How to deal with those "What if" thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus619
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very occassionally I will get those What If feelings. What If all those Atheists you see in the media and in your college science department and who jump out of nowhere whenever anybody says anything remotely religious are correct in there may be nothing after we die. It is a scary thought. I do believe in God, and wich you build my faith even more. When you guys get those feelings or thoughts, how do you best deal with them? I admit I am an imperfect human.
To come back to your question: you have seen in this thread an example of the twisted reasonings of a few atheists: I hope you do not want to become like them.
So, next time you have those “what if” thoughts, recite the Rosary for an increase of Faith and read a good book on the lives of the saints. And always give thanks to God for the gift of Faith.
 
If the atheists are right, then there is no deeper meaning to any actions I take besides who it effects the world for the next 20-20 years (if it’s a major event such as blowing up a power plant). Since that is the case, I might as well just take my own life if there is nothing worth living for. So what if I have 20 years of gratuitous sex and pleasure. What’s the point if there is nothing more than that. Now then I would just go kill myself, but since there is a part of me that yearns for greater, has hope, has love, and tells me there is something more. (Obviously there is since I have not killed myself.) Then I conclude that the atheist claim is false.

There are atheists that live happily and think nothing more. I would feel they have not thought deeply enough.
Similar to my post #32, I strongly disagree and think that you do athesim a disservice. First off, I am not an atheist. What is the point of life if there was no god? Well, the answer would be up to you, wouldn’t it! If I could somehow PROVE to you that there was no god (don’t worry, I’m not going to try), would you allow your life to degenerate to the nothingness that you describe? Give yourself some credit now. Do you think that little of yourself? And I suggest that you do have an option for living longer than 100 years: your children, your extended family, your neighbors. You might surprise yourself. Does the phrase ‘Do onto others as you would have do onto you’ lose its meaning without a god? I don’t think so.
So what if I have 20 years of gratuitous sex and pleasure. What’s the point if there is nothing more than that.
Disease happens to the atheists, too. Really now, think about that. Are you suggesting that all athesists engage in wanton sex? I assume that you don’t. So right there is proof that atheism does not necessarily lead to that end.
There are atheists that live happily and think nothing more. I would feel they have not thought deeply enough.
On what do you base this assumption ?
 
It sounds like you’re arguing semantics. What’s the difference between our nature and our soul?
Maybe nothing, as far as what it is we’re describing; but if that’s the case, why even suggest a soul (since apperently it can’t be distinguished from the natural world). This is precisely the conclusion I’m getting at, and you’re the one that concluded it. On the other hand, there clearly is a natural world, and so we can refer to it by it’s name, and for what it is.
How can a person have cognitive dissonance if he doesn’t have the free will to choose either way? If he was just a sack of chemicals following physical laws, there wouldn’t be any struggle to choose what seems most right.
Let’s look at simpler life forms. A vine chooses (just to keep everything consistent) to grow towards the sun, but also wants to grow towards the water that’s near it. There are many forces acting upon the vine, which we call variables. Because we are both made of matter and live in an envirionment which acts on that matter, we are affected by far more stimuli than any plant (and thus maximize our potential for cognitive dissonance). The brain is not a perfect machine; in most instances, it is not struggling to do the right thing, as opposed to the wrong thing (when we’re hungry we eat; when we’re tired we sleep - unless we have work that we have to complete). You see then that we can have cognitive dissonance based on things which are neither moral nor amoral (e.g., sleeping and working). Therefore, we can certainly have cognitive dissonance regarding whether we should do subjective (and I really emphasize this word) right and wrong.
Whatever he did would just be the result of which choice released the most dopamine in his brain, for example.
That’s right! (Albeit a gross oversimplification). But yes, whatever we do decide to do is based on brain chemicals which innervate the body to action (and of course, the environment which interacts with the way our brain processes and facilitates the use of those chemicals)
You haven’t explained why a person feels that he ought to do something contrary to his desires. You’ve just stated a term of psychology that describes what happens.
I hope my examples have cleared up this difficulty.
 
