I’m sorry you had such poor friends. Your definition of “totally Christian” is, I think, way off by most standards, and I think faux, fanatic Christianity that loses sight of its true purpose (love) and leader (Christ) is more likely to result in an eventual lack of faith. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Amish, even Evangelicals suffer major losses I think due in large part to this.

So your assumption in the experiment was that if faith came back to you, it proved itself?

Yes, that was my idea. It goes along with the old saying:

“If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they’re yours; if they don’t they never were.”

Only in my case it would be about religious beliefs, not a dating relationship.

Now when i say, I made the decision to not believe i should have been a bit more clear. I did not just decide over night to become an atheist. The first step was me entering a state where i believed nothing, not the existence in god, or the non-existence in god. I intended to make myself new by starting out with my mind like an empty vessel. From there i was in a pure learning mode. Start out with basic ideas.. and work my way up. If the idea makes sense and is logical.. i kept it.. if it was flawed or unprovable.. i did not subscribe to it. This is all taken from Descartes. (and yes i know he did believe in god)

To me i thought it wrong for me to only follow everyone else’s beliefs only because i was born where i was born with the parents who i had.. if i was born in a muslim family i’d be muslim.. hindu family, i’d be hindu.. and so on and so forth. but I was indeed born in a christian family. My mother read me bible stories every nite, and she taught me the fundamentals of christianity.

Now here comes the idea that i never liked.. I didn’t choose christianity.. it was chosen for me by my parents and my community.. so..How can i truly belong to or believe in something whole heartedly if i never actually made the decision on my own? When i was young I didn’t know there were other religions.. i didn’t even know that some-people didn’t believe in god.. i just thought it was the one and only belief. I was most certainly not old enough or wise enough to choose my beliefs in god. So why should i stay in a religion only because i believed it when i was 2 years old?

The only option was clear to me.. (after reading Meditations by Descartes) I had to cleans my mind of everything that I had assumed to be true, and then start over. And when i did i realized many many things that i could not even begin to explain on this forum (well i could.. but it would be painfully long and boring). It can all be summed up with one sentence, “I no longer believe in god”

I also came to the conclusion that nearly all people doubt the existence of god.. they only cling to faith with every ounce of strength they have because they are afraid of being punished if they are wrong. They are afraid of facing that little twinge they feel in their brain every-time their doubts of gods existence pops into their brain. I say face it! embrace it! and see which wins out.. your faith.. or your logic.

Yes, that was my idea.

Believing that if your faith comes back to you, it proves itself, wouldn’t have been reasonable on its own. My point in drawing this out was that you were dooming yourself to take up the belief that faith is unreasonable because you had already assumed that it could somehow be “proven” by circular reasoning, at best. No offense, but that was a pretty poor test, doomed to failure.

I also went through a period of doubt and testing. For seven years, starting in high school, through all of college, and then out into the real world, I systematically dismantled everything I thought and took up one belief or position after another, on each side of an argument, questioned others about it, read, thought, wrote down. Living for most of that time in the Bible Belt, I had my childhood Catholic beliefs, in particular, attacked from all sides. I embraced those attacks, and tried to make arguments against any of these beliefs even better than the initial arguments were. And, again, I particularly attacked all of my Catholic beliefs.

The most coherent, consistent, rational and wholistic system of thought that I discovered through this process was Catholic—which quite strenuously includes science. All of my academic interests for my whole life had been scientific (biology, geology, physics, chemistry), so I knew I had to examine that and include that as well.

I also came to the conclusion that nearly all people doubt the existence of god.. they only cling to faith with every ounce of strength they have because they are afraid of being punished if they are wrong. They are afraid of facing that little twinge they feel in their brain every-time their doubts of gods existence pops into their brain. I say face it! embrace it! and see which wins out.. your faith.. or your logic.

