Is there a spiritual dimension to atheism?

philologos

bluewolf wrote:

I don't think you've tried being happy without your faith and without needing to feel it to be fulfilled, so I doubt you can really claim that
and no, an angsty "I questioned my faith once" definitely does not count since that would also be centred on the faith

I think that during my agnostic phase, I wasn't remotely as happy as I am now with faith in Christianity.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

Incorrect. I say that is one possible reason why Christians are Christians.
I clarified that comment so did other posters.


I was referring only to Science not to other fields. A good education in Science renders a fantactical viewpoint in Religion, God or Theology nigh impossible.
An education in many other fields, made not affect one's fanatical belief in God / Religion / Theology. I never said it did, so where do you disagree with me?

I still don't think that I or any other Christian, became who we are because of an ignorance in something. I think it was because we were spiritually satisfied with our faith as opposed to lacking in knowledge.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

isn't as simple as a "happy feeling" bluewolf. It's a feeling of power and liberation, that I wouldn't have if I didn't have faith.

Hmm. I get that from atheism, though.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

I still don't think that I or any other Christian, became who we are because of an ignorance in something. I think it was because we were spiritually satisfied with our faith as opposed to lacking in knowledge.

Few points:
-You can't define "spirituality" satisfactorily.
-No one who has not had such "spiritual experiences" or felt such "spiritual connections" can ever understand what they are like.
-It is unprovable whether or not someone has had a spiritual experience/connection.
-If God tries to reach out to all of us non-believers and gives us all these "spiritual experiences/connections", how are we supposed to know it's God? And more importantly, how are we supposed to know what God it is?
-Many people of other religions claim a spiritual connection with another God with totally different laws.

It is for these reasons that those of us who have not had a spiritual experience strong enough to inform us definitively that a Christian(or otherwise) God exists can only conclude that such spiritual experiences/connections do not exist and that anyone claiming spirits, souls or Gods existing are most likely deluded and ignorant.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

I think that during my agnostic phase, I wasn't remotely as happy as I am now with faith in Christianity.

Uh huh. How long did this agnostic phase last? Did you think about religion a lot during this phase, and did you feel that you needed a religion or something to belong to? Did you have friends that are different to your current friends? Did any hobbies change?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

If you got the same feeling every time you did these things you would also agree that it must be God that is driving it.

No actually I wouldn't

I get an uplifting and inspiring feeling every time I enter a church. I some times even feel a presence in the church with everyone.

Of course the reason I get an uplifting and inspiring feeling every time I enter a church is that churches were specifically designed to uplift and inspire people who entered them.

They were designed that way, they are designed to do this. As such they do do this. I don't get a feeling when I enter a sitting room or a shed, because they are not designed to do this.

It is the same reason people are convinced they hear ghosts in a house once they are told that it is haunted, where before they wouldn't bat an eyelid

The most logical reason you feel inspired when you read the Bible is that the Bible was written to inspire people and you come from a Christian background.

You don't get inspired reading the Quran, but plenty of people do and you most likely would also if you were from a Muslim background, and you would feel the presence of Allah in a Mosque.

Put simply you are seeing the explanation that you want to see in these things and ignoring the more logical rational explanation.

That is not critical thinking. It is wishful thinking. There is nothing wrong with that, we all do it about some things. But it still doesn't make it critical thinking so it is a bit silly to claim that you are critical when it comes to your religious beliefs

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I think that during my agnostic phase, I wasn't remotely as happy as I am now with faith in Christianity.

I call that the "John Travolta effect"

- I was a struggling actor

- I joined Scientology

- Scientology fixed my mental blocks

- I am now a successful actor

- It must have been the Scientology

Again, not critical thinking.

This type of thinking is self validating because the religion convinces you that the reason you were unhappy/unsuccessful/immoral etc etc was that you did not have the religion. The religion links itself to any improvement, therefore any improvement is linked by you to the religion and any non-improvement is seen, again by you, as weakness on your part to not fulfill the requirements of the religion. I want the religion to work, therefore the religion does actually work, therefore if it isn't its my fault.

Its quite clever really, and very effective.

It is also quite good at shutting down critical thinking and evaluation of the religion. We all want to be successful and happy and we want to keep this when we have it. If one is convinced, or even half convinced, that this happiness is linked to a religion they are far less critical in their thinking towards the religion, and far more prepared to accept things at face value.

Jakkass wrote:

I still don't think that I or any other Christian, became who we are because of an ignorance in something. I think it was because we were spiritually satisfied with our faith as opposed to lacking in knowledge.

You are clearly ignorant (not sure if that is the right word) of other explanations for why certain things happen and thus you take the explanation you want.

The example from your previous post would be your feeling when reading the Bible.

You take that at face value, you assume it is God inspiring you. Most likely it isn't, but you are not aware of other explanations so you pick this one to accept.

