What am I?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Laughing_Crow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Laughing_Crow

Guest
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
 
Of course you fit in, Laughing Crow. It takes more faith to believe that there is no God than that there is. So you are a person of great faith. Wrestling with that faith is a sign that you are trying to grow in understanding it. I walked that road for 30 years, so I can appreciate the seriousness of your questions.

Here is a suggestion. Find a church and attend it for at least a year. Get involved in its ministries. See the good and the bad that happens there. Don’t worry, both will be present. All churches have the same problems because they all dip out of the same pot of sinners.

At the end of the year, spend some time in contemplation of what you have just been through. It may not convert you, but it will certainly give you more insight that just reading about religion, even if you were to read the Bible cover to cover. It’s like the difference between reading about kissing and getting kissed.

Good luck and I wish you well, friend.
 
I got ya beat oldtimer:p…40 years an Atheist for me.

Like oldtimer, I understand your struggles and his advice was good. BUT,and this is a HUGE but…if you decide to attend a church, be careful that you are not drawn into the “Emotions” of the church so deeply that you stop using your sense of reason.

There must be a reason why you believe in a Soul and an Afterlife. Go on a search using that as your starting point. For me it was Baptism. Investigate why you do Not believe in God. What do you base this NON-believe in. Become a detective of sorts:thumbsup:

As an Atheist, I had always been troubled by how it all started. I believed in the BIG BANG (still do btw), but its when I asked that all important question…“Where did the gases and dust come from that are a part of the process” that I really started to think that maybe God DID exist. My journey from Atheism to Christianity was NOT based on emotion, it was based on logic and reason.

Take a deep breath and relax just a bit Laughing Cow, you fit it here and we welcome you:thumbsup:

You have a beautiful soul Laughing Cow, a soul that seems to be in search of answers and a weee bit of peace.

As a side note, there are many different Christian faiths, if you decide to consider oldtimer’s advice (which is good), don’t let anyone pressure you as to Which church you should attend. I am Catholic, but I can promise you that there are many many people of of other Christian faiths who truly love God and can be a wonderful example to you.

Questions? You will always be welcomed here and there are many knowledgable people who can help answer those questions or at least point you in the right direction inwhich to find those answers.

Good luck on your journey:)
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
Click to expand...
I didnt fit in in school either lol. 😉 I dont know what advice I could give you, but I will say I think you’re very brave for exploring your spirituality in a world where people get laughed at for doing just that. Just go with what your instincts tell you and be proud of not fitting in, being an individual and standing out from the crowd. And remember, theres no such thing as a stupid question so jsut keep on asking until you find the answers you need. I think you rock, mate. 👍
 
Please don’t be offended, but if you are asking for a classification, I would honestly say “illogical.” You’re feeling out of place because you are trying to straddle the fence.

Since you believe in a soul that can exist beyond the body, have you thought about how that can be? Did evolution take primordial goop and somehow evolve a soul from physical elements?

I think that you’re on the right path to at least acknowledge a spiritual element to life. Continue to pursue that logic and I think you’ll have to acknowledge some sort of source of that spiritual life.
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
Click to expand...
Isn’t it aweful when God won’t just let you alone???

Personlly, in your position I would not be hesitant to call myself agnostic - regardless of what someone else says about them. After all I’m Catholic in spite of what some say about us…😃
You believe in something spiritual but you don’t know what…It’s something undefined…That makes you agnostic in my book.

The thing you are experiencing is Grace. You are convinced there is “something” but can’t get your head around it. My guess is that your biggest problen is trying to come to grips with the various descriptions of God and reconciling that with what you feel in your heart.
Not to worry. God knows your heart and is seeking to bring you to him. Why else would you be here?

We all struggle with these things to one extent or another. God, in His reality, is so far outside our natural human capacity that however we try to describe Him is bound to fall short. The best bet is to use the limited descriptions as best we can and simply open ourselves up to His grace and to try and do His Will which is Love…

You fit in here…👍

Peace
James
 
Why is it so important to “fit in?” The best human beings don’t!🙂

However, since you believe in an afterlife, and presumably expect to spend it doing more than looking at the back of your sealed eyelids; you will be meeting SOMEONE on the “other side.” Therefore, it doth behooveth you to find out who that someone is.

