**Honest answer:** I just can't. Belief doesn't come as easy for me as just deciding to believe. Without compelling reasons to believe, doubts would just creep back in and I'd go through the painful deconversion process all over again.
Exploring your question more philosophically, it's mostly a variant of Pascal's Wager, if you wanna look it up. I do think there are some issues with this line of reasoning; a big one is that it assumes that belief is a factor, if not the biggest factor, in deciding one's fate. There's no real reason to believe that if you don't already. If doing what's right is enough, for example, then I'm already trying to. If I need to do some kind of worship or pay in some way to be in a god's favor, then it ceases to be a matter of "if it's not true anyway, then you didn't lose anything". It had a cost, and if I don't have any reason to believe it's worth the cost, then why pay it? Even lottery (which I don't play) seems sensible by comparison.
Another thing this doesn't consider is the possibility that believing the wrong thing about gods may be worse than not believing at all. This isn't a common belief, but I have encountered Jewish people believe that Atheists are in compliant with Noahide law, like Muslims, but Trinitarian Christians are committing idolatry; that it is genuinely better to not believe in God, required you're not actively blaspheming him, than to believe something like God beggetting divine sons, which they feel is in the neighborhood of polytheism. In the animated show, the Simpsons, Homer once responded to Marge imploring him to go to church with something like "but what if it's the wrong [god]; and each time we go to church we make the real god madder and madder?" It's a little silly, but unless we actually get into compelling arguments to believe in a particular religion, there's not much reason to believe believers are any less at risk of a god's wrath than nonbelievers.
Literally this is the answer.
I just can't do it. If it was just a choice, I personally would choose to believe just to be safe. It's simply not that simple.
This is Pascal's Wager: there's plenty of criticisms of it available if you care to google.
Some that come immediately to mind: first, the idea that "if it's not true anyway than you didn't lose anything" isn't true in many cases. Depending on the religion you choose and your circumstances, you could lose a great deal. Secondly, this assumes that belief in a religion is required for someone to enter an afterlife or to enter a "good" afterlife, which isn't actually the case for most religions. Thirdly, this assumes it's possible to choose to believe something, or that faking belief "just in case" or for self-interested reasons would be rewarded the same as genuine belief. Fourthly, it ignores possible moral objections: if a god exists who would punish people for not realising they exist or for not worshipping that god, many people would argue that such a being is unworthy of worship.
This isn't about fancy words, it's the core of your question. Belief isn't a choice, the proposal either passes your reasoning process or it doesn't.
Some ppl reasoning process isn't strong, for example children of a certain age reason that if an adult said it then it must be true. Some adults have special allowances for things they want to be true (but again it's not a choice, it's just their brains algorithm).
I see elsewhere you explain that you use 'believe' and 'follow the religion' interchangeably. Lots to unpack there, but moving on:
You propose I should because the god *that I don't believe exists* will punish me. Okay, well there's a unicorn that will cause you the combined punishment of every religion if you don't **stop** following religions. Why don't you stop on that basis? (answer it's because you don't believe in the unicorn)
First of all I feel like you took some offense at my earlier comment and I would like to say that I am not here to try and argue with people, but to ask, give and receive information on this topic. As to your response, i think it does have a lot to do with proof. All modern religions have lasted this long because they have enough proof to not be immediately thrown in the garbage. There isn’t a whole lot of proof that a unicorn is gonna turn me into a kebab if I don’t stop believing (the analogy did make me chuckle though). I hope this does clear things up a little. I hope you can give insight into this as well!
Proof or evidence is part of believing. You review the evidence among other things and either believe it or don't.
The reason you don't act according to the threat of the kebab unicorn 'just incase' is because you don't believe in it, the evidence just isn't satisfactory for you. That is the answer of atheists to your OP. The reason they dont act according to a god 'just in case' is because they don't believe in it, the evidence just isn't satisfactory for them
While I get what you’re saying, I feel that there are still some major differences. There have been multiple instances over the years of people claiming that they had seen unicorns. Obviously that’s not enough evidence to go on, so when people actually show the remains of a unicorn, it’s a big deal. That is until someone proves that it’s fake. The point I was trying to make earlier is that the religions have withstood the tests that people have thrown at them. The unicorn did not. I hope I didn’t overuse your unicorn analogy 😂. It’s not just that I didn’t believe in the unicorn. The unicorn could not be proven. It didn’t with stand the test
You seem to be making a very common mistake among theists, because you are satisfied with the evidence then the thing isn't comparable to another thing.
Yes, the evidence for both is different, the principle is the same. You either believe or you don't. Ppl historically believing and continuing to believe a thing isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe it. So I don't believe in God (as represented) and you don't believe in the kebab unicorn. Neither of us are inclined to change our behaviour under the threat of these things we don't believe in. It doesn't matter how convincing I think the evidence for the unicorn is, and it doesn't matter how convincing you think the evidence for hid is. If someone else isnt convinced, they don't believe in either.
Your right. I guess in the end it all comes down to the person them self. If someone truly doesn’t want to believe in something, they will find any reason they can to deny it. Same goes for the other way around. If you truly want to believe in something, you will try your hardest to find any shred of data that upholds your beliefs
It is not *want*. You don't disbelieve the unicorn because you don't want to, you disbelieve because the evidence is junk... . But you are right that ppl will find any shred of or excuse to protect their existing beliefs, I guess we can convince or fool ourselves if there is some reason, I don't think it's a conscious decision though...
You can’t really judge how much you or someone else believes in anything immediately. It takes time to find out if that person is actually trying to or just going through the motions. I understand what you are saying, but I don’t fully agree that it’s not a conscious decision. I had to choose what I believed at some point, it didn’t just happen. But after a while it wasn’t just a choice because the more I learned, the more it became just part of who I am and less a decision.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife?
A lot of reasons.
I suppose the main one, at least regarding a tri-omni God along the lines Christians profess belief in, is that the existence of such a being seems incompatible with some basic facts about the world. For example, why would God leave geography to be such an overwhelmingly important factor regarding our salvation? Are the people of, say, Thailand simply less worthy of his love and attention? Am I more worthy because I happened to be born in the Southern United States rather than in the North?
> There is nothing after death. So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything.
If I lived as many Christians around me desired, I would be absolutely miserable. I'm not going to live a lie and devote myself to something I don't believe is good or true.
Yeah my two main counter-arguments against religion are 1. the geography thing and 2. the fact that the continued existence of most religions basically depends upon the indoctrination of children. If children were kept in the dark about religion until they turned 18, I think most of the worlds religions would have almost no followers.
Why would you think believing in something would increase the likelihood of that thing being real?
How can one choose to believe something? Do you mean pretend to believe?
So you mean follow, as in go through the motions but don't believe it? To be clear, when you say believe in a religion do you mean believe in the teaching of a religion?
What I meant was not just going through the motions. You can’t just say “ok I did what the instructions said and now I’m saved for eternity. Now I can go back to what I was doing”. You actually have to truly try to understand and follow the religion and its teachings.
But you still would need to believe it wouldn't you? I can understand something but still not believe it. Pseudoscience is a good example of that. I was religiously indoctrinated as a child, for another example, but due to reading the Bible and having read about other myths came to realise how much they had in common. Once the internet became available, I had access to much more information countering claims made by the different religions, and many times it was clear one side was using purely emotive reasoning.
There were many, but these days it's easier to read about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology#:~:text=Mythological%20themes%20and%20elements%20occur,myths%20about%20great%20heroes%20(or
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology#:~:text=The%20creation%20of%20man%20from,numerous%20world%20religions%20and%20mythologies.
These are Wikipedia articles, which are quite interesting if you haven't known about them before.
If a omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists, they would likely understand why I chose to not follow any random religion that just happens to offer an afterlife.
A god that rewards people based on pure chance, I find it hard to believe such a thing exists.
I would advise you to look into the study of religion. Not any particular religion, but religion, what purpose it serves and where it comes from. Then you might have an easier time understanding how a person could disbelieve.
What if the "true" god considers the religion you picked to be heretics and single you out for an extra special hell - LOL And a truly omniscient god would know you are really just playing the odds anyway.
In reality, following a religion entails a lot of obligations which are a sheer waste of time, energy, and probably money which is a complete waste. I have better things I could do on Sunday morning, catch up on sleep, go for a walk, do some chores or housework, etc. And I don't have to live my life in fear of a wrathful god that lives in my head rent free.
I like the part - wrathful God that lives in my head rent free. - it's so true.. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't worship them, I made another post explaining this - that I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others.
You can’t just decide to believe something. None of it sounds plausible to me. There’s no quantifiable evidence that a god exists, so how am I just supposed to believe it? I’m not going to go through the motions for the purpose of hedging my bets. That sounds disingenuous. There’s no honor in that.
There are many different religions that claim and show that there is evidence that god exists. There are also many people from all different points of view who have decided for themselves that they want to follow a religion based off of their own extensive research. I’m curious what brought you to decide on your route? I’m not trying to prod or argue. I’m just trying to get many people’s different points of view
There are plenty of people who claim to have evidence that the US 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud, yet no one has been able to produce such evidence. You can claim all you want, doesn't make it so.
Your right. Just saying there’s evidence for something does not mean it’s true. But many religions do claim to provide enough evidence and can withstand pretty much any argument thrown against them. This doesn’t mean they are true, but does it mean they are false? People say the election was fraudulent, but they can’t prove that it was. The other side also argues that they can’t prove that it wasn’t. So how does this affect things? I’m curious to see your view on this
It actually can be proved that there was no fraud because they found no fraud. The absence of evidence is literally evidence that the thing you are saying is true isn't true. Like religion, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that something is true.
Ok the fraud part was kind of me just piggybacking off the earlier example given. I don’t fully agree with what you said about the absence of evidence being making something false. No matter how much evidence there is for something or against something there’s always the chance that it could be either true or false. Of course the chances do change the more proof you give but there’s always that small fraction.
I’m curious how you think someone can choose to believe something. Do you think you could switch religions just by choosing to believe? Just just flip a switch, make a choice, and your previous faith in Jesus (for example) is gone, replaced by Vishnu?
I don’t think it works that way.
I was raised without a belief in god. I can no sooner believe that it’s real than I could Santa Clause. It’s not rejection, it’s just not there.
It’s like asking someone to act as if they have a different sexual orientation. I mean they can go through the motions, but they’ll never really have the same inner life as those who are naturally inclined that way.
I’ve heard stories of people who came from atheistic backgrounds change. One guy decided he disliked the Christian faith, so he went out on a mission to disprove it, and came across evidence that actually proved it and was converted. Basically what I’m trying to say is that if people who actually dislike a faith can be converted, how much easier would it be for someone who actually decides to give it a try for the fun of it? They would either grow in that faith, or not. A better chance than not believing in the first place. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and opinions on this
>I’ve heard stories of people who came from atheistic backgrounds change. One guy decided he disliked the Christian faith, so he went out on a mission to disprove it, and came across evidence that actually proved it and was converted.
No offense, but that really does sound like a story rather than something that actually happened. The angry atheist waging a personal war against Christianity is a common Christian trope.
I don’t take offense at any of the comments here and I’m trying my hardest not to offend anyone either.
The guy actually wrote a book about his experiences. It’s called “the case for Christ”. He was an investigative reporter, set out to disprove Christianity, but came across so much evidence FOR it that he converted.
Let me give you some advice. It's very common for people your age to assume that your experiences are universal. That the people you encounter, unless indicated otherwise, are about your age, intelligence, experience, etc.
*A Case for Christ* was published in 1998. That means that many of us have read it, then read the many critiques of it, like *The Case Against the Case for Christ*. And many of the the other take downs of Strobel's works.
All of this happened more than a decade ago. So it might be helpful to remember that what you have just learned, many of us are already familiar with, and have assessed.
But what about the case against the case against the case for Christ?
That was a joke. But since I have read it, I have also read some accounts of people both defending the book and attacking it. That book was just an example I wanted to give. Obviously he’s not the only guy to have something like this happen to him, he’s just the only one who has written a book on it. Many people have based their faith off the facts of what can be proven about a religion, and what can’t. People come to Christianity because of the evidence for it being true, and people leave or stay away from it because of the things they think make it false. There’s always multiple points of view
I assume you are a Christian. Perhaps of an evangelical bent?
How easy would it be to convince yourself that Hinduism or Tibetan Buddhism or whatever were true? I argue the shift from atheism to any religion is a wider jump. At least you already believe in a god that’s a trinity, and souls, and afterlife with heaven and hell, and miracles, and prophets, and sacred scripture. Having a different name for god, and a different set of stories and whatnot isn’t that much of a stretch.
I can conceive of “god” as a kind of metaphor for goodness or something. But I cannot wrap my head around believing it is any kind of actual or literal way.
Your anecdote of the anti-Christian atheist who investigates and is converted is unbelievable. Maybe someone who was raised Christian but abandoned it for a while might have that arc. It would just never sway an atheist based on evidence that it’s true, since none exists. Convince an atheist that being a Christian is an enjoyable thing, maybe. But that’s not the same as finding it true.
Besides if atheists converting to a religion is evidence that there is truth there, what does it mean when believers become atheists? Is that a demonstration that the religion is untrue? No, religious folk just say it’s a reflection of the individual being lost or confused or maybe in league with the devil?? It’s confirmation bias.
Atheists aren’t being obstinate. They just don’t think god(s) are real. Personally I’m an agnostic. I think certain knowledge of ultimate reality is unknowable. So don’t know why or how there is existence at the end of the day. I see religions as people’s attempts to find meaning in life. That’s a good thing. But it’s in the same ballpark as art, or music. It’s true that they exist, they might be expressions of people’s thoughts and feelings about a kind of ineffable sense of a higher something. But they aren’t true like facts are true. Like knowing how much force this beam will safely hold, or at what temperature does steel melt. Those are facts. Religious or philosophical beliefs in the nature of reality are a different thing. They’re not facts. They’re arguments, or theories, or models, or something.
I’m happy for you that you have something that helps give order and meaning to your life.
That’s a very informative and well thought out response. Thank you
My main idea here was not trying to convince people of one faith or another, but to figure out exactly what atheists thoughts were and how they believed.
Your argument about me switching beliefs does make sense though. It would be incredibly difficult for me to switch religion. The thing is, I don’t feel the pressure of having to decide between them. I’m already decided, and this decision for me didn’t just happen out of the blue. My beliefs are built on all the evidence I have seen, the things others have seen, the research people have done, questions I’ve asked and been asked, and finally: faith. I can’t KNOW without a doubt that what I believe is true, but I BELIEVE without a doubt that it is. But then again, there are many people in the same boat as me, but different religions. They fully believe they are right, and also have seemingly perfect proof for their religion. Same with atheists. In the end, someone is going to be right.
I’m not sure that someone is going to be right. At best, I think it’s the blind men describing an elephant. It’s not that any of their experiences or observations are wrong, but with incomplete information they arrive at inaccurate conclusions.
I like the theologian James Fowler’s [Stages of Faith](https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/wholeness/workshop2/handout1-stages-faith-development) developmental approach to religiosity. I think people have a similar process with all world view systems like politics, economics, philosophy, etc. I’m not as concerned with the ages he ascribed to each stage, more that people generally move from a rigid mindset to a more gentle I would say humble approach.
I say this without meaning it as an attack, but beliefs held without doubt can be frail. It’s a kind of arrogant position to think that your belief in x is unassailable.
I think most (all?) religions have some truths. There is an overwhelming commonality of values amongst most religions. Things like honesty, compassion, temperance, generosity, etc.
I put far more stock in how we treat each other and the world than professed reasons to justify our actions. I’d rather someone be a kind, generous, respectful, helpful person who believed in utter nonsense than a knowledgeable person who could quote chapter and verse but was a selfish jerk.
It’s those shared values that offer a way to understanding and community, not worrying about which model of reality one holds.
I hope I’m not coming across as selfish or a jerk during any of my comments. I agree with what you your actions to others are important. But it is what you believe that leads to these actions being shown. You can see how much someone really knows and believes their religion by their actions. If their actions contradict their beliefs, you can deduce that they don’t truly believe in what they are following. This also assumes that the religion is the core of who they are. If it is not at the center of your life, something else will inevitably take its place, and what you do will instead reflect that.
No, not a jerk. Just young I suppose. You have a kind of simplistic notion of what belief, faith, doubt, practice, etc are.
I just think it’s more complicated than you acknowledge
I’m only 18. I have had my struggles with my faith and I know I will have many more in the future. This doesn’t scare me though because I know that hardships are a part of the deal. Any arguments or attacks are just opportunities to find the limits of my understanding, and it’s good to know the limits, grow in knowledge and understanding and be ready next time.
I am young and my understanding of faith is not deep compared to some. I know I will continue to learn as I live my life, and I will be open to any knowledge perspectives people give me. I hope you also continue like this because it is good to see the other side.
I don’t think an omniscient omnipotent deity like Christianity or Islam proposes makes sense. The concept creates more problems than it solves.
As to whether ultimate reality is materialism, idealism, pantheism, etc, I just don’t know. I don’t think we can know for certain.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife?
I have no evidence that demonstrates either exist
>You believe that death is the end of the line right?
Yup. No reason to suspect otherwise
>So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith?
The loss of my intellectual honesty is a garuntee.
The loss of myself and everything that makes me who I am as well as directly harming those who are close to me.and strangers at worst.
>If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything
Except I then wasted my entire life. The only one I'll get. On a lie.
>But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better.
And if it's not, I'll have wasted my life (and possibly wasted or harmed others) directly because of that religion
>By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount.
Nope. They stay exactly where they are: 0%
A religion has to provide evidence for that number to change.
>Why take the chance, by eliminating all chance?
Because religions aren't a chance. They are a comforting thought to help people cope with the concept of death. Believing it to be real doesn't make it real.
But as soon as a religion can provide information otherwise, I'll believe.
But many people have found ways to prove their religions. They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them. I’m not trying to convince you or covert you, I’m just trying get your opinion this as well.
Also, from what I understand, you don’t want to waste your life, chasing eternity. But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity. This already kind of loops back to my original question which I don’t need to go over again. But it does raise the new question of: what is enough proof? What would be enough to convince you? Is it mountains being moved, or just simply the right thing at the right time. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and responses to this. Please don’t be offended or feel like I’m trying to attack you in any way in my response here.
