A year without God turns into atheism.........(article)

[livetoread]

This statement fascinates me. I can only interpret it as "there must not be a deity intervening because the world doesn't work the way I think it should." I am not trying to be disrespectful or snarky, if it sounds that way. But it is such a bold statement! One could also say that the world would be complete and utter chaos if there were no deity intervening. No one can know, either way.

I can understand your response, and I certainly take no offense. It can sound that way I suppose, but to me it's more complicated than that. Most of it centers around the claims that theists make about God and how he is supposed to intervene in certain ways (like helps them know his will, or protects them, or helps them be better people) but doesn't seem to in a way that is distinguishable from not intervening.

[Murphy101]

Agreed. I like how CS Lewis talks about believing that anesthesia works. On the one hand, he is convinced it does. You could call that belief. On the other hand, when about to go under the surgeons knife, he panics, he doubts, he starts thinking it won't work. He loses his 'belief". He has to use an act of will to remind himself of what he believes, to willfully make himself believe. Not against his own logical thought...when he was being logical he did believe. But in the heat of the moment, emotionally, he doubts. He has to work to nurture his belief, or it will vanish. This pastor had doubts, and chose not to nurture that belief.

Ouch. Speaking as someone who has had an emergency cesarean without anesthesia - that'd be one awful analogy to use on me. lol

[Guest]

Agreed. I like how CS Lewis talks about believing that anesthesia works. On the one hand, he is convinced it does. You could call that belief. On the other hand, when about to go under the surgeons knife, he panics, he doubts, he starts thinking it won't work. He loses his 'belief". He has to use an act of will to remind himself of what he believes, to willfully make himself believe. Not against his own logical thought...when he was being logical he did believe. But in the heat of the moment, emotionally, he doubts. He has to work to nurture his belief, or it will vanish. This pastor had doubts, and chose not to nurture that belief.

Katie, count me among the confused. There is a huge difference in "believing" in the effectiveness of a scientifically controlled material vs. believing in the involvement of a being (or beings) in the spiritual realm. Anesthesia is formulated and controlled to work properly. It doesn't always; when you are the one going under the knife, signing waivers agreeing that you could possibly DIE, for sure the fear could arise that perhaps the anesthesia will not work properly, or the anesthesiologist is incompetent, or whatever. But anesthesia is supported by science and it is relatively easy to believe that it will work.

 

When I was going through my crisis of faith (and it was over approximately seven years that

I was deeply distressed), I kept trying to "nurture my faith." I jumped through a million hoops, trying to come out on the other side stronger than ever. But there were plenty of points when I had the nagging thought that how can I be a "Believer" if I can only get there by whipping up a faith frenzy? If the flame dies anytime I let the wind blow in, how can I say that I have faith? If God's greatest desire is to draw us all to Him, why does it depend on me ignoring the facts I see in real life, pushing away doubts, buckling down and saturating my brain with scripture? KWIM?

 

I read the book Why I Believed and I could so relate to the way the author describes his constant attempts to throw himself in to the faith. It is identical to my own journey.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I don't assume anything about atheists as someone raised that way. Well atheist/agnostic anyways.

 

 

If you are referring to me, I was not raised by atheist parents.

 

I get what you are saying about the nurturing stuff.  But it's hard for me to see that as similar to a relationship with a spouse or other human being.  There is give and take in that.  Is there give and take with a deity?  I guess since I don't believe in deities it's hard for me to imagine what the give and take would be. 

[ktgrok]

ok, with a bit of sleep and some cofee in me, I concede I must not have explained it well. I am obviously not CS Lewis, and don't seem to have his gift of clarity. I'll refer anyone who was interested in what I was trying (badly it seems) to say, to Mere Christianity, the chapter on Faith. 

[Tsuga]

ktgrok, as a non-Christian who has read that book, I think he did a fine job explaining faith, and particularly when people had much less access to knowing about other people who'd undergone anesthesia (you were more likely to know a born-again Christian than someone who'd been under general anesthesia), his comparison was apt.

 

I think the point is--how many of us have seen most of those scientific studies performed? How many of us have really had access to the raw data for most science? For most of us, and I say this as the partner of a scientist, it's a question of appeal to authority and listening to other people's subjective experiences with drugs such as Xanax which in some populations has been shown to be no more effective than a placebo (though other studies suggest otherwise). Thousands of people take that drug, and yet, the evidence is still iffy.

 

There is a cost-benefit calculation involved in deciding whether or not to believe anything.

 

Atheists may find the works of Hume, Popper, Descartes instructive.

 

I mean, how do we know we are not in the matrix? Just "because that would be stupid"? But really, how do we know?

 

We take a lot more on faith than we care to believe.

 

In my case it was contradictions and a fundamental disagreement with Christianity that led me to leave. Lack of faith--if that were my problem, I wouldn't believe any of you were real, either. How do I know it's not all a dream?

[Murphy101]

If you are referring to me, I was not raised by atheist parents.

I was referring to MYSELF. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

I get what you are saying about the nurturing stuff. But it's hard for me to see that as similar to a relationship with a spouse or other human being. There is give and take in that. Is there give and take with a deity? I guess since I don't believe in deities it's hard for me to imagine what the give and take would be.

Idk. There are many people who say their parents or spouses or whoever don't really love them or they don't feel loved by them even though those people say and act like they do and the people around them tell them it's obvious they are loved. Idk why that is, but it's actually not very uncommon at all. So to my mind, the theory of give and take doesn't seem to always pan out very well either.

 

It also presumes love is a give and take. I don't know that I agree with that. I love my husband. I'm quite happy he loves me back. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't change my decision to love him anyways. Make it harder? Sure. But either way, I'm going to love him.

 

I love lots and lots of people who don't love me back.

[Joanne]

A year without married life leads to... Being single?

 

A year without paying rent leads to... Eviction?

 

A year without ___ usually leads to not having (or having a lot less of) whatever in that ____.

 

No big news worthy surprise there.

 

Actually, I agree with you but not from the same space you may be coming from. I agree with you from a brain neural pathway place, a habit building one.

 

I had a strange moment over the weekend. I drove past a car wreck. It has just happened, and a car was flipped. Such an event is "triggery" for me now, and I immediately went into..........stress mode. My immediate reaction was to pray "Dear Lord, let everyone and their people be ok.........."

 

It was a surreal moment given who I am, the context, and where I am spiritually. I am out of the brain habit of traditional Christianity, but the neural networks - the habits, clearly still exist and is my default.

