sorry…but I didn’t want to! I said “no God, I’m still mad at you” I held this grudge for a few weeks… I held the grudge against God that he didnt’ exist and I was going to make sure he knew this…
Had I lost my faith? of course not! I still believed in God, but I had ended our relationship… and I was left cold and lonely, as I sang songs of worship to a father in which I held a bitterness towards. All because of a golf tournament, that amounts to nothing if some supreme doesn’t exist. I had been given the chance to at least play golf, even if I didnt play it to the best of my abilities.
The last tournament I played I won, I won easily, first one ever… I was shocked… but how foolish I felt afterwards when standing against my maker. Almost as N.T. Wright has described as if a Mouse sticks his chest out and places his hands on his hips as he stares the elephant up and down at his behavior.
The moral of the story is…, even If I don’t want to believe, I find myself believing… I find myself denying what I believe, I find myself talking to God and telling him “I’ve lost my belief that you even exist”.
I’ve had many days where I’m indulged in life, money, music, food, sports, but when I jump into the bleachers I see how ridiculous my everyday lifestyle is.
Sure, pull the blanket over my eyes and I can live in a trance, pull it back and I will live in a loneliness, just as many atheist and agnostics who pull it back do.
But one query, do you really think that those who don’t believe in God share your sentiments of there not being a greater being? Personally I don’t believe in God and am quite content and feel hope in life. Can you say the same for the Buddhists of the world who also don’t believe? When I was younger I thought about God then decided that life is what it is; I can be a moral person w/o believing in a Father like figure; and from that point on my life, ideas, mind, and morals have been in my own hands and it is downright empowering.
No… I don’t think that, this is just a personal testimony, and you can ask anything that you may see as an implication.
What hope do you believe in? If not God than what else?
You can have morals, but then you have to ask of the origin.
I’m not sure how relevant this is, but it’s a good story, and yes overratedly as I much hate, I will use one of Ravi’s examples:
As someone stood up at one of his lectures said, “There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God.”
R.Z. “If there is such a thing as evil, aren’t you assuming there is such a thing as Good?”
he paused, reflected, and said, “I guess so”
R.Z. "If there is such a thing as good, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.
summing this up he returns
“But when you admit to a moral law, you must posit a moral lawgiver. That, however, is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. For if there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law, if there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil. What, then, is your question?”
He replied…“what, then, am I asking you?”
I’m not doing Ravi much justice here buy not using the rest of his backings on this, for lack of wanting to write 3 to 4 pages of this.
Anyway…just thought it would be a good example of how many times we catch ourselves saying God cannot exist because of all this evil.
Thanks for sharing your story. It struck a few chords with me, and got me thinking about when I myself held theistic views. I’d like to make a couple observations, if I may.
First of all, it seems like often, when people are angry at what their idea of God happens to be, they often say “alright, because this is so enraging, I no longer believe.” ← I’ve done it before. And then I realized something: there is a difference between anger about something, and denial about something. Some people think that God can’t exist because there is evil in the world. But that argument doesn’t work with me. Good and evil are flip sides of the same coin. If one were to insist on an all-good universe, freedom would be taken away.
Second of all, I don’t believe in God, but do believe in morality. It doesn’t follow that there have to be Ultimate Moral Standards, however, that fall OUTSIDE of human juridiction. We have ideas of good and evil because, over time and over communication with one another, we seem to have come to an understanding: compassion and co-operation often help us and others to survive, while ruthlessness and selfishness hurt our chances of survival. In other words, I believe that each culture creates its own “moral system”. Not coincidentally, many morals overlap in different cultures. Ie, killing is “bad”. Helping is “good”. It’s not that these morals come from a god, IMHO. It’s that we find out, through the process of life experience, what makes up the best and worst kinds of lives.
Third of all, I have absolute hope for the future. Not because I’m an eternal optimist with stars in my eyes or anything, but because I know that although humans are capable of atrocity, they’re also capable of love. We’re capable of ignorance, but wisdom is also a possibility. As long as it’s the majority of us that are seeking the best rather than the worst, we’ll be alright.
