I like your posting name, BTW. I hope you stick around here and keep commenting.

As for the pseudonym, that was a product of the 2004 election. Feeling bitter and powerless over the media portrayal of non-Christians (you know, godless and valueless), I started a blog under Angry Agnostic. I thought it was a little funny (I mean really, can an agnostic really be angry?) and somewhat reflected how I was feeling. The truth is, I got over it in about two months, but I had been posting on so many sites under that name, I figured I’d keep it. Besides, I like the slightly off-kilter alliteration.

As for your point, I agree that people can mistake the euphoria of discovery with a thunderbolt from heaven. The question is, does the epiphany make them feel power or humility? My beef isn’t that people have convictions; I’ve got plenty of my own (like Michael Jordan shouldn’t have come out of retirement the second time and a 13-year-old boy is old enough to lift the damn toilet seat before he pees). My problem is with those who have convictions without humility.

I think the reason some people may mistake their own little epiphanies with messages from above is hubris. They’ve mistaken their inner voice with that of a god’s.

To your other comment: even within the same sect you see different ideas of God. I remember being surprised when my Mormon girlfriend told me she was tempted to join Born Again Christianity because she saw the Mormon version of God as being so angry. She pointed out scriptures in the Book of Mormon that said God hated a certain group of people. Personally, I had always figured it meant something different than what it said. Because my own version of God, which had changed over the years, had become more Born-Again-ish.

By asking my questions, I was not generalizing all believers into any category. I was making the point that people have all kinds of different ideas and because feelings of conviction often accompany them, many of us assume it means they are also God’s ideas.

It is a part of human nature to feel some sort of rush when they have an epiphany of some sort. It doesn’t mean the epiphany is true. It just means the idea resonated with you for various reasons.

The strength of a person’s feelings regarding a certain belief does not have any correlation to the accuracy of that belief. As Lindy pointed out, even non-believers make this error. I think it can be more distorting for a religious believer, though, because they often think those ideas are actually from God.

But as you used the words “delusion” and “hysteria.” I am not only referring to those instances. I am also talking about those quiet moments when you feel at peace about something. I love feeling that way. Having those experiences is an important part of our spirituality. We just shouldn’t take it to mean that the idea is factual.

In case you are still wondering if I see all religous people as being the same, I do not. In fact, unlike some of my readers and many fellow atheist bloggers, I have no desire to rid the world of its religions. I think we would live in a better place if most religious people were more moderate in their beliefs.

BTW, why the name, “Angry Agnostic?”

Also, looking at your email address, you share a name with someone I once knew from the midwest. That wouldn’t be you, would it?

BUT, they DO NOT believe God would take over your body to type a paper or do anything. I meant to communicate that I felt God was feeding me the ideas and many of the words.

Mormons believe inspiration comes from God in a number of ways from warm feelings to more intense “burning sensations in the bossom” (don’t take that too literally) to ideas and even entire sentences placed in your mind. Mormons also believe God can speak to you with a voice you actually hear and show you visions, but these instances are more rare.

The Church teaches that baptized members can receive these types of spiritual promptings on a regular, daily basis, and are encouraged to seek this level of spirituality for daily guidance pertaining to all matters in your life.

Or do they teach that it is more abstract, that inspiration is some sort of warm feeling? Or do they not explicitly say and simply leave it up to each individual to make it up for themselves?

A theologian like Dominic Crossan can both be a passionate Christian and reject the idea of Jesus actually rising from the dead. Thomas Merton found joy and truth in Buddhism. Paul Tillich created a theology based in part on existentialism. Not to mention Joseph Campbell, who found his god in every spiritual religion.

If your question is for all believers, then I think there are those who have a more sophisticated approach that allows for conviction without delusion and emotion without hysteria.

If your question if for those believers whose conviction is based on their egos, then you’ll never get a reasonable response. They are what I like to refer to as idolatrous. They’ve turned their beliefs — their images of god and the truth — into a god. They can’t answer your question because they could never get their heads around it.

There’s all sorts of levels of belief. You’ll never be able to get one answer.

P.S. If you ever do question your agnosticism, I would say that would be a very agnostic thing to do.

I wonder the same thing, and actually, often without the God part. The example that springs to mind is the “Grizzly Man” guy. He so thought he was on the right path.

How do we ever know if we are deluding ourselves?

How often do we hear people proclaiming that “god” gave them the strength or wisdom or whatever that enabled them to get through some ordeal or test? How often do we hear people say of the dead “He/She is in a better place, now?” Believers are so brainwashed that they can’t imagine that they alone brought forth the effort to pull the person from the burning auto, or whatever. Nor can they imagine that when someone is dead, they’re dead. I always think it’s presumptuous of anyone to proclaim that someone who has passed “is in a better place” assuming that the “better place” is heaven. Never mind that it’s just wrong.

While death is inevitable for us all, nevertheless, the void, the nothingness that awaits is not particularly inviting. But if a believer assumes that they or anyone else is now or destined to be in heaven, isn’t that hubris?

I know, the above is a little off the subject, but I tend to wander at times. But it is all of a piece, isn’t it? Lester Maddox was a crafty politician, but a monstrously stupid man. His assumptions should have garnered him a special place in the sulfurous nether world, don’t you think?

TLS

I was such a “spiritual” person back in the day, and felt inspired about all kinds of things on a day to day basis. Looking back, I realize that the ideas I thought were inspired were actually just my own ideas accompanied with great feeling. At some point in my life I recongized that my ideas changed over and over and over again throughout the years. And yet somehow I thought they were all inspired. How could God have inspired all of the different ideas that changed and conflicted with each other over time?

A changing god might do that. But not the unchanging Christian god.

Anyway, I wanted to ask these questions of believers, but I am also hesitant to do it, because it is not my personal mission to convince others their religions are wrong. Maybe it is that ambiguity within myself that led you to question my intent.

On the surface, it appears that you are directing these questions to some generic believer and thus challenging their belief. What I am hoping you are NOT doing is second guessing your own decision to take an agnostic position. It would be like saying, “I want to believe in God but if I did, how would I justify these seemingly bizarre situations?” To me, the response is simple because I am not a believer and thus wouldn’t even try to justify a God setting up such situations. To a believer, “Hey, you are own your own.” To an agnostic, the situation is quite different. These situations become more data points to consider when trying rationalizing a personal philosophy. At some point in time, push comes to shove and decisions must be made on the “preponderance of evidence” and lived with because very often more than one person is involved and relationships are on going.