Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer"

Raised an atheist, now an agnostic.

I don’t see that believing in God has harmed most of my religious friends. However, I have met some people who have carried their beliefs to extremes that I believe have resulted in harm to them.

For example, there are some Jehovah’s Witnesses in my family. My grandmother, because she is a JW, refused some operations that could have improved her quality of life because she didn’t want a blood transplant (a JW religious belief). My cousins, who are very smart, refused full-ride college scholarships because higher education is frowned upon in the JW community. As a result, they have very low-paying jobs and are unhappy with their work. They are also in a lot of debt. Now they are both pursuing higher education because they feel it’s a necessary evil…but they’re paying for it all themselves.

Many of the religious mothers of my female friends have urged their daughters to “hurry up and get married” because their religion taught them a woman should be married and having children. These were relatively mainstream religions (frequently Lutheran and Catholic).

Most of the Lutherans I know have fairly racist parents who told them not to date anyone who wasn’t white. (I can think of about 5 examples off the top of my head.)

So, general faith in God seems OK, but sometimes religious teachings have hurt these people.

I do think that it is a bit gullible to believe in a religion just because it is taught to you from birth. I also find it a bit childish if a person thinks they need the comfort of believing in God to give their life meaning and to make them feel less scared or more happy. I think many people who are religious haven’t thought through the inconsistencies in their beliefs, or even questioned them.

However, I do know some very intelligent, very thoughtful religious people whom I respect because they have carefully considered and examined their beliefs. There just aren’t very many religious people (that I’ve met) who have done this. Most of them just believe what they were taught since childhood, and I think this is awfully trusting.

Heck, my parents are atheists, and I’ve thought about that a whole lot. So I don’t confine this opinion to believers–the “unexamining atheists” would seem less intelligent and more gullible to me, too.

I don’t feel the need to explain the origin of anything. I’m sure that there is some explanation for the origin of man, the universe, etc., but I feel it is probably beyond human understanding. I think we can discover some of the answers through science, but that we will probably never discover the ultimate origin of everything. Maybe a God is involved, or maybe not. I can’t know. And I’m okay with that.

My answer on evolution is similar. The past is past, and we will never 100% clearly see what happened (or so I believe), so we will have to be satisfied with the bits and pieces of information we can gather via science and theorize from there. I am comfortable with the idea that I will never know for sure how we came to be. In fact, I think that makes life all the more amazing.

**

Crosses my mind all the time, but I accept that as just a natural process. I think it’s actually rather beautiful. If we were immortal, I don’t think we’d appreciate our lives very much. It would not seem as valuable. I feel lucky for the (hopefully) 80 or 90 years I might get.

I do think it’s rather sad, but there are other factors. First, I’m concerned about the quality of life that people already living have. Second, I’m concerned about the quality of life that baby might have if it were born. Third, I believe that embryos/fetuses in the early stages of gestation are a form of human life, but a lesser one, and that makes it somewhat less horrible. It’s hard to explain.

Yes, it’s sad, but there’s a lot of sadness in the world, and I don’t think abortion is so much worse than the rest of it.

Sure. I’d love to know that there was an all-loving God who’d reward me for being good and punish my enemies, and who would give me eternal life in a paradise in the sky. But to me, that sounds like just another fairy tale, one that almost certainly won’t come true. I wish I’d win the lottery too, but that’s probably not going to happen either, and I’m okay with that.

Rely on myself.

A lot of the true believers just seem to get really wound up in what their religion wants them to do. They seem to carry a lot of guilt and worry, and a lot of self-congratulation. A lot of them seem to get pleasure out of the idea that they will be rewarded and other people–bad people, non-believers–will get punished.

I have met a few true believers who were simply at peace, but most seem not to be.

Not sure. Maybe they just feel superior. Or maybe they’re having a hard time expressing what they feel. Or maybe they’re weird in other ways too. It’s probably different for different people.

I don’t think God has to be rational, or explainable in man’s terms, but then again, I don’t see why I should believe in something I’ve never seen or felt, either. I think that it’s possible there’s a God, but that if there is, that he’s unknowable to people.

I do think that religion is total B.S. made up by humans, however. There’s a difference between God and religion. Okay, so I don’t require proof of God, or proof that he’s not there. But don’t ask me to live a certain way or to believe certain things because “God” wants me to, because none of us know if he’s there or not.

