I want to believe


DigitalShadow
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think Atheism is a cop-out, but It's easier to be an atheist (though from my point of view) than a person of faith. Faith is exercised. It is nurtured and grown, it is proven and tested and tried. For someone to say I won't believe it until I see it, the burden of proof is on another; a friend, a teacher, even God.

I think both probably are taught, directly or indirectly. I was taught from day one that there is a God, etc. and because of my exercise in faith and the trials that go with it, the evidence has been manifested clearly. I think those who don't believe aren't taught the faith that is passed down from parents at some point in their lineage or learn that, because there is no evidence in their lives because of the miracle of faith, believing, the existence of God, etc, such things do not exist.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Can God be?

It is a definite possibility, I've always felt that way.

so !!!!!!! you DO feel some thing . the holy spirit himself had to give you that feeling, or thought. other wise you would just KNOW that there is no such thing as god and would not be trying so hard to KNOW HIM or to FEEL HIM. you questioned ,,is there a god? .... you prayed and asked for an answer ? if you didnt believe in heavenly father you wouldnt have prayed. god has sent you all the proof you need. ask your wife about the rich man who went to hell, then begged god to send him to his brothers from the grave to tell them to believe in god and obey him so they wouldnt end up with the same fate, god said no because they have his word and the prophets, if they didnt believe them , they wouldnt believe you .( because they would find a reason to RATIONALIZE the fact that they seen his ghost away . probably blame it on the grief of losing their brother.) god has his own way of doing things , when we are able to handle certain things he will show us, but he will never force himself on you. the fact that you have" ALWAYS felt that way,," is proof he wants to commune with you , he is knocking .... its your choice to open the door or say go away. once this life is over, having a complete chance of hearing the word and the prophet of today,,,wether or not you accept is what is gonna seal your fate, the proof is here and now. choose for your self where you end up, god will not be mocked, you will bowdown before him like it or not, you can choose him now or regret it in the eternities. he loves you . but he wont force you to love him back . you have all the proof you need . there will be no excuse latter." BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Can God be?

It is a definite possibility, I've always felt that way.

so !!!!!!! you DO feel some thing . the holy spirit himself had to give you that feeling, or thought. other wise you would just KNOW that there is no such thing as god and would not be trying so hard to KNOW HIM or to FEEL HIM. you questioned ,,is there a god? .... you prayed and asked for an answer ? if you didnt believe in heavenly father you wouldnt have prayed. god has sent you all the proof you need. ask your wife about the rich man who went to hell, then begged god to send him to his brothers from the grave to tell them to believe in god and obey him so they wouldnt end up with the same fate, god said no because they have his word and the prophets, if they didnt believe them , they wouldnt believe you .( because they would find a reason to RATIONALIZE the fact that they seen his ghost away . probably blame it on the grief of losing their brother.) god has his own way of doing things , when we are able to handle certain things he will show us, but he will never force himself on you. the fact that you have" ALWAYS felt that way,," is proof he wants to commune with you , he is knocking .... its your choice to open the door or say go away. once this life is over, having a complete chance of hearing the word and the prophet of today,,,wether or not you accept is what is gonna seal your fate, the proof is here and now. choose for your self where you end up, god will not be mocked, you will bowdown before him like it or not, you can choose him now or regret it in the eternities. he loves you . but he wont force you to love him back . you have all the proof you need . there will be no excuse latter." BE STILL AND KNOW THAT I AM GOD."

I think you may be reading a bit too much into my answer. I was simply saying that I've always felt there was a POSSIBILITY of God existing. I have never "felt" God's presence in my life, I simply concede that the majority of the population may not be crazy and there could possibly be something to this whole "God" thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Atheism is a cop-out, but It's easier to be an atheist (though from my point of view) than a person of faith. Faith is exercised. It is nurtured and grown, it is proven and tested and tried. For someone to say I won't believe it until I see it, the burden of proof is on another; a friend, a teacher, even God.