]

[ktgrok]

Interesting points!

 

I will say though, xanax is real. I accidentally took my dog's dose of it on Thanksgiving one year. I was supposed to give her the xanax and take my own vitamin. I switched then. I have ZERO recollection of that Thanksgiving. I nearly landed in my plate face first from what I'm told, and had to be escorted to the bedroom, stumbling, where I slept the whole day. Yes, it was a high dose. 

 

ktgrok, as a non-Christian who has read that book, I think he did a fine job explaining faith, and particularly when people had much less access to knowing about other people who'd undergone anesthesia (you were more likely to know a born-again Christian than someone who'd been under general anesthesia), his comparison was apt.

 

I think the point is--how many of us have seen most of those scientific studies performed? How many of us have really had access to the raw data for most science? For most of us, and I say this as the partner of a scientist, it's a question of appeal to authority and listening to other people's subjective experiences with drugs such as Xanax which in some populations has been shown to be no more effective than a placebo (though other studies suggest otherwise). Thousands of people take that drug, and yet, the evidence is still iffy.

 

There is a cost-benefit calculation involved in deciding whether or not to believe anything.

 

Atheists may find the works of Hume, Popper, Descartes instructive.

 

I mean, how do we know we are not in the matrix? Just "because that would be stupid"? But really, how do we know?

 

We take a lot more on faith than we care to believe.

 

In my case it was contradictions and a fundamental disagreement with Christianity that led me to leave. Lack of faith--if that were my problem, I wouldn't believe any of you were real, either. How do I know it's not all a dream?

 

[Tsuga]

Interesting points!

 

I will say though, xanax is real. I accidentally took my dog's dose of it on Thanksgiving one year. I was supposed to give her the xanax and take my own vitamin. I switched then. I have ZERO recollection of that Thanksgiving. I nearly landed in my plate face first from what I'm told, and had to be escorted to the bedroom, stumbling, where I slept the whole day. Yes, it was a high dose. 

 

I don't deny that Xanax has an effect, but it's an effect that some claim doesn't exist. Some people respond to Xanax, but some do not. That class of medicines just doesn't work for everyone. So my point is that it's something you must believe the medical establishment--which has been known to sell ineffective and/or dangerous drugs from time to time, after all--in order to go and take it.

 

Then you take it and it may or may not have the same effect on you.

 

Kind of like religion.

 

I used that example as I feel it's more apt than the anesthesia example nowadays, since we have a much more standardized experience with anesthesia.

 

(I know someone who can't take Xanax for totally unrelated side-effects and who does not respond to it at all. She was so disappointed as she has anxiety issues. :( )

[SparklyUnicorn]

I was referring to MYSELF. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

 

Idk. There are many people who say their parents or spouses or whoever don't really love them or they don't feel loved by them even though those people say and act like they do and the people around them tell them it's obvious they are loved. Idk why that is, but it's actually not very uncommon at all. So to my mind, the theory of give and take doesn't seem to always pan out very well either.

 

It also presumes love is a give and take. I don't know that I agree with that. I love my husband. I'm quite happy he loves me back. But even if he didn't, it wouldn't change my decision to love him anyways. Make it harder? Sure. But either way, I'm going to love him.

 

I love lots and lots of people who don't love me back.

 

Seems to me like there would be a zillion factors.  Different people have different ideas of what they think love is supposed to look like.  Some express it differently. 

 

I can't think of anyone I love that doesn't love me back.  I don't love a lot of people though. 

[6packofun]

I have yet to see which arguments for God/Christianity failed to convince him, which I'm curious about!  If he can honestly say that he tackled the Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the anthropic principle, the origins of biological information/programming in the cell, the moral argument, the argument from desire (see C.S. Lewis), the philosophical arguments of Alvin Plantinga about naturalism and rationality, the argument from experience, the body of evidence for the resurrection ("minimal facts argument") and reliability of the NT texts, the unlikelihood of the first century church to be responsible for creating myth AND the fulfilled prophecies argument....as a BELIEVER and didn't find those wanting before, I'd LOVE to know why he found those wanting afterwards.  Unless he really didn't believe.  It's not a surprise that one whose foundation of belief is much more wobbly than they assumed would discover that they don't believe after all.  lol  Oh, and perhaps that all started when he was part of a denomination that started with bogus prophecies...was THAT his reality?  :P

 

Btw, I've always wondered why saying that perhaps he was never a believer is so offensive to non-believers.  Why is that?  It seems as if the response is that it's not nice to judge someone who "did all the right things", when that right there belies part of the problem because true Christianity isn't based upon doing Christian-like things.  It's about a belief that is part trust AND part intellectual grappling with evidence.  Jesus Himself said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him†John 10:37-38.  Perhaps this pastor was believing in the works he was doing and even the feelings they gave him or his responsibilities in ministry, but not the saving work of Christ Himself.  I can't say for sure, of course, but certainly it's a possibility since no one knows anyone's heart and mind completely.  :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

Btw, I've always wondered why saying that perhaps he was never a believer is so offensive to non-believers.  Why is that?  It seems as if the response is that it's not nice to judge someone who "did all the right things", when that right there belies part of the problem because true Christianity isn't based upon doing Christian-like things.  It's about a belief that is part trust AND part intellectual grappling with evidence.  Jesus Himself said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in Me, and I in Him†John 10:37-38.  Perhaps this pastor was believing in the works he was doing and even the feelings they gave him or his responsibilities in ministry, but not the saving work of Christ Himself.  I can't say for sure, of course, but certainly it's a possibility since no one knows anyone's heart and mind completely.  :)

 

I think what I find offensive (although offensive isn't quite the word) is that it seems to assume that it's impossible to believe and then not believe.  That it must be the person didn't try hard enough or didn't do it right.  It could be that the person never really believed.  I'm not saying that is impossible.  It's just that it doesn't always work that way.  It should not be assumed.  I don't think anyone can truly know what someone else believed or didn't believe. 

[Momof3]

Following from a distance here... Just wanted to add some thoughts that have come to mind as I read the discussion thus far...mostly some things I get from the Bible about faith/doubting... This is mostly for a Christian who *does* believe in God, but might be struggling with their faith... Not really going to help an atheist. 