Yes, but then I think that we’re not all that great, and that if I were an omnipotent God, that I could think of about 1000 ways to make human bodies better. Then I start to think of how weird human bodies are, and how they work, and I start to think that maybe it’s all a random cosmic joke.

Like I said, I don’t believe I get to know whether life is miraculous or just a weird quirk. And I’m okay with that.

I’d think non-believers would be more pessimistic, but it just hasn’t been borne out by my experiences.

I know a lot of non-believers who think that everything will balance out in the end, and who think humans have the power to change the world, and who are thus very positive.

And I know believers who think mankind is terrible and untrustworthy and full of evil, and so are very pessimistic and grouchy and unpleasant.

I know pessimistic non-believers and optimistic believers. I just don’t think belief is clear-cut on positive/negative personality. Both belief sets can be used to justify a positive or a negative outlook. I think it’s ultimately a question of inborn personality.

Yep, I probably have enough bruises from those things.

Yes. I’m not sure I remember when I had my hair pulled though, so I’m not sure it would have much impact on history. Compared to raising the dead, Noah’s Ark(gottch, I’m kidding on this one) and other things, it would be a piece of cake.

How did we get here? Oh, nonsense statements? Well the fact that you’re in love right now, explains why you were saying you were really tired.:slight_smile: God is love seems to imply that that’s all God is, so that’s not really true. God feels love is certainly true. I’m not sure if God is “in” love or not. He rarely confides to us about his personal life. It would be more correct to say all love is of God.

I’m going to admit defeat on this one, since Algorithm so kindly pointed out yesterday that I was missing the boat on the definition of logic and he was right, darn it.:frowning: So the second a thought hits your mind, whatever the source; you start using logic on it. Even those that come from a dream or whatever are completely logic driven, the second your eyes open. Your point.

I was wrong, again.

No, but at that point I would have other factors, details to go on and would probably have a good feel for whether or not he was God because of the last time we met.:slight_smile:

I’m in way over my head, but I’m going to give this one a shot and you can (will) correct me. What you’re saying is the diatomic molecule is an answer to the how or why of creation? If that’s what you’re saying or implying here, what I would say is I don’t care if God whipped us a magic spell and made everything appear(okay that’s not what I think) or he set some molecule in motion(that’s closer to what I think). No matter what, there always had to be something to work with. There has never been nothing.

I agree. I wasn’t talking about considering an infinite number of variables, just the ones that matter and always leaving elbow room for new ones.

No. I’m saying that the rules as we know them may be different somewhere else. This was part of my not getting the whole logic thing though. So, I’m wrong about this one too. Obviously our logic or reasoning will be what it is unless it doesn’t work anymore. Then it will change.

Apparently not any more, although I’m still working on understanding why it’s not, when it seems like it still is. If you have a thought, feeling or emotion due to some specific brain chemical, even if it magically appears, you’re still going to apply reason to it in some way, so you are right.

Yes, sir. Sorry.

The factors are in the logic or reasoning, but still doesn’t make it subjective. Logic is the path, but not subjective. I’m still working on this concept and if I repeat it enough times, maybe it will sink in.

Okay, it was a bad example, but was just trying to convey that there are different realities a million light years away or at least very possible.

But until the “Big Bang” or whatever event our physical world is attributed to, did time have any meaning, any values?

By our concept it has to be. But if the universe is infinite, how could it matter, except to us? We are a speck in the universe. Let’s get sci-fi here and say distance would have no point, no meaning to someone who could project and materialize wherever they wanted. The only thing I was trying to say is our perspective is still in it’s infancy stage. But I agree that we can only consider what’s presently possible, until something else is.

Okay, I agree. I absolutely did bring the concept up. I didn’t get it, you were trying to explain it to me with my own ideas. I do, now that I sort of understand logic better, think “bound by logic” is a valid term, but it doesn’t matter. 1=1 makes sense. I do get what you were trying to tell me. Thanks.

Algorithm - Thanks for the link and your help.

other-wise

I hate to be wrong, although I’ve gotten so good at it. I can see what Priceguy is saying now. From what I understand, Logic isn’t some particular view or accuracy factor. It’s reasoning. Not the content of reasoning, just the fact of reasoning. It is impossible to reject logic because it’s not an opinion or point of view. I’m probably only half right about this, but it beats completely wrong. And I still think it’s possible to be headed toward a stationary object, while temporarily becoming further away. Just shows a different way to think (I’m still blonde, it’s expected of me). I won’t try to take that one to the bank just yet though.:slight_smile:

That is a problem with some “religion”, but I don’t think it reflects God, just man’s often screwed up concepts.

