I've been around the block a few times, and my beliefs have changed significantly over the years. Calvinist->Ecumenical->Agnostic->Atheist ->???
I'm not sure any label fits me any more, and I don't really like labels. I kinda hope there is a good God out there somewhere, but I don't really like going to church. And I also like theology. And Christian existentialism (Marcel, Shestov, Berdyeav) Check out my Gabriel Marcel thread.

Basically, her idea is an extension of the low-impulse-control model of addiction expanded to a Neo-Calvinist view that a human being's true nature is this sum of their worst misdeed - that is, when the person's true nature is revealed by stress, drugs, whatever. — Dlaw

I was focusing on this. As I mentioned in a previous post, it seems to me that counter-examples are in order.

This search has some good info.

and this one: Calvinism Critiqued by a Former Calvinist

In my experience, fear is a big factor. If you know what God wants, is it a good idea to change your mind? To doubt? Satan is about doubt. God is about certainty. We would tell ourselves scary stories about people who "fell from faith" and how horrible that would be. They would allude to 2 Peter 2 and "dogs returning to their vomit".

You might want to check into the back stories, though. My dad was an alcoholic from a family of alcoholics. For him, it's either Calvinist Young Earth Creationism or going back to drinking. In his mind, there is no middle ground. There's just a lot of black and white thinking.

The Calvinists I knew just acted like and convinced themselves that they knew God's will: How to interpret the Bible, what one must do to be saved, how to worship, the one True Doctrine, etc. They were quick to point out why they believed that anyone who disagreed was wrong.

I can relate as I grew up among Calvinists and even identified as a Calvinist for many years. What helped me was when people just kindly and gently pointed out problems with my position and asked me difficult questions.

You could find cases of people who were addicted to drugs and then changed, sans any religion. It's hard to argue with evidence.

I agree that gentleness and patience is the way to go.

Are you familiar with the studies done by James Whinnery? He reported cases of people having NDE's when they were subjected to high G forces.

http://www.magarchive.tcu.edu/articles/2008-01-AN2.asp

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91527-out-of-body-roger/

The greatest gold mountain is the greatest gold mountain we can think of. Things can exist only in our imaginations or they can also exist in reality.
Things that exist in reality are always better than the things that only exist in our imaginations.
If the greatest gold mountain existed only in our imaginations, then it wouldn't be the greatest mountain of gold that we can think of, because the greatest gold mountain in reality would be better.
Therefore, the greatest gold mountain must exist in reality!

Can't you replace "God" with any x?
The greatest x is the best x we can think of. Things can exist only in our imaginations or they can also exist in reality.
Things that exist in reality are always better than the things that only exist in our imaginations.
If the greatest x existed only in our imaginations, then it wouldn't be the greatest x that we can think of, because the greatest x in reality would be better.
Therefore, the greatest x must exist in reality!

You could replace "x" with the greatest invisible flying man or anything else you'd like to imagine.

I don't identify as an atheist, by the way. I just don't think it's a good argument.

It's the greatest gold mountain I can imagine.

Things can exist only in our imaginations or they can also exist in reality. — Harjas

Cool! There is now a huge mountain of gold in my backyard. I imagined it, so it must be there.

Elizabeth Loftus is working on it:

The memory wars

In the early 1990s, the focus of Loftus’ work shifted to investigating whether it was possible to implant false memories for entire events that had never taken place. The impetus for this new line of research was a case for which Loftus had been asked to provide expert testimony in 1990.[10][11][13][16] The unique point in this case was that George Franklin stood accused of murder, but the only evidence against him was provided by his daughter, Eileen Franklin-Lipsker, who claimed that she had initially repressed the memory of him raping and murdering her childhood friend, Susan Nason, 20 years earlier, and had only recently recovered it while undergoing therapy.[10][11][16] Loftus gave evidence about the malleability of memory, but had to concede that she did not know of any research about the particular kind of memory Franklin-Lipsker was claiming to have; Franklin was convicted (though in 1996 he was released upon appeal).[10][11][16]

At that time, many others were also making accusations, both in and out of court, based on recovered memories of trauma.[16] Loftus began work to find out whether some of these recovered memories might in fact be false memories, created by the suggestive techniques used by some therapists at the time and encouraged in some self-help books.[10][11][16] Ethically, she could not try to convince research subjects that they had been sexually abused by a relative as a child, so Loftus had to come up with a paradigm that involved childhood trauma without causing harm to subjects. Her student Jim Coan developed the lost in the mall technique. The method involves attempting to implant a false memory of being lost in a shopping mall as a child and testing whether discussing a false event could produce a "memory" of an event that never happened. In her initial study, Loftus found that 25% of subjects came to develop a "memory" for the event which had never actually taken place.[11][16] Extensions and variations of the lost in the mall technique found that an average of one third of experimental subjects could become convinced that they experienced things in childhood that had never really occurred—even highly traumatic, and impossible events.[16] Loftus’ work was used to oppose recovered memory evidence provided in court[11] and resulted in stricter requirements for the use of recovered memories being used in trials as well as a greater requirement for corroborating evidence. In addition, some states no longer allowed prosecution based on recovered memory testimony and insurance companies were more reluctant to insure therapists against malpractice suits relating to recovered memories.[8][10][11]

I've learned quite a bit from Skeptic magazine online. They often present arguments for and against various topics including pornography and the existence of God.

