Believe

[Anti__F]

Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic?
Are there Atheists or religues people among us?

[tomorrowteen]

Actually, I've wondered the same thing. I've never been able to get into any religion because I analyze it too much.

Michael

[Eileen]

There are both around these parts (as it turns out, not all INTPs are the same--weeeeeird), but I think most are probably agnostic.

[cjs55]

The other types that visit this site seem on average to be more likely to be religious, certainly.

[coffeezombie]

Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic?
Are there Atheists or religues people among us?

I think there are spiritualists, even Christian spiritualists, but I doubt any INTP is going to believe a religion literally to the word.

[Chukamuk]

Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic?
Are there Atheists or religues people among us?If you find out let me know. I've tried my entire life to understand the concept of god and religion and it just frustrates me. I don't think I have a spiritual gene in my body.

[euterpenc]

I believe in religion, and I know god exists.

[coffeezombie]

I believe in religion, and I know god exists.

Right. It's like being in love. You can't describe it to someone who doesn't know how to experience it. I am not religious but I have no problem with people being religious, as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on me or the world in general.

[Dempsey]

I would have guessed most intp's are atheists. To me, religion and spirituality seems absolutely ridiculous. Religious people and such have given me an impatience for that sort of thing. As for personal analysing of this stuff, nothing seemed to fit or make sense, I could not find the relevance of spirituality.

As it is a subject I don't dive into deeply, I could very well change my mind in the future.

[KBELL]

I'm not sure what I beleive in religion. I beleived as a kid, but only because I was told to. No one really knows what happens until we're gone and maybe not even then. I don't beleive in one way or the other. I don't beleive anyone is wrong or right. Just beleifs. I don't think one group is right and the other is wrong. It's just not for me and like coffezombie, they can beleive whatever as long as they keep me out of it. I'm not sure if I'm aetheist or not, just not religious at all. I do worry about how to approach this subject with my daughter. I want to give her the opportunity to decide for herself and to have her own beleifs. I'm not sure how good of a guide I will be in that area without any real beleifs. I do know it gives many people a much need anchor in life and without it some are totally lost. If she decides that it is for her, I'll support her to the best of my ability.

[Biff_Loman]

When mommy and daddy tell you something is true, you believe them.

I became one of those more enlightened Christians who became very analytical towards my faith. I read the bible like a maniac, and took Paul's command to have an explanation for my faith (an "apologia") seriously. If Christianity was indeed the truth, then thinking critically about it could only lead me closer to God.

The house of cards came tumbling down about the age of 22. Living life in a non-agnostic fashion introduces an enormous amount of what I would call "logic overhead." In other words, the amount of time you need to analyze/logically justify your beliefs expands to the point where you think of nothing else. After a while, it became clear that I was just jumping through hoops; when push came to shove, I didn't believe it. Poof. :D

I think it may be this phenomenon that leads INTPs to be agnostic - and yes, we do tend towards agnosticism.

I don't mean to "take anything away" from the believing INTPs, though.

[Helios]

When mommy and daddy tell you something is true, you believe them.

I became one of those more enlightened Christians who became very analytical towards my faith. I read the bible like a maniac, and took Paul's command to have an explanation for my faith (an "apologia") seriously. If Christianity was indeed the truth, then thinking critically about it could only lead me closer to God.

The house of cards came tumbling down about the age of 22. Living life in a non-agnostic fashion introduces an enormous amount of what I would call "logic overhead." In other words, the amount of time you need to analyze/logically justify your beliefs expands to the point where you think of nothing else. After a while, it became clear that I was just jumping through hoops; when push came to shove, I didn't believe it. Poof. :D

I think it may be this phenomenon that leads INTPs to be agnostic - and yes, we do tend towards agnosticism.

I don't mean to "take anything away" from the believing INTPs, though.




Biff , we seem to have started in the same place. Myself, my belief never collapsed, only my abilitey to maintain it. I still know what I believe, but like a smoker/drunk or a junkie, just don't do a good job of doing it, for me the failure is mine ,not God's. May I pry and ask what it was that ended it for you?

[Miss Anthropic]

Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic?
Are there Atheists or religues people among us?
Check out some of the past threads on this. We run the gamut. Mostly agnostic leaning toward atheism. The extremely analytic mind seems to demand proof of everything, so atheism is the result.

[TPol]

God is quite real to me. Religion, in its many forms, seems to be something humanity created, for a variety of reasons.

[Helios]

The extremely analytic mind seems to demand proof of everything, so atheism is the result.


I disagree, I think this is reaction to organized religion.

[Anti__F]

Check out some of the past threads on this. We run the gamut. Mostly agnostic leaning toward atheism. The extremely analytic mind seems to demand proof of everything, so atheism is the result.
I dont think so.
You can't proof there isn't a higher power either.
So being an atheists is just as strange to me as believing in a higher power.

[KBELL]

I think Helios might be onto something. I think INTPs probably like to rebel against the norm for some reason.

[Helios]

I dont think so.
You can't proof there isn't a higher power either.
So being an atheists is just as strange to me as believing in a higher power.

Exactly! That was the unstated logic behind my position. You can however find logical reason to reject religion!

[Helios]

I think Helios might be onto something. I think INTPs probably like to rebel against the norm for some reason.


Yes,when the "norm" is awash in hypocrisy and is a fraud! Only a Fe could hang on to that crap! But this should in no impact God

[philonightmare]

Yes,when the "norm" is awash in hypocrisy and is a fraud! Only a Fe could hang on to that crap! But this should in no impact God

My secondary function is Fe and I started to analyze my religion this year for any possible inconsistencies and hypocracies.

I think though, that an INFJ is more likely to want to study aspects of organized religion in so much depth (I think guardians are more likely to accept relgion as a staple part of life, not necessarily Fe, Fi, etc. functions...).

[PriorityLove]

I am an INTP who is very religious. But unlike many other INTPs I am not only religiously inclined but there is one specific religion that I am devoted to because I have discovered that they have the truth. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least will be so soon, after my baptism. Like other INTPs I do question EVERYTHING and I do need proof before I believe something. It is a Christian religion, but is no part of Christendom. The main thing that prooved to me that they have the truth is that the more I question it, the stronger my faith becomes. As I search for more proof I am never dissappointed; the more I analyze their beliefs, the more sense that they make. You can visit their website at www.watchtower.org. When I say that they provide proof for their beliefs that does not mean that what they present as proof immediately is recognizable as being so. But if you have an honest heart and mind that really wants to know the truth and you are willing to be self sacrificing(not in a self destructive way, but in the way of love) you will eventually come to know and apprciate it as the truth, and the best way of living.

[Anti__F]

Why do they have the truth?
Because the more you question it?
What a bunch of bullshit.
If you count the believe of others as proof, well then i believe in Santa Claus too.
Wake up.

[Lee]

I do not believe in God, nor do I deny the possiblity that God may exist, however without proof of God's existence I cannot believe in God, for most practical purposes I am an Athiest. This I believe is what Miss Anthropic was refering to when she said that most INTPs are agnostic leaning towards atheism.

An undecided stance in my view is the only logical position to hold. All other positions require a leap of faith. Faith is something I cannot hold, this is because deep down I am simply searching for the truth, any personal conasequences are irrelevent.

[garak]

I dont think so.
You can't proof there isn't a higher power either.
So being an atheists is just as strange to me as believing in a higher power.



n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: {godlessness}]
[ant: {theism}]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or
supreme intelligent Being.
[1913 Webster]


2. Godlessness.
[1913 Webster]


Atheism doesn't necessarily mean you "know" there's no god. It just means you don't believe there is one. It doesn't really conflict with agnosticism in any way. It's two seperate issues.

belief:
1. atheism (no god)
vs
2. theism (god(s))

knowledge / open-mindedness / staunchness of belief:
A. agnosticism ("probably")
vs
B. no doubts ("definitely")

You could be any of:

- an agnostic atheist (1 & A): "I don't think there's a god but hey anything's possible"
- a non-agnostic atheist (1 & B): "I don't think there's a god and I refuse to believe otherwise"
- an agnostic theist (2 & A): "I think there's a god but hey I could be wrong"
- a non-agnostic theist (2 & B): "There's a god and I refuse to believe otherwise"

[Lee]

I am an INTP who is very religious. But unlike many other INTPs I am not only religiously inclined but there is one specific religion that I am devoted to because I have discovered that they have the truth. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least will be so soon, after my baptism. Like other INTPs I do question EVERYTHING and I do need proof before I believe something. It is a Christian religion, but is no part of Christendom. The main thing that prooved to me that they have the truth is that the more I question it, the stronger my faith becomes. As I search for more proof I am never dissappointed; the more I analyze their beliefs, the more sense that they make. You can visit their website at www.watchtower.org (http://www.watchtower.org/). When I say that they provide proof for their beliefs that does not mean that what they present as proof immediately is recognizable as being so. But if you have an honest heart and mind that really wants to know the truth and you are willing to be self sacrificing(not in a self destructive way, but in the way of love) you will eventually come to know and apprciate it as the truth, and the best way of living.Don't try and rationalise your illogical beleifs.. do not hide behind words like "proof" and "truth" when you clearly have no appreciation of what those words mean.

Just admit the reasons you believe are for your own mental health and well being.

You are searching for something different than the rest of us.

[PriorityLove]

Anti_F, I did not mean that YOU should accept MY belief as proof in itself. I am stating a truth that you will have to try out for yourself in order to know if it is true. If you look into the witnesses, you will eventually agree that they have the truth if you meet the previously mentioned requirements.

[Anti__F]

You base your proof on a feeling (that's more of a F thing to do) and yes this you'll have to try to know if it's true.
But I have no trust in feelings, the have nothing to do with the truth.
They can only push us in directions.
If you are truly an INTP, i know you'll change your mind someday.
Be true to yourself.

[Anti__F]

- an agnostic atheist (1 & A): "I don't think there's a god but hey anything's possible"


Count me in for the agnostic atheist then.

[Johnny]

Why do they have the truth?
Because the more you question it?
What a bunch of bullshit.
If you count the believe of others as proof, well then i believe in Santa Claus too.
Wake up.Santa Claus isn't real? Give me a break.

I'll stop believing in Santa Claus when you stop calling yourself Anti_F.

Nobody's challenging the member you represent yourself to be here as you spread your feces over things for which you know nothing.

Your feces supply must be never ending to reach the North Pole and pile it upon all the elves and reindeer working furiously to reward all the boys and girls who have been good throughout the year.

I dare you to take that feces and eat it instead while you do a little light reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Claus

Got the guts?

[nonsequitur]

i guess i'm very much a "typical" intp, then. i evolved from not knowing anything about religion (my country is very secular) to an atheist and then (after my atheistic beliefs were challenged) to an agnostic - a firm one, at that.

[PriorityLove]

Anti_F, I am most likely an INTP, and I do believe that I probably primarily used Ti in judging if the Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth. Whatever functions I was using, I know that I did truly determine that it is the truth. There is probably nothing any of us can say right now that can prove or disprove the previous sentence, but you seem to beleive that it is impossible that it is true if I am an INTP. If you are sure that an INTP cannot beleive that a specific religion has the truth unless they are not being true to themselves then why did you post this thread to begin with? Remember your original questions:

"Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic? Are there Atheists or religues people among us?"

Now that I am saying yes to your questions and that I am an example of it, you say it's impossible unless I'm either not an INTP or not being true to myself. So then why did you even post those questions? I really am not trying to insult you or anyone but we all need analyze our motives (including myself) when we ask a question and when we react to a potential answer to that question.

[MaroonBells]

The main thing that prooved to me that they have the truth is that the more I question it, the stronger my faith becomes. As I search for more proof I am never dissappointed.

Hi PL,

I am agnostic. Seems that you're happy. That can only be good.

Question, can you publicly question your religion in your community or are you just talking about your personal experience?

