Why do you believe what you believe?

I felt bound to the religion because it was all I had ever known. I was taught it as fact in sunday school, just like I was taught 1 + 1 = 2.
I am definately a freer person now. I can do what I like. Although, when I was a christian I was still very young, so I didn't completely realise the restrictions of the religion, e.g. sex, drink, etc. These were things that I wouldn't have done anyway.



I thought I would go back to the religion because I still thought it was true. I still believed in it, although when I stopped praying, after a while I began to see all the faults and holes in the religion, and so stopped believing it was true, and then saw more faults and holes. It was like a little circle.
I don't know if it was a 'teenager crisis'. For ages I had hung around with friends who were'nt christians, and it never bothered me. I just wanted to be different all of a sudden I suppose. I wanted to do magic like in lord of the rings (a very stupid excuse to give up ones religion!)



Well it depends, If I do decide there is a god or higher force, I guess I might. But I don't really like all this 'personal relationship with god' stuff. From my experience it turned into talking to yourself. Someone there in your mind that just wont go away, although its really just the habbit of talking to yourself that won't go away.
Otherwise, I guess it will just fade out. Although in times of crisis I always think 'Well i'll pray just in case...'



When I was a christian my purpose was to serve god. Now my purpose is to be happy. Im doing well at university, hopefully I'll do ok in life. I want to go and see the world. I just want to be happy.



Thanks for that, cello.
From relaying my experiences I have realised how easilly influnenced I have been througout my life. Perhaps thats just a childhood thing, but it really shocked me. All of my decisions have just been influenced from books or people.
Hopefully, as you say, I will make up my own mind.

----

Also, question for asherman.
You said that you no longer care for validity.
Does this mean you are of the belief 'whatever works for the individual is true?'
Does this not defeat the object of belief and religion?

pq xxxxxxxxxxxx

The true purpose of life. Whenever someone wonders about the meaning of life, I wonder how they can wonder...to me it seems obvious

Obvious, eh? Hmm... (just for the sake of discussion) What if someone's happiness depends on someone else's misery? What happens to "It's simple - just be happy" then?

From what I understand, Spinoza has an argument in which he "proves" god does not exist, at least not an anthropomorphic providential god. In essence Spinoza claims there could be a god only if god was everything and in that case what would be the difference between this everything god and the natural world? Nothing.

There appears to be simply too many contradictions, absurdities and impossibilities for there to be an anthropomorphic providential god. If there was an everything god it would be wholly indistinguishable from the natural world and entirely unnecessary for the natural world.

At least that's how my understanding of the thinking goes......

Is such a situation even possible?

The person looking for happiness may believe the other persons misery will make them happy…that doesn't mean it will.

I did not know that Spinaza said that. It is exactly what I think about God, except that I don't think that God is unnecessary. Vikorr, you put into words exactly that I think about God. That God is everything around us or that everything is part of God.

I hear the scientific arguments of atheists, trying to explain something with something else that belongs in this universe. Well, as long as that something else forms part of this universe, you are back to square one.

As to Eorl's question about who created the Creator, as I said again in another thread, it is the question of the hen and the egg. It must be a starting point somewhere, otherwise nothing remains nothing.

TPQ, good luck in your search!

snood:


vikorr:


Well, since happiness is definitely subjective, who's to tell someone that their way of being "happy" isn't "possible"? Isn't someone "happy" if they think they are?

Now this question belongs in the realm of psychologists

From what I understand :
1. People often lie to themselves
2. happiness isn't one dimensional (eg 'this makes me happy, but that doesnt'...and they both occur at the same time)
3. People don't always know what they feel, or why they feel what they feel
4. People don't always know what they value

I suppose you could say that killing makes a sociopath happy...but then again, maybe you could just say that it heightens the sociopaths senses and gives him a thrill...but doesn't do much for his/her happiness.

