Any atheists here who were once believers?

[wegs]

"... he wants... "
God lacks for nothing, he never wants anything.
We want something, so we were challenged, to keep our word, and to forgive others, and to look after our neighbours. If we could we might get the same from him. Something like that anyway.
So you are right, honouring him is honouring your neighbours. But even then no one has the financial wealth to solve the world's issues.

So how much humanitarian work do you have to do?

Mother Teresa often was known for saying to do that which is in front of you, with great love.

One doesn't need to believe or worship a Diety to do that, but she came to mind just now.
IOW, if we wait until we have enough time money or treasure to help those around us, we may miss the everyday opportunities.

And...treating those in our present lives with love is just as important. If those who know us don't know we love them, what good will helping a stranger do?

Just my opinion.

 

[Mazulu]

Hey Mazulu;

My bf read this (he's been skimming the thread when he can) and he wanted me to ask you what you meant by it.
He specifically is wondering what you meant by 'gets the job done?'

TIA.

I know a thing or two about human nature. I still want a hyper-drive, but I think that manipulating the space-time continuum is going to be too energetically costly. So I think we should look for alternate means, like altering the speed of light locally, making it larger. I am also defending my beliefs in Spiritualism. Trying to support the existence of Spiritualism and/or the ability to travel FTL, both hypothesis make significant statements about the cosmos, about nature. I am using God (of the gaps) as a stick to push the conversation where I want it to go. There was a time when science was unwilling to even consider that anything existed before the big bang, anything at all. But I need them to go down that road, even if I have to push them with God of the gaps.

 

[lightgigantic]

Because I started thinking of Muslim radicals and the Inquisition. We don't want that to happen again.

not sure how this draws a connection between with eloquent discussion

 

[(Q)]

I am using God (of the gaps) as a stick to push the conversation where I want it to go. There was a time when science was unwilling to even consider that anything existed before the big bang, anything at all. But I need them to go down that road, even if I have to push them with God of the gaps.

Yes, you will fight with everyone regardless of how ridiculous and deluded your beliefs, that is why your religion causes so much conflict in the world.

Do you care? Evidently not.

 

[wegs]

I know a thing or two about human nature. I still want a hyper-drive, but I think that manipulating the space-time continuum is going to be too energetically costly. So I think we should look for alternate means, like altering the speed of light locally, making it larger. I am also defending my beliefs in Spiritualism. Trying to support the existence of Spiritualism and/or the ability to travel FTL, both hypothesis make significant statements about the cosmos, about nature. I am using God (of the gaps) as a stick to push the conversation where I want it to go. There was a time when science was unwilling to even consider that anything existed before the big bang, anything at all. But I need them to go down that road, even if I have to push them with God of the gaps.

Interesting.
Let's say science accepts your "God of the gaps" theory...how would that logically translate into a scientific explanation?
If science can't prove spirituality it will reject it.
Learning about how u think a bit...I imagine you thinking right now...well, science would be nothing without the "God of the gaps."

 

[lightgigantic]

I think because the concept of a god or God varies from person to person, an idea of him for all or even a majority, would never be able to stand on its own merit.

The fact that we can quite easily talk of schools of religious discipline and thought tends to suggest otherwise

Societies in the past, have conformed to religion...some societies today in other parts of the world restrict certain religions from being practiced or risk the fear of death. While this is extreme, it shows how religion can be a tool and nothing more, for man to control his surroundings.

You can take absolutely any authority of a social institution (eg parents, police, teachers, politicians, doctors, lawyers, CEO's, industrial magnates etc etc) and provide numerous examples of how they have abused their position or exercised their powers neglectfully.

If one wants to follow that this is adequate grounds to eradicate the said social institutions, then you are left with a society without parents, education, justice, commerce, health care and organization from the nation to the municipal.
In short you would have a society built on mistrust ... which isn't likely to go anywhere

It isn't a good idea for religion to exert control in society. It should be allowed to be practiced freely, per individual.

If you are talking about such "freedom" incorporating the ideological disbandment of all and any forms of religion you practically destroy any individuals capacity to navigate their religious lives

 

[Robittybob1]

Mother Teresa often was known for saying to do that which is in front of you, with great love.

