Atheist; wish I could believe

[Koldo]

You did not ask me but I'm going to "put my oar in" on this question. Forgive me if you already know all about this but when discussing this topic, the story of the blind men and the elephant is something I try to keep in mind.

There are many interesting perspectives on Eastern thought but here's one: From my main perspective a key question that I asked and many ask is "if there is a loving God, why is there suffering in the world and why doesn't God do something about it". For me, the ideas of reincarnation and karma are essential to answer those questions about God.

There are many different questions and answers around this area but here's one partial point: if someone kills another person they might be killed by that person in a future life. Or maybe they have to save the life of that person in a future life to balance the karma. A less drastic example - before I was married people would tell my wife and I that we fought like an old married couple so we should get married so the fights would be "legal". I'm sure we picked up where we left off in an earlier life and now after many years, we're best friends. But the interim had some rough years.

It's interesting to me that the Bible has a poetic statement about karma "As ye sow, so shall ye reap".

The problem is, of course, that this answer leads to other questions and answers that have a set of issues on their own.
For starters, I find it improper to say that Brahman is a loving god.

 

[Muffled]

I know what you are trying to say. You are trying to change the interpretation that has been taught for the last 600 years or so. Instead of 6 days, you want to claim it is 6 time periods or some other nonsense.

I went to sunday school, attended private christian schools and went on to bible college. My parents are missionaries. So I have a pretty good idea what the bible says and how it has been taught.

But yes. If you choose to change the interpretation to fit the facts then of course you can sort of make it work. But, like it or not, the bible is clear. 7 days, and then it offers a handy genealogy going from adam to jesus. (According to my grandmother, who was a genealogist, she could trace our family back to Adam.)

But on both ends it makes no sense from a factual perspective. There is no way the world was made in 7 days, but even ignoring that, there is no way there is only 10,000 years (give or take) between the first man and my grandmother. The first you might write off as interpretation. But the genealogy is about as clear cut as they come.

I believe that would be a stretch. My power to change things is quite limited.

I believe I am not doing that.

I beleive I have Jesus.

I believe logic is not ambiguous. It either works or it doesn't. Clarity is a fantasy not based on logic.

I believe this is a false interpretation. I believe the seven days and Adam's race are not connected except by some similarities. I agree there is some ambiguity in the statement that separates the two Genesis accounts but the tip should be the word "generations" which is also an ambiguous word which can mean many cycles of people being born or simply beginnings. In other words it is reasonable to construe genereations as a multitude of years between the first creation and Adam.

I believe I am also a genealogist and have seen such supposed tracing but most of the time there is not enough evidence to give it any credibility. Most commentators trace Adam back to c 5000BC but there are gaps and differeing views of how many years the gaps contain. If one wishes to look at evidence outside the Bible both Greek and Norse myth claim the leader created man from the earth. Those supposed gods would view it that way because they came from the stars and because Adam actually was resurrected out of the earth. Cloning would be my guess and it is not too far a stretch to believe an advanced alien race could do it.

I believe God could do it in a second but whether the seven days are actual days or not does not matter much.

I believe that depends on whether the roots are Adamic or Caucasian or both and not African. The African race probably goes back a lot longer than 10,000 years. Probably the Adamic race does also but who knows how long it was extinct before it was resurrected. The Caucasian race goes back to 10,000 BC according to DNA testing which would make it 12,000 years on earth.

 

[Underhill]

I believe that would be a stretch. My power to change things is quite limited.

I believe I am not doing that.

I beleive I have Jesus.

I believe logic is not ambiguous. It either works or it doesn't. Clarity is a fantasy not based on logic.

I believe this is a false interpretation. I believe the seven days and Adam's race are not connected except by some similarities. I agree there is some ambiguity in the statement that separates the two Genesis accounts but the tip should be the word "generations" which is also an ambiguous word which can mean many cycles of people being born or simply beginnings. In other words it is reasonable to construe genereations as a multitude of years between the first creation and Adam.

I believe I am also a genealogist and have seen such supposed tracing but most of the time there is not enough evidence to give it any credibility. Most commentators trace Adam back to c 5000BC but there are gaps and differeing views of how many years the gaps contain. If one wishes to look at evidence outside the Bible both Greek and Norse myth claim the leader created man from the earth. Those supposed gods would view it that way because they came from the stars and because Adam actually was resurrected out of the earth. Cloning would be my guess and it is not too far a stretch to believe an advanced alien race could do it.