I think both probably are taught, directly or indirectly. I was taught from day one that there is a God, etc. and because of my exercise in faith and the trials that go with it, the evidence has been manifested clearly. I think those who don't believe aren't taught the faith that is passed down from parents at some point in their lineage or learn that, because there is no evidence in their lives because of the miracle of faith, believing, the existence of God, etc, such things do not exist.

Just my two cents.

From my point of view, I don't think it's easier to be atheist or to be faithful, both have their challenges, each of us have different perspectives on those challenges so one might appear easier than the other.

People of faith tend to see atheism as a cop-out because in their mind an atheist need not follow any rules of morality because there is no reckoning after death for them, but they forget that there are plenty of consequences in this mortal world for being a bad person and in fact many people I know who are atheists are good people simply because it is the right thing to do and they have the opportunity to do it. A jerk is a jerk and I don't think religion (or lack there of) changes much. People have their own internal struggles with morality whether they think they'll be judged on it after they die or not.

It is also true that faith is something that must be exercised, where as lack of faith does not, but that does not make having faith inherently harder. Knowing with certainty that you will still exist after you die and be taken into the loving arms of your God is certainly an enticing thought and is much easier than trying to contemplate what it is like to not exist.

I can't speak much on the trials of having faith as that has never been my strong point, but I'm sure many people here are aware how difficult it is. I'm certainly not trying to say it's easy to have faith, but I think that few people here understand how difficult it can be to not have faith and to be raised that way, so I thought I'd share my thoughts on the subject and possibly dispell the myth that all atheists believe the way they do because they are simply shirking responsibility and taking the easy path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I've wondered on occasion what it would be like not to exist after this mortal life. The closest I've ever come to succeeding is when I've been under anesthesia when I went through surgery after a head on collision. When I was carted into the operating room I was conscious, coherent and "aware". When I awoke in the recovery room I was conscious, coherent and "aware", though a little groggy. But I have absolutely no recollection of the time in between. I didn't even dream. I wasn't aware that I existed. There was simply nothing. I couldn't even claim, 'I think therefore I am'. I guess from your point of view, this must be what it's like. I'll just never know the difference if I cease to exist after I die and it will never matter anyway. I can't help but feel that it is a total waste of my life and the world and all the goodness therein. That must be why there are those that live for the moment for tomorrow they will die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for me, I am very certain that there is something after death. Too many spiritual experiences, including with individuals dying have left me extremely confident in life after death. For me, that is a comforting thought, especially when considering the gospel fulness and the atonement of Christ.

There are some ancient views of the next life, where one is swallowed by a monster, and you are forever digested. Of course, Sisyphus' eternal hell isn't one to sneer at, either. So, for some who believe in an after life, it isn't necessarily something to look forward to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi skalenfehl,

I don't think Atheism is a cop-out, but It's easier to be an atheist (though from my point of view) than a person of faith. Faith is exercised. It is nurtured and grown, it is proven and tested and tried. For someone to say I won't believe it until I see it, the burden of proof is on another; a friend, a teacher, even God.

I think yours is probably the closest description of what it feels like, to me, to be an atheist than anyone else on the board has come up with as far as a lack of faith. I do not believe faith connects me to anything supernatural, and do not spend any time forcing it, so you are correct about that.

Additionally, there really isn't anything that would change my atheism anymore. There was a moment in my life that it all came together for me, and suddenly everything made sense. It was profound and hit me hard. Ever since that day I have not ever doubted it. In fact, I feel a sense of something I do not have words for, than I ever did prior, because I believe this life is all we have, and how miraculous that is.

Having said that, my life has not been joyful since my epiphany. Some of my friends here know this. I don't want to give the impression that everything is fine because I've become an atheist. It has not. But it was not fine being a theist either. In fact, I wouldn't say either one had much effect at all, now that I think about it. I'll have to mull that one over.

Anyway, back to the point of the discussion. There was a time when I did desperately try to have faith, and did all of the things you mentioned. I was a member of the church from the mid-50s when I was born to the mid-80s. So that is approximately 15 years of comprehension of what faith is, as defined by the Church. Without going into details, I cannot count the number of times I lived by faith alone, but never had one spiritual experience.

I think both probably are taught, directly or indirectly. I was taught from day one that there is a God, etc. and because of my exercise in faith and the trials that go with it, the evidence has been manifested clearly. I think those who don't believe aren't taught the faith that is passed down from parents at some point in their lineage or learn that, because there is no evidence in their lives because of the miracle of faith, believing, the existence of God, etc, such things do not exist.

I was taught from day one there was a God. I believed with all of my heart as early as I can remember there was a God. But at a very young age it began to make no sense to me as my father was severely abusive. I would fast and pray, and keep my faith strong. And I felt nothing. I realized around 10 or so, (I’m not really sure of the age, but I was very young) that nothing was going to happen to stop the horror, and so I just began asking for comfort, just to know HE was there, and I felt nothing.

Even into adulthood, in spite of every attempt, in every possible way, I never felt a thing. Thus, my atheism.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was taught from day one there was a God. I believed with all of my heart as early as I can remember there was a God. But at a very young age it began to make no sense to me as my father was severely abusive. I would fast and pray, and keep my faith strong. And I felt nothing. I realized around 10 or so, (I’m not really sure of the age, but I was very young) that nothing was going to happen to stop the horror, and so I just began asking for comfort, just to know HE was there, and I felt nothing.

Elphaba

I come from a dysfunctional and abusive childhood myself, however, I'm sure our unique circumstances caused us to go in opposite directions. One thing, a hard thing that I have learned is that our answers come in the Lord's time and in His own way and not our own. It's a hard thing to swallow, but for those who endure, the rewards are made manifest. It took about 20 years for my prayers to be answered and for me to finally be rid of the dysfunction that plagued me. I wish you could feel what I have felt and know what I know.

Edit:

There was a moment in my life that it all came together for me, and suddenly everything made sense. It was profound and hit me hard. Ever since that day I have not ever doubted it. In fact, I feel a sense of something I do not have words for, than I ever did prior, because I believe this life is all we have, and how miraculous that is.

That is your anchor, your pivotal point. I dare say you felt the calm, peaceful, reassuring touch of the Holy Ghost. It is possible to begin again from that point, but will probably take more faith than you are willing, even today, to exercise, especially because of your childhood. Then again, it might be a smaller leap than you might think. The thing is, God knows us better than we know ourselves and how much we are capable of and tests our limits so that we can also realize what we each are capable of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is your anchor, your pivotal point. I dare say you felt the calm, peaceful, reassuring touch of the Holy Ghost. It is possible to begin again from that point, but will probably take more faith than you are willing, even today, to exercise, especially because of your childhood. Then again, it might be a smaller leap than you might think. The thing is, God knows us better than we know ourselves and how much we are capable of and tests our limits so that we can also realize what we each are capable of.

Hi skalenfehl,

I just wanted to make sure we are on the same page here. I think we are, but I wanted to make sure.

When I wrote of this experience, about how "it all came together for me and suddenly everything made sense," I was speaking of the moment I realized there was no god. That was the moment everything came together, the puzzles all fit, and I had a huge awakening.

And that is why I cannot forsee anyone's testimony or miracle, etc., ever changing my mind.

Having said that, if you were to tell me about your spiritual experiences, I would NEVER tell you it was not real. I do not know what it is, because I have never experienced it. And I admit I do not believe it is what you think it is, but ultimately, it's not my call, and I do believe it is real.

But my atheism is as true and real to me as your faith and testimony are to you.

I just wanted to make sure we were clear on that last paragraph.

Elphaba

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

First a let me give people who may not have seen my other threads a quick summary of my situation: I am agnostic, my wife (of just over a year) is LDS, I usually go to church with her, and I've been curious about the church.

Next, I would like to apologize for brining this up again, I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, it's just that this subject is a strong barrier in my acceptance of the gospel and so I figured it would be best to talk to members of the church about it. I've already talked to our Bishop about it, I have a lot of respect for him and enjoy talking with him, but he admittedly has little understanding of scientific principles.

Now I would like to present what is troubling me about joining the church:

-There is overwhelming scientific evidence not only for evolution, but that evolution is the origin of our species.

-The church has not explicitly stated their view on the theory of evolution but the plan of salvation requires the story of Adam and Eve to be accurate.

-If evolution is the origin of our species, it would be a slow process over many thousands of years and there wouldn't be a specific point where you could say the first two humans were born. The gene pool of our ancestors would just grow closer and closer to what we see in modern humans. I'm not sure how this can be reconciled with Adam and Eve.

The usual answer I get is that God does not reveal everything to us and that I should pray about the matter and it will be resolved. But this has yet to work for me, and I don't know if I could disregard a large amount of scientific evidence to believe something with no evidence. People tell me to have faith, but how can it be anything other the blind faith to believe in something that you've seen evidence to the contrary but never seen or felt evidence for?

I also worry that maybe I am just not cut out for religion in general, as other people don't seem to have problems with faith. I never gave my wife the expectation that I would convert, but I know she has the hope that I will and I feel like I'm letting her down since my brain can't seem to accept the church. It's getting to the point where I don't want to go to church with her anymore because I feel hypocritical since she teaches some of the primary kids and I usually sit in with her. I don't think the kids know that I'm not a member, I've never lied to them and said I'm a member but I've never told them I'm not a member as I think it might confuse them and bring up a lot of questions.

I don't know what kind of answers I'm looking for here or even if anyone will understand where I'm coming from. Maybe I just needed to get this all out in the open even if it is anonymously through a forum, but I do appreciate that many people of this forum have welcomed me and put up with my ramblings in a civil manner, I think it says a lot about the church.

Evolution as a means of creating a more complex organism out of a simpler one just doesn't make sense (to me). One law of thermal dynamics states that things become more disorganized over time or entropy in a closed system increases over time. In other words, some (outside) force needs to be acting on object in order for it not to revert back into chaos. Natural selection is an inside force which means it cannot overcome entropy. At best it can mitigate it only somewhat.

One can argue that an outside force would be God and that He can steer the course of evolution if he wants to. This is way too complicated. Why would God go through the trouble of nurturing a single cell through countess eons to arrive at man? If God is so great genetical engineer as to "create" or design the first living cell, why go through all the eons and painstakingly go little by little improving on each iteration of "creation" until finally He makes man? He could just shoot the human genetical information into his first cell and be done with it.

Natural selection is one method species adapt to their environment. No question about that. That is just saying that one progenitor dog (two at least male and female:)) can produce the variety of dogs we find today. But, at the end of the day, a dog is still a dog. One would have to manipulate the dog's genome very very expertly to get anything but a dog and even thing I doubt its possible.)

In order to get real evidence for evolution as a means of species change from simple to complex start with a species and track it back through time until it is undeniably a simpler, less organized, creature. Man is a good one to track since he is the most complex. Homo sapiens trace back to about the Neandertal that is about where we don't see any sapiens around anymore. So is Neandertal any simpler than sapiens? They had a bigger brain size for one. That kinda suggests... no. But thats irrelevant since the DNA is too different from sapien to be an ancestor. Dead end. But lest go further back to Homo erectus. Sorry DNA evidence also suggests that he is not our ancestor. Homo erectus enjoyed a long time in history lets check them out anyway. Now according to my anthropology book, early homo erectus and late homo erectus were not too different. Lo and behold, we have a species that exists for long enough that we should see some significant change but don't. Evidence against evolution wouldn't you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In order to get real evidence for evolution as a means of species change from simple to complex start with a species and track it back through time until it is undeniably a simpler, less organized, creature. Man is a good one to track since he is the most complex. Homo sapiens trace back to about the Neandertal that is about where we don't see any sapiens around anymore. So is Neandertal any simpler than sapiens? They had a bigger brain size for one. That kinda suggests... no. But thats irrelevant since the DNA is too different from sapien to be an ancestor. Dead end. But lest go further back to Homo erectus. Sorry DNA evidence also suggests that he is not our ancestor. Homo erectus enjoyed a long time in history lets check them out anyway. Now according to my anthropology book, early homo erectus and late homo erectus were not too differe nt. Lo and behold, we have a species that exists for long enough that we should see some significant change but don't. Evidence against evolution wouldn't you say?

Home Sapiens as I understand it and Neanderthals did not descend from each other they were two different branches - Neanderthals are now know to have had art and religion - and there is evidence they communicated.

I do find it interesting that the modern reconstructions of Neanderthals now look like Homo Sapiens.

-Charley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Home Sapiens as I understand it and Neanderthals did not descend from each other they were two different branches - Neanderthals are now know to have had art and religion - and there is evidence they communicated.

I do find it interesting that the modern reconstructions of Neanderthals now look like Homo Sapiens.

-Charley

Thats what I meant when I wrote that Neandertal DNA was too different to be an ancestor of modern homo sapiens. I only used Neandertal as an example to make the point that obtaining evidence that supports evolution wouldf be difficult. Here you have a species of man that might be plausible to be haven been genetical similar enough bast on morphology to pass its DNA into our genome but the reality of it was the Neandertal was too different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this is a great thread. I just wanted to say something about faith: it requires a great deal of humility. We need to accept that we can't know everything, and we can't prove everything that we know... and by doing this we open up the possibility to learn things that we can't prove, since Heavenly Father already knows what we'll do with that knowledge. He won't give us anything until we're ready for it... so I'd say if you want faith, you have to prepare yourself first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution as a means of creating a more complex organism out of a simpler one just doesn't make sense (to me). One law of thermal dynamics states that things become more disorganized over time or entropy in a closed system increases over time. In other words, some (outside) force needs to be acting on object in order for it not to revert back into chaos. Natural selection is an inside force which means it cannot overcome entropy. At best it can mitigate it only somewhat.

One can argue that an outside force would be God and that He can steer the course of evolution if he wants to. This is way too complicated. Why would God go through the trouble of nurturing a single cell through countess eons to arrive at man? If God is so great genetical engineer as to "create" or design the first living cell, why go through all the eons and painstakingly go little by little improving on each iteration of "creation" until finally He makes man? He could just shoot the human genetical information into his first cell and be done with it.

Natural selection is one method species adapt to their environment. No question about that. That is just saying that one progenitor dog (two at least male and female:)) can produce the variety of dogs we find today. But, at the end of the day, a dog is still a dog. One would have to manipulate the dog's genome very very expertly to get anything but a dog and even thing I doubt its possible.)

In order to get real evidence for evolution as a means of species change from simple to complex start with a species and track it back through time until it is undeniably a simpler, less organized, creature. Man is a good one to track since he is the most complex. Homo sapiens trace back to about the Neandertal that is about where we don't see any sapiens around anymore. So is Neandertal any simpler than sapiens? They had a bigger brain size for one. That kinda suggests... no. But thats irrelevant since the DNA is too different from sapien to be an ancestor. Dead end. But lest go further back to Homo erectus. Sorry DNA evidence also suggests that he is not our ancestor. Homo erectus enjoyed a long time in history lets check them out anyway. Now according to my anthropology book, early homo erectus and late homo erectus were not too different. Lo and behold, we have a species that exists for long enough that we should see some significant change but don't. Evidence against evolution wouldn't you say?

Interesting theory, but I don't believe you've examined all the evidence. While comparing the laws of thermodynamics to biological processes may sound like a compelling argument, it has no basis in science and you might as well be trying to explain why oranges don't exist because they are nothing like apples.

You concede that it is possible for all the varieties of dog that exist now to have a single progenitor, but you still don't think it is possible for an isolated population of dogs to form another species altogether given enough time. Why not? Given millions of years, why is it so impossible to you that a species could adapt to their environment so much that it is no longer recognizable and can no longer breed with animals only related by ancestor?

You can use the DNA evidence and find ancestry between different species in existance today through common endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) embedded in our DNA through the eons. Basically a class of virus called a retrovirus embeds its own DNA into the cell it infects. Sometimes, it manages to infect a sperm or egg cell which manages to get carried to term and then that organism and its children will now have this virus DNA as a part of every cell in their body and pass it on to their children as well. It turns out that roughly 8% of our DNA is from these viruses and essentially 'junk DNA' we carry around. It is however useful in tracking when the divergence of species occurred and which species are more closely related. This is direct evidence that seperate species can share a common ancestor. Furthermore, scientists have even reconstructed an extinct virus from fragments of it in our DNA and essentially brought it back to life. Read more here if you are interested.

I have yet to hear a religious or scientific explaination that takes this evidence into account other than evolution. If you have one, I would love to hear it. I'm not saying this is "proof" of evolution but there are very few in the scientific community (especially biologists and anthropologists) who doubt that speciation through evolutionary processes is possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Desire - Hope - Faith - Knowledge

Everything can be proven. It is matter of you being spiritual prepared and mature in receiving the answer. Faith leaps beyond worldly logic.

Yes. I see your point too. But I think there are some who wait for everything to be proven to them before they will believe. And I don't think that is God's process. Line upon line.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DS, just wondering why you married someone who holds a completely alien viewpoint to your own? Did the subject of faith and religion play no part in your courtship and marriage? I find it difficult to believe that someone from the Church would marry someone who has a viewpoint that puts them at odds with their beliefs that they hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it difficult to believe that someone from the Church would marry someone who has a viewpoint that puts them at odds with their beliefs that they hold.

I did.

I was married previously and my first husband died. I am sealed to him and thought that it would not matter if I married someone who isn't a member of the church because I didn't want an eternal marriage this time. However, there is more to it than that and it does make a difference. Not having the priesthood in our home for one thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did.

I was married previously and my first husband died. I am sealed to him and thought that it would not matter if I married someone who isn't a member of the church because I didn't want an eternal marriage this time. However, there is more to it than that and it does make a difference. Not having the priesthood in our home for one thing.

Exactly my point, you married someone who was not a member and found that it was missing something, in your case the priesthood at work in your home.

I'm also married to a non member, whom I met when I was inactive from the Church, and we have struggled in our relationship when I returned to the Church. My wife is a member of another church but is inactive, I pray that she will discover the truth of the Gospel so we can be sealed together in the Temple. At times it is hard work but I move on and trust in Heavenly Father to guide me and to soften the heart of my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi DS, just wondering why you married someone who holds a completely alien viewpoint to your own? Did the subject of faith and religion play no part in your courtship and marriage? I find it difficult to believe that someone from the Church would marry someone who has a viewpoint that puts them at odds with their beliefs that they hold.

We agree on what matters and agree to disagree on certain philosophies, there's no reason it can't be civil and even enjoyable to discuss how and why our beliefs differ. She trusts her emotions and feelings and I trust my logic and reasoning. In a strange way I think we balance each other out. My viewpoint does not put her at odds with her belief. I have never asked her to do anything that would go against her beliefs and I have always been truthful about my own beliefs.

She married me knowing I may never convert and I married her knowing she may always try to convert me, so we both keep an open mind and see what happens. Her parents hated me at first, but that was when all they knew of me was that I'm a faithless heathan. After getting to know me better, her dad gave his blessing and welcomed me into the family. We were married by my wife's best friend's dad who happens to be a Bishop.

I'm not saying that it works out for everyone, I can only speak for myself and I can say that it is working out just fine for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share