[PriorityLove]

Hi MaroonBells,
I don't really understand your question, but I will try to at least give you related information. In the part of the world where I live, most people are religious. Most Christians ask me to question my beliefs because I do not believe that Jesus is actually God himself, but rather the son of God. My religion does promote questioning your beliefs, and proving it to yourself. If I was to ask an elder in my congregation how we know for sure if a particular beleif is true, they would not normally scold me for doing so, but would do their best to help me find the answer. I really don't want to get too deep into our specific beliefs on a public message board (there is plenty of info about the witnesses from their official website), especially one that was not primarily intended for that, so if you have any more questions you can email me at jesse_junk@hotmail.com

[MaroonBells]

Hi MaroonBells,
I don't really understand your question, but I will try to at least give you related information. In the part of the world where I live, most people are religious. Most Christians ask me to question my beliefs because I do not believe that Jesus is actually God himself, but rather the son of God. My religion does promote questioning your beliefs, and proving it to yourself. If I was to ask an elder in my congregation how we know for sure if a particular beleif is true, they would not normally scold me for doing so, but would do their best to help me find the answer. I really don't want to get too deep into our specific beliefs on a public message board (there is plenty of info about the witnesses from their official website), especially one that was not primarily intended for that, so if you have any more questions you can email me at jesse_junk@hotmail.com

That answers my question. Funny, I thought all Christians agreed that Jesus was the son of God... If he is God, how did the immaculate conception come about?

[Nighthawk]

Personally, I believe in a higher authority. That belief has gotten me through some rough times where logic has failed me: war, addiction, illness. Organized religion is another matter for me. I have a very hard time accepting it. To me, it appears at best to cater to SJ desire for belonging and tradition, and SJ instinctive trust of authority ... none of which I have. At worst it seems to be a manipulative, money-making enterprise. A priest is not an authority figure for me, unless he (or she) makes logical sense and can offer good advice. It depends on the person, not the position. My experiences with organized religion (mostly Catholicism) have brought about a viewpoint that it is simply a group of people who, for some reason feel themselves superior, telling me what to do and what not to do. I have found a portion of them to be hypocrites as well. Furthermore, I do not need somebody "interpreting" a holy text for me. I am capable of doing that myself and drawing my own conclusions.

That's it for me in a nutshell. I have no problems with other people believing what they believe, as long as they don't try to push it on me or cause me harm by their beliefs. I sometimes admire those who can accept faith blindly, since it seems to offer them comfort when they need it.

[Apostasius]

I am an INTP who is very religious. But unlike many other INTPs I am not only religiously inclined but there is one specific religion that I am devoted to because I have discovered that they have the truth. I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, or at least will be so soon, after my baptism.
I recommend examining sources *outside* the JW organization before committing yourself. Seek "proof" beyond what the Watchtower provides.

But...to each his own, I suppose.

Just for the hell of it:
http://www.jwfiles.com/
http://www.carm.org/witnesses.htm

And for the record, I am not a Christian.

[Anti__F]

Anti_F, I am most likely an INTP, and I do believe that I probably primarily used Ti in judging if the Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth. Whatever functions I was using, I know that I did truly determine that it is the truth. There is probably nothing any of us can say right now that can prove or disprove the previous sentence, but you seem to beleive that it is impossible that it is true if I am an INTP. If you are sure that an INTP cannot beleive that a specific religion has the truth unless they are not being true to themselves then why did you post this thread to begin with? Remember your original questions:

"Can an analitic mind such as an INTP be anything but a agnostic? Are there Atheists or religues people among us?"

Now that I am saying yes to your questions and that I am an example of it, you say it's impossible unless I'm either not an INTP or not being true to myself. So then why did you even post those questions? I really am not trying to insult you or anyone but we all need analyze our motives (including myself) when we ask a question and when we react to a potential answer to that question.

I didn't say its impossiple your an INTP, I do believe you're not true to yourself.
Being a jehovah witness means your are a strong believer.
I can't see the logic in that.
Only when you have a reason to believe this strong its sounds logical to me.
Because there is no proof for the existance of god i think the only reasons to believe are for example wanting to belong, escape from a former live, etc.
This always means (to me) you're n o t true to yourself.

[Helios]

I am really suprised and disapointed by the reaction to PriorityLove! This absurd attack on his faith is totally emotional and uncalled for, as if any of you can "prove" any more about the nature (or lack there) of God than this guy can. Is it the fear that perhaps he had found something you couldn't driving it? He made no dogmatic statements that begged questioning, only a simple statement of personal belief. I say beautiful PL go for it!

Now if he was a raging Jesus freak telling us all we were going to hell I could see this,but he did not. Beside some of the questions, (such as the nature/relationship of God and Jesus) betray a gapping lack of simple religious knowledge, it is interesting that some can take such postitions on the most basic levels of knowledge.


Regarding the nature of truth, if there isn't one, well all truth is therefore subjective and his is just as valid as yours.

But if now there is an absolute truth, perhaps he has found it and has something to say of import, regardless I see no reason to condemn him. God bless his faith!

[Lee]

I am really suprised and disapointed by the reaction to PriorityLove! This absurd attack on his faith is totally emotional and uncalled for
Uncalled for? PL made a post, people responed, nothing was called or uncalled for.


as if any of you can "prove" any more about the nature (or lack there) of God than this guy can.
Exactly, nobody can prove the existence of God either way, it irrational to believe in God, people stated that fairly.


Is it the fear that perhaps he had found something you couldn't driving it? He made no dogmatic statements that begged questioning, only a simple statement of belief. I say beautiful PL go for it!
Drving what? the universe? nobody fears anything, if PL was proved right to my satisfaction tomorrow I would gladdly believe. Stating that he has found the "truth" is pretty dogmatic.


Regarding the nature of truth, if there isn't one, well all truth is therefore subjective and his is just as valid as yours.
WHy do we bother discussing anything then? why not just state our subjective truths and move on, what is the point of discussion, and what if my subjective truth is that he is wrong? are we both right?


But if now there is an absolute truth, perhaps he has found it and has something to say of import, regardless I see no reason to condemn him. God bless his faith!If and perhaps? this sentence says nothing of relevence.

[Helios]

It says you have closed your mind to the possibility.

[Lee]

It says you have closed your mind to the possibility.
No it doesn't, I explicitly stated that I do not know the answer, I just think that SL's "truth" is highly improbable, as do most here... I cannot prove nor disprove, but that does not mean I cannot discuss or critisize.

[Helios]

I agree, and don't mean to be unreasonable myself, it was only the J-ish assault on his view that bothered me.

But then again, what do you know about his truth?

[Lee]

But then again, what do you know about his truth?
What does PL know about mine, apparently both our views are perfectly valid as truth because all truth is subjective, so PL is both wrong and right because both realities are equally valid. But what if I believe that truth is not subjective... is that also true, or only subjectivly true.. :confused:

[Helios]

Personally I don't believe all truth is subjective, I brought that up prior, only to make a point (about the various "bullshit" comments that had been made).

Nor, do I know your "truth", but if I was standing amoung a group of people and all of them said they were lost and didn't know where they were at, nor were they are going and then someone said, "I think I know", I'd at least be curious to hear what he had to say, but then again I am curious about much too many things!

[Lee]

Personally I don't believe all truth is subjective, I brought that up prior, only to make a point (about the various "bullshit" comments that had been made).
To make a point? which you knew was incorrect?


Nor, do I know your "truth", but if I was standing amoung a group of people and all of them said they were lost and didn't know where they were at, nor were they are going and then someone said, "I think I know", I'd at least be curious to hear what he had to say, but then again I am curious about much too many things!
And when that person explains what he thinks he knows, you should be free to critisize, or dismiss it as "bullshit" or blasphemous or whatever. Nobody has denied PL an opinion or point of view... most here would also consider PL's view as a highly improbable possiblity, but we cannot chase up and discuss every highly improbable possiblity that comes along.

I am jelous of PL on some level, I wish I could find certainty when trying to answer these philosophical questions.

[Asmodiel]

Any sort of analytical mind, INTP or not, would be able to tell you that the majority of religion is senseless and has major holes in it.

I used to forbid my mind from analyzing my religion. Perhaps I was afraid to let go of it...I finally have though, in favor of agnosticism. Until I can find some sort of proof on my own I will remain that way.

[Sally]

This has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, but I'll say it again for good measure:

What bugs me about agnosticism is that is implies that there is something out there; you just haven't found it yet.

There is no higher power in the reality I inhabit - the reality I perceive. There is no higher power like there are no invisible, intangible, flying unicorns. There is no higher power like there is a water cycle. Can I prove beyond doubt that every drop of water in the ocean was once water vapor, once trickled down through mountain streams? No. Can I prove that there is no higher power? No. But that doesn't stop me from believing what I believe.

And, yes, it is belief. I believe in the nonexistence of a higher power like I believe in my bedroom walls. I hate the way people try to trip atheists up on logic. You can't prove something's nonexistence nyah nyah!!!! So fucking what? I don't perceive it; it doesn't exist for me; I don't perceive the possibility of it; the possibility of it doesn't exist for me. Sure, that may change. But I also might meet my soul mate in the person of an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn. Each hypothetical scenario is equally ridiculous to me. End of story.

[Asmodiel]

I'm agnostic mainly for the proof factors. It cannot be proven either way. I would much rather take an apathetic stance on the issue and not have to worry with it than to make a blatant statement of belief.

As for the atheist logic trip with proving something doesn't exist: Placing the burden of proof on the atheist is incorrect. The one making the positive statement holds the burden of proof.

[CoHo]

There is no higher power like there are no invisible, intangible, flying unicorns.

I think the small bit that keeps me agnostic is that there could be a 'god like' life form. Picture a being that became sentient a billion years before we did... you would assume they would inhabit the same characteristics of a god to us. Just as we must appear godlike to rodents.

Meh, whatever

[Geek Engineer]

I'm agnostic mainly for the proof factors. It cannot be proven either way. I would much rather take an apathetic stance on the issue and not have to worry with it than to make a blatant statement of belief.

As for the atheist logic trip with proving something doesn't exist: Placing the burden of proof on the atheist is incorrect. The one making the positive statement holds the burden of proof.

Amen brother.. I'm with you.. Agnostics of the world unite. 8O

Anyway, I couldn't have said it better myself. I am one that hopes that there is a god of some sort. I think if there is life after death that it is likely to be totaly different than we expect.

[nonsequitur]

This has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, but I'll say it again for good measure:

What bugs me about agnosticism is that is implies that there is something out there; you just haven't found it yet.

There is no higher power in the reality I inhabit - the reality I perceive. There is no higher power like there are no invisible, intangible, flying unicorns. There is no higher power like there is a water cycle. Can I prove beyond doubt that every drop of water in the ocean was once water vapor, once trickled down through mountain streams? No. Can I prove that there is no higher power? No. But that doesn't stop me from believing what I believe.

And, yes, it is belief. I believe in the nonexistence of a higher power like I believe in my bedroom walls. I hate the way people try to trip atheists up on logic. You can't prove something's nonexistence nyah nyah!!!! So fucking what? I don't perceive it; it doesn't exist for me; I don't perceive the possibility of it; the possibility of it doesn't exist for me. Sure, that may change. But I also might meet my soul mate in the person of an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn. Each hypothetical scenario is equally ridiculous to me. End of story.

I disagree (mainly because i'm a firm agnostic). Agnosticism does not imply that there is something out there, agnosticism simply states that it is impossible to "prove" either way. So, yeah, there might be a higher power, or there might not be, but either way, it is impossible to "prove" it, either through empiricist data-gathering methods, or by rationalist logic. And yeah, that is my belief too.

basically, what you're saying, then, is that because you can't perceive something, it doesn't exist for you? but you personally cannot perceive air pressure, and neither can you perceive the reasons, the causes for gravity. you might be able to perceive gravity, and therefore, for you, it exists, but in terms of cause, you will not be able to perceive the cause. does that mean that it does not exist? similarly, though you cannot perceive a supreme being, does that "prove" that it doesn't exist? that is pure empiricism - which denies that what we think, our preconceptions, our prejudices all have an effect on what we perceive. we might like to think ourselves objective, but the fact remains that a colour blind man cannot perceive colour, though he might think that he can. in fact, colour blindness was not discovered until the 19th century, even though it had existed for many centuries before that! our senses and perceptions can be faulty, and we cannot place too much faith in them, as we cannot place too much faith in rationalism and logic.

that's what it all comes down to then - faith. either you have it, or you do not. neither side can be "proven" or "disproved". if you're happy the way you are, i don't see the problem anyway. i don't think there's any need to attack either side. but then again, this is just my view.

[Lee]

This has already been said in this thread and elsewhere, but I'll say it again for good measure:

What bugs me about agnosticism is that is implies that there is something out there; you just haven't found it yet.
As nonsequitor pointed out, it does not imply anything of the sort, it simply leaves that open as a possiblity which is not the same as implying.