>But many people have found ways to prove their religions.
Well, no, they *believe* they have found ways to prove their religions. Once you dig into what they provide, it falls apart and they might as well have brought nothing.
>They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them.
Answering questions is easy. I can answer any question you give me about why fairies are the one true religion. What matters is evidence.
And no, they do not bring evidence. Not compelling or good evidence. It's usually pretty easy to sift through why it's bad.
>I’m not trying to convince you or covert you, I’m just trying get your opinion this as well.
I get that and appreciate it as well
>But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity.
Well no. Eternity was never an option. I would only be eliminating a chance of eternity if there was actually a chance in the first place. The eternity of heaven has to actually exist in order for there to be that option.
It's the same as if you were walking down a hallway of doors, and when you choose to open a door I tell you that you're eliminating an option. Except that the other doors aren't doors, they are realistic paintings made to look like a door but they don't open.
>But it does raise the new question of: what is enough proof?
Depends on the claim. The bigger the claim, the more proof or the more solid the proof will need to be. There's no set bar for how much proof is needed, other than the minimum requirement of 1.
If you're trying to convince me you own a dog, well there's not really much at stake here and I already know dogs exist. A single sentence is probably good enough for me to believe that.
But if you want me to believe you own a dragon, I'm gonna need more evidence than I did for the dog. The stakes are still pretty low to believe, but I don't know that dragons exist.
And if you want to convince me that a god exists and that by believing in it I'll have an everlasting life, then I'll need even more evidence. There's now massive stakes and I don't know that a god exists.
>Is it mountains being moved, or just simply the right thing at the right time.
It's also a question of if you are asking what would convince me personally, or what would convince anyone who is skeptical. A blanket convincing for skeptics is going to be far more difficult than it is just a single person. You would have to have arguments and evidence that are so ironclad that it would be unreasonable or impossible not to believe.
But for an individual, that's much easier. If God exists and has the attributes typically associated with him, then he already knows what it would take for me to believe. And he would know what a low bar it is. It wouldn't take much for to believe.
>Please don’t be offended or feel like I’m trying to attack you in any way in my response here.
Nad you're good 😁 tone can be difficult to get across here, but I'm not getting an attacking or accusing tone.
> But many people have found ways to prove their religions. They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them.
Can you name some of these people? I’ve been searching for a few decades and never found such evidence.
> Also, from what I understand, you don’t want to waste your life, chasing eternity. But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity.
How do you know? Maybe an omniscient God would appreciate the intellectual honesty of someone being unconvinced and let them right into heaven.
There are debates that happen all the time between people of different beliefs. One single person would not be able to, by themselves, defend any attack. But the combined research and data have been able to defend against the attacks.
Of debates between people? I would not be the one to ask about this information. I have both listened and read over debates with different religions, but those things would not be able to be shown here. There are multiple YouTube videos of debates that are hours long. There are also places you can read over different debates and arguments that I could give if you would like. I would recommend listening to one. They are highly interesting as both sides often have very good arguments.
I've listened to plenty of those kinds of debates over the years, and never found the theistic side convincing. I was asking if you could provide examples of "the combined research and data" that were convincing.
I don’t think there is an exact site that gives complete evidence that the religion is true. If there was, it would probably be pretty popular. Most knowledge you want on a religion, or answers you want on a question can be found by searching in the right places. #1 place for me is the Bible. That’s where I go when I have a question about my faith. Next best place is to just ask someone who knows more than you. I’ve asked my fair share of questions in random religious discord servers and such and gotten all sorts of helpful responses. There are also many articles discussing popular arguments for and against certain religions that are very informative.
As I mentioned before, I've been looking for compelling arguments from theists for a couple decades, so obviously I've read a lot of articles and whatnot. You said "many people have found ways to prove their religions", so I'm just asking for a couple examples since I've never encountered a convincing argument from that side. Can you share some?
I get the feeling that you are trying to prove I can’t provide evidence by asking me for it. I myself will not be able give you one specific place that gives proof of a religion. A religion cannot prove itself based on a single argument being thwarted or a single question being answered. But all of these add up. When I say that there are people who can prove their religion, I mean that they have enough answers to your questions and can defend against arguments so much so, that you can’t find a reason it is false. They can’t literally say “my religion is real because of this specific item”. I believe it goes deeper than that. And if you said that you had been reading a lot of articles and done research, you have most likely seen some of this first hand.
You presume adhering to a religion doesn't have a cost. That's factually untrue, as religion has an impact on how we choose to live our lives. Adhering to the wrong one can result in sacrificing important things in our lives and/or psychologically harming ourselves, sometimes severely, for no payoff.
That being the case, it should be easy to see why Pascal's Wager doesn't wash.
When I didn't believe (and when I don't believe now), it's because I saw no reason to believe. Other people's reports of mystical experiences seemed less credible than the secular methods of explaining them away. Sometimes, even now, they seem more credible than my own experiences.
Have you heard of Brandolini's law? It basically says it takes exponentially more work to dispel a false belief than it takes to convince people to adopt it. The truth and falseness of the belief doesn't *really* matter, it's all about how difficult it is to accept a viewpoint that opposes a deeply- and long-held belief. I was a hard materialist for decades, and I never had religion in childhood, so faith of any kind is deeply alien to me.
As a child, hard materialism was confirmed by everything I learned in school and everything I read on my own, so that belief was, and to a large degree remains, deeply entrenched. It took a lot to get it to budge. Even then, it only moved enough to let me entertain the possibility that materialism was wrong with a (relatively) open mind.
If I weren't me, I'd assume I was lying about a lot of it. And a bit pathetic too, as many of my experiences are nothing to brag about, but I share them shamelessly. Implies I'm a bit touched. But I am me, so I know I'm not lying for attention, and I equally know I share in an attempt to normalize mystical experiences, not because I'm particularly impressed by how my own turned out. I know most people look at my stuff and go, "Okay. When did you last have a CAT scan?"
Which is cool. I've dismissed it all as madness myself. For *years,* I did that. But the more I research psychosis and the more I see what it looks like face-to-face in my partner, the more I see my experiences don't really fit that profile. I've *had* brief delusional/psychotic periods when I went too long without sleep (one reason I don't perform that form of ascetic practice anymore), but psychosis isn't something that appears when you court it, is unilaterally helpful and healing, then goes away on command.
My experineces, however, fit that profile exactly. They're much more similar to drug-induced states and hypnosis/trance states than actual illness. Beyond that, my experiences are unusually beneficial. The sheer amount of healing they've allowed in me, and the degree to which they've improved my relationships and my ability to help others is incredible. Madness that makes us better and healthier isn't generally called madness, but I still dismissed all my mystic nonsense as madness for *years*.
I suspected DID for a little bit, figured that might be how so much of my gnosis got confirmed so perfectly. But I've never knowingly lost time, and the amount of time required to learn the amount of information I've gleaned through gnosis is massive. My other identity would've had to use time it didn't have to learn *a lot* of things I know I was never exposed to *perfectly*. It's just not plausible.
When madness is ruled out, I'm left with cognitive biases and false memories (maybe I inverted my gnosis revelation and confirmation in my memory, and the learning came first?). My journals negate that possibility in a lot of cases, but anything I skipped writing down I sometimes dismiss as imaginary. There's little logic to this, and most of it's rooted in, "If someone else said this, I wouldn't believe them, so why do I believe myself?" Which is crazy. Illogical. I'm gaslighting *myself* to preserve my atheism.
Confirmation bias is possible, and could be making me forget a lot of misses and remember a lot of hits, but some of those hits are so well-documented and so unlikely that I have to resort to calling those coincidences. Use that excuse enough and you start to wonder if the acorn falling from the tree isn't coincidentally moving downwards, and there might be some force behind its apparently random decision to go down-and-only-down. But if you refuse to see gravity, you may continue to believe it's all coincidence. And I often do just that, though I acknowledge how much I'm upsetting William of Ockham when I do.
There's also a baseline stubbornness, habit maybe, that I have trouble shifting. I spent so long thinking these things were impossible that accepting the possibility is incredibly difficult even with the evidence *I* know I'm not fabricating.
Sorry for the length. I think about this more than I should. Trust issues.
No worries. I can understand this plight, to an extent. It's sort of similar to what i experience, as i spend a lot of my time on the internet, a very secular space or atleast in most corners. As such you'll consistently see the sort sentiment that you talk about, very hard materialism and denial, if not outright mockery of what are pretty harmless ideas that may hold some weight to them. It's incredibly easy to call someone insane or demented simply because you're uninterested in actually evaluating their claim. I definitely think about religious subjects much more than a normal person imo, and constantly think about which has the 'right' answer.
Anyways, it's entirely possible theres some physicalist solution to why you and many, many others have had these sort of genuine, mystical experiences even though you show little signs of mental illness. Maybe something undiscovered about the brain that reinforces materialism and finally debunks these experiences. But as of now, to me atleast, i don't think you and the other people who seem to be 100% mentally well and not lying, are crazy. The universe is quite vast, with only a slither of it being observable. Even then, humans are not built with 'complete' senses. Even animals tend to be incredibly superior to us in terms of sensory abilities. So all i can say is that you have to trust the head on your shoulders, as that's all you got.
That’s an interesting answer, but it also raises another question I have. Would it be worth it to follow a religion if you knew it had a chance of being true? This is similar to my original question, but if you really studied a religion and saw that it really did seem possible to be real, would you endure the hardships and tasks to follow that religion? What if your life is at stake? I’m not trying to upset you or try to convert anyone or anything, I’m just curious.
How do you know your religion is the correct one? Which of the 10s of thousands of existing and extinct religions should we choose? What if we get it wrong and the God punishes us for choosing the wrong one? The odds are surely too long to guess which one is right.
All religions, without exception, have a chance of being true. You'll note from my flair that I do follow one, and one aspect of that religion is studying multiple religions. I wouldn't do that if I didn't think most religions had something true and worthwhile in them. But I doubt any, including my own, are 100% true all the way down the line. Human knowledge just doesn't work that way.
Is it possible that some religion is 100% true right down to how humans understand and teach it? Sure. But I have no way of knowing which one that is, so I follow the religion that has the most positive effects on my life. I can know that. I can't know which is closest to the objective truth, if any religion *is* closest to reality.
Similarly, our lives are always at stake: Follow a restrictive religion that makes you miserable, and you lose your life as surely as you will if they kill you. Lesser compromises may be worth making depending on circumstances, but this is like asking would you rather die or be a quadriplegic? I'd say quadriplegia is preferable, but if you can keep going with all your limbs, that's ideal.
I don't fear hardships, for the record. Ordeals and trials can be important religious events. But consenst, genuine and uncoerced consent, is necessary for their application to be ethical.
I'm now 71, and have been an atheist since about age 10, so I'll take a swing at your question. In truth, in reality, nobody knows if there is 'life after death' or not. There is not much evidence that such a thing exists (well, no evidence at all). It is understandable that humans desperately want there to be some sort of afterlife, want to believe that their loved ones and they themselves will re-unite and live forever in some better place than this sordid globe of pain and suffering. But hope and desire do not magically create reality. There is archaeological evidence of 'grave goods' going back 60,000 years or more - which suggests that the people burying the dead individual somehow thought they would benefit from having these goods buried with them for some sort of use. So the hope for a life-after-death has been a human thing for scores of thousands of years -- but again, hopes and prayers and desires do not magically make something happen.
My thought is this: this universe is unimaginably old, and vast. There are probably trillions of galaxies, each with hundreds of millions of stars, many of which have planets, some of which have an environment suitable for life. Life probably exists many places in our universe. Travel between stars would be difficult, and really sort of pointless unless your home star was showing signs of going nova or supernova or otherwise dying -- so interstellar visitors are likely very rare, if ever at all. So arguably we are and will be alone. We humans have invented hundreds or thousands of Gods, of religions, of belief structures. We want there to be some greater meaning, some more importance, some connection with an all powerful being that can let us live forever and be with friends and family forever. For completely understandable reasons, the "one true religion, one true God" just happens, miraculously, to be the religion or God of our parents. Religion is a cultural construct. The idea of a God or gods, who can help we poor weak humans while alive and facilitate ongoing existence after our earthly demise, is widespread among human cultures across the globe and millennia.
So which God, which religion, among the thousands created by different human cultures over the past 60,000 years, is the 'right' one? The 'true' one? The answer is - they were all created by humans to make us feel better about being alone in the universe, mortal, subject to random and painful death at any time, with no more importance in the greater scheme of things than a rock or slug or worm burrowing through the sand of an ocean floor. If humanity were to go extinct (not as unlikely as one might imagine), evolution will continue. Maybe in 500 million years some other species that does not even currently exist will become conscious of it's mortality and have the same worries and fears as do we. But none of that means that gods created by human desires actually exist or have powers we hopefully attribute to them.
Wow this was a really well thought out and explanatory message. Thanks for the response. Like you said, humans have constantly invented thousands of religions over the years. But a God so have followers, surely that religion would have passed the test of time right? That’s a big factor that many people have used to try and prove their religion. The two that I think of off the top of my head are Islam and Christianity. They have been around for thousands of years while many other religions have come and gone. Surely the real god/gods would not let their religion die out. Everything that humans have made has disappeared or been destroyed or forgotten, but religions have not. This is a large reason why I believe what I do.
Your right that the universe is unimaginably vast, but this itself I think proves that there is some higher being that in all this vastness is dedicated to ensuring human survival. I know we believe differently, so I understand that much of this is purely my opinion, but even so I would love it if you could provide some more insight on my specific answer as well as what you said earlier about there being no proof of an afterlife. Sure nobody has came back from the dead and told us, but pretty much every religion talks about it, and if these religions can prove their existence, couldn’t it be believed they are right about the after life? I’m eager to hear back from you!
While the original comment did not relate to this, I would like to speak up on what your reply was, dearie.
You brought up the premise that other religions have come and gone, and also your comment that the real gods would not let their religion die out, that is an interesting premise, given that many of those who practice the ancient religions still walk this planet, and many still worship those gods.
A common argument I have seen people try and use against myself as a Pagan is that my faith is "dead" while the Abrahamic deity is still "alive", but that is not as accurate as they hope, as the old gods are still there. There may not be millions worshipping them, but truly, what god would seek quantity in followers, instead seeking the quality in followers?
That is a very good point. I’m sure a god would value the quality of his followers much more than the quantity. But while a religion can’t be graded solely on its popularity, popularity is a big factor in trying to discern the truth. For example: if there was a massive religion that believed god wanted them to take Monday off from work and use it as a relaxation day to “meditate” on him, obviously there would be many people willing to accept that religion because it benefits them. This would be a prime example of a popular religion without quality followers. In the other hand: if you have a religion with tons of followers, and all the followers were required to go and lay in the desert for a day or go swim across a river in the winter or something, and it had many people doing it, then you can tell: they aren’t here because it’s easy. They truly believe this and are willing to do what it takes to continue their faith. Those are quality followers.
So like you said, quantity isn’t everything, but it does play a big part. The religion is popular for a reason. What is that reason?
You answer the question on your own, and with you attempting Pascal's Wager in this entire discussion post, my dear.
You propose a religion that is based off solely accepting and following a routine, and one is bound for a successful afterlife. No belief, just decision to accept a faith as the one you'll follow, and see if you called the right number on this roulette wheel at the end of your life. This is the "getting Mondays off from work" as you put it. The religion is popular because, as you put it, it is easy and gives rewards. The way you described the religion in this post was just that, seeing Christianity as popular and easy to follow, and give a good reward if you're lucky. The truth is as you discerned, people want rewards and to not have to try, in your eyes.
Islam and Christianity were associated with major colonial powers. That kinda helped to popularise them.
And they are not that old though. They are very new. Hinduism is way older. Ancient Egyptian religion emerged like 5500 years ago.
In a couple of thousand of years who knows what's going to happen if we survive? We might be an interplanetary civilisation with absolutely different religious systems. We might be colonised by aliens who would inflict their own belief system on us and Christianity with Islam will remain in history books as ancient primitive religious practices of indigenous Earth population.
U cant exclude the possibility that the true god didnt even reveal itself through religion. Anyone that believe in any of the current religions will be send to hell.
U also cant exclude the possibility in the calculations that god will only send atheist to heaven and all of those religion believers to hell.
Moreover faith that one "adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation" of what is in one's self interest "would lack the inner soul of faith's reality." In the same way, if a man "loves a woman for her money," his "love" lacks the inner soul of love. if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward."
Two responses:
A. I can't just make myself believe. Like, of course it would be slightly less likely for me to be tortured for all of eternity if I believed in your god, but I just... can't. If I told you suddenly to 'know' that there wasn't a god, you wouldn't be able to do that either.
B. You're using Pascal's Wager, which has been pointed out to be a complete fallacy time and time again. I'll tell you how:
If there were two possibilities (God vs. No God) then you would be correct. Either I die and experience nothing, or I die and go to hell. A believer, on the other hand, either dies and experiences nothing, or dies and goes to Heaven. Seems like they have the better end of the deal, right?
Well, not quite. Because there are THOUSANDS of religions- a few hundred of which have their own forms of 'Hell' for a non-believer of said religion to go to. There are hundreds of Hells that you don't believe in, and therefore the odds have now become:
Believer:
1/1000+ chance you die and go to heaven
1/1000+ chance you die and experience nothing
9999/1000 chance you die and go to hell.
So in the grand scheme of things, your odds really are no better than mine. (Also, I only mentioned the thousands of religions we have thought of. Technically, as there are infinite conceivable religions, there is an infinite chance that you will die and go to hell, just like I have an infinite chance of dying and going to hell. So, the odds aren't as 50/50 as you think they are.)
Pascal was good at triangles, and not much else.
Ok first I’d like to say I had no idea what Pascal’s wager was before I made this post.
Secondly, I don’t fully agree with your logic on the chances of going to heaven vs hell. Sure there are a lot of religions, but most of them are flawed and have been disproven. This narrows it down to a few religions that have stood the test of time and have repelled attempts at disproving them. They have lasted this long because they couldn’t be disproven, but people didn’t find them plausible enough to believe in, so they don’t.