For the record, I have no problem with religious experience as a whole. I don’t happen to have them myself, but I understand that someone’s belief can’t be “disproven”. As Bertrand Russell said, to paraphrase, we can appreciate someone’s belief in God just as much as we can appreciate that someone’s spouse is the best in the universe and that their children are the smartest. We understand that coming from their perspective, what they’ve built up for themselves is the most rewarding for them.
Thanks for the reply, I have a few questions for you however.
I do agree that cultures can create moral systems, but then they have no objectively validity do they? You can’t look at anyone else from another culture and call them evil and be valid, because it’s just your personal opinion.
Bertrand Russel also said one time in debate with Frederick Copleston that, when asked by Copleston pertainting the the moral law on good and bad, “how do you differentiate?” Russel said, “the same way I differentiate between yellow and blue.” Copleston then asked, “But Mr. Russel, you differentiate between yellow and blue by seeing, don’t you? How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russel replied, “On the basis of feeling-- what else?” A good question would have been in some cultures they love their neighbors, in other cultures they eat them, both on the basis of feeling, Do you have any preference?
-May I ask you, what theistic views did you hold? And what was your reason for repudiating them?
So basically, you blamed your god for your misfortune because you choked and screwed up? That was your reason for devaluating your god at that time?
No offense Club, but those are contradictory statements… you proclaimed that your god didn’t exist, and then you affirmed its existence by talking to it?
That sounds like Deism rather than Aetheism; which was what you would have been affirming if you kept stating that your god didn’t exist.
I’m curious what your intentions with the telling of that story is… what are you trying to say?
You must have put alot of stock into such a god to get that mad about it. Why couldn’t you simply believe in yourself??
Yes. You can’t say one thing and then its opposite… just doesn’t work out.
That’s okay Club… you don’t have to apologize. I would appreciate some answers to those questions… especially the last question of my previous post on this thread.
I think my point to this story was beliefs are firmly grounded, they can’t be shaken so easily, and so how can someone believe stubbornly and blindly.
Ok please realize I have known these were contradictory statements, I’m giving a truthful story of what actually happened, and how ridiculous I was for thinking this way.
I figured you could pick up on that, but I guess not, you see sometimes making everything completely obvious kinda takes away from the writing.
Answer to your previous question: I think my point to this story was beliefs are firmly grounded, they can’t be shaken so easily, and so how can someone believe stubbornly and blindly.
Ok please realize I have known these were contradictory statements, I’m giving a truthful story of what actually happened, and how ridiculous I was for thinking this way.
I figured you could pick up on that, but I guess not, you see sometimes making everything completely obvious kinda takes away from the writing. I guess I should have said, By the way, don’t you see how that statement contradicts itself? Right after I said how arrogant and foolish I was.
I’m with you on the atheists, but… to reverse the blanket, I think many theists pull the blanket of ignorance over their eyes. On issues of creation and science… “how was the earth created”; “read genesis.”
Is there more than we see? There’s certainly SOMETHING to this god idea, even I a hardcore agnostic have prayed to creation and felt something, but what is it? is it mere gas, passing through my digestive tract and revealing discomfort? Or is there something more?
I think god is merely a psychosomatic reflection of our inner self. You were angry with god, because you were angry with yourself and if felt easier to blame the blameless god for your performance anxiety than to blame yourself.
God’s love or hatred of ourselves and those around us is a reflection of our “soul”. You believe in the “christian god”, which is a reflection of Paul’s soul. Many times that doesn’t mesh up with “your god”, like the failed golf tournament.
Is it any more ridiculous to apply an outlandish belief to something that science is close to explaining, than it is to not believe in that thing at all?
To me, all religions “gods” look the same, the reflection of the “Creator”, not the holy one, but the one of that particular religion.