Can I prove beyond doubt that every drop of water in the ocean was once water vapor, once trickled down through mountain streams? No. Can I prove that there is no higher power? No. But that doesn't stop me from believing what I believe.
So you believe something, yet you also admit the belief to be illogical, but believe anyway because you want to?


I hate the way people try to trip atheists up on logic. You can't prove something's nonexistence nyah nyah!!!! So fucking what? I don't perceive it; it doesn't exist for me; I don't perceive the possibility of it; the possibility of it doesn't exist for me. Sure, that may change.
So the possiblity does not exist for you even though you leave open the possiblity that you may change your mind :confused:


meet my soul mate in the person of an invisible, intangible, flying unicorn. Each hypothetical scenario is equally ridiculous to me. End of story.
Just because something sounds ridiculous does not make it untrue. I am sure that quantum physics seemed ridiculous to many scientists in the past, it doesn't mean they discarded it as untrue and chose to believe it to be rubbish.

[Sally]

As nonsequitor pointed out, it does not imply anything of the sort, it simply leaves that open as a possiblity which is not the same as implying.


So you believe something, yet you also admit the belief to be illogical, but believe anyway because you want to?


So the possiblity does not exist for you even though you leave open the possiblity that you may change your mind :confused:


Just because something sounds ridiculous does not make it untrue. I am sure that quantum physics seemed ridiculous to many scientists in the past, it doesn't mean they discarded it as untrue and chose to believe it to be rubbish.

Replying to everything you just said: Spot on! Except that, to me, agnostic does imply a.... waiting... for faith. It doesn't mean that to everyone, I'm sure, and in the strictest difinition, I am agnostic, but for practical purposes (the practical reality in which I live), I'm an atheist.

I like the way atheist sounds; it sounds certain; it sounds sure. You can play mind games all day long - What if this? What if that? What if I'm just a brain in a vat? I've been down all those roads; I concern myself with what I perceive. Moreover, atheism is a choice. It was a big deal for me. To go from Catholic to agnostic to atheist was a progression in my life that I express in the way I label myself.

[Lee]

Replying to everything you just said: Spot on! Except that, to me, agnostic does imply a.... waiting... for faith. It doesn't mean that to everyone, I'm sure, and in the strictest difinition, I am agnostic, but for practical purposes (the practical reality in which I live), I'm an atheist.

I like the way atheist sounds; it sounds certain; it sounds sure. You can play mind games all day long - What if this? What if that? What if I'm just a brain in a vat? I've been down all those roads; I concern myself with what I perceive. Moreover, atheism is a choice. It was a big deal for me. To go from Catholic to agnostic to atheist was a progression in my life that I express in the way I label myself.You sound similar to me then.

Technically I am agnostic but for all practical purposes I am athiest.

[MacGuffin]

I like the way atheist sounds; it sounds certain; it sounds sure. You can play mind games all day long - What if this? What if that? What if I'm just a brain in a vat?
But mind games are what we do!

Certainty = bah, humbug!

[Architectonic]

As for the atheist logic trip with proving something doesn't exist: Placing the burden of proof on the atheist is incorrect. The one making the positive statement holds the burden of proof.

The burden of proof is placed on anyone making a definitive statement. So anyone who is not agnostic in regards to their beliefs.

[PriorityLove]

The burden of proof is placed on anyone making a definitive statement. So anyone who is not agnostic in regards to their beliefs.
Even agnostics make definitive statements. Many agnostics say that it cannot be proven whether God exists or not. They still have the burden of proof: Do they have proof that there is no proof? There are probably also agnostics who say that it has not been proven either way (as opposed to cannot be proven). That is also a definitive statement. There are probably other agnostics who say that they don't think it has been proven either way but they are not sure. I don't think that that last one was a definitive statement but I'm not sure.

[iponjs]

Agnostic is non-comittal which suits me just fine. Atheist sounds like my decision is made but I have not made a decision other than deciding that organized religion is mind-control for the masses and I refuse to be "the masses".....

[coffeezombie]

Agnostic is non-comittal which suits me just fine. Atheist sounds like my decision is made but I have not made a decision other than deciding that organized religion is mind-control for the masses and I refuse to be "the masses".....

I kind of think that agnostic is a useless term because even the most diehard atheist would probably become religious if God stepped down from heaven one day and started throwing lightning bolts around.

[cuspuser]

for a type that is supposed to be non-religous we certaintly talk about it an awful lot, this is perhaps the most talked about topic in this section ... every few months it seems to pop up ... are we religous, are we all agnostic, are we all atheist, are there any intp theists ... based on all this i'd definately say there is definately an interest in the spiritual and what can/cannot be known/proved.

based on the number of agnostics i'd say that out of types i've run into here we are more likely to be happy with our lack of certainty ... or happy in finding that only our lack of certainty is certain ... which seems to be the biggest complaint of the atheists "yes, i know we can't know, BUT i like the person who sounds certain" (now i'm getting bad flashbacks to the last US election)

and for Sally you state you are a practical atheist, you'll find that many people who call themselves agnostic hold the same position as you ... note all the people say it doesn't imply waiting for faith ... i don't think you'll find many agnostic who wind up living their day to day lives based on a belief in a specific god (if there are any out there i'd like to hear from them), most will live based on a scientific framework, because science has done a good job of dealing with perceptive reality ... which is essentially the same as what you believe, but if you prefer not to be called an agnostic suit yourself :)

[Asmodiel]

*edit

Whoops, wrong thing

Edit 2: I'll make a comment.

Truly, if going by basic meanings of atheism and theism, agnosticism is actually atheism. Atheism does not neccessarily have to contain any positive statements whatsoever. It is simply the lack of theism. If the atheist does not say "there is no god", but says "I do not believe in God", he does not need to prove anything.

Too bad most atheists do not watch their words and get caught up in that logic trap simply by making a definitive statement.

[Architectonic]

Truly, if going by basic meanings of atheism and theism, agnosticism is actually atheism. Atheism does not neccessarily have to contain any positive statements whatsoever. It is simply the lack of theism. If the atheist does not say "there is no god", but says "I do not believe in God", he does not need to prove anything.

"there is no god" = firm atheist
"I do not believe in God" = agnostic atheist

[Architectonic]

Even agnostics make definitive statements. Many agnostics say that it cannot be proven whether God exists or not. They still have the burden of proof: Do they have proof that there is no proof? There are probably also agnostics who say that it has not been proven either way (as opposed to cannot be proven). That is also a definitive statement. There are probably other agnostics who say that they don't think it has been proven either way but they are not sure. I don't think that that last one was a definitive statement but I'm not sure.

This is all a matter of the definition of agnostic...

An agnostic may suggest that it may not be possible to prove whether god exists or not. An agnostic may also say that it has not yet been proven either way to themselves.

[javalady]

I've been meaning to post about thsi for months now.

I'm a conservative Catholic. I was an agnostic for sixteen years, beginning at age nine. I found theism, chrsitianity, and finally Catholicism to make so mcuh sense when I examined the reasons that I felt compelled to be a part of them. And now i actually have a relationship with god, which sometimes includes feelings. :)

I'm going to explain myself eventually if anyone really wants to know. It might take a while... I think most of you tend to be young (twenties?), and I am an old married lady in my late thirties busy raising and home schooling my six children. All from the same husband... is monomgamy typical of INTP's? So my lifestyle does not allow lots of internet time... but I will get back to this as soon as I can, hopefully by late June.

How long is too long for these posts? if anyone is interested, I will post an article I wrote about my journey from agnosticism to Catholicism. it doesn;t give many of the intellectual details; that would need to be a separate thread.

I'm thrilled to find an open minded group of people who do not assume I'm a lunatic because I believe in God.

[Sally]

I've been meaning to post about thsi for months now.

I'm a conservative Catholic. I was an agnostic for sixteen years, beginning at age nine. I found theism, chrsitianity, and finally Catholicism to make so mcuh sense when I examined the reasons that I felt compelled to be a part of them. And now i actually have a relationship with god, which sometimes includes feelings. :)

I'm going to explain myself eventually if anyone really wants to know. It might take a while... I think most of you tend to be young (twenties?), and I am an old married lady in my late thirties busy raising and home schooling my six children. All from the same husband... is monomgamy typical of INTP's? So my lifestyle does not allow lots of internet time... but I will get back to this as soon as I can, hopefully by late June.

How long is too long for these posts? if anyone is interested, I will post an article I wrote about my journey from agnosticism to Catholicism. it doesn;t give many of the intellectual details; that would need to be a separate thread.

I'm thrilled to find an open minded group of people who do not assume I'm a lunatic because I believe in God.

I'd find it interesting to read. You'd probably want to start a new thread, though, and I don't think there's any such thing as too long...

One note of caution: On this board, it's a good idea to be prepared for debate, no matter what you write.

[Miss Anthropic]

Atheism doesn't necessarily mean you "know" there's no god. It just means you don't believe there is one. It doesn't really conflict with agnosticism in any way. It's two seperate issues.

belief:
1. atheism (no god)
vs
2. theism (god(s))

knowledge / open-mindedness / staunchness of belief:
A. agnosticism ("probably")
vs
B. no doubts ("definitely")

You could be any of:

- an agnostic atheist (1 & A): "I don't think there's a god but hey anything's possible"
- a non-agnostic atheist (1 & B): "I don't think there's a god and I refuse to believe otherwise"
- an agnostic theist (2 & A): "I think there's a god but hey I could be wrong"
- a non-agnostic theist (2 & B): "There's a god and I refuse to believe otherwise"

Most atheists I've come across would not state it as such: "I don't believe there is a God" rather they would say, "There is no God, if you believe there is one, prove it!" I realize the burden of proof could be put on either the believer or the disbeliever, but the atheists are almost more zealous in their disbelief than the fundamentalists are in their belief. (This observation is taken from other threads regarding this subject...and I fall into neither category, so I feel I am at least somewhat objective in my observation) As an agnostic I would have to say that athiesm does conflict with agnosticism. I find atheists and fundamentalists equally frustrating to converse with on the subject.

[Serotonin]

God is quite real to me. Religion, in its many forms, seems to be something humanity created, for a variety of reasons. A good portion of my writing is on this topic, so I know better than to get started here. :)

I'm interested in your take on this TPol, what exactly do you mean by God being real? In a sentient way i.e., touch, see, hear? In an emotional way i.e. the emotions that you feel when you read the Bible or contemplate God's love are real? Is it real because archaeological evidence supports God's claims? Is it real because the events around you and that you take part in vindicate your Christianity?

Where or what is this reality that you speak of? Explain it please. Other Christians such as PriorityLove are welcome to answer as well.

[nonsequitur]

there's also another brand of agnosticism - one that i suscribe to.

"there may or may not be a god, but that does not affect the way that i personally want to live my life, and so i do not dwell overmuch on that question but instead focus on outlining personal ethics"

[crofbe]

To me, religion (and therefore, a "god") is an inevitability. Yes, that's a loaded word, but I don't see why atheism, agnosticm, etc. are any way more right than religions and god. In the end, I don't think they are.

[nonsequitur]

^ that's why they are called beliefs and rely on faith. who decides when the "end" is? and no one ever can prove whether something is more right or not. there's no objective on this issue, and that's why they are systems of belief. you can think and believe that you are right - everyone thinks that - but you've yet to explain why religion is an "inevitability". and besides, you didn't say which religion or god you were referring to. though there's something else that i don't understand - you say that there is an objective "right" and yet refer to "religions"? they can't ALL be right since most of them deny that the others are true.

[TPol]

I'm interested in your take on this TPol, what exactly do you mean by God being real? In a sentient way i.e., touch, see, hear? In an emotional way i.e. the emotions that you feel when you read the Bible or contemplate God's love are real? Is it real because archaeological evidence supports God's claims? Is it real because the events around you and that you take part in vindicate your Christianity? Where or what is this reality that you speak of? Explain it please. Other Christians such as PriorityLove are welcome to answer as well.