 

 

1. Bible examples

• It's not an unusual/abnormal thing for a REAL believer (even a spiritual leader) to question/doubt God. It's actually quite common. (Some have already mentioned this, but I think it's been mostly based on personal experience. Wanted to add that I believe the Bible absolutely supports this idea.) Abraham, Peter (and the rest of the disciples), Solomon, Samson, Elijah, etc. all "fell into unbelief" (to use a Bible phrase) at some point in their lives and to varying degrees. Granted, not all of them totally turned their backs on God, but some did...

 

• Many of the above examples are people who actually heard God's audible voice, and saw Him do miracles. So...what kind of evidence do you think would convince you of God's existence? The Red Sea parting? (Not asking any one person necessarily. Also, not meaning to be snarky. :) Just trying to provoke thought.) I think it's easy to have an if-God-only-did-XYZ-then-I-would-believe attitude, when plenty of people in the Bible experienced what we would consider to be ample evidence...and that didn't solve their faith struggles.

 

 

2. The Character of God

• If God is Who He claims to be (and I believe He is), He is the best judge of how to reveal Himself to man. He is God. I am fallible, sinful, finite, created human me. The evidence is on His terms...for good reason.

 

• God is not obligated to prove Himself to anyone...but He has revealed Himself through Creation and His Word.

 

• God is not a genie-in-a-lamp so that we ask Him whatever we want b/c He can do anything... 

 

 

3. Prayer

• Prayer works as I line my requests up with His Word and His Will. This is why I don't believe "break-the-silence"/"prove-yourself-to-me" prayers accomplish anything... I'm not trying to be trite or ignore the pain anyone may have experienced as a result of not feeling like God is there/doubting Him... Just saying that this is why I don't believe I could/should expect an answer to this sort of prayer.

 

 

4. The Evidence 

• The Bible teaches that God has already given us all the evidence we need to believe in Him. (Again, you can disagree with the Bible on that, but that is what it says.) We are "without excuse."

 

 

5. Why Christians Doubt God

• There are many reasons the Bible gives for why a Christian might struggle with "unbelief." We have the "flesh" that does pull us away from God (so the relationship must be nurtured), some may not have been a REAL Christian in the first place ;), depression, experiencing unexplainable (not a word?) hardships, etc. Another possibility is that Satan is actively engaged in attacking the faith of believers. That's why the spiritual "armor" Paul instructs believers to "put on" includes "above all, having the shield of faith, with which you may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the Wicked One." 

 

 

6. The Hope... 

• It's not my place to judge whether anyone who walks away from Christianity is a REAL Christian or not... It saddens me that REAL Christians do walk away from God. But many of the Bible examples of people who struggled with their faith did come back to God. And so I have reason to hope that any other person may as well.

 

[TranquilMind]

LInk to article.

 

The quote I can most relate to, and is my experience here, other places online and in real life:

I read that some time ago.

 

What did he think was going to happen? To me this is totally foreseeable. 

[TranquilMind]

So God reveals himself through a) the existence of the world and b) the bible ? Not being snarky here at all, but this was kind of a stumbling block for me. 

 

For me, God revealed himself as non-being through what he did not do, not through what he did, kwim ? I simply couldn't stomach the 'mysterious ways' argument.

 

Or that God's love can look like not intervening when an SS guard uses a baby as a football. I suppose I always found it hard to believe in the evidence revealed. But it was the cruelty of a non-intervening God that put the nail in my Christian coffin.

But He told us to do things.  He gave man dominion over the earth, and told him not to fail to do certain things.

 

 We (general) are at fault for not doing anything to stop the mess we created.   

 

You won't understand everything, but you will understand some things, on a need-to-know basis. 

 

Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants, the prophets.  Amos 3:7   He is telling someone what He is doing and wants us to be doing.  Few listen.

[Joanne]

But He told us to do things.  He gave man dominion over the earth, and told him not to fail to do certain things.

 

 We (general) are at fault for not doing anything to stop the mess we created.   

 

You won't understand everything, but you will understand some things, on a need-to-know basis. 

 

Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants, the prophets.  Amos 3:7   He is telling someone what He is doing and wants us to be doing.  Few listen.

 

I respect that is your perspective.

 

It is a complete, total, 100% fail for me.

 

It is, indeed, one of the reasons I left the faith.

[TranquilMind]

I respect that is your perspective.

 

It is a complete, total, 100% fail for me.

 

It is, indeed, one of the reasons I left the faith.

Fair enough.

It is a reason that I stay.

[Mommy22alyns]

Fair enough.

It is a reason that I stay.

 

 

And that's what it boils down to, really.  Some leave, some stay.  I don't think that atheists have never "tried" (whatever that may mean), or haven't thought about things, but I also hope that non-believers don't think that Christians are just mindlessly accepting everything that comes their way either.  Sometimes it sounds like people think Christians haven't thought things through, and if they just used their brains a little more, surely they'd become atheists too.

 

IDK.  It's really immaterial to me if someone does or does not believe or why, but I don't care for assumptions to be made about me.  Like homeschooling - do it or don't, but don't pass judgement on me for my choice.

[Murphy101]

When people say they don't believe because of what God has failed to do (in their opinion), I'm not sure I get their point.

 

It seems to suggest that God and free will are not compatible.

 

People had free will to do evil, therefore either God doesn't exist or He is a jerk and therefore they choose not to believe in Him?

 

Do they also not believe in humanity? Because humanity has stood by at least as often as people claim God does.

Where was humanity when these things were happening? Did it stop existing? Was it never real to begin with?

[Guest]

I think what I find offensive (although offensive isn't quite the word) is that it seems to assume that it's impossible to believe and then not believe. That it must be the person didn't try hard enough or didn't do it right. It could be that the person never really believed. I'm not saying that is impossible. It's just that it doesn't always work that way. It should not be assumed. I don't think anyone can truly know what someone else believed or didn't believe.

Yes. To me, it also bothers me as a type of arrogance. It's like a person who has never experienced marital infidelity saying, "Well no good, decent guy would ever do that! MY husband would never do that! If a guy would stray, he was never in love in the first place." It is similar, because those who say the "well then you never believed in the first place" argument are essentially assuming they are too good to ever have that problem.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Or that God's love can look like not intervening when an SS guard uses a baby as a football. I suppose I always found it hard to believe in the evidence revealed. But it was the cruelty of a non-intervening God that put the nail in my Christian coffin.

 

Those are difficult things to get through. There is no explanation anyone can make.  And yet, many Jews who witnessed such acts did not lose their faith.   They continued to believe in a loving God who cared for them. 