If the atheists are right, then there is no deeper meaning to any actions I take besides who it effects the world for the next 20-20 years (if it’s a major event such as blowing up a power plant). Since that is the case, I might as well just take my own life if there is nothing worth living for. So what if I have 20 years of gratuitous sex and pleasure. What’s the point if there is nothing more than that.
This reply is comically gloomy about present life. Personally, I’d sooner have the life of pleasure followed by expiration, than simply cut all that pleasure short. To deny the potential for a very good life on the grounds that it will one day end is nothing short of insanity. I hope that if you should ever let go of your beliefs, you would think more reasonably on such matters.
Now then I would just go kill myself, but since there is a part of me that yearns for greater, has hope, has love, and tells me there is something more. (Obviously there is since I have not killed myself.) Then I conclude that the atheist claim is false.
Let me simplify the argument from your perspective
  1. I would feel miserable if there wasn’t a God to the point of suicide
  2. Therefore, there’s a God
There are atheists that live happily and think nothing more. I would feel they have not thought deeply enough. No matter what mental process I take, there is no way I can understand a purpose in existing if our existence will pass away after 100 years. Being immortalize in books or on stone is meaningless. The earth has been around for nearly six billion years, whatever my short life span my accomplish is meaningless if this natural world is all there is. So what if we have a nuclear war and destroy the earth in that case. The universe will continue unaware. The super black hole at the center of the Andromeda galaxy is still going to swallow our own galaxy up in two trillion years. The earth would be destroyed anyways. If the world is only this natural existence, nothing we do matters. Absolutely nothing.
I’m sorry you feel that way. What exactly do you mean when you say “matters.” Does something only matter because it can continue to do so for eternity? Attributions about meaning and meaninglessness don’t get us any closer to the truth. Whatever the case about life’s meaning may be (however you define meaning), there is still an objective truth about whether or not there is, in fact, a God. I prefer to think not, because there’s no evidence. You’re free to think there is because life becomes a bit of a bummer if you don’t.
But I am sure you, the OP, must feel there are things that matters. How could something so simple has the tiny fingers of a newborn matter if the world is purely a natural and random existence. In every smile of a love one, in every hug from my darling family, and in every glace at the Eucharist–I know, I know in the deepest reaches of my soul that I have a soul and that the universe has meaning. That my life has meaning. And I praise to the Almighty Lord as long as I exists that He loves me so much and gives me life.
Do loving glances, laughter, and finite joy mean nothing if they end someday? Can’t those joyous things have intrinsic meaning, despite their brevity?
 
To come back to your question: you have seen in this thread an example of the twisted reasonings of a few atheists: I hope you do not want to become like them.
Far better for him to give into this kind of manipulation :rolleyes:
 
There is not more or less meaning for a God-created world than a godless world (i.e., there is no more meaning in eternity than can be found temporally).
I’m sure that all sounds very comforting, but really what difference do you think your life or anyone else’s life will have made when the physical universe comes to an end? Otherwise I don’t see how that makes any sense, unless the word “meaning” here is completely subjective (i.e., the life of a bacterium has just as much “meaning” as the life of a human being).
 
I’m sure that all sounds very comforting, but really what difference do you think your life or anyone else’s life will have made when the physical universe comes to an end? Otherwise I don’t see how that makes any sense, unless the word “meaning” here is completely subjective (i.e., the life of a bacterium has just as much “meaning” as the life of a human being).
Having a job you like, falling in love, having a family, perhaps discovering new things about the world if you’re a scientist. Just because life terminates does not mean it is meaningless to the liver.
 
Well I certainly hope the OP has gotten some answers and suggestions to his inquiry. I hope he is able to ignore the atheists on this thread.
Funny thing about the atheists posting here, they all seem to have a VERY high opinion of themselves, and don’t mind sharing it. They all to a certain extent seem to condesend to everyone elses level and try to lift up us poor deluded believers to their exalted plain.
I am quite sure that without a change of heart and mind, their futures hold a very nasty surprise. I will pray that for their sakes, God will give them a view of their souls, against their will even. Any how it’s time to leave this thread its too irritating.
 
Well I certainly hope the OP has gotten some answers and suggestions to his inquiry. I hope he is able to ignore the atheists on this thread.
Funny thing about the atheists posting here, they all seem to have a VERY high opinion of themselves, and don’t mind sharing it. They all to a certain extent seem to condesend to everyone elses level and try to lift up us poor deluded believers to their exalted plain.
I am quite sure that without a change of heart and mind, their futures hold a very nasty surprise. I will pray that for their sakes, God will give them a view of their souls, against their will even. Any how it’s time to leave this thread its too irritating.
Some of the properties you think atheists possess are also apparent in your post.
 
When I was a believer, I use to take so much solace in these explanations. I would say “Oh! I had never thought before that doubt was a function of God as well!” But these inner dialogues became tired very quickly, and those “What if” thoughts became attatched to, not only questions about God, but questions about my rationalizations. If someone is wondering “What if the atheists are right,” then rationalizations tend to, after some time, lose their steam.
I’m sorry that these “rationalizations” became tiring for you. But, as you’ve made clear, you have been “liberated” by your disbelief in God. And I suppose that’s fine. Unlike other posters on this thread, I don’t necessarily believe that an atheist’s disbelief is marked by some “hardness of heart” or “refusal” to believe in God. You were once a Catholic, and when your belief was no longer intellectually satisfying to you, you chose to no longer believe. You were simply being honest with yourself.