This is probably going to be lengthy. (advance apologies)

Hi, Serotonin. I have enjoyed reading (and have come to respect you because of) your posts on this site. So, I find it intriguing that you noticed my brief answer among the fray. :)

I, like javalady, have a very long story about the journey I've taken and why I have finally ended up at my current "location," so I'll try to cover just the highlights as well as answer your questions. In my attempt to be brief, I will likely leave out details and possibly create misunderstandings of "my reality," but I'll take my chances. (smirk)

Dad grew up in a family that went to church 3-4 times per week, so he got burned out on it and decided not to drag his future kids there and not to "talk religion" with them. Mom grew up going to church only so she could sing in the choir and later developed occult beliefs. When I was a toddler, I had no doubt of God's existence (there was no discussion of it and I was a very isolated kid, so this was something "out of the blue"). And, I began asking multiple questions. Instead of answering the questions directly, Dad told me to read the Bible for myself. Despite the worsening of mom's hatred of me because of it (she was a selfish, abusive person), I began reading. Like any other book for me, it was an escape. Yet, there was something different, too. It became kind of a home for me. And, at those moments when I had no earthly beings to lean on (fickle humanity), God (as a loving parent, confidant, and friend) made Himself known to me in a very personal way. I know of no other way to describe it. I'm not here to evangelize anyone. You asked; I'm telling. :)

When I began interacting more with people outside my family, I became aware of how different my views were. I didn't agree with the church people, and I didn't relate to those "without God." But, I was curious about both. So, throughout the later years of high school and all through college, I explored the extremes...and I role-played in order to mix them and see how they reacted to one another (the best way to find "truth," in my opinion)...rebel walking into church....church-lady stiff walking into anti-religion territory. Lots and lots of stories (several quite humorous), so I'll not go into detail here. I began studying various beliefs/religions/cultures, interacting with them and actually becoming a part of some of them: organized church religions of various sorts, satanism, atheism, occult, etc. I picked apart the Bible, questioning it and its supposed author(s). I questioned people on why they believe or don't believe. I was open-minded about everything and trying to examine every belief and non-belief I could find because I wanted "the truth." You're INTPs...you know what it is to seek out something with an obsession while keeping yourself at a distant, objective reference point. I questioned myself and purposely made myself uncomfortable multiple times in order to see beyond any biases (growing up reading the Bible) or psychological quirks (rebellion) I might have.

Finally, on the other side of all that seeking, I came down to one basic stance. I was an extremely isolated kid without outside influence from "the Church" (christian-ese) or churches. My family didn't discuss religion or God. In fact, the easier path, by far, would have been to curl up and pretend not to be curious about anything....most especially spirituality. Yet, I kept coming back to the memory of me as a toddler (as in before I could even read beyond three-letter words) simply KNOWING that God exists. There was no doubt in my mind at all. I only needed to learn more about this Person. Logic doesn't mesh with this, in my mind. There's no logical reason why it was such a certainty for me. I don't go to church (don't trust most "christians"), but I read the Bible (and have kind of weird perspectives compared to most "believers" I've talked with). Recently, I found myself trying to slough off humanity's perspectives once again so that I could go back to that moment in my timeline (when it was a given that God exists) and analyze it. I am, again, at that certainty. Now, I must unemotionally decipher where the logic in it is....if logic even applies. I'm called "vulcan" for a reason. :D

Maybe none of this answers your questions....probably not, actually. If you've read this far (congrats, if you have (smirk)), perhaps you can come to some conclusions that do basically answer your original question. I am completely open to nit-picking and analysis of details because I've pretty much done that to my beliefs myself. Plus, hearing another's perspective on it may make me consider something I hadn't considered before. Have at it.

[Ascending]

Thank you for posting that Tpol. An interesting insight into an interesting perspective.
Heres an unbrella for the impending anti-F storm.

[YardGnome]

I'd love to hear about some of those experiences and reflections TPol. That all sounds very interesting...

[Ascending]

Don't try and rationalise your illogical beleifs.. do not hide behind words like "proof" and "truth" when you clearly have no appreciation of what those words mean.

Just admit the reasons you believe are for your own mental health and well being.

You are searching for something different than the rest of us. The fish Lee, the fish seems so happy, yet you seem angery.

It seems an implicit theme here that supposed objective analysis is motivated by a heavly emotional responce. What is the purpose of your post I've quoted here? Certainly not to convince PriorityLove that their view is wrong. Consider "Just admit the reasons you believe are for your own mental health and well being." Even if this was absolutly true and this person was deluding themselves for their own sanity the effect of your words would have the opposite effect they claim to attempt to obtain.

It seems to me that your objective here was not to show someone what is right but only to break them down. This is not an objective of someone who seeks truth. It is a sign of insecurity.

[Wilde Mutton]

Faith in God seems to be in no way different from faith in, say, science. The premises are different. What seems logical in science is the inference from premises which are just as dogmatic as faith in God. Even if religion can justifiably be called irrational the fact that people arrive at those religious feelings is due to some inherent assumptions not qualitatively different from the empirical notions most of today´s society holds self-evident. Sensations of a spiritual presence caused according to some by the impact of electromagnetic phenomena on the receptive brain might be conceived as messages from God or simply of God. That process of linking a sensation with a theistic argument cannot, in all logic, be separated in essence from the inference one makes from having allegedly similar "situations" occur under allegedly similar circumstances. Thus belief is not tied to simply the question of a God or power of equal significance. Belief can be argued to concern all arguments bar those of a purely deductive nature. Are we philosophical agnostics? Dogmatic (both in the "atheistic" and "theistic" sense which are here understood as polar opposites in epistemological discussion)?

Edit: Please analyze and question my premises. I fear they are inherent. Should I be able to answer I´ll know which one´s I just haven´t dealt with...

[crofbe]

^ that's why they are called beliefs and rely on faith. who decides when the "end" is? and no one ever can prove whether something is more right or not. there's no objective on this issue, and that's why they are systems of belief. you can think and believe that you are right - everyone thinks that - but you've yet to explain why religion is an "inevitability". and besides, you didn't say which religion or god you were referring to. though there's something else that i don't understand - you say that there is an objective "right" and yet refer to "religions"? they can't ALL be right since most of them deny that the others are true.

Inevitability in that the power of science is limited simply because it expands forwards, and religion doesn't have to. Or, it's an abstract interpretation of TPol's nice post. You're looking for concrete answers, it's a "scientific" mindset, all I know is that I "know," even though I don't have any religions background and couldn't tell you more than two facts from the bible or any similar text.

When I see a thunderstorm and feel the rain falling gently outside, I don't really care that it's disturbances in atmospheric pressure and whatever. Now this isn't to say that science is not useful, because it really is, and it's nice to forecast and help people avoid dangerous weather conditions, but it's entirely goal-driven, eventually external, and gives to materialism, greed, etc.

I don't doubt that the greatest spiritual leaders have had vested interest in science, but they also do more in ways of philosophy, sociology, literature, and the like.

[Ascending]

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."-- Albert Einstein

[Anti__F]

"Science without religion is lame."-- Albert Einstein
Why did Einstein mention this?

[Anti__F]

BUCKY:

You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:

Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquaintcd with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respectivc planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws.
As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

Einstein based his agnostic thoughts on feelings. He had great feelings for mystery, the things he could'n understand.

[javalady]

Hi, Sally!
Thanks for the advice. A new thread is a good idea... perhaps I'll entitle it something along the lines of "Why We Believe or Do Not"...??? Debate... I suspect people here are logical in debates and do not personally attack much... I appreciater logical debate because I always learn from that.

[javalady]

P.S> I tried to post a reply... don;t know if it worked... I don;t know how to statrt a new thread, but it can;t be all that difficult... I think I will wiat until one weekend soon when some of the family is off on an adventure and it;s less busy around here.

[TPol]

javalady, I'm looking forward to the new thread you're going to start sometime.

Ascending & YardGnome, thanks for the interest. I don't want to hog up any more room in this thread than I already have. :)

[Serotonin]

This is probably going to be lengthy. (advance apologies)

Hi, Serotonin. I have enjoyed reading (and have come to respect you because of) your posts on this site. So, I find it intriguing that you noticed my brief answer among the fray. :)

I, like javalady, have a very long story about the journey I've taken and why I have finally ended up at my current "location," so I'll try to cover just the highlights as well as answer your questions. In my attempt to be brief, I will likely leave out details and possibly create misunderstandings of "my reality," but I'll take my chances. (smirk)

Dad grew up in a family that went to church 3-4 times per week, so he got burned out on it and decided not to drag his future kids there and not to "talk religion" with them. Mom grew up going to church only so she could sing in the choir and later developed occult beliefs. When I was a toddler, I had no doubt of God's existence (there was no discussion of it and I was a very isolated kid, so this was something "out of the blue"). And, I began asking multiple questions. Instead of answering the questions directly, Dad told me to read the Bible (and a children's Bible story series) for myself. Despite the worsening of mom's hatred of me because of it (she was a selfish, abusive person), I began reading. Like any other book for me, it was an escape. Yet, there was something different, too. It became kind of a home for me. And, at those moments when I had no earthly beings to lean on (fickle humanity), God (as a loving parent, confidant, and friend) made Himself known to me in a very personal way. I know of no other way to describe it. I'm not here to evangelize anyone. You asked; I'm telling. :)

When I began interacting more with people outside my family, I became aware of how different my views were. I didn't agree with the church people, and I didn't relate to those "without God." But, I was curious about both. So, throughout the later years of high school and all through college, I explored the extremes...and I role-played in order to mix them and see how they reacted to one another (the best way to find "truth," in my opinion)...Harley-loving rebel walking into church....church-lady stiff walking into anti-religion territory. Lots and lots of stories (several quite humorous), so I'll not go into detail here. I began studying various beliefs/religions/cultures, interacting with them and actually becoming a part of some of them: organized church religions of various sorts, satanism, atheism, occult, etc. I picked apart the Bible, questioning it and its supposed author(s). I questioned people on why they believe or don't believe. I was open-minded about everything and trying to examine every belief and non-belief I could find because I wanted "the truth." You're INTPs...you know what it is to seek out something with an obsession while keeping yourself at a distant, objective reference point. I questioned myself and purposely made myself uncomfortable multiple times in order to see beyond any biases (growing up reading the Bible) or psychological quirks (rebellion) I might have.

Finally, on the other side of all that seeking, I came down to one basic stance. I was an extremely isolated kid without outside influence from "the Church" (christian-ese) or churches. My family didn't discuss religion or God. In fact, the easier path, by far, would have been to curl up and pretend not to be curious about anything....most especially spirituality. Yet, I kept coming back to the memory of me as a toddler (as in before I could even read beyond three-letter words) simply KNOWING that God exists. There was no doubt in my mind at all. I only needed to learn more about this Person. Logic doesn't mesh with this, in my mind. There's no logical reason why it was such a certainty for me. I don't go to church (don't trust most "christians"), but I read the Bible (and have kind of weird perspectives compared to most "believers" I've talked with). Recently, I found myself trying to slough off humanity's perspectives once again so that I could go back to that moment in my timeline (when it was a given that God exists) and analyze it. I am, again, at that certainty. Now, I must unemotionally decipher where the logic in it is....if logic even applies. I'm called "vulcan" for a reason. :D

Maybe none of this answers your questions....probably not, actually. If you've read this far (congrats, if you have (smirk)), perhaps you can come to some conclusions that do basically answer your original question. I am completely open to nit-picking and analysis of details because I've pretty much done that to my beliefs myself. Plus, hearing another's perspective on it may make me consider something I hadn't considered before. Have at it.

Thanks for the time you took to write that, TPol. I took in every word. :) Wespekt.

That said, it has further solidified my general idea of spirituality being good and organised religion being bad. Spirituality is our inner-world, and religion is the extraversion of it. Anything can happen in our inner worlds. Gods can exist, fight and die, 72 virgins can be awaiting our martyrdom, newspaper taxis can drive us around under marmalade skies. But they still remain abstract. You have to deal with the outer world somehow. It's why everyone has a mix of introverted and extraverted Jungian functions. When you get other people to conform to your exact religion, and hence your particular brand of spirituality, then you destroy the chance of those people ever formulating their own spirituality. I believe no two spiritualities are alike. Some can be similar, in which case people form friendships, relationships and alliances. But the moment you start making people conform to the way you think exactly, you start to destroy souls.

Your a priori stance that God exists must be a powerful one, and the reason it's powerful seems to come from your state of mind as a toddler, influenced no doubt by your parents beliefs. That in itself is an internal, subjective stance, unverifiable by physical evidence. But no-one should dare discount or belittle that. Because our inner world is something that no-one should attempt to corrupt or crush.