One doesn't need to believe or worship a Diety to do that, but she came to mind just now.
IOW, if we wait until we have enough time money or treasure to help those around us, we may miss the everyday opportunities.

And...treating those in our present lives with love is just as important. If those who know us don't know we love them, what good will helping a stranger do?

Just my opinion.

But that was what Jesus taught us. There was no special reward for helping those we love for even the wicked do that, but go out and help someone who is most unlikely to repay you in any way, and expect no repayment in kind from them.

 

[lightgigantic]

It allows the believers the right to believe in idiocy without the government encroaching while making sure that idiocy does not encroach on the government.

ideas that religion should not influence workings on the governmental level is touching on an issue of social convention.
Try again.
:shrug:

 

[wegs]

@ lightgigantic;

I will come back to your points later for I'm on a phone and multi quoting is an arduous task using it.

So my question is this...do you not know any atheists who are good people who might give you their shirts off their backs, requiring nothing in return? Who are moral people? I know many. This tells me that religion isn't "required" to control anyone or any society. Not even loosely.

I'm not saying eradicate it...I'm saying it's only as useful of a mechanism as you believe it to be.

 

[Mazulu]

Interesting.
Let's say science accepts your "God of the gaps" theory...how would that logically translate into a scientific explanation?
If science can't prove spirituality it will reject it.
Learning about how u think a bit...I imagine you thinking right now...well, science would be nothing without the "God of the gaps."

Well, if a space-time has mechanisms that enforce physics constants, we can potentially gain access to those mechanisms, and change them, make them larger so that we can build a hyper-drive. But what if no mechanisms exist? What if the space-time continuum has immutable laws and constants that cannot be changed or even damaged or destroyed by entropy? Well then I can argue that the universe effectively has an immortal soul. Since we don't know where the big bang came from, but we expect its source to output things of a similar nature, then what about other immortal things? Like souls? In effect, a soul would have certain immutable characteristics that could not be changed, ever. A soul could change over the course of many incarnations, allowing the soul to learn new things and develop new habits and behaviors, but some parts of the soul (equivalent to laws of nature and physics constants) would be permanent and fixed.

If I don't beat these dumb oafs over the head with the God of the gaps, they won't go where I want them to go. I have them off balance at the moment. They are unwilling to admit that some parts of reality are invisible/undetectable. Some parts of reality are non-material.

Ideally, some of the smart people here might start to wonder just how much of reality is invisible and unmeasurable to us. From there, Spiritualism is just down the street. If there are lots of invisible/undetectable scientific phenomena, then why can't there be spirits?

I don't need a testable hypothesis. I just need to undermine dogmatic scientism. Then I win!

 

[(Q)]

ideas that religion should not influence workings on the governmental level is touching on an issue of social convention.
Try again.
:shrug:

What social convention? Explain.

 

[(Q)]

Well, if a space-time has mechanisms that enforce physics constants, we can potentially gain access to those mechanisms, and change them, make them larger so that we can build a hyper-drive. But what if no mechanisms exist? What if the space-time continuum has immutable laws and constants that cannot be changed or even damaged or destroyed by entropy? Well then I can argue that the universe effectively has an immortal soul. Since we don't know where the big bang came from, but we expect its source to output things of a similar nature, then what about other immortal things? Like souls? In effect, a soul would have certain immutable characteristics that could not be changed, ever. A soul could change over the course of many incarnations, allowing the soul to learn new things and develop new habits and behaviors, but some parts of the soul (equivalent to laws of nature and physics constants) would be permanent and fixed.

If I don't beat these dumb oafs over the head with the God of the gaps, they won't go where I want them to go. I have them off balance at the moment. They are unwilling to admit that some parts of reality are invisible/undetectable. Some parts of reality are non-material.

Ideally, some of the smart people here might start to wonder just how much of reality is invisible and unmeasurable to us. From there, Spiritualism is just down the street. If there are lots of invisible/undetectable scientific phenomena, then why can't there be spirits?