Even if you don’t realize that you connect god with yourself, you realize that insulting god, is a form of self-denigration. Self-abuse. It’s not a healthy way to deal with our problems and certainly you let go of that self-abuse for the next round, and were able to relax and play.
For Christians who say to look to the bible for how the earth was created, are only sharing their beliefs. It’s a very dogmatic approach, but people who have strong beliefs have trouble with comments like these escaping. Sure I believe you can see who created the earth from the bible, but it doesn’t have the effect scientific evidence does on us. God could have had it written that he just created the earth, but that would have been very faint, he wanted to tell us about it without actually giving us the answers. — Now here again this is just my belief, and I’m only sharing.
But basically, any Christian who denies scientific proofs, is a complete close-minded moron. If he does deny it, he better have some good evidence to back up his or her claims. Yes, I’ve met people like this, I’ve tried discussing macro and micro and all I get is, “I don’t believe in any type of evolution period!” - these are the people my opposers like to generalize.
I realize my mistakes I have made. You see I felt this way because I feel, as many other Christians ‘sometimes’ do, that God is a bank. When you want something you invest, when you feel your doing find you forget about him. I wanted God to help me play this pointless game to the best of my abilities, but that’s not what God does, it doesn’t work that way. I’m not trying to justifiy, I was angry, and I took it out on the God who should be able to do anything, I asked for the unaskable. This was my mistake, it’s not something I thought about thoroughly, it was a compulsary response, and because I was so careless, I found I later regretted it.
I’m not trying to attack any of you, but you’re critiquing my past mistakes, that I’m admitting were mistakes… so why are you trying to say that I don’t already know?
As I told sage, the point of this story is that beliefs, faiths, are strong, they’re not decisions but merely results. I believe in God not because I feel like I have to, but because I do, It’s just there, everything I’ve experience, read, felt, leads me to a strong faith. So you can’t say all Christians follow this belief blindly or stubbornly as if they’re denying science, because faiths are strong, and YES I’m including faith’s against even though I don’t understand them.
Hey, Club29. I’d be happy to answer your questions!
I don’t think I would look at anyone else from another culture and call them evil. I don’t tend to see humans in absolute black and white terms, like “evil” or “good”. I think we’ve all got the capability for both, and in our lives, we act in manners that reflect that. A culture’s moral system doesn’t need to have an ‘objective validity’ for that moral system to work for that culture.
What I don’t advocate, by the way, is moral relativism. Here’s why: I don’t think we need to go as far as saying that “everyone’s culture is good for them, so we can’t judge it.” Instead, we can try saying that every culture without exception has some bad in it, and some good in it, and we can go from there.
Although I’ve never seen/read that particular debate for myself, just going on the assumption that everything transpired as mentioned… I’d respectfully have to disagree with what Russell allegedly said. I don’t base everything on feeling alone, because many people equate feeling with emotion, and emotions change drastically to suit one’s surroundings and mood. Instead, I base quite a large portion of my ethics on my understanding of life as I know it, which is different. I understand, for example, that helping my neighbour will get both of us further in several ways than my hurting my neighbour would get us. I understand that bombing a town of civilians doesn’t help anything at all. Those are just examples, but they work to help explain what I mean, I hope.
I’d also like to see what Russell’s response would have been to your question about loving your neighbors versus eating them.
For quite some time, I was a Christian. By saying that, I mean that at one time in my life, I specifically believed that God existed, that He sent His son to earth to die, that his son rose again, and that through these actions, humankind is saved should they choose to accept the free gift. Although some others might define Christianity differently, that’s how I’d have defined my faith in it. My reason for repudiating these beliefs was that, much like the example you gave of Russell saying that he determined things on the basis of feeling, I no longer felt that FEELING a God existed and came to earth were enough. Emotion, as I’ve said before, changes frequently. Emotion alone wasn’t enough to hold my faith up. The more I read and the more I studied, the more I discussed and thought about the nature of my faith, the more I determined that it was no longer intellectually honest to hold the beliefs I’d previously held. I simply didn’t believe them anymore. It’s a bit like asking a child why he doesn’t believe in Santa any more. The evidence for Santa, apart from a child’s fervent belief and the emotions of happiness he experiences around Christmastime, simply wasn’t there for me.