Religion has always hidden in the gaps of our knowledge. It is the easy answer

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

I still don't think that I or any other Christian, became who we are because of an ignorance in something.
I think it was because we were spiritually satisfied with our faith as opposed to lacking in knowledge.

"spirtually satisfied" sounds like an effect not a cause.
I think you are trying to argue cause and effect (i.e. why Christians are Christians) and not even distinguishing between the two.
That said, would you agree creationalists are ignorant of evolution theory and science in general?

robindch

Wicknight wrote:

I get an uplifting and inspiring feeling every time I enter a church.

Likewise, because as you say, it was designed to be that way. And the architecture, particularly of the church's principal buildings, the cathedrals, is certainly worth a second look. Most are higher than wide, so the eye is naturally drawn upwards to the windows underneath the roof which are usually brighter than the smaller, darker (stained glass) ones nearer the ground. The supporting columns also point skywards, also helping to bring the eyes upwards where the domed ceilings are curved and friendly -- like cupped or praying hands -- and not rectangular and inhuman. The stone walls, ceilings and floors reflect sound brightly and encourage echos, subtly inviting people to walk silently and perhaps reverentially. The size and capacity of the building tells the person that this is something much bigger than them, while the clothes and public speech patterns of the principal players are strikingly different from normal patterns.

And then (speaking as an organist ), my favourite, the cathedral's organ which produces infrasound (below 20Hz) which is known to create neurological activity similar to what's seen in a very mild dose of temporal lobe epilepsy which is strongly correlated with strong feelings of religiosity and many other very unusual effects.

One could go on about the exquisite subtlety of church design, but I've a bed to go to.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Likewise, because as you say, it was designed to be that way. And the architecture, particularly of the church's principal buildings, the cathedrals, is certainly worth a second look. Most are higher than wide, so the eye is naturally drawn upwards to the windows underneath the roof which are usually brighter than the smaller, darker (stained glass) ones nearer the ground. The supporting columns also point skywards, also helping to bring the eyes upwards where the domed ceilings are curved and friendly -- like cupped or praying hands -- and not rectangular and inhuman. The stone walls, ceilings and floors reflect sound brightly and encourage echos, subtly inviting people to walk silently and perhaps reverentially. The size and capacity of the building tells the person that this is something much bigger than them, while the clothes and public speech patterns of the principal players are strikingly different from normal patterns.

The same effect, with variations, can be found in many holy places. The Blue Mosque in Istanbul is one of my personal favourites, along with Notre Dame. Even places that have been long deserted, like Egyptian temples or pylons, still retain much of their architectural awe factor.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

JC 2K3 wrote:

1-You can't define "spirituality" satisfactorily.
2-No one who has not had such "spiritual experiences" or felt such "spiritual connections" can ever understand what they are like.
3-It is unprovable whether or not someone has had a spiritual experience/connection.

1 -

Jakkass wrote:

I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

2 - Well it's not my problem that you haven't made an active effort to try to know God in the first place is it?

3 - It's unprovable to someone who hasn't had a spiritual experience for reasons of being closed minded. Christians often have what is known as a "Damascus Road" experience which converts them to Christianity and changes their life around through communication they have had with God. This has happened to many people. But your definition of "proof" is too narrow to take this into account and subsequenty you see it as a coincidence that this has happened.

bluewolf wrote:

1 - How long did this agnostic phase last?
2 - Did you think about religion a lot during this phase, and did you feel that you needed a religion or something to belong to?
3 - Did you have friends that are different to your current friends?
4 - Did any hobbies change?

1 - roughly 3 years due to a lack of understanding in Christianity and how it worked.
2 - I didn't think of religion and Christianity half as much as I do now. I felt like their was a void inside me as I didn't have the same certainties and confidence in my faith as I do now.
3 & 4 - Largely the same with a few minor differences.

Wicknight wrote:

The most logical reason you feel inspired when you read the Bible is that the Bible was written to inspire people and you come from a Christian background.

You don't get inspired reading the Quran, but plenty of people do and you most likely would also if you were from a Muslim background, and you would feel the presence of Allah in a Mosque.

What you have said is interesting, but it doesn't leave scope for conversion. 6 million Muslims are estimated to be converting to Christianity each year according to Wikipedia, and a large number of Christians are converting to Islam. What is the reason for this if it is because of being brought into a certain background.

Wicknight wrote:

I call that the "John Travolta effect"

I personally find it insulting that you are comparing my religion to a cult that dwells on making profits from it's members and tries to split up family members, and tries to destroy anyone who isn't part of it. That isn't what Christianity is about. They are incomparable. However, you are correct in saying that Tom Cruise has had a "Damascus Road" experience to Scientology.

Tim Robbins wrote:

That said, would you agree creationalists are ignorant of evolution theory and science in general?