That said, my agnosticism is just as internal and subjective, and open to change by evidence. If Christ appears in the sky and smites me for my heathenism, then I'll lay down my doubts and be forever obsequious. But I doubt that's going to happen, even after my death. Because my inner world is instead inspired by art, music, philosophy, and impressions I create in my mind. If anything, if I come face to face with Christ after I die, and he banishes me to hell, I'm going to say "Oi! Wait a minute! What about these biblical inaccuracies? Why should the heretical works of Camus, Beckett, and Maynard James Keenan be dismissed? What about tribes in Papua New Guinea who never had a chance to hear the Gospel?" And various other questions. I'd be unimpressed, and give Him a piece of my mind.

ps this took me an age to write.

pps I'm still having trouble accepting your statement that God is real for you, unless we both have differing interpretations of the word real.

[nonsequitur]

Inevitability in that the power of science is limited simply because it expands forwards, and religion doesn't have to. Or, it's an abstract interpretation of TPol's nice post. You're looking for concrete answers, it's a "scientific" mindset, all I know is that I "know," even though I don't have any religions background and couldn't tell you more than two facts from the bible or any similar text.

When I see a thunderstorm and feel the rain falling gently outside, I don't really care that it's disturbances in atmospheric pressure and whatever. Now this isn't to say that science is not useful, because it really is, and it's nice to forecast and help people avoid dangerous weather conditions, but it's entirely goal-driven, eventually external, and gives to materialism, greed, etc.

I don't doubt that the greatest spiritual leaders have had vested interest in science, but they also do more in ways of philosophy, sociology, literature, and the like.

you're right about my having a scientific mindset - it comes with my scepticism, of not accepting anything as an answer or "the truth". however, my understanding of "science" is not that it expands forwards. i have long given up that positivistic understanding of science, and am currently searching for more answers. i do, however, agree with you that science has its limits, and one of that is that it is a construct of man, and is therefore influenced and directed by the will of man, conciously or unconciously. that is one reason why i am unable to accept any one religion, organised or not, or even science, as the whole truth, and am unable to just "know" the existence of god. that is why i disagree with you about such an "inevitability". because the fact remains that i don't know anything for sure.

i would say that science, like any other construct by man, can give rise to all of what you listed - greed, materialism, etc. however, religion can also do the same - if not in concious thought, then in action. that is one inconvenient side-effect of free-will. ;) this is a value-judgment, that i think is pretty much applicable in almost every area.

and i also do not doubt that most scientists have a vested interest in politics, sociology and religious debates/arguments, however, some scientists (and social scientists) genuinely seek to add meaning to the world that they live in, and want to improve others' lives. at this point, science has become so intertwined with politics, religion, sociology, psychology and just about everything else that has its roots in philosophy that it is ridiculous to study any one of them without taking into account its effects on the others. religion/the church has changed over the years, and today's church and evangelists are very different from those just fifty years ago. since religion is not unchanging, i see no difference between critically examining it and critically examining the process of science. and i still cannot come to a conclusion that one is more/less reliable or right than the other.

[Shai Gar]

i wonder if an INTP created the idea of a god in order to stop the idiots asking why?, and how does this work?

and it all backfired on him

[Wilde Mutton]

i wonder if an INTP created the idea of a god in order to stop the idiots asking why?, and how does this work?

and it all backfired on him

In my experience, "idiots" rarely do the asking.

[crofbe]

and i also do not doubt that most scientists have a vested interest in politics, sociology and religious debates/arguments, however, some scientists (and social scientists) genuinely seek to add meaning to the world that they live in, and want to improve others' lives. at this point, science has become so intertwined with politics, religion, sociology, psychology and just about everything else that has its roots in philosophy that it is ridiculous to study any one of them without taking into account its effects on the others. religion/the church has changed over the years, and today's church and evangelists are very different from those just fifty years ago. since religion is not unchanging, i see no difference between critically examining it and critically examining the process of science. and i still cannot come to a conclusion that one is more/less reliable or right than the other.

Ya, it's entirely a value judment. And the line between them, well there really isn't any, or whatever one wants. I agree, that it is important to consider all the interrelated "subjects," but just as how you can teach somebody to think about religion, or science in their own way, it's only as valuable as your beliefs. It's necessary to forget this because when people think about the issue they think in terms of the great "science vs religion" debate, when this isn't even well defined. When a scientist perform scientific experiments, they have to have some source of will, for the most part, science majors I know do science first, and consequences and meaning are an afterthought. But primarily when they get older, and their scientific minds get a little slower ;)

It's kind of ironic that the more you want to say about something, the less you can actually say. But I'll fill in my thoughts on this "debate": the two things that bother me most about science is 1) it's not verifiable in the absolute sense (for this is its purpose), and 2) it doesn't resolve the issue of what happens after death, which so far is the only absolute event for anybody that's been alive. So my "faith" is that things are what they are, and even though science is a means of methodically discovering how these things interrelate, it comes from a human perspective of the world.

You can say, then, that "religion" is the cover-all of all evident truths in the world, science included. How is all of this possible? How is science possible? I'd be very hesitant to call science a "construct" of man. The Western "scientific method" is, but the process of finding patterns in reality has probably been around forever. So maybe one can just say "science" (ignoring all Western methodologies, just as one would ignore the hard details of Christianity) is the truth of it all. But then it's no longer very different from "religion."

[Lee]

The fish Lee, the fish seems so happy, yet you seem angery.

It seems an implicit theme here that supposed objective analysis is motivated by a heavly emotional responce. What is the purpose of your post I've quoted here? Certainly not to convince PriorityLove that their view is wrong. Consider "Just admit the reasons you believe are for your own mental health and well being." Even if this was absolutly true and this person was deluding themselves for their own sanity the effect of your words would have the opposite effect they claim to attempt to obtain.

It seems to me that your objective here was not to show someone what is right but only to break them down. This is not an objective of someone who seeks truth. It is a sign of insecurity. I wasn't angry, it was an act, I was trying to provoke because I was bored. I wanted to see if I could get an argument beyond the obvious "because I felt God's presence" or "Just because" explanations that most believers give.

Of course I cannot disprove God's existence nor can anyone else prove it, most people who believe say "my reasons are not explainable through logic", what they mean is that they are being led by thier feelings. Feelings are perfectly explainable scientifically, there is nothing that promotes them to a status capable of proving a creators existence.

Anyway, it can be observed through brain scans that there are certain correlations between belief and preferences people have for certain areas of the brain, specifically the part (I forget the name, sorry) that is responsible for applying meaning to things. I think most people believe in God because they need to, if I don't have that brain chemistry then I do not need to believe in God, I do not see any reason for God necassarily existing, I see no reliable evidence to help prove the existence of God... it is in all likelyhood an unanswerable question.

However even though I am in the undecided camp at the moment, I still seek the truth, I will be happy to give up this stance if I am presented with a satisfactory argument in favour of God's existence, or if God were to literally make him/herself known to me (even then I would be highly skeptical, especially if this took the form of "something deep down inside", I do not trust my feelings to lead me to the truth). Deep down I want there to be a God, a heaven, an eternal blissful life... I am just not holding my breath.

PS. You may be right, maybe I am insecure, I don't care.

[Ascending]

PS. You may be right, maybe I am insecure, I don't care:)
INTP = Insecure Nerotic Thinking Perceiving.
Welcome to the club.

*Cough* Are you actualy ESFJ? Or is that an inside joke?

[Lee]

2) it doesn't resolve the issue of what happens after death, which so far is the only absolute event for anybody that's been alive. Well, you were dead before you were born, what was that like? there is your answer.

;P

[Lee]

*Cough* Are you actualy ESFJ? Or is that an inside joke?
Yeah, I am ESFJ.

[crofbe]

Well, you were dead before you were born, what was that like? there is your answer.

;P

touche, i like your answer

[Ascending]

Wow, an SJ. I didn't think we had those here. In fact I was just sitting the other day trying to think of a single SJ member.
Well, glad to have you in the fray then.

[Lee]

Wow, an SJ. I didn't think we had those here. In fact I was just sitting the other day trying to think of a single SJ member.
Well, glad to have you in the fray then.
Great! can I start telling you how to live your life yet?

[Serotonin]

Yeah, I am ESFJ.

Yeah, and so is NetworkAlchemy.

[Lee]

Yeah, and so is NetworkAlchemy.
Is he?

[Ascending]

Don't make me get the garlic.

[Lee]

Don't make me get the garlic. Why not? I could put together a nice meal and use that garlic.

[TPol]

[TPol hands garlic bazookas to Serotonin, Lee and Ascending. Reaches for the wooden stake and mallet.]


Thanks for the time you took to write that, TPol. I took in every word. :) Wespekt. That said, it has further solidified my general idea of spirituality being good and organised religion being bad. Spirituality is our inner-world, and religion is the extraversion of it.

Thanks for your long note, too. Yet, you said it more efficiently and eloquently than I did. Glad you were able to decipher my thoughts. :) I basically came away from my experiments with the idea that organized religion is not to be trusted. In fact, if an organized church or body of churches ever reach mob-mentality against a person or idea, it isn't pleasant for that person or those who believe in the idea. I feel history shows that to be true, and I think it is currently happening, on both a large and small scale, all around the world.


Anything can happen in our inner worlds. Gods can exist, fight and die, 72 virgins can be awaiting our martyrdom, newspaper taxis can drive us around under marmalade skies. But they still remain abstract. You have to deal with the outer world somehow. It's why everyone has a mix of introverted and extraverted Jungian functions. When you get other people to conform to your exact religion, and hence your particular brand of spirituality, then you destroy the chance of those people ever formulating their own spirituality. I believe no two spiritualities are alike. Some can be similar, in which case people form friendships, relationships and alliances. But the moment you start making people conform to the way you think exactly, you start to destroy souls.

Exactly! That's the main reason I'm so leery of formalized religion (churches). So many of those who participate are going around "destroying souls" in the fashion you describe. I feel like screaming, "Leave him/her alone." Most everyone I have known are seeking or have sought spirituality in some form or another. I say, "Go for it. Question everything! Pick it apart. Analyze it. Research every avenue you can find. Wherever you, personally, end up....well, you'll be stronger for it and you'll be able to stand in that spot and defend your position (to yourself and to others) quite well after having worked your way there on your own. And, that spot is called 'faith' (whether that be in yourself or someone/something outside yourself)."


Your a priori stance that God exists must be a powerful one, and the reason it's powerful seems to come from your state of mind as a toddler, influenced no doubt by your parents beliefs. That in itself is an internal, subjective stance, unverifiable by physical evidence. But no-one should dare discount or belittle that. Because our inner world is something that no-one should attempt to corrupt or crush.

I think it is powerful not only because I've fought to get back to my toddler-days reference point, but also because I've walked so many paths between then and now...and the path to contentment led me back to that spot. Since I don't go around preaching to people (not my forte), I don't figure I have to prove to anyone else that "God is real." He is real to me, and that's enough for me. And, since I have a clean bill of mental health (so far :D), I can trust myself to intuitively know that there's Someone there for me.



That said, my agnosticism is just as internal and subjective, and open to change by evidence. If Christ appears in the sky and smites me for my heathenism, then I'll lay down my doubts and be forever obsequious. But I doubt that's going to happen, even after my death. Because my inner world is instead inspired by art, music, philosophy, and impressions I create in my mind. If anything, if I come face to face with Christ after I die, and he banishes me to hell, I'm going to say "Oi! Wait a minute! What about these biblical inaccuracies? Why should the heretical works of Camus, Beckett, and Maynard James Keenan be dismissed? What about tribes in Papua New Guinea who never had a chance to hear the Gospel?" And various other questions. I'd be unimpressed, and give Him a piece of my mind.

"Been there" in my thought patterns, too....almost exactly. Where you go from here, if anywhere, on your spiritual journey is the "free will" stuff of which I'm so fond. :) I can tell you that the key for me was to separate humanity and its behaviors as completely as I could from my spiritual search. Most people are not very good examples of the beliefs to which they give so much lip service.


pps I'm still having trouble accepting your statement that God is real for you, unless we both have differing interpretations of the word real.

Well, not "real" in a tangible sense. Very hard for me to describe; Let me think on it a bit to see if I can figure out how to explain.

[PriorityLove]

Some of you say you are interested in any LOGICAL reasons for a belief in God. Here is one of the many logical reasons why I believe in God:
If you see a house, you know that someone built it. You know it is not reasonable to question whether maybe all these trees fell at just the right time and a bunch of other things happened in just the right way to build that house. Yet how much more coplex is the physical universe that we live in? The Earth is just the right distance from the sun to where the temperature is appropriate for life. Think about all the perfectly implemented systms there are like the water cycle, the way a baby develops in the womb, the way our bodies work. An intelligent design points to an intelligent designer.