I believe God could do it in a second but whether the seven days are actual days or not does not matter much.

I believe that depends on whether the roots are Adamic or Caucasian or both and not African. The African race probably goes back a lot longer than 10,000 years. Probably the Adamic race does also but who knows how long it was extinct before it was resurrected. The Caucasian race goes back to 10,000 BC according to DNA testing which would make it 12,000 years on earth.

You can believe whatever you like. I am talking about what the bible actually says. You know, the foundation of christian belief. If you choose to throw that out... that is your prerogative. But you also undermine the faith as without the bible, the christian faith doesn't exist.

When it says
"1 Adam begat Seth; and Seth, Enos, [Adam, Seth, Enos,]

2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,

3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,

4 Noe, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, and Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.

6 Forsooth the sons of Gomer were Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

7 And the sons of Javan were Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

8 The sons of Ham were Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan...."

And on and on and on... it doesn't leave a lot of room for translation or ambiguity.

I would also point out that the book of Revelations frowns on you adding to the bible.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Not that I care, I think it's all hogwash. But as a believer I would think you might find that important.

 

[Lyndon]

How could the writer of Revelation possibly be referring to adding to the Bible when the Bible didn't even exist as a book when Revelation was written, try getting your facts straight!! Another case of non believers trying to get all religious on us, and failing.

 

[Muffled]

You can believe whatever you like. I am talking about what the bible actually says. You know, the foundation of christian belief. If you choose to throw that out... that is your prerogative. But you also undermine the faith as without the bible, the christian faith doesn't exist.

When it says
"1 Adam begat Seth; and Seth, Enos, [Adam, Seth, Enos,]

2 Kenan, Mahalaleel, Jered,

3 Henoch, Methuselah, Lamech,

4 Noe, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

5 The sons of Japheth were Gomer, Magog, Madai, and Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.

6 Forsooth the sons of Gomer were Ashchenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah.

7 And the sons of Javan were Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.

8 The sons of Ham were Cush, and Mizraim, Put, and Canaan...."

And on and on and on... it doesn't leave a lot of room for translation or ambiguity.

I would also point out that the book of Revelations frowns on you adding to the bible.

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Not that I care, I think it's all hogwash. But as a believer I would think you might find that important.

I believe the on and on is where you will find the ambiguity but in any case you are only talking about the Adamic race which only goes back about 7,000 years to its resurrection.

I believe you should understand that a correct interpetaion of "this book" would be in refeence to the Book of revelation. Besides that the Bible is not being changed only interpreted.

I believe your thinking is based on fantasy and the evidence is to the contrary.

I believe as a believer I find jesus important.

 

[Muffled]

How could the writer of Revelation possibly be referring to adding to the Bible when the Bible didn't even exist as a book when Revelation was written, try getting your facts straight!! Another case of non believers trying to get all religious on us, and failing.

I believe he may have been brought up on the concept that the Canon is closed. I think that is reasonable since Jesus has no plans to add to it.

 

[Lyndon]

The Canon didn't exist when Revelation was written, the Canon wasn't formed until about 400AD until then no one knew which gospels and books would be included in the Bible and which wouldn't.

 

[Underhill]

How could the writer of Revelation possibly be referring to adding to the Bible when the Bible didn't even exist as a book when Revelation was written, try getting your facts straight!! Another case of non believers trying to get all religious on us, and failing.

A great many people believe that the same status applies to the entire bible. Being that these people believe the word of god is inspired, and thus the perfect word from god, the date of these books being combined is irrelevant to them.

 

[Underhill]

I believe the on and on is where you will find the ambiguity but in any case you are only talking about the Adamic race which only goes back about 7,000 years to its resurrection.

I believe you should understand that a correct interpetaion of "this book" would be in refeence to the Book of revelation. Besides that the Bible is not being changed only interpreted.

I believe your thinking is based on fantasy and the evidence is to the contrary.

I believe as a believer I find jesus important.

There is no ambiguity in Chronicles. It is about as clear as any genealogy ever written.

