Any atheists here who were once believers?

[(Q)]

That's the point. We don't know.

That is false, many believers claim they do know, but have no evidence other than their beliefs.

A materialist is perfectly within their rights to see it as a natural phenomenon (untill further notices), and a theist is perfectly within their rights to see it as a miracle (untill further notice).

Yes, they have the right to claim miracles, but their claims have no basis in reality because natural phenomenon is all we have for evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

Any atheists here who were once believers?

Any believers here who were once Atheists?

 

[Yazata]

Yes there is such a reason, as I have several times explained. Every social animal, man included, has Darwinian selection developing rules of behavior within the social group that lead to its greater chance of healthy, productive survival and achievements.

I'm inclined to favor evolutionary ethics myself. It isn't free of its own philosophical problems though.

But it's basically irrelevant to Plato's 'Euthyphro' problem, which concerns divine-command ethics.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/euthyphro.htm

 

[wegs]

Any believers here who were once Atheists?

Actually, James R started a thread titled "Religious conversions," in this/the religion subforum.


Oh hey, paddoboy. :wave:

 

[paddoboy]

Actually, James R started a thread titled "Religious conversions," in this/the religion subforum.


Oh hey, paddoboy. :wave:

Heya your self!!

 

[wegs]

Heya your self!!

So.

You were once an atheist, and now you are a believer?

 

[paddoboy]

So.

You were once an atheist, and now you are a believer?

I was once a good little Catholic boy, who was going to be a priest when I grew up. [But after a stint as an Altar boy, I got caught with a mate behind the Altar one Saturday arvo drinking the Altar wine!

Upon growing up and being fascinated and in awe of the Universe and all its wonders, I maintain an agnostic view of things as you seem to do, and in my opinion seems the most logical way to go.
My very religious wife though, keeps me somewhat in check!

 

[wegs]

I was once a good little Catholic boy, who was going to be a priest when I grew up. [But after a stint as an Altar boy, I got caught with a mate behind the Altar one Saturday arvo drinking the Altar wine!

Upon growing up and being fascinated and in awe of the Universe and all its wonders, I maintain an agnostic view of things as you seem to do, and in my opinion seems the most logical way to go.
My very religious wife though, keeps me somewhat in check!

I didn't realize you have an agnostic view. Cool.
After struggling for a while, it too seems logical to me, and comfortable.
Is your wife accepting of your beliefs, has she ever tried to change your mind? Not meaning to pry, just curious.

 

[paddoboy]

I didn't realize you have an agnostic view. Cool.

Then you havn't been reading all my posts...shame!!

After struggling for a while, it too seems logical to me, and comfortable.
Is your wife accepting of your beliefs, has she ever tried to change your mind? Not meaning to pry, just curious.

My lovely wife is a Christian in the truest sense of the word.....gives far more then she receives [sometimes to the point of annoyance on my part] and is tolerant of my beliefs [or lack thereof]
She does try though on occasions... things like leaving a little prayer book around in the hope that I will read and be converted
She says grace at every meal, which I respect and remain silent until she finishes. All in all after 35 years of marriage, we remain close and great friends and lovers!
I put it down to that quality again of tolerance on both our parts.

 

[Mazulu]

I was once a good little Catholic boy, who was going to be a priest when I grew up. [But after a stint as an Altar boy, I got caught with a mate behind the Altar one Saturday arvo drinking the Altar wine!

Upon growing up and being fascinated and in awe of the Universe and all its wonders, I maintain an agnostic view of things as you seem to do, and in my opinion seems the most logical way to go.
My very religious wife though, keeps me somewhat in check!

It reminds me of the sexual abuse scandals by Catholic priests. They are probably responsible for the destruction of Catholicism and Christianity. There is nothing wrong with human beings trying to live up to a very very high standard of moral behavior about sexual matters; but when priests violate that sanctity and innocence, it pretty much destroyed the religion.

 

[paddoboy]

It reminds me of the sexual abuse scandals by Catholic priests. They are probably responsible for the destruction of Catholicism and Christianity. There is nothing wrong with human beings trying to live up to a very very high standard of moral behavior about sexual matters; but when priests violate that sanctity and innocence, it pretty much destroyed the religion.

Yeah we have had a few cases in Australia also.....
I was taught by the Christian Brothers in the fifties, and we still have old boys reunions...we get about 14 attending every year.
One of us made a comment at the last gathering, that we must have all been real ugly little bastards, because none of us ever experienced and inapropriate behaviour from the Brothers... *shrug*

 

[Mazulu]

Yeah we have had a few cases in Australia also.....
I was taught by the Christian Brothers in the fifties, and we still have old boys reunions...we get about 14 attending every year.
One of us made a comment at the last gathering, that we must have all been real ugly little bastards, because none of us ever experienced and inapropriate behaviour from the Brothers... *shrug*

Christianity was utilizing a very powerful tool, by damming the psycho-sexual energy as a means to achieve righteousness. I can understand an occasional priest breaking under the pressure and seeking out a prostitute. But when hundreds of priests sexually molest thousands of children, it destroyed people's trust in Christianity as a standard of goodness. It completely undermined the authority of the Christian church. And now Christianity will die as a consequence.