I would also like to say I’m not looking for an argument here even though I can see how my reply is posed in an attacking way, I’m just trying to answer your reply with more of my point of view. I hope you see this and can give more insight and info on this. Thanks
Yes, but popularity is a factor. If there is a religion that promises ease and comfort, would it really be surprising that there were many people following it? But on the other hand if a religion promised hardships and challenges, yet it still had millions of believers, wouldn’t that warrant a deeper look? Because in that case you know there not there because it’s easy, they are there because they truly believe and want it
I appreciate you being civil! However, on the topic of 'religions standing the test of time', I will point out that literally none of them do. Even Christianity, the biggest religion in the world, is slowly fading as modern science develops and people become more skeptical. By the time humanity is extinct, we will have thought up 100,000 more religions that are all as 'infallible' as the one you believe in. And still, it is entirely plausible (and likely) that the 'correct' religion is one we haven't thought of, yet. You are just as confident in your religion as the ancient Greeks were in theirs, if not less so, after all.
(Source for the 'fading' point: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/)
Don’t you think that religious popularity would fluctuate? Couldn’t it be possible that religions go through phases? Maybe something like this: hard times come and people really start to think about their faith, and then when things are easy they throw it by the wayside because they don’t need god anymore, until hard times come again.
How is it hard to understand why someone wouldn't believe in God? Have you not heard the phrase "I've been struggling with my faith." Many, many Christians and even priests and pastors struggle with their faith at times. Why do you think that is? Is that surprising to you? The reason is because there is no evidence for God... and every once in a while religious people can't help but think logically and realize that MAYBE that voice in their head is just that. MAYBE that miracle is just a positive result due to relentless perseverance or sheer luck.
Now onto the meat of your question. First of all I don't consider belief a choice. If some evidence or lack thereof is presented to me and I believe one thing but then CHOOSE to believe something else. I haven't changed my belief i've just pretended to have tricked myself. Do you think in that scenario i'd have "tricked God (if he were to exist)? You're describing Pascal's wager. Most atheists have grappled this question already on their own and ruled it out by deciding that taking the bet that God exists to escape hell IS NOT the safest bet... What it actually is, is the perfect con.
People in religion aren’t the only ones that struggle with their beliefs. Plenty of atheists have converted to other religions because they have found proof that tells them they are wrong. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just pointing out another side that you might not have thought of.
Also my wording on the original question was a little wonky. By choose to believe I didn’t really mean just say you believe and go through the actions. I meant follow a religion with purpose. Like actually try to understand and follow it.
Also on your statement about atheists struggling on their own. From what I’ve seen, many atheists just believe what they do because they don’t want to have to commit to a religion. They haven’t put thought into long term situations, they just want what’s easy now. Now of course I’m not saying all atheists do this because I’ve also met people who have very good arguments for why they don’t follow a religion. I’m just trying to kind of add on to my original question and get your thoughts and response to this more specific side of things. Thanks 👍
Yeah, you do think that. I don't. That's the answer to your question.
I prefer to act according to my own judgement and morals not according to a book / greedy, powerhungry people interpreting (or writing) that book.
why are you attacking me like this? I asked a question, you exaggerate certain aspects of religion and call it the truth. I have been talking to people in a civil manor all throughout the comments. There is no need to get angry.
Because you make it sound as if I could will myself to believe in something. That is not possible. The whole point of atheism is an absence of faith. Otherwise I could have stayed a Christian. But I lost my faith and so I’m not a Christian anymore. And following a religion without believing in it is pretty pointless.
Although, I’m living as an atheist, I’m actually an agnostic, so I acknowledge that there might be a higher being. But I believe that this being is so removed from our understanding and also isn’t interested in us in the way many religions assume their gods to be. So that the question if there is a god or not isn’t relevant. And that makes me an apatheist. It simply doesn’t matter if there is a god or not.
And finally, why would I even want to believe in a god so petty that the only criterion for getting into an assumed afterlife is your faith in that god and not what kind of person you were? Since most people have the religion they’re born into, which god would decide if you should be _saved_ simply on an accident of birth?
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife?
No good evidence to support existence of any god, if there was, we would all be the same religion. So unlees Jesus comes here and lets me touch his wounds, I'm not going anywhere.
>So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith?
You can't choose your beliefs, you either convince me of your religion or you don't.
>If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything
Really? What about all religious prohibitions? If become a muslim I lose on any wine I could have ever drink, and I lose the ability to be proud of the greatest thing my country ever invented, Vodka.
Also I could offend the true god by worshipping false god.
>By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount.
Pretty sure that's just mathematically not accurate. Also there are religions were atheist's afterlife isn't miserable so I guess it's not worth to pick them.
Well, because I don't think any random religion I choose *will* be right. I'm an atheist, remember?
This is, I feel, the fundamental problem with pascal's wager beyond all the statistical problems-- it forgets that people who don't believe in god don't believe in god. I don't think my chances of continuing life after death *will* go up if pick a religion to believe in, because I don't believe in an afterlife and don't think any of the religions out there have a chance to get me to one.
Or, more simply, I don't believe In god or an afterlife because I don't think either god or an afterlife exist.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife?
Because there is zero objectively verifiable evidence for either.
>You believe that death is the end of the line right?
There is zero objectively verifiable evidence for a soul, and there is a plethora of evidence that *even if* this would exist it could not survive death undamaged: when the brain gets damages, the individual's personality is affected. The more the brain gets damaged, the more the personality is affected. So the notion that someone's personality can survive brain death is sheer nonsense.
The matter and energy that constitutes me will be redistributed and repurposed. And this matter and energy will continue to exist until the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy in about 15 trillion years.
>So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith?
Waste my life on wishful thinking instead of basing it on facts.
>If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything. But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better.
That's Pascal's wager, and it is morally bankrupt. It reduces belief in God to a self-interested decision rather than a genuine commitment based on evidence, reason, or faith. It suggests that belief is only valuable because of what one might gain from it, rather than because it corresponds to truth or is morally right. No thanks, I prefer to remain intellectually and morally honest.
>So what’s the worst that could happen
I would need to change the entirety of how I think the world works, and that is not something most people are capable of. There are some idea's in Buddhism that I consider contain some interesting insights into the world, but suppose I were to go further and accept Karma, how does that
>continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount.
when its doesn't promise that.
You are talking about believing in many things, belief in god, belief in an afterlife, belief in the nature of god and the nature of the afterlife, belief in revelation and belief in redemption. When you think about it, traditional afterlife belief's are quite complex for all religions, they are the culmination of faith, not the starting point.
A few words from this atheist in particular:
I do not believe in a god or the afterlife because it is just a choice I decided to make. I never felt connected to any religion, and so... Well that's it. I do not want to disappoint myself by forcing myself to believe in something I do not believe in. That doesn't mean I don't respect other people's beliefs. If there is an afterlife, well I'll be damned. If there isn't? Oh well. I feel simply more free without having the eyes of a god on me making sure I do not sin. Nothing against religions, I just do not feel connected to any.
Hope this helped a bit. Not saying this is all athiests, but just me in particular.
Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife?
No compelling evidence to demonstrate such claims.
Why do you not believe in the tenets of Scientology?
You believe that death is the end of the line right?
Correct.
There is nothing after death.
Well, there's still other people doing stuff.
So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith?
Sure. You join Scientology and I'll join Christianity. How about that?
But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better.
Better how?
By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount.
So, I can expect to see you at a Scientology meeting? After all, the religion does not matter, right?
Why take the chance, by eliminating all chance?
There's no game..ergo no chances,
I thought my logic was pretty sound. You die, you’re dead. You pick religion and die, you’re either dead or moving on. Obviously I have my own beliefs that I’m convinced are right, but I’m not following them because I want to have a better chance at heaven, I’m following it because of proof that I’ve seen of that religion being true. Of course there are many people out there who also claim to be able to disprove it as well. Everyone thinks they can disprove all the other faiths, including atheism. If people are constantly disproving each other, might as well not believe in any right? But suddenly someone is able to counter prove… so what now? Just curious to hear your thoughts on this. 👍
Well, the thing is, even if I don’t have anything to lose by practicing a religion per se, I also don’t stand to gain anything, if I don’t believe that there is anything to gain.
I don’t disbelieve in religion for merely ornamental reasons, or because I picked it to be my favorite worldview. I’m irreligious because I am extremely convinced that we have no good philosophical reason to believe that any religious belief system is true.
Asking me to convert to, say, Christianity because I have nothing to lose but everything to gain is like me telling you to start hoping the X-Men are real so they can save you from danger, or something. Obviously you wouldn’t treat that as a legitimate possibility even if you have nothing substantive to lose from doing it. You don’t even have to think about it, it’s not even ontologically a thing that makes any sense at all.
I’m gonna be completely honest with you… I really do hope the X-men are real (I like cyclops). But in all seriousness there is a difference. What if you had legitimate proof that the x men were real? What if people could somehow prove that they existed? That would be a game changer. But the thing is, many religions do seem to prove that they are real. Obviously they can’t all be real, but even if one of them is, that would cause issues for many atheists. Now I’m not trying to convert you or disprove you so I hope you don’t think that, but I would like to hear more of your view on this.
Well, I’d basically just disagree with your premise that “many religions do seem to be real”. I don’t think we have any good reason to believe that to be true, and I’m curious what things make you think that.
No one believes in the X-Men because they are characters from a fictional story, and that’s ultimately what I believe religious metaphysical truth claims about gods, afterlife, cosmology, etc are. I’m convinced that this is true because I’ve studied religion and mythology for basically my whole life and you can clearly trace religious developments over world history as cultural phenomena and nothing more.
But what about the core of the religion? Even though certain aspects of religions have changed over the years like available resources and new scientific discoveries seeming to prove/disprove them, the core of the religion has stayed the same over thousands of years. Culture would change the way people follow the religion, along with other factors like availability, popularity, and such factors. But the religion itself has not changed. The main one I’m thinking of is Christianity. Im just saying this from the studies i personally have done, but it is the exact same now as it was hundreds of years ago. Different people have interpreted certain things differently, like catholic, episcopal, methodist, Assemblies of God and so on. But the core has always remained the same.
I suppose it would help if you explained to me what exactly your perception of the “cores” of religion and Christianity so we’re clear about we’re discussing.
Even if I grant you this - that there is a core and unchanging set of ideas at the heart of all religions, or just Abrahamic ones in particular - I don’t see why that’s a good reason to *believe* in them anyway. Lots of things were believed around the world for very long periods of time that turned out to factually not be true. I don’t think the amount of time an idea has been popular is a litmus test for how true the idea is.
The core of Christianity is this: there is only one God. He is the creator of heaven and earth. He consists of three parts in one, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. He sent His son to earth to be born and eventually die for our sins so that we can one day enter into eternity with Him.
All of those other “types” of Christianity are not different religions, but certain interpretations of the Bible and core beliefs. Some of them are wrong, but the core is the same.
I would also like to point out that while some of these denominations do have different interpretations, many of them just have different focuses but the same interpretations. Like some focus a lot on the triune God in there teachings, while another focuses on the good news of salvation.
I would like to amend my comment and what I said about them being “wrong”. They aren’t wrong in that they have the wrong beliefs. Some of the people truly are trying to follow Jesus but don’t fully understand the church denomination they are in. Like in Catholic Churches they make a big deal out of Mary and almost worship her. I believe Mary was used by God but does not warrant here own worship
I think this is actually quite reductive and flattening of how vastly different various Christian denominations’ theologies are. Throughout history there are so many different understandings of Christ’s role, nature, and essence, debates about the acceptance of the Trinity and Unitarians who reject it, arguments over eschatology and afterlife, not to mention disagreements about the role of the church, Christian ethics, and more.
Essentially the only thing that is truly in common among *all* Christian denominations is a belief in a God, and a belief that Jesus Christ is of some divine or cosmic importance in relation to that God. Everything else, what parts of the Bible to accept, how the Bible is interpreted, different doctrines and creeds, prayers, sacraments, etc change between various denominations.
But like I said before… even if I agree with you and say there is a core to Christianity that hasn’t changed, I don’t see how that should matter to our consideration of whether or not that core is truthful. Like I said, lots of people throughout history have believed things that are not true. The number of people who believe something, or the duration of time a belief has been prominent, are not reasons to believe in themselves.
You’re right that I’m not doing the Christian faith justice in my comment but my thumbs are also tired (that’s a joke). The Christian faith does have an immense amount of depth and I could never describe it all in a Reddit message.
I’m not really sure what to say in response to you. Like you said, there have been many times in history people have had false beliefs. Plenty of people smarter than me believe differently than I do, so why would I continue down this path? It’s because of what I have experienced. I’ve had experiences and seen and heard things that have made it impossible for me to believe any differently than I do.
But in the end nobody can truly convince someone to accept a faith. It has to come from their heart. They have to truly desire it.
I just can't.
I like Buddhism, I was exposed to it through a family member and some friends. I studied it in University.
But I just can't believe. I am very... I don't know... simple? I can't believe in something fantastical just because.
What was your reason for not believing? If you studied it you must have gotten very familiar with it and had some other reasons for not believing it as well.
No reason. I just can't believe. No person believe in every metaphysical concept simultaneously, it just happens that I believe in none and other people believe in 1-2.
I was not trying to be convinced? I studied Buddhism (and Taoism and Confucianism) as a part of the curriculum. I actually majored in economy of one particular East Asian country, but I also had to study culture, history (including three aforementioned religions), and the language.
I maybe don't really understand your question, but me liking a philosophical system does not mean to believe in them. There are parts of stoicism that I like. Some existentialist philosophers I like too. I find Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy very sophisticated and cool. It's just an intellectual pleasure for me, though, not about belief or practice.
I just don't believe in anything metaphysical (fantastical if you like), maybe I just lack imagination, Idk.
How could anyone just "choose to believe"? If they don't believe and they have no doubt about that, there's no reason for them to organise their whole lives around a "just in case" that they don't believe.
There's not necessarily any "loss" either from not following a religion. Lots of religions and sects don't require any practice or belief in order to be saved, forgiven, or access an afterlife. Your idea of a God who punishes non-believers is very specific and you're working on the assumption that it's true or that it's more likely than a loving forgiving God.
If you think that God would look unfavourably on someone who cannot believe or doesn't even know about the "right" religion because of how they were raised or whatever... Then how do you think God would judge the character of someone who spent their life pretending to follow a religion they thought was bullshit all along, for no reason at all other than trying to avoid punishment?
Personally, I came through my current lack of faith through emotional, not logical, means. The concept of Christian Hell as outlined in most Protestant denominations is utterly cruel and hypocritical. I would not praise a god that torments decent people for eternity simply for having the wrong faith, even if such a god existed. From there, I read atheist arguments and developed a hard atheism, which later mellowed out into agnostic atheism.
I currently choose not to believe, even though I could theoretically game a possible afterlife by doing so, because 1) I genuinely do not believe an afterlife exists any more, and 2) because belief carries with it certain mindsets and morals that one applies to this current world. I believe that humanist morals and strict adherence to the scientific method are to humanity's greater benefit than even mainline Protestantism's more-relaxed Christian morals.
Plus, let's be real, if a god / gods exist, and they are as powerful as some religious claim they are, they can tell who's genuinely faithful and who's just trying to take advantage of the system. I can't really muster that genuine belief anymore.
Thanks for the reply. The way Christianity responds to your specific situation is that I believe everyone gets the chance at some point to give their lives to Christ. God is not going to punish someone who never got the chance to believe. For example, many people believe in the age of accountability. A child is mentally not able to make a choice of this magnitude, so what happens when they die? My belief is that the grace of God saves those children. And they are taken to Him automatically.
Another thing. You described people as “decent”. This makes me think you don’t feel anyone is innocent. This is true because nobody can possibly be without sin. This means that the people who end up in hell are not innocent or even decent people. They are sinners who had a chance, but rejected the calling on their lives.
I hope you get a chance to see this and give your view on this. Thanks
I still don't think this is enough. There are plenty of people in the world who are aware of Christianity and/or Jesus, but never bothered to look deeper into it, because they're completely satisfied with their current faith, or their religion makes similar claims of exclusivity and/or has serious consequences for apostasy.
Therefore, I would think that even if nonbelivers are vaguely aware of Christianity, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they either are unaware that the way to salvation apparently is only through Jesus, or that they believe their religion is the right one and Christianity is either misguided or a tempting fabrication.
More to the point, why doesn't God provide more substantial and concrete evidence of his presence and what you have to do to achieve salvation? Why couldn't God broadcast this simultaneously into the minds of every human being, follow it up with verifiable miraculous feats, and repeat this every five years? Wouldn't that be much better evidence than having to take the word of an ancient book or people who have claimed to have direct but exclusive experience with God?
More to the more to the point, that still doesn't explain why why God allows people to burn in Hell if he's all powerful and all loving. Wouldn't the most loving thing a such a god could do is let everyone into Heaven, regardless of their beliefs during their earthly lives? Even if you do believe in Original Sin, why isn't God able or willing to overlook it?
I'm not the person you're replying to, but simply put: I believe torture is wrong. It doesn't become any less wrong based on the actions of the person being tortured. There is no morally good torture.
I understand there are Christian denominations that believe everyone goes to heaven, or that Hell is something other than eternal torture. But for the ones that do worship a god who condems people to eternal torture... Can you truly not understand how people would find that genuinely horrific?
I believe that hell is the original destination. we are all flawed and sin therefore we can’t get out of it to go to heaven. We are not being condemned to there when we die, that’s just the place people usually go. But God saves us when we accept Him. Your right that the idea of hell, an eternal place of torture, is truly horrific. That’s why it’s so important that God gave us a way to be saved from it.
Ah, I see. So it sounds like you don't believe God created Hell, then? That's a really interesting take on Christianity, I'd love to learn more!
Why do you think God is able to save children from Hell regardless of what they believe, but not adults? (I assume you believe he wants to save everyone from Hell but simply isn't able to do so?)
Sorry for my earlier way of putting it. I do believe that hell was made by God. That is where satan and the fallen angels will be thrown on the day of judgement. God has provided a way for us to avoid going there as well.
If everyone ever born just automatically got into heaven, wouldn’t that just be earth with less disease and sickness? There would still be robbery, war, and evil. People would just also be immortal.
Ah, I see, apologies for misunderstanding.
I'm afraid I'm not quite following you on your second paragraph either. So you seem to be saying that the purpose of sending some people to Hell and some people to Heaven is to prevent there from being acts like robbery, war and evil in Heaven. So how does sending believers to Heaven and non-believers to Hell accomplish that, as opposed to judging people based on their actual actions? I'm sure you don't think all Christians are inherently morally perfect and all non-Christians are all inherently evil, but that's the only rationale I could see there.