As I said, you can believe what you like. But the bible is a simple book. Many choose to take it literally and most have since the dawn of christianity. Taking a different path is fine. But at what point does the bible become irrelivent? When 5% of it has to be "reinterpreted"? ( I think we are well beyond that now.) How about 20? Would 50 do it? At some point the book becomes a guideline and doctrine becomes fairy tale. As such, it's a pretty good book. I even like most of what Jesus had to say.

But counting on a 2000 year old book that is seeing constant revision... as the be all, end all answer you stake your entire life on... seems a bit risky.

 

[Unification]

I know what you are trying to say. You are trying to change the interpretation that has been taught for the last 600 years or so. Instead of 6 days, you want to claim it is 6 time periods or some other nonsense.

I went to sunday school, attended private christian schools and went on to bible college. My parents are missionaries. So I have a pretty good idea what the bible says and how it has been taught.

But yes. If you choose to change the interpretation to fit the facts then of course you can sort of make it work. But, like it or not, the bible is clear. 7 days, and then it offers a handy genealogy going from adam to jesus. (According to my grandmother, who was a genealogist, she could trace our family back to Adam.)

But on both ends it makes no sense from a factual perspective. There is no way the world was made in 7 days, but even ignoring that, there is no way there is only 10,000 years (give or take) between the first man and my grandmother. The first you might write off as interpretation. But the genealogy is about as clear cut as they come.

We do a splendid job tracing back from the atom to the human being with the breath of energetic life and mind. All families and everything can be traced back to the atom that was fruitful and multiplied.

 

[Muffled]

There is no ambiguity in Chronicles. It is about as clear as any genealogy ever written.

As I said, you can believe what you like. But the bible is a simple book. Many choose to take it literally and most have since the dawn of christianity. Taking a different path is fine. But at what point does the bible become irrelivent? When 5% of it has to be "reinterpreted"? ( I think we are well beyond that now.) How about 20? Would 50 do it? At some point the book becomes a guideline and doctrine becomes fairy tale. As such, it's a pretty good book. I even like most of what Jesus had to say.

But counting on a 2000 year old book that is seeing constant revision... as the be all, end all answer you stake your entire life on... seems a bit risky.

I believe what is written is clearly there but when one tries to do the tracing of generations there are gaps.

i believe the Bible is simple in some cases and very sophisticated in other cases. At least my wife found it incomprehensible.

I believe the Bible can't be taken literally in total because there are made up stories in it (parables).

I believe never.

I believe the Bible only has to be re-interpreted when people get wild and crazy ideas about it leading to mis-interpretation.

I believe I see no evidence of this.

I believe the God who is author of the book is totally dependable and current.

I believe that is because you want to be ruler of the universe instead of God. A person who accepts God accepts everything He says.

 

[Underhill]

I believe what is written is clearly there but when one tries to do the tracing of generations there are gaps.

i believe the Bible is simple in some cases and very sophisticated in other cases. At least my wife found it incomprehensible.

I believe the Bible can't be taken literally in total because there are made up stories in it (parables).

I believe never.

I believe the Bible only has to be re-interpreted when people get wild and crazy ideas about it leading to mis-interpretation.

I believe I see no evidence of this.

I believe the God who is author of the book is totally dependable and current.

I believe that is because you want to be ruler of the universe instead of God. A person who accepts God accepts everything He says.

Yes, I have no doubt that someone who believes unequivocally will have no problem believing unequivocally.

 

[Muffled]

The Canon didn't exist when Revelation was written, the Canon wasn't formed until about 400AD until then no one knew which gospels and books would be included in the Bible and which wouldn't.

I don't know when the Apochrypha became part of the Canon but Protestants definitely decided it shouldn't be. So as far as Protestants are concerned the Canon became final after the reformation.

 

[Muffled]

Yes, I have no doubt that someone who believes unequivocally will have no problem believing unequivocally.

I believe it is a reasonable teaching and I used the same verse in another string.

2Co 10:5 casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;

 

[Underhill]

I believe it is a reasonable teaching and I used the same verse in another string.

2Co 10:5 casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ;

So without imagination or anything else that might impugn your faith, you are captive to the faith. Sounds about right.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hello! First post here. I am a woman, early twenties, atheist. It's been some time now, a couple of years maybe, that I've found myself in a weird situation that looks like it's shared by a number of people.