 

And, it is somewhat predictable.  We were never promised an easy, trouble-free life on earth. There is evil.  God does allow evil to touch his people.  Why?  It's a question as old as mankind.

 

I have often read that the Christian church thrives in times of persecution.  Why would that be (rhetorical question)?  

[Guest]

Those are difficult things to get through. There is no explanation anyone can make. And yet, many Jews who witnessed such acts did not lose their faith. They continued to believe in a loving God who cared for them.

 

And, it is somewhat predictable. We were never promised an easy, trouble-free life on earth. There is evil. God does allow evil to touch his people. Why? It's a question as old as mankind.

 

I have often read that the Christian church thrives in times of persecution. Why would that be (rhetorical question)?

One thing that makes me bonkers, though, is that the general Christian community talks out of both sides of their mouths on what God does and doesn't do. When someone has a child sick with cancer, the church whips out the prayer chain, the vigils, the novena. I understand why we go that route, especially when that's all the hope available. Yet, if the child dies, we are left to accept that this is mysteriously the best thing, that God owes no explanation and may remain as hidden as he likes. If this is true, why intercede at all? If the child lives against all odds, then we are to praise God for "answering our prayers," i.e. acting as we desire. We are both exhorted to pray AND told that God's ways are higher than our ways and He does all things out of love.

[Guest]

And that's what it boils down to, really. Some leave, some stay. I don't think that atheists have never "tried" (whatever that may mean), or haven't thought about things, but I also hope that non-believers don't think that Christians are just mindlessly accepting everything that comes their way either. Sometimes it sounds like people think Christians haven't thought things through, and if they just used their brains a little more, surely they'd become atheists too.

 

IDK. It's really immaterial to me if someone does or does not believe or why, but I don't care for assumptions to be made about me. Like homeschooling - do it or don't, but don't pass judgement on me for my choice.

I don't think that, but I will say I am sometimes amazed that some very erudite people study extensively and come out with their faith intact. Perhaps they are even apologists who debate with other scholars. I am amazed, perhaps even envious, that such people are able to retain their faith and it may even be perfectly sensible to them. I have wondered, "Why am I patently unable to believe these things? Why can they go forward, accepting not knowing thing, or accepting an explanation that does not convince me?"

 

I never was a Calvinist, but maybe that is the reason; God did not pick me for a keeper and so I'm just screwed.

[Murphy101]

It's more the non-intervention of a divine and all-powerful God that I find troubling.

 

Humanity doesn't claim to be divine and all-powerful, so its non-intervention is more explicable.

If anything that's what makes it worse for me. Humans don't need to be divine or all-powerful to intervene. We have many centuries of people intervening in often simple ways. But yet, we have many centuries of examples of humanity doing nothing or hopping on the evil bandwagon too.

 

Imo, there's more evidence the world doesn't really have humanity than that we don't really have God.

 

ETA: Humanity: the quality of being humane, of acting humane or humanely. The opposite of inhumanity

 

Thus to rephrase:

 

Imo, there's more evidence humans don't really have humanity than that they don't really have God.

 

I hope that is clearer. :)

[albeto.]

Those are difficult things to get through. There is no explanation anyone can make.

I don't quite believe this is true. If that was the case, you'd be as compelled to follow the Muslim religion as the Christian one, or Hinduism, or a pagan religion. The fact is, you do judge religious arguments to be more or less credible than others. The idea that Christians don't judge their god is simply wrong. Of course you judge him, you judge him by judging certain predictions to have come true or certain "signs" to be communicative.

 

 

And yet, many Jews who witnessed such acts did not lose their faith.   They continued to believe in a loving God who cared for them.

So too did the Japanese who were held in interment camps in the US. Of the followers of Jim Jones. Faith until death doesn't mean anything other than the power of conditioning, emotions, social expectations, and the ability to reconcile your circumstances with your intentions. And I'm sure a bunch of other things I just can't think of at the moment.

 

 

And, it is somewhat predictable.

Which means you've judged the bible to be a credible source for guiding your life. You've judged your god to be trustworthy. But judge him you have, and you shouldn't be embarrassed to say that.

 

 

We were never promised an easy, trouble-free life on earth.

Um, you are promised blessings that surpass your storehouses if you put your faith and trust in your god. You are promised to be healed if you go to the elders of the church and pray in earnest. You are promised to be taken care of better than a loving father takes care of his beloved son. But yeah, you're also told to expect persecution, you're told to expect pain, you're told to expect mystery that cannot be resolved in any way. The bible says a lot of things. It's not surprising to find that in a compilation of many religious texts that articulate many religious principles.

 

 

There is evil.  God does allow evil to touch his people.  Why?  It's a question as old as mankind.

Perhaps "evil" is just a way for one person or society to assign a strong value to a profound problem that inspired physical and emotional pain and suffering that was otherwise not considered to be justified by any reason. Ever notice how victors rewrite history? Does evil cease to exist just because the next generation never learns about the pain and suffering their forefathers unleashed on others? Does it cease to exist because it's been redefined as whatever rationalization is used? Or is it subjectively determined by the ones suffering, and those who sympathize with that suffering?

 

 

I have often read that the Christian church thrives in times of persecution.  Why would that be (rhetorical question)?

Because desperate people look to any conceivable answer to make sense of an otherwise confusing and unpredictable (and therefore unstable) world, and in a society where the vast majority holds a particular religious belief to be true, it's not hard to convince yourself it might just be true?

[albeto.]

Imo, there's more evidence the world doesn't really have humanity than that we don't really have God.

What does this mean?

[SparklyUnicorn]

So God reveals himself through a) the existence of the world and b) the bible ? Not being snarky here at all, but this was kind of a stumbling block for me. 

 

For me, God revealed himself as non-being through what he did not do, not through what he did, kwim ? I simply couldn't stomach the 'mysterious ways' argument.

 

Or that God's love can look like not intervening when an SS guard uses a baby as a football. I suppose I always found it hard to believe in the evidence revealed. But it was the cruelty of a non-intervening God that put the nail in my Christian coffin.

 

Yup.  I used to pray a lot as a kid.  After awhile I just thought...I'm just talking to myself.  Nobody is listening to me.  There is nothing.  And you know, I was just a kid who would believe in unicorns if you told me they were real.  So if I can't feel anything at all even with that then is it no wonder?  I need more proof than that.  Even a tiny bit of proof.  So far there has been absolutely nothing. 

 

Probably the only thing I find intriguing is that so many people believe this stuff.  That does make me wonder why I don't.