ICXC NIKA
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife…
Click to expand...
Just curious… if you believe in things like a soul, do you believe there are other non-physical beings Out There? Not gods, but non-physical creatures?
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc).
Click to expand...
“Atheist” is the word for people who don’t believe in gods. An atheist is free to believe in other supernatural things, though. For example, some forms of Buddhism are atheist and yet believe in things like souls and reincarnation.

The problem is that people often conflate “atheist” with “materialist” and “skeptic,” which are not the same things at all.

Myself, I’m a skeptic – I don’t accept claims unless I feel that there is sufficient evidence. My atheism follows from my skepticism: I don’t accept any god claims because I don’t feel that any of them have met their burden of proof sufficient to convince me. For the same reason, I don’t believe in anything supernatural because there is no evidence at all going for those claims and a lot of evidence against (for example, the findings of contemporary neruoscience strongly suggest that consciousness emerges from brain activity, further suggesting that what we call the “self” ceases to exist when the brain stops working).

For all of the above reasons, the poster who told you that “it takes more faith not to believe in these things!” is laughably wrong. For a skeptic, these issues aren’t matters of faith – they’re issues of what we can determine to be true or not.

The real issue you should concerned with is not what you should label yourself so that you can feel good about fitting in to a neat category: you should be concerned with what’s true, and the only way to determine what’s true – given the fallibility of our individual senses – is to use evidence to determine whether or not a claim is supported and to not accept claims that are not supported by sufficient evidence.

Good luck.
 
What are you?

At base, you are a carbon-based form of life (unless you are a computer, but computers don’t ask existential questions). You have opposable thumbs.

You posess an intellect, and you are capable of forming thoughts from words, and quoting Nietzsche. You are smarter than most other carbon-based forms of life.

You spend time thinking about imponderables of God, the soul, and the universe. While this might also be the provice of dolphins and the higher orders of canines and felines, it is probably unique to man (including women of course).

You are, of all beings, part of a unique species capable of ruining creation like nobody’s business.

Either you oozed from primordial slime in a particular way different from birds, oysters and bears, or a divine being created your species and hence you.
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
Click to expand...
The first question I would ask myself if believed “in the human soul, afterlife etc.” is do I then believe that I acquired a soul through some sort of natural accident (evolution) or would there have to be intelligent design behind such a thing?

The fact that you recognize a soul within yourself and others should tell you something. First of all, it is a sign that you are at least intellectually honest. 👍 When you follow the river upstream, what do you find as the source?

God bless you.
 
AntiTheist said:
“Atheist” is the word for people who don’t believe in gods. An atheist is free to believe in other supernatural things, though. For example, some forms of Buddhism are atheist and yet believe in things like souls and reincarnation.

The problem is that people often conflate “atheist” with “materialist” and “skeptic,” which are not the same things at all.

Myself, I’m a skeptic – I don’t accept claims unless I feel that there is sufficient evidence. My atheism follows from my skepticism: I don’t accept any god claims because I don’t feel that any of them have met their burden of proof sufficient to convince me. For the same reason, I don’t believe in anything supernatural because there is no evidence at all going for those claims and a lot of evidence against (for example, the findings of contemporary neruoscience strongly suggest that consciousness emerges from brain activity, further suggesting that what we call the “self” ceases to exist when the brain stops working).

For all of the above reasons, the poster who told you that “it takes more faith not to believe in these things!” is laughably wrong. For a skeptic, these issues aren’t matters of faith – they’re issues of what we can determine to be true or not.

The real issue you should concerned with is not what you should label yourself so that you can feel good about fitting in to a neat category: you should be concerned with what’s true, and the only way to determine what’s true – given the fallibility of our individual senses – is to use evidence to determine whether or not a claim is supported and to not accept claims that are not supported by sufficient evidence.