I was raised culturally Catholic by a vaguely observant mother and a non-observant, completely disinterested
father. I remember being bored and skeptic during religion class in elementary school already (also cracking
blasphemous jokes about The Jesus, which landed me in trouble in various occasions) and when I was about 11 I just declared I didn't believe in any of that stuff and that I was an atheist. My parents basically shrugged. I spent the following few years being the obnoxious atheist kid trying to 'convert' people to the brave new godless world I had discovered for myself. When I got to about 17 I had gotten all of the militant attitude out of my system and I just kept quiet about my lack of belief. It also became dramatically easier when everybody around me declared their atheism too. I'm not lying when I say that about eighty percent of people in my social circles are atheists or pretty hard agnostics (although ours is a historically deeply Catholic European country).

I've always been deeply interested about religion. At first in a combative, know-your-enemy way when I was twelve or thirteen, and later on from philosophical, historical, anthropological standpoints. It's been a couple of years now that I've found myself living the reluctant atheist paradox.

I believe that atheism has been wildly over-rated, as far as human happiness goes. I would gladly swap my sadly unwavering belief in science and rationality and Russell's teapot for the warm comfort of believing in some kind of higher power permeating all matter visible and invisible. I wish there was a Creator, and that I could believe in it, and pay tribute to it; but what I feel is also not about a personal God per se, if that makes any sense. I could be content, I think, even believing in a Spinozian God, the pantheist type. I feel actual longing for the ritualistic aspect of religion, the act of elevating every day to the divine through rites, and coming together with other people, sharing a community, a deeply felt idea, instead of just counting 'paper-thin' days down till the end, as a lone atom without any bonds to a higher, older, holier kind of community that predates my birth and will exist after me. I guess it's not even about the afterlife. I'm not afraid of death, the nothingness (although I do feel a bitter pang when I consider the annihilation without chance of return or reunion of everyone I love). I guess I just dearly wish there was more to this physical realm: sense, truth, some kind of reason for it all, or purpose, something under, between, the matter, a coherent principle; that I could believe in the existance of this principle, and that I could truthfully and joyfully pay my tributes to it.

There is also another level to my longing, in the sense that religion is just so damn fascinating and bizarre and beautiful. I can't help but be fascinated by the religious (and observant) mindset and envious, in some ways, of the richness, depths and beauty of its best manifestations (although that doesn't stop me from being annoyed and horrified by the horrors and backwardness inflicted on the rest of humankind by the fundamentalists).

The funny thing is that I think the turning point for me was watching a pretty popular movie, The Believer, the one with Ryan Gosling as a Nazi self-hating Jew. There's that part towards the end where Gosling's girlfriend, who is like the daughter of bonafide fascists, and who is sliding into Judaism for no logical reason other than an unexplicable urge, says something like 'What if surrendering to God is the best feeling we could ever have'. What if it is?

Every time I pass in front of the local synagogue [to be clear: there is no link between the movie's subject and my interest in Judaism] I get this nonsensical desire to just go inside and try with all my might to believe, to feel it, to lose myself into it. Or just go to a service and bask in the atmosphere. And then I remember I am an atheist, and feel like a weirdo and a fraud.

I am aware this is completely bizarre but some long Google searches have told me it's not really unheard of, so... I guess the questions are:

- am I, and the people who think like me, total loonies?
- does this make any sense to any of you? I guess this one is a question especially for the atheists who may be reading
- any thoughts from the theist side of the barricade?
- is this all a cry from a lost soul in the liquid world described by Zygmunt Bauman?

You are of course welcome to believe anything you wish. I do not quite understand why trying to believe in a non-existent supernatural being can make you happier. I don't get that part. If you are not happy, it would be better to figure out why you are unhappy rather than hope for the placebe effect. I am a long time atheist and I am as happy as the next fellow.

 

[ArtieE]

Every time I pass in front of the local synagogue [to be clear: there is no link between the movie's subject and my interest in Judaism] I get this nonsensical desire to just go inside and try with all my might to believe, to feel it, to lose myself into it. Or just go to a service and bask in the atmosphere. And then I remember I am an atheist, and feel like a weirdo and a fraud.

I am aware this is completely bizarre but some long Google searches have told me it's not really unheard of, so... I guess the questions are:

- am I, and the people who think like me, total loonies?
- does this make any sense to any of you? I guess this one is a question especially for the atheists who may be reading
- any thoughts from the theist side of the barricade?
- is this all a cry from a lost soul in the liquid world described by Zygmunt Bauman?

Read this article. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/believe.aspx

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Hello! First post here. I am a woman, early twenties, atheist. It's been some time now, a couple of years maybe, that I've found myself in a weird situation that looks like it's shared by a number of people.

I was raised culturally Catholic by a vaguely observant mother and a non-observant, completely disinterested
father. I remember being bored and skeptic during religion class in elementary school already (also cracking
blasphemous jokes about The Jesus, which landed me in trouble in various occasions) and when I was about 11 I just declared I didn't believe in any of that stuff and that I was an atheist. My parents basically shrugged. I spent the following few years being the obnoxious atheist kid trying to 'convert' people to the brave new godless world I had discovered for myself. When I got to about 17 I had gotten all of the militant attitude out of my system and I just kept quiet about my lack of belief. It also became dramatically easier when everybody around me declared their atheism too. I'm not lying when I say that about eighty percent of people in my social circles are atheists or pretty hard agnostics (although ours is a historically deeply Catholic European country).

I've always been deeply interested about religion. At first in a combative, know-your-enemy way when I was twelve or thirteen, and later on from philosophical, historical, anthropological standpoints. It's been a couple of years now that I've found myself living the reluctant atheist paradox.

I believe that atheism has been wildly over-rated, as far as human happiness goes. I would gladly swap my sadly unwavering belief in science and rationality and Russell's teapot for the warm comfort of believing in some kind of higher power permeating all matter visible and invisible. I wish there was a Creator, and that I could believe in it, and pay tribute to it; but what I feel is also not about a personal God per se, if that makes any sense. I could be content, I think, even believing in a Spinozian God, the pantheist type. I feel actual longing for the ritualistic aspect of religion, the act of elevating every day to the divine through rites, and coming together with other people, sharing a community, a deeply felt idea, instead of just counting 'paper-thin' days down till the end, as a lone atom without any bonds to a higher, older, holier kind of community that predates my birth and will exist after me. I guess it's not even about the afterlife. I'm not afraid of death, the nothingness (although I do feel a bitter pang when I consider the annihilation without chance of return or reunion of everyone I love). I guess I just dearly wish there was more to this physical realm: sense, truth, some kind of reason for it all, or purpose, something under, between, the matter, a coherent principle; that I could believe in the existance of this principle, and that I could truthfully and joyfully pay my tributes to it.

There is also another level to my longing, in the sense that religion is just so damn fascinating and bizarre and beautiful. I can't help but be fascinated by the religious (and observant) mindset and envious, in some ways, of the richness, depths and beauty of its best manifestations (although that doesn't stop me from being annoyed and horrified by the horrors and backwardness inflicted on the rest of humankind by the fundamentalists).

The funny thing is that I think the turning point for me was watching a pretty popular movie, The Believer, the one with Ryan Gosling as a Nazi self-hating Jew. There's that part towards the end where Gosling's girlfriend, who is like the daughter of bonafide fascists, and who is sliding into Judaism for no logical reason other than an unexplicable urge, says something like 'What if surrendering to God is the best feeling we could ever have'. What if it is?

Every time I pass in front of the local synagogue [to be clear: there is no link between the movie's subject and my interest in Judaism] I get this nonsensical desire to just go inside and try with all my might to believe, to feel it, to lose myself into it. Or just go to a service and bask in the atmosphere. And then I remember I am an atheist, and feel like a weirdo and a fraud.

I am aware this is completely bizarre but some long Google searches have told me it's not really unheard of, so... I guess the questions are:

- am I, and the people who think like me, total loonies?
- does this make any sense to any of you? I guess this one is a question especially for the atheists who may be reading
- any thoughts from the theist side of the barricade?
- is this all a cry from a lost soul in the liquid world described by Zygmunt Bauman?

Have you ever considered reading theistic and religious thought and philosophy? Russell Teapot is not a good response to theism, as it treats God as an empirical entity. You could start with Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus and the late antique Platonist, and, if you are interested in Christian thought primarily, move on to the Fathers, the Schoolmen, and great divines of the Church. Or you could start with contemporary writers, such as Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart. I think you will find that there is far more to theistic and religious thought than you suppose, and certainly that the New Atheist hypostatisation of Science as some opposition to it is puerile.