[8circles]

I still choose #1 because its the only option which allows me to be hopeful. But I agree with everything you've said about it in this thread so...

 

Thanks for taking my question seriously.

 

See, to me, the only possible answers to 'why' are 1. that God is a mystery and has some very enormously good reason for not intervening, that's not possible as a human to divine 2. that God is a cruel god 3. That God is an impotent God or 4. There is no God.

 

So I suppose i am asking on what basis do people choose answer 1 ? And if the answer is 'the bible' or 'the church', on what basis do you accept those ?

[8circles]

If Calvinism is true then I am totally screwed.

 

I don't think that, but I will say I am sometimes amazed that some very erudite people study extensively and come out with their faith intact. Perhaps they are even apologists who debate with other scholars. I am amazed, perhaps even envious, that such people are able to retain their faith and it may even be perfectly sensible to them. I have wondered, "Why am I patently unable to believe these things? Why can they go forward, accepting not knowing thing, or accepting an explanation that does not convince me?"

 

I never was a Calvinist, but maybe that is the reason; God did not pick me for a keeper and so I'm just screwed.

[Slartibartfast]

If Calvinism is true then I am totally screwed.

 

 

My complaints regarding Calvinism would probably start a fight.

 

 

[8circles]

My complaints regarding Calvinism would probably start a fight.

Lol. Not with me.

[Jennifer3141]

Yup.  I used to pray a lot as a kid.  After awhile I just thought...I'm just talking to myself.  Nobody is listening to me.  There is nothing.  And you know, I was just a kid who would believe in unicorns if you told me they were real.  So if I can't feel anything at all even with that then is it no wonder?  I need more proof than that.  Even a tiny bit of proof.  So far there has been absolutely nothing. 

 

Probably the only thing I find intriguing is that so many people believe this stuff.  That does make me wonder why I don't.

 

I used to pray as a kid too. And then one day I too thought, "I'm not thinking there's anyone there!" And I had one terrifying night. Because what if no one was there?

 

Until the next morning when I realized how utterly freeing that is. I can be a good person for the sake of choosing to be a good person because that feels good inside. I don't need to look outside for reinforcement based upon myths and legends from long ago. And frankly, I always thought Thor made more sense than Jehovah anyway. :laugh:

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. Not with me.

 

I think it would be unseemly to start a scripture war in front of the atheists, might as well wear socks with sandals at that point. :lol: :lol:

[Slartibartfast]

And regarding the disagreement with Calvinism thing, That is also part of why I say "personal relationship" because sometimes what I really mean is that the guy some Christians are following is a stranger to me. They probably feel the same about my idea of Christ.

 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've been thinking a lot about this thread.

 

From my Christian perspective:

 

The invisible is more important then the visible.  And the eternal is more important than the temporary.  In other words, what is happening inside my soul will last.  What happens outside in this world won't.  God's looking at things from the perspective of eternity.  So as a Christian, I want to live life in light of eternity.  

 

Evil people, evil deeds and inanimate evil (ie. catastrophes) are evidence of the existence of evil.  Yeah, I know that sounds simplistic but I don't think the Bible denies evil and instead talks about just how bad it is.  In fact, according to the Bible even the worst evil we've seen through out history,   was still restrained by God.   Looked at in the light of eternity though, even the worst evil is "momentary light affliction"  (2 Corinthians 4:16 - 18) when seen in the context of an eternal . . . eternity.  

 

I can't really can't argue for this.  It's not the kind of thing that can be argued because it is a way of seeing things that comes from a radically different perspective. 

[Lady Florida.]

I think it would be unseemly to start a scripture war in front of the atheists, might as well wear socks with sandals at that point. :lol: :lol:

 

Doesn't matter that I'm one of the atheists. You really shouldn't dress like that in front of a Floridian.  :lol:

[Anne in CA]

Jean, you hit the nail on the head when you said you can't argue for this. There are many things that were said on this thread that I had good answers for, answers that make sense to me, for who I am and where I have come from. But I could never make someone else see things the same way, it just wouldn't work. No one who posted about why they did not believe in God had had different thoughts or experiences than I had had, but there was different resolution for me.  

 

I also prayed as a child and began to feel I was talking to myself. HOWEVER, as an adult watching my kids pray I see how fast their prayers get answered, and so I don't quite know what went wrong for me, but I know God does answer children's prayers. But  I do know that God moved in my life when I was ready. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I used to pray as a kid too. And then one day I too thought, "I'm not thinking there's anyone there!" And I had one terrifying night. Because what if no one was there?

 

Until the next morning when I realized how utterly freeing that is. I can be a good person for the sake of choosing to be a good person because that feels good inside. I don't need to look outside for reinforcement based upon myths and legends from long ago. And frankly, I always thought Thor made more sense than Jehovah anyway. :laugh:

 

I've had thoughts about how freeing it is too.  People have asked me if I'm afraid about where I'll go or won't go when I die.  No...not really.  It's no longer complicated.  I'm afraid of others dying because they will be gone and I'll miss them and some of them I rely on, but me dying?  I hope I don't die when someone needs me, but otherwise I'm not worried about it.

[albeto.]

Jean, you hit the nail on the head when you said you can't argue for this. There are many things that were said on this thread that I had good answers for, answers that make sense to me, for who I am and where I have come from. But I could never make someone else see things the same way, it just wouldn't work. No one who posted about why they did not believe in God had had different thoughts or experiences than I had had, but there was different resolution for me.  

 

I also prayed as a child and began to feel I was talking to myself. HOWEVER, as an adult watching my kids pray I see how fast their prayers get answered, and so I don't quite know what went wrong for me, but I know God does answer children's prayers. But  I do know that God moved in my life when I was ready. 

 

Doesn't that spark a bit of curiosity for you, though? I mean, you wouldn't have to convince me that water boils at a certain temperature because that's a fact. We see that claim verified time and again. No one has to accept it on faith, trusting a loved one to be right about it. All the knowledge we have about the natural world is discovered in the same way - faith isn't needed (even to explain unlikely experiences). So when I hear someone say this, that someone could never believe it but you know it, and I hear them say it in the context of a whole crowd of people making the same exact claim but all meaning different things, I wonder, do you hear the others? Does it make you curious why other people feel the exact same way about you but have concluded something totally incompatible with what you believe you know to be true? The only solutions to this I can think of is ignoring the other claims, or concluding there's a giant conspiracy to dupe people into believing the wrong claims. It just seems so... obvious to me that beliefs like these are completely personal and subjective and work only for the individual, and that's why others who don't share these beliefs can't be convinced. I'm sure that sounds rude, but it's not intended to sound rude. I hope you understand.

