Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Robittybob1]

On the contrary, your ideas of an impersonal universe propped up by atheistic ideology are irrelevant to the world around us.
:shrug:

I see this as the problem: for if every prophet is ultimately labeled a "nutter" we are just left with "an impersonal universe propped up by atheistic ideology".
It is hard for you guys to read the Beautiful Christian Song thread and really believe the stories in there, but they are as powerful as any story in the Bible and still are confirm-able, if needed, as they are stories in the world around us.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@Robbity
I hope you are praying for Team Oracle.
Love your enemies, remember.

 

[Robittybob1]

@Robbity
I hope you are praying for Team Oracle.
Love your enemies, remember.

Did you ever think it would get this close? What a drama! I am thinking, I wonder if I'll get a premonition about it through the night and if I do I will put it on the thread when I arrive at work in the morning, one hour before the race.
I think it would be wrong of me to wish Oracle bad luck, "so let the best team win". Most people here accept Oracle is the better team, but on the day who knows?

 

[wynn]

Hmmm...so, what is a "personal" universe?

The one that you want and speak favorably of, but can't stand when others do the same ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Robittybob1,

We will never agree.

I think I can live with that.

I prefer wegs' idea to attempt to rewrite Genesis and the NT. It is obviously out of date.

You do realize you're proving me right don't you? Darwinian evolution forces you to create God in your image, which is why one is a theist by title only (a more trendy way of putting it), when D.E. is on the scene.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Or, it means the Bible is wrong and should be rejected as anything other than myth and superstition. Evolution is a fact.

The idea of one kind of animal changing into a completely different kind, is a theory, hence the theory of evolution. But it doesn't matter if one prefers darwinian ideas, it should not prevent one from reading the scripture as it is, instead of designing it to fit in with the latest fashions.
Perpetually doing that, despite being shown to be incorrect, means one is concealing something.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... But it doesn't matter if one prefers darwinian ideas, it should not prevent one from reading the scripture as it is, ...

Reading rarely hurts, but post 493 gives 23 choices of mutually contradictory scripture to read. How to chose?

That is the fundamental problem with religious beliefs - too many choices and no way to test which is correct POV.
Science is different. If some one tells something false, as most of the 23 scriptures do, I can test it and learn it is false.

Actually only 22 are listed in post 493, but I added: "None of the above" as quite possibly all 22 are false.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The idea of one kind of animal changing into a completely different kind, is a theory, hence the theory of evolution.

As I've mentioned many times before, scientists are crappy communicators, especially with laymen. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of relativity. The theory of plate tectonics. The theory of evolution. All have mountains of evidence. In the case of evolution it actually has evidence gathered independently from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. This is one of the most solid theories that has ever been discovered. The odds of it ever being falsified are of the same order of magnitude as all the atoms in your chair moving in the same direction so it rises off the floor.

[And of course the "crappy communicators" comment comes in when we hear scientists talking loosely about "String Theory," which is nothing but a clever hypothesis supported by no evidence except arm-waving. Universities have begun training a new generation of science writers to stand between these linguistically-challenged PhDs and the general public.]

The divine creation hypothesis has zero evidence. In fact, its supporters entreat us to cast aside our rationality and accept a hypothesis so remarkable that it automatically invokes the Rule of Laplace: "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect."

This is, literally, a no-brainer. People who believe in divine creation should have their heads examined to see if their brains are not fully developed. The rest of us learned to laugh at fairytales like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when we were six or seven years old.

But it doesn't matter if one prefers darwinian ideas, it should not prevent one from reading the scripture as it is, instead of designing it to fit in with the latest fashions.

Indeed. The leaders of all the major Christian sects (including the Pope) have conceded that virtually all of the fables in the Bible are metaphors--which, as every educated person knows, does not diminish their power in the slightest.

Especially the divine creation: Jesuit universities (and mainline Protestant-affiliated universities) have been teaching evolution for decades, and now plate tectonics as well.

In other words: Get with the program!

 

[Billy T]

... In the case of evolution it actually has evidence gathered independently from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. This is one of the most solid theories that has ever been discovered. ...

Actually tested in three differnet ways. Experimental tests too.

Of the many, the one I like best was done in Brazil. Basically two types of fish lived below a water fall and none above. The bigger ones ate the smaller ones, so they had short lives, just long enough to lay a few eggs as they were tiny. The university experimenters transplanted some of the tiny ones above the water fall and in 10 years or so they evolved to be much bigger fish with sexual mature a year or so after their "below falls" life expectancy and laid many eggs. I.e. Darwinian selection in the new and different environment favored the later sexual maturity with many eggs laid over the fish with "quick lay a few eggs" genes as all competed for the food supply.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Reading rarely hurts, but post 493 gives 23 choices of mutually contradictory scripture to read. How to chose?