Specifically, I find it hard to believe. I’ve been asked before what it would take for me to believe again. The answer is, I’m not sure. I’m certain that historical evidence would go a long way towards it, but then again, historical evidence doesn’t address spiritual claims of resurrection. It doesn’t even address the possibility of a God one way or the other.
I’d like to say, finally, that whether or not I have spiritual beliefs doesn’t matter in the long run. When I did believe, I interacted with people very happily and wanted to know as much about them as I could; without spiritual beliefs now, I still interact with others just as happily. I would consider myself an optimist, even, when it comes to humanity as a whole.
Thanks for asking the questions that you did. Always great food for thought. I’d like to keep talking with you!
Quote:
I don’t think I would look at anyone else from another culture and call them evil. I don’t tend to see humans in absolute black and white terms, like “evil” or “good”. I think we’ve all got the capability for both, and in our lives, we act in manners that reflect that. A culture’s moral system doesn’t need to have an ‘objective validity’ for that moral system to work for that culture.
What I don’t advocate, by the way, is moral relativism. Here’s why: I don’t think we need to go as far as saying that “everyone’s culture is good for them, so we can’t judge it.” Instead, we can try saying that every culture without exception has some bad in it, and some good in it, and we can go from there.
----So you don’t think it’s wrong to abuse an innocent child, given that’s a cultures reflection?
You don’t realize your affirming moral relativism by saying “a culture doesn’t need objective morals for that culture to work”? Than who decides what’s right and wrong? You think it’d be ok if everyone played the game of cutural relativism in America? Just did whatever ‘they’ think is right? That’s what happens to college students, professors teach moral relativism, and then when the pratice that moral relativism on the street, they end up in behind bars.
What do you mean we can say some cultures have some good and bad, what good and bad is there? How can you say this if you can’t put a finger on it?
Quote:
I understand, for example, that helping my neighbour will get both of us further in several ways than my hurting my neighbour would get us. I understand that bombing a town of civilians doesn’t help anything at all. Those are just examples, but they work to help explain what I mean, I hope.
----Further for what? What do you mean bombing a town of civilians won’t help anything? Aren’t you suggesting something’s good and bad here? From what basis do you make that claim?
Quote:
For quite some time, I was a Christian. By saying that, I mean that at one time in my life, I specifically believed that God existed, that He sent His son to earth to die, that his son rose again, and that through these actions, humankind is saved should they choose to accept the free gift. Although some others might define Christianity differently, that’s how I’d have defined my faith in it. My reason for repudiating these beliefs was that, much like the example you gave of Russell saying that he determined things on the basis of feeling, I no longer felt that FEELING a God existed and came to earth were enough. Emotion, as I’ve said before, changes frequently. Emotion alone wasn’t enough to hold my faith up. The more I read and the more I studied, the more I discussed and thought about the nature of my faith, the more I determined that it was no longer intellectually honest to hold the beliefs I’d previously held. I simply didn’t believe them anymore. It’s a bit like asking a child why he doesn’t believe in Santa any more. The evidence for Santa, apart from a child’s fervent belief and the emotions of happiness he experiences around Christmastime, simply wasn’t there for me.