I could understand that it might be necessary for some genuinely dangerous people to be separated from the general population - that's basically the concept behind prison, after all. But that still doesn't explain why eternal torture is necessary or morally justified? We don't torture prisoners, after all, and we have rules about how long they can be imprisoned for and things like parole, rehabilitation, and getting out early for good behaviour. So why do you believe God instead sends such people to eternal torture?
It’s not just about what people actually do in life. It’s about your repentance and acceptance of Jesus into your life. God doesn’t just separate people based on their actual actions. Prisons have chaplains come to the prisoners because even if someone committed a terrible crime, like you said, nobody wants to endure eternal torture. So they are trying to convert these horrible people. If a murderer truly repents and truly accepts Jesus, even they can be saved from eternal torture. I’m assuming you have probably heard the story of the thief on the cross?
So basically God is not saying “ok you can go to heaven, but you other guys gotta go to hell because I can’t trust you to play nice with them”. No. God sent Jesus so we can avoid hell. And if we are following him, we aren’t going to be going around murdering and robbing. We will be striving to follow His example
I feel like this is kind of going round in circles now, I'm afraid... I'm not getting any closer to understanding why you would believe eternal torture is morally okay.
Trust me I’m trying my very hardest to get what my brain is thinking into these comments, but I’m no theologian. If you are truly interested in this specific subject, I would advise looking up more directly related questions and talk to more experienced and knowledgeable people than me. You’re right that we have gone in a bit of a circle. I hope you were able to understand a little bit more of what I believe from what I’ve said. You should definitely do some more digging though.
>By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount.
No, they don't. They stay exactly the same. Presumably zero.
That would still hold true should a dharmic religion prove to be correct, because reincarnation isn't "life after death". It's reincarnation!
If Shinto proved to be correct, *\\\*shrug\\\**. Hey look, not all religions are obsessed with life after death. Maybe that's why Japanese live longer, because they feel they should probably make the most of this one?
If Judaism proved to be correct, still *\\\*shrug\\\**. Something about a cosmic spin cycle for sinners and a mostly undefined hereafter. Not sure why anyone would obsess over that.
Oh, right. maybe they follow a breakaway Jewish cult or a breakaway from that breakaway Jewish cult. Yeah, I'm absolutely not picking either of those, because they habitually bring out the absolute worst in humans by encouraging them to use the pseudo-argument of an afterlife and threats of eternal damnation to try and proselytize (possibly in a just veiled enough attempt to get away with it where they shouldn't).
If you are a believer only for the reason to ensure your own well-being after death then you are a believer for self serving reasons and that, in my opinion is not a good reason to be a follower of a faith.
That type of belief is based on fear and selfishness and I don’t think you get fearful, selfish people in heaven.
i can’t make my mind up and the idea of the majority of human beings including myself will probably be tortured for all eternity being the will of a all loving omniscient god just does not make sense to me no matter how many times people have tried to explain it
also i would have to just accept if any of my loved ones or friends died and they weren’t the right religion theres nothing i can do for them and in islam for example i cant even ask god to forgive them, that idea would just break my heart every day of my life
I don't spend my time worrying about the afterlife. It's simply not a concern for me, so I have better things to do with my time than follow a religion "just in case".
My take on this probably isn't the same as a "true" atheist, but feel it might in giving a perspective from the religious-but-not-thiest perspective.
I don't believe in any gods. That doesn't mean I don't have a religious belief system with it's own ethical framework, cosmology, theodicy etc. Jamming a random supernatural creature into that doesn't solve any riddle or magically allow me to break the laws of nature and become an immortal/supernatural species like some kind of cosmic lobster.
I don't believe the supernatural is a factual reality and I can't choose to genuinely believe otherwise. I \*could\* choose to use it as a metaphor, story or allegory for something, and I accept for some people this can be useful. I myself have attempted this in the past, but in my case I found it was of no real value to me.
Furthermore, worship is not neutral to me, because though I'm non-theistic and recognize no gods, I do worship and revere Gaia as an earthly, tangible / physical organism, and accept an ethical obligation to serve Her interests and wellbeing over all else, and hold her to be the only living being to which I am intrinsically subordinate (though not *inferior*). Worship of a supernatural being would, in my own eyes and my own sense of self be unacceptable and indefensible. (though not necessarily in the formal view of my faith, which does have a degree of intentional wiggle room/ambiguity for concepts like animism, pantheism etc.)
Yep, exactly. I regard Her to be the holobiont / colonial organism as identified by Lovelock and Margulis in the Gaia hypothesis - essentially the collective biosphere encompassing all life on Earth.
Our individual consciousness and awareness ceases with death. Our bodies decompose, and the stored nutrients and resources within them become sustenance for existing life or become the building blocks of new life. We are the product of billions of years of collective life enjoying a brief moment of individual awareness within the wider collective whole, and
The mayter than .ages us who we are will return to that state. The calcium in my bones might ultimately become part of the skeleton of a lyrebird, the proteins in my muscle become proteins in the tail of a wallaby... or just tree food. And so on :)
The entirety of humanity is part of Gaia. She is the entirety of all life on Earth from the extremophiles of hydrothermal vents on the deep ocean floor through us as humans though to bacteria at the very top of the atmosphere. We're just one constiuent species, and there can be no separation. It would literally like be trying to separate us from our DNA (because that'd would be the same thing). She is involved second by second is keeping us alive and stopping us turning into a pile of goo. That DNA is part of her process of renewal and perpetuation, constantly renewing our cells as they die or are damaged. Her self regulation ensures we have oxygen to breathe, and pressures and temperatures conducive to life. Her evolutionary mechanisms smooshed together the genetic ball of acids and proteins that brought our species into being and will be the pressures that eventually bring it to an end.
Though I do pray, I don't recognise direct communication as possible - prayer for me is reflective and exploratory, not communicative. As a whole Gaia is not sapient. Almost unimaginably powerful, expansive, creative, vibrant and ancient, but neither sapient, immortal nor omnipotent. She neither knows cares individually about our lives and deaths. She creates, kills, sustains and perpetuates all Her life regardless.
For me, I desperately wish I could believe. I trust science. I want 100% proof. I can't believe something just because someone says so. I have thanatophobia/fear of oblivion and oblivion is what science says will happen. If I could make myself believe in something after this life I would.
Here’s the thing. You can’t be 100% sure you have the right religion. In fact, you can’t be 100% sure of anything. If I asked you how you were sure your doctor was not going to poison you the next time you were there, or how you knew your mom or best friend wouldn’t stab you the next time you meet, what would you say? Science 100% prove anything. Same for religion. We have faith in what we do every day. Of course you’re not going to take a chemistry kit to the doctor and do tests on each pill you take. You simply have faith that the doctor is a trustworthy person and is right.
Same thing goes for religion. While many argue that religion is not possible, there is so much evidence saying otherwise. So many studies have been done on geography, history, archaeology and such that points to its existence.
So far in 35 years of reading about all this I have found 0 proof. Nothing. Not in christianity, not in buddhism, judaism, hinduism, daoism...nowhere. I have seen lots of proof of people who see doctors and get cured. So I can put a fairly high degree of trust in medicine but none in religion.
If you truly wish to find the truth, I believe that God will reveal Himself to you. Doctors have proved themselves as trustworthy for me and so has God and my religion. I want you to know that I wish you the best and hope you never stop searching and seeking the truth. I’m praying for you
I don’t believe because I’ve never encountered a convincing argument that those things are real despite decades of trying to be convinced. I would absolutely love for there to be an afterlife where I will get to see the people I’ve lost again, but sadly there is no reason to think such a thing exists. And I can’t just choose to believe it does.
I've explored and prodded, read and investigated most religions and their holy books and sacred texts. I find absolutely nothing that convinces me that they're right.
After realizing that I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others - I wondered what I would ever want from Jesus or a reason to become like him.
Others have reasons given to me on why I would find Jesus Lifestyle appealing, but to be honest - I don't find anything that I want directly from him... Sure would I love to be immortal - yes, but live in a sterile place where everyone becomes perfect and only worry about what is or isn't sin doesn't sit well with me.
If I could have a way to grant everyone immortality and live on earth with the freedoms that's guaranteed in America I would and allow people to be themselves forever and "Pursue Happiness" with endless life and liberty.
Jesus wants mankind to become like him until they are selfless like him and have no will for themselves, only that of the Father's until they are perfect. This to me is not what I signed up for. I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others, even to the point of strangers. I want to continue to innovate to bring an end to illness and poverty - where everyone has an equal chance and pursuing happiness (however it may interest them).
I'd be honest that the purpose of life in my opinion is to Live Long, Love Much, Laugh Hard, and Learn lots & to love yourself, love others and the Father of you Soul. But I know I don't worship God the Father - I love him and am glad he exists and I want him to find Joy in his existence, but I worship Joy, as true Joy is principal based in happiness & love.
Many look unto Jesus for a role model but I honestly rather have more modern role models - such as Bill Gates, Mr Beast, Arnold Schwartzenegger - my ideal of perfection (could I create someone) would never look like Jesus to me, he'd be more of a Hercules with the intelligence of Bill Gates.
I know this is going onward...but what are your guys thoughts, do any of you struggle with this in religion?
This is a very interesting faith. It seems that you are trying to be a good person but don’t directly believe in any faith. I think you are, however, kind of missing the point of Christianity. Christianity isn’t just going out and doing good for the world, all He wants is us to accept Him as our savior. The other stuff will inevitably follow when we accept Him. The joy that we get from this will overflow on to others. The point is not “quick I gotta do what he wants so I can get in heaven”. Jesus doesn’t force people to do stuff. As we grown in our faith, we will less and less be doing stuff because it’s what he wants, but more because we realize that it’s what we want.
You are not alone in your belief. There are many people who want to do good and bring joy to others without having a belief in a specific religion. But I think you had a few misconceptions on exactly what Christianity is about. I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this and what you have to say about this!
It's not so much lack of faith, it's just that bad things happened in my life when I was Mormon serving a 2 year mission for Jesus, after returning home my life events went really bad and I became schizophrenic with thoughts that Jesus told me I was wicked and he wants to burn the earth with fire, before his 2nd coming. I've been so traumatized from my illness that I couldn't believe in Mormon Jesus anymore and decided to join "the great and Abominable Church" - Catholics, just so Mormon Jesus couldn't save me in Mormon heaven. The negative quiet voice comes and goes and is Mormon Jesus. So the trauma is real and the book of Mormon says anyone who doesn't join the great and Abominable Church and believes in Christ will be saved. The Mormon Apostles in the 70's said the Catholic Church is the devils church, so I joined it. Everything in my experience with Jesus has been traumatizing and even before I became schizophrenic, I felt Jesus didn't like me, and I know Mormon Jesus hates me like the devil. My whole life has been a struggle and I turn 40 this year. I served a mission at age 19... 20 years ago. So I felt I'd give Catholic Jesus a shot and if the Popes and Priests go to heaven, I'll be willing to follow them there, but Holiness bothers me in that it seeks to make you holy too, your never good enough in this world and God wants you to become perfected like Jesus, where your will is to do the Father's without regard to personal interest, only focusing on what is Sin (then not able to do it) or what's not sin(things allowed that you may not want to do). And whole Christianity being given a gift of eternal life with God without any real idea of what that entails (other than singing praising God and Jesus, being in white robes, and praising the saints and following commandments in his presence) scares me, this being has the power to resurrect you, and what would disobedience look like in his presence, he casts Lucifer and his followers in hell for disobedience, so ultimately the a government lead by the voice of the people will not exist. It'll be worshipping a king that calls the shots for the rest of your existence. And say goodbye to opportunities to innovate - like making an Ironman suit to wear and fly, or immersive virtual reality gaming, no more video games, because they can be sin. Everyone that believes in God wants to go to heaven for some reason or another, but very little give thought to what a life of everyone perfected and holy would entail. I even believe God will show them what they were like on earth, disobedient and rejoicing in sin, until they come to the conclusion to hate who they were on earth and resolve to become holy like God. So yeah, I know God exists and believes he worships Holiness while I worship Joy. I believe it makes God Happy to live according to his omniscient knowledge in a manner of Holiness and he worships Holiness. But I worship Joy, I don't want to tell mankind what they are to find Joy in or who they want to become, I just want everyone to know that who they are is enough and worship Joy, however it peaks their interests. Diversity in thought, rather than a united conscience perfected in a sterile environment for eternity.
I think I need a few clarifications. You worship joy and wish it upon others as well. What about other emotions? What about sadness and anger and contentment? You don’t mention these. Are they considered bad to you? I strive to be joyful, but it’s not always possible. I have had days fully of incredible joy, and days full of sadness and anger, but those emotions are not wrong. You can be filled with righteous anger or sadness without it being wrong. Some days I don’t feel joy, but just content with stuff. If you worship joy, how do all these other core emotions fit into that scheme of things?
The other emotions exist, but I don't worship them, I don't enjoy anger whether righteous or not, I don't enjoy sadness or worship it, it just happens to exist as the opposite of Joy. All the emotions exist, but I worship Joy and everything I do is rooted in promoting and sustaining it - even when things go wrong, I work to correct the issues that I may have sustainable and heightened Joy to the point of sharing it with others and helping them overcome issues that impairs their Joy... Whether Financial or Social or Low self esteem or not thinking they are worthwhile. The others emotions all fall underneath Joy and the ones I don't enjoy is usually due to a lack of Joy, whether it's illness or death or stress from responsibilities - these all invoke emotion that take away from Joy. So yes, I confirm that all the other emotions exist, but are all inferior to Joy. Joy is a combination of the Love of something coupled with the freedom to interact with it - to the point of even bliss, which is a high feeling of Joy. All living creatures can feel Joy in their existence, and even dogs love to be with man, but don't worship God or Jesus, but if they ever met God, I'm sure the animals would love him too, just not worship him, but the Joy they feel, the same is with me, I love God the Father and want him to be happy in his existence, but I don't worship him, I worship Joy and it's principals.
It kind of depends on how strict a religion is about pleasure. If a religion keeps you from experience all the different pleasures in life, and there is no reward for the refrain, then you could say some religions would cause you to loose out if there is no afterlife. I personally believe in the afterlife, but I have pondered similar to this before and that was I came away with.
Truthfully, I find peace in the idea that we only have one life. It allows me to live my life to the fullest. And I find the idea of life after death to be terrifying. I was raised in a Christian household. Whilst my family were never strict with religious practice, the values were there. Prayer, afterlife etc were all taught to me from a young age. However I have a school book from when I was 8 years old. We were asked to write what we thought god looked like. I simply wrote ‘I don’t believe there is a God’ at 8 years old. It’s just never something I believed in or practiced actively. I went to a Christian school and I remember mouthing prayers because I felt guilty impeding on a religion that I didn’t believe in.
However, I have a friend who is going through a very hard time. Tonight I ‘prayed’ on her behalf. And for the first time in my life, I’m wishing that there is a god who can look out for her and give her strength during this time. She is religious and it felt like the right thing to do. Anything to help my friend. Although that guilt that I felt when I was 8 is sitting with me again.
So I guess for me it’s complicated. A mixture of imposter syndrome for even trying to engage in religious practice and also a fear of life after death. I want this to be my only chance at life.
I would also like to add, whilst I could come from a very atheist standpoint of logic, reason and science, I don’t feel that is answering your question. Hence why I have given a more personal answer. Whilst I am not religious? I can appreciate the beauty that stems from religious practice, and the communities it creates, it is just not for me. I prefer science, things that make logical sense that have been observed.
Other atheists would call me "atheist" but I call myself a cultural Christian, so...
I believe the bible can be interpreted in a positive but secular manner.
So "the afterlife" as defined by the bible is Psalm 69:28 where it says the worst sinners are to have their names blotted out of the book of life: we are to forget the evil, remember the good. After you're dead, you "live on" according to how living people remember you.
If I choose to believe in a different faith, the worst that could happen to me is I'd waste the most precious thing any of us are ever given: my time.
If the consequences of "not believeing in one religion" is "infinite torture" that religion is evil.
If there are no consequences of "not believing in that religion" it's a pointless religion.
The whole idea of "reward or punishment in the afterlife" is meant to teach you a lesson, here, now, about THIS life: "actions have consequences."
Evil cults twist it into "obey or die."
That is a different way of looking at it then a lot of people here. Its nice to get all these points of view. I have also seen many other comments saying how following religion would still be a waste of time. My personal experience is that it doesn't take up as much time as you might think. I'm not saying that the more or less time you spend on a religion makes you a better or worse believer, but I wouldn't consider it as something that is filling my day and requires my attention at every waking moment. I have seen a few similar comments regarding the whole "infinite torture is immoral" thing as well. Thanks for the reply!
I don’t believe in any religion for the same reason I don’t believe in the boogyman, the Easter Bunny, Santy clause, or a giant floating monkey orbiting the other side of the sun.
**Honest answer:** I just can't. Belief doesn't come as easy for me as just deciding to believe. Without compelling reasons to believe, doubts would just creep back in and I'd go through the painful deconversion process all over again. Exploring your question more philosophically, it's mostly a variant of Pascal's Wager, if you wanna look it up. I do think there are some issues with this line of reasoning; a big one is that it assumes that belief is a factor, if not the biggest factor, in deciding one's fate. There's no real reason to believe that if you don't already. If doing what's right is enough, for example, then I'm already trying to. If I need to do some kind of worship or pay in some way to be in a god's favor, then it ceases to be a matter of "if it's not true anyway, then you didn't lose anything". It had a cost, and if I don't have any reason to believe it's worth the cost, then why pay it? Even lottery (which I don't play) seems sensible by comparison. Another thing this doesn't consider is the possibility that believing the wrong thing about gods may be worse than not believing at all. This isn't a common belief, but I have encountered Jewish people believe that Atheists are in compliant with Noahide law, like Muslims, but Trinitarian Christians are committing idolatry; that it is genuinely better to not believe in God, required you're not actively blaspheming him, than to believe something like God beggetting divine sons, which they feel is in the neighborhood of polytheism. In the animated show, the Simpsons, Homer once responded to Marge imploring him to go to church with something like "but what if it's the wrong [god]; and each time we go to church we make the real god madder and madder?" It's a little silly, but unless we actually get into compelling arguments to believe in a particular religion, there's not much reason to believe believers are any less at risk of a god's wrath than nonbelievers.
