Is anyone nostalgic about their former faith?

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

It is unlilely and non-rational, IMHO.

Luckily I remember how the term rational and irrational are bandied around by atheists so much that the term has nearly lost all meaning.

Rational thought is only remotely useful when coupled with empiricism.

Every time the term is misused, I feel like referring them to the age long debate between Rationalism and Empiricism that has been waged by Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc.

You feel it's improbable, fair enough. It would be more productive of you to provide reasons rather than to dismiss the other as "irrational" off the cuff surely?

The Mad Hatter

PDN - where did you get that quote in your sig? I'd like to smack that person, and being an atheist I'm allowed.;)

The Mad Hatter

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

PDN - where did you get that quote in your sig? I'd like to smack that person, and being an atheist I'm allowed.;)

It came from that lostexpectation guy in the atheism is "cool" thread.

Handsome Bob

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Absolutely not, it was a load of old cobblers into which I was involuntarily indoctrinated when I had neither the right, the knowledge, nor the cognitive capacity and ability to reject it.

You say that you are independent and don't need your hand held, yet you seem very bitter. I was also involuntarily fused with religion but I don't hold ill will against my former religion. I have no time for certain religious institutions, but not against the religion in itself. I don't mean any disrespect, but I can't help but be amused when I see posters, or people I actually know, rant on about having faith forced upon them as a child as if it destroyed their life or something.

As far as the OP's question goes, yes I am a little nostalgic about my former faith, it brings great joy and strength to countless amounts of people.

MrPudding

Jakkass wrote: »

Luckily I remember how the term rational and irrational are bandied around by atheists so much that the term has nearly lost all meaning.

It is a small point, but I did not say irrational.

Jakkass wrote: »

Rational thought is only remotely useful when coupled with empiricism.

But to believe in something when there is no evidence for it, like you do, requires faith and a suspension of rationalism. Not necessarily irrationality, but a conscious or unconscious decision to suspend rationality to believe something, for which there is no rational reason to believe, simply because you have faith that it is true.

Jakkass wrote: »

You feel it's improbable, fair enough. It would be more productive of you to provide reasons rather than to dismiss the other as "irrational" off the cuff surely?

Why do I have to prove you are wrong to believe what you do? You are the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. My position is simple. I do not believe in your god. In fact, I don’t believe in anyone’s god, I am not just picking on the christian god. I do not believe the evidence put forward for a belief in your god is good enough. I do not believe the arguments like, “but the universe is so incredible there must be a god” or any of those personal incredulity arguments.

There are so many reasons for not believing. Not believing, to me, is the rational position. As I said earlier, I don’t necessarily believe that believing is irrational per se, but I think it is not rational.

MrP

philologos

MrPudding wrote: »

But to believe in something when there is no evidence for it, like you do, requires faith and a suspension of rationalism. Not necessarily irrationality, but a conscious or unconscious decision to suspend rationality to believe something, for which there is no rational reason to believe, simply because you have faith that it is true.

Theres plenty of evidence by indication. However as for objective proof, you'd be correct that there is none, there is also none for atheism.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why do I have to prove you are wrong to believe what you do? You are the one making the extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is on you. My position is simple. I do not believe in your god. In fact, I don’t believe in anyone’s god, I am not just picking on the christian god. I do not believe the evidence put forward for a belief in your god is good enough. I do not believe the arguments like, “but the universe is so incredible there must be a god” or any of those personal incredulity arguments.

I reject this burden of proof as it is only a get-out clause for atheists. Your claim is quite extraordinary too if you take it from the POV of the agnostic, or from a theist, there certainly (or almost certainly) is no God. There is no point whatsoever in dismissing whatever you just don't like as "irrational", I could start doing that too but it is effectively out of place in an argument.

MrPudding wrote: »

There are so many reasons for not believing. Not believing, to me, is the rational position. As I said earlier, I don’t necessarily believe that believing is irrational per se, but I think it is not rational.

