Letter to a Christian Spouse (or other loved ones)

[Clizby Wampuscat]

This is a video from an Atheist, Seth Andrews, that was once a Christian radio host and believer for 30 years that lost his faith and now has a wife and many Christian family members that are still Christians. He is explaining his journey to people that don't understand. This is my experience as well. I am thankful that my wife and kids were understanding and listened to me that it was not a choice. Here are some of his comments:

1. Yes, we were real christians, we believed what you did and were dedicated to it.
2. They did not fail us, it is not their fault. We have no desire to cause pain to anyone else.
3. We appreciate and understand their concern.
4. We still want to be part of the family and friend groups.
5. We did not choose to lose our faith. We are looking for truth.
6. We are looking for an authentic life just like any believer should be doing. It is not about rebellion, hate God or want to sin etc.
7. We are not different, we are the same people.
8. We are worried we are going to lose people we love, lose a marriage and how will it affect the relationships in my life that I want to keep.

My experience has been generally good but I know people that have lost marriages and relationships. My wife believes that if God is good he will show me the evidence I need to be convinced someday.

If you are a believer and know a loved one that lost their faith I would encourage you to listen to the video, it is only 18 minutes.

 

[PureX]

Believing in a religion is not the same as having faith. Faith is a choice anyone can make at any time regardless of any perceived religious truths or untruths, because it's not dependent on our presuming to know anything.

This guy thinks he "lost his faith". But all he lost was his belief in some religious dogma. And probably, by extension, all religious dogma. He doesn't understand this because the religious dogma that he was associated with did not want him to understand this. He was taught that religious belief IS FAITH. And that faith IS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. And unfortunately his friends and family were taught that as well, and so they still do not recognize the difference. They think he "lost his faith", too. But faith is available to all of us whenever we choose. It's always an option. And we don't have to deny anything about anything to choose it.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Believing in a religion is not the same as having faith. Faith is a choice anyone can make at any time regardless of any perceived religious truths or untruths, because it's not dependent on our presuming to know anything.

This guy thinks he "lost his faith". But all he lost was his belief in some religious dogma. And probably, by extension, all religious dogma. He doesn't understand this because the religious dogma that he was associated with did not want him to understand this. He was taught that religious belief IS FAITH. And that faith IS RELIGIOUS BELIEF. And unfortunately his friends and family were taught that as well, and so they still do not recognize the difference. They think he "lost his faith", too. But faith is available to all of us whenever we choose. It's always an option. And we don't have to deny anything about anything to choose it.

This is why he made the video. Comments like this. Always pointing the finger at us and not god and refusing to understand we were convinced that god existed. You have no idea what his faith was or my faith was. Unfortunately this is all too common, believers telling us what we actually think, what is wrong with us and that we were never "real" believers in the first place. If god is good and wants me to believe he will give me the evidence I need.

You cannot choose to believe something is true when you are not convinced it is true. That is impossible. Seth and I were convinced the Christian God existed, Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead. Then we became unconvinced it was true for various reasons.

 

[Dimi95]

This is why he made the video.

Hmm...
What we all know is that he changed his belief.

Comments like this.

What kind of comments?

Always pointing the finger at us and not god

Well no , i mean he changed his belief , he was however a Christian.
So we just want to see what might be the cause.
Would you not question for example someone who is now a Christian and was a former Atheist?

and refusing to understand we were convinced that god existed.

And there you have it , with 'you' being convinced that 'we'..

This an argument from personal incredulity.

You have no idea what his faith was or my faith was.

And here we agree
It is true that we should not judge how we manifest faith.

Unfortunately this is all too common,

Why , again we did some tactic?

believers telling us what we actually think

Well , i would like for someone to tell me what i actually think,would you not?
Regardless of beliving or not

, what is wrong with us and that we were never "real" believers

First 'you' being 'we'
Now 'you being 'us'.

The question is , Who or what is 'us' ?

in the first place.

Which by definition is true.
However we don't have the right to question your faith.
Faith and belief is not the same.
I think it is simular with how people confuse themselfs with Abiogenesis and Evolution.

If god is good and wants me to believe he will give me the evidence I need.

The question is 'Does God/s exist' , or 'If God is good'.?

'Is good' apeals to emotion.
Being good has to do with matter,being good is also part of us being conscious.
Or you would disagree with that?

You cannot choose to believe something is true when you are not convinced it is true.

You read my mind

That is impossible.