That is the fundamental problem with religious beliefs - too many choices and no way to test which is correct POV.
Science is different. If some one tells something false, as most of the 23 scriptures do, I can test it and learn it is false.

Actually only 22 are listed in post 493, but I added: "None of the above" as quite possibly all 22 are false.

Can you point to some of the contradictions about how to become God-conscious (the essential point of any scripture)?

jan.

 

[Billy T]

Can you point to some of the contradictions about how to become God-conscious (the essential point of any scripture)?

jan.

Hindus have no heaven, but re-incarnations for the after life. They have many gods but no heaven for any to live in, as did the ancient Greeks (Zeus lived high up in Mt. Olympus, when he was not transforming him self into a bull to rape Europa, etc. etc.) Use your brain: if there were no contradictions they would be the same religions.

In the earlier era, when many things were less well understood, God(s) were active on Earth making floods, earthquakes, good or bad harvests etc. Not the current Christian "heavenly father" doing essentially nothing on Earth. (Looking the other way while Hitler killed nearly 10 million or Asaid his 100,000+ currently when a simple "natural" heart attack could have saved millions.) Achilles was invincible except for one heel, that a god did not dip into the magic water. I forget their names, but there were many quasi-mortals with gods as their fathers. Back then it was important to be respectful, even adoring, of the gods you needed help from - now you do well, perhaps better being an atheist or at least an agnostic like me, not expecting any thing from god.

American Indians in the SW, believed one became "God conscious" in poorly ventilated under ground chambers with peyote smoking. - Quite like some moderners do but with LSD, etc. instead. The process of becoming "God conscious" is just like the process of becoming "Witch conscious" or "Leprecon conscious" or "Troll conscious"*- Get a young child and brain wash it to hold your beliefs. The only exception I know of is "Boogeyman conscious." Children don't need to be taught that. - They just know one is hiding under their bed.

* BTW, most trolls are small and like to do mean tricks, (Hide your keys, is a popular one.) but some look just like people, even pretty girls, but you can tell as they all have short tails.

Consider Fraggle: No one brainwashed him when young with any god belief. He did not even know anyone believed in god until going to school, but he may have believed there was a Boogeyman under his bed that materialized when the light was turned out. Boogeymen are "super gods" - self manifesting without any brain washing! Not one of the 22 religions listed in post 493 has such a powerful god as the boogeyman - they all require instruction as to what is "truth."

 

[Jan Ardena]

As I've mentioned many times before, scientists are crappy communicators, especially with laymen. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. The theory of relativity. The theory of plate tectonics. The theory of evolution. All have mountains of evidence. In the case of evolution it actually has evidence gathered independently from two different disciplines: paleontology and genetics. This is one of the most solid theories that has ever been discovered. The odds of it ever being falsified are of the same order of magnitude as all the atoms in your chair moving in the same direction so it rises off the floor.

[And of course the "crappy communicators" comment comes in when we hear scientists talking loosely about "String Theory," which is nothing but a clever hypothesis supported by no evidence except arm-waving. Universities have begun training a new generation of science writers to stand between these linguistically-challenged PhDs and the general public.]

The divine creation hypothesis has zero evidence. In fact, its supporters entreat us to cast aside our rationality and accept a hypothesis so remarkable that it automatically invokes the Rule of Laplace: "Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect."

This is, literally, a no-brainer. People who believe in divine creation should have their heads examined to see if their brains are not fully developed. The rest of us learned to laugh at fairytales like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy when we were six or seven years old.

Indeed. The leaders of all the major Christian sects (including the Pope) have conceded that virtually all of the fables in the Bible are metaphors--which, as every educated person knows, does not diminish their power in the slightest.

Especially the divine creation: Jesuit universities (and mainline Protestant-affiliated universities) have been teaching evolution for decades, and now plate tectonics as well.

In other words: Get with the program!

If darwinian evolution was a fact, we wouldn't be having this discussion, so in order to make it so, it has to be as convincing a fact to all the scientists and laymen, just like other established facts.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

1 Hindus have many gods and no heaven for any to live in - re-incarnations, as did the ancient Greeks (Zeus lived high up in Mt. Olympus, when he was not transforming him self into a bull to rape Eruopa, etc. etc.) Use your brain: if there were no contradictions they would be the same religions.