However, this “rationalization” you speak of is not a rationalization at all. You either believe or you don’t. You either pray for faith or you don’t. And you either persevere or you don’t. It’s a mater of choice. And, obviously, we both have made different choices. That’s not to say that I am in ANY way “better” than you, just that I choose to continue to pray for faith even when there is something that intellectually I can’t seem to grasp (at the time.)

If God does exist, which of course I believe he does, then He’ll get me through it. That’s not a rationalization, that’s a fact.
 
Maybe nothing, as far as what it is we’re describing; but if that’s the case, why even suggest a soul (since apperently it can’t be distinguished from the natural world). This is precisely the conclusion I’m getting at, and you’re the one that concluded it. On the other hand, there clearly is a natural world, and so we can refer to it by it’s name, and for what it is.
I didn’t conclude what you’re proposing. What I meant was that the soul is what defines our human nature compared to the animals.

The soul is a reality and as such it can manifest itself through the physical actions of the body, in such a way that is unexplainable by natural forces (free will as an example). Our nature is both physical and spiritual. It is one of unity between body and soul. As Pope John Paul II said in his thesis statement for Theology of the Body: “The body, in fact, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible, the spiritual and divine. It was created to transfer in the visible reality of the world, the invisible mystery hidden in God from time immemorial, and thus to be a sign of it.”
Because we are both made of matter and live in an envirionment which acts on that matter, we are affected by far more stimuli than any plant (and thus maximize our potential for cognitive dissonance). The brain is not a perfect machine; in most instances, it is not struggling to do the right thing, as opposed to the wrong thing (when we’re hungry we eat; when we’re tired we sleep - unless we have work that we have to complete). You see then that we can have cognitive dissonance based on things which are neither moral nor amoral (e.g., sleeping and working). Therefore, we can certainly have cognitive dissonance regarding whether we should do subjective (and I really emphasize this word) right and wrong.
But people don’t always eat when they are hungry, even when their bodies are screaming at them to go eat and there is no physical reason not to. People in religions the world over all fast for spiritual purposes. No animal does this.

Just because free will is exercised regarding these physical matters does not mean that free will is itself physical. Our soul is intimately united with our body and directs its conscious decisions. You’re argument just seems to be that our deliberation over choices occurs because our brains are not perfect. I agree that our brains are not perfect, that we are rationalizing creatures as opposed to rational creatures. But just because we struggle to make certain choices does not change the fact that we recognize that we ought to choose one action over the other. If you hear a woman crying “Rape!” you may struggle in your mind considering all the variables like your safety, the likelihood that someone else will help her, whether the man has a gun, whether you have the ability to stop him, if you can actually get to her before he gets away, etc. But despite this argument going on in your mind, you still (I should hope!) feel that you should help her regardless of the calculation catastrophe going on in your mind-computer.

What I was describing regarding pornography is the experience one has when they have rationalized their decision as the most reasonable course of action, yet still feels that they shouldn’t have done it. They may even not be conscious of why they’re feeling that they shouldn’t do it, especially when it “hurts no one else” and feels really, really good. There are people everywhere who feel that their lifestyles are not “right” despite providing them with the emotional and physical comforts that they were aiming at.

If it’s a subjective experience, it’s a very common and universal one. 🙂
 
Having a job you like, falling in love, having a family, perhaps discovering new things about the world if you’re a scientist. Just because life terminates does not mean it is meaningless to the liver.
And what about when all these things are taken away from you? This idea of “meaning in life” sounds like one that could only come from a comfortable 1st-worlder sitting at his computer. What is the meaning in life for the African girl who saw her parents killed and home destroyed in an act of genocide and subsequently is killed herself? What is the meaning in life for one of these children?: boneyard2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/starvation.jpg Do you think that a person who is in a situation like that and can’t change it will find solace in the prospect that a meaningful life consists of success in settling into a good career and raising a family?

Luke 12:16-21
Then he told them a parable. “There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest. He asked himself, ‘What shall I do, for I do not have space to store my harvest?’ And he said, 'This is what I shall do: I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones. There I shall store all my grain and other goods and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you, you have so many good things stored up for many years, rest, eat, drink, be merry!” But God said to him, ‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you; and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’ Thus will it be for the one who stores up treasure for himself but is not rich in what matters to God.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top