Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Seattle]

Wow, what a great post!
Interesting you say there is no connection between God and love. I've often wondered this...why do we attach humanity to a god? This isn't to say God is "hate" certainly. But if a god exists, maybe there is little more than a moral indifference to humanity.

Welcome to the site, btw.

Thanks (for the welcome). I think it just goes to show that God is made up. Man made God. He isn't going to make up something that doesn't care about him

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes.
What do you think?

jan.

I have never thought about it, so I don't know, but some animal recognize themselves and others don't.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have never thought about it, so I don't know, but some animal recognize themselves and others don't.

By 'self', I mean the part that is you, the observer of everything you experience.

jan.

 

[Robittybob1]

Thanks (for the welcome). I think it just goes to show that God is made up. Man made God. He isn't going to make up something that doesn't care about him

What about something more dramatic than that. The only reason God doesn't destroy this place is because a handful of the creatures here actually care about Him.

 

[Mazulu]

Thanks (for the welcome). I think it just goes to show that God is made up. Man made God. He isn't going to make up something that doesn't care about him

Is that so? So where did the big bang singularity come from?

Religion brings solace and comfort to many. But there are cruel and evil people who don't want this to happen.

 

[Robittybob1]

By 'self', I mean the part that is you, the observer of everything you experience.

jan.

Animals must also have a self too. Dogs do - I want this bone all to myself, Grrr.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Animals must also have a self too. Dogs do - I want this bone all to myself, Grrr.

I believe they do.

But why are you running away from the discussion?

You should listen to the song I posted in your thread. While the choice was not aimed at you personally, I believe the chorus
could get you thinking.

But it would be interesting if you considered what I'm trying to say. Don't you think?

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Admit that some parts of reality are not physical/material. Admit that you were wrong.

You haven't shown that there are some parts of reality that are immaterial. All you've done is make claims and act like we're all just supposed to agree with you.

 

[Balerion]

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.



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



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.



In other words, the layman gets an education.




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

Just in case Jan forgot.

 

[Mazulu]

You haven't shown that there are some parts of reality that are immaterial. All you've done is make claims and act like we're all just supposed to agree with you.

Where are the gravitons that are supposed to make gravity operate and make space-time geometry? Where are they? Are they immaterial? I can't touch space-time or take some and put it in a jar. It is immaterial, aetherial, invisible/undetectable. Don't play dumb.

 

[lightgigantic]

@ 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.

on the contrary, if one thinks religiosity finds no higher application than mere altruism (which even in its most laudable cannot escape that the generosity etc applies to scenarios that will quickly cease to exist and hence not so much as move a pinch in solving the ultimate issues of material existence) , one doesn't understand religion.

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

relegating it's scope of action to mere belief bereft of reference to an objective universe is to eradicate it!!

 

[wegs]

I read an article recently about "consciousness." This is a "real" attribute ... but science wrestles with how to explain "what" it is, where does it "come from," and was this part of evolution? I imagine it was, relating to the latter. Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware.

But my point is...if non believers wish to debunk spiritualists, a weak argument would be to say that everything must be tangible and verifiable to be considered part of science.

Consciousness is a small elephant, but an elephant in the room, just the same.

Thoughts?

 

[wegs]

on the contrary, if one thinks religiosity finds no higher application than mere altruism (which even in its most laudable cannot escape that the generosity etc applies to scenarios that will quickly cease to exist and hence not so much as move a pinch in solving the ultimate issues of material existence) , one doesn't understand religion.

No, I get your point totally. In its purest form, however, it is safest to say that the depths of depravity or the heights of generosity...can be seen in both the atheist AND the theist, on any given day based on a host of particulars having nothing to do with the camp they find themselves in. Now, that is more of my point.

relegating it's scope of action to mere belief bereft of reference to an objective universe is to eradicate it!!

!! Are you yelling?

If people don't share your theist beliefs, then your beliefs while objective truths to you, will be "merely" subjective to an atheist/agnostic.

 

[lightgigantic]

I've noticed that in these arguments the religious person (whether they know it or not) is generally insincere with their arguments.