[livetoread]

I have yet to see which arguments for God/Christianity failed to convince him, which I'm curious about! If he can honestly say that he tackled the Kalam Cosmological argument, the fine-tuning argument, the anthropic principle, the origins of biological information/programming in the cell, the moral argument, the argument from desire (see C.S. Lewis), the philosophical arguments of Alvin Plantinga about naturalism and rationality, the argument from experience, the body of evidence for the resurrection ("minimal facts argument") and reliability of the NT texts, the unlikelihood of the first century church to be responsible for creating myth AND the fulfilled prophecies argument....as a BELIEVER and didn't find those wanting before, I'd LOVE to know why he found those wanting afterwards. Unless he really didn't believe. It's not a surprise that one whose foundation of belief is much more wobbly than they assumed would discover that they don't believe after all. lol Oh, and perhaps that all started when he was part of a denomination that started with bogus prophecies...was THAT his reality? :)

Ryan is a bright, well-educated guy. I don't know if he is acquainted with all of your list there and I can't speak to his responses to them, but I can share my own thoughts.

 

Most of the arguments I'm acquainted with do one of two things. First, they try and show that "something" beyond the material had to be involved in the formation of the material. Second, they try and show that this "something" is a benevolent deity that intervenes in our world. Sometimes they even try and show that this is the deity as described by their type of Christianity, but I'll set that one aside and deal with the first two.

 

The arguments for the existence of a powerful creative non-material force are interesting. The problem with them is that I can entertain the possibility that they might be true and still not change anything about my life. There is no need to try and believe it's true until such time as the evidence supports them more. Just like the existence of multiverses might be true, but what I think about it doesn't matter, so the existence of some creative non-material force might be true but my belief or skepticism about it doesn't matter. The only "something" whose existence matters is one that expects something from me.

 

It's the second group, the arguments that try and show not only that "something" exists, but it is loving and wants something from us, namely belief, that many of us who lose our faith get hung up on. I think it is more likely that if "something" exists, it is either indifferent or immoral and as such, either doesn't want or deserve my attention.

 

Establishing that "something" might exist is neither here nor there. Establishing that the "something" is a loving deity is the problem. Establishing that this loving deity wants certain things from us, like for us to believe in it, is harder still. I think the probability of those being true dramatically decrease the more specific they become.

 

After I realized that there probably isn't a loving deity that cared whether I believed in it or not, the other possibilities didn't matter. Maybe there is an immoral deity. Why should I give it the time of day? Maybe there is something that fine-tuned the universe. Why should I care beyond it being interesting? Maybe there is a loving deity who doesn't care whether I believe in it or not. Fine with me, we'll carry on until such time as it changes it's mind.

[marbel]

One thing that makes me bonkers, though, is that the general Christian community talks out of both sides of their mouths on what God does and doesn't do. When someone has a child sick with cancer, the church whips out the prayer chain, the vigils, the novena. I understand why we go that route, especially when that's all the hope available. Yet, if the child dies, we are left to accept that this is mysteriously the best thing, that God owes no explanation and may remain as hidden as he likes. If this is true, why intercede at all? If the child lives against all odds, then we are to praise God for "answering our prayers," i.e. acting as we desire. We are both exhorted to pray AND told that God's ways are higher than our ways and He does all things out of love.

 

I don't have any links to share on this, but I've been hearing a lot more talk (personally, not online, just at church and with church leaders/theology students) about death - and it's not that death is "mysteriously the best thing." 

 

God did not intend death for his people.  We grieve when people die because death is wrong.  It was not supposed to happen.  It does happen because of the fall, because evil entered the world.   So it is not the best thing.  It is the result of a fallen world.  Now God can turn that to good.  I've known (personally) people who have had children who died - babies, young children, a married daughter who left two children of her own behind.  They grieved those deaths, of course. But they did also spoke of things they learned from the experience, and how it changed them for the better. How it changed their other children for the better. One woman I know lost her first child at birth and her doctors learned something to prevent it in the future - not just for her but for others. That doesn't mean they ended up saying "Oh, well, it's all OK!  God did the best thing and that's all we need to know."  But they felt God had given them comfort, peace, and a blessing from it.  And of course they believe that their children are with God now.   They still miss them.  They still would prefer that their children were alive. 

 

I don't have book titles in front of me, but the author Nancy Guthrie lost two children to a genetic disease.  She writes and speaks extensively on the topic.  

 

As far as intercession, again no verses or anything to cite, but we are to bring our requests to God.  Whether or not it is within his will to grant the request is another thing. 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

After I realized that there probably isn't a loving deity that cared whether I believed in it or not, the other possibilities didn't matter. Maybe there is an immoral deity. Why should I give it the time of day? Maybe there is something that fine-tuned the universe. Why should I care beyond it being interesting? Maybe there is a loving deity who doesn't care whether I believe in it or not. Fine with me, we'll carry on until such time as it changes it's mind.

(Using your post as a jumping off point to answer some general themes in this thread)

 

I care because when I went looking for what kind of an immortal (which I think you meant instead of immoral) deity was involved, I found a holy perfect God.  I know this will be wildly unpopular (to say the least) on a thread like this, but I don't think the real problem is whether there might be an invisible immortal deity somewhere.  The real problem is that I found evil and I found that I was part of that evil.  Oh, I don't mean that I think (most) people are immoral or can't be nice or can't be charitable etc.  I mean that there really is this thing called sin and that I am sinful and that this sin problem is one that I can't fix even by believing really hard that God is loving and will give me blessings if I think of Him that way.  I believe that God designed everything in this universe to be a certain way and any deviance from that separates us from Him.  So even a nice person who is moral and kind and loving is still operating under a sphere that is separate from God and has a problem of sin.  So we get into the problems of Adam and original sin and mankind being born into a spiritual separation (death) from God that needs a supernatural fix through Jesus Christ.  I know the cries of "unfair!" that come with this but I think this is just as much a reality as the existence of God.  I believe that Jesus Christ really was a historical person and that his death on a cross was a historical fact as well as his resurrection.  I pin my hope on that, not simply on there being a God.  And I pin my hope on Him solving my sin problem instead of me relying on being a "nice guy".  And I recognize that this is the stumbling block or offense of Christianity that separates it from Deism or other belief.