No to both. Creation Science is quite interesting and shows that some Christians are interested in putting forward a scientific argument for the creation of the world. I won't generalise like you did however. I would say some possibly could be ignorant to it, while some could be well educated in both. I don't like your terming however. "ignorant of evolution theory". Mind you I personally find that a lot of atheists are "ignorant of scripture" before they reject the God they never tried to believe in in a lot of cases. A lot of you however I would say have given it a lot of thought. However a lot of atheists haven't.

Feel free to ask more questions, I'll try to get round to them all.

Fallen Seraph

Jakkass wrote:

I personally find it insulting that you are comparing my religion to a cult that dwells on making profits from it's members and tries to split up family members, and tries to destroy anyone who isn't part of it. That isn't what Christianity is about. They are incomparable. However, you are correct in saying that Tom Cruise has had a "Damascus Road" experience to Scientology.

I think he was just giving a salient example, rather than making a direct comparison. I don't think there was any insult intended.

However, the point was rather that "The Travolta Effect" is flawed reasoning and so by pointing out that the travolta effect is equivalent to the "Damascus Road" effect...

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

No to both. Creation Science is quite interesting and shows that some Christians are interested in putting forward a scientific argument for the creation of the world. I won't generalise like you did however. I would say some possibly could be ignorant to it, while some could be well educated in both. I don't like your terming however. "ignorant of evolution theory". Mind you I personally find that a lot of atheists are "ignorant of scripture" before they reject the God they never tried to believe in in a lot of cases. A lot of you however I would say have given it a lot of thought. However a lot of atheists haven't.

Feel free to ask more questions, I'll try to get round to them all.

Creation Science is a propaganda movement, it's not Science.
Only scientifically illiterate people fall for it and those who see a business opportunity. Thinking it is Science is a statement of Scientific ignorance.

Most of us are ignorant in Scripture. I will admit my own. However,
there are at least 30 faiths that have their own type of Scripture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture.
I don't know anybody who knows them all well, although their are many who know their own very well and seem to think it is the only scripture in existence and some sort of argument for truth.

From a logical perspective, there is no good argument that any of these scriptures are more true than the rest. All we have are bunches of people who think their own is correct but have no objective evidence to back that up.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

The Blue Mosque in Istanbul is one of my personal favourites, along with Notre Dame.

I never made it to the Blue Mosque, having got carried away in Hagia Sofia across the carpark and the Roman reservoir down the road a bit. I'll try and make it next time, though -- it looks like a magnificent building.

Notre Dame isn't bad, but completely overcrowded and the 16th (?) century priest who broke all the high-level medieval stained glass windows and replaced them with clear glass, has a lot to answer for. The organ's good, but overvoiced (try the thoroughly delicious Saint Sulpice or Saint Eustache instead). For perfection in cathedrals, get to Chartres, Amiens and Reims, and for folly, the eccentric in Beauvais. Not forgetting the mosque in Cordoba either -- what a place!

Dades

Good job Jakkass answering the hoards.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't like your terming however. "ignorant of evolution theory". Mind you I personally find that a lot of atheists are "ignorant of scripture" before they reject the God they never tried to believe in in a lot of cases.

Although I rarely go there anymore, the arguments on boards I've seen supporting creation science do show ignorance of evolution theory. I'm not saying CS supporters are ignorant in general, just that they appear to me to be either ignorant in evolution theory, or deliberately creating false claims and attributing them to evolutionary science so they can be easily rebutted.

JC 2K3

Jakkass wrote:

1 -
I'd generally associate it with a feeling of connection with something beyond yourself (namely God for me). But do atheists feel a special link with the human race for example, and inspiration to work for the betterment of others as well as oneself, as opposed to an inspiration to work for a supreme being.

How is that a satisfactory definition?

Jakkass wrote:

2 - Well it's not my problem that you haven't made an active effort to try to know God in the first place is it?

Well I did spend about a year actively trying to know God through trying to be as devout a Catholic as I could before I converted to Agnosticism. And it wasn't a cynical decision I made that would inevitably result in me leaving Catholicism, it was a decision I made that I hoped would strengthen my faith as I was disgusted when 2/3 of my friends converted to Atheism but then realised I wasn't being a great Christian. When I actually did convert to Agnosticism I no longer really associated with the afformented friends, so them persuading me was not the reason.

What I realised was that self reflection, thinking to oneself about one's life was rather similar to "talking to God"/Prayer. I also realised that the profound emotions I got while thinking about God etc. were not that special as I got them from music and art also. Now I know I could have simply said "well music and art are a gift from God", but I realised I didn't have to. I also realised that there was no reason for me to assume that were there a God that it was a Christian God. Gradually, I became to come around to the idea that there was no God as such, not one that is associated with any scripture in any case and became an Agnostic. I still am technically Agnostic, but generally call myself an Atheist, since I reject that the common idea of what a "God" is exists.