 

[wegs]

Then you havn't been reading all my posts...shame!!

mea culpa...forgive me.

My lovely wife is a Christian in the truest sense of the word.....gives far more then she receives [sometimes to the point of annoyance on my part] and is tolerant of my beliefs [or lack thereof]
She does try though on occasions... things like leaving a little prayer book around in the hope that I will read and be converted
She says grace at every meal, which I respect and remain silent until she finishes. All in all after 35 years of marriage, we remain close and great friends and lovers!
I put it down to that quality again of tolerance on both our parts.

Even though you may not agree with her, it's nice how serious she takes her faith.

It reminds me of the sexual abuse scandals by Catholic priests. They are probably responsible for the destruction of Catholicism and Christianity. There is nothing wrong with human beings trying to live up to a very very high standard of moral behavior about sexual matters; but when priests violate that sanctity and innocence, it pretty much destroyed the religion.

I'm not sure it's solely responsible for the decline in Catholicism/Christianity, but it definitely hurt the image of the Roman Catholic Church, and caused a general disinterest in men joining the priesthood. But, there's a myriad of reasons why the Church's numbers are declining. That's just one reason.

Yeah we have had a few cases in Australia also.....
I was taught by the Christian Brothers in the fifties, and we still have old boys reunions...we get about 14 attending every year.
One of us made a comment at the last gathering, that we must have all been real ugly little bastards, because none of us ever experienced and inapropriate behaviour from the Brothers... *shrug*

eek. Not a funny joke, right? :facepalm:

Christianity was utilizing a very powerful tool, by damming the psycho-sexual energy as a means to achieve righteousness. I can understand an occasional priest breaking under the pressure and seeking out a prostitute. But when hundreds of priests sexually molest thousands of children, it destroyed people's trust in Christianity as a standard of goodness. It completely undermined the authority of the Christian church. And now Christianity will die as a consequence.

The fact is that it isn't the priesthood in and of itself that caused the scandal, rather the men that joined the priesthood most likely were disturbed PRIOR TO becoming priests, and sought a place of 'refuge' as to avoid questions as to why they weren't marrying, etc. The priesthood at one time in history, seemed like a vocation that many disturbed men went into, to hide their sexual problems. I believe that men seeking to join the priesthood nowadays, must undergo a psychological evalation, prior to entering the seminary. It's tragically sad that so many children were abused by priests, whom they trusted at one point.

If you ever get a chance to watch the movie...''Our Fathers,'' it is a really chilling account of what happened in the Catholic Diocese of Boston. (relating to the priest sex scandals)

 

[Billy T]

I'm inclined to favor evolutionary ethics myself. It isn't free of its own philosophical problems though.

But it's basically irrelevant to Plato's 'Euthyphro' problem, which concerns divine-command ethics. http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil383/euthyphro.htm

Thanks for the link, which states problem as: The Euthyphro Question: “Is an action wrong because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong?”

I.e. until god is shown to exist, this it a hypothetical problem and I tend to have little interest in hypothetical problems, like:
What would be human food needs if they had green photo-synthesizing skin and lived nude in the tropics?

That question can be answered with some certainty, but the Euthyphro is not answerable - People can hold either POV equally well.

 

[wynn]

I would hope so, but think for my post to reflect that, the first word (If ) must be removed.

I'm not saying you're a Christian or proposing or defending the mainstream Christian view.

What you say, the scenario you introduce with the "If" is just so Christian.

 

[wynn]

The objection is that divine-command ethics appears to reduce determinations of good and evil to essentially random expressions of will. It's like flipping a coin or rolling dice.

If good and evil are merely expressions of will, then it doesn't seem to matter whether that person is Adolph Hitler or Yahweh on his mountaintop. The 'Euthyphro' objection still seems to be applicable either way.

The individual doing the willing either has some reason or justification for his/her expression of will, or else he/she doesn't.

If there is some sound reason for choosing A rather than B, then that would be what justifies the identification of A as good. It wouldn't be good merely because it was willed.

If no reason or justification exists for choosing A rather than B, then willing A instead of B would appear to be an arbitrary and random act.

I have already addressed all these objections.

Again, like Plato or JamesR, you seem to be assuming God to be some abstract, powerful force, who is probably set against humans, while humans are beings that are dependent, but not related to this "God."
A god that fits the objections is a god like Zeus, or Thor.
The Euthyphro Question typically apllies in such a conception where the world is deemed to preceed god; where first, there exists the world, and then god comes into existence. Such as the old Greeks had it or Mormons do. However, iIn all the major theisms, God is the First Being, and God makes the world.

Again, I have already addressed all these objections in the discussion with James R earlier.

 

[wynn]

There's nothing ''new'' in what I'm saying, it can all be coroberrated in the scripture.

