With more than 2000 views in less than three days, I would wager that it’s been interesting for others as well (those you are speaking for). I’m flattered, though, that you consider my participation necessary for this topic to be of interest.
mmm
Since I was asked to “show my cards”, here they are:
I think we cannot know The Answer. Therefore, anyone - on either side of the fence - who claims to do so with certainty is, in my book, only fooling themselves.
mmm
Hey!. That’s where I’m at also, MMM.
Spiritual life or Spiritual resistance both are dependent on coming to the conclusion that there are forces in the Universe that will thwart the most sensible and self-confident of us.
Perhaps the most logical conclusion a believer or non-believer can ultimately arrive at is that he is NOT God. Where we each go from there is also probably also very much the same if we have good intentions.
And that is to make the best for ourselves, our loved ones and society as a whole as we are capable of doing.
(When it comes to matters of the spirit, on either side of the fence, when someone starts telling me how it 'posed to be, I look for an exit pronto.)
What’s really neat about the things discussed here - world view and other existential issues is that they are not written in stone but rather in flux dependent on age, experience, and capacity. At least that is the kind of growth-oriented development I would wish for everyone.
Keeps life interestin’ don’t it? 
Yes
Ideally, I’d like to know the answers. But if I can’t know the answers, I’m torn between the two possibilities. Is it better to know I’m ignorant even though I don’t want to be or would it be better to have the comfort of believing I had the answers even if those answers were wrong?
I’m not sure what you think I was assuming. I stated nothing about you. I wondered whether you were surprised and asked how your felt about the responses. You hadn’t really participated in the thread up to that point and I was curious as to where it was going.
I took this remark from you:
as an indication that you believed that you knew my beliefs.
Looking at it again, though, I see that it was I who was making assumptions. My apologies to Brown Eyed Girl.
If you ask a question like that in the OP, and then choose to be as coy as you have been about your own position, and you then expect the rest of us not to speculate on why you asked it, you’ll likely be disappointed.
BTW here’s my speculation: since you addressed the OP to “atheists / agnostics”, and since you haven’t given your own answers to the two questions, I reckon you’re neither atheist nor agnostic, but think there’s something to be gained by hiding this.
Am I wrong?
Yes. I have revealed that I am agnostic.
mmm
No worries.
So, now that you’ve indicated your position, I’d be interested in knowing your answer to your questions for us. Do you feel any envy of those whose faith gives them comfort? If so, do you wish you didn’t?
FWIW, I have been there. There was a time in my life that I was obsessively focused on my own mortality and I thought that people who believed in life after death seemed much more at ease with mortality. Now, the only people who seem to me to be really comfortable in their faith are those that don’t feel the need to preach about it. Like my mother, who apparently has it but keeps it personal. Otherwise, it tends to feel like by trying to convince me of what I’m missing out on, they are attempting to achieve some sort of validation of their faith. I realize it’s not their faith that gives them comfort, but their relationship with it. Seeing as how I have no relationship with it, I am now comfortable with that.
The majority of the worlds violence has been fueled by Religious fanaticism(until the 20th century–even though it is still evdient), and you think that this has all been out of a little frustration from lack of faith?
While there are hundreds of thousands of historical examples that disprove this downright, I think the one of the absolute best is the First Crusade. Read up on it a bit. When you find out how much they suffered the horrible things that they did, for what they held to be absolutely true, I think you’ll have to reasonably change your stance on that.
Afterwards, you can read up on the Soviet gulags and the Red Guards of Maoist China. Atheists (or secularists or whatever you want to call them) piled up a stack of corpses more than130 million high all in one century. The idea that religionists are somehow more prone to violence than secularists is mere prejudice.
I am immensely skeptical that religion is the root cause of mass violence. Since in most societies, religion is all pervading, religion is likely to get tangled up in any extreme conflict between nations or within a nation, but this in itself doesn’t mean religion was the sole cause or even a significant factor. Professor Rummel of the University of Hawaiiestimates that 262 million people died in democides in the 20th century. It doesn’t seem to me that any significat number of them were motivated by religion.
Where? Did I miss it?
And in that case, why don’t you answer your own OP? You’re one of those it’s addressed at.
And while you’re at it, please answer my previously asked question. I’d be curious to know your response to it.
[QUOTE=me]
- Do you, as a non-drug-user, accept the notion that many drug users acquire some degree of strength, comfort and/or solace from injecting heroin into their veins?
- If you answered ‘yes’ to question one, are you willing to acknowledge any measure of feelings of envy toward those who reap such benefits of their heroin use?
[/QUOTE]
Post # 102.
1. Do you, as a non-believer, accept the notion that many believers acquire some degree of strength, comfort and/or solace from their faith?
Absolutely. I know several deeply religious people, and I have no doubt that they receive all three benefits from their faith.
2. If you answered ‘yes’ to question one, are you willing to acknowledge any measure of feelings of envy toward those who reap such benefits of their faith?
Yes. During particularly hard times I have marvelled at these aforementioned people and have felt pangs of envy. This is what, in fact, prompted my initial query. Regarding the comments that such folks are delusional and their comfort is therefore false, I would respond that it is very real to them.
Yes indeed.
This is the part that gave me pause. My answer is no. Heroin abuse is destructive on a personal level. As stated above, I know many strong believers, none of whom are harming themselves nor their loved ones with their faith.
mmm
Well, it depends on how you define “harm”, I suppose. All the religion users I know expend a significant amount of time and income on it, all of them have artificially confined and restrictive lives, and all of them have developed destructive political ideologies as a side effect of their religious ideologies.
There might be religious people who spend no time or money or votes on their faith, but I don’t know any of them.
I know what you’re saying, but I think we define ‘harm’ differently. Certainly, the faithful I know spend both time and money on their faith, but, to them, it is neither wasted nor harmful (though I know many here disagree). And I wouldn’t begin to compare it to the damage that a heroin user inflicts.
Why not compare it? Specifically, to them, is doing heroin harmful - or more harmful than stopping, anyway?
Yes, they’re addicted. So are the religious, in my opinion. In either case partaking alters the participants’ decision-making facilities such that partaking seems like a better idea than it would if the person wasn’t partaking. Sure one addiction is chemical and the other isn’t, but that’s irrelevent when assessing it from the effect of partaking on the desire to continue to use.
OK, here’s where we differ. I think religious people do themselves great harm, essentially pissing their lives away by devoting their time and energy to something that they believe to be true but that, in my view, is a gigantic lie. We have only this small and finite number of days on earth, and they choose to sink them into an intricate complication of mysteries that is pointless, self-contradictory, and false. If that’s not harm, I don’t know what is. At least heroin users experience bodily bliss from their expensive wasting of their days.
Now that, we can agree on. 
Are you suggesting that I can’t have any certainty at all that the proposed gods (I’m not going to suggest new ones) do not exist? Or are you just confusing “less than 100% certainty” with “there’s no way to tell either way”?
Also: given your original question (which apparently you haven’t answered yourself, even though it appears to apply to you too) I get the sense that you’re trying to make a point about atheism.