I have known God Jakkass, and I believe that I still know Him as well as you do. It's just that I reject the scripture that people associate with Him and I reject that He is a perceivable entity, but rather a natural property of humanity.

Jakkass wrote:

3 - It's unprovable to someone who hasn't had a spiritual experience for reasons of being closed minded. Christians often have what is known as a "Damascus Road" experience which converts them to Christianity and changes their life around through communication they have had with God. This has happened to many people. But your definition of "proof" is too narrow to take this into account and subsequenty you see it as a coincidence that this has happened.

In being open minded towards a Christian God, one is closed minded towards Allah, Hindu Gods, Pagan Gods, any other Gods and a scientific explanation.

Whether someone believes a God exists or not is generally negligible compared to the scripture/rules they believe is/are associated with this God. Since you have conceeded that you accept Tom Cruise's conversion to Scientology was a "Road to Damascus" experience would you not accept that whatever explanation people accept for "spiritual experiences" are largely arbitrary depending on what they've been told by other humans?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

What you have said is interesting, but it doesn't leave scope for conversion. 6 million Muslims are estimated to be converting to Christianity each year according to Wikipedia, and a large number of Christians are converting to Islam. What is the reason for this if it is because of being brought into a certain background.

I doubt there is one specific reason, or even a simple set of reasons. Its like asking why do millions of children around the world decide to play soccer instead of rugby. Ultimately the reason for each individual will be unique to that individual.

I can certainly suggest some reasons, but I'm reluctant to do so lest it be seen that I'm trying to say it always happens because of reason X

One thing that can probably be ruled out though is "God" as a reason, since as you say Muslims convert to Christianity and Christians convert to Islam.

Jakkass wrote:

I personally find it insulting that you are comparing my religion to a cult that dwells on making profits from it's members and tries to split up family members, and tries to destroy anyone who isn't part of it.

Well you would, since you are a member the religion. That is kinda part and parcel with being devout follower of a particular religion or cult. You emphasis the good and make excuses for the bad.

I'm pretty sure that a Scientologist would be insulted to be compared to a Christian. In fact I've heard of Scientologists who were insulted after being compared to Christianity. A lot of scientologists view Christianity as a ridiculous accident superstition based on in build guilt and shame system with a huge set of hangups towards women and sex.

At the end of the day all western religions work in pretty much the exact same way. The only people who don't recognize this are the people in one of the religions ....

Jakkass wrote:

That isn't what Christianity is about.

You are in as much of a position to tell what Christianity is really about as a Scientologist is in a position to tell you what Scientology is really about (happiness, success and mental well being is what he would tell you Scientology is really about btw)

Remember the "critical thinking" that we were talking about earlier ....

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

I never made it to the Blue Mosque, having got carried away in Hagia Sofia across the carpark and the Roman reservoir down the road a bit. I'll try and make it next time, though -- it looks like a magnificent building.

Well worth the trip. Make time for it instead of the Topkapi.

robindch wrote:

Notre Dame isn't bad, but completely overcrowded and the 16th (?) century priest who broke all the high-level medieval stained glass windows and replaced them with clear glass, has a lot to answer for. The organ's good, but overvoiced (try the thoroughly delicious Saint Sulpice or Saint Eustache instead).

I was lucky to be there when it was really rather empty.

robindch wrote:

For perfection in cathedrals, get to Chartres, Amiens and Reims, and for folly, the eccentric in Beauvais. Not forgetting the mosque in Cordoba either -- what a place!

Cordoba - true that! If you like the unusual, how about Albi - built (of brick) after the suppression of the Cathars - part cathedral, part fortress.

cordially,
Scofflaw

1-roughly 3 years due to a lack of understanding in Christianity and how it worked.
2 - I didn't think of religion and Christianity half as much as I do now. I felt like their was a void inside me as I didn't have the same certainties and confidence in my faith as I do now.

1- so you didn't consider another faith or actually getting by in life happily without it, and it was christianity - don't understand christianity - christianity. Moreover, you had christianity as your default state instead of atheism/agnosticism.

Combining this and #2, what I said: "I don't think you've tried being happy without your faith and without needing to feel it to be fulfilled," still seems to hold quite true.
So, your claim "It's a feeling of power and liberation, that I wouldn't have if I didn't have faith." is not necessarily true, because you actually don't know.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote:

1 - Creation Science is a propaganda movement, it's not Science.
Only scientifically illiterate people fall for it and those who see a business opportunity. Thinking it is Science is a statement of Scientific ignorance.

2- Most of us are ignorant in Scripture. I will admit my own. However,
there are at least 30 faiths that have their own type of Scripture, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture.
I don't know anybody who knows them all well, although their are many who know their own very well and seem to think it is the only scripture in existence and some sort of argument for truth.

