Now I'm Not a Believer

[remagination]

Hello. Thank you for having this forum here. I recently stopped being a "believer" -- and by that I mean *very* recently -- so I sought this community to reach out to.

For most of as long as I can remember - my position about God has been as follows --- identifying as what I called "philosophically agnostic - personally theistic". What that meant was that I believed that the existence of God could neither be proven nor disproven (hence "philosophically agnostic") yet personally, I believed in God (hence "personally theistic").

So in short --- I believed that one could neither prove that God exists or that God doesn't exist - but I maintained *personally* to *myself* *believe* that God *does* exist. This begs the next question --- what exactly does *that* mean? And this second question is one that for years I avoided examining -- but very recently when I finally decided I *should* examine it - that was what led to my de-conversion.

It was then that I realized that I can not logically justify continuing to believe in God --- that though one can not *prove* God exists, and therefore God's existence is not entirely *impossible*, it is so *improbable* that it may as *well* be impossible.

You see --- I personally believed God existed --- but also believed God's existence to be unprovable. Furthermore --- if I were to meet someone else who like me believed that God's existence could neither be proven nor disproven ---- but unlike me-at-the-time believed God did *not* exist ---- I would believe that though both of us couldn't possibly be right on the *second* point, the other person could just-as-well be the right one as myself -- and I could just as well be wrong.

So what does it mean to "believe" something if I believe that someone who's opinion is incompatible with mine can just as well be right as me?

At first -- I examined this question focusing on what I meant by "believe" --- but eventually. I came up with all kinds of explanations hinging on what I refer to as "vague probabilistic logic". But though what I call "vague probabilistic logic" can at times be used to explain disagreement between two rational beings on various matters, I do not think it was an adequate explanation of how I could "believe" in something while also believing that someone who disagrees could just as likely be right as I am.

So the scrutiny fell on whether or not I was using the term "God" consistently.

I realized that for a *very* long time, there was only one category of things that I had had any Faith in God ever being willing to do for me --- that being to open and unleash reserved potentials within myself that otherwise are dormant. However, do you need an omniscient or omnipotent being to do this? No --- your subconscious mind can do this for you just fine.

In short, I *wasn't* using the term "God" consistently --- but the God which I believed in, I had no evidence that this "God" was one-and-the-same with the more *common* concept of "God" who's existence I could neither prove nor disprove.

The only "God" I had any basis for believing in was just a personal spiritual source --- and I had no evidence that this "God" was any more than a part of my subconscious brain.

Of course --- I came to this realizaton before I was entirely *ready* to know this --- so I have some issues with that --- and hope that on this forum, I can *also* find resources to learn to *cope* with the loss of a close imaginary-friend.

[Norman Humann]

to the forums. I'm sure you'll feel at home.

[aemorrow]

you might be interested in a book called Why Christian by Douglas John Hall. I'm reading it for class, it would be cool to talk about it with someone who does not take their belief system for granted.

[robvalue]

Hello there, welcome to the forums

Thank you for sharing your story. It sounds like you've been on quite the journey. You may find my blog useful in sorting out some your thoughts. If you're interested, click on the link in my signature.

With regarding to disproving God, generally it is impossible to prove a negative. For example, I can't prove there isn't a spiritual dragon in the room with me right now. So all I can do is take the available evidence, and come to the most likely conclusion. Since there is absolutely no evidence that there is a spiritual dragon in the room, then I can discount the idea as unsupported and exceedingly unlikely. It may even be impossible that such a dragon could ever exist.

All of these arguments apply equally to "God", and like you say, defining what that is becomes very hard. I have a section about that on my blog. Trying to disprove God is looking at it backwards; like the dragon, we should look at if there is any evidence there is a god. And there is none (in my opinion). So it falls in the same category. Logically speaking, God is the same as any other "unfalsifiable" proposition; that is, anything that can't be proven to be wrong. So we either treat all such things as in some way credible, or we discard them as useless concepts until such time as any new evidence arises.

Of course, this is all speaking as if we are logical robots. And the belief in God, in my opinion, does not stem from logic in the first place, but rather from emotion. So if there is an emotional attachment to a concept like God, then that's not something you can logically dissect in the same way. But I hope that you could examine the emotion instead, looking at what makes you feel that way, what your emotions are telling you, and consider if it is reliable. It's my opinion that this emotional attachment is what keeps people believing in God even when they admit they have no good reason to.

I'm sure you'll find lots of support and helpful discussion here!

[Minimalist]

Hello there.

I suppose the question about belief is really about why you believe something. If you believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow because every day of your life it has that would be a fairly well established belief.

If you believe something because an old book of fairy tales said so that would be a completely different thing.

[Aoi Magi]

congratulations on reaching the mental-adulthood on your own. I am glad to have you among us.

[Alex K]

Welcome!

[remagination]

Thank you very much, everyone, for the warm welcomes and the encouragement. :-)

---

Of course, this is all speaking as if we are logical robots. And the belief in God, in my opinion, does not stem from logic in the first place, but rather from emotion. So if there is an emotional attachment to a concept like God, then that's not something you can logically dissect in the same way. But I hope that you could examine the emotion instead, looking at what makes you feel that way, what your emotions are telling you, and consider if it is reliable. It's my opinion that this emotional attachment is what keeps people believing in God even when they admit they have no good reason to.

Yes! I think you hit the nail on the head!!!

The studies I have been doing lately in rigorous-logic (specifically what I have been doing in the area of Fallacy Recognition) have helped me reduce the degree to which emotions can *cloud* my logic ---- hence eliminating the emotionally-driven belief in God.

But now the question is --- what to do about the emotion itself?

I could see the void I am feeling as being analogous to heroin withdrawal. Might that be helpful?

[Dystopia]

[LostLocke]

"Now I'm Not a Believer" -- the original, rejected title to that Monkees' song.

And