-----Emotion alone can’t hold what you don’t believe in up. You see it’s a combination of things that hold one’s beliefs up. I have yet to see how it’s healthy, more intellectual, more pleasing, to believe that God doesn’t exist. What you’ve done is relied on that feeling, emotion, alone, and when that didn’t work you took the antagonist approach, already inclined to believe God doesn’t exist because your emotions didn’t do the proving for you. As I can conclude you’ve read Russell, that’s great as I will soon be reading him. But may I ask, have you ever read any opposing writers? Yancey, “Rumors of Another World” or one of the best in my opinion apologetist alive right now Ravi Zacharias, “Can man live without God”
I will take my time to show you something Zacharias has written about Russell, and since it’s most likely truth, I can’t see how you could get offended(and he didn’t start with this line, he started with his history in case your wondering if it sounds rather vitriolic):
“Russell’s whole life can best be summarized by the word contradiction. Publicly, he fought for peace in the world, yet privately he fomented hatred toward people he disliked. In his speeches, he argued for disarmament and was a pacifist, but on numerous occasions he expressed the wish that America would militarily preempt the burgeoning power of the Soviet Union. He wrote some of the most vilifying articles against Marxism but later in life wrote with equal anger against the United States and capitalism. In one instance, he branded John Kennedy and Harold Macmillan as possibly more evil than Hitler. He delivered papers on the rights of women yet privately belittled their intellectual capacities. He berated his brother for leaving his wife yet his four marriages were marred by infidelities. He would get incensed when he was lied to but was often trapped in his own deceit. Not only was there such contradiction and duplicity in his life, he changed his philosophical views on numerous occasions. The philosopher Charlie Broad, professor of moral philosophy at Cambridge from 1933 to 1953, remarked that Russell produced a brand-new philosophy every few years.
All this notwithstanding, Bertrand Russell was a genius, and it is terribly unfortunate that a mind as capable as his sank into frivolous arguments revealing more his prejudices than his intellect. For example, He stated in his diatribe against Christianity that as far as he knew Christianity had only produced two good things: first, the calender, and second, that it was an Egyptian priest who first noted the lunar eclipse. “Other than that,” he said, “I see no good having come out of Christianity.” That became more and more typical of the outbursts he would make on religion. Russell was an able debater and had a knack for reducing the issue to a tantalizing paradox from which he would emerge by establishing a theory he had wanted to defend.
One of Russell’s famous paradoxes he articulated in a set theory. The subject is far too complicated to enter into here, but it was formulated out of a recognition of the need for a theory of the infinite. This is how he laid out the problem: Some set (classes or collections) are members of themselves and some are not. For example, the set of dogs is not a member of itself since it is a set and not a dog, and it is dealing with non-dogs. This is how Russell then phrased his paradox: Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself? If it is, then it is not. If it is not, then it is. A nonphilosophically minded student would be amazed at the profound influence this had on the development of a set theory.
Russell used this same approach in many of his arguments against God. The way he dealt with the meaninglessness of statements was by raising similar questions and forcing equivocating options. One of his principal arguments against God and a moral law went something liek this:
If there is a moral law, as it contended by theists, “Then,” said Russell, “it either results from God’s fiat (decision or decree) or else it does not.” If it is the former— God’s fiat— then it is purely arbitrary, and goodness is just another way of saying “because God said so.” On that basis God could pronounce anything He chose to and thereby it would be good or bad. On the other hand, if God is subject to some goodness beyond Himself, then He Himself is not ultimate. The choice Russell places before the theist is that either God is merely arbitrary or else He is not ultimate.
The dilemma bertrand Russell brought forward is not only false; it is also falsely placed. The question he raised needed to be raised of himself, not of God: Is Bertrand Russell arbitrary in his moral choices or subordinate to another? If he is being arbitrary then why all his vilifying of America during the Vietnam War and his branding of John Kennedy and Harold Macmillian as evil? From whence does he get moral units of measurement? On the other hand, if he is not being arbitrary, there must be a moral law above him. That, however, he does not want. So Russell fells himself by the same argument he places upon God. he goes on to say in conclusion
It is these presuppositions and dichotomies that drove Russell to live his own life amid constant contradiction adn to reduce people to numbers and quantities.”
Since a healthy debate cannot hurt the truth, why not Read some of Ravi Zacharias’ work? He discusses not only Russell, but Sartre, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Kant, Hume, and Descartes as well.
Club 29: you’ve posted quite a bit here to reflect on, so I’d like to preface this by saying that although I’d be happy to discuss Russell in great detail with you, I don’t have the actual time to do so tonight. I will, at a later date in the near future, offer a few ideas on what you’ve presented on Russell. I’d also like to say that although I find Russell interesting, he isn’t someone I’d consider “one of my heroes”. One of my professors loves the man. I don’t. I find a lot of Russell’s work worth mention and consideration, but love isn’t something I’ve felt for him.
What I WOULD like to focus on tonight are some of the other issues you’ve brought up.
When I said “A culture’s moral system doesn’t need to have an ‘objective validity’ for that moral system to work for that culture” , I didn’t mean to toss objective morality out the window. Far from it. While recognizing that there ARE some moral values that are true in every culture, we’re looking at it from a ‘first world’, ‘modern’ perspective. Take, for instance, a secluded culture that doesn’t know other cultures even exist. We’ll call that one Culture A. A might not know that B and C exist. Or if it knows they exist, it might not know what values B and C hold. And yet, A still has values. THAT’S what I meant when I said that it didn’t HAVE to recognize objective morality for its own morality to still exist.
You also asked if I thought it was okay to abuse an innocent child just because a culture thought it was okay. Then you asked
Good questions. They’re also leading questions, because it seems your HOPE is that everyone’s answer (or even just mine) would be “of COURSE it isn’t okay to abuse an innocent child. Of COURSE people can’t just go out and do whatever the heck they’d like to! That would be INSANE!”
So here’s my answer: there’s a little sub-clause to thinking for yourself that, unfortunately, most people don’t employ. It’s this – responsibility. Not only are we responsible for what we WANT, but we’re responsible for what we DO, both to ourselves and to others. It’s not merely that we say “oh, hurting a child is wrong because… because… it’s MEAN!” – it’s that we’re all humans, we all share this planet, and we’re responsible for seeing that each of us develops and grows to our best and greatest potential. So the college students that you speak of, that go out and do whatever they’d LIKE to – it’s only half the equation. They’d be forgetting what they OUGHT to do.
What you’re going to ask me next, I know, is “how do we know what we ought to do? Who’s got the final say? By what authority do these decisions get made?” – and here’s the interesting predicament. Although I don’t happen to say “God lays down the law, so we ought to follow it”, I’m still a compassionate person. I love others. I communicate with them. I try to make the lives of others more fulfilling. I don’t say this in order to blow my own whistle; I say it because, as a human, I gravitate towards those who also act like me. I gravitate towards those who would like to see the world made a better place. It doesn’t matter to me if they’re agnostic, atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc etc. So here’s a question for you: if I don’t happen to hold a God as the ultimate authority, why do YOU suppose it is that I am the way I am?
Here’s something else you said. You asked
What I mean is that we have commonly accepted ideas of what absolute altruism is, and what absolute depravity is. If you’re asking me where these ideas come from, that’s a great question. (But you’d be asking the question to someone who’s had the benefit of being born in a time where these ideas have been developed over centuries of human knowledge and experience.) I’ve heard the idea somewhere that “God” and the “Devil” are just “Good with an o taken out” and “Evil with a d added”. Whether that’s true or not, we can still say that every individual in a culture has, at some time in their lives, acted in ways that are commonly ACKNOWLEDGED to be either “good” or “bad”. I’m not entirely sure it’s fair to ask any one human living today for the absolute, definitive, dictionary definition. But maybe looking it up in the dictionary would make your day.
You said something else that interested me.
In reflection, I’d have to add more than I did to my first post. It wasn’t emotion alone that ever caused me to abandon faith. If it had ever been emotion alone, I’m not sure I’d have ever become a Christian: it took a LOT of convincing and pondering for me to consider accepting it in the first place. But what happened to me wasn’t the equivalent of an emotional hissy fit. My emotions convince me of very little in the way of spiritual matters. For example, if someone said to me “just try to trust in God and you’ll feel His love”, it wouldn’t work. Why? Because I might be HOPING to feel it, or I might be especially happy so I could mistake a ‘feel good’ emotion for something more than it was.