 

 I actually don't think that atheism is any worse or really different from any other belief or thought or whatever that rejects what Jesus Christ did on the cross.  I know it is divisive in that many find it very offensive.  It doesn't make me treat anyone as less than anyone else so I do not think it should be divisive in that way.  I still think that everyone is loved by God and was made in God's image and has salvation provided for them if they choose to accept it.  I don't ostracize people who don't believe as I do.  I don't run after them trying to convince them to believe as they do.  I will explain my beliefs if someone asks what those beliefs might be.  I don't try to manipulate someone into believing as I do.  I think that my responsibility (and I do think there is some responsibility for me in this) ends with a clear explanation of my beliefs when asked for.  

[Guest]

I don't have any links to share on this, but I've been hearing a lot more talk (personally, not online, just at church and with church leaders/theology students) about death - and it's not that death is "mysteriously the best thing."

 

God did not intend death for his people. We grieve when people die because death is wrong. It was not supposed to happen. It does happen because of the fall, because evil entered the world. So it is not the best thing. It is the result of a fallen world. Now God can turn that to good. I've known (personally) people who have had children who died - babies, young children, a married daughter who left two children of her own behind. They grieved those deaths, of course. But they did also spoke of things they learned from the experience, and how it changed them for the better. How it changed their other children for the better. One woman I know lost her first child at birth and her doctors learned something to prevent it in the future - not just for her but for others. That doesn't mean they ended up saying "Oh, well, it's all OK! God did the best thing and that's all we need to know." But they felt God had given them comfort, peace, and a blessing from it. And of course they believe that their children are with God now. They still miss them. They still would prefer that their children were alive.

 

I don't have book titles in front of me, but the author Nancy Guthrie lost two children to a genetic disease. She writes and speaks extensively on the topic.

 

As far as intercession, again no verses or anything to cite, but we are to bring our requests to God. Whether or not it is within his will to grant the request is another thing.

 

Marble, I'm not picking on you, but you should know I have heard all of this before. As to the first part of your post, I find the "Fallen world" argument illogical. God doesn't want people to die, but His hands are tied because of this fallen world. God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolant, yet He cannot prevent the influence of Evil (whether you view the Fall as literal or allegorical); cannot foresee that humankind will not "behave" indefinitely. Though He (supposedly) can only be loving (Every good and perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father...) there are millions of events, both huge and minuscule, that harm, that hurt, that devastate individuals, families, animals, Earth, nations. There is no logic in a Being with total power and pure love grieving with a mother holding her still, blue baby. Why would He need to grieve with her? He could have intervened in a thousand ways.

 

I know the book of which you speak. It is Holding on to Hope. I read it when my own daughter died at birth. I have learned some worthwhile things by being a mother who lost a child, but it doesn't make the trade an acceptable one. If there is a Heaven (which I do believe, in a general manner), I for sure would rather imagine my Lydia Clare is there, but I didn't choose motherhood so I could populate Heaven. I wanted my daughter to have tea parties and wear a pretty Christmas dress and call me "Mama" and learn to sing "Old McDonald Had a Farm." I wanted the lifetime of experiences raising my girl, not a tiny casket and whatever "great wisdom" I possibly gained instead.

 

Can good things come out of tragedy? It can. Good can also come out of good. God does not "need" bad things to happen so that good things can happen.

[fraidycat]

I don't have any links to share on this, but I've been hearing a lot more talk (personally, not online, just at church and with church leaders/theology students) about death - and it's not that death is "mysteriously the best thing."

 

God did not intend death for his people. We grieve when people die because death is wrong. It was not supposed to happen. It does happen because of the fall, because evil entered the world. So it is not the best thing. It is the result of a fallen world.

 

See, this is the kind of stuff that pushes me away. I cannot fathom our planet sustaining that amount of life. It's simply not big enough to NEVER, not ever have death.

 

And without death how does anyone survive? Plant and animal life is sacrificed for the survival of plant and animal life.

 

How can you reconcile what you really know to be factual regarding sustaining life vs. what you believe "could have been"?

[EmseB]

God does not "need" bad things to happen so that good things can happen.

 

No author needs bad to happen so that good things can happen.  On the other hand, Shakespeare did some pretty awful things to his creations.  As did almost every great author.

 

It seems that people who question God's role in evil see God as pretty much on par or equal with humans.  And if a human allowed or commanded some of the things God did, then that person would be simply awful, right?  Because humans are fallible and make mistakes and are cruel.  On the other hand, many people who believe in God view him as Creator and author of the entire human story.  He defines good because He made it.  He's writing the story.  Do we criticize great artists for putting tragedy in their works? For being cruel to their creations?  No, because if it was all kittens and bunnies, who would read it?  The response can be then, "Oh, He's awful then to write some of this crap!" but Christians in general believe that the ending of the story is the ultimate happy ending.  The ultimate in redemption that far surpasses any good ending to any story we've ever read.  Romans 9 addresses some of this.

 

To paraphrase one of the better talks on the problem of evil that I've heard, we don't want Frodo to sit down on the path and grumble about how Tolkien is so awful and all of this is unfair to him, we want him to go throw the ring into the fire and be victorious over the darkness.  And it would seem silly if he sat down and said that because all this bad stuff existed and good people died it must mean that no one is writing the story in the first place.  Of course, outside of the story Tolkien (and we) can see the amazing ending and redemption in the story so it doesn't look as hopeless to us as it does to Frodo or Samwise.

 

I'm sure this little diatribe gives me away as a Calvinist, but I can't reconcile God as author and creator any other way.  Either He's made us all and is telling a great story as a great Author, or He is a kind of horrible dictator that is sort of half paying attention, or he doesn't exist and I have no more significance beyond the dust on some distant planet.

 

ETA:  I'm not writing this to convince anyone of anything, but just to offer another perspective of God and the problem of "bad stuff".

[marbel]

Thanks for taking my question seriously.

 

See, to me, the only possible answers to 'why' are 1. that God is a mystery and has some very enormously good reason for not intervening, that's not possible as a human to divine 2. that God is a cruel god 3. That God is an impotent God or 4. There is no God.

 

So I suppose i am asking on what basis do people choose answer 1 ? And if the answer is 'the bible' or 'the church', on what basis do you accept those ?

 

I don't think I can answer that question in a way that will make sense to most people.  #1 is the only choice I can make.  