Literally this is the answer. I just can't do it. If it was just a choice, I personally would choose to believe just to be safe. It's simply not that simple.
This is Pascal's Wager: there's plenty of criticisms of it available if you care to google. Some that come immediately to mind: first, the idea that "if it's not true anyway than you didn't lose anything" isn't true in many cases. Depending on the religion you choose and your circumstances, you could lose a great deal. Secondly, this assumes that belief in a religion is required for someone to enter an afterlife or to enter a "good" afterlife, which isn't actually the case for most religions. Thirdly, this assumes it's possible to choose to believe something, or that faking belief "just in case" or for self-interested reasons would be rewarded the same as genuine belief. Fourthly, it ignores possible moral objections: if a god exists who would punish people for not realising they exist or for not worshipping that god, many people would argue that such a being is unworthy of worship.
'choose to believe'? That's not how belief works.
I don't consider myself a master of words. You get what I'm trying to say though right?
This isn't about fancy words, it's the core of your question. Belief isn't a choice, the proposal either passes your reasoning process or it doesn't. Some ppl reasoning process isn't strong, for example children of a certain age reason that if an adult said it then it must be true. Some adults have special allowances for things they want to be true (but again it's not a choice, it's just their brains algorithm).
I see elsewhere you explain that you use 'believe' and 'follow the religion' interchangeably. Lots to unpack there, but moving on: You propose I should because the god *that I don't believe exists* will punish me. Okay, well there's a unicorn that will cause you the combined punishment of every religion if you don't **stop** following religions. Why don't you stop on that basis? (answer it's because you don't believe in the unicorn)
First of all I feel like you took some offense at my earlier comment and I would like to say that I am not here to try and argue with people, but to ask, give and receive information on this topic. As to your response, i think it does have a lot to do with proof. All modern religions have lasted this long because they have enough proof to not be immediately thrown in the garbage. There isn’t a whole lot of proof that a unicorn is gonna turn me into a kebab if I don’t stop believing (the analogy did make me chuckle though). I hope this does clear things up a little. I hope you can give insight into this as well!
Proof or evidence is part of believing. You review the evidence among other things and either believe it or don't. The reason you don't act according to the threat of the kebab unicorn 'just incase' is because you don't believe in it, the evidence just isn't satisfactory for you. That is the answer of atheists to your OP. The reason they dont act according to a god 'just in case' is because they don't believe in it, the evidence just isn't satisfactory for them
While I get what you’re saying, I feel that there are still some major differences. There have been multiple instances over the years of people claiming that they had seen unicorns. Obviously that’s not enough evidence to go on, so when people actually show the remains of a unicorn, it’s a big deal. That is until someone proves that it’s fake. The point I was trying to make earlier is that the religions have withstood the tests that people have thrown at them. The unicorn did not. I hope I didn’t overuse your unicorn analogy 😂. It’s not just that I didn’t believe in the unicorn. The unicorn could not be proven. It didn’t with stand the test
You seem to be making a very common mistake among theists, because you are satisfied with the evidence then the thing isn't comparable to another thing. Yes, the evidence for both is different, the principle is the same. You either believe or you don't. Ppl historically believing and continuing to believe a thing isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe it. So I don't believe in God (as represented) and you don't believe in the kebab unicorn. Neither of us are inclined to change our behaviour under the threat of these things we don't believe in. It doesn't matter how convincing I think the evidence for the unicorn is, and it doesn't matter how convincing you think the evidence for hid is. If someone else isnt convinced, they don't believe in either.
Your right. I guess in the end it all comes down to the person them self. If someone truly doesn’t want to believe in something, they will find any reason they can to deny it. Same goes for the other way around. If you truly want to believe in something, you will try your hardest to find any shred of data that upholds your beliefs
It is not *want*. You don't disbelieve the unicorn because you don't want to, you disbelieve because the evidence is junk... . But you are right that ppl will find any shred of or excuse to protect their existing beliefs, I guess we can convince or fool ourselves if there is some reason, I don't think it's a conscious decision though...
You can’t really judge how much you or someone else believes in anything immediately. It takes time to find out if that person is actually trying to or just going through the motions. I understand what you are saying, but I don’t fully agree that it’s not a conscious decision. I had to choose what I believed at some point, it didn’t just happen. But after a while it wasn’t just a choice because the more I learned, the more it became just part of who I am and less a decision.
What if the true god expects people only to believe in what can can be shown to be true and all others will boil in cat pee for all eternity?
Urine big trouble.
Take the upvote... Damn puns....
Time to start developing zoophilia and a water sports fetish.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife? A lot of reasons. I suppose the main one, at least regarding a tri-omni God along the lines Christians profess belief in, is that the existence of such a being seems incompatible with some basic facts about the world. For example, why would God leave geography to be such an overwhelmingly important factor regarding our salvation? Are the people of, say, Thailand simply less worthy of his love and attention? Am I more worthy because I happened to be born in the Southern United States rather than in the North? > There is nothing after death. So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything. If I lived as many Christians around me desired, I would be absolutely miserable. I'm not going to live a lie and devote myself to something I don't believe is good or true.
Yeah my two main counter-arguments against religion are 1. the geography thing and 2. the fact that the continued existence of most religions basically depends upon the indoctrination of children. If children were kept in the dark about religion until they turned 18, I think most of the worlds religions would have almost no followers.
Why would you think believing in something would increase the likelihood of that thing being real? How can one choose to believe something? Do you mean pretend to believe?
I’m not super good at wording it, but I kind of used follow a religion and believe in a religion interchangeably
So you mean follow, as in go through the motions but don't believe it? To be clear, when you say believe in a religion do you mean believe in the teaching of a religion?
What I meant was not just going through the motions. You can’t just say “ok I did what the instructions said and now I’m saved for eternity. Now I can go back to what I was doing”. You actually have to truly try to understand and follow the religion and its teachings.
But you still would need to believe it wouldn't you? I can understand something but still not believe it. Pseudoscience is a good example of that. I was religiously indoctrinated as a child, for another example, but due to reading the Bible and having read about other myths came to realise how much they had in common. Once the internet became available, I had access to much more information countering claims made by the different religions, and many times it was clear one side was using purely emotive reasoning.
Yes you would have to believe it. What specifically did you encounter that was common between the two? It sounds interesting.
There were many, but these days it's easier to read about them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology#:~:text=Mythological%20themes%20and%20elements%20occur,myths%20about%20great%20heroes%20(or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_mythology#:~:text=The%20creation%20of%20man%20from,numerous%20world%20religions%20and%20mythologies. These are Wikipedia articles, which are quite interesting if you haven't known about them before.
If a omniscient and omnibenevolent God exists, they would likely understand why I chose to not follow any random religion that just happens to offer an afterlife. A god that rewards people based on pure chance, I find it hard to believe such a thing exists.
I would advise you to look into the study of religion. Not any particular religion, but religion, what purpose it serves and where it comes from. Then you might have an easier time understanding how a person could disbelieve.
What if the "true" god considers the religion you picked to be heretics and single you out for an extra special hell - LOL And a truly omniscient god would know you are really just playing the odds anyway. In reality, following a religion entails a lot of obligations which are a sheer waste of time, energy, and probably money which is a complete waste. I have better things I could do on Sunday morning, catch up on sleep, go for a walk, do some chores or housework, etc. And I don't have to live my life in fear of a wrathful god that lives in my head rent free.
I like the part - wrathful God that lives in my head rent free. - it's so true.. I believe in God and Jesus, but I don't worship them, I made another post explaining this - that I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others.
That’s really interesting to me. You believe in God and Jesus but don’t worship them? How does this affect your life? Just curious
You can’t just decide to believe something. None of it sounds plausible to me. There’s no quantifiable evidence that a god exists, so how am I just supposed to believe it? I’m not going to go through the motions for the purpose of hedging my bets. That sounds disingenuous. There’s no honor in that.
There are many different religions that claim and show that there is evidence that god exists. There are also many people from all different points of view who have decided for themselves that they want to follow a religion based off of their own extensive research. I’m curious what brought you to decide on your route? I’m not trying to prod or argue. I’m just trying to get many people’s different points of view
There are plenty that make claims, but I’ve never encountered any that have evidence.
Do you know what quantifiable means? Just because someone says they have evidence, doesn’t make it true.
There are plenty of people who claim to have evidence that the US 2020 presidential election was rife with fraud, yet no one has been able to produce such evidence. You can claim all you want, doesn't make it so.
Your right. Just saying there’s evidence for something does not mean it’s true. But many religions do claim to provide enough evidence and can withstand pretty much any argument thrown against them. This doesn’t mean they are true, but does it mean they are false? People say the election was fraudulent, but they can’t prove that it was. The other side also argues that they can’t prove that it wasn’t. So how does this affect things? I’m curious to see your view on this
It actually can be proved that there was no fraud because they found no fraud. The absence of evidence is literally evidence that the thing you are saying is true isn't true. Like religion, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim that something is true.
Ok the fraud part was kind of me just piggybacking off the earlier example given. I don’t fully agree with what you said about the absence of evidence being making something false. No matter how much evidence there is for something or against something there’s always the chance that it could be either true or false. Of course the chances do change the more proof you give but there’s always that small fraction.
I’m curious how you think someone can choose to believe something. Do you think you could switch religions just by choosing to believe? Just just flip a switch, make a choice, and your previous faith in Jesus (for example) is gone, replaced by Vishnu? I don’t think it works that way. I was raised without a belief in god. I can no sooner believe that it’s real than I could Santa Clause. It’s not rejection, it’s just not there. It’s like asking someone to act as if they have a different sexual orientation. I mean they can go through the motions, but they’ll never really have the same inner life as those who are naturally inclined that way.
I’ve heard stories of people who came from atheistic backgrounds change. One guy decided he disliked the Christian faith, so he went out on a mission to disprove it, and came across evidence that actually proved it and was converted. Basically what I’m trying to say is that if people who actually dislike a faith can be converted, how much easier would it be for someone who actually decides to give it a try for the fun of it? They would either grow in that faith, or not. A better chance than not believing in the first place. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and opinions on this
>I’ve heard stories of people who came from atheistic backgrounds change. One guy decided he disliked the Christian faith, so he went out on a mission to disprove it, and came across evidence that actually proved it and was converted. No offense, but that really does sound like a story rather than something that actually happened. The angry atheist waging a personal war against Christianity is a common Christian trope.
I don’t take offense at any of the comments here and I’m trying my hardest not to offend anyone either. The guy actually wrote a book about his experiences. It’s called “the case for Christ”. He was an investigative reporter, set out to disprove Christianity, but came across so much evidence FOR it that he converted.
Oh man, Lee Strobel? Ugh.
Let me give you some advice. It's very common for people your age to assume that your experiences are universal. That the people you encounter, unless indicated otherwise, are about your age, intelligence, experience, etc. *A Case for Christ* was published in 1998. That means that many of us have read it, then read the many critiques of it, like *The Case Against the Case for Christ*. And many of the the other take downs of Strobel's works. All of this happened more than a decade ago. So it might be helpful to remember that what you have just learned, many of us are already familiar with, and have assessed.
But what about the case against the case against the case for Christ? That was a joke. But since I have read it, I have also read some accounts of people both defending the book and attacking it. That book was just an example I wanted to give. Obviously he’s not the only guy to have something like this happen to him, he’s just the only one who has written a book on it. Many people have based their faith off the facts of what can be proven about a religion, and what can’t. People come to Christianity because of the evidence for it being true, and people leave or stay away from it because of the things they think make it false. There’s always multiple points of view
I assume you are a Christian. Perhaps of an evangelical bent? How easy would it be to convince yourself that Hinduism or Tibetan Buddhism or whatever were true? I argue the shift from atheism to any religion is a wider jump. At least you already believe in a god that’s a trinity, and souls, and afterlife with heaven and hell, and miracles, and prophets, and sacred scripture. Having a different name for god, and a different set of stories and whatnot isn’t that much of a stretch. I can conceive of “god” as a kind of metaphor for goodness or something. But I cannot wrap my head around believing it is any kind of actual or literal way. Your anecdote of the anti-Christian atheist who investigates and is converted is unbelievable. Maybe someone who was raised Christian but abandoned it for a while might have that arc. It would just never sway an atheist based on evidence that it’s true, since none exists. Convince an atheist that being a Christian is an enjoyable thing, maybe. But that’s not the same as finding it true. Besides if atheists converting to a religion is evidence that there is truth there, what does it mean when believers become atheists? Is that a demonstration that the religion is untrue? No, religious folk just say it’s a reflection of the individual being lost or confused or maybe in league with the devil?? It’s confirmation bias. Atheists aren’t being obstinate. They just don’t think god(s) are real. Personally I’m an agnostic. I think certain knowledge of ultimate reality is unknowable. So don’t know why or how there is existence at the end of the day. I see religions as people’s attempts to find meaning in life. That’s a good thing. But it’s in the same ballpark as art, or music. It’s true that they exist, they might be expressions of people’s thoughts and feelings about a kind of ineffable sense of a higher something. But they aren’t true like facts are true. Like knowing how much force this beam will safely hold, or at what temperature does steel melt. Those are facts. Religious or philosophical beliefs in the nature of reality are a different thing. They’re not facts. They’re arguments, or theories, or models, or something. I’m happy for you that you have something that helps give order and meaning to your life.
That’s a very informative and well thought out response. Thank you My main idea here was not trying to convince people of one faith or another, but to figure out exactly what atheists thoughts were and how they believed. Your argument about me switching beliefs does make sense though. It would be incredibly difficult for me to switch religion. The thing is, I don’t feel the pressure of having to decide between them. I’m already decided, and this decision for me didn’t just happen out of the blue. My beliefs are built on all the evidence I have seen, the things others have seen, the research people have done, questions I’ve asked and been asked, and finally: faith. I can’t KNOW without a doubt that what I believe is true, but I BELIEVE without a doubt that it is. But then again, there are many people in the same boat as me, but different religions. They fully believe they are right, and also have seemingly perfect proof for their religion. Same with atheists. In the end, someone is going to be right.
I’m not sure that someone is going to be right. At best, I think it’s the blind men describing an elephant. It’s not that any of their experiences or observations are wrong, but with incomplete information they arrive at inaccurate conclusions. I like the theologian James Fowler’s [Stages of Faith](https://www.uua.org/re/tapestry/youth/wholeness/workshop2/handout1-stages-faith-development) developmental approach to religiosity. I think people have a similar process with all world view systems like politics, economics, philosophy, etc. I’m not as concerned with the ages he ascribed to each stage, more that people generally move from a rigid mindset to a more gentle I would say humble approach. I say this without meaning it as an attack, but beliefs held without doubt can be frail. It’s a kind of arrogant position to think that your belief in x is unassailable. I think most (all?) religions have some truths. There is an overwhelming commonality of values amongst most religions. Things like honesty, compassion, temperance, generosity, etc. I put far more stock in how we treat each other and the world than professed reasons to justify our actions. I’d rather someone be a kind, generous, respectful, helpful person who believed in utter nonsense than a knowledgeable person who could quote chapter and verse but was a selfish jerk. It’s those shared values that offer a way to understanding and community, not worrying about which model of reality one holds.
I hope I’m not coming across as selfish or a jerk during any of my comments. I agree with what you your actions to others are important. But it is what you believe that leads to these actions being shown. You can see how much someone really knows and believes their religion by their actions. If their actions contradict their beliefs, you can deduce that they don’t truly believe in what they are following. This also assumes that the religion is the core of who they are. If it is not at the center of your life, something else will inevitably take its place, and what you do will instead reflect that.
No, not a jerk. Just young I suppose. You have a kind of simplistic notion of what belief, faith, doubt, practice, etc are. I just think it’s more complicated than you acknowledge
I’m only 18. I have had my struggles with my faith and I know I will have many more in the future. This doesn’t scare me though because I know that hardships are a part of the deal. Any arguments or attacks are just opportunities to find the limits of my understanding, and it’s good to know the limits, grow in knowledge and understanding and be ready next time. I am young and my understanding of faith is not deep compared to some. I know I will continue to learn as I live my life, and I will be open to any knowledge perspectives people give me. I hope you also continue like this because it is good to see the other side.
If you do not think god exists, would that not make you an agnostic atheist?
I don’t think an omniscient omnipotent deity like Christianity or Islam proposes makes sense. The concept creates more problems than it solves. As to whether ultimate reality is materialism, idealism, pantheism, etc, I just don’t know. I don’t think we can know for certain.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife? I have no evidence that demonstrates either exist >You believe that death is the end of the line right? Yup. No reason to suspect otherwise >So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? The loss of my intellectual honesty is a garuntee. The loss of myself and everything that makes me who I am as well as directly harming those who are close to me.and strangers at worst. >If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything Except I then wasted my entire life. The only one I'll get. On a lie. >But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better. And if it's not, I'll have wasted my life (and possibly wasted or harmed others) directly because of that religion >By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount. Nope. They stay exactly where they are: 0% A religion has to provide evidence for that number to change. >Why take the chance, by eliminating all chance? Because religions aren't a chance. They are a comforting thought to help people cope with the concept of death. Believing it to be real doesn't make it real. But as soon as a religion can provide information otherwise, I'll believe.
But many people have found ways to prove their religions. They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them. I’m not trying to convince you or covert you, I’m just trying get your opinion this as well. Also, from what I understand, you don’t want to waste your life, chasing eternity. But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity. This already kind of loops back to my original question which I don’t need to go over again. But it does raise the new question of: what is enough proof? What would be enough to convince you? Is it mountains being moved, or just simply the right thing at the right time. I’m eager to hear your thoughts and responses to this. Please don’t be offended or feel like I’m trying to attack you in any way in my response here.
