Any atheists here who were once believers?

[Robittybob1]

Social and personal realities are just mental maps within the neurons of our brain. I suppose that a spirit or soul also has a copy of those same maps. But generally, I'm looking at the physics of reality, and phenomena that is beyond today's accepted physics.

I guess I believe that a spirit or a Holy spirit can flow through the biochemistry of the brain and leave impressions on it. By impressions, I mean the proteins and the mechanisms involved with memories.

Well at least you are thinking how the spirit interacts with biological. I like the thought.

 

[Robittybob1]

Reality is nothing more than the world or state of things as they really exist. The spirit world, "God," etc...doesn't really exist in terms of objective reality. To some who are religious or spiritual like yourself, you feel God is a reality. You just feel it, but it isn't reality in terms of existing for others to see. You believing in something alone, doesn't make it a reality.

Just my pennies worth.

This is your stake in the ground is it?

 

[Mazulu]

You athiests have a BIG problem

Steven Hawkins said that God was not needed to create the universe. But I think he inadvertently led you all down the wrong path. Cosmologists don't know how the universe was created. That is a HUGE problem for atheists. You have all rejected my explanation of a spiritual realm of which the big bang was a natural event. So that just leaves the act of creation to GOD. Now I have been arguing that God is some creative power in the cosmos, but you have all poo poo'ed that idea. So if you reject my idea, then that just leads you back to the God of the Bible. You can complain all you like that such a bronze age God is a tyrant, even cruel. But nobody ever said that God couldn't be those things. I understand Christianity to argue that whatever God says is right, is right. If you disagree with God, well, ...

 

[Mazulu]

Well at least you are thinking how the spirit interacts with biological. I like the thought.

Thank you Robittybob1. The idea is that the wave-function phenomena of the neurons is what directly interfaces with the spirit, the soul.

 

[Balerion]

Steven Hawkins said that God was not needed to create the universe.

It's Stephen, and I've never heard him once say God was not needed. Indeed, he thinks the question of what came before the Big Bang is nonsensical, like asking what's south of the south pole.

Cosmologists don't know how the universe was created. That is a HUGE problem for atheists.

It's not a problem for me. I don't claim to know, and my atheism is not reliant on there being an explanation.

You have all rejected my explanation of a spiritual realm of which the big bang was a natural event.

Because it's not an explanation at all. You're an uneducated crank who has said what we don't know is attributable to magic. This gives us no better understand of the universe than knowing nothing at all, and in fact infers that we should stop looking. And if history is any guide, science will eventually come up with a good explanation, and a far better one than "Magic happens."

So that just leaves the act of creation to GOD.

Not even close. There are countless possible explanations for how the universe came about. Invoking God is a ploy of the weak-minded.

Now I have been arguing that God is some creative power in the cosmos, but you have all poo poo'ed that idea.

Partly because you haven't been arguing it at all; you've simply been claiming it. There is a difference, though you're obviously not smart enough to know.

So if you reject my idea, then that just leads you back to the God of the Bible.

How do you figure? There are plenty of other religious texts in existence, and plenty of gods that came before the god of the Jews. Why settle on that particular one? Why settle on any of them? What's your criteria, other than stupidity?

 

[Mazulu]

Baleron,

And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Is your name written in the book of life?

 

[Balerion]

Mazulu,

I just whooped your ass!

Can I get a hell yeah?

 

[Mazulu]

Take a real good look; it's the only look you'll ever get.

 

[geeser]

Steven Hawkins said that God was not needed to create the universe. But I think he inadvertently led you all down the wrong path. Cosmologists don't know how the universe was created.

Irrelevant! A God cannot explain all that exists because God itself cannot be explained. This just swaps one mystery for another.

That is a HUGE problem for atheists. You have all rejected my explanation of a spiritual realm of which the big bang was a natural event. So that just leaves the act of creation to GOD.

Wrong again! You would have to first prove a god exists before you could attribute creation to it.

Now I have been arguing that God is some creative power in the cosmos, but you have all poo poo'ed that idea.

Possibly because there is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists. so why would anyone with any sense invoke one.

So if you reject my idea, then that just leads you back to the God of the Bible.