Fascinating , you did it again..

Seth and I were convinced the Christian God existed

Which is oposite of what i was convinced of.

, Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Yes , this is what the Apostoles witnessed.
We belive these events to be true since they were also humans like us , and we belive that they had the 5 basic human senses also.
But we also belive that they did their best regarding evidence.
Do you know what was the show in Rome in that time?
Lions and wild beasts in arenas.

'The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.'

Then we became unconvinced it was true for various reasons.

So why is it wrong when we say it?

 

[PureX]

This is why he made the video. Comments like this. Always pointing the finger at us and not god and refusing to understand we were convinced that god existed.

I'm not pointing fingers st anyone. Or if at anyone, at religious dogmas that constantly claim belief is faith, and faith is belief. But they are not the same things. Belief is a denial of doubt, while faith is not. So belief requires that we "presume to know" what we can't actually know. While faith recognizes the limitation of what we can know and provides us with a way through it.

You have no idea what his faith was or my faith was. Unfortunately this is all too common, believers telling us what we actually think, what is wrong with us and that we were never "real" believers in the first place. If god is good and wants me to believe he will give me the evidence I need.

He said himself what his "faith" was, and what he described in every detail was a belief in a religious dogma.

You cannot choose to believe something is true when you are not convinced it is true.

I agree. But you can choose faith regardless. Because faith does not require you to pretend to know things that you can't actually know, as belief does.

That is impossible. Seth and I were convinced the Christian God existed, Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead.

Yes, you "believed in" that religious dogma.

Then we became unconvinced it was true for various reasons.

So you stopped "believing in" that religious dogma.

What you rejected was a specific religious belief, not faith. And now you're insisting they are one and the same, because that's what the religious dogma taught you to think. But they never were one and the same.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm not pointing fingers st anyone. Or if at anyone, at religious dogmas that constantly claim belief is faith, and faith is belief. But they are not the same things. Belief is a denial of doubt, while faith is not. So belief requires that we "presume to know" what we can't actually know. While faith recognizes the limitation of what we can know and provides us with a way through it.

We have a different definition of belief.

He said himself what his "faith" was, and what he described in every detail was a belief in a religious dogma.

According to you. Why is your faith definition better than his?

I agree. But you can choose faith regardless. Because faith does not require you to pretend to know things that you can't actually know, as belief does.

Again, we have a different definition of belief. So faith to you is a decision to think something is true?

Yes, you "believed in" that religious dogma.

No, I believed god existed.

So you stopped "believing in" that religious dogma.

No, I stopped believing a god existed.

What you rejected was a specific religious belief, not faith. And now you're insisting they are one and the same, because that's what the religious dogma taught you to think. But they never were one and the same.

No, what I rejected was the idea that a god existed. Telling me I never believed a god existed is a losing proposition for you since I know you are wrong.

 

[PureX]

We have a different definition of belief.

According to you. Why is your faith definition better than his?

Again, we have a different definition of belief. So faith to you is a decision to think something is true?

No, I believed god existed.

No, I stopped believing a god existed.

No, what I rejected was the idea that a god existed. Telling me I never believed a god existed is a losing proposition for you since I know you are wrong.

You want to fight instead of listen, so this will be a waste of time, but if you would read my post to understand, instead of to fight with it, you would see that what I said was that you BELIEVED God existed (the God defined by your religion). And it was that BELIEF that you then rejected. And because you also BELIEVED that faith and belief are the same thing, as your religion taught you, you assume that you also rejected faith.

But faith and belief are not the same things, regardless of you and you're religion insisting that they are. So what you actually rejected was the part of your religious belief the proclaimed God. Yet you doggedly hold onto the religious claim about faith and belief being one and the same. Why did you reject the one and not the other?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You want to fight instead of listen, so this will be a waste of time, but if you would read my post to understand, instead of to fight with it, you would see that what I said was that you BELIEVED God existed (the God defined by your religion). And it was that BELIEF that you then rejected. And because you also BELIEVED that faith and belief are the same thing, as your religion taught you, you assume that you also rejected faith.

I am not fighting, you are just misrepresenting what I believed to be true. I believed god existed, you telling me what I believed is instead of listening to me about what I believed to be true is ridiculous.

But faith and belief are not the same things,

I agree. But like I said we do not agree on what belief and faith mean.

regardless of you and you're religion insisting that they are. So what you actually rejected was the part of your religious belief the proclaimed God. Yet you doggedly hold onto the religious claim about faith and belief being one and the same. Why did you reject the one and not the other?