I agree. I tried very hard not to indoctrinate my children into believing what I do. They were free to make their own religious decisions and as a result, I have children with 3 very different ideas and concepts about God and religion. Beliefs should not be inherited. They should be your own after lot’s of critical thought and searching.

Works the same way here. Parents should mold your value system, but your adult beliefs need to reflect your own thought.

Me too.

Well I do believe in some kind of continuing life or consciousness after death, but it hasn’t decreased the value of my life at all. I still feel incredibly grateful for this life, right now.

I should never have brought up the abortion question, although I did wonder if not believing in a soul made a difference.

Well I’m hoping for both, but would settle for the first.:slight_smile:

IMHO, it is impossible to truly believe in God and have any pleasure over who will or who will not go to Heaven(symbolic, not literal). God is not exclusionary, religion (man) is.

That’s fair, you shouldn’t.

I think religion is mostly B.S. too, but I still believe in God. I’m just not arrogant enough or insecure enough to think I have all the details down pat. I have opinions and sometimes it’s fun to speculate, but am content to wait for the rest of the answers.

I do think God has a sense of humor. Human bodies and our ideas that go with them are pretty weird.

I assumed this would be true, but I really was wrong. It’s just a personality trait and seems to be mostly unaffected by believing or not believing.

Thanks for your answers. Not very many people pointed out that God (if he exists) is different than religion. I sometimes wonder if it would be easier to find God or believe if “religion” weren’t such a big part of it?

First of all, IWLN, big freaking mother of kudos. You’ve displayed intelligence, willingness to learn, humility and tolerance. You didn’t take your ball and leave when you were pressed, you stuck to your guns and kept going until you found a common ground and we understood each other. You’ve earned my respect at least. Would that all theists were like you. I’ll try to be less of a pain in the rear for as long as you choose to continue this conversation.

So God is the source of love, but not exactly love itself?

Interesting. Would it be fair to say that the axiom you’re working from is that the being you saw was in fact God/Jesus, and (almost) no matter what properties that being would turn out to have, you’d still consider it God?

Now I feel like I am in over my head. No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I was talking about the soap bubble model of the universe, which, as far as I’ve been able to understand (this isn’t easy for me either) seems to make logical sense.

Worse than that. It didn’t exist.

It might have no meaning, much like a picometer has little meaning to you or me, but it would still exist.

Why thanks Priceguy. You’ve been really good for me and I hardly ever called you names under my breath. So, now…take it back. I’m not a deliberate liar.:smiley: All lying was strictly involuntary. I’m working on the other theists, but I don’t hold out much hope. Someone was trying to witness to me on the “did Jesus sin” thread tonight. That’s either a sign I’ve been talking to atheists too long and now sound like one or I’m being too flip about something that is waaay serious, to someone else. Sometimes I wonder why God gave me a free will and this weird sense of humor, when he knew how often it would get me in trouble.:eek:

God is the source of everything that is and that we are. I was tempted to say only the source of everything that is good, but I’m not really sure that’s true. Of course I’m the first to jump over a tall building and say there’s other forces at work too and hope no one asks where the other forces came from.:frowning:

You’re not picking on my hallucination are you? Okay, really I’m not sure how to answer this. I have total, complete, holding nothing back trust in God. I am sure there is only one as far as I’m concerned and don’t think there’ll be a recognition problem. I’m laughing while I’m typing this. When I had “that little visit”, it was the most powerful, wonderful, staggering, immobilizing, shocking, mind-blowing, happiest, saddest, trusting, joyous, peaceful, loving, caring, humbling, shattering moment I have ever felt. There is nothing to compare it to and describing it isn’t possible. I left a lot out. Being in God’s presence is, well unique to any other experience. Until I talked about it on this thread, I didn’t really question the God/Jesus part of it. I’ve given that part a lot of thought lately when I wasn’t busy arguing with atheists.:slight_smile:

But…splutter. You mean I did all that reading on molecules and theories and practically made my brain bleed for nothing. I read about the soap bubble model, but then on some of the sites it started talking about some exciting new discoveries about this diatomic molecule. That’s funny, now you have to read up on it, because if I ever finish figuring out what I read, I’ll have questions for you.