The truth of the matter is, I’m not absolutely adverse to spiritual belief. I just stopped believing. The conviction was no longer there. The passion in it was no longer there for me. I came to a point, one day, where a family member asked me “you DO believe in God, don’t you??” and I said “no.” That surprised me, for one thing. But it was true. It also dismayed me, because many of my friends and family members DO believe, and take great comfort in it. But overall, I’ve found that having a lack of belief hasn’t damaged me in any fundamental way. My existence isn’t bleak, I don’t consider myself jaded (if anything, some days I’m accused of being annoyingly bubbly), I REALLY like other people… I’m just me. With or without a religious belief. shrug If you had to pin me down, I’d call myself a secular humanist with more than a passing interest IN spirituality.
But what would it take for me to believe? For one thing, I’d REALLY have to learn how to open my mind up to the possibility that a God I haven’t met yet exists. (I strongly suspect that the idea of God most people have is closer to what they wish he was rather than what he actually might be).
The kind of evidence that would really get me, I think, short of divine revelation smacking me in the forehead… would be the kind that Thomas (from the New Testament in the Bible) was looking for: something tangible. Something discoverable. Something you can touch. Something fairly evident. I’m not quite sure yet what that something ought to be, but I’ll think on it.
just joking here, more than not Say, for example, stars or clouds (something humans couldn’t forge) suddenly spelled out a message that everyone on earth could read, no matter where they were. “I am God, and I exist.” – now THAT would get ME thinking!
You also asked if I’ve read Yancey or Zacharias. I’ve read some of Yancey’s work, but probably not as much as you’ve read. I haven’t read Zacharias. I’d be happy to read more of Yancey, and anything of Zacharias’. I’ve read quotations from him, but not his work in context.
On a final, friendly note: one philosopher I have a good deal of respect for, I suspect you’d like. Peter Kreeft. Have you heard of him or read any of his work? He isn’t well known, but he’s profound.
I enjoy hearing what you have to say. Don’t think I haven’t had my times of doubt, because I have. But to me, atheistic arguments hold no metaphysical structure, they have secluded flaws deep down, and you can only reach these by really examining. It seems more ‘logical’ to hear Christian arguments. Everytime I hear a debate between a world renowned atheist and an apologetist, the apologetist lives a better life, is more articulate, and thus far I haven’t seen one make a fool of himself as I’ve seen atheist do. Everytime you get an infinite skeptic, they have to doubt there own skepticism, when you get someone who denies truth, they have to deny that own truth, when you get someone who says everything in life is meaningless, they have to agree that so is that statement, when you get a person who says it’s both and logic not either or, they are giving you an either or logic. You see, the atheistic defense to me is fallacious, I find it rather dumb. So what person can really say that atheism is more logically correct? Because it may be, but the arguments haven’t been. The smartest atheist you can get, is one who doesn’t defend himself at all, he just doesn’t believe, and for some reason he feels he just can’t. But as I’ve spoken about before, I don’t believe that’s possible, a strong belief like that is built off something else they believe in that can’t seem to be flawed.
I thank you for your time, and I’m looking forward to talking to you more.
Why would theism make more sense? I find it more laughable to think of a Supreme Being watching over us than that we are here simply because. Sure there are things which cannot be explained in regards to some things but why and how does one make the logical jump to God? Perhaps it is just our finite minds which hinders us and not a Divine being.
You were doing so good until you said you have found the athiestic defense dumb.
I wasn’t critiquing, I was comparing to my own life. To expand upon that, I know what it feels like to deny god, yet feel guilty about it… I’ve been there several times. It’s funny (not commenting on your own experience…) that the denial of god only feels bad if you believe in that sort of god…