In my experience, with everyone I know, this is a very weak generalization,. True for some, even many, I don’t dispute, but I don’t even think for the majority. And again you put up that false dichotomy of faith vs. logic. Read C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Peter Kreeft, Blaise Pascal, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and countless others, and if you can still conclude that these men have a weaker grasp of logic and reason than you, or if you do not conclude and that they at least have a strong argument and respectable rational basis for their beliefs, then your own rationality and “freedom of thought” is, I think, highly suspect, most likely colored by blind indefensible assumptions and anti-religious prejudices that you’ve constructed in your mind to justify your position.

I don’t disagree that atheists can make a reasonable argument for their beliefs. I never have. Peter Kreeft, a Boston College philosophy professor, frequently employs an exercise wherein the atheists and the theists separate themselves, then each is tasked with making the other’s argument. Every single time he’s done this, the theists offer a much stronger argument for the atheistic case than the atheists have been able to offer, and the atheists make very weak arguments for the theistic case.

The point of that exercise, as well as what I’ve tried to do all along on this site, is to show that both theistic and atheistic positions are very logical and reasonable, based on what we can know. However, Kreeft’s exercise demonstrates something else that I’ve observed frequently in my own experience: serious theists (not your average churchgoer who absorbs and questions little) are often more likely to consider both sides of the argument well, while atheists appear to be the ones with the stronger mental blocks and inability to open themselves to see the other side. There, another generalization, useful for little other than showing you where I come from, what experience and perspective I have on the situation.

Interesting, though, that religious beliefs and devotion continually are proven (scientifically, I might add) to lead generally to healthier and longer lives and better relationships. Add this to observations by counselors and psychologists that many who cast off their beliefs or have trouble accepting religious belief are wounded in some way. Granted, I don’t have a study right now to back that last one up (I’m not sure any have been done) and so it is anecdotal evidence, but I bet some observation of those previous statistics of mental and emotional health and well-being will bear that out.

Aran, I keep trying to hammer this home to you, and it seems like you are forgetting it. Since there is no God, most atheists DON’T CARE about religion unless it somehow interferes with their lives. If you don’t care, you won’t make much of an argument for your position, and indeed, why should you have to? Religion doesn’t enter our minds, we don’t think about it, there is no reason to do so. When we do think about it, for example, here, we look upon it as fiction, fairy tales, so forth. What we can’t believe is that you all take it seriously, we can SEE that you do, but we can’t figure out WHY you do. So, when discussing religion, atheists are coming from a different place than you may think that we are. It’s not a religion, you know, it’s a state of mind and also a mindset. Our belief systems are different from religious people. I really don’t know how to explain it, because I don’t think about it, it’s just there. There’s not really two sides to this argument, there is only your side. And that means there is no argument (debate). Do you see what I mean? I don’t mean to confuse you, but I’m trying to explain this because I promised to do so in this topic. Well, I’m trying, hon.

That doesn’t seem to be the approach that MD was taking.

You’re right, I do find it difficult to understand a perspective that refuses to even consider another viewpoint or other information, instead isolating itself in its own safe selective view of the universe.

For you see, your assertion that there just is no God and your dismissal of any arguments against it, whatever evidence or rational basis is provided, is not rational at all. It is a close-minded faith blinder than that of all but the most fanatic of theists.

I know you’d like to accuse theists of just what I am characterizing your viewpoint to be, but it’s just not the same, in most cases. You have stated that you choose to ignore arguments against your position and ignore whole realms of knowledge, fact, and thought. I may not be able to change your mind in that regard, but that doesn’t make your position rational, and certainly not more logical or rational than that of all the theists like me who are ready and willing to consider all evidence and arguments in the pursuit of truth. So again, what I try to point out here is just that our position is at least as rational as the atheistic one, and in the case of positions like yours, eminently moreso. I don’t intend this, Koo, as an insult, but rather a description of the situation we are both talking about, from our two different perspectives.