1 - I'd admit although I'm not a Creation Scientist, that I have a rather basic understanding of modern science and that it doesn't interest me very much. I wouldn't consider this the case of all Christians though and I see it as a result of the way my interests have fallen as opposed to believe in God causing me to reject them in the first place. I'd like to try reading more about Evolution or the Big Bang. But I don't feel I should be getting into the realm of discussing science without having researched the theories in a bit more detail first.

2 - Of course you are ignorant in some faiths that is inevitable. For example I'm a lot more fluent in say the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, than Hinduism or Buddhism. Although I think that if you want to be a serious critic of Christianity you should also attempt to understand the Christian scriptures.

The Atheist wrote:

Although I rarely go there anymore, the arguments on boards I've seen supporting creation science do show ignorance of evolution theory. I'm not saying CS supporters are ignorant in general, just that they appear to me to be either ignorant in evolution theory, or deliberately creating false claims and attributing them to evolutionary science so they can be easily rebutted.

Well that is due to the fact probably that we aren't all rocket scientists . As I've said I'm not too well acquainted with the theories myself but if in the case they are fabricating information. There is a lot of rulings out there against the fabrication of lies and misleading people. Ultimately they aren't showing the true interest of Christianity in what they are doing, and if this Creation Science is in the name of God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) they should carry it out with the interests of God Himself at heart. Also I welcome you to come back and post on the Christianity forum whenever you see fit.

JC 2K3 wrote:

1 - How is that a satisfactory definition?

2 - Well I did spend about a year actively trying to know God through trying to be as devout a Catholic as I could before I converted to Agnosticism.

3- I have known God Jakkass, and I believe that I still know Him as well as you do. It's just that I reject the scripture that people associate with Him and I reject that He is a perceivable entity, but rather a natural property of humanity.

4 - In being open minded towards a Christian God, one is closed minded towards Allah, Hindu Gods, Pagan Gods, any other Gods and a scientific explanation.

5 - Since you have conceeded that you accept Tom Cruise's conversion to Scientology was a "Road to Damascus" experience would you not accept that whatever explanation people accept for "spiritual experiences" are largely arbitrary depending on what they've been told by other humans?

1 - It's the best definition that you are going to get JC2K3 unfortunately. Divine experiences are profound feelings. When I felt my first divine experience a fair few years ago, it was like something I had never felt before then. That with what you have there is all I can say to you.

2 - Out of interest I would like to know how you went about this (reading the Bible, active prayer etc)? Also to note that some paths of Christianity mightn't influence you in the same way. I am a Christian (although currently in the Anglican Church) of the mind that Christianity is through a personal interpretation of His scriptures and a generic faith to all denominations through faith in Him through the Holy Spirit (arguably with the exception of the Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and the Jehovahs Witnesses). I believe that Christianity is largely a Pentecostal faith involving the filling of believers with faith and determination via the Spirit. Therefore without having being filled with the Holy Spirit it will be difficult to put your faith in Christianity. It requires patience. The deciples after the ascension of Jesus Christ weren't even filled with the Holy Spirit without waiting a few days.

3 - I'd be keen on knowing what you attributed to God during your time of being a devout Catholic, and if you had experienced profound feelings as a Catholic as I have being a Christian. Also rejecting the scripture could be one of the way in which you are closing Him off to you. One of the ways in which the Lord speaks is through His book.

4 - All of these are very true and it is an admirable argument to make. I have told many who have questioned my coming to Christianity in the Christianity forum that I had thought of the path of Islam before coming to a final decision on Christianity after my Agnostic phase. However I haven't read the Bhagavad Gita (although I hope to at some stage) or any other scripture apart from the Holy Bible and the Holy Qu'ran. But I would conclude that belief in God does mean closing the doors in relation to believing in other faiths, however I would argue that it doesn't make you closed minded but even more interested in how other people view things which is the reason why I am reading books on the Hare Krishna, an the Qu'ran at the current moment in time as well. Interesting question, I give you that.

5 - This is something that I don't accept really for the reasons that in my faith I feel that I have been communicated with by God through prayer and through His Holy Scripture and felt His presence while doing so through the Holy Spirit. This is the spirituality I would associate with theism but as I have mentioned already it is very difficult to explain to a non-theist at the current time. However prophets have played a role in passing down the faith of Christianity. Since I have been investigating the faith largely on my own while going to Church locally. I see religion and faith largely as a personal quest instead of being gullible to what others have told me, even though this is what a lot of atheists associate with faith in the first place.

Wicknight wrote:

I doubt there is one specific reason, or even a simple set of reasons. Its like asking why do millions of children around the world decide to play soccer instead of rugby. Ultimately the reason for each individual will be unique to that individual.

I can certainly suggest some reasons, but I'm reluctant to do so lest it be seen that I'm trying to say it always happens because of reason X

One thing that can probably be ruled out though is "God" as a reason, since as you say Muslims convert to Christianity and Christians convert to Islam.