How so! Religions can not explain any mechanism or process whereby a God created everything. It is effectively an appeal to magic.

 

[wynn]

Some differences, sure. But not all. If their explanation of the difference was "it is part of my religion" then yes, but otherwise no.

Then we're at a truism.

But mostly it is only the overt religious ceremonial aspects that I see as different, in my experience.
Religious people are not kinder or nastier, they are not more generous or any less generous, they are not any better or worse educated. They aren't anymore polite or rude.

If the above truism applies, then agreed on this point.

I do think though, based on my own experience, that there are some people who are associated with religion (I don't want to use the term "religious people" without further qualification) that do have a distinct quality, a kind of "vibe," a different "energy." It's hard to describe, but it can be felt, intuited.

Knowledge does not come from the size of the stake.
The size of the stake can only lead to a practical acceptance, but here I would distinguish that from belief: I can accept something as true without either necessarily believing it to be true or knowing it to be so.
And the practical acceptance is, as we have discussed, part of the risk/reward assessment.

Again, what do you think you have at stake in whether you believe self-identified prophet Joe or not?

In fact, I think given your focus on risk/reward assessment, you are already operating out of Pascal's Wager.

I don't think that an ordinary person like myself can know or test the claims of a self-identified prophet. So for me, issues of verification (that people are typically so concerned with) don't apply, and instead I look into what I think I have at stake when faced with a claim.

Undoubtedly the motives maybe different, but the methodology for establishing may be the same.

I think that methodology in part depends on the particular motives. Some motives may exclude some methodologies. For example, if one's motive is ego maintenance, that will preclude the use of some insight approaches.

And when nothing happens that is indistinguishable from the scenario in which god does not exist?

For one, I was talking about my approach to these discussions, and how I work out of a set of criteria for religiosity (which are in roundabout those mentioned earlier, int he post with the long quote from GV scriptures).

As for your question - it doesn't apply. You're talking about imaginary scenarios, whether they invloved an existing God, or a non-existing God. Imaginary scenarios aren't much use for making conclusions.

Who is to say they are not the same, or that the child's is not a purer, unconditional belief?

Who's to say?
What have you got at stake for asking this question?

Matthew 18:3 "Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

/.../Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and, on arrival, greeted him courteously. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there, Uggahamana said to him, "I describe an individual endowed with four qualities as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. An individual endowed with these four qualities I describe as being consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments."

Then Pañcakanga neither delighted in Uggahamana's words nor did he scorn them. Expressing neither delight nor scorn, he got up from his seat & left, thinking, "I will learn the meaning of this statement in the Blessed One's presence."

Then he went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, after bowing down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he told the Blessed One the entire conversation he had had with Uggahamana.

When this was said, the Blessed One said to Pañcakanga: "In that case, carpenter, then according to Uggahamana's words a stupid baby boy, lying on its back, is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. For even the thought 'body' does not occur to a stupid baby boy lying on its back, so from where would it do any evil action with its body, aside from a little kicking? Even the thought 'speech' does not occur to it, so from where would it speak any evil speech, aside from a little crying? Even the thought 'resolve' does not occur to it, so from where would it resolve on any evil resolve, aside from a little bad temper? Even the thought 'livelihood' does not occur to it, so from where would it maintain itself with any evil means of livelihood, aside from its mother's milk? So, according to Uggahamana's words, a stupid baby boy, lying on its back is consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments.

"If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back. Which four? There is the case where he does no evil action with his body, speaks no evil speech, resolves on no evil resolve, and maintains himself with no evil means of livelihood. If an individual is endowed with these four qualities, I do not describe him as consummate in what is skillful, foremost in what is skillful, an invincible contemplative attained to the highest attainments. Rather, he stands on the same level as a stupid baby boy lying on its back.
/.../
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.078.than.html

I'm not sure what the Buble means there with the instruction "to become like children", and there is some debate within Christian schools as to what that means.

Surely it is just intellectual arrogance that would put the nature of our belief above that of a child?

I agree that it would be arrogance to point the finger at a particular person and judge their belief.

But to demand to even theoretically make no discernment of the different levels of attainment - this is the absurdity of trivialism.