This is just the beginning of many logical reasons why I believe in God. Like I said before, if want to learn more you will have to look into the Jehovah's Witnesses. If they nock on your door talk to them, and feel free to ask them for the reasons why they believe what they do. You can go to the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses (previously posted) for mor info about our beliefs. The site also provides a way to recieve more info from them. If you give them your address they would be glad to attempt to pay a personal visit to you at your house without obligation. FOR MORE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS REQUEST A COPY OF THE BOOK: "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?", published by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Some of you seem to belive that organized religion is bad. I disagree. I do agree that MOST organized religions are bad. But is it really because they are an organized religion that they tend to affect things for the worse, or is it because they are hypocrites that teach lies. A religion that teaches truth and helps people to live by it, and does not tolerate immorality will tend to attract good people. And if God does exist you would expect that he would draw good people to one true religion so that they can all be united. Since certain things are absolute truths, there can only be one true religion because different religions teach different things. So do not be surprised at the general hypocracy of most "religious" people. Many of them do believe what they do just because they want too, not because they are interested in truth. But this in no way shows that true religion is bad. (No offense to other religious people out there. There are defenitely good people in other religions, who are temporarily misguided.)

[Serotonin]

The Earth is just the right distance from the sun to where the temperature is appropriate for life.
And is the only planet in our solar system (Mars still pending) that supports life. 8 other planets got it wrong, and who knows how many other planets in other solar systems as well.


Think about all the perfectly implemented systms there are like the water cycle, the way a baby develops in the womb, the way our bodies work. An intelligent design points to an intelligent designer.

It's complex and it works but it isn't design. It's the culmination of millions of years of genetic variability, plasticity, and natural and sexual selection, and it's still happening as we speak. Complex chemistry forming steady states in an environment of constant physical and thermo flux.
Think of the way humans design tools, roads, bridges and the like. From primitive fashioning of rocks and sticks to our current electrical world, it has been a gradual improvement, an evolution of sorts, rather than a first-time-lucky implementation.



This is just the beginning of many logical reasons why I believe in God. Like I said before, if want to learn more you will have to look into the Jehovah's Witnesses. If they nock on your door talk to them, and feel free to ask them for the reasons why they believe what they do. You can go to the official website of Jehovah's Witnesses (previously posted) for mor info about our beliefs. The site also provides a way to recieve more info from them. If you give them your address they would be glad to attempt to pay a personal visit to you at your house without obligation. FOR MORE PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS REQUEST A COPY OF THE BOOK: "Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?", published by Jehovah's Witnesses.

Ah, yes, caring. A very human need. Best provided by other humans, in my experience.


Some of you seem to belive that organized religion is bad. I disagree. I do agree that MOST organized religions are bad. But is it really because they are an organized religion that they tend to affect things for the worse, or is it because they are hypocrites that teach lies. A religion that teaches truth and helps people to live by it, and does not tolerate immorality will tend to attract good people. And if God does exist you would expect that he would draw good people to one true religion so that they can all be united. Since certain things are absolute truths, there can only be one true religion because different religions teach different things. So do not be surprised at the general hypocracy of most "religious" people. Many of them do believe what they do just because they want too, not because they are interested in truth. But this in no way shows that true religion is bad. (No offense to other religious people out there. There are defenitely good people in other religions, who are temporarily misguided.)

Horses for courses. This thoroughbred drinks at a variety of streams, and gets a variety of nutrients, and meets a lot of different colts and phillys along the way. And likes it. I'd rather not drink from yours exclusively, lest I become a gelding.

[PriorityLove]

Hi Serotonin.



It's complex and it works but it isn't design. It's the culmination of millions of years of genetic variability, plasticity, and natural and sexual selection, and it's still happening as we speak. Complex chemistry forming steady states in an environment of constant physical and thermo flux.
Think of the way humans design tools, roads, bridges and the like. From primitive fashioning of rocks and sticks to our current electrical world, it has been a gradual improvement, an evolution of sorts, rather than a first-time-lucky implementation..
If it is complex and it works, then it is more logical to believe that it is a design than an evolution. All those human designed tools, roads, bridges and the like are just that...designs. It is because of human intelligence that technology has "evolved". If the universe evolved into what it is today, then who implimented this self evolving world? There would already have to be very specific phiysical laws that work in perfect conjunction, in order for the universe to self evolve into what it is. How did those laws come to exist in the first place? Certainly God created the physical laws (im not saying he created laws of evolution). But if you think he purposed for the universe to evolve, eventually to the point to where there would be humans, why would he do that instead of creating humans directly?



Ah, yes, caring. A very human need. Best provided by other humans, in my experience.

It is good that you acknowledge that humans need caring, and that other humans are a good way to receive that need. But if God created humans, then when you receive caring from other people, that is ultimately being cared for by God because he designed us to need caring and to want to give it too each other.

[Serotonin]

Hi Serotonin.


If it is complex and it works, then it is more logical to believe that it is a design than an evolution. All those human designed tools, roads, bridges and the like are just that...designs. It is because of human intelligence that technology has "evolved". If the universe evolved into what it is today, then who implimented this self evolving world?

Intelligence or a "synoptic" view is not a prequisite for something to have structural integrity. I quoted Carl Sagan in a post a few weeks ago, but he said something like this "Nature ratchets up its workable structure by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't". This is not done by an external force. It is part of the inherent properties of nature. Boils down to Newton's first law of inertia, a energy conserving property.
Tools were created, but they were designed to fit human needs, and only human needs. It's tempting to apply this to a supposed relationship between us and God, who uses us only for His needs and nothing else, but our freedom and range of choice beyond a regimented structure or path is testament to the fact that we should learn by empiricism, not by static scripture, and life on this earth is all you will get. The time and place is here and now, not heaven after we die.
So no, you're right in that intelligence is used for design, but our world is not design, it is gazillions of steady states changing due to heat energy from the sun, processed down through kinetic and potential energies, making us survive (for the time being).



There would already have to be very specific phiysical laws that work in perfect conjunction, in order for the universe to self evolve into what it is. How did those laws come to exist in the first place? Certainly God created the physical laws (im not saying he created laws of evolution). But if you think he purposed for the universe to evolve, eventually to the point to where there would be humans, why would he do that instead of creating humans directly?

Well you know my short answer is that he didn't purpose the universe to evolve because he doesn't exist. Move away from terms such as "purpose", "meaning" and "intention", which are all exclusively biological, not spiritual, and you might come closer to my frame of mind.
The specific physical laws work because of their constancy. Yes what we currently have is amazing (to us), but it's not like the world is perfect. It's just the product of the laws we have. Tectonic plates shift, animals as well as humans kill each other, tornadoes destroy. If you can get over your amazement to the point of being able to practically appreciate the laws of nature (possibly by studying science), instead of ascribing emotional, transcendent properties to our world, then you'll realise this.




It is good that you acknowledge that humans need caring, and that other humans are a good way to receive that need. But if God created humans, then when you receive caring from other people, that is ultimately being cared for by God because he designed us to need caring and to want to give it too each other.
Well, caring is caring. Again, it's not transcendent, but it feels good and is worthy to give and receive. And can be done in a non-Christian context. When someone hugs me I don't feel like God is directing some sort of infinite love down from the sky and through the person's arms, it's just the person needing affection, and getting it by giving it.

[nonsequitur]

Hi Serotonin.


If it is complex and it works, then it is more logical to believe that it is a design than an evolution. All those human designed tools, roads, bridges and the like are just that...designs. It is because of human intelligence that technology has "evolved". If the universe evolved into what it is today, then who implimented this self evolving world? There would already have to be very specific phiysical laws that work in perfect conjunction, in order for the universe to self evolve into what it is. How did those laws come to exist in the first place? Certainly God created the physical laws (im not saying he created laws of evolution). But if you think he purposed for the universe to evolve, eventually to the point to where there would be humans, why would he do that instead of creating humans directly?



It is good that you acknowledge that humans need caring, and that other humans are a good way to receive that need. But if God created humans, then when you receive caring from other people, that is ultimately being cared for by God because he designed us to need caring and to want to give it too each other.

sorry, i just had to jump in on this. it isn't more logical to assume that these laws (of physics, etc) existed in the first place. you are right that the mass of an electron must be within a very small range, or nothing might exist. however, perhaps there were billions of "weird electrons" that did not fall within this range, and thus, before anything could be "built", this system fell apart. perhaps the only reason why we are actually debating this, why we can actually think about this is that we exist as a billion in one-chance. (anthropic principle) chickens, for example, probably wouldn't be able to contemplate existential/theological/philosophical questions. this does not make us better than them. this simply implies that there are lots of other organisms that can't question - that are, in essence, another product of the experiment. you might think that it's logical that there is a great creator who designed everything, but this is equally logical. we wouldn't see the failed universes (actually, we do - in the form of black holes) if to begin with, the supposed "laws of physics" did not hold there. i could go into more detail about the criticisms of science, and supposed "laws", but nevermind. :)

[PriorityLove]

Obviously SOMETHING already existed. Which is more likely to occur(at least statistically wise):
something without intelligence existed and it:
a) by chance and evolution started what eventually became what we see today.

or someone very intelligent and powerful existed and they:
b) designed the very complex and exacting world that we have today.

[nonsequitur]

I can't judge which is more likely to occur statistically-wise, because there are no statistics on this subject. if there were statistics, this wouldn't be a theological or philosophical question. it would be, in a sense, "solved". your faith is colouring your judgment and scepticism. i'm not saying that i'm an objective person, but the judgment of which is more likely is a belief, and is based on your own individual faith. i personally refuse to accept that one is more likely than the other, and also refuse to reject any possibility.

[Serotonin]

Obviously SOMETHING already existed.
Which begs the question, what precluded it? Read some Hawking.



Which is more likely to occur(at least statistically wise):
something without intelligence existed and it:
a) by chance and evolution started what eventually became what we see today.

or someone very intelligent and powerful existed and they:
b) designed the very complex and exacting world that we have today.

Scientifically, a). Since evidence for the existence of the creator in b) is, well, um, kinda scarce.

[TPol]

Originally Posted by Serotonin:
pps I'm still having trouble accepting your statement that God is real for you, unless we both have differing interpretations of the word real.

Originally Posted by TPol:
Well, not "real" in a tangible sense. Very hard for me to describe; Let me think on it a bit to see if I can figure out how to explain.

=========================================================

Believe it or not, our conversation here has been milling around in my brain since I wrote that last statement. When I say something like that, I take it seriously and won't let it go. Almost a month later, I'm still not sure how to explain it, to be completely honest. In this amount of time, I've been praying once in a while about how I should come back to this. I went away from here for a bit because I take quite seriously my role as one of His reps on earth. :) I also cannot help but understand your point-of-view. Not only am I an INTP, but I have had my moments of asking such things as you. They are perfectly legitimate questions that need answers.

Thinking back to my days of hatred for this world's whole facade of religions, I don't think there would have been anything ANY human could have said to me to convince me God was real to them. By that time, humans from most formalized religions had shown quite clearly their fickleness and inhumane behaviors toward others. Had I relied upon their display of "who God is," I'd have determined He was either a nutcase or a narrow-minded despot bent on the destruction of insubordinates. If I was someone else with different life experiences, I probably would have determined that "He" didn't exist at all.

(sigh) Half my problem is that I'm struggling to explain something spiritual in ways that aren't blatantly religious so as not to offend anyone and, in the process, chase them down a path where they are running from potential joy (a joy that I have and would love to figure out how to have others experience it). Because I've been on the receiving end of a "bloodied Bible used for bashing," I know how it is not to trust people who say they are Christians. I've met more sweet, loving, and nonjudgemental people in the nonreligious crowd than I have in the religious crowds.