Well there has been movement between secular humanism and Judaism and secular humanism and Christianity as well. Infact Wikipedia does a nice thing on conversion within the faiths. Look it up for any time you are bored. I found it very interesting. I don't think there is a certain specific reason that would cause people to convert. But I don't think that faith (if and when people discover it for themselves like I have) depends on what you were brought up in in a lot of scenarios and that was my point with what you said about people becoming Christians as it suits their Christian backgrounds. What may be true for some may be true for others and this is what we need to be careful of when we are discussing faith.

Wicknight wrote:

You are in as much of a position to tell what Christianity is really about as a Scientologist is in a position to tell you what Scientology is really about (happiness, success and mental well being is what he would tell you Scientology is really about btw)

Remember the "critical thinking" that we were talking about earlier ....

You also seem to think that I have leaped into Christianity without thinking remotely what it meant. I know fine well the principles talked about in my faith and the fact that it has satisfied me spiritually deep down. I have thought about the pros and cons of this and Islam and I found Christianity to be more broad and basically more believeable for me.

bluewolf wrote:

1- so you didn't consider another faith or actually getting by in life happily without it, and it was christianity - don't understand christianity - christianity. Moreover, you had christianity as your default state instead of atheism/agnosticism.

2Combining this and #2, what I said: "I don't think you've tried being happy without your faith and without needing to feel it to be fulfilled," still seems to hold quite true.

So, your claim "It's a feeling of power and liberation, that I wouldn't have if I didn't have faith." is not necessarily true, because you actually don't know.

1 - I have claimed earlier in this post that I attempted to look into the principles of the Islamic faith.

I didn't think much of Christianity, I didn't attempt to practise personally or pray to God as I would now, so that would mean that I attempted living live as an agnostic for those three years. So wouldn't agnosticism not be my default state?


2 - I've described the feeling as profound and the best that I have ever had in my life thus far, and I've lived for quite a long time at this stage. (18 years). I also feel that I can find concrete enough answers in the Bible that appeal to me. Such as the presence of evil (Book of Job) and other elements. I feel satisfied where I am now, and I feel that there is a God around me and I'm confident of His existence. That is all I need to believe throughout my life I think, and I'm set on keeping it that way. Sure you might say that it isn't neccessarily true, but part of my faith is to believe it is true, and that is the fundemental way I have chosen to live my life as a Christian.

Thank you all for keeping this a rational debate. I hope to answer more of your questions (most likely tomorrow). But I will answer them.

rockbeer

Jakkass wrote:

I've described the feeling as profound and the best that I have ever had in my life thus far, and I've lived for quite a long time at this stage. (18 years). I also feel that I can find concrete enough answers in the Bible that appeal to me. Such as the presence of evil (Book of Job) and other elements. I feel satisfied where I am now, and I feel that there is a God around me and I'm confident of His existence. That is all I need to believe throughout my life I think, and I'm set on keeping it that way. Sure you might say that it isn't neccessarily true, but part of my faith is to believe it is true, and that is the fundemental way I have chosen to live my life as a Christian.

Fair enough. What, though, would you make of the experience of, let's say, a devout hindu who experiences his gods and his spirituality every bit as profoundly as you do yours? Despite the fact that to you these are heathen gods whose laws contradict those of christianity, to him they are every bit as real as yours is to you.

Is it possible that you are both right? According to your faith that's impossible, since your god claims to be the only one. But if you are willing to say that he is wrong, despite the intensity of his personal spiritual experience, then you must accept the possibility that you could be wrong too, despite the intensity of yours.

The only other logical conclusion you can draw is that your own spiritual experience is inherently more valid than anyone else's.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

But I don't think that faith (if and when people discover it for themselves like I have) depends on what you were brought up in in a lot of scenarios and that was my point with what you said about people becoming Christians as it suits their Christian backgrounds.

Well I'm sure its not the case for everyone, but then contrast the number of "native born" Christians against the number who convert each year from a different religion I would still imagine that one vastly out weighs the other

Jakkass wrote:

You also seem to think that I have leaped into Christianity without thinking remotely what it meant.

Not really. I imagine you "leaped" into Christianity because you were attracted to what was on offer. Which is kinda the point.

At some point you must have believed something was wrong with your life and also believed that this something could be fixed with religion.

I would be mildly interested as to why you first associated bad things in your life with a lack of religion or why you associated good things in your life with religion.

Jakkass wrote:

I know fine well the principles talked about in my faith and the fact that it has satisfied me spiritually deep down. I have thought about the pros and cons of this and Islam and I found Christianity to be more broad and basically more believeable for me.

Why did you start looking towards religion, any religion, in the first place? Was it a desire to structure your life. If so why did you think religion would provide this structure, or say joining the army or a relief organisation...

Jakkass wrote:

So wouldn't agnosticism not be my default state?