Snood is talking about a hyperthetical situation.
I dont think tgere is anyone who is only happy by causing other people misery, not even hitler.
I think anyone who gains 'pleasure' through causing other people misery has issues and needs to sort them out to attain 'true' happiness.

1. Religious Validity. Religion, as a category, has at least three sub-divisions. The direct personal transcendental experience of the Founder, and some later adherents to the religion, are almost certainly more similar than not. If the experience of Abraham, Siddhartha, Jesus, Mohammed, and others are identical, or nearly so, then they have equal validity. Some would argue that being subjective in nature these experiences should be regarded as equally invalid.

The Master's experience is communicated using the language and worldview of the dominant culture, which insures that the original experience is transmuted into approximations that can be very, very far from replicating the experience that the Master intended to communicate. The Abrahamic Faiths have since their founding been communicated in terms of a personalized jealous God who plays favorites and whose attributes necessitate a mechanical finite universe teeming with multiplicity. Buddhism, on the other hand, is communicated through the worldview of the dominant Hindu culture. This regards the world as infinite without beginning nor endings, and more as a great thought in continual evolution rather than a fixed set of perceptions. The difference isn't in the Enlightenment Experience, but in the way that experience is compromised by communication and expectation.

For a religion to prosper and grow into a world-class "institution", it has to serve not only the Master's unique experience and the doctrines, rituals and dogma of the religious scholars, priests, and advocates. To be successful, a religion has to serve the needs of a significant lay population who seldom expect to personally duplicate the Founder experience. Lay people incorporate into their practice of the religion folk beliefs and superstitions that may have nothing whatever to do with the central doctrines of the religion. Religion is a means of expressing one's membership in their local social order. Religion is a foundation for a group's notions of what is correct and taboo behavior. Often these aspects of what a religion becomes has little, or perhaps even nothing at all to do with the intent and nature of the Founder's experience. Popular religion is derivative of the codifiers who translate the original Religious experience into terms that meet the cultural expectations of the group.

So, I regard the primary experiences as all equally valid, and all popular religious congregational ideas as to some extent invalid as compared to the original message. That leaves the question of which doctrinal format more nearly "captures" the Founder's experience and intent? To answer that question we investigate the reports of all the mystical experiences we can in an attempt to identify commonalities. We can also measure the doctrine/dogma against the best knowledge we have of physical reality. For instance, the poor old Greek and Roman Gods can not survive their encounter with modern science and technology.


2. Everything God. You have reasonably paraphrased Spinoza's position, and the professed belief of Albert Einstein. This is also a pretty fair expression of sound Buddhist theology. Everything is co-equal, and equally a part of the Great Ineffable. Our senses argue that the perceptual world is one of multiplicity, but to us that perception is illusory. If only one "thing" exists, then time and space are meaningless abstractions in any ultimate reality. What our senses report is no different than the seeming reality of our most vivid dreams. What appears substantial and real, is ultimately without substance and being a mere passing "thought" of the Great Ineffable, no more real than our little dreams.

3. Happiness Goal. Why do people so relentlessly pursue "happiness", and what is it anyway? A potion to stave off the agonies of suffering? Can a transient joy ever stave off illness, old age, or death? Suffering is a part of our "existence" no matter how we try to avoid it. A popular strategy for avoiding suffering is the illusion of control over the world around us. Control itself appears to stem from possession of wealth, fame and the power to assert our selves over others and the world at large. Some express their power by infliction of suffering on others. Some try avoid suffering by dedicating their lives to Hedonism. Others seek to avoid loneliness by fostering their egos and seeking the love and approval of as many other people as possible. All of these strategies ultimately fail to stave off suffering, and usually result in causing more suffering for both the individual and all those around them. No matter how much power, fame and wealth a person has, it is never enough. For every peak of materialistic joy, there is a corresponding fall into the depths of despair and suffering. It all balances out over the long run.