Give the reasons then if they are "so many". As for rational, rational is merely taking thought over information gained through experience, or empiricism. That is all it is. Infact if one considers the Biblical text to be from spiritual experience, or if one has had spiritual experiences and one takes thought over them they are rationalising about the subject. The point concerning "rational" is really null and void, atheism has abused the term and abused it again. Infact I would propose taking the words "logical" and "rational" out of atheist - theistic discourse because they mean nothing any more in the actual discussion apart from decorative value I assume.

Dades

Mr P and Jakkass - I will delete the next post following this "evidence for god" line.

The original topic is an interesting diversion from that familiar, endless drum-banging.

MackDeToaster

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You say that you are independent and don't need your hand held, yet you seem very bitter.I don't mean any disrespect, but I can't help but be amused when I see posters, or people I actually know, rant on about having faith forced upon them as a child as if it destroyed their life or something.

Absolutely not, it was a statement of fact. You can read into that what you want, but your reading by no means reflects what I think or feel. If you read the rest of the post I subsequently said it (religion) is completely irrelevant to me and I've moved on.

Dades

I'm having some difficulty finding something I specifically miss about not being a RC anymore, but not for any negative reason.

I had 12 yrs of RC schooling, with all the usual religious trimmings, but all the things that were great about those times are still alive and present today. That is, family, friends and a sense of community.

Of course you miss the smell of incense and vicks at midnight mass on Christmas eve, but I think that was more childlike wonder than something faith-specific.

I just hope I'll be able to say the same in, 10, 20, 40 years after life has thrown a few curveballs.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Of course you miss the smell of incense and vicks at midnight mass on Christmas eve, but I think that was more childlike wonder than something faith-specific.

Hey, you don't have to be religious to enjoy the show -- the carol service at Christchurch a few weeks back was first class and I'm sure the midnight mass was just as good.

Handsome Bob

MackDeToaster wrote: »

Absolutely not, it was a statement of fact. You can read into that what you want, but your reading by no means reflects what I think or feel. If you read the rest of the post I subsequently said it (religion) is completely irrelevant to me and I've moved on.

So what? A statement of fact is that I, like you, was railroaded into religion. So what's the difference between me and you? Why are you so angry, and I'm not?

I read all of your post. All I was pointing out is that if religion is "completely irrelevant" to you, and that you have "moved on", why are you so hot under the collar about it? It's an honest question.

Tupins

Dades wrote: »

I just hope I'll be able to say the same in, 10, 20, 40 years after life has thrown a few curveballs.

Well life has already thrown me a few curveballs - which is probably what made me more cynical in the first place!

Jackass - I half expected a response such as yours and I do respect your right to your opinions but I am not looking to go back to Christianity in any of it's forms. I see the bible very differently to you. You revere it as a sacred source of information but I regard it simply as a book written many years ago (but many years after the time that is presented as the birth of Jesus) by human beings like you and I, at a time when there were no reliable means of mass communications or recording, which has been greatly edited by various churches to suit their teachings. I don't want to get into a theological debate as this was never the intention of the post and as I say I will agree to disagree with you on this matter.

Perhaps I am looking to 'replace' my faith with something else, I don't know. Maybe my feelings will change over time as they have done in the past. I'm just glad that I'm open to change through hearing others opinions and informing myself.

(By the way - I'm a 'she' not a 'he'. Just wanted to clarify!)

MackDeToaster

LZ5by5 wrote: »

So what? A statement of fact is that I, like you, was railroaded into religion. So what's the difference between me and you? Why are you so angry, and I'm not?

I read all of your post. All I was pointing out is that if religion is "completely irrelevant" to you, and that you have "moved on", why are you so hot under the collar about it? It's an honest question.

Er, what makes you think I'm angry ? I've already twice said it's irrelevant to me which rules out anger and emotion. I don't see where you're getting this or where you're going with this

Handsome Bob

Tupins wrote: »

Perhaps I am looking to 'replace' my faith with something else, I don't know. Maybe my feelings will change over time as they have done in the past. I'm just glad that I'm open to change through hearing others opinions and informing myself.