It's new for the OP, and for anyone in a similar position like herself.

And we're talking in this thread to specific people here, with all their specific needs, interests and concerns, not in general.

In a world where theists feel personally responsible for changing other people's minds, miracles can be seen as a tool, sometimes a necessity.

That doesn't make any sense.

Uh.

I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding theists.

I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding atheists.

I was offering some insight into the workings of the minds of those people who are dead-set on converting others.

Apparently, you do not have the experience of actually being physically assaulted by a theist on the grounds that you "don't believe in God." Ask some of the older members here - they've been beaten by their parents, relatives or other important people in their lives, in the name of God, to "become believers."
Such people who try to instill belief in God in others, even by force, sometimes have the idea, and verbalize it, "Only a miracle can save you, only a miracle can finally get you see the truth that Jesus is the only path to salvation!"

Scared of confidence?
That's a new one.

Oh Christ.
Have you never played any sport, never been into politics, never been among people?
Displays of confidence are one of the main ways in the effort to intimidate and overthrow one's opponents.
Why else do you think that, say, in martial arts, there's so much screaming, yelling, prancing and such??

A display of confidence can be experienced as intimidating even if it is not intended to intimidate.

 

[wynn]

Thanks for the link, which states problem as: The Euthyphro Question: “Is an action wrong because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong?”

I.e. until god is shown to exist, this it a hypothetical problem and I tend to have little interest in hypothetical problems, like:
What would be human food needs if they had green photo-synthesizing skin and lived nude in the tropics?

That question can be answered with some certainty, but the Euthyphro is not answerable - People can hold either POV equally well.

A problem can be clarified by first looking into the definitions of terms used in the formulation of the problem.

The Euthyphro Question typically apllies when by "God," it is actually meant "demigod," like Zeus.

Compare:
“Is an action wrong because God forbids it or does God forbid it because it is wrong?”
“Is an action wrong because the president of the US forbids it or does the president of the US forbid it because it is wrong?”

But it is contradictory to think this applies to God, with the capital G, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, given that God is the one traditionally credited/defined as the One who set all the terms to begin with.

I've already addressed all this earlier in this thread.

 

[wynn]

I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding theists.

And I have no "hang-ups regarding theists".

I just know, from personal experience and from others, what ugly things people are capable of doing "in the name of God."

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

There's nothing ''new'' in what I'm saying, it can all be coroberrated in the scripture.

It's new for the OP, and for anyone in a similar position like herself.

And we're talking in this thread to specific people here, with all their specific needs, interests and concerns, not in general.

This was covered to some degree in another thread, it should not be new to anybody who reads the Bible and believes in God.

The gospel of Jesus is exactly about that, and in Genesis where God makes the body of a man, then breathes life into it, is about that. What to speak of other scriptures.

If it is an entirely new concept, then it begs the question as to whether or not she believes in God, or a concept of God made up by people who don't believe in God, because they don't know who and what God is.

There is a word which describes this... ''agnostic''.
IOW, it's written into the programe that God is not knowable.
It's written into the programe ''only belief in Jesus will get you to heaven.
It's written into the programe ''all other scriptures are works of the devil''. There's so much more, it demands another thread.

To summerize: Mainstream Christianity is more about the religion of Christianity, than the will of God through His son Jesus.

I can't help thinking this is coming from your own hang-ups regarding atheists.

I don't have hang-ups, period.

I was offering some insight into the workings of the minds of those people who are dead-set on converting others.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about theism.

Apparently, you do not have the experience of actually being physically assaulted by a theist on the grounds that you "don't believe in God." Ask some of the older members here - they've been beaten by their parents, relatives or other important people in their lives, in the name of God, to "become believers."

I used to get a clout if I didn't close the front gate behind me, if I didn't say thank you when given something, or if I didn't reply to someone who said good morning...

Let's talk about theism.

Such people who try to instill belief in God in others, even by force, sometimes have the idea, and verbalize it, "Only a miracle can save you, only a miracle can finally get you see the truth that Jesus is the only path to salvation!"

Don't forget the brutality that was carried out by atheists on theists very recently, because they were theist. It was far far worse than any war, or encounter in history.
What is truly remarkable is the short space of time this brutality took place in.


I'd prefer to take a slap for not being a Christian, than to live under those regimes.

Oh Christ.
Have you never played any sport, never been into politics, never been among people?
Displays of confidence are one of the main ways in the effort to intimidate and overthrow one's opponents.
Why else do you think that, say, in martial arts, there's so much screaming, yelling, prancing and such??

This is neither sport, politics, or martial arts. This is a discussion for crissakes!
If you intend on saying things to someone, about them (theist), and regardless of what they say, you hang on to your ideology, then expect to be bombarded with confident statements about the crap that is being spewed.

A display of confidence can be experienced as intimidating even if it is not intended to intimidate.

That is something the reciever has to contend with. If I'm in combat with someone who is confident, then I can cowtow, or I can be just as confident. It's up to me.

jan.