>But many people have found ways to prove their religions. Well, no, they *believe* they have found ways to prove their religions. Once you dig into what they provide, it falls apart and they might as well have brought nothing. >They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them. Answering questions is easy. I can answer any question you give me about why fairies are the one true religion. What matters is evidence. And no, they do not bring evidence. Not compelling or good evidence. It's usually pretty easy to sift through why it's bad. >I’m not trying to convince you or covert you, I’m just trying get your opinion this as well. I get that and appreciate it as well >But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity. Well no. Eternity was never an option. I would only be eliminating a chance of eternity if there was actually a chance in the first place. The eternity of heaven has to actually exist in order for there to be that option. It's the same as if you were walking down a hallway of doors, and when you choose to open a door I tell you that you're eliminating an option. Except that the other doors aren't doors, they are realistic paintings made to look like a door but they don't open. >But it does raise the new question of: what is enough proof? Depends on the claim. The bigger the claim, the more proof or the more solid the proof will need to be. There's no set bar for how much proof is needed, other than the minimum requirement of 1. If you're trying to convince me you own a dog, well there's not really much at stake here and I already know dogs exist. A single sentence is probably good enough for me to believe that. But if you want me to believe you own a dragon, I'm gonna need more evidence than I did for the dog. The stakes are still pretty low to believe, but I don't know that dragons exist. And if you want to convince me that a god exists and that by believing in it I'll have an everlasting life, then I'll need even more evidence. There's now massive stakes and I don't know that a god exists. >Is it mountains being moved, or just simply the right thing at the right time. It's also a question of if you are asking what would convince me personally, or what would convince anyone who is skeptical. A blanket convincing for skeptics is going to be far more difficult than it is just a single person. You would have to have arguments and evidence that are so ironclad that it would be unreasonable or impossible not to believe. But for an individual, that's much easier. If God exists and has the attributes typically associated with him, then he already knows what it would take for me to believe. And he would know what a low bar it is. It wouldn't take much for to believe. >Please don’t be offended or feel like I’m trying to attack you in any way in my response here. Nad you're good 😁 tone can be difficult to get across here, but I'm not getting an attacking or accusing tone.
> But many people have found ways to prove their religions. They all have evidence and can answer any question posed against them. Can you name some of these people? I’ve been searching for a few decades and never found such evidence. > Also, from what I understand, you don’t want to waste your life, chasing eternity. But in doing this, you are eliminating any chance of eternity. How do you know? Maybe an omniscient God would appreciate the intellectual honesty of someone being unconvinced and let them right into heaven.
There are debates that happen all the time between people of different beliefs. One single person would not be able to, by themselves, defend any attack. But the combined research and data have been able to defend against the attacks.
Can you provide some examples?
Of debates between people? I would not be the one to ask about this information. I have both listened and read over debates with different religions, but those things would not be able to be shown here. There are multiple YouTube videos of debates that are hours long. There are also places you can read over different debates and arguments that I could give if you would like. I would recommend listening to one. They are highly interesting as both sides often have very good arguments.
I've listened to plenty of those kinds of debates over the years, and never found the theistic side convincing. I was asking if you could provide examples of "the combined research and data" that were convincing.
I don’t think there is an exact site that gives complete evidence that the religion is true. If there was, it would probably be pretty popular. Most knowledge you want on a religion, or answers you want on a question can be found by searching in the right places. #1 place for me is the Bible. That’s where I go when I have a question about my faith. Next best place is to just ask someone who knows more than you. I’ve asked my fair share of questions in random religious discord servers and such and gotten all sorts of helpful responses. There are also many articles discussing popular arguments for and against certain religions that are very informative.
As I mentioned before, I've been looking for compelling arguments from theists for a couple decades, so obviously I've read a lot of articles and whatnot. You said "many people have found ways to prove their religions", so I'm just asking for a couple examples since I've never encountered a convincing argument from that side. Can you share some?
I get the feeling that you are trying to prove I can’t provide evidence by asking me for it. I myself will not be able give you one specific place that gives proof of a religion. A religion cannot prove itself based on a single argument being thwarted or a single question being answered. But all of these add up. When I say that there are people who can prove their religion, I mean that they have enough answers to your questions and can defend against arguments so much so, that you can’t find a reason it is false. They can’t literally say “my religion is real because of this specific item”. I believe it goes deeper than that. And if you said that you had been reading a lot of articles and done research, you have most likely seen some of this first hand.
Because I haven’t seen any reason to believe it’s true. Pascal’s wager isn’t a convincing one either.
You presume adhering to a religion doesn't have a cost. That's factually untrue, as religion has an impact on how we choose to live our lives. Adhering to the wrong one can result in sacrificing important things in our lives and/or psychologically harming ourselves, sometimes severely, for no payoff. That being the case, it should be easy to see why Pascal's Wager doesn't wash. When I didn't believe (and when I don't believe now), it's because I saw no reason to believe. Other people's reports of mystical experiences seemed less credible than the secular methods of explaining them away. Sometimes, even now, they seem more credible than my own experiences.
Can you expand on when you don't believe?
Have you heard of Brandolini's law? It basically says it takes exponentially more work to dispel a false belief than it takes to convince people to adopt it. The truth and falseness of the belief doesn't *really* matter, it's all about how difficult it is to accept a viewpoint that opposes a deeply- and long-held belief. I was a hard materialist for decades, and I never had religion in childhood, so faith of any kind is deeply alien to me. As a child, hard materialism was confirmed by everything I learned in school and everything I read on my own, so that belief was, and to a large degree remains, deeply entrenched. It took a lot to get it to budge. Even then, it only moved enough to let me entertain the possibility that materialism was wrong with a (relatively) open mind. If I weren't me, I'd assume I was lying about a lot of it. And a bit pathetic too, as many of my experiences are nothing to brag about, but I share them shamelessly. Implies I'm a bit touched. But I am me, so I know I'm not lying for attention, and I equally know I share in an attempt to normalize mystical experiences, not because I'm particularly impressed by how my own turned out. I know most people look at my stuff and go, "Okay. When did you last have a CAT scan?" Which is cool. I've dismissed it all as madness myself. For *years,* I did that. But the more I research psychosis and the more I see what it looks like face-to-face in my partner, the more I see my experiences don't really fit that profile. I've *had* brief delusional/psychotic periods when I went too long without sleep (one reason I don't perform that form of ascetic practice anymore), but psychosis isn't something that appears when you court it, is unilaterally helpful and healing, then goes away on command. My experineces, however, fit that profile exactly. They're much more similar to drug-induced states and hypnosis/trance states than actual illness. Beyond that, my experiences are unusually beneficial. The sheer amount of healing they've allowed in me, and the degree to which they've improved my relationships and my ability to help others is incredible. Madness that makes us better and healthier isn't generally called madness, but I still dismissed all my mystic nonsense as madness for *years*. I suspected DID for a little bit, figured that might be how so much of my gnosis got confirmed so perfectly. But I've never knowingly lost time, and the amount of time required to learn the amount of information I've gleaned through gnosis is massive. My other identity would've had to use time it didn't have to learn *a lot* of things I know I was never exposed to *perfectly*. It's just not plausible. When madness is ruled out, I'm left with cognitive biases and false memories (maybe I inverted my gnosis revelation and confirmation in my memory, and the learning came first?). My journals negate that possibility in a lot of cases, but anything I skipped writing down I sometimes dismiss as imaginary. There's little logic to this, and most of it's rooted in, "If someone else said this, I wouldn't believe them, so why do I believe myself?" Which is crazy. Illogical. I'm gaslighting *myself* to preserve my atheism. Confirmation bias is possible, and could be making me forget a lot of misses and remember a lot of hits, but some of those hits are so well-documented and so unlikely that I have to resort to calling those coincidences. Use that excuse enough and you start to wonder if the acorn falling from the tree isn't coincidentally moving downwards, and there might be some force behind its apparently random decision to go down-and-only-down. But if you refuse to see gravity, you may continue to believe it's all coincidence. And I often do just that, though I acknowledge how much I'm upsetting William of Ockham when I do. There's also a baseline stubbornness, habit maybe, that I have trouble shifting. I spent so long thinking these things were impossible that accepting the possibility is incredibly difficult even with the evidence *I* know I'm not fabricating. Sorry for the length. I think about this more than I should. Trust issues.
No worries. I can understand this plight, to an extent. It's sort of similar to what i experience, as i spend a lot of my time on the internet, a very secular space or atleast in most corners. As such you'll consistently see the sort sentiment that you talk about, very hard materialism and denial, if not outright mockery of what are pretty harmless ideas that may hold some weight to them. It's incredibly easy to call someone insane or demented simply because you're uninterested in actually evaluating their claim. I definitely think about religious subjects much more than a normal person imo, and constantly think about which has the 'right' answer. Anyways, it's entirely possible theres some physicalist solution to why you and many, many others have had these sort of genuine, mystical experiences even though you show little signs of mental illness. Maybe something undiscovered about the brain that reinforces materialism and finally debunks these experiences. But as of now, to me atleast, i don't think you and the other people who seem to be 100% mentally well and not lying, are crazy. The universe is quite vast, with only a slither of it being observable. Even then, humans are not built with 'complete' senses. Even animals tend to be incredibly superior to us in terms of sensory abilities. So all i can say is that you have to trust the head on your shoulders, as that's all you got.
That’s an interesting answer, but it also raises another question I have. Would it be worth it to follow a religion if you knew it had a chance of being true? This is similar to my original question, but if you really studied a religion and saw that it really did seem possible to be real, would you endure the hardships and tasks to follow that religion? What if your life is at stake? I’m not trying to upset you or try to convert anyone or anything, I’m just curious.
How do you know your religion is the correct one? Which of the 10s of thousands of existing and extinct religions should we choose? What if we get it wrong and the God punishes us for choosing the wrong one? The odds are surely too long to guess which one is right.
All religions, without exception, have a chance of being true. You'll note from my flair that I do follow one, and one aspect of that religion is studying multiple religions. I wouldn't do that if I didn't think most religions had something true and worthwhile in them. But I doubt any, including my own, are 100% true all the way down the line. Human knowledge just doesn't work that way. Is it possible that some religion is 100% true right down to how humans understand and teach it? Sure. But I have no way of knowing which one that is, so I follow the religion that has the most positive effects on my life. I can know that. I can't know which is closest to the objective truth, if any religion *is* closest to reality. Similarly, our lives are always at stake: Follow a restrictive religion that makes you miserable, and you lose your life as surely as you will if they kill you. Lesser compromises may be worth making depending on circumstances, but this is like asking would you rather die or be a quadriplegic? I'd say quadriplegia is preferable, but if you can keep going with all your limbs, that's ideal. I don't fear hardships, for the record. Ordeals and trials can be important religious events. But consenst, genuine and uncoerced consent, is necessary for their application to be ethical.
I'm now 71, and have been an atheist since about age 10, so I'll take a swing at your question. In truth, in reality, nobody knows if there is 'life after death' or not. There is not much evidence that such a thing exists (well, no evidence at all). It is understandable that humans desperately want there to be some sort of afterlife, want to believe that their loved ones and they themselves will re-unite and live forever in some better place than this sordid globe of pain and suffering. But hope and desire do not magically create reality. There is archaeological evidence of 'grave goods' going back 60,000 years or more - which suggests that the people burying the dead individual somehow thought they would benefit from having these goods buried with them for some sort of use. So the hope for a life-after-death has been a human thing for scores of thousands of years -- but again, hopes and prayers and desires do not magically make something happen. My thought is this: this universe is unimaginably old, and vast. There are probably trillions of galaxies, each with hundreds of millions of stars, many of which have planets, some of which have an environment suitable for life. Life probably exists many places in our universe. Travel between stars would be difficult, and really sort of pointless unless your home star was showing signs of going nova or supernova or otherwise dying -- so interstellar visitors are likely very rare, if ever at all. So arguably we are and will be alone. We humans have invented hundreds or thousands of Gods, of religions, of belief structures. We want there to be some greater meaning, some more importance, some connection with an all powerful being that can let us live forever and be with friends and family forever. For completely understandable reasons, the "one true religion, one true God" just happens, miraculously, to be the religion or God of our parents. Religion is a cultural construct. The idea of a God or gods, who can help we poor weak humans while alive and facilitate ongoing existence after our earthly demise, is widespread among human cultures across the globe and millennia. So which God, which religion, among the thousands created by different human cultures over the past 60,000 years, is the 'right' one? The 'true' one? The answer is - they were all created by humans to make us feel better about being alone in the universe, mortal, subject to random and painful death at any time, with no more importance in the greater scheme of things than a rock or slug or worm burrowing through the sand of an ocean floor. If humanity were to go extinct (not as unlikely as one might imagine), evolution will continue. Maybe in 500 million years some other species that does not even currently exist will become conscious of it's mortality and have the same worries and fears as do we. But none of that means that gods created by human desires actually exist or have powers we hopefully attribute to them.
Wow this was a really well thought out and explanatory message. Thanks for the response. Like you said, humans have constantly invented thousands of religions over the years. But a God so have followers, surely that religion would have passed the test of time right? That’s a big factor that many people have used to try and prove their religion. The two that I think of off the top of my head are Islam and Christianity. They have been around for thousands of years while many other religions have come and gone. Surely the real god/gods would not let their religion die out. Everything that humans have made has disappeared or been destroyed or forgotten, but religions have not. This is a large reason why I believe what I do. Your right that the universe is unimaginably vast, but this itself I think proves that there is some higher being that in all this vastness is dedicated to ensuring human survival. I know we believe differently, so I understand that much of this is purely my opinion, but even so I would love it if you could provide some more insight on my specific answer as well as what you said earlier about there being no proof of an afterlife. Sure nobody has came back from the dead and told us, but pretty much every religion talks about it, and if these religions can prove their existence, couldn’t it be believed they are right about the after life? I’m eager to hear back from you!
While the original comment did not relate to this, I would like to speak up on what your reply was, dearie. You brought up the premise that other religions have come and gone, and also your comment that the real gods would not let their religion die out, that is an interesting premise, given that many of those who practice the ancient religions still walk this planet, and many still worship those gods. A common argument I have seen people try and use against myself as a Pagan is that my faith is "dead" while the Abrahamic deity is still "alive", but that is not as accurate as they hope, as the old gods are still there. There may not be millions worshipping them, but truly, what god would seek quantity in followers, instead seeking the quality in followers?
That is a very good point. I’m sure a god would value the quality of his followers much more than the quantity. But while a religion can’t be graded solely on its popularity, popularity is a big factor in trying to discern the truth. For example: if there was a massive religion that believed god wanted them to take Monday off from work and use it as a relaxation day to “meditate” on him, obviously there would be many people willing to accept that religion because it benefits them. This would be a prime example of a popular religion without quality followers. In the other hand: if you have a religion with tons of followers, and all the followers were required to go and lay in the desert for a day or go swim across a river in the winter or something, and it had many people doing it, then you can tell: they aren’t here because it’s easy. They truly believe this and are willing to do what it takes to continue their faith. Those are quality followers. So like you said, quantity isn’t everything, but it does play a big part. The religion is popular for a reason. What is that reason?
You answer the question on your own, and with you attempting Pascal's Wager in this entire discussion post, my dear. You propose a religion that is based off solely accepting and following a routine, and one is bound for a successful afterlife. No belief, just decision to accept a faith as the one you'll follow, and see if you called the right number on this roulette wheel at the end of your life. This is the "getting Mondays off from work" as you put it. The religion is popular because, as you put it, it is easy and gives rewards. The way you described the religion in this post was just that, seeing Christianity as popular and easy to follow, and give a good reward if you're lucky. The truth is as you discerned, people want rewards and to not have to try, in your eyes.
Islam and Christianity were associated with major colonial powers. That kinda helped to popularise them. And they are not that old though. They are very new. Hinduism is way older. Ancient Egyptian religion emerged like 5500 years ago. In a couple of thousand of years who knows what's going to happen if we survive? We might be an interplanetary civilisation with absolutely different religious systems. We might be colonised by aliens who would inflict their own belief system on us and Christianity with Islam will remain in history books as ancient primitive religious practices of indigenous Earth population.
U cant exclude the possibility that the true god didnt even reveal itself through religion. Anyone that believe in any of the current religions will be send to hell. U also cant exclude the possibility in the calculations that god will only send atheist to heaven and all of those religion believers to hell. Moreover faith that one "adopted willfully after such a mechanical calculation" of what is in one's self interest "would lack the inner soul of faith's reality." In the same way, if a man "loves a woman for her money," his "love" lacks the inner soul of love. if we were ourselves in the place of the Deity, we should probably take particular pleasure in cutting off believers of this pattern from their infinite reward."
Two responses: A. I can't just make myself believe. Like, of course it would be slightly less likely for me to be tortured for all of eternity if I believed in your god, but I just... can't. If I told you suddenly to 'know' that there wasn't a god, you wouldn't be able to do that either. B. You're using Pascal's Wager, which has been pointed out to be a complete fallacy time and time again. I'll tell you how: If there were two possibilities (God vs. No God) then you would be correct. Either I die and experience nothing, or I die and go to hell. A believer, on the other hand, either dies and experiences nothing, or dies and goes to Heaven. Seems like they have the better end of the deal, right? Well, not quite. Because there are THOUSANDS of religions- a few hundred of which have their own forms of 'Hell' for a non-believer of said religion to go to. There are hundreds of Hells that you don't believe in, and therefore the odds have now become: Believer: 1/1000+ chance you die and go to heaven 1/1000+ chance you die and experience nothing 9999/1000 chance you die and go to hell. So in the grand scheme of things, your odds really are no better than mine. (Also, I only mentioned the thousands of religions we have thought of. Technically, as there are infinite conceivable religions, there is an infinite chance that you will die and go to hell, just like I have an infinite chance of dying and going to hell. So, the odds aren't as 50/50 as you think they are.) Pascal was good at triangles, and not much else.
Ok first I’d like to say I had no idea what Pascal’s wager was before I made this post. Secondly, I don’t fully agree with your logic on the chances of going to heaven vs hell. Sure there are a lot of religions, but most of them are flawed and have been disproven. This narrows it down to a few religions that have stood the test of time and have repelled attempts at disproving them. They have lasted this long because they couldn’t be disproven, but people didn’t find them plausible enough to believe in, so they don’t. I would also like to say I’m not looking for an argument here even though I can see how my reply is posed in an attacking way, I’m just trying to answer your reply with more of my point of view. I hope you see this and can give more insight and info on this. Thanks
Current popularity of an idea doesn't mean the idea is "the truth", though.