So I think people are "paralyzed" by agnosticism. They don't know how to live life as an agnostic. — darthbarracuda

Why pick on Agnostics and their view of God? What of skeptics and their view of knowledge?

He's on my short list, I promise! Right now I'm working on a project involving Gabriel Marcel.
(I'm listening to this today)

Gabriel Marcel by Seymour Cain
The Existential Drama of Gabriel Marcel edited by Francis Lescoe
Awakenings by Gabriel Marcel

Gabriel Marcel was a Christian existentialist thinker who taught that the nature of prayer was such that one could not pray for material things, but only to become a better person. The nature of God is such that that the religious person could be sure that God heard and would respond.

He believed that prayer and belief in God were not things open to verification.

His thoughts may be frustrating to someone trying to prove or disprove God, but that wasn't Marcel's focus. He only meant to explore the concepts of God and prayer from a 1st person perspective.

Marcel came to those conclusions about God and prayer through his study of consciousness (he was a phenomenologist) alone despite the fact that at the time he was not a follower of any religion, and he was raised in a non-religious home.

I wonder if panpsychism suggests that "consciousness is a product of the brain"?

Cain defends Marcel's early writing style by explaining that he can be compared to a scientist recording raw empirical data, only Marcel was a phenomenologist studying human consciousness itself from a first hand perspective.

You might enjoy this article comparing Marcel's and Sartre's ideas. Atheistic and Christian Existentialism: A Comparison of Sartre and Marcel. I was fascinated to learn that Sartre modified his views on several topics later in life, including morality and the meaning of life.

After reading the article, I've had a desire to read some of Sartre's later works. For example:
Critique of Dialectical Reason- 1960

Twenty years after the publication of his 1943 phenomenological ontology, in 1964, Sartre presented a public lecture in Rome in which he set out at some length what he later called his second ethics. — Thomas Anderson

(Sartre's Second or Dialectical Ethics)

The Family Idiot. 1971

Notebooks for an Ethics - Published posthumously in 1983.

His autobiography is easy to read, and I really like his plays (my favorite so far is A Man of God). I've been easing into his essays and philosophical books, because I've been warned that his style is non-systematic. I've been lead to understand that while his earlier works can be difficult to parse because of the their style, he developed a systematic (or concrete) way to describe his thoughts later in life.

I just thought I'd mention that I've found the book Gabriel Marcel by Seymour Cain to be a better place to start, if one was interested in learning the basics of Gabriel Marcel's ideas.

The History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps

Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at the LMU in Munich and at King's College London, takes listeners through the history of philosophy, "without any gaps." The series looks at the ideas, lives and historical context of the major philosophers as well as the lesser-known figures of the tradition.

Thanks for that!
I've gone back and forth on just what I think about religions. Right now I think it's important to acknowledge the good in religions. And really, is it all that surprising that religions are responsible for some bad things, too? Name one thing that humans have been involved with, that hasn't been misused...

I've gone back and forth about Christianity a few times as well. If it's true that Christianity includes the belief that we will all end up in heaven (universal reconciliation), then it's hard to find fault with that form of Christianity (some protestant believers also accept that universal reconciliation is the case).

I was about to disagree with the OP. But, upon reflection, I would agree that self-consciousness is a negative quality... but self-awareness is not.
from wiki

Self-consciousness is a heightened sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being, though the two terms are commonly used interchangeably or synonymously.[1] An unpleasant feeling of self-consciousness may occur when one realizes that one is being watched or observed, the feeling that "everyone is looking" at oneself. Some people are habitually more self-conscious than others. Unpleasant feelings of self-consciousness are sometimes associated with shyness or paranoia.

I grew up with fundamentalist Christians. I was a Young Earth Creationist. I just picked up on and/or reacted to some of the fear (of believing the wrong things.. hell is a scary place) and rigidity.

Now I both want and fear being open-minded. I have ambivalent feelings about the fact that philosophy is full of open-ended questions for which we may never have a satisfying answer. I also have ambivalent feelings about the many different ways to "do" philosophy. Analytic vs Contintental, Western thought vs Eastern thought.. you name it. There are a lot of paths one could follow, if one so chose. And lately, it seems any choices I make about what to read next in the way of philosophy are nothing more substantial then arbitrary whims (on the other hand, perhaps I could see this as a chance to learn to trust my intuition).