Good luck.
Click to expand...
Dear Laughing Crow;

Welcome to the forums. You fit in. There are all type here. I think it takes courage for someone who denies the existence of God to come to a Catholic discussion forum to share his or her views. So, welcome and please take time to reason with everyone here, including AntiTheist, who I quoted above. I think this is a very good example of someone staying true to what they believe, and I also respect AT’s point of vierw. But my caution is to avoid making the claim that spiritual things don’t exist (like God), because there is not “sufficient evidence.” What I am assuming AT means (and I very well could be wrong) is that there is insufficient *physical *or *material *evidence to meet an undefined “burden of proof” (clear and convincing? more likely than not? substantial evidence?) that s/he has arbitrarily set. The belief in a soul (or God, or Intelligent design) is not contrary to reason, nor is there a lack of “proof” unless one establishes a methodology that is not matched for the task of contemplating such things.

Christianity posits the existence of a Creator God that is beyond the material and physical confines of creation. But we believe that there are logical proofs for His existence that are supported by His creation. If you are looking for God’s literal fingerprints, however, then you are using the wrong tools for the job. You are missing the forrest for the trees.

Peace,
Robert
 
I’d say you’re an atheist, if you’re quite sure that 6od doesn’t exist, of course. To some extent, you don’t fit the mold of “new atheism” that’s typefied by people like Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and so forth. They’re materialistic, generally believe religion is dangerous, and would rather eliminate it than interact with it in any way. Even they will have use for agnosticism, however- Dawkins is fairly well-known for admitting that he can’t know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist, so he’s agnostic in the same way that he’s agnostic about the existence of fairies in the hidden parts of a garden. Quite a few of the atheists that participate in debate will take a similar approach and call themselves atheistic agnostics who are as sure as they can be of the non-existence of God. They don’t tend to take souls or the afterlife very seriously, though.

There have been atheists more like you, though. I’m pretty sure the early Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.) believed in souls that would all spend the afterlife in one place. Plato depicts a conversation between Socrates and what’s-his-face where they discuss that. They were also atheists, though.

Along with taking a look at religion, maybe you could delve into atheism throughout history and see if my general impression of “old atheism” is accurate, and if so, examine the reasons behind the shift of “new atheism.” Let me know if that’s something you want to do. I might be able to find you some people that have put a lot more time into it than I have.
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
Click to expand...
I’d like to hear you articulate your reasons for holding this particular combination of beliefs. For me the evidence seems weighted the other way–I think there are good reasons to believe in God, but I struggle much more with belief in an afterlife. How do you believe souls come into existence? Do they evolve like biological organisms? Are they eternal?

You might want to consider that some of the Eastern religions have a position similar to yours. Jains believe in immortal souls but not in an omnipotent creator God. Buddhists are a bit more complicated, because they don’t believe that the soul is a permanent entity, but they are similar in not being materialists while rejecting believe in an omnipotent Creator.

Edwin
 
Laughing_Crow said:
Recently I have encountered a problem. I am atheist, I do not believe in a god or gods, but I do believe in the human soul, afterlife etc. So what does that make me?:confused: The literal definition of atheist is a lack in the belief of God, but in modern society it is used by those who believe in nothing spiritually (no heaven/hell/afterlife, no soul etc). I am hesitant to call myself an ‘agnostic’ as, one of my favorite reviewers said, ‘are usually atheists with commitment issues’ but agnosticism seems to be more ‘im not sure’ or ‘ill see when im dead’. I am sure that I have a soul/spirit, call it whatever you wish, so i dont feel ‘right’ in that group of people.

ugh first primary school, then high school and now religion, I just DO NOT fit in :o
Click to expand...
It makes you an Inverse Sadducee.

Sadducees believed in God, but did not believe in the preservation of the soul following the death of the body. You’re like the flip side of that.
 
AntiTheist said:
For the same reason, I don’t believe in anything supernatural because there is no evidence at all going for those claims and a lot of evidence against (for example, the findings of contemporary neruoscience strongly suggest that consciousness emerges from brain activity, further suggesting that what we call the “self” ceases to exist when the brain stops working).
Click to expand...
Documented out of body and near death experiences raise the question of “consciousness” separate from brain activity. The skeptical answer, of course, is that these are merely the result of physical phenomenon, chemical reactions, in the brain. This line of thought creates the situation of our greatest awareness and increased consciousness in life happening just before they (i.e. we) are hammered out of existence. It’s really quite a farce–that is, if everything ceases to exist with bodily death.
 