But while you were an agnostic you still thought that religion was the solution to the problems you were having. Did you ever really stopped viewing religion as a solution. If so why did you turn back to it?

Jakkass wrote:

That is all I need to believe throughout my life I think, and I'm set on keeping it that way.

Again, getting back to the original point about critical thinking, that is what was meant when people say that theists tend to be devoid of critical thinking. Not necessarily because they are uneducated, also because as in your case, their acceptance of the "face value" of their religion is too entwined with their belief of how to be happy.

I know you find such an analogy insulting, but again this is exactly how Scientology works, the "John Travolta effect"

You have been convinced, or have convinced yourself, that your happiness depends on you being a devout follower of the religion. You must accept and follow the religion, if you don't follow the religion you will be unhappy.

That is basically how all religions work, and it is why people who can be use very critical analysis on other areas often have a very hard time using critical analysis on their own religion.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

If you like the unusual, how about Albi - built (of brick) after the suppression of the Cathars - part cathedral, part fortress.

Never been to Albi, but it's on the list for the organ -- probably the finest example of the early 18th century French Baroque period when French organ music was undergoing one of its periodic apogees. Organs are something of a infrequent and solitary pleasure -- apologies for this off-topic wittering.

Do carry on with the religious debate.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Organs are something of a infrequent and solitary pleasure

What a straight line! Solitary and infrequent? You must be doing something wrong.

unable to help myself*,
Scofflaw

* and by the sounds of it, so are you...

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

unable to help myself

Don't worry. I've heard every organic single, double and triple-entendre a thousand times and gave up trying to avoid them a long time ago

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

Don't worry. I've heard every organic single, double and triple-entendre a thousand times and gave up trying to avoid them a long time ago

Still, it's a hard cruel thing to do to someone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote:

2 - Of course you are ignorant in some faiths that is inevitable. For example I'm a lot more fluent in say the scriptures of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, than Hinduism or Buddhism. Although I think that if you want to be a serious critic of Christianity you should also attempt to understand the Christian scriptures.

The term "understanding" is out of place there. I would say "knowledge" of scripture not understanding.
What happens if none of any Christian scripture is true? Who understoods it better then, you or me?

How do you determine if some understands scripture? They have the same opinion as you, they live their life the same as you?

This is a major problem of theology, there is no agreed mechanism for resolving disagreement.
This presents the following argument:

Premise: disagreement can't be objectively resolved
Conclusion: understanding cannot be achieved

Thats how I'd see it.

As I said, mutually exclusive faiths have mutually exclusive scriptures, I referenced at least 30. At most one can be right, and at least 29 are categorically wrong.

philologos

Time to address you all again

rockbeer wrote:

1 - Fair enough. What, though, would you make of the experience of, let's say, a devout hindu who experiences his gods and his spirituality every bit as profoundly as you do yours? Despite the fact that to you these are heathen gods whose laws contradict those of christianity, to him they are every bit as real as yours is to you.

2 Is it possible that you are both right? According to your faith that's impossible, since your god claims to be the only one. But if you are willing to say that he is wrong, despite the intensity of his personal spiritual experience, then you must accept the possibility that you could be wrong too, despite the intensity of yours.

3 - The only other logical conclusion you can draw is that your own spiritual experience is inherently more valid than anyone else's.

1 - For a start you incorrectly say that the hindus worship god's. Hinduism is a funny faith in the way that people claim that it is polytheistic whereas it is really monotheistic in the way that the "gods" that you are talking about are merely incarnations of the Brahman (The incarnations represent different aspects of the Brahman, such as Shiva as the Destroyer). I'm also sure that there are devout hindus out there yes. Sure the world's demographics tell you that. Funnily the laws of Hinduism aren't far from those of Christianity however the structure of the faith and the afterlife are both radically different.

2 - It isn't possible that we can be both right. And you are right my faith views it as such. My God tolerates no rivals as it is written in the Bible. However what is telling you that the Hindu hasn't been experiencing a communication of some form from Yahweh and is misinterpreting it as from another God. That could be very possible to. However I know how easily that statement can be twisted. As part of my faith I believe that God is in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and this is what I have chosen to accept by joining the Christian faith. However I suppose there is a small possibility that I am wrong, however I see it as very unlikely.

3 - That is very true. I value the faith and experience that I get from Yahweh, to be more valid than that of a Hindu or any other faith. However I regard other experiences that people of the Christian faith have experienced as true and very real. It is what I have got to learn from God during the years of my faith.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I'm sure its not the case for everyone, but then contrast the number of "native born" Christians against the number who convert each year from a different religion I would still imagine that one vastly out weighs the other

That is fair enough, however you have to take these things into account before saying that some belief only appeals to those of a certain background. I don't find that makes logical sense. One choses a faith because it makes sense to them as a person.

Wicknight wrote:

1 - At some point you must have believed something was wrong with your life and also believed that this something could be fixed with religion.

