Yes, pretty much.
I've addressed this at the beginning of the thread.
Hehe. I don't know. Maybe "modern Buddhism," given that much modern Buddhism is so opposed to traditional Buddhism.
Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
Yes, pretty much.
I've addressed this at the beginning of the thread.
Hehe. I don't know. Maybe "modern Buddhism," given that much modern Buddhism is so opposed to traditional Buddhism.
wynn do you see yourself as a weak agnostic. Do you virtually accept there is a spiritual realm, but still a little uncertain? So don't you have any paranormal experiences? Or do you rationalise them away?
How are the holy books written in your view?
Sorry about all the questions.
How are the holy books written in your view?
Sorry about all the questions.
He is saying all this from anti-theist stance.
Atheism means one does not believe in God, period.
jan.
Your focus on asking "Are you your body?" Then, questioning whether she really was a theist or not. Or noting how Darwinian evolution is at odds with theism.
I heaped on it from the beginning on by pointing out that Christianity isn't the alpha and omega of religion.
Etc.
For the OP, those things were new, and challenging, and she has often perceived them as insulting. Even though no insult was intended.
No. You don't seem to get what she is saying.
Can an atheist convert to religion then? (I was going to say to Christianity but I not sure what wynn is)
It would need a miracle really.
Wynn is never clear cut. She is deep thinking multi levelled language.
What do you think she meant then?
Quote Originally Posted by Balerion
I'm perfectly capable of understanding what it is that makes him believe. All he needs to do is share.
Wynn "That is so only from the perspective of strong atheism."
So can Balerion know what it feels like "to know God" if he is an atheist?
It depends on what that person who identifies themselves as an "atheist" means by "atheism", and by all the terms in his particular definition of "atheism."
I think a strong atheist cannot convert, but a weak atheist may.
What argument can you make to change their minds. You should dust off you magic wand, and do some miracles. The apostles were able.
In regard to theism, a "weak agnostic" is someone who believes he doesn't know God, but that God may be known.
A weak atheist is someone who doesn't believe God exists, but believes that evidence may emerge in the future that would prove God's existence.
For myself, I am in roundabout a mixture of the above, but leaning more into atheism in the sense that I don't act in daily life as if God exists. It's complex.
I have no issue with these things.
Arguments for and against are meant to make people think about a topic, not to change their minds.
Like if Jan raised someone from the grave they might.
Not at all. I think that manifestations of fancy superpowers are the weakest, most superficial way to attempt to convince someone of God's existence.
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, but whatever. It's not deep thinking, it's lazy thinking. It's also not something she applies to herself, since she claims to understand everyone else in spite of not sharing their views or beliefs.
What she meant was that I'm not capable of understanding what makes Jan a believer because I'm not a believer myself, which is a ridiculous assertion countered quite well by Seattle's home run analogy.
Being an atheist simply means that I don't believe in any gods. That's all.
Wynn likes to play semantic games, retreating from any criticism of her position by saying something like "It's all about which definitions you work with." But this is a disingenuous position, because it assumes that all definitions are valid, as well as assuming that one's belief system has any bearing whatsoever on the existence (or not) of an actual deity.
In a world where theists feel personally responsible for changing other people's minds, miracles can be seen as a tool, sometimes a necessity.
But key is the idea of changing other people on one's own terms, overriding their free will. And in regard to making people believe in God, also overriding God's will.
"I'm the theist, and I will make you believe in God, regardless whether you want to or not, and regardless whether God wants to or not!"
So you don't need "God" to accept paranormal experiences? What do you put them down to?
Robbitybob1:
People throughout history have managed to find ways to justify murder to themselves, even mass murder.
Part of the problem is that people all have ideas of "us" and "them". We're supposed to act morally towards members of our own group, but actions that would be regarded as impermissible against members of our in-group can be considered quite acceptable when committed against outsiders. This usually involves rationalisations, such as regarding the other as less than human, or as a threat to our existence.
Such disputes are usually competitions for resources, including territory and in some cases mates. Where resources are scarce it can be the case that "we must kill the other group or our group will die from lack of food".
Civilisation calmed us down, somewhat. But mostly it's about less competition for resources. Look at the most war-torn regions of the world right now. Mostly, they are also among the poorest regions of the world, or the most affected by land degradation, desertification and other hardships.
wynn:
What's the difference?
People throughout history have managed to find ways to justify murder to themselves, even mass murder.
Part of the problem is that people all have ideas of "us" and "them". We're supposed to act morally towards members of our own group, but actions that would be regarded as impermissible against members of our in-group can be considered quite acceptable when committed against outsiders. This usually involves rationalisations, such as regarding the other as less than human, or as a threat to our existence.
Such disputes are usually competitions for resources, including territory and in some cases mates. Where resources are scarce it can be the case that "we must kill the other group or our group will die from lack of food".
Civilisation calmed us down, somewhat. But mostly it's about less competition for resources. Look at the most war-torn regions of the world right now. Mostly, they are also among the poorest regions of the world, or the most affected by land degradation, desertification and other hardships.
wynn:
What's the difference?