I've read every one of Marcel's plays that I could get my hands on(he himself wanted to be known for his plays- he thought the arts was the way to influence culture), and I've read a lot of secondary literature about him and that describes his thinking, but I've only read a few of his essays. I do play on reading his other works.

Marcel has me thinking that the nature of human existence could be described as a metaphysical mystery.

LOL. That hasn't been my experience. The metaphysics of "what is there?" is important and interesting... but, exploring human existence is more important and interesting, IMHO.

I've found Marcel to be a humble and decent man who encourages others to be patient with themselves while also encouraging them to continually work on becoming the ideal self they aspire to be.

I love Gabriel Marcel, and questions about existence are of extreme important.. but I do also wonder: what exists that is not accessible by my perceptions?

I think what you may be describing is an issue with Scientism. Science is useful. Some people have made it into a cult-like religion.

Thanks for sharing. I'm thinking along similar lines.

Fair enough.

Surely it is the accounts of the miracles of Jesus Christ, including walking on water, bringing the dead back to life, feeding the multitudes with a loaf of bread, restoring the lame and the blind, turning water into wine, then being resurrected from the dead and ascending bodily into Heaven. — Wayfarer

Annie Dillard reminds us that the practice of attributing miracles to religious teachers also occurred in Judaism.

I was born in Germany, I grew up in Alaska, and now I'm in the Midwest. I hated the first philosophy class I took back in the late 80's (I was in my 20's). Now I kinda like it. I mostly just read whatever strikes my fancy. I've been known to get into really intense arguments (on other forums mostly), but lately I'm more interested in finding decent people with whom I can have a decent conversation.

I'm currently into Christian Existentialism and Phenomenology. And Hilary Putnam.

The Virtues.

I grew up as a Young Earth Creationist. I was a literalist and a true believer. Our church proclaimed that they had the correct interpretation of scripture, and all other denominations were wrong- and they could prove it. They taught that if you wanted to stay out of hell, then you better get saved the way they said it had to be done.

But, I was involved with a youth group that was respectful of other denominations. After I graduated from high school, I went to a Christian college in another state and met Christians with all kinds of various beliefs. I started looking for a good church... I think I hoped to find one that was accepting of evolution and science in general, and one that didn't treat women like 2nd class citizens. I never did find that church (I suspect some do exist).

Somewhere along the line I started declaring myself to be an atheist. It just seemed to me that all religions were man-made. I had no way to of judging between different denominations or even religions. I now believe that if the Christian God exists, then he must be a vindictive monster who loves slavery- at least that's the way he looks when I read the Bible. If the Bible got some things wrong about God (or anything else)... then why trust it at all?

I love Socrates as portrayed by Plato. I hear him saying, "Maybe we're wrong... maybe the Gods are better than us." It's almost funny to me that when religions write about their "good" God, he ends up looking like a monster (or at least as human as the people who imagined him). I wouldn't say that I believe, but lately I find myself I kinda hoping that there is a virtuous God, and/or a God so other that He can't really be imagined. I'm just not sure where to look for Him. I do like reading the Christian Existentialists... specifically Gabriel Marcel. On the other hand, there are days when I consider the history of Christianity (and the influence of Christians on the latest election in my country) that I hesitate to associate myself with Christianity in any way.

Then again the story of a God who loved humanity so much that He was willing to suffer greatly in order to redeem them is a good one. Maybe Christianity can be and deserves to be "saved".

My head hurts and I just want to give up the search for anything philosophy claims is worthwhile. — TheMadFool

I can relate. I was really enjoying philosophy until recently when I heard some lectures on the topic of truth. Now whenever I think about the various theories of truth my head starts to hurt.

I suspect I'll get over it. (I've had similar experiences with other topics).

Maybe you're trying to hard. Just go where you feel like going. Trust your intuition and your instincts.

To cut to chase, Socrates is not claiming ignorance. Rather he's claiming knowledge of his ignorance.

Your views??? — TheMadFool

I think you're on the right track. I wonder if we can paraphrase Socrates as saying, "I don't go around pretending to know things that I don't know."

I really like a book called Gabriel Marcel by Seymour Cain. It's a good overview of his life and work, and if you like what you see, it will give you some ideas about what to read next.

I'm reading all of Marcel's plays that I can get my hands on, and I'm in the middle of his autobiography. I'm probably doing it backwards, in that I'm reading a lot of secondary literature before I start reading his serious works (but as I mentioned, I am reading his plays and autobiography) The more I read about him, the more I like him and the way he thinks.

I'm starting to look into Phenomenology in general as well.

I am looking forward to reading Berdyaev ( I do own The Meaning of the Creative Act).