I never claimed faith and belief are the same.

Faith is being convinced something is true with bad evidence in my opinion.

Faith is a subset of belief, just like knowledge is a subset of belief. 100% certainty is impossible, but we can have a high probability of "knowing: something is true.

A belief is being convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for any claim. We all believe things to be true or false based on how we evaluate the evidence for a claim. For any claim of truth, there are three responses; We can be convinced it is true, we can be convinced it is false or we can not be convinced of it being true or false. Your belief that a god exists is based on some evidence that convinces you. No one can believe something is true without being convinced it is true and each person may evaluate the evidence differently so some people are convinced by the evidence and others are unconvinced by the same evidence.

What evidence convinces you a god exists?

 

[PureX]

I am not fighting, you are just misrepresenting what I believed to be true. I believed god existed, you telling me what I believed is instead of listening to me about what I believed to be true is ridiculous.

I agree. But like I said we do not agree on what belief and faith mean.

I never claimed faith and belief are the same.

Faith is being convinced something is true with bad evidence in my opinion.

Faith is a subset of belief, just like knowledge is a subset of belief. 100% certainty is impossible, but we can have a high probability of "knowing: something is true.

A belief is being convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for any claim. We all believe things to be true or false based on how we evaluate the evidence for a claim. For any claim of truth, there are three responses; We can be convinced it is true, we can be convinced it is false or we can not be convinced of it being true or false. Your belief that a god exists is based on some evidence that convinces you. No one can believe something is true without being convinced it is true and each person may evaluate the evidence differently so some people are convinced by the evidence and others are unconvinced by the same evidence.

What evidence convinces you a god exists?

I'm not convinced that God exists. I am not a "believer". I can choose to trust in my hope that a benevolent "God" (whatever that is) exists. Or not to. And I can then choose to act on that hope even though I have no idea if it's true or not. Or not to. I don't need to be convinced of anything to choose faith, or not to choose it.

That is the difference between faith and belief. I don't need to pretend that I know anything about God existing.

You are deliberately slandering faith by proclaiming it to be false because it's not based on evidence. But faith creates it's own evidence when it's acted on. The same way a scientific hypothesis creates it's own evidence when it's experimented on. Your slanderous definition of faith is wrong, and undeserved. Yet you refuse to give it up, and will fight to maintain it, because it's now part of your atheist "belief". Part of your atheist (and anti-religious) dogma. Right?

That video claims the atheist is just seeking the truth. But when you actually dig into it, their atheism has become just an alternative belief system. Only now it's anti-religious when before it was religious. Where that guy once preached religion, he now preaches his rejection of religion. And he's not seeking anything but to express his own sense of self-righteousness. Just as he was always doing.

This is religiosity when it lacks faith. And this is atheism when it lacks faith, too.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I'm not convinced that God exists. I am not a "believer". I can choose to trust in my hope that a benevolent "God" (whatever that is) exists. Or not to. And I can then choose to act on that hope even though I have no idea if it's true or not. Or not to. I don't need to be convinced of anything to choose faith, or not to choose it.

What good is it to just act like god exists or hope god exists? Just like what good is it to act like I am millionaire if I am not? It can be harmful to be convinced of untrue things, we should try to eliminate that as much as possible.

That is the difference between faith and belief. I don't need to pretend that I know anything about God existing.

Many are not pretending, people are actually convinced god exists just like I once did.

You are deliberately slandering faith by proclaiming it to be false because it's not based on evidence. But faith creates it's own evidence when it's acted on. The same way a scientific hypothesis creates it's own evidence when it's experimented on. Your slanderous definition of faith is wrong, and undeserved. Yet you refuse to give it up, and will fight to maintain it, because it's now part of your atheist "belief". Part of your atheist (and anti-religious) dogma. Right?

No. If people had good evidence to believe a god exists they would just provide the evidence and do away with faith. If you say that when a person acts on faith they get evidence back that god exists that should be able to be replicated? If not the evidence does not warrant belief in my opinion. What evidence is there when you act on faith?

That video claims the atheist is just seeking the truth. But when you actually dig into it, their atheism has become just an alternative belief system. Only now it's anti-religious when before it was religious. Where that guy once preached religion, he now preaches his rejection of religion. And he's not seeking anything but to express his own sense of self-righteousness. Just as he was always doing.

