SecularFuture

I have always wanted to, and I still want to, believe in a God. I have embraced all of the spiritual advice given to me by priests and religious friends. I have tried prayer, meditation, and I have spent many hours studying the prophets, including Jesus. Religion, unfortunately, has only given me more questions than answers, and these questions are suppose to be ignored through something called “faith."

I have found there to be two different kinds of faith: reasoned faith and religious faith. Naturalistic evidence based on sustained experiences is the basis for reasoned faith. For example, if I unplug my computer it will turn off. I have reason and evidence to support my notion. Notions without naturalistic evidence based on brief "divine" experiences are the basis for religious faith. For example, there is an unseen -- supernatural -- place outside of our world called Heaven. Nevertheless, why should there be? Is there reason or evidence to support this notion?

Would countries be satisfied with government leaders who refused to physically show themselves and speak aloud? I, along with many others, would not, and this is what bothers me most about the God concept. Why would a loving God make it so frustrating for people like me -- who want to believe -- to believe? Our human imperfections, and our intuition, deceive us on a daily basis. Why would He insist that we rely solely on our intuition, and on faith alone, to believe in Him? Is it really asking too much for a physical touch or an audible voice? Many religious writings describe very obvious interactions between man and the supernatural. Why aren't these interactions as obvious today? Why doesn't He give us more evidence for His existence, and why would He, as some believe, punish us in a Hell for our confusion?

Some claim that they have heard from, been touched by, and/or have had a brief divine experience through God. Nevertheless, how do they know that their continual belief in a God is not psychologically disturbing their rational judgment, and/or mentally creating what they feel to be God's presence?

Some claim that the prophecies found in many religious writings is proof that there is a divine power. Nevertheless, the prophecies that describe current events are too vague to accept as hard truth, and the ones that claim to have had eyewitnesses are without rational merits. If there is no realistic evidence for anything of supernatural nature, biblical prophecy -- along with all religion in general -- lacks credibility and should be considered mythology by default.

Some try to use circular reasoning and “intelligent design theory” to prove the existence of God. “Proof of God can be found through life and its design.” - - “Life and its design is proof of God.” This kind of reasoning is nothing more than personal, faith based, interpretation. This kind of thinking is also without rational merits. Simply because one cannot explain the complexity of life naturally, does not give room for one to jump to unfounded -- supernatural -- conclusions.

During our less sophisticated beginnings, before computers and technology were in common use, many of our explanations involved supernatural -- magical-- concepts. Many of us thought that the rain was from a deity as a gift and not from condensing clouds, and Earthquakes were sent as punishment for a wrongdoing. Many of us thought the Sun moved around a flat Earth because, from our vantage point, that is how everything appeared. "How could something come from nothing," we asked. "There must be a creator, a God, something beyond our human comprehension living outside of our physical world."

We did not have weather balloons and meteorologists to accurately interpret the weather then. We did not have a Richter scale and geophysicists to accurately interpret earthquakes. In addition, we did not understand quantum mechanics, the physics that gives explanation to how something could -- in fact -- come from what we consider "nothing." Without science and technology, we only had our imaginations.

Many theists are quick to question the weight of science but never to take the unbiased approach to question their own faith in God. In addition, how can anyone properly question the weight of science without a thorough education in the field they wish to criticize? I have taken the time to study both religious and nonreligious writings, and I have come to the only rational conclusion.

If our knowledge of the world was limited during our ancient beginnings, why should we lock ourselves into our earliest concepts? Where did the word 'God' really come from? Did a God create man, or did man create God and religion to give easy explanation, and meaning, to what he could not explain rationally at the time?

If there is no God, where does that leave us? If there is no God, we must become more responsible for our actions and for the world around us. If there is no one to tell us what is right from wrong, we must use our own intelligence and common sense to remind ourselves of the differences, and not do nonproductive acts simply because we can.

Pierre

SecularFuture

Let’s make copies and nail this to every church door on earth and ask, as you Americans would say...”how do you like them apples?”

Wow! Excellent post

Pierre

Oxymoron

You found NOTHING? I'm surprised you found as much as that! Religion usually saps the humanity from people, you got away lucky.

Respect,

Oxymoron.

SecularFuture

Thanks for the compliments peoples. The report is still in its rough state. I will be refining it, and adding chapters to it, periodically.

thebeave

Nicely done!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Ba'alzamon

I play the god's advocate here...

Popular theist reponse to your finding nothing:

You would have found something if you were really looking for god. Because you didn't find anything, your faith was not real.

Again... this is not my personal belief. I'm rather pleased to hear your story. However, I'd like to hear how you'd respond to that.

Jamie_L

Ah. The "No True Searching" defense.

My response response is this:

In order for this to be true, all the people who claim to have searched for God and failed must either be lying or mistaken.

That's a lot of people to call liars. It includes calling liars of people who were supposedly believers for some time. Including ministers and priests. Did all these people lie about searching for and finding God?

If the theist balks at calling every former believer a liar, then the result is that we are mistaken. Including all these people who supposedly found God, but later lost him.

However, if we are mistaken, but believe we really did search, how can we ever KNOW when we are REALLY searching? We can't.

The theist is also saying "my subjective, internal knowledge that I concluded in my search is valid, but yours is not". When asked why, their only defense is that "because I found God and you didn't." More simply, it boils down to "I'm right because I'm right, and you're wrong because you're wrong."

Jamie

Selsaral

Also, what about all the people who went searching but found Allah, or Zeus, or witchcraft, or aliens, or the IPU? Christians don't find it even slightly suspicious that it is clearly human nature to go searching for something and find it? That people tend to find the things their cultures are geared for? That people find radically different things but are 100% positive they did indeed find it?

(Bar Brady voice) Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

MrDarwin

What it boils down to is that millions of people have honestly and sincerely searched for god(s), and either come up with nothing (agnostics and atheists), or have come up with something other than the Christian deity. So we have to conclude that the Christian god (1) doesn't want us to believe, (2) doesn't care if we believe or not, or (3) doesn't exist.

faustuz

That’s why I think that the only remotely reasonable Christian version is Calvinism. God chose who would be saved. The reason you don’t believe is because God doesn’t want you. Why? Because He’s God. Don’t ask questions.