That actually seems to make sense to me. But then again, I’m the one that can head in your direction and still increase the distance between us. Sadly, I still see an odd form of logic in that.:smack:

Okay, that’s a gravity on the moon answer. I get out my picometer whenever need to make sure something isn’t off by a trillionth or two. I get your point, because until today, that measurement existed reguardless of the fact that I had no knowledge of it and it continues to exist even though I have no logical application for it on my speck of the universe.

How about… no? Sorry, I still can’t believe you actually believed I had held up the source as validation. Let’s drop it and never mention it again.

OK. So the statement “God is love” doesn’t mean much, when you get down to it?

I’m afraid so.

I fear you’ve overrated me. I have basic scientific knowledge, but I’m no expert. Ask in General Questions and don’t let anyone harass you.

IWLN, for you, one last post.

Imagine you, me and GenericLogicGuy standing on a football field. You and your husband are at one end of the field, and at the other end, directly facing you, are GenericLogicGuy and I.

You take a step forward and start walking away from your husband. I sez: “Hey, look, IWLN’s moving towards us!” GenericLogicGuy says “No, she’s not moving toward us”. And it’s not until you reach the fifty yard line that he says: “O.K., now she’s moving towards us!”

I think everybody in the stands would probably say that as soon as you started walking, you were simultaneously walking away from your husband and walking towards us, just as I would say that on a sphere, IWLN is simultaneously walking away from and walking towards Priceguy.

The reason we have words like “towards” and “away from” is precisely because they’re ill-defined and flexible enough to accommodate seemingly illogical contradictions. Our language is full of perfectly serviceable words that are not precisely defined. How many grains of sand are in a “pile”? 50? 100? 1000? How big is “big”? If I point to an elephant and say “Wow, that’s a big elephant” and later point to an ant and say “Wow, that’s a big ant” you wouldn’t think that I was claiming that the elephant and the ant were the same size; you’d know that I meant the ant was big-as-ants-go.
Dictionaries make no reference to a halfway mark in the definitions of “toward” or “away”, and if you look in the “The Complete Unabridged Encyclopedia of Sphere Rules” you won’t find an entry that states that when it comes to spheres, “towards” and “away from” will always involve a half-way mark.

The only reason for marking a halfway point on the football field or on a sphere is to establish a reference point that you can look at and say: “O.K., from now on, we’ll call everything on this side of the line “away from” and we’ll call everything on *that *side of the line “towards” (The “halfway” is arbitrary, of course. We humans like symmetry – up/down, left/right, this half/that half- but there’s nothing stopping you from marking the reference at, say the 1/3 point).

Anyone can claim that the halfway point marks the end of “away from” and the beginning of “toward”, but then they’ve redefined the words “away from” and “towards” to include a specific level of precision that the words do not inherently possess.

O.K., enough of that.
IWLN, let me put it this way: You had an unusual experience (to say the least). Fortunately, the all objective knowledge/evidence that can be used to examine your experience is just as accessible to you as it is to me and Priceguy (that’s why it’s objective). And I think it’s an extremely good idea to subject our experiences to critical, objective analysis, and for that purpose, the SDMB is the best Acid Bath in town.

But you also have access to subjective knowledge/evidence and you’re the only one that does. No one else can ever have that knowledge/evidence; not me, not Priceguy, not anyone.

Since we cannot critique what we have absolutely no access to, we cannot critique that knowledge, only you can.
“Objective” knowledge cannot explain all human experience, nor is subjective knowledge inherently worthless or inaccurate. You must make the final call on your own experience… you’re the only one that can.

But…Okay, happy to.

Well not to me, particularly. But it seems that term came up more recently and was used by people who think everything is love. I think when God created us in “his image”, it wasn’t physical. We were given his nature, which gives us all those things like love, but also gives us stubborn, willful, curious, etc. Well for the men anyway. The women just got sugar and spice from that piece of rib.:slight_smile:

That’s what I get for trying to compete when I don’t know what the competition is.:frowning:

I think I’m going to have to wait until I learn enough to know how to ask a question about any of that.

Okay, now that we’ve run out of things to debate. Mostly because I’ve had to admit I was wrong about almost every stinkin’ point; you as the winner should generously concede my final and ongoing point. It’s extremely likely God exists.:smiley: (and she skips merrily on her way…okay, she’s laughing)

other-wise - Thank you. That was very nicely worded and made some good points.:slight_smile:

I think you know my answer to this one. See you around.

Okay, fine. Thanks again, Priceguy.:slight_smile: