Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Robittybob1]

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!"

Miracles as I understand them are God in action so you won't have a miracle unless God allows it to happen.
You can pray for a healing but it will only happen in certain circumstances.

 

[wynn]

since she claims to understand everyone else in spite of not sharing their views or beliefs.

Of course, you are unable to provide any example of where I said that. Because I never said it.

What she meant was that I'm not capable of understanding what makes Jan a believer because I'm not a believer myself,

Again, not something I said.

which is a ridiculous assertion countered quite well by Seattle's home run analogy.

I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

Being an atheist simply means that I don't believe in any gods. That's all.

And as long as you use the word "gods", it must be that you mean something by it.

"It's all about which definitions you work with."

Because it is.

But this is a disingenuous position, because it assumes that all definitions are valid,

It doesn't.
Again, I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

as well as assuming that one's belief system has any bearing whatsoever on the existence (or not) of an actual deity.

Never said it does.


Uh.

 

[wynn]

So you don't need "God" to accept paranormal experiences? What do you put them down to?

Like I said: I have no issue with these things.

 

[wynn]

What's the difference?

A demigod is still subservient and inferior to God.

 

[wynn]

Miracles as I understand them are God in action so you won't have a miracle unless God allows it to happen.
You can pray for a healing but it will only happen in certain circumstances.

Nevertheless, by aggressively wanting someone else to change their mind, to become a theist, you are attempting to override their free will, and God's.

 

[Robittybob1]

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.

Yes humans/prehumans have never been such a killing machine that they could go it alone (that is with no group of other supporting males. Just a single "He Man" with his harem of females and bugger (murder) the rest).

 

[Robittybob1]

Like I said: I have no issue with these things.

So what does "no issue" mean?

 

[Robittybob1]

Nevertheless, by aggressively wanting someone else to change their mind, to become a theist, you are attempting to override their free will, and God's.

What are they going to pull a gun on them? Jan approaches the atheists, "Believe in God or I'll shoot the kids first".

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

All humans have morals of some kind.

Is that your gut feeling, do you have a solid reason for that assertion?

It's a generalisation based on my observations, experience and readings about human morality.

Even criminals usually know their actions are immoral according to the usual standards of society (obvious, since otherwise they wouldn't be crimes), but they have various ways to rationalise their behaviour to themselves.

If staying out of jail is a moral pursuit, then you may have a point.
But I'm afraid I don't see it like that.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Acting morally is a choice. Some people choose not to act morally. But that doesn't mean they don't have morals. Even a drug-dealing crime boss who will shoot a rival dead with little thought will have think that his action is justifiable. His moral system might be very badly calibrated, but it's there.

Either that, or he know's that he will most probably stay out of jail.

You seem to be suggesting that people only act immorally if they think they can get away with it, which implies that people only act morally due to fear of punishment (either here and now or after death). I don't agree with that view.

Given my hypothetical scenario, there can be no right or wrong as long as it is natural, and one abides by one's nature. For you to say something is wrong requires you to either contradict, or correct nature. Nature doesn't do contradiction, or correction. It just acts according to laws.
So what is it that acts contrary to nature?

It is part of human nature that we have a moral sense, and it is part of nature that human beings have constructed societies with laws and communities with shared moral commitments. There's no contradiction with nature when we say that to murder is wrong (for example). That statement is made within nature, by natural beings with brains formed by nature.

You can't start with a hypothesis that everything is natural, then claim that it is somehow unnatural to have morals. By your own hypothesis, morals must be part of your nature as well.

I'm not so sure. Such a person would most likely spend a significant portion of his life languishing in a prison cell being mates with a guy with tattoos named Bubba.

And maybe not.
There are loads of murderers, rapists, nasty people out there, and I know they don't have trouble finding women. Some women, it seems are sexually turned on by these traits, and some women do not like moral, law abiding guys, at least not in the sexual sense.

Are these women immoral, for liking these types of guys?
Or are they acting ''naturally''?

Human beings are a diverse lot. Yes, it is true that some women are attracted to bad boys. Often, there are reasons in the women's background that can help explain why. But, it is not the norm in our society for people in general to admire or be sexually attracted to violent criminals. A lot of us like to see such people depicted in movies, on TV and in books, but that is precisely because we don't mix in those circles normally. It's a fantasy and a kind of voyeurism. We also wonder why these hardened criminals are the way they are. What made them like that? Why do they buck the general trend of morality and law-abidingness?

Another one is that murder is wrong because we value the lives of individuals. They are part of our society, just as we are.

Not everyone thinks this way, people diagnosed as psychopaths for example.

Psychopaths are mentally ill. Hardly a good example of the general human moral sense.

It is telling that you keep having to look at particular minorities to try to argue my point, don't you think, Jan?

What do you think of Plato's argument, by the way? Do you agree with it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What are they going to pull a gun on them? Jan approaches the atheists, "Believe in God or I'll shoot the kids first".

Oh come on!
Where'd you get such an idea?

jan.

 

[James R]

wynn,

A demigod is still subservient and inferior to God.

Tell me why Plato's argument doesn't apply to God, then.

 

[James R]

Balerion:

I don't think you understand my arguments.

Hear that, everyone? None of us are smart enough to understand Jan's high-minded arguments.

I think you'd better read what Jan wrote again.

Then you can apologise.

 

[Capracus]

It is probably physics blasphemy to say this, but cosmologists NEED God for the simple reason that there was no per-existing universe before the big bang. only nothingness. Then, bang! Everything sprang into existence. It is atheist logic to thing that universes just pop into existence for no reason. I'm not buying it.

A state of no quantitative value is a loose definition of nothingness. Our perception of pre-Big Bang conditions fit this description; whereas a quantified description of God fits neither. Modern cosmologists know better than to claim knowledge of the unknowable, why don’t you?

 

[Balerion]

Balerion:



I think you'd better read what Jan wrote again.

Then you can apologise.

I see my error now. I also see that every other attempt to clarify his position has ended with 'You misunderstand."

I don't owe him an apology.

 

[Billy T]

... Tell me why Plato's argument doesn't apply to God, then.

I went back four pages, looking for it. What are you referring to with "Plato's argument"?

 

[James R]

Billy T:

It's here.

 

[James R]

I see my error now. I also see that every other attempt to clarify his position has ended with 'You misunderstand."

I don't owe him an apology.

You owe him an apology for misrepresenting what he wrote. You actually quoted something he wrote, then immediately wrote as if he had written what you wanted him to have written, or imagined that he wrote, rather than what he actually wrote.

Can you own your mistakes? Or are you infallible?

 

[wynn]

Tell me why Plato's argument doesn't apply to God, then.

A demigod is still subservient and inferior to God.

God is the one defined as having set all the rules to begin with. Ie. God as defined in much of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism; God as the Father, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the First Cause, the Beneficiary of All Sacrifices, the Benefactor of All, the One Without Whom Not a Blade of Grass Can move.

Plato's argument works well with gods - ie., demigods - like Zeus and Thor, beings which were never defined as having set all the rules to begin with, as they are derivative, contingent beings (as opposed to God, who is self-sufficient).

 

[wynn]

So what does "no issue" mean?

That it doesn't concern me.

What are they going to pull a gun on them? Jan approaches the atheists, "Believe in God or I'll shoot the kids first".

Heh. Where did you get that?

 

[Balerion]

You owe him an apology for misrepresenting what he wrote. You actually quoted something he wrote, then immediately wrote as if he had written what you wanted him to have written, or imagined that he wrote, rather than what he actually wrote.

Then he owes me an apology for lying. As do you. If we're going to play that game, you should probably worry about how you misrepresent arguments before you go around chastising others.

Can you own your mistakes? Or are you infallible?

What about this...

I see my error now.

...don't you understand?