If we share them. There is no obligation to, and thus any social element is not of the belief but of the individual holding the belief.
And my point is that there is not necessarily a social element to the belief, as you claim, but rather merely to the individual. I contest that the belief itself has no social aspect... It is the individual that provides that aspect, not the belief.

If the believer has ever had any communication with other people on the topic of "God" (and he most likely has) then there is a social element to it, even if it might not be continually/permanently present.

 

[Robittybob1]

Take a real good look; it's the only look you'll ever get.

I reckon I could just about climb that fence.

 

[wynn]

There's not a thing you can teach me about religion that I don't already know about it firsthand. So don't flatter yourself.

I've read enough of them to know you don't talk from your experience. You only belittle other's experiences based on your own much-touted book knowledge. That's what you do, which is why most people don't put up with more than a few of your condescending posts to them.

I wonder what will come out of that cocoon ..

 

[Bells]

Take a real good look; it's the only look you'll ever get.

Of what? Dodgy photoshop and watermarks?

 

[wynn]

I want a full on, hard-hitting relationship with my Lord Jesus. I just can't accept this "surrender to the Divine Will, He knows what is best for me. I put my self in your hands" stuff. I want an answer. Wegs wants an answer, and why can't we get one?

If you really believe Jesus is your Lord, then surely you will let him be involved in the relationship between the two of you on his terms, and not on yours - or won't you let him do that?

 

[wynn]

Do you pray in such a way that you can see a prayer being answered? Look what wegs wanted yesterday, she wanted to know whether her atheist friend was now in Heaven or Hell? Now that is a mighty gutsy request to God if I did ever hear one, for what was the answer going to be to that question.

Would you dare to answer it on God's behalf? I won't. So the only possible answer is God or The Lord Jesus in Our case, that he answers us directly.

Now you seem to disapprove of that, is that right?

That is the difference between you and me. I want a full on, hard-hitting relationship with my Lord Jesus. I just can't accept this "surrender to the Divine Will, He knows what is best for me. I put my self in your hands" stuff. I want an answer. Wegs wants an answer, and why can't we get one?

Although I don't consider myself a theist or a believer, I agree with Jan. I find it odd to want to consider someone one's lord, and yet demand that this person - who is in the superior position - act on one's terms, not on theirs.

This doesn't even have anything to do with religion or God, it has to do with mere common sense and good manners. If you want someone to be your boss, then surely you also want that this person will do as they please. Otherwise, why want them for your boss to begin with??

 

[Robittybob1]

Although I don't consider myself a theist or a believer, I agree with Jan. I find it odd to want to consider someone one's lord, and yet demand that this person - who is in the superior position - act on one's terms, not on theirs.

This doesn't even have anything to do with religion or God, it has to do with mere common sense and good manners. If you want someone to be your boss, then surely you also want that this person will do as they please. Otherwise, why want them for your boss to begin with??

But my Lord was a man like me, so even though he is my Lord he is a mate as well. So it is a really good relationship and great teamwork involved. I'm down here and he is up there. So he sorts it out for me at the top end and I do his dirty work down here. He said whatever we ask for he will give it to us, for he loves us as we love him. Have you ever thought of God on such a friendly level?

 

[wynn]

Grand cycle of "believe to believe": "You will believe if you believe, and in order to believe you have to believe..."
Once you are out of that circle you see it for the circle it is, and how it is self-perpetuating with no actual substance beyond what one wants to give it for themselves.

Probably the only thing in life about which we don't suffer from this sense of circularity is one's native language, and this possibly because one has learned it so long ago, internalized it so much that one has forgotten the epistemic principles by which one has learned it, and forgotten the experience of learning the native language.

I don't think that the problem you point out is native to religion, it is a much more fundamental epistemic problem.

Also:

Very few philosophical positions (and this is an understatement) enjoy the kind of evidential support that classical foundationalism demands of belief in God; yet most of these are treated as rational. No philosophical position—belief in other minds, belief in the external world, the correspondence theory of truth or Quine’s indeterminacy of translation thesis—is properly based on beliefs that are self-evident, evident to the senses, or incorrigible. Indeed, we may question whether there is a single philosophical position that has been so amply justified (or could be). Why is belief in God held to a higher evidential standard than other philosophical beliefs? Some suggest that this demand is simply arbitrary at best or intellectually imperialist at worst.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/

The only self-evident thing is "I exist". Beyond that assume nothing, and apply parsimony.
At least they're the principles I used.