I'd say I'm in the same boat as you judging from this and your OP. What helps me is that when I looked at the things that kept me in my faith, such as stories of "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", I realised that just because I had given up on my religion doesn't mean I had to give up on the sense of morality that it gave to me. What I took from my former religion was compassion for your fellow man, and to just live a good fulfilling life. Hope that helps and is not too confusing!

Tupins

No I totally understand what you mean LZ5by5

I do still live by a moral code as such. Just because I don't go to mass or whatever it doesn't mean I don't lead what I consider a good life. Despite not believing that the bible is a sacred book I do still remember some of the things we were taught from it and some of the quotes have moral relevance no matter what your belief system is.

karen3212

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

PDN - where did you get that quote in your sig? I'd like to smack that person, and being an atheist I'm allowed.;)

That might be less painful for said person, I can't imagine how they feel seeing a stupid remark they made once upon a time becoming part of someone's sig. Poor person.

Op, I miss some things about going to church. I still go the odd few times, but I feel bad when the preacher is doing his bit - the only thought in my head then is ''oh what a load of crap''.

I don't miss the idea of God at all though and I don't spend any time at all thinking about an afterlife.

oshead

Tupins wrote: »

(By the way - I'm a 'she' not a 'he'. Just wanted to clarify!)

Oops... Sorry

Dave OS

MatthewVII

karen3212 wrote: »

Op, I miss some things about going to church. I still go the odd few times, but I feel bad when the preacher is doing his bit - the only thought in my head then is ''oh what a load of crap''.

There was a much dreaded priest in my area who always said hilarious things at funerals. Dispensing with the usual "they were a good person, loved god etc" he would often go in with "And you know, not everyone goes to heaven. God doesn't see everyone as fit to join him. And even if he does, chances are they'll spend 35,000 years in purgatory first"

Most comforting priest ever

lostexpectation

@ op him?

and i thnk you need a bit more faith in yourself and your kin.

Goduznt Xzst

I think the answer to the OPs question has more to do with the people involved in your religious upbringing and the level of indoctrination.

For me, I was brought up in a pretty structured Christian household, but I was thought to view God like an invisible friend, who, with his sidekick Jesus and posse of angels fight crime and help the faithful in this world. When I'd lose a toy I'd pray that God would help me find it, and when I inevitably did it felt like my friend was listening to me.

I can't see why people are so vehemently against feeling nostalgic about the religious beliefs they had as a child, maybe because they where made to feel guilty, or had bad experiences with people of authority in their religion. Personally, I won't raise my child with religious beliefs but I will tell them white lies about things to feed their imagination, like there being castles above the clouds or mermaids in the oceans.

Húrin

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism but not the psychological shallowness.

Húrin

Húrin wrote: »

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism but not the psychological shallowness.

Haha.:rolleyes:

sink

Húrin wrote: »

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism but not the psychological shallowness.

Innocence, what do you mean by this, innocent of what? In the eyes of all Abrahamic religions atheists are anything but innocent, you are making no sense.

Simplicity? How can something be simple when many atheists disagree over the very definition of atheism and are constantly refining their own position?

Psychological shallowness? As in closed mindedness? How can atheists be close minded when many of us were formerly theists and were indoctrinated in a theistic faith since birth and through examining our own faith in depth we came to reject it. Surely the close minded thing to do would be to stick with the religion we had thrusted upon us and not question it.

I think you need to explain yourself.

It's just flamebait, sink.

lostexpectation

Húrin wrote: »

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism but not the psychological shallowness.

its unwritten (and written) rule that you respect the forum your in hurin, try showing some humility once in a while.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism [...]

Not to say the honesty too

Dades

So Húrin was psychologically shallow when he didn't believe in God. Give him a break, lads.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

The odd time, I miss the innocence and simplicity of atheism but not the psychological shallowness.

Dades wrote: »

So Húrin was psychologically shallow when he didn't believe in God. Give him a break, lads.

Yeah guys, I think you are reading him wrong. He clearly meant that he only misses the innocence and simplicity of Atheism, but can't miss his psychological shallowness as he still has that now with his religious beliefs.