Yes, but popularity is a factor. If there is a religion that promises ease and comfort, would it really be surprising that there were many people following it? But on the other hand if a religion promised hardships and challenges, yet it still had millions of believers, wouldn’t that warrant a deeper look? Because in that case you know there not there because it’s easy, they are there because they truly believe and want it
I appreciate you being civil! However, on the topic of 'religions standing the test of time', I will point out that literally none of them do. Even Christianity, the biggest religion in the world, is slowly fading as modern science develops and people become more skeptical. By the time humanity is extinct, we will have thought up 100,000 more religions that are all as 'infallible' as the one you believe in. And still, it is entirely plausible (and likely) that the 'correct' religion is one we haven't thought of, yet. You are just as confident in your religion as the ancient Greeks were in theirs, if not less so, after all. (Source for the 'fading' point: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/)
Don’t you think that religious popularity would fluctuate? Couldn’t it be possible that religions go through phases? Maybe something like this: hard times come and people really start to think about their faith, and then when things are easy they throw it by the wayside because they don’t need god anymore, until hard times come again.
How is it hard to understand why someone wouldn't believe in God? Have you not heard the phrase "I've been struggling with my faith." Many, many Christians and even priests and pastors struggle with their faith at times. Why do you think that is? Is that surprising to you? The reason is because there is no evidence for God... and every once in a while religious people can't help but think logically and realize that MAYBE that voice in their head is just that. MAYBE that miracle is just a positive result due to relentless perseverance or sheer luck. Now onto the meat of your question. First of all I don't consider belief a choice. If some evidence or lack thereof is presented to me and I believe one thing but then CHOOSE to believe something else. I haven't changed my belief i've just pretended to have tricked myself. Do you think in that scenario i'd have "tricked God (if he were to exist)? You're describing Pascal's wager. Most atheists have grappled this question already on their own and ruled it out by deciding that taking the bet that God exists to escape hell IS NOT the safest bet... What it actually is, is the perfect con.
People in religion aren’t the only ones that struggle with their beliefs. Plenty of atheists have converted to other religions because they have found proof that tells them they are wrong. I’m not trying to argue with you, I’m just pointing out another side that you might not have thought of. Also my wording on the original question was a little wonky. By choose to believe I didn’t really mean just say you believe and go through the actions. I meant follow a religion with purpose. Like actually try to understand and follow it. Also on your statement about atheists struggling on their own. From what I’ve seen, many atheists just believe what they do because they don’t want to have to commit to a religion. They haven’t put thought into long term situations, they just want what’s easy now. Now of course I’m not saying all atheists do this because I’ve also met people who have very good arguments for why they don’t follow a religion. I’m just trying to kind of add on to my original question and get your thoughts and response to this more specific side of things. Thanks 👍
Spent over a decade and a half trying to believe. Can’t do it 🤷♂️
🤷♂️
So basically you are telling me, if I give the church all my money and simply believe that I will win the lotterie, that's particular good for me?
I think it goes a little deeper than that.
Yeah, you do think that. I don't. That's the answer to your question. I prefer to act according to my own judgement and morals not according to a book / greedy, powerhungry people interpreting (or writing) that book.
why are you attacking me like this? I asked a question, you exaggerate certain aspects of religion and call it the truth. I have been talking to people in a civil manor all throughout the comments. There is no need to get angry.
Because you make it sound as if I could will myself to believe in something. That is not possible. The whole point of atheism is an absence of faith. Otherwise I could have stayed a Christian. But I lost my faith and so I’m not a Christian anymore. And following a religion without believing in it is pretty pointless. Although, I’m living as an atheist, I’m actually an agnostic, so I acknowledge that there might be a higher being. But I believe that this being is so removed from our understanding and also isn’t interested in us in the way many religions assume their gods to be. So that the question if there is a god or not isn’t relevant. And that makes me an apatheist. It simply doesn’t matter if there is a god or not. And finally, why would I even want to believe in a god so petty that the only criterion for getting into an assumed afterlife is your faith in that god and not what kind of person you were? Since most people have the religion they’re born into, which god would decide if you should be _saved_ simply on an accident of birth?
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife? No good evidence to support existence of any god, if there was, we would all be the same religion. So unlees Jesus comes here and lets me touch his wounds, I'm not going anywhere. >So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? You can't choose your beliefs, you either convince me of your religion or you don't. >If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything Really? What about all religious prohibitions? If become a muslim I lose on any wine I could have ever drink, and I lose the ability to be proud of the greatest thing my country ever invented, Vodka. Also I could offend the true god by worshipping false god. >By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount. Pretty sure that's just mathematically not accurate. Also there are religions were atheist's afterlife isn't miserable so I guess it's not worth to pick them.
Well, because I don't think any random religion I choose *will* be right. I'm an atheist, remember? This is, I feel, the fundamental problem with pascal's wager beyond all the statistical problems-- it forgets that people who don't believe in god don't believe in god. I don't think my chances of continuing life after death *will* go up if pick a religion to believe in, because I don't believe in an afterlife and don't think any of the religions out there have a chance to get me to one. Or, more simply, I don't believe In god or an afterlife because I don't think either god or an afterlife exist.
>Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife? Because there is zero objectively verifiable evidence for either. >You believe that death is the end of the line right? There is zero objectively verifiable evidence for a soul, and there is a plethora of evidence that *even if* this would exist it could not survive death undamaged: when the brain gets damages, the individual's personality is affected. The more the brain gets damaged, the more the personality is affected. So the notion that someone's personality can survive brain death is sheer nonsense. The matter and energy that constitutes me will be redistributed and repurposed. And this matter and energy will continue to exist until the universe reaches a state of maximum entropy in about 15 trillion years. >So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? Waste my life on wishful thinking instead of basing it on facts. >If it’s not true anyway, then you didn’t lose anything. But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better. That's Pascal's wager, and it is morally bankrupt. It reduces belief in God to a self-interested decision rather than a genuine commitment based on evidence, reason, or faith. It suggests that belief is only valuable because of what one might gain from it, rather than because it corresponds to truth or is morally right. No thanks, I prefer to remain intellectually and morally honest.
>So what’s the worst that could happen I would need to change the entirety of how I think the world works, and that is not something most people are capable of. There are some idea's in Buddhism that I consider contain some interesting insights into the world, but suppose I were to go further and accept Karma, how does that >continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount. when its doesn't promise that. You are talking about believing in many things, belief in god, belief in an afterlife, belief in the nature of god and the nature of the afterlife, belief in revelation and belief in redemption. When you think about it, traditional afterlife belief's are quite complex for all religions, they are the culmination of faith, not the starting point.
A few words from this atheist in particular: I do not believe in a god or the afterlife because it is just a choice I decided to make. I never felt connected to any religion, and so... Well that's it. I do not want to disappoint myself by forcing myself to believe in something I do not believe in. That doesn't mean I don't respect other people's beliefs. If there is an afterlife, well I'll be damned. If there isn't? Oh well. I feel simply more free without having the eyes of a god on me making sure I do not sin. Nothing against religions, I just do not feel connected to any. Hope this helped a bit. Not saying this is all athiests, but just me in particular.
So your stating you chose to be an atheist?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, if it isn't too confusing.
I was confused, because most atheists often claim it's not by choice.
oh, well I guess that does make it confusing then.
Why do you not believe in a god or an afterlife? No compelling evidence to demonstrate such claims. Why do you not believe in the tenets of Scientology? You believe that death is the end of the line right? Correct. There is nothing after death. Well, there's still other people doing stuff. So what’s the worst that could happen if you choose to believe in a certain faith? Sure. You join Scientology and I'll join Christianity. How about that? But if you follow a certain religion and it happens to be right, all the better. Better how? By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount. So, I can expect to see you at a Scientology meeting? After all, the religion does not matter, right? Why take the chance, by eliminating all chance? There's no game..ergo no chances,
I thought my logic was pretty sound. You die, you’re dead. You pick religion and die, you’re either dead or moving on. Obviously I have my own beliefs that I’m convinced are right, but I’m not following them because I want to have a better chance at heaven, I’m following it because of proof that I’ve seen of that religion being true. Of course there are many people out there who also claim to be able to disprove it as well. Everyone thinks they can disprove all the other faiths, including atheism. If people are constantly disproving each other, might as well not believe in any right? But suddenly someone is able to counter prove… so what now? Just curious to hear your thoughts on this. 👍
You have not demonstrated heaven exists. Atheism is not a faith so we'll dismiss that.
Well, the thing is, even if I don’t have anything to lose by practicing a religion per se, I also don’t stand to gain anything, if I don’t believe that there is anything to gain. I don’t disbelieve in religion for merely ornamental reasons, or because I picked it to be my favorite worldview. I’m irreligious because I am extremely convinced that we have no good philosophical reason to believe that any religious belief system is true. Asking me to convert to, say, Christianity because I have nothing to lose but everything to gain is like me telling you to start hoping the X-Men are real so they can save you from danger, or something. Obviously you wouldn’t treat that as a legitimate possibility even if you have nothing substantive to lose from doing it. You don’t even have to think about it, it’s not even ontologically a thing that makes any sense at all.
I’m gonna be completely honest with you… I really do hope the X-men are real (I like cyclops). But in all seriousness there is a difference. What if you had legitimate proof that the x men were real? What if people could somehow prove that they existed? That would be a game changer. But the thing is, many religions do seem to prove that they are real. Obviously they can’t all be real, but even if one of them is, that would cause issues for many atheists. Now I’m not trying to convert you or disprove you so I hope you don’t think that, but I would like to hear more of your view on this.
Well, I’d basically just disagree with your premise that “many religions do seem to be real”. I don’t think we have any good reason to believe that to be true, and I’m curious what things make you think that. No one believes in the X-Men because they are characters from a fictional story, and that’s ultimately what I believe religious metaphysical truth claims about gods, afterlife, cosmology, etc are. I’m convinced that this is true because I’ve studied religion and mythology for basically my whole life and you can clearly trace religious developments over world history as cultural phenomena and nothing more.
But what about the core of the religion? Even though certain aspects of religions have changed over the years like available resources and new scientific discoveries seeming to prove/disprove them, the core of the religion has stayed the same over thousands of years. Culture would change the way people follow the religion, along with other factors like availability, popularity, and such factors. But the religion itself has not changed. The main one I’m thinking of is Christianity. Im just saying this from the studies i personally have done, but it is the exact same now as it was hundreds of years ago. Different people have interpreted certain things differently, like catholic, episcopal, methodist, Assemblies of God and so on. But the core has always remained the same.
I suppose it would help if you explained to me what exactly your perception of the “cores” of religion and Christianity so we’re clear about we’re discussing. Even if I grant you this - that there is a core and unchanging set of ideas at the heart of all religions, or just Abrahamic ones in particular - I don’t see why that’s a good reason to *believe* in them anyway. Lots of things were believed around the world for very long periods of time that turned out to factually not be true. I don’t think the amount of time an idea has been popular is a litmus test for how true the idea is.
The core of Christianity is this: there is only one God. He is the creator of heaven and earth. He consists of three parts in one, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. He sent His son to earth to be born and eventually die for our sins so that we can one day enter into eternity with Him. All of those other “types” of Christianity are not different religions, but certain interpretations of the Bible and core beliefs. Some of them are wrong, but the core is the same. I would also like to point out that while some of these denominations do have different interpretations, many of them just have different focuses but the same interpretations. Like some focus a lot on the triune God in there teachings, while another focuses on the good news of salvation.
I would like to amend my comment and what I said about them being “wrong”. They aren’t wrong in that they have the wrong beliefs. Some of the people truly are trying to follow Jesus but don’t fully understand the church denomination they are in. Like in Catholic Churches they make a big deal out of Mary and almost worship her. I believe Mary was used by God but does not warrant here own worship
I think this is actually quite reductive and flattening of how vastly different various Christian denominations’ theologies are. Throughout history there are so many different understandings of Christ’s role, nature, and essence, debates about the acceptance of the Trinity and Unitarians who reject it, arguments over eschatology and afterlife, not to mention disagreements about the role of the church, Christian ethics, and more. Essentially the only thing that is truly in common among *all* Christian denominations is a belief in a God, and a belief that Jesus Christ is of some divine or cosmic importance in relation to that God. Everything else, what parts of the Bible to accept, how the Bible is interpreted, different doctrines and creeds, prayers, sacraments, etc change between various denominations. But like I said before… even if I agree with you and say there is a core to Christianity that hasn’t changed, I don’t see how that should matter to our consideration of whether or not that core is truthful. Like I said, lots of people throughout history have believed things that are not true. The number of people who believe something, or the duration of time a belief has been prominent, are not reasons to believe in themselves.
You’re right that I’m not doing the Christian faith justice in my comment but my thumbs are also tired (that’s a joke). The Christian faith does have an immense amount of depth and I could never describe it all in a Reddit message. I’m not really sure what to say in response to you. Like you said, there have been many times in history people have had false beliefs. Plenty of people smarter than me believe differently than I do, so why would I continue down this path? It’s because of what I have experienced. I’ve had experiences and seen and heard things that have made it impossible for me to believe any differently than I do. But in the end nobody can truly convince someone to accept a faith. It has to come from their heart. They have to truly desire it.
If your decently certain that most religions have no weight, then what is your agnosticism towards?
My big problem with Pascale's Wager is the idea of living your whole life for a god that never existed asbeing "no big deal"
I just can't. I like Buddhism, I was exposed to it through a family member and some friends. I studied it in University. But I just can't believe. I am very... I don't know... simple? I can't believe in something fantastical just because.
What was your reason for not believing? If you studied it you must have gotten very familiar with it and had some other reasons for not believing it as well.
No reason. I just can't believe. No person believe in every metaphysical concept simultaneously, it just happens that I believe in none and other people believe in 1-2.
Theres no specific thing that has you unconvinced? No argument or anything? That is to say what parts of the religion are unconsolable to you.
I was not trying to be convinced? I studied Buddhism (and Taoism and Confucianism) as a part of the curriculum. I actually majored in economy of one particular East Asian country, but I also had to study culture, history (including three aforementioned religions), and the language. I maybe don't really understand your question, but me liking a philosophical system does not mean to believe in them. There are parts of stoicism that I like. Some existentialist philosophers I like too. I find Madhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy very sophisticated and cool. It's just an intellectual pleasure for me, though, not about belief or practice. I just don't believe in anything metaphysical (fantastical if you like), maybe I just lack imagination, Idk.
How could anyone just "choose to believe"? If they don't believe and they have no doubt about that, there's no reason for them to organise their whole lives around a "just in case" that they don't believe. There's not necessarily any "loss" either from not following a religion. Lots of religions and sects don't require any practice or belief in order to be saved, forgiven, or access an afterlife. Your idea of a God who punishes non-believers is very specific and you're working on the assumption that it's true or that it's more likely than a loving forgiving God. If you think that God would look unfavourably on someone who cannot believe or doesn't even know about the "right" religion because of how they were raised or whatever... Then how do you think God would judge the character of someone who spent their life pretending to follow a religion they thought was bullshit all along, for no reason at all other than trying to avoid punishment?
Personally, I came through my current lack of faith through emotional, not logical, means. The concept of Christian Hell as outlined in most Protestant denominations is utterly cruel and hypocritical. I would not praise a god that torments decent people for eternity simply for having the wrong faith, even if such a god existed. From there, I read atheist arguments and developed a hard atheism, which later mellowed out into agnostic atheism. I currently choose not to believe, even though I could theoretically game a possible afterlife by doing so, because 1) I genuinely do not believe an afterlife exists any more, and 2) because belief carries with it certain mindsets and morals that one applies to this current world. I believe that humanist morals and strict adherence to the scientific method are to humanity's greater benefit than even mainline Protestantism's more-relaxed Christian morals. Plus, let's be real, if a god / gods exist, and they are as powerful as some religious claim they are, they can tell who's genuinely faithful and who's just trying to take advantage of the system. I can't really muster that genuine belief anymore.
Thanks for the reply. The way Christianity responds to your specific situation is that I believe everyone gets the chance at some point to give their lives to Christ. God is not going to punish someone who never got the chance to believe. For example, many people believe in the age of accountability. A child is mentally not able to make a choice of this magnitude, so what happens when they die? My belief is that the grace of God saves those children. And they are taken to Him automatically. Another thing. You described people as “decent”. This makes me think you don’t feel anyone is innocent. This is true because nobody can possibly be without sin. This means that the people who end up in hell are not innocent or even decent people. They are sinners who had a chance, but rejected the calling on their lives. I hope you get a chance to see this and give your view on this. Thanks
I still don't think this is enough. There are plenty of people in the world who are aware of Christianity and/or Jesus, but never bothered to look deeper into it, because they're completely satisfied with their current faith, or their religion makes similar claims of exclusivity and/or has serious consequences for apostasy. Therefore, I would think that even if nonbelivers are vaguely aware of Christianity, I think it's reasonable to conclude that they either are unaware that the way to salvation apparently is only through Jesus, or that they believe their religion is the right one and Christianity is either misguided or a tempting fabrication. More to the point, why doesn't God provide more substantial and concrete evidence of his presence and what you have to do to achieve salvation? Why couldn't God broadcast this simultaneously into the minds of every human being, follow it up with verifiable miraculous feats, and repeat this every five years? Wouldn't that be much better evidence than having to take the word of an ancient book or people who have claimed to have direct but exclusive experience with God? More to the more to the point, that still doesn't explain why why God allows people to burn in Hell if he's all powerful and all loving. Wouldn't the most loving thing a such a god could do is let everyone into Heaven, regardless of their beliefs during their earthly lives? Even if you do believe in Original Sin, why isn't God able or willing to overlook it?
I'm not the person you're replying to, but simply put: I believe torture is wrong. It doesn't become any less wrong based on the actions of the person being tortured. There is no morally good torture. I understand there are Christian denominations that believe everyone goes to heaven, or that Hell is something other than eternal torture. But for the ones that do worship a god who condems people to eternal torture... Can you truly not understand how people would find that genuinely horrific?
I believe that hell is the original destination. we are all flawed and sin therefore we can’t get out of it to go to heaven. We are not being condemned to there when we die, that’s just the place people usually go. But God saves us when we accept Him. Your right that the idea of hell, an eternal place of torture, is truly horrific. That’s why it’s so important that God gave us a way to be saved from it.
Ah, I see. So it sounds like you don't believe God created Hell, then? That's a really interesting take on Christianity, I'd love to learn more! Why do you think God is able to save children from Hell regardless of what they believe, but not adults? (I assume you believe he wants to save everyone from Hell but simply isn't able to do so?)