I don't need a testable hypothesis. I just need to undermine dogmatic scientism. Then I win!

Wow, wash, rinse, repeat. You repeat the same garbage over and over and then claim you win. Are you ten years old?

 

[Balerion]

I look at both sides.

Answer the question, Jan. What sources do you get your information from? So far, you've only linked to Creationist videos and websites, and I've only ever seen you scoff at scientific sources.

Knowing how an airplane flies is not necessary to claim to know some physics.

Of course not, but do you think it would be possible to debunk physics without knowing how an airplane flies?

Everybody has observed something, no matter how insignificant. For example everybody experiences gravity even if they don't know it as gravity.

Just like everyone has evolved, even if they don't know it. You're missing the point. For all you know, it's magnetism that keeps your feet on the ground. The only way you could possibly make an informed statement as to what's actually holding you down is to know the science. The layman (it's layman, not leyman) has no basis by which to determine what's going on.

So at some level a physicist will be able to elaborate some scientific aspects of the idea to a leyman, and the leyman will be able to increase his knowledge based on what he already knows.

In other words, the layman gets an education.

It obviously wouldn't be legitimate to you, but it may be to someone else.


jan.

I don't know what you're referring to here. And stop signing your posts.

 

[gmilam]

Well, if a space-time has mechanisms that enforce physics constants, we can potentially gain access to those mechanisms, and change them, make them larger so that we can build a hyper-drive. But what if no mechanisms exist? What if the space-time continuum has immutable laws and constants that cannot be changed or even damaged or destroyed by entropy? Well then I can argue that the universe effectively has an immortal soul. Since we don't know where the big bang came from, but we expect its source to output things of a similar nature, then what about other immortal things? Like souls? In effect, a soul would have certain immutable characteristics that could not be changed, ever. A soul could change over the course of many incarnations, allowing the soul to learn new things and develop new habits and behaviors, but some parts of the soul (equivalent to laws of nature and physics constants) would be permanent and fixed.

If I don't beat these dumb oafs over the head with the God of the gaps, they won't go where I want them to go. I have them off balance at the moment. They are unwilling to admit that some parts of reality are invisible/undetectable. Some parts of reality are non-material.

Ideally, some of the smart people here might start to wonder just how much of reality is invisible and unmeasurable to us. From there, Spiritualism is just down the street. If there are lots of invisible/undetectable scientific phenomena, then why can't there be spirits?

I don't need a testable hypothesis. I just need to undermine dogmatic scientism. Then I win!

Moron.

 

[Mazulu]

Moron.

Ad homimen attacks are proof that you lose.

 

[Mazulu]

Baleron! This is me crushing your belief in materialism! Some parts of reality are non physical, non material, spiritual.

 

[Robittybob1]

@ lightgigantic;

I will come back to your points later for I'm on a phone and multi quoting is an arduous task using it.

So my question is this...do you not know any atheists who are good people who might give you their shirts off their backs, requiring nothing in return? Who are moral people? I know many. This tells me that religion isn't "required" to control anyone or any society. Not even loosely.

I'm not saying eradicate it...I'm saying it's only as useful of a mechanism as you believe it to be.

Look what happens in places like Somalia, do you think there would be any control over society if we only knew lawlessness? How would you regain control?

 

[wegs]

Woooooahhhh
What? Lol

Atheism isn't synonymous with "lawlessness."

Most. Outrageous. Claim. Everrrr.

 

[Robittybob1]

Woooooahhhh
What? Lol

Atheism isn't synonymous with "lawlessness."

Most. Outrageous. Claim. Everrrr.

Where did that come from? Somalia? are they atheists?

 

[wegs]

Someone needs to brush up on some history...early church theists were quite...um "lawless." Lotsa blood shed "defending" religion throughout the ages.

Atheism is interested in law and order, but from a secular view that is best for humanity as a whole. (Q) made a comment earlier about "secularism" being a concept that wouldn't cause social control. (For the most part) that is when lightgigantic mentioned that eradicating religion would also be tantamount to social control.

To which, I agree. To which I said, religion should be practiced freely, per individual.