Nope, Atheism is just a lack of belief in a god. No belief system at all is needed, just like I lack a belief in big foot. No belief system is required to be unconvinced a claim is true. I am convinced of many things but not one of them stems from my atheism.

 

[PureX]

What good is it to just act like god exists or hope god exists?

Just imagine!

Just like what good is it to act like I am millionaire if I am not? It can be harmful to be convinced of untrue things, we should try to eliminate that as much as possible.

No one said anything about being convinced. That's the point. Faith does not require being convinced of anything. Nor does it require that pretense.

Many are not pretending, people are actually convinced god exists just like I once did.

Sure. That's what "belief" is: unsupported conviction. The pretense of knowing what we don't actually know. It's why you stopped doing it, I presume. You finally realized that it was unsupported, and it began to feel a bit dishonest to you.

No. If people had good evidence to believe a god exists they would just provide the evidence and do away with faith.

Probably so. But faith works for us when belief is unsupported. It's what faith is for.

If you say that when a person acts on faith they get evidence back that god exists that should be able to be replicated?

That is not the evidence they get. The evidence they get is that their faith in God worked for them. Not that "God exists".

What evidence is there when you act on faith?

That acting on faith either worked or it didn't.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Just imagine!

Not really an answer to my question.

No one said anything about being convinced. That's the point. Faith does not require being convinced of anything. Nor does it require that pretense.

Then what good is it? I will ask again, why should you hope something is true?

Sure. That's what "belief" is: unsupported conviction. The pretense of knowing what we don't actually know. It's why you stopped doing it, I presume. You finally realized that it was unsupported, and it began to feel a bit dishonest to you.

No, that is not what belief is as I have explained many times now. I was once convinced by the evidence then I became unconvinced when I changed how I determined what good evidence is. No one can choose to be convinced something is true or not.

Probably so. But faith works for us when belief is unsupported. It's what faith is for.

Again our definitions of belief are different. Something you refuse to acknowledge.

That is not the evidence they get. The evidence they get is that their faith in God worked for them. Not that "God exists".

How have they determined the faith worked?

That acting on faith either worked or it didn't.

How so, can you give me an example?

 

[Kenny]

This is a video from an Atheist, Seth Andrews, that was once a Christian radio host and believer for 30 years that lost his faith and now has a wife and many Christian family members that are still Christians. He is explaining his journey to people that don't understand. This is my experience as well. I am thankful that my wife and kids were understanding and listened to me that it was not a choice. Here are some of his comments:

1. Yes, we were real christians, we believed what you did and were dedicated to it.
2. They did not fail us, it is not their fault. We have no desire to cause pain to anyone else.
3. We appreciate and understand their concern.
4. We still want to be part of the family and friend groups.
5. We did not choose to lose our faith. We are looking for truth.
6. We are looking for an authentic life just like any believer should be doing. It is not about rebellion, hate God or want to sin etc.
7. We are not different, we are the same people.
8. We are worried we are going to lose people we love, lose a marriage and how will it affect the relationships in my life that I want to keep.

My experience has been generally good but I know people that have lost marriages and relationships. My wife believes that if God is good he will show me the evidence I need to be convinced someday.

If you are a believer and know a loved one that lost their faith I would encourage you to listen to the video, it is only 18 minutes.

Your decision shouldn’t affect a relationship. Biblically, one can be married to someone who believes differently as long as love rules

 

[Kenny]

Hmm...
What we all know is that he changed his belief.


What kind of comments?


Well no , i mean he changed his belief , he was however a Christian.
So we just want to see what might be the cause.
Would you not question for example someone who is now a Christian and was a former Atheist?



And there you have it , with 'you' being convinced that 'we'..

This an argument from personal incredulity.


And here we agree
It is true that we should not judge how we manifest faith.


Why , again we did some tactic?


Well , i would like for someone to tell me what i actually think,would you not?
Regardless of beliving or not


First 'you' being 'we'
Now 'you being 'us'.

The question is , Who or what is 'us' ?


Which by definition is true.
However we don't have the right to question your faith.
Faith and belief is not the same.
I think it is simular with how people confuse themselfs with Abiogenesis and Evolution.


The question is 'Does God/s exist' , or 'If God is good'.?

'Is good' apeals to emotion.
Being good has to do with matter,being good is also part of us being conscious.
Or you would disagree with that?


You read my mind


Fascinating , you did it again..