What was "the answer" after my near-month of prayer and absence from this thread? Well, to come back, of course. :) But, I was also asking specifically on how His "reality" could be "proved." The answer I arrived at is that I can only tell you my experience and be myself. Whether that "proves" anything is out of my hands and between each person and Him. Because He loves me and I want to do things that represent Him well (which I, admittedly, don't always do), I try to love Him back by loving people. Basically, the answer was, "Be 'real' yourself." So, I'm back. And, I'll likely get personal and long-winded, but here goes....you've been warned. ;)

In re-reading what I wrote, I notice that I still didn't describe my perspective accurately, as I so thought I did before I left the conversation for a while. I'd said that, to me, God isn't "real" in a tangible sense. I should clarify. I believe He is tangibly "real" not on earth and intangibly "real" on earth. I cannot prove His tangible "realness" to anyone, but I have faith in the idea that He was represented in a real state in the form of Jesus. And, that same realness can be represented by people who have that faith. And because of His intangible realness in my life, I have faith that He is tangibly real somewhere other than on this earth. Yet, that brings us back to the thought that people are tangibly real and can express love in physical fashion. Plus, those without faith in Him are loving and tender, too. In fact, they are sometimes more so and express "real love" better than those who say they have faith in God.

That brings me back to the idea that all I can do is explain how it happened for me. What you can get from that, I'm not sure. But, I'll state it the best way I can. God's existence was proved to my satisfaction on multiple occasions. Since toddlerhood, I'd believed in His existence. But, the reality of Him didn't seem proven until those moments when I not only felt there was no human support but also needed it quite badly. My mom was abusive (in all ways). My siblings were all older and had their own self-focused lives. Because of many absences due to sickness, because of a local "caste system," and because I tried to be a friend to the unpopular friendless, I was picked on in school. I was attractive, but was physically weak enough to be rotten in most sports. And, our school was very sports-oriented. Anyway, the constant barrage of cruelty at school (repeated year after year) made me pull away from any potential support I might have had from my peers.

All I had left was Dad. To make up for my mom's abuse and perhaps for the hard time in school, my dad was super-loving. "If he was so loving, why didn't he take you out of that environment," you might ask. Very long story I won't take the room to elaborate about in this post. Trust me, he did all he could, which included keeping me in my current location. Anyway, I thought the sun rose and set with my dad. (chuckle) Then, one day, I felt his support was not there. And, it happened again. And again.

Because of my isolation from other humans and probably also because of my own personality where I kept up an emotional/psychological isolation from people, I had absolutely no humans to lean on during those times. On the worst days when I felt I had no earthly support and actually felt attacked from all sides, when I was the most alone on this earth, when I didn't have anyone to lean on when I so desperately needed it...I reached with faith toward God, and He was there. He was there via the Bible, and He was there via heart-calming comfort that comes from direct companionship with Him. I'm sorry. I don't know how else to say it. Through the years, I've found that there's a treasured spot within me that never goes away. I can go to that spot and know that He will lift up a beckoning hand and say, "Come on in. I am here."

Serotonin said to PriorityLove:
Ah, yes, caring. A very human need. Best provided by other humans, in my experience.

My experience was moments where that very human need was not provided. All human support was stripped away from me. To avoid that looking like an exaggeration, it is tempting to launch into a detailed description. But, I won't. You'll just have to trust what I say at face value. All human support was missing...several times. So, I had to go searching elsewhere for that much-needed support. I turned to Him....and He was there, and He said:

"...and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world..." Matthew 28:20, King James Version (KJV)

And, He has been, and seems to always will be.

And I saw for myself that:
"He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart. You will not fear the terror of night, or the arrow that flies by day..." Psalm 91:4-5, New International Version (NIV)

And, when I got downhearted about my situation, He gave assurance:
"'Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands..." Isaiah 49:15-16a (all of 15 through first part of 16), NIV

And then I found something that was the summary of my experience:
"It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." Psalm 117:8 NIV

[abathur]

I suppose I would call myself a Christian--but certainly not in the sense that I buy into some religious organization that has been created and bastardized by man. (IMO witnessing someone who is truly an example of christianity in the biblical sense is an experience that might challenge many an athiest's or agnostic's dislike of christians.

I grew up in a Christian family and attended a non-denominational Christian school (k-12.) I learned to have disgust and contempt for a lot of Christians that way. It has taught me that I really want no part of the human organization--we have a strong tendency to corrupt anything we touch.

I've been surrounded by hypocricy and self-righteousness my entire life. I've been preached at on the virtues of abstinence--told not to have impure thoughts about the young women around me--by a man who was later caught having intercourse with one of his 16 year old students (I saw through him, which instantly came to mind when I started reading INTP profiles mentioning a knack for seeing through facades.) I've been told swearing is wrong, by someone who exclaims "spit!" whenever something goes wrong.

The three primary benefits to growing up this way have been:
1. a sharp eye for, and a disgust of these things
2. a good education (it IS a top notch school)
3. meeting my bible (yes, it can be a subject!) teacher my sophomore and junior year's in high school.

Perhaps it can fairly easily be brushed off as nothing more than mere coincidence, but before I even knew that man... he saved me. The summer before my sophomore year was the low-point of my life thus-far. True to my nature, I was reserved and had few friends. Of the 4 close friends I had entered junior high with, two had left the school, two had fallen in with another crowd (one of which put me through an agonizing and demeaning experience where, at the behest of one of his new friends, he came and sat down by me at a school function only to tell me he no longer wished to have anything to do with me--I wasn't cool enough.)

Anyways--that summer was the culmination of the frustration on those things and the product of my own inquisitive nature (I've questioned my beliefs daily since sometime around the beginning of high school.) At one point, I remember having this nagging feeling that I should care for other people... that I should be praying for them. I flat out said it(to "God"): "Why the fuck should I be praying for anyone, when it's quite obvious that no one cares enough about me to return the favor? I'll start praying for others when they start caring about me."

Two days later, I recieve a letter from this teacher. It was simple, it just said he was looking forward to having me in class next year, and that he was praying for me. He sent out the same letter to everyone, easily enough attributable to complete coincidence. I say it saved me, I should clarify that I wasn't entertaining suicidal thoughts but I was as close as I've ever been--and thats as someone indoctrinated for a lifetime that suicide is not the way out.

I suppose I would brush the incident off as coincidence myself if he had been just another hypocrite... I'm not sure how to relate what he's like accurately. The best I can do is to say I feel how absolutely genuine he is. He's the best example of what the bible describes as christian I've ever met.

OK, OK. Enough of that. That's really primarily the reason I made it through that period of my life calling myself a christian--I've got more logically based reasons for making it from there to where I am now.

You could probably describe me as lazy if you desired--that is to say I have no desire to change my current position without significant evidence that it is wrong, and that there is value in changing to an agnostic or athiestic position. From a philosophical standpoint I can certainly detatch myself and see how ludicrous belief in a superior being sounds. I just don't see an alternative that is significantly less ludicrous and improbable from my perspective.

All that is, logically, is presumably the product of either:
- Some combination of natural processes involving abiogenesis, evolution, etc.
- The implemented will of some being or beings powerful enough to create said things.

Either can be reduced to the seemingly illogical propositions that:
- At some point there was nothing, but now there is something (be that god or the homogenous gaseous mixture supposedly present to initiate the big-bang) that has either spontaneously been created by nothing out of nothing, or has created itself out of nothing.
- There has always been something (be that god or the homogenous gaseous mixture supposedly present to initiate the big-bang.)

Perhaps my logic here is flawed, but it seems things can be reduced to this point at which either method of explaining the origin of things seems rather illogical, YET at the same time it seems absolutely necessary that (at least from our experienced) that the origination of all that is must be explained by one or the other. Mind you, I'm still thinking through things, but at this point it seems to me that any effort in explaining the origin of things will end in the necessity of accepting a conclusion that is necessarily illogical. As such, the beliefs that our inception is owed to abiogenesis or intelligent design both seem unacceptable and acceptable at the same time (thus reducing acceptance of either to a leap of faith.)

From here, perhaps I am merely not learned enough, but while the processes of natural and sexual selection (i.e. evolution) seem altogether rather acceptible as a method for adapting species present upon the earth, the abundant existence of interdependent systems--both within and external to organisms gives me pause. It does not seem very logical or intuitive to assume that highly interdependent systems that seemingly need all pieces to function appropriately could have been put into place in any piecemeal method. (not to mention my incredulity at the concept of abiogenesis, which admittedly may be dispelled if I encounter significant proof that life can indeed spontaneously rise out of nothing.) (and of course my incredulity at the selection and adaptation of features and systems that would seem to have little positive or more likely a negative effect on survival until fully developed to functionality.)

Evolution is seemingly true--yet the fact that evolution occurs does not seem to logically entail life randomly rising from the primordial soup in a form already complex enough to provide fully self-sufficient existance and the lucky traits necessary to reproduce and set into motion a chain that involves evolving many complex interdependant systems within systems, within systems (etc.) That is to say, I'm certainly not an infinitely intelligent being yet I can see the inherent value in providing mechanisms for the adaptation and preservation of my creations.

In summary I have chosen what I percieve to be the least illogical of two grossly illogical conditions. I admit I'm not positive, but I have yet to see sufficient evidence that convinces me to move to an agnostic position and attempt to work myself in any direction from there.

[jimore]

The believer, agnostic, atheist, terms are, I believe, just a silly language scam by christians— it posits the assumption that I must take a position with respect to their beliefs. :rant: I don't believe in god.... in fact I don't think there is a shred of evidence that consciousness is anything but a local anomaly that just happens to make up one of our dimensions on earth and may not exist otherwise.

I also do not believe in Leprechaun but no one demands to know whether I am a Aleprecaunist, or an Aglelprecaunist

[Sally]

The believer, agnostic, atheist, terms are, I believe, just a silly language scam by christians— it posits the assumption that I must take a position with respect to their beliefs. :rant: I don't believe in god.... in fact I don't think there is a shred of evidence that consciousness is anything but a local anomaly that just happens to make up one of our dimensions on earth and may not exist otherwise.

I also do not believe in Leprechaun but no one demands to know whether I am a Aleprecaunist, or an Aglelprecaunist

:wub:

[kuranes]

I've always wondered what is the difference between "strong hope" and "faith"? "Belief" is a word with a very different feel to it for me, than these preceding two concepts.

If a guy put a gun to my head, while I was attached to a viable lie detector, and said "I want you to BELIEVE in God. My lie detector will tell me if you really DO. If you don't believe in a God, I'm going to kill you." You can bet that I'd WANT to "believe", and so it isn't just a matter of "willing" things. I don't feel that I usually make "decisions" to believe, so much as things just click. They make sense to such a degree that I don't feel doubt. I don't know what would happen if I were in such a situation with the lie detector and said "yes, I believe". Would I be shot? Even I don't know.

So if I was deciding on someone's guilt or innocence in a jury in a close trial, I'm not sure I'd feel like we were talking about the same concept as "belief" even though I might use the term with the other jurors, because I'll know what they likely mean by it. There I'd be looking rather more at "extreme plausibility".

Whereas "belief" I see as more like "yes, I believe I'm a human being." "I believe I see this thing called 'the sun' others have pointed at and described." "I believe I understand what people mean by the terms 'blueness' and 'yellowness'". Deciding whether to "believe" in God is such a loaded step typically, because you are then faced with the question "If ( insert definition of God ) so, THEN what?"

Deciding on belief/hope/disbelief/doubt in a "higher power" is one thing. What the SIGNIFICANCE of the power might be, if it does exist, is quite another. It would seem easier to me to maybe get an instinctual feel for the former, but that the latter would be very difficult. But it would be very difficult to verbally explain why I feel that way. Which is where "organized religion" folks step in. Telling you that THEY know the significance. Hmmpf.