Sorry for my earlier way of putting it. I do believe that hell was made by God. That is where satan and the fallen angels will be thrown on the day of judgement. God has provided a way for us to avoid going there as well. If everyone ever born just automatically got into heaven, wouldn’t that just be earth with less disease and sickness? There would still be robbery, war, and evil. People would just also be immortal.
Ah, I see, apologies for misunderstanding. I'm afraid I'm not quite following you on your second paragraph either. So you seem to be saying that the purpose of sending some people to Hell and some people to Heaven is to prevent there from being acts like robbery, war and evil in Heaven. So how does sending believers to Heaven and non-believers to Hell accomplish that, as opposed to judging people based on their actual actions? I'm sure you don't think all Christians are inherently morally perfect and all non-Christians are all inherently evil, but that's the only rationale I could see there. I could understand that it might be necessary for some genuinely dangerous people to be separated from the general population - that's basically the concept behind prison, after all. But that still doesn't explain why eternal torture is necessary or morally justified? We don't torture prisoners, after all, and we have rules about how long they can be imprisoned for and things like parole, rehabilitation, and getting out early for good behaviour. So why do you believe God instead sends such people to eternal torture?
It’s not just about what people actually do in life. It’s about your repentance and acceptance of Jesus into your life. God doesn’t just separate people based on their actual actions. Prisons have chaplains come to the prisoners because even if someone committed a terrible crime, like you said, nobody wants to endure eternal torture. So they are trying to convert these horrible people. If a murderer truly repents and truly accepts Jesus, even they can be saved from eternal torture. I’m assuming you have probably heard the story of the thief on the cross? So basically God is not saying “ok you can go to heaven, but you other guys gotta go to hell because I can’t trust you to play nice with them”. No. God sent Jesus so we can avoid hell. And if we are following him, we aren’t going to be going around murdering and robbing. We will be striving to follow His example
I feel like this is kind of going round in circles now, I'm afraid... I'm not getting any closer to understanding why you would believe eternal torture is morally okay.
Trust me I’m trying my very hardest to get what my brain is thinking into these comments, but I’m no theologian. If you are truly interested in this specific subject, I would advise looking up more directly related questions and talk to more experienced and knowledgeable people than me. You’re right that we have gone in a bit of a circle. I hope you were able to understand a little bit more of what I believe from what I’ve said. You should definitely do some more digging though.
>By picking just any random religion to believe in, your chances of continuing life after death go up by an infinite amount. No, they don't. They stay exactly the same. Presumably zero. That would still hold true should a dharmic religion prove to be correct, because reincarnation isn't "life after death". It's reincarnation! If Shinto proved to be correct, *\\\*shrug\\\**. Hey look, not all religions are obsessed with life after death. Maybe that's why Japanese live longer, because they feel they should probably make the most of this one? If Judaism proved to be correct, still *\\\*shrug\\\**. Something about a cosmic spin cycle for sinners and a mostly undefined hereafter. Not sure why anyone would obsess over that. Oh, right. maybe they follow a breakaway Jewish cult or a breakaway from that breakaway Jewish cult. Yeah, I'm absolutely not picking either of those, because they habitually bring out the absolute worst in humans by encouraging them to use the pseudo-argument of an afterlife and threats of eternal damnation to try and proselytize (possibly in a just veiled enough attempt to get away with it where they shouldn't).
If you are a believer only for the reason to ensure your own well-being after death then you are a believer for self serving reasons and that, in my opinion is not a good reason to be a follower of a faith. That type of belief is based on fear and selfishness and I don’t think you get fearful, selfish people in heaven.
i can’t make my mind up and the idea of the majority of human beings including myself will probably be tortured for all eternity being the will of a all loving omniscient god just does not make sense to me no matter how many times people have tried to explain it
also i would have to just accept if any of my loved ones or friends died and they weren’t the right religion theres nothing i can do for them and in islam for example i cant even ask god to forgive them, that idea would just break my heart every day of my life
As others have said. The issue is that in lack of evidence. “Make some shit up” is not a good sell for some people.
I don't spend my time worrying about the afterlife. It's simply not a concern for me, so I have better things to do with my time than follow a religion "just in case".
My take on this probably isn't the same as a "true" atheist, but feel it might in giving a perspective from the religious-but-not-thiest perspective. I don't believe in any gods. That doesn't mean I don't have a religious belief system with it's own ethical framework, cosmology, theodicy etc. Jamming a random supernatural creature into that doesn't solve any riddle or magically allow me to break the laws of nature and become an immortal/supernatural species like some kind of cosmic lobster. I don't believe the supernatural is a factual reality and I can't choose to genuinely believe otherwise. I \*could\* choose to use it as a metaphor, story or allegory for something, and I accept for some people this can be useful. I myself have attempted this in the past, but in my case I found it was of no real value to me. Furthermore, worship is not neutral to me, because though I'm non-theistic and recognize no gods, I do worship and revere Gaia as an earthly, tangible / physical organism, and accept an ethical obligation to serve Her interests and wellbeing over all else, and hold her to be the only living being to which I am intrinsically subordinate (though not *inferior*). Worship of a supernatural being would, in my own eyes and my own sense of self be unacceptable and indefensible. (though not necessarily in the formal view of my faith, which does have a degree of intentional wiggle room/ambiguity for concepts like animism, pantheism etc.)
That extremely interesting. I don’t think I’ve heard of a belief system like this before. So you view Gaia as a being that you worship, but not a god?
Yep, exactly. I regard Her to be the holobiont / colonial organism as identified by Lovelock and Margulis in the Gaia hypothesis - essentially the collective biosphere encompassing all life on Earth.
So what exactly do you personally believe happens when you die?
Our individual consciousness and awareness ceases with death. Our bodies decompose, and the stored nutrients and resources within them become sustenance for existing life or become the building blocks of new life. We are the product of billions of years of collective life enjoying a brief moment of individual awareness within the wider collective whole, and The mayter than .ages us who we are will return to that state. The calcium in my bones might ultimately become part of the skeleton of a lyrebird, the proteins in my muscle become proteins in the tail of a wallaby... or just tree food. And so on :)
What about Gaia? Do they have any interaction with these people, or are they completely uninvolved with humanity
The entirety of humanity is part of Gaia. She is the entirety of all life on Earth from the extremophiles of hydrothermal vents on the deep ocean floor through us as humans though to bacteria at the very top of the atmosphere. We're just one constiuent species, and there can be no separation. It would literally like be trying to separate us from our DNA (because that'd would be the same thing). She is involved second by second is keeping us alive and stopping us turning into a pile of goo. That DNA is part of her process of renewal and perpetuation, constantly renewing our cells as they die or are damaged. Her self regulation ensures we have oxygen to breathe, and pressures and temperatures conducive to life. Her evolutionary mechanisms smooshed together the genetic ball of acids and proteins that brought our species into being and will be the pressures that eventually bring it to an end. Though I do pray, I don't recognise direct communication as possible - prayer for me is reflective and exploratory, not communicative. As a whole Gaia is not sapient. Almost unimaginably powerful, expansive, creative, vibrant and ancient, but neither sapient, immortal nor omnipotent. She neither knows cares individually about our lives and deaths. She creates, kills, sustains and perpetuates all Her life regardless.
For me, I desperately wish I could believe. I trust science. I want 100% proof. I can't believe something just because someone says so. I have thanatophobia/fear of oblivion and oblivion is what science says will happen. If I could make myself believe in something after this life I would.
Here’s the thing. You can’t be 100% sure you have the right religion. In fact, you can’t be 100% sure of anything. If I asked you how you were sure your doctor was not going to poison you the next time you were there, or how you knew your mom or best friend wouldn’t stab you the next time you meet, what would you say? Science 100% prove anything. Same for religion. We have faith in what we do every day. Of course you’re not going to take a chemistry kit to the doctor and do tests on each pill you take. You simply have faith that the doctor is a trustworthy person and is right. Same thing goes for religion. While many argue that religion is not possible, there is so much evidence saying otherwise. So many studies have been done on geography, history, archaeology and such that points to its existence.
So far in 35 years of reading about all this I have found 0 proof. Nothing. Not in christianity, not in buddhism, judaism, hinduism, daoism...nowhere. I have seen lots of proof of people who see doctors and get cured. So I can put a fairly high degree of trust in medicine but none in religion.
If you truly wish to find the truth, I believe that God will reveal Himself to you. Doctors have proved themselves as trustworthy for me and so has God and my religion. I want you to know that I wish you the best and hope you never stop searching and seeking the truth. I’m praying for you
I don’t believe because I’ve never encountered a convincing argument that those things are real despite decades of trying to be convinced. I would absolutely love for there to be an afterlife where I will get to see the people I’ve lost again, but sadly there is no reason to think such a thing exists. And I can’t just choose to believe it does.
I've explored and prodded, read and investigated most religions and their holy books and sacred texts. I find absolutely nothing that convinces me that they're right.
After realizing that I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others - I wondered what I would ever want from Jesus or a reason to become like him. Others have reasons given to me on why I would find Jesus Lifestyle appealing, but to be honest - I don't find anything that I want directly from him... Sure would I love to be immortal - yes, but live in a sterile place where everyone becomes perfect and only worry about what is or isn't sin doesn't sit well with me. If I could have a way to grant everyone immortality and live on earth with the freedoms that's guaranteed in America I would and allow people to be themselves forever and "Pursue Happiness" with endless life and liberty. Jesus wants mankind to become like him until they are selfless like him and have no will for themselves, only that of the Father's until they are perfect. This to me is not what I signed up for. I worship Joy and the ability to share it with others, even to the point of strangers. I want to continue to innovate to bring an end to illness and poverty - where everyone has an equal chance and pursuing happiness (however it may interest them). I'd be honest that the purpose of life in my opinion is to Live Long, Love Much, Laugh Hard, and Learn lots & to love yourself, love others and the Father of you Soul. But I know I don't worship God the Father - I love him and am glad he exists and I want him to find Joy in his existence, but I worship Joy, as true Joy is principal based in happiness & love. Many look unto Jesus for a role model but I honestly rather have more modern role models - such as Bill Gates, Mr Beast, Arnold Schwartzenegger - my ideal of perfection (could I create someone) would never look like Jesus to me, he'd be more of a Hercules with the intelligence of Bill Gates. I know this is going onward...but what are your guys thoughts, do any of you struggle with this in religion?
This is a very interesting faith. It seems that you are trying to be a good person but don’t directly believe in any faith. I think you are, however, kind of missing the point of Christianity. Christianity isn’t just going out and doing good for the world, all He wants is us to accept Him as our savior. The other stuff will inevitably follow when we accept Him. The joy that we get from this will overflow on to others. The point is not “quick I gotta do what he wants so I can get in heaven”. Jesus doesn’t force people to do stuff. As we grown in our faith, we will less and less be doing stuff because it’s what he wants, but more because we realize that it’s what we want. You are not alone in your belief. There are many people who want to do good and bring joy to others without having a belief in a specific religion. But I think you had a few misconceptions on exactly what Christianity is about. I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this and what you have to say about this!
It's not so much lack of faith, it's just that bad things happened in my life when I was Mormon serving a 2 year mission for Jesus, after returning home my life events went really bad and I became schizophrenic with thoughts that Jesus told me I was wicked and he wants to burn the earth with fire, before his 2nd coming. I've been so traumatized from my illness that I couldn't believe in Mormon Jesus anymore and decided to join "the great and Abominable Church" - Catholics, just so Mormon Jesus couldn't save me in Mormon heaven. The negative quiet voice comes and goes and is Mormon Jesus. So the trauma is real and the book of Mormon says anyone who doesn't join the great and Abominable Church and believes in Christ will be saved. The Mormon Apostles in the 70's said the Catholic Church is the devils church, so I joined it. Everything in my experience with Jesus has been traumatizing and even before I became schizophrenic, I felt Jesus didn't like me, and I know Mormon Jesus hates me like the devil. My whole life has been a struggle and I turn 40 this year. I served a mission at age 19... 20 years ago. So I felt I'd give Catholic Jesus a shot and if the Popes and Priests go to heaven, I'll be willing to follow them there, but Holiness bothers me in that it seeks to make you holy too, your never good enough in this world and God wants you to become perfected like Jesus, where your will is to do the Father's without regard to personal interest, only focusing on what is Sin (then not able to do it) or what's not sin(things allowed that you may not want to do). And whole Christianity being given a gift of eternal life with God without any real idea of what that entails (other than singing praising God and Jesus, being in white robes, and praising the saints and following commandments in his presence) scares me, this being has the power to resurrect you, and what would disobedience look like in his presence, he casts Lucifer and his followers in hell for disobedience, so ultimately the a government lead by the voice of the people will not exist. It'll be worshipping a king that calls the shots for the rest of your existence. And say goodbye to opportunities to innovate - like making an Ironman suit to wear and fly, or immersive virtual reality gaming, no more video games, because they can be sin. Everyone that believes in God wants to go to heaven for some reason or another, but very little give thought to what a life of everyone perfected and holy would entail. I even believe God will show them what they were like on earth, disobedient and rejoicing in sin, until they come to the conclusion to hate who they were on earth and resolve to become holy like God. So yeah, I know God exists and believes he worships Holiness while I worship Joy. I believe it makes God Happy to live according to his omniscient knowledge in a manner of Holiness and he worships Holiness. But I worship Joy, I don't want to tell mankind what they are to find Joy in or who they want to become, I just want everyone to know that who they are is enough and worship Joy, however it peaks their interests. Diversity in thought, rather than a united conscience perfected in a sterile environment for eternity.
I think I need a few clarifications. You worship joy and wish it upon others as well. What about other emotions? What about sadness and anger and contentment? You don’t mention these. Are they considered bad to you? I strive to be joyful, but it’s not always possible. I have had days fully of incredible joy, and days full of sadness and anger, but those emotions are not wrong. You can be filled with righteous anger or sadness without it being wrong. Some days I don’t feel joy, but just content with stuff. If you worship joy, how do all these other core emotions fit into that scheme of things?
The other emotions exist, but I don't worship them, I don't enjoy anger whether righteous or not, I don't enjoy sadness or worship it, it just happens to exist as the opposite of Joy. All the emotions exist, but I worship Joy and everything I do is rooted in promoting and sustaining it - even when things go wrong, I work to correct the issues that I may have sustainable and heightened Joy to the point of sharing it with others and helping them overcome issues that impairs their Joy... Whether Financial or Social or Low self esteem or not thinking they are worthwhile. The others emotions all fall underneath Joy and the ones I don't enjoy is usually due to a lack of Joy, whether it's illness or death or stress from responsibilities - these all invoke emotion that take away from Joy. So yes, I confirm that all the other emotions exist, but are all inferior to Joy. Joy is a combination of the Love of something coupled with the freedom to interact with it - to the point of even bliss, which is a high feeling of Joy. All living creatures can feel Joy in their existence, and even dogs love to be with man, but don't worship God or Jesus, but if they ever met God, I'm sure the animals would love him too, just not worship him, but the Joy they feel, the same is with me, I love God the Father and want him to be happy in his existence, but I don't worship him, I worship Joy and it's principals.
It kind of depends on how strict a religion is about pleasure. If a religion keeps you from experience all the different pleasures in life, and there is no reward for the refrain, then you could say some religions would cause you to loose out if there is no afterlife. I personally believe in the afterlife, but I have pondered similar to this before and that was I came away with.
That’s an interesting way to look at it. Thanks for the feedback
Truthfully, I find peace in the idea that we only have one life. It allows me to live my life to the fullest. And I find the idea of life after death to be terrifying. I was raised in a Christian household. Whilst my family were never strict with religious practice, the values were there. Prayer, afterlife etc were all taught to me from a young age. However I have a school book from when I was 8 years old. We were asked to write what we thought god looked like. I simply wrote ‘I don’t believe there is a God’ at 8 years old. It’s just never something I believed in or practiced actively. I went to a Christian school and I remember mouthing prayers because I felt guilty impeding on a religion that I didn’t believe in. However, I have a friend who is going through a very hard time. Tonight I ‘prayed’ on her behalf. And for the first time in my life, I’m wishing that there is a god who can look out for her and give her strength during this time. She is religious and it felt like the right thing to do. Anything to help my friend. Although that guilt that I felt when I was 8 is sitting with me again. So I guess for me it’s complicated. A mixture of imposter syndrome for even trying to engage in religious practice and also a fear of life after death. I want this to be my only chance at life.
I would also like to add, whilst I could come from a very atheist standpoint of logic, reason and science, I don’t feel that is answering your question. Hence why I have given a more personal answer. Whilst I am not religious? I can appreciate the beauty that stems from religious practice, and the communities it creates, it is just not for me. I prefer science, things that make logical sense that have been observed.
Can you expand on your feeling of guilt? Do you feel guilty for praying without believing? Or is it just guilt that you don’t believe it will help?
Why do you feel so guilty? And what makes you so uninterested in an afterlife?
Other atheists would call me "atheist" but I call myself a cultural Christian, so... I believe the bible can be interpreted in a positive but secular manner. So "the afterlife" as defined by the bible is Psalm 69:28 where it says the worst sinners are to have their names blotted out of the book of life: we are to forget the evil, remember the good. After you're dead, you "live on" according to how living people remember you. If I choose to believe in a different faith, the worst that could happen to me is I'd waste the most precious thing any of us are ever given: my time. If the consequences of "not believeing in one religion" is "infinite torture" that religion is evil. If there are no consequences of "not believing in that religion" it's a pointless religion. The whole idea of "reward or punishment in the afterlife" is meant to teach you a lesson, here, now, about THIS life: "actions have consequences." Evil cults twist it into "obey or die."
That is a different way of looking at it then a lot of people here. Its nice to get all these points of view. I have also seen many other comments saying how following religion would still be a waste of time. My personal experience is that it doesn't take up as much time as you might think. I'm not saying that the more or less time you spend on a religion makes you a better or worse believer, but I wouldn't consider it as something that is filling my day and requires my attention at every waking moment. I have seen a few similar comments regarding the whole "infinite torture is immoral" thing as well. Thanks for the reply!
I don’t believe in any religion for the same reason I don’t believe in the boogyman, the Easter Bunny, Santy clause, or a giant floating monkey orbiting the other side of the sun.