Which is oposite of what i was convinced of.


Yes , this is what the Apostoles witnessed.
We belive these events to be true since they were also humans like us , and we belive that they had the 5 basic human senses also.
But we also belive that they did their best regarding evidence.
Do you know what was the show in Rome in that time?
Lions and wild beasts in arenas.

'The emperor Nero is referred to as the first persecutor of the Christians by Lactantius. After the Great Fire of Rome in A.D. 64, when rumours swirled that the emperor himself was responsible, Nero blamed the Christians instead. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, Nero had the Christians covered in wild beast skins and torn to death by dogs.'


So why is it wrong when we say it?

Wow… that was quite a good breakdown of what was said.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a video from an Atheist, Seth Andrews, that was once a Christian radio host and believer for 30 years that lost his faith and now has a wife and many Christian family members that are still Christians. He is explaining his journey to people that don't understand. This is my experience as well. I am thankful that my wife and kids were understanding and listened to me that it was not a choice. Here are some of his comments:

1. Yes, we were real christians, we believed what you did and were dedicated to it.
2. They did not fail us, it is not their fault. We have no desire to cause pain to anyone else.
3. We appreciate and understand their concern.
4. We still want to be part of the family and friend groups.
5. We did not choose to lose our faith. We are looking for truth.
6. We are looking for an authentic life just like any believer should be doing. It is not about rebellion, hate God or want to sin etc.
7. We are not different, we are the same people.
8. We are worried we are going to lose people we love, lose a marriage and how will it affect the relationships in my life that I want to keep.

My experience has been generally good but I know people that have lost marriages and relationships. My wife believes that if God is good he will show me the evidence I need to be convinced someday.

If you are a believer and know a loved one that lost their faith I would encourage you to listen to the video, it is only 18 minutes.

Thanks for that, because right at the beginning I see he said "we believed what you did..." But really not all those calling themselves Christians believe the same way. And yes, if I understand properly what is said above, he is an atheist so has no assurance that there is a God who cares about him. It's sad.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not really an answer to my question.

Then what good is it? I will ask again, why should you hope something is true?

Because the promise has not been completely fulfilled yet.

 

[PureX]

Not really an answer to my question.

Then what good is it? I will ask again, why should you hope something is true?

Because you don't know that it's not true, and you want it to be. But most of all, because when we act on what we hope to be true, we can sometimes make it become true. Whereas when we do not 'act as if', it will never be. Faith is hope IN ACTION. And it's the action that produces the results (evidence). This is not difficult to understand when you stop trying to fight with the idea.

No, that is not what belief is as I have explained many times now. I was once convinced by the evidence then I became unconvinced when I changed how I determined what good evidence is. No one can choose to be convinced something is true or not.

Faith is not belief. And belief is not faith. Once we understand faith, we don't need the pretense of belief. Or of religious dogma (unless we want it to be true).

Again our definitions of belief are different. Something you refuse to acknowledge.

Your definition of faith is wrong. And this has skewed your definition of belief, as I am explaining. But you are still a believer (in atheism, now), I think. And so you are invested in your skewed definition of belief. You don't want to give it up.

How have they determined the faith worked?

By it working for them in their lives. By trusting in hope, and acting as if, and discovering that in acting 'as if' the thing they hoped for, happened.

How so, can you give me an example?

I was once a hopeless alcoholic. When I finally recognized this, and understood that it was destroying my life I tried with all my might to stop, and could not stop for even one day. After experiencing this failure time and time again I became completely hopeless and humiliated. My life was over and there was nothing I could do about it.

Having no idea what to do, I turned to Alcoholics Anonymous for help, even though by that point I was convinced they could not help me. When I went to them, they showed me what faith is. They showed me that I did not have to "believe" anything. I only had to be willing to "act as if" I could learn to be a sober person. Because after all, what was there to lose that was not already lost? So even though I didn't believe, and I had no hope, I acted as if it were possible, anyway. And day by day, I stayed sober. And day by day, I began to hope that maybe this could work. And day by day it kept working.

That was 31 years ago, and I have not had a drink of alcohol since that first day. Was God involved? I have no idea. And it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it worked. Hope in action, works. Not always, and not for everyone all the time, but often, and it can work for anyone. God is just an excuse to hope. And to act. And maybe to help us identify what it is we're hoping for, deep inside. Belief is not necessary. In fact, belief all too often gets in the way, and makes us stupid, and arrogant when we need to be humble and open-minded.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because the promise has not been completely fulfilled yet.