I don't think that the only self-evident thing is "I exist."
That is related to Descartes' ploy - and he composed a number of arguments in the service of the Catholic Church for the sake of talking to atheists and pagans in order to convert them ...

I can't think of anything that I would consider self-evident, other than perhaps suffering.

 

[wynn]

But my Lord was a man like me, so even though he is my Lord he is a mate as well. So it is a really good relationship and great teamwork involved. I'm down here and he is up there. So he sorts it out for me at the top end and I do his dirty work down here. He said whatever we ask for he will give it to us, for he loves us as we love him. Have you ever thought of God on such a friendly level?

What you describe doesn't sound like a "friendly level" to me. More like being a cleaner for the mob.

 

[Robittybob1]

What you describe doesn't sound like a "friendly level" to me. More like being a cleaner for the mob.

Explain that a bit more please?
I'm on Earth and he is in Heaven, so I'm on the dirt but he isn't.

 

[Sarkus]

I do think though, based on my own experience, that there are some people who are associated with religion (I don't want to use the term "religious people" without further qualification) that do have a distinct quality, a kind of "vibe," a different "energy." It's hard to describe, but it can be felt, intuited.

But is this the man or the religion that is the provider of that quality, if it is even possible to separate? Charismatic people exist in all walks of life, and what you describe might merely be that.

Again, what do you think you have at stake in whether you believe self-identified prophet Joe or not?

Sanity, rationality, freedom, discernment, to name a few.

In fact, I think given your focus on risk/reward assessment, you are already operating out of Pascal's Wager.

And you'd be wrong. Pascal's wager is a rationalisation for believing in God. If one does not believe in god then one can not be operating out of Pascal's wager.
However, that is not to say that one does not utilise the same core idea of risk/reward that pascal took to the extreme with his wager. But that does not mean that all risk/rewards are versions of Pascal's wager.

I don't think that an ordinary person like myself can know or test the claims of a self-identified prophet. So for me, issues of verification (that people are typically so concerned with) don't apply, and instead I look into what I think I have at stake when faced with a claim.

If that was true then you would believe, and not be an atheist. You would have accepted Pascal's wager who posits that belief grants eternal benefit, and non-belief eternal damnation (or some such).

For one, I was talking about my approach to these discussions, and how I work out of a set of criteria for religiosity (which are in roundabout those mentioned earlier, int he post with the long quote from GV scriptures).

As for your question - it doesn't apply. You're talking about imaginary scenarios, whether they invloved an existing God, or a non-existing God. Imaginary scenarios aren't much use for making conclusions.

They are very useful for making conditional conclusions, should an eventuality arise.
And being an agnostic, almost every conclusion with regard god is conditional upon His actual existence.

Who's to say?
What have you got at stake for asking this question?

Currently I have nothing at stake, other than it helps clarify how one views belief... whether one considers it digital (you either have it or you don't) or whether one grades it.

/.../Then Pañcakanga went to Uggahamana and...

good response.
Nice to see scriptures are so aligned in their messages.

I'm not sure what the Buble means there with the instruction "to become like children", and there is some debate within Christian schools as to what that means.

I'm not sure what the Buble has to say about such matters.
But point of course taken.

I agree that it would be arrogance to point the finger at a particular person and judge their belief.

But to demand to even theoretically make no discernment of the different levels of attainment - this is the absurdity of trivialism.

You misunderstand me: it is not the discernment but the identification of the different levels... which requires faith/belief in the person making the judgement... I.e. it is perpetuated by the same cycle of belief.
Since I am not in that cycle, due to considering god (including existence thereof) unknowable, I can not use something within the cycle as grounds to enter that same cycle.

If the believer has ever had any communication with other people on the topic of "God" (and he most likely has) then there is a social element to it, even if it might not be continually/permanently present.

And I would continue to consider this social element part of the person, not the belief itself. So perhaps here we should agree to disagree on this matter.