Honey, you are right, you still don’t see it. It doesn’t enter into my mind. The existence of god cannot be proven, there is no argument that has yet proven to me that there is one or any of that superstition surrounding him. There is no proof that has yet convinced me. Perhaps you would like to try? Why should I believe in such nonsense? I don’t believe that Frodo Baggins existed, I’m pretty sure Sleeping Beauty was a myth. I read those fantasies, enjoyed them immensely, but I know they are fantasies. Truths exist within them such as the triumph of good over evil, etc. Truths such as these exist in the Bible, too. It’s a good read! lol. But I know where to draw the line at what is fantasy and what is truth.

Speaking of intractable beliefs, yours seem that way to me. You have carefully researched, decided what is right and what is wrong for you and your beliefs. You have said this before, that you are a scholar, you don’t make decisions haphazardly, you are at this point in your life and beliefs through careful study in many different fields. But once you have those beliefs down, as you seem to think that you do, yours are just as intractable as mine! You don’t seem to think that I have done any research, or that I have ever studied anything about anything. I’m old, dear, I did that crap a long time ago. I have a degree in chemical engineering, but have never used it in my work, which is more oriented toward mechanical engineering. I was a christian until the age of fifteen, then I was of no religion for awhile, until I came of age into atheism at about 25 years old. I researched, I looked into it (no internet back then, public and college libraries were the place to go, along with lectures and periodicals). I did all that, and came to my personal beliefs. My research is less stunning than yours? I did it a long time ago, and haven’t thought about it in 20 years or more. Yet I am supposed to drag out facts and figures and examples that shaped my beliefs that I can’t even remember anymore! I did the research, I did the studying. Is there new information that I should know about? Recent additions to the Bible, perhaps, that would NOW convince me of God’s existence? I don’t think so… People are different from each other. Some come to conclusions rather quickly and with scant evidence. You and I are not that way, but we have other differences between us. Trust me, I did the research and the studying and my unbelief (!) is heartfelt, just as your belief is.

In your last paragraph, you said that I’d like to accuse theists of something, and I’d like to point out that I have never done that here, nor do I intend to. If you feel that I have, I would like to apologize right now for it. I would like to say, though, that I do consider some christians to be that way, ignoring all rational thought, dismissing all arguments against god, etc. But, as I said, we try not to act that way amongst ourselves here. Many people are not rational, I’m sure you would have some pity for people who reached their conclusions about their faith without finding out more about it, and at least be educated in that religion and know something about it. I have pity for such people, too, and it’s not a religious thing, some people don’t want to be educated about anything, they have their ideas and their beliefs, that’s it! (“Don’t try any of them newfangled ideers out on me, we don’t cotton to them things around heer…”) Many people seem to accept religion blindly, it’s the subject at hand here, so we comment that way, but it’s true, it doesn’t have to be something religious for people to accept it blindly, some people reject anything that they think doesn’t apply to them. (I guess that would be blind rejection, then, huh?). Well, you know what I mean. I’m old, set in my ways, don’t like to be disturbed in my quiet little world, research would be too much for me in my condition, oh boo hoo! What a sob story, kookoo! I’ll try to be more openminded, OK, a little bit, Jeez!

Now I’m off to that science/church rigamarole that we have going over in the other forum. I’ve been dreading this, as you are bound to get my blood pressure up in that one. That’s why I came here first! lol

As for accusations, I was trying to refer to obstinance, intractability (as you put it), blind rejection, etc. What I had was getting at was that you say things sometimes that lead me to believe that you just don’t want to consider the other side, and never really did want to. Sorry I misunderstood you.

It’s the unwillingness to discuss an issue, or the dismissal of other viewpoints as irrational or otherwise beneath one’s own in dignity that I dislike immensely, and that I was speaking against.

I didn’t mean to belittle the consideration of the decision you made earlier in life or how you came to it, and I do recognize that it is fine for someone to consider an issue settled for a good period of time in their life, if only to avoid the prolonged psychological stress and time constant reconsideration would take. However, I do think it is important to keep a mind open enough to consider someone else’s viewpoint. Data may not change, but explanations of it may evolve and become more complete, or issues may be framed in ways you just hadn’t considered before, and suddenly make more sense to you.

You blood is up more about the scientific/historical issue than this? :)

Oh, yes, just take a look…