Why is hoping for something a good way to determine what is true?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Because you don't know that it's not true, and you want it to be. But most of all, because when we act on what we hope to be true, we can sometimes make it become true. Whereas when we do not 'act as if', it will never be. Faith is hope IN ACTION. And it's the action that produces the results (evidence). This is not difficult to understand when you stop trying to fight with the idea.

Please stop telling me I am fighting with you or with the idea. I am trying to understand your thinking. So if I hope I am a millionaire, that is a good way become one? Hope cannot determine what is true or make things be true.

Faith is not belief. And belief is not faith. Once we understand faith, we don't need the pretense of belief. Or of religious dogma (unless we want it to be true).

I have addressed this already.

Your definition of faith is wrong. And this has skewed your definition of belief, as I am explaining. But you are still a believer (in atheism, now), I think. And so you are invested in your skewed definition of belief. You don't want to give it up.

Why do so many of you apologists like to to tell others what they are thinking? You don't understand atheism. It is not a belief system it is just one response to a god claim. It does not inform anything else about my beliefs. We are probably done here because we don't agree of the definition of belief.

By it working for them in their lives. By trusting in hope, and acting as if, and discovering that in acting 'as if' the thing they hoped for, happened.

What do you mean by "working for them"? Acting as if something is true when you are unconvinced it is true, is a dishonest way to live. As Seth said he wants to live an authentic life, I do too, hoping for things to be true is not living an authentic life.

I was once a hopeless alcoholic. When I finally recognized this, and understood that it was destroying my life I tried with all my might to stop, and could not stop for even one day. After experiencing this failure time and time again I became completely hopeless and humiliated. My life was over and there was nothing I could do about it.

Having no idea what to do, I turned to Alcoholics Anonymous for help, even though by that point I was convinced they could not help me. When I went to them, they showed me what faith is. They showed me that I did not have to "believe" anything. I only had to be willing to "act as if" I could learn to be a sober person. Because after all, what was there to lose that was not already lost? So even though I didn't believe, and I had no hope, I acted as if it were possible, anyway. And day by day, I stayed sober. And day by day, I began to hope that maybe this could work. And day by day it kept working.

That was 31 years ago, and I have not had a drink of alcohol since that first day. Was God involved? I have no idea. And it doesn't really matter. All that matters is that it worked. Hope in action, works. Not always, and not for everyone all the time, but often, and it can work for anyone. God is just an excuse to hope. And to act. And maybe to help us identify what it is we're hoping for, deep inside. Belief is not necessary. In fact, belief all too often gets in the way, and makes us stupid, and arrogant when we need to be humble and open-minded.

Good story, I am glad it helped you. Why do you attribute the success to hope and not the program itself? I see no need to use hope as a strategy as there are better methods to accomplish goals and change in my life.

 

[PureX]

Please stop telling me I am fighting with you or with the idea. I am trying to understand your thinking. So if I hope I am a millionaire, that is a good way become one? Hope cannot determine what is true or make things be true.

This has nothing to do with what is true. It's about what could be true. There are many things we humans cannot know to be true or untrue. Yet we still have to decide how to deal with these unknowns in our lives. And this is the time for faith. We can decide what we hope to be true, and act as if it is true, and see what comes of it.

Wanting to know what we can't know is just an ego desire. And presuming to know what we can't know is 'belief' based on that ego desire.

Faith is the way to get past this egotism.

I have addressed this already.

Why do so many of you apologists like to to tell others what they are thinking?

Why can't you just accept that this criticism is in response to what you wrote? No one is reading your mind, or pretending to.

You don't understand atheism. It is not a belief system it is just one response to a god claim. It does not inform anything else about my beliefs. We are probably done here because we don't agree of the definition of belief.

What do you mean by "working for them"? Acting as if something is true when you are unconvinced it is true, is a dishonest way to live.

Why. Please point out this dishonesty. Why must we be convinced something is true before we can act on it?

As Seth said he wants to live an authentic life, I do too, hoping for things to be true is not living an authentic life.

Of course it is, and we all do it all the time. We have to because we rarely ever know what is true.

Good story, I am glad it helped you. Why do you attribute the success to hope and not the program itself? I see no need to use hope as a strategy as there are better methods to accomplish goals and change in my life.

See, this is an example of you really trying hard to find a way to fight with the obvious because you really don't want to recognize it.