Happiness, is not found in pursuit and possession of material things, but rather within ourselves. A destitute and socially ostracized beggar suffering a painful and mortal disease may well be "happier" than the wealthy prince surrounded by luxury and acclaim. King Midas bragged that he was the happiest of men, but a wiser philosopher pointed out that the King had not yet drawn his last breath. Fortune is aptly represented as a gambling wheel. Happiness may be better found in the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom. To accept our limitations and suffering, is also to rise above them. If one does not cling to things, their gain or loss cease to have the power of accentuating suffering. If one has wealth, power and/or fame it can be enjoyed as the transient and empty conditions that they if only we don't cling to them, or say to ourselves that they are truly important. Happiness is focusing not on the past, nor on the future, but on the each and every moment as it unfolds. To relieve in some small measure the suffering of others, is a more enduring happiness than winning any lottery.

Heres a post on a forum I made a month or two ago.


-------

I got saved when I was 9. I knew nothing about the world, other religions, or just about anything.. at that time. As I got older, I began to learn about other religions and beliefs ( and am still learning ), but never looked at them with a truly open-mind. I was always looking at them with the sense that I must find whatever way I can to save them, not to understand them. That's when one of my friends admitted to me that he was Atheist. This was a big shock, as everyone here claimed to be Christian! I naturally tried to save him, but no matter how hard I tried, it obviously was not going to work.

I tried finding good logic I could present to him, to help win him over. Once I started searching though, I began to find how little logic there was for the point I was even trying to make. Basically, I kept resorting to the "It's a good feeling, you will only know it when you have Jesus Christ in your life!" kind of thing. That is true, as well. If you are saved, you do feel more at peace than you do when you are not. It's quite a drastic change, and that was just about the only thing keeping me a Christian at that time. A mere feeling.

I started to look at other religions with an open mind. I was in no way planning on leaving Christianity ( Blasphemy! ), but I was very, very interested in others peoples beliefs, and how they came to believe them. Everything I read, was with a completely open, but never gullible, mind. Through that, I came to the conclusion that Christianity is wrong, and though it is a great religion, providing peace-of-mind, help to those in need, and many other great things.. The Bible just wasn't truly a book from God.

I then looked at Islam. It looked promising as well. Many people seem to think that the Koran tells people to go out and kill nonbelievers, and I thought this as well. Well, this was not true. It's actually very similar to Christianity, in many many aspects. I also, though, came to the conclusion that Islam was not correct either.. Though it was also a great religion, helping the world out in amazing ways, the Koran was also not a book from God.

I slowly came to the believe that no religion from an ancient book, or any other book for that matter, is going to be correct. Why you would think that an ancient text from our small planet is going to dictate the rules for the entire universe is beyond me. People, for the most part, don't seem to comprehend how huge our universe really is. So I'll try to explain a small portion of it..

Our universe is enormous. The sun is even huge by itself. You can fit our small, insignificant planet One-hundred fifty times across it's diameter. That seems quite large, right? Well, you can then fit the sun a whole 30 times across Arcturus, one of the brightest stars in our night sky. Seems very large, right? Well, all of this pales in comparison to Antares, a whopping Three-hundred billion kilometers across in diameter, compared to our sun which is at just under one million. That's freaking huge, and shows just how insignificant Earth and Humanity really are. In that respect, does it not seem at best naive and at worst arrogant to create the idea of a God, one who often is described as reflecting our own human traits and characteristics? Most world religion is an act that places us either directly or vicariously at the center of everything ( which we are not ), and as such is all too deeply human.

Another reason is that these worldly religions all have very odd and unreasonable rules. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all condemn homosexual, incestuous, and many other sexual acts. I myself am not attracted to anyone of the same sex as me, or to anyone in my family. I think this is where these "rules" stemmed from, though. At the time, science was "not real". Religion explained everything unknown to the common man. At that time, their was no explanation as to why people would indulge in these acts. Well now, thanks to science, we know that some people's brains are just slightly different than ours in a way that causes them to be attracted to the same sex, or other taboo subjects.

So why would an all-loving God send people to a lake of fire for all of eternity, only because their sexual preference was different? Even if they were not born gay, and chose to be, what is wrong with it? Who is it harming? Where is the reason for having rules like this? Saying that "God made us, he has the right." is naive and ignorant. Do you think your parents have the right to abuse you, because they conceived you? Of course you don't. Do you think God has the right to create someone just so they can have a life of being shunned for being "abnormal", and then tortured in a lake of fire for all of eternity?

A big factor causing me to most likely never believe in a world religion again.. was the feeling. Remember how at the start of this, I said I was basing my Christian faith on the feeling? When I left Christianity, that feeling stayed. Not only did it stay, though, it grew. It grew an insane amount, actually. Now, I am no longer afraid to die, I can't help but love everyone I see, even those I don't know, including Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, etc.. Now, I feel an intense amount of love for everything around me at all times, as if I could not give enough people hugs. Now, I feel the intense need to give all my belongings away to those in need, for living in this world just like me, but under such grueling conditions that I cannot even imagine.

Because of having this feeling even after leaving Christianity, I began to think quite a bit. How would I still have Jesus in my heart, if I had not believed he was the son of God? Sure, I still believed he was a great, respectful guy, but that wasn't enough to get me saved by Christian standards.

So maybe all religions provide a way to get to "The Source", and to feel "spiritual." Maybe this is what makes believers believe! I've come to know God in ways I never thought I would, and it most definitely was not through any religion on this planet!

I've come to believe that God is not a big bearded guy up on a throne in Heaven.. or at least, if he is, then he is not all-loving, but only an observer. I think that all of us together make up "God". I think that nothing is wrong unless it is causing distress to someone. How could something that brings joy to someone, and brings distress to no one be considered evil?

So, in the end, I believe that all world religions can provide strong, real, spiritual feelings, but that those feelings make the followers believe that the rules associated with where they "got" these feelings are true to.. and they are not. I believe this puts many people down the wrong path. They believe that because they get this amazing spiritual feeling, that there religion has to be right, and they must follow it's rules, no matter how unjust and cruel they may be. And yet here I am, with no religion, and feeling just as spiritual as the next guy.

--------------

Cobbler, good for you, I enjoyed reading that.

I was brought up in quite a non-religious fashion, my parents, spiritual or not, aren't religious in the organised sense and each have their own views. I don't remember having anything religious pushed onto me, my only religious/spiritual ideas were those formed in question/answers that I instigated. It's a real eye opener for me to read these forums sometimes and to realise just how much of a bedrock hardcore religious belief is for some. I can only imagine my position & past are equally alarming to them.

I believe whatever it is I believe because of the connections I've made between the unique stream of things, ideas, people etc that I've encountered. My personal philosophy is simple, it regards universal & unconditional compassion. Any other ideas I may or may not dabble with is purely for the fun of it, I don't believe a great deal at all I guess.

Certain religious institutions value the submission to God AKA them, the institution, above and beyond an individual promoting happiness amongst his fellow men and peace on earth. To my mind, this is fundamentally troublesome. Objective ideas used to group large masses together often tend to alienate and divide people. These objective ideas created by institutions have to be objective though, because they aren't necessarily about prompting happiness but rather submission. Embracing individuality, like you say, creating our own "God" and seeing this for what it is might be a better way of promoting a more peaceful world but of course this isn't something which can be as easily influenced and channeled by any institution looking for control. This is a problem.

Cobbler, I read on another thread you are 15. Well done, you are obviously very bright.

I agree with you. As I have said, I used to be a christian. I used to think that I couldn't live without jesus, but then once I got over the religion and 'clouded my relationship with god' as a christian might say, I was fine. Still happy. Happier, actually.

But I could understand a believer never ever wanting to leave their religion, as you said, its blasphemous, and they think something terrible will happen.
Which it doesn't.