2 - I would be mildly interested as to why you first associated bad things in your life with a lack of religion or why you associated good things in your life with religion.

1 - Well when you are experiencing bad things in your life that is when you start to question whether if there was something wrong with your life generally isn't it?

2 - This answer is again simple. Because I was experiencing bad things in my life, and it was during a period when I was an agnostic.

Wicknight wrote:

Why did you start looking towards religion, any religion, in the first place? Was it a desire to structure your life. If so why did you think religion would provide this structure, or say joining the army or a relief organisation...

I had a very inquisitive mind and I wanted to know how we existed etc. I had been always asked myself very philisophical questions. I found that faith could give me an answer to these things, and it has satisfied these questions sufficently. I felt that non-religious ways of looking at the world, quite simply didn't offer an answer to these things so I looked to religion and sought to understand Christianity once and for all. I also would have taken the morality into account. I wanted a way to structure my life as well. As for the army, I wasn't the legal age at the time and I wouldn't have agreed that preparing for combat would have really helped me structure my life morally. Good question though, I give you that.

Wicknight wrote:

I know you find such an analogy insulting, but again this is exactly how Scientology works, the "John Travolta effect"

Scientology works on the basis of seperating families, and trying to ruin people's lives. Scientology also tries to profit by giving people "the answers to live" by subscribing to an organisation. Even the founder said that it was a handy way of making money. So I don't see that as any comparison to the faith of Christianity.

Tim Robbins wrote:

1 - The term "understanding" is out of place there. I would say "knowledge" of scripture not understanding.
What happens if none of any Christian scripture is true? Who understoods it better then, you or me?

How do you determine if some understands scripture? They have the same opinion as you, they live their life the same as you?

2 - As I said, mutually exclusive faiths have mutually exclusive scriptures, I referenced at least 30. At most one can be right, and at least 29 are categorically wrong.

1 - Hold on a second, that isn't what I meant. Understanding of how to read scripture is rather different than forcing someone to accept one interpretation of it. An example of this would be on the Christianity forum when we were talking about vegitarianism in Christianity, and someone asked if this could apply to humans. This was because someone quoted one verse of text. This took the whole piece out of context because they hadn't read the whole chapter. (Genesis 4, I think it was). Where it went on to say that nobody should kill human life.

2 - You are correct, but since you are being so critical of Christianity, you should know something about the scripture of what you are criticising the most. It's what people do when they are criticising something in debate. They gain a good understanding of both sides first. You yourself have admitted that you don't have a good understanding of scripture. If I was getting into a debate on the Israel - Palestine conflict. I would read both Zionist sources and anti-Zionist sources to gain an understanding of how both sides argue and then make a judgement on the matter accordingly. It is how people debate.

rockbeer

Jakkass wrote:

1 - For a start you incorrectly say that the hindus worship god's. Hinduism is a funny faith in the way that people claim that it is polytheistic whereas it is really monotheistic in the way that the "gods" that you are talking about are merely incarnations of the Brahman (The incarnations represent different aspects of the Brahman, such as Shiva as the Destroyer).

I think you'll find it's Brahma who is the central deity, the creator-god if you will, in hinduism. Brahman is a different thing altogether, pure being, supreme comsic spirit, world soul, call it what you will, but it isn't quite a god in the usual sense. However, this is to split hairs and misses my main point. I could have picked a devout follower of any religion, I just happened to choose hinduism, but the point is that an adherent of any religion which conflicts with yours, who experiences their faith as intensely as you do yours, is going to inevitably say that they are right and you are wrong, while you will maintain that you are right and they are wrong. The clear critical thinker will understand that when dealing with such realms of human experience, no one can reasonably say that they are definitively right and the other is wrong, as there is no possibility of proof and no grounds for arriving at such a conclusion.

Jakkass wrote:

2 - It isn't possible that we can be both right. And you are right my faith views it as such. My God tolerates no rivals as it is written in the Bible. However what is telling you that the Hindu hasn't been experiencing a communication of some form from Yahweh and is misinterpreting it as from another God. That could be very possible to.

And it's equally possible that you have been receiving communication from Brahma, or Allah, or the great spirit, and mistaken it for Yahweh. To the critical thinker, this very real possibility alone should be enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of their belief system.

Jakkass wrote:

That is very true. I value the faith and experience that I get from Yahweh, to be more valid than that of a Hindu or any other faith.

And what exactly gives you the wisdom or knowledge to be so certain that your spiritual experience is more valid or real than that of an adherent of a different religion? There is a word for that - no disrespect intended, but it sounds extremely close to arrogance.

Edited for typos

rockbeer

Hinduism has hard and soft types of polytheism, some might even head into monotheism I suppose

rockbeer wrote:

There is a word for that - no disrespect intended, but it sounds extremely close to arrogance.

He's used to being called that by now