This is because their mind isn't really open to change regardless of how the argument goes so they are just trying to win a debating point.

Meh
As if atheism magically defaults to a broad world view ...

For example, when they say that believing in God and atheism are both just differing beliefs. They know that not believing in something isn't just a different belief but they make this argument anyway.

If they were having a serious argument with their kids (about something important) they wouldn't use such insincere logic. Therefore they don't really believe most of their arguments.

perhaps that would be a relevant is atheists never ventured their ideas beyond that of their brethren (atheistic) rocks and furniture (which also happen to embody an absence of belief) that would be valid.

Instead we see hosts of atheists being practically unable to keep their mouths shut when the moment the mere suggestion of social convention/institution (or "how we really should organize society's ideas and values") comes to the fore

My second point is this. Religious people frequently make the argument that not everything is material, something that we can touch and see and therefore they are implying that religion or God is the same and are just as real.

The examples are generally God and love. Everyone knows, believes, feels love. They say they experience God in the same way and therefore God is just as real.

Again, this is just a gimmick however. Comparing God and love is comparing apples and oranges. There is no connection.

I can guarantee the most anal of advocates of reductionist world views operate on a day to day basis that violates this supposedly ultimate take of theirs on world views.

When you say "hello" to someone, what materially verifiable attribute are you saying it too?
(their eyebrows, the mole on their chin, their big toe?)

Or why do you accept certain people as your genealogical parents despite a complete absence of material verification (I mean its not like you witnessed your conception)

People believe in God and then sometimes later in life they no longer believe in God. At one point they may claim to see him and talk to him and say that he is just as real (to them) as love.

Later they may no longer be a believer. They still believe in love however. No one becomes a non-believer in love.

The do however become non-believers in who they accept as objects of love.
in fact there is an entire branch of law that thrives on this popular vacillation of belief ...

Even among fairly hard core believers they say that they have doubts and that it's even healthy to have doubts. They say they want "thinking" believers and it only makes them stronger.

However, there are no people who sometimes "have doubts" regarding love.

lol

I guess we always had a hunch that those billions of love songs that touch on the theme of doubt were a crock ..

It's just not an honest comparison and that's my point. They aren't really being open and they aren't trying to be intellectually honest in these debates.

given that you are completely failing to address the doubt of who/what exists in the role of god and who/what exists in the name of love, it appears you need to bring the general points of your arguments closer to home.

Hell, even when (intelligent) atheists retreat from hard atheism ("god" doesn't exist) with the alacrity of migrating birds to the safer haven of soft atheism (God might exist, but i am reserving my definite judgement in lieu of adequate evidence) its an issue of doubt revolving about who/what god is.

The only people who would do that are people who actually aren't sure and are having some cognitive dissonance regarding religion (as most anyone would have to have on such a subject unless they were totally delusional).

For a wonderful example of the cognitive dissonance and delusion of atheists, one simply has to ask why reject a claim about reality on the strength of a world view they cannot even abide by themselves.
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

No, I get your point totally. In its purest form, however, it is safest to say that the depths of depravity or the heights of generosity...can be seen in both the atheist AND the theist, on any given day based on a host of particulars having nothing to do with the camp they find themselves in. Now, that is more of my point.

On the contrary, any discussion on the merits of religion that fails to acknowledge the grander scope of problems intrinsic to material existence is like a discussion on rocket science technology that doesn't go beyond the types of sneakers the major scientists in the field are wearing

!! Are you yelling?

!! Are you !!

Generally !!! is more a sign of exasperation whereas bold and or red type face and/or CAPSLOCK is the internet equivalent of yelling

If people don't share your theist beliefs, then your beliefs while objective truths to you, will be "merely" subjective to an atheist/agnostic.

"objective truths to you" is an oxymoron

 

[Mazulu]

I read an article recently about "consciousness." This is a "real" attribute ... but science wrestles with how to explain "what" it is, where does it "come from," and was this part of evolution? I imagine it was, relating to the latter. Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware.

But my point is...if non believers wish to debunk spiritualists, a weak argument would be to say that everything must be tangible and verifiable to be considered part of science.

Consciousness is a small elephant, but an elephant in the room, just the same.

