How many of you were raised religiously, are now agnostic/atheist, but wish you could still believe? What religion were you? What religion would you like to be right?
I was raised Catholic, if I knew it to be true I would follow every rule. The thought of dying and not existing forever terrifies me. It consumes my thoughts on a daily basis lately. I guess I would most like some form of liberal christianity where if you are decent person you go to heaven or buddhism to be correct.
Why is there anything at all? Existence itself, why is it? I wish someone had some sort of explanation with proof I could accept.
I guess not existing would be preferable to eternal torture
>>27643144
>I wish someone had some sort of explanation with proof I could accept.
>some really good videos describing the very basics of 4 out of the 5 common arguements for the existence of a god. Thes videos however shouldn't be basis of your understnding of them. Each argument has a vast aray of different sections in it. If you were to make a DETAILED video for each argument they would last for hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0&list=PL3gdeV4Rk9EfL-NyraEGXXwSjDNeMaRoX
>A few papers/articles expanding on the proposition of the fine-tuning argument
http://sententias.org/2013/01/19/do-multiverse-scenarios-solve-the-problem-of-fine-tuning/
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/teleological-argument/designchance-6022381.0.html
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0246.pdf
>The image I'm attaching is a debate between two 4chan users on another argument for the existence of a God (unmoved mover argument).This is part 1 of the argument, I'll post the second part in another post. Might be a little hard to read since I had to compress it to fit r9k's 2MB image limit
op I was actually a pretty militant atheist for my whole life but then I decided to actually do some research into the topic of god. I read A LOT of books from both sides of the argument, watch hours upon hours of debates and even did a bit of research into it myself. At the end of the day I concluded that the existence of a "god" is a physical necessity for our universe to exist. If you're open-minded and willing enough to do the research to believe in a god then you'll be really surprised at what you find. I too used to thing the idea of a creator was just a load of horseshit
>>27643488
Part 2 to the debate in the image
>>27643144
I was raised catholic, went through an atheist/agnostic phase and then became theistic again. I believe in a higher power, and for a while thought about joining the church but I realized how cucked it's become and was turned off by it. I also can't really tolerate Christian cosmology as most see it as literal.
I was raised Catholic, briefly atheist, then agnostic, then some sort of mystic, then back to Catholic.
>>27643488
P.S. The video I linked is actually a playlist so don't press embed. You have to copy the whole link and put it into the url bar
i was raised atheist but i am now studying Christianity.
>>27643488
dont get me wrong, i like arguments like that but i think they appeal more to emotion than logic perhaps? i dont think the arguments are cmpletely sound, and I straight up want something that is quantifiable and measured.
I was raised in a religiously impoverished household.
We were technically catholic, my mom, my sister and I, while my Dad was a disillusioned Mormon, who he calls, rightfully, a cult, but we never really prayed or anything.
As i got older, I got increasingly more interested in Religions, especially the Abrahamic religions.
I've read the Gospels as abridged by Tolstoy, and generally agree that a true Christian life is one to aspire to, even if Christ the man never existed at all, which he probably did, even if he wasn't God.
As for God, I do not deny Its existence, but I'd rather focus on my own personal morality than concern myself with pleasing a Cosmic Mind of whose existence I am not sure of.
If God exists and is as good as he is held to be, then I can only hope that this is a life he approves of.
>>27643721
The problem with most theistic traditions is that it focuses on the spirit, or inner qualities. Not to much hard quantifying going on, but the models work. The Buddhist model is pretty sanitary and logical though. I like my mysticism in religion, the Jews and Ukranian Catholics did it right.
Half the fun of post modern society is that we can blend every kind of concept together into one mass of dissonance that somehow works. I'm a raised Catholic, spent time on the alter and was involved with Chiors. Went fedora tier atheist and found that empty af became a Buddhist for a few years. Started researching magic and casting Sigils and shit. But this whole time I still believed in God, when atheistic thoughts hit me, God became a part of my subjective experience. Buddhism placed heaven and hell as here and now states. Magick tapped into subconscious priming to make me a better Christian.
I don't consider myself a Christian more then any other model that influenced me. But they're all there in conflict guiding me.
You can't logic religion!
>>27643721
>and I straight up want something that is quantifiable and measured
Sometimes you can't measure something directly, at least not yet, but only observe how it acts on other forces.
We haven't figured out Dark Energy yet, let alone God.
If God exists, then his true testament is nature itself, and once we've exhausted its mysteries, I'm sure we will know Him.
>>27643947
>>27643947
>>27643947
t. pagan idolatry
>>27643721
> they appeal more to emotion than logic perhaps
The only one that maybe does this is the objective moral argument. All the others are based on sound logic and scientific evidence. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that they appeal to emotions at all?