2 In the earlier era, when many things were less well understood, God(s) were active on Earth making floods, earthquakes, good or bad harvests etc. Not the current Christian "heavenly father" doing essentially nothing on Earth. Achilles was invincible except for one heel, that a god did not dip into the magic water.

3 American Indians in the SW, believed one became "God conscious" in poorly ventilated under ground chambers with peyote smoking. - Quite like some moderners do but with LSD, etc. instead.

1 Hindu's are a diverse set of people, who were called so due to their location in India. But let's go with it anyway.
Do you have any idea how these gods came about?

2 They never thought that these beings were the cause of natural phenomena, only that they were powerful enough to know how to manipulate it. That you don't accept anything other than what is acceptable in the mainstream is not my problem.

3 You do realize that when I capitalize ''God'', it means the supreme being, the origin of all manifestations, and the lower-case g's are demi-gods, the literal make-up of God's cosmic body.

American Indians believed in the Almighty Power, that is God, The Most High. Huh!
Can you post a link about that, because I can't find that information. Thanks.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

... Do you have any idea how these gods came about?...

Yes I told you in post 511. Perhaps offensively as I said by "brain washing" so I repeat how:
Adults, usually parents,* instruct their children what is the truth about gods. Not rarely and probably at least partially to rebel as Teenagers often do, during their late teenage years after contact with others whose parents gave different instruction, they may switch their belief to agree with some friend's. Dropping believe in God all together, usually occurs in college, if it is to. Muslims, Quakers, Pa. Dutch, etc. thus don't think higher education is desirable, especially not for women who will be instructing their children what to believe.

Again, AFAIK, only one god is self manifesting (to many children at least) - the Super God the Boogeyman. (you may need to read post 511 again as I think it was still being edited when you posted as most of your question were answered in the completed version.)

* Orthodox Jews normally get a professional to help - "Rabbi" means teacher but as others have noted, Being a religious Jew is more about "correct behaviors" than beliefs.

Interesting though, just occurred to me:
If high IQ, self replicating, robots do away with humans, there will be religious unity - all will be modified orthodox Jews - have behaviors completely specified, with no beliefs at all.

 

[geeser]

Even your belief in atheism is faith. Atheism is rooted in science

An atheist is nothing more then a person who does not believe in your claims of a god. the word atheist simply means without god. An atheist could have an interest in anything including science as could a theist.
Nothing more can be attached to the term atheist, it just means without god, nothing more. However how an atheist acts is an entirely different thing. To explain that I refer you to my post #261 I quote:

No you could not be more wrong.

The following definition of Atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).

"An Atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An Atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work for now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An Atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction, and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and enjoy it.

An Atheist believes that only in the knowledge of himself and the knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfilment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers; and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”

So to sum it up an atheist is a morally better person, than any theist could aspire to be. The atheist does good things simply because it is the right thing to do, and simply for the betterment of his fellow man.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yes I told you in post 511. Perhaps offensively as I said by "brain washing" so I repeat how:
Adults, usually parents,* instruct their children what is the truth about gods. Not rarely and probably at least partially to rebel as Teenagers often do, during their late teenage years after contact with others whose parents gave different instruction, they may switch their belief to agree with some friend's. Dropping believe in God all together, usually occurs in college, if it is too.

Again, AFAIK, only one god is self manifesting (to many children at least) - the Super God the Boogeyman.

* Orthodox Jews normally get a professional to help - "Rabbi" means teacher but as others have noted, Being a religious Jew is more about "correct behaviors" than beliefs.

You're right!
You are being offensive.

jan.

 

[Billy T]

You're right! You are being offensive. jan.

That was why I changed the WORDING, but not the stated facts, which probably offen too; truth often does (for those firmly holding false beliefs).

 

[(Q)]

Wrong! Religious belief is one of the most important and relavent things in the world. Just look at the numbers.

And, what is relevant and important? Nothing. There are no gods you can show us for any of those religions. None of those religions have offered anything of value to the world. They are all merely myths and superstitions. Irrelevant.

 

[(Q)]

On the contrary, your ideas of an impersonal universe propped up by atheistic ideology are irrelevant to the world around us.
:shrug:

Considering there's no such thing as an atheistic ideology, you're point is moot.

 

[lightgigantic]

And, what is relevant and important? Nothing. There are no gods you can show us for any of those religions. None of those religions have offered anything of value to the world. They are all merely myths and superstitions. Irrelevant.

obviously not a fan of architecture, music, literature, philosophy, art or food.