 

#2 goes against everything I've been taught, all my life.  Even in times that I have walked away from God I have seen his goodness.   I've not had major tragedies in my life, though I have had some very hard years.  I won't bore anyone with details of dysfunctional family, an early divorce, years of loneliness and an ugly, immoral, empty lifestyle that went with that.  Now I can look back and see what I have been rescued from.  I can see how some things I wanted (badly) were withheld from me till I was ready.  I didn't choose to have my first child at age 41. :-)    And now I can share some of my experiences with younger women so maybe they won't go through what I did.  

 

Yes, I gasp in horror at the terrible things, large and small, that happen.  I haven't grieved over the death of my own child, but I have grieved with mothers and fathers who have.  If they have actually gone through that and not determined that God is cruel, how can I as  a bystander?   Probably that sounds very pat and platitudinous, and some may think that I would lose my faith if something terrible happened to me or mine.  I don't know.  I do know I have a lot of knowledge in my head and heart that I hope I would draw on if I needed it.  I have a lot of people around me who would show me and remind me of God's love when I needed it. 

 

#3 is not possible to me.  If God is impotent, nothing in the world would make sense to me.  Much of that comes from my upbringing - it is what I was raised to believe. But it also comes from living and studying on my own.  I am not a Biblical scholar, though I am married to one and am acquainted with many.  :-)    While some may see this world as no different than one in which there is no deity intervening, I see that it could be much, much worse.  I also can't see the creation and development of the world, of people, plants, and animals, as random.  It can only be the work of a creative, omnipotent God.

 

#4.  Um, see the last half of #3, I guess.

 

BTW I don't see any reason not to take your question seriously.     Not sure how good of an answer I gave though.

 

 

[EmseB]

See, this is the kind of stuff that pushes me away. I cannot fathom our planet sustaining that amount of life. It's simply not big enough to NEVER, not ever have death.

 

And without death how does anyone survive? Plant and animal life is sacrificed for the survival of plant and animal life.

 

How can you reconcile what you really know to be factual regarding sustaining life vs. what you believe "could have been"?

 

Most people who believe this believe that the world was very pre-fall and pre-death.  If we limit what would happen without death to our current understanding of the earth, then, yeah, it would be messy.  But our understanding is limited to what we see and know now, not to what was going on then.  To answer your question, I in no way believe that because I cannot fathom something that it means God cannot figure it out or deal with it.  There are a lot of things I can't fathom but still happen anyway in this world.  I don't try to reconcile all of them with my current level of knowledge.

 

Also, I do think the Bible addresses the fact that plant life was to be used as food pre-fall and I don't think the "death" of a plant is talked about as the same thing as killing a human or even another animal.

[albeto.]

No author needs bad to happen so that good things can happen.  On the other hand, Shakespeare did some pretty awful things to his creations.  As did almost every great author.

 

It seems that people who question God's role in evil see God as pretty much on par or equal with humans.  And if a human allowed or commanded some of the things God did, then that person would be simply awful, right?  Because humans are fallible and make mistakes and are cruel.  On the other hand, many people who believe in God view him as Creator and author of the entire human story.  He defines good because He made it.  He's writing the story.  Do we criticize great artists for putting tragedy in their works? For being cruel to their creations?  No, because if it was all kittens and bunnies, who would read it?  The response can be that, "Oh, He's awful then to write some of this crap!" but Christians in general believe that the ending of the story is the ultimate happy ending.  The ultimate in redemption that far surpasses any good ending to any story we've ever read.  Romans 9 addresses some of this.

 

To paraphrase one of the better talks on the problem of evil that I've heard, we don't want Frodo to sit down on the path and grumble about how Tolkien is so awful and all of this is unfair to him, we want him to go throw the ring into the fire and be victorious over the darkness.  And it would seem silly if he sat down and said that because all this bad stuff existed and good people died it must mean that no one is writing the story in the first place.  Of course, outside of the story Tolkien (and we) can see the amazing ending and redemption in the story so it doesn't look as hopeless to us as it does to Frodo or Samwise.

 

I'm sure this little diatribe gives me away as a Calvinist, but I can't reconcile God as author and creator any other way.  Either He's made us all and is telling a great story as a great Author, or He is a kind of horrible dictator that is sort of half paying attention, or he doesn't exist and I have no more significance beyond the dust on some distant planet.

 

Not at all. He's being judged by virtue of the claims made about him, and by virtue of our own shared sense of justice and morality. The claims are that the god of the bible is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent (the first two are contradicted by the bible, but let's ignore that for now). An omniscient and omnipotent god could conceive and create a universe that doesn't have suffering but still allows for free will, or election, or whatever he wanted. He could, as Homer Simpson speculated, microwave a burrito too hot for him to eat. Why not? He can do anything, right? But when he's found deficient in that regard, or when he fails simple ethical expectations, we're told not to judge, not to question, just believe it. That has nothing to do with this character being on par with humans, but this character being on par with the claims made about him. They fail when looked at outside the scope of faith. We wouldn't encourage anyone to not consider carefully what and who they trust in any other respect like we do for religious belief.

 

Your analogy to Tolkien is morally bankrupt because Frodo doesn't actually exist. People who are hurting, suffering right here right now do exist. They are conscious and aware of their pain and suffering, they are not a clever analogy that live in the imagination of people who pick up a particular story. They really do hurt, and to trivialize that in hopes that it puts your god in a higher category of glory or respect is bizarre logically and problematic ethically, not to mention offensive to those of us who love people who suffer chronically, or suffer ourselves.

 

I agree with your last potential to explain your god: he doesn't exist and you have no more significance beyond the dust on some distant planet. You do, however, hold the capacity to feel the sensations a human in the 21st century is privileged to know. You are sentient and aware of your surroundings. You respond to events with emotion, some good some bad, some intense some mild. You make the meaning in your life, and those who know and love you find your presence and their relationship with you more than significant. I'd wager there's someone who loves you more than their own life. That's hardly insignificant. It's beautiful, and you should enjoy it, and you should enjoy knowing you make others feel the same way (and I'm willing to bet you already do).

 

Carpe that diem, kwim?

 

;)

[hornblower]

actually once you start questioning, the thing that I could never get past is 'which god?' Why the biblical god? Why not some other god? Why should I look for evidence of this god versus the other gods? Maybe the other ones are real & are sad (or mad?) that they're being ignored now? I mean, it all seems just a likely to me (which is to say, not at all....)