Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
He sent me to be a fisher for men, but the places he showed me to fish in were like sewers and drains. Also there were visions of saving people from the likes of garbage dumps. My mission is to save the lowest of the low. That doesn't mean hopeless, but grubby in the eyes of God.
You might not understand that, but Sciforums would be