Thoughts?

It's not enough to duplicate consciousness with a computer program. People like dmoe and Q could be replaced by a computer, and nobody would know the difference. They would fail the Turing test.

 

[Balerion]

Where are the gravitons that are supposed to make gravity operate and make space-time geometry? Where are they? Are they immaterial? I can't touch space-time or take some and put it in a jar. It is immaterial, aetherial, invisible/undetectable. Don't play dumb.

Where are bacteria? Can you see them, touch them?

You're scientifically illiterate, Mazulu, and bordering on stupid. Think before you post.

 

[wegs]

On the contrary, any discussion on the merits of religion that fails to acknowledge

Wooooah...no one is "failing to acknowledge"

the grander scope of problems intrinsic to material existence is like a discussion on rocket science technology that doesn't go beyond the types of sneakers the major scientists in the field are wearing

Har har

You state this as if you believe an atheist/agnostic isn't looking at the bigger picture...just. like. you.

!! Are you !!

lol

Generally !!! is more a sign of exasperation whereas bold and or red type face and/or CAPSLOCK is the internet equivalent of yelling

Ah! I always thought caps lock was YELLING but believed a red font to indicate sarcasm.

"objective truths to you" is an oxymoron

Ditto haha

 

[Balerion]

Meh
As if atheism magically defaults to a broad world view ...

He didn't say that. Address the point being made, not some straw man you've built in its place.

perhaps that would be a relevant is atheists never ventured their ideas beyond that of their brethren (atheistic) rocks and furniture (which also happen to embody an absence of belief) that would be valid.

Instead we see hosts of atheists being practically unable to keep their mouths shut when the moment the mere suggestion of social convention/institution (or "how we really should organize society's ideas and values") comes to the fore

So being an atheist means one can't have an opinion of how society should function? They can't have values or ideals?

You're going to have to explain that one. I mean, you won't, obviously, but you should.

I can guarantee the most anal of advocates of reductionist world views operate on a day to day basis that violates this supposedly ultimate take of theirs on world views.

Everyone does. That's because people's typical, day-to-day behavior, their quirks and their unconscious routines, are dictated by societal influences which may or may not be (and usually aren't, since most of us live in secular societies) in line with a particular worldview. For instance, I always get a bit of a karmic buzz when I do something bad. Not because I believe in karma, but because I was raised in a society that holds to axioms such as "What goes around comes around," and "You get what you deserve."

And it goes for simpler things, too. I say "God bless you," when someone sneezes. Well, I stopped saying the "God" part early in my adulthood, but I still say "bless you," which amounts to the same thing. It's a courtesy.

I know for a fact there are Christians who curse with Jesus' name, and conservative Muslims who gets sloppy drunk. There are atheists who wear the same socks every day during their favorite team's winning streaks, and agnostics who pray when they're really in a pinch. Not adhering absolutely to one's worldview means nothing in terms of the validity of those beliefs, and it's ridiculous to suggest it does. Especially since I'm sure you violate the rules of whatever splinter faction you belong to but are too ashamed to admit.

When you say "hello" to someone, what materially verifiable attribute are you saying it too?

The person. The collection of matter standing in front of you. Just because we're reducible to atoms doesn't mean that a collection of atoms in the form of a human being has no value. What kind of psychopathy is required to even suggest such a thing?

Or why do you accept certain people as your genealogical parents despite a complete absence of material verification (I mean its not like you witnessed your conception)

That seems to be a non-sequitur. What point are you attempting to make with this exact example?

 

[gmilam]

I read an article recently about "consciousness." This is a "real" attribute ... but science wrestles with how to explain "what" it is, where does it "come from," and was this part of evolution? I imagine it was, relating to the latter. Consciousness is merely the ability to be aware.

My observation that other animals (i.e. cats, dogs, apes, squirrels) appear to be conscious tells me that it is a part of evolution. My other observation that various chemicals (i.e. mind altering substances and other drugs) can have such a profound and predictable effect on the mental processes/consciousness convinces me that it is based in the physical/chemical processes of the brain. Honestly, both of these seem obvious to me.