Robert_in_SD said:
But my caution is to avoid making the claim that spiritual things don’t exist (like God), because there is not “sufficient evidence.” What I am assuming AT means (and I very well could be wrong) is that there is insufficient *physical *or *material *evidence
Click to expand...
As it turns out, you are wrong. I mean insufficient any kind of evidence.

People often make the mistake of thinking that “evidence” is always something physical. It’s not. There’s not “physical evidence” that I love my family members – the evidence is my awareness of my internal state, which is all the evidence that is sufficient for a claim about my internal state.

On the other hand, awareness of my internal state is not sufficient to confirm claims about the external world. No matter how badly a person “feels in his heart” that he’s the victim of a conspiracy and that he’s being spied on, such feelings, in and of themselves, cannot be evidence that a real conspiracy exists outside of his head. Similarly, no matter how warm and fuzzy your feelings are when you pray or think about whatever god(s) you believe in, your feelings cannot be evidence for things that exist outside of your head in the real world.
to meet an undefined “burden of proof” (clear and convincing? more likely than not? substantial evidence?) that s/he has arbitrarily set.
Click to expand...
All of us have our own standards of evidence for accepting claims, which we build up over time. And while each of our standards to evaluate claims might differ a little from person to person, they are sufficiently similar that we can have a discussion about them and whether or not they’re reasonable.

For example, I think we could all agree that it would take a considerablely greater amount of evidence to convince us that our neighbor owns a flying car than it would take to convince us that he owns a car. How much exactly might be up for debate, but I think we can all reasonably agree that hearing your neighbor talk about it and having warm feelings about the idea of a flying car are not sufficient pieces of evidence for accepting the claim that he owns a flying car.
 
Madaglan said:
Documented out of body and near death experiences raise the question of “consciousness” separate from brain activity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it raises the question, but reasonable inquiry immediately dismisses the idea.

For one thing, no one has ever had an out of body experience where they received information that could not be gleaned through the senses of the body or good guessing. That is, OBEs always feature people “hearing” things that others say around them or “seeing” things that the mind would likely expect to be there – no one has ever had an OBE and managed to read what was written on a card concealed on the other side of the room.

If OBEs were really “out of body,” you could do experiments that confirm it easily. The fact that this cannot be done seriously suggests that it’s all in the head. There’s no good evidence that consciousness can be projected outside of the body.

Further, NDEs almost universally feature god-images derived from the culture in which a person has been raised. Someone raised in a Christian culture tends to see Jesus, and someone raised in a Hindu culture tends to see the Hindu gods. If NDEs were really the spirit of the (nearly) departed encountering some real afterlife, we would expect consistency of the accounts. The fact that they see what their brains probably expect to see strongly implies that the brain is making it all up.

Further, many of the features of NDEs (particularly the white tunnel of light) correspond to features of the brain shutting down, such as the field of vision narrowing.

In short, there’s no reason to suspect that NDEs are anything other than the brain tripping out because it’s shutting down. Let’s not forget that the brain isn’t used to processing death, so it’s likely to do some pretty weird things in that situation.
This line of thought * creates the situation of our greatest awareness and increased consciousness in life happening just before they (i.e. we) are hammered out of existence.* No. It’s not “greatest awareness and increased consciousness” – it’s trippy psychadelic visions. Incidentally, when the brain is shutting down, it releases all these feel-good chemicals to ease the process of dying, so it probably does feel really good, but it’s not “greatest awareness” by any means, unless you think an acid trip represents some kind of great awareness.
Click to expand...
It’s really quite a farce–that is, if everything ceases to exist with bodily death.
Click to expand...
Not “everything” ceases to exist with bodily death – just we do. The universe will get along just fine without us, just as it had for 13 billion years before we showed up.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top