The world seems to mostly be "signing" to you that if there IS some super power out there, it is something that is so far beyond us that it is no more guide for us in our daily lives than the concept of infinity is, however mind boggling that might be. I say "mostly" because I sometimes sense a very personal thing that I cannot really call "communication", but which seems to be meant for me to notice. Extreme coincidences for one. Also . . . trying to wrap my mind around the thought "what if there never HAD been any universe at all? No 'space' large or small, and not even TIME itself." I CAN'T think of it. I keep thinking instead of a humongously large vacuum of jet black, which is still SOMETHING. The very fact that there IS a universe, though ( or multiverse, if you will ) vs. nothingness seems to . . .well . . it doesn't PROVE anything at all, but I just get this FEELING sometimes. As if my mind ( or any human's ) just isn't EQUIPPED to take that "next step" from there in some cosmic "logic" that would follow. This "inkling" is no guide to life either, though. Almost more of a feeling that "if God exists, It would want you to see the HUMOR of it all, as one end of a spectrum, and then ( when you notice the emptiness, indifference, vastness, of the other ) how this is BALANCED at the other end by something neither horror nor beauty, but partaking of both." And that this spectrum ITSELF is just an ever shifting sort of yin-yang. Meaningless to us in any practical way, but sublime in ways we can only guess at. As Escher said "One wonders, and realizes that even THIS is a wonder", or words to that effect.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

I think INTPs would tend to start from an agnostic position and work at the problem from there. Carl Jung did extensive research into religion and its function in terms of human psychology. I've found some of his ideas useful to understand why religions exist in the first place. They are systems of archetypes, manifestations of the collective unconcious. Religions address the problem of human suffering and provide comfort for our obvious impermanence as individuals by proposing that we can transcend our conditions- during this life and after death- if only we follow the guidelines prescribed in the various traditions. We read scriptures, and see how the ancient archetypal heros confronted the same fears we still face. When I was younger, I dismissed religion out of hand in favor of science. I believed that intelligent people could not be near churches or monasteries. I've definitely changed that opinion, having read some of the impressive writings of the Catholic monk, Thomas Merton. But I have no constant frame of mind about, say, the concept of God. Sometimes I can appreciate it as "the Ground of Being" or the Eastern sense of "Universal Oneness". Then I oscillate back to a very stubbornly skeptical stance. I see God as an entirely unecessary projection and illusion created by men to control men. It violates Occam's Razor.. Natural processes could have forged the universe. I think man created God in his image, not the other way around. So I don't know if I could ever completely drive out the "uncertainty principle" from my attitude to many things, especially matters of religion. It's hard to "believe" in the way I see others expressing belief.

[jimore]

:wub:


Aww gorshh (I couldn't find a suitable blushing smilely)

[Serotonin]

Believe it or not, our conversation here has been milling around in my brain since I wrote that last statement. When I say something like that, I take it seriously and won't let it go. Almost a month later, I'm still not sure how to explain it, to be completely honest. In this amount of time, I've been praying once in a while about how I should come back to this. I went away from here for a bit because I take quite seriously my role as one of His reps on earth. :) I also cannot help but understand your point-of-view. Not only am I an INTP, but I have had my moments of asking such things as you. They are perfectly legitimate questions that need answers.
I get a real sense of satisfaction when someone is willing to contemplate things long term as much as I do.


Thinking back to my days of hatred for this world's whole facade of religions, I don't think there would have been anything ANY human could have said to me to convince me God was real to them.
But as you say later, your "real" discovery of God didn't come through a human directly taking your hand and guiding you. It came from your own, independent research. Any Christian who does this immediately becomes worthy of talking to in my book and worthy of being treated as an equal in intellectual discussion.


(sigh) Half my problem is that I'm struggling to explain something spiritual in ways that aren't blatantly religious so as not to offend anyone and, in the process, chase them down a path where they are running from potential joy (a joy that I have and would love to figure out how to have others experience it).
I don't think you can necessarily do that to any old Joe off the street. They have to be in the right frame of mind, have the right history. Some you'll surely be able to do that to quite easily, and for others you won't have a hope in the world.

Because I've been on the receiving end of a "bloodied Bible used for bashing," I know how it is not to trust people who say they are Christians. I've met more sweet, loving, and nonjudgemental people in the nonreligious crowd than I have in the religious crowds.
What was "the answer" after my near-month of prayer and absence from this thread? Well, to come back, of course. :) But, I was also asking specifically on how His "reality" could be "proved." The answer I arrived at is that I can only tell you my experience and be myself. Whether that "proves" anything is out of my hands and between each person and Him. Because He loves me and I want to do things that represent Him well (which I, admittedly, don't always do), I try to love Him back by loving people. Basically, the answer was, "Be 'real' yourself."
Indeed. And you used your Christianity to do that (which is completely legit). But, (my hard-nosed T comes in) that answer can be achieved by methods other than Christianity i.e. it's a method, but not the method (no such thing).

And, that same realness can be represented by people who have that faith.
But remember, a representation is just that: a slice, a hint, an abstraction. For me, real means the concrete, the tangible. So when you "represent" that realness, the realness becomes lost. But it doesn't make it less valuable or important. It just means the witness to that representation may frame the response in a humanistic rather than spiritual way. Which, I'm afraid, is what I've done with your response (but that's the way it goes).


And because of His intangible realness in my life, I have faith that He is tangibly real somewhere other than on this earth. Yet, that brings us back to the thought that people are tangibly real and can express love in physical fashion. Plus, those without faith in Him are loving and tender, too. In fact, they are sometimes more so and express "real love" better than those who say they have faith in God.
That brings me back to the idea that all I can do is explain how it happened for me. What you can get from that, I'm not sure. But, I'll state it the best way I can. God's existence was proved to my satisfaction on multiple occasions. Since toddlerhood, I'd believed in His existence. But, the reality of Him didn't seem proven until those moments when I not only felt there was no human support but also needed it quite badly. My mom was abusive (in all ways). My siblings were all older and had their own self-focused lives. Because of many absences due to sickness, because of a local "caste system," and because I tried to be a friend to the unpopular friendless, I was picked on in school. I was attractive, but was physically weak enough to be rotten in most sports. And, our school was very sports-oriented. Anyway, the constant barrage of cruelty at school (repeated year after year) made me pull away from any potential support I might have had from my peers.
Tell me about it (the school part anyway). It's enough to make anyone look for a comforting escape.

All I had left was Dad. To make up for my mom's abuse and perhaps for the hard time in school, my dad was super-loving. "If he was so loving, why didn't he take you out of that environment," you might ask. Very long story I won't take the room to elaborate about in this post. Trust me, he did all he could, which included keeping me in my current location. Anyway, I thought the sun rose and set with my dad. (chuckle) Then, one day, I felt his support was not there. And, it happened again. And again.
Because of my isolation from other humans and probably also because of my own personality where I kept up an emotional/psychological isolation from people, I had absolutely no humans to lean on during those times. On the worst days when I felt I had no earthly support and actually felt attacked from all sides, when I was the most alone on this earth, when I didn't have anyone to lean on when I so desperately needed it...I reached with faith toward God, and He was there.
Bolded is the key. It was only when humanity had failed you that you really invested emotionally in Christ. I don't think you need to feel any shame or doubt over that. Being loved is of course a core human need. So the feeling that something benevolent and omnipotent watching over you I would imagine to be immensely calming.

He was there via the Bible, and He was there via heart-calming comfort that comes from direct companionship with Him. I'm sorry. I don't know how else to say it. Through the years, I've found that there's a treasured spot within me that never goes away. I can go to that spot and know that He will lift up a beckoning hand and say, "Come on in. I am here."

Serotonin said to PriorityLove:

My experience was moments where that very human need was not provided. All human support was stripped away from me. To avoid that looking like an exaggeration, it is tempting to launch into a detailed description. But, I won't. You'll just have to trust what I say at face value.
I do. Sometimes what you don't say is more important, but the things you do say are enough for me to build an image. Trust me, having a social worker as a mother and hearing the tales of human misery over the dinner table, I can quite easily fathom the extent of hardship that people go through.


And then I found something that was the summary of my experience:
"It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man." Psalm 117:8 NIV
That is exceedingly true, for you. But it isn't for me.
I feel kinda guilty at the fact that I have lovely parents, who are still married after 27 years and love one another, and who are intelligent, discerning, defuse family conflict rather than escalate it, never fight, and never inflicted corporal punishment on me or my sister.
I suffered in the schoolyard, so that kinda made me just trust older people more than I trusted my own generation (funny, the exact opposite of my parents' generation).
But at the nub is the fact that I haven't gone through as much crap as you have. So I don't feel I need the medicine of God. Does that make me smug, conceited, arrogant, naive? I hope not, but what it does mean is that I am not the type of person you should desire to help spiritually. I may go through hell in the next ten years, then I may need your help. See? I'm not ruling out becoming a Christian myself, but I would need to experience the degree of abandonment that you did to become one. So turn your attention to the lost wastrels and human jetsam floating on the water above the drowned galleons of human decency. It's the churches that do this that I have the most respect for. God knows there are enough of them to occupy your time!
For me, the reality was your situation, your inner world being broken. And Christianity was the tool that mended it. Completely legitimate and acceptable to a non-believer like me, because it served a human purpose. I have no beef with Christians like you. In fact, I commend you for taking that positive step even when everything seemed lost. That's nothing less than true reality.

[TPol]

I get a real sense of satisfaction when someone is willing to contemplate things long term as much as I do.

Yeah, if only a person would ask their question and then say, "No hurry. You can get back to me in a couple weeks." ;)



But as you say later, your "real" discovery of God didn't come through a human directly taking your hand and guiding you. It came from your own, independent research. Any Christian who does this immediately becomes worthy of talking to in my book and worthy of being treated as an equal in intellectual discussion.

Good perspective you have. Thanks. I don't go to church (many are social clubs, in my eyes, and I'm not social :) ), so it still remains unguided in that sense.



I don't think you can necessarily do that to any old Joe off the street. They have to be in the right frame of mind, have the right history. Some you'll surely be able to do that to quite easily, and for others you won't have a hope in the world.

Now that I think on it, I guess I was mostly speaking with myself in mind. After some of my encounters with various churches, I've been fairly leary of anyone coming at me and speaking "christian-ese." No offense to anyone here (probably none taken, I would presume), but I have a deep-seated, immediate caution of the average church-going christian. Some are really cool, but many are judgemental and/or delusional, making church a fairly disconcerting place to be (other than it being full of extroverts, too, of course). I spent too many years running from my current path of joy because of my experiences with some religious folk. I should focus on the awesome few and let that guide my approach to religion, probably.

There are behaviors and actions done in the name of religion that I cannot condone. And, I hope I didn't come across as kind of "scary" in my previous post when I was quoting Bible verses. :D It was the best way I could explain why God is real to me, I guess.



It was only when humanity had failed you that you really invested emotionally in Christ. I don't think you need to feel any shame or doubt over that. Being loved is of course a core human need. So the feeling that something benevolent and omnipotent watching over you I would imagine to be immensely calming.

Agreed. Didn't feel any shame or doubt over it. Just didn't want to come on too strong with my perspective. As I say, I'm so gunshy of obnoxious church folk that I'm a little paranoid of ever seeming like one. I tend to be a very accepting and open-minded individual (I think most INTPs are, from what I've seen), but I realize also that my previous post could make someone like me a little leary of the poster.



That is exceedingly true, for you. But it isn't for me.
I feel kinda guilty at the fact that I have lovely parents, who are still married after 27 years and love one another, and who are intelligent, discerning, defuse family conflict rather than escalate it, never fight, and never inflicted corporal punishment on me or my sister.

I can understand that your different experiences have led you in a different direction. No reason to feel guilty about having had a wonderful home environment. Glad to hear it. There are too many out there who didn't, and it is always more pleasing to me to hear about the ones who had two loving parents and a stable home.



But at the nub is the fact that I haven't gone through as much crap as you have. So I don't feel I need the medicine of God. Does that make me smug, conceited, arrogant, naive? I hope not, but what it does mean is that I am not the type of person you should desire to help spiritually.

Tee hee. I figure everyone's spirituality is their business. My last post probably came across a little evangelistic. (chuckle) It's probably because I get so happy and enthusiastic when I talk of such stuff, even though my intention behind it was simply to answer a question. From what I've seen of you here on INTPc, you don't seem smug, conceited, arrogant, or naive. Because you asked for clarification of my initial, brief post, I figure you are simply a deep thinker who enjoys a good philosophical discussion and a study of what makes strange strangers tick. ;)



I may go through hell in the next ten years, then I may need your help. See? I'm not ruling out becoming a Christian myself, but I would need to experience the degree of abandonment that you did to become one.

I hope you don't go through hell in the next ten years! :shock: Wouldn't be good. :(


So turn your attention to the lost wastrels and human jetsam...

You make me sound like an unemployed recruiter. :D Here...wanna flower?! ;)



For me, the reality was your situation, your inner world being broken. And Christianity was the tool that mended it. Completely legitimate and acceptable to a non-believer like me, because it served a human purpose. I have no beef with Christians like you. In fact, I commend you for taking that positive step even when everything seemed lost. That's nothing less than true reality.

Couldn't have paid me a better compliment. Thanks. I'm done talking about me now. (TPol goes off to lurk in the shadows because this thread has had way too much "emotion bared in the spotlight" for her taste.)