The Anguish of Semi Believers.

I think you might enjoy Dan's Prayer for the Unflinching Agnostic

The other articles on the site are good reading too.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It is silly to think that the subject of whether there is a God is somehow in a different category.

[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of god does fall into a different catagory namely metaphysics. Many silly people think metaphysical questions are essentially meaningless and hence probabilities do not apply.

Unlike the question of OJ which is not metaphysical.


chez

[NLSoldier]

I am in an upper division college religion class right now which is being taught by a catholic priest, and he has pretty much told us that the modern position of the catholic/christian church is not nearly the same as the traditional "if you arent catholic you go to hell." he has even implied that no one goes to hell. he used hitler as an example of someone who he would like to think is in hell but probably is not. anyways, im not sure if this is relevant but im drunk and felt like sharing [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[snappo]

nice post.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
he used hitler as an example of someone who he would like to think is in hell but probably is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he is this lenient in his views, then he obviously must think no one is in hell, and thus is not really orthodox in his theology, like so many liberal catholic college teachers.

[Darryl_P]

There is no theoretical limit on how deeply you can think about the issue (barring a mathematical-type proof), and if you were to think about it for an infinite amount of time, chances are your current probability estimate would move around a lot, hitting most points on the spectrum.

Assuming you know this, and also that you will never hit zero or 100, what rationale is there to stop your thinking at any particular point, other than perhaps what you mention, ie. that the middle points are the least comforting?

What I'm suggesting, then, is to continue thinking more and more deeply until you get to a point in the comfort zone. Maybe you won't get there in this lifetime, but it's still worth a try considering what the stakes are, no?

[Georgia Avenue]

Jordan: Astonishing. GG.

All: Scarily, I guess I now officially agree with the David. In fact, couldn't you say that this constitutes a proof for the invalidity of this belief?


See:

1. One must believe 100% to go to heaven
2. 100% belief in anything is impossible
3. No belief is possible, nobody goes to heaven


This is partially why I believe that doubt is not a sin, and is in fact necessary. I also believe that non-believers (and probably everyone else) can go to heaven. This allows me to question and explore my faith, rather than whapping dogmatically on my bible every time someone challenges my ideas. Aren’t I great? Yaaaay, me!

[RJT]

The one “sin of omission” you have here, though, is that, I think, you might have, unintentionally, let it dangle like some participles do or like that one card in Omaha (that I can’t always get away from playing, when I know I shouldn’t continue with it, in our weekly home game of limit Omaha - yeah, limit Omaha – and you think you get exasperated at times here on the forum? – btw, we play dealer’s choice: limit hold ‘em, limit Omaha, limit 3 card Omaha which we call Greek). That is, I think so long as it is understood that no definite (final or conclusive) statements are being made relative to these probabilities, then “there is nothing wrong…” But that is not your main point, I know. I just thought I would preface my post and at the same time take the opportunity to vent about limit Omaha.


NLSoldier anecdote shows that many modern day Catholics do not understand Hell as fire and/or ice. I, personally, view it somewhat akin to the absence of God – probably like being an atheist for eternity, I say jokingly – while Heaven would be an eternal “time” with God.

Side note: The other day, I went back and perused some old post here. I stumbled upon your post of a hypothetical religion eventually labeled Sklanskyanity. (Wonder where that name came from? If you really want to brand it, I suggest that a more catchy name needs penned. Not with indifference to the surname from which it came, but because it is too dang hard to spell. Although, I do like how it sounds when spoken – reminds me of the word insanity – and an allusion to both the “mad professor” and some people’s view of religion)

Well, the fact is that Sklanskyanity is not unlike how many (myself included) view Christianity. Aside from the obvious omission of not footnoting Jesus as some of the sources of these ideas (lol) you aren’t too far off. Change your opposition to God being omnipotent and we could sneak in the Holy Spirit as part of Skalanskyanity. The fact that Jesus is not mentioned as the Messiah is a technicality.

I hope you are sitting down: You are Christian, David.

End of side note.

But anyway, your basic point is valid. The best why I have found to avoid (ignore?) this angst is to look at the whole process (and life) as a journey. I chose to journey towards (with) God as opposed to nowhere or somewhere else.

[BeerMoney]

I agree with this post 100%, and this is how I've always felt.

Above average IQ's think alike.

[andyfox]

I think many semi-believers/semi-non-believers indeed just don't take the subject too seriously. I'm probably in that camp. I'm too busy worrying about my dentist appointment, the guy who check-raised me on the turn, and whether I should take the freeway or the side streets to avoid traffic. If I end up in heaven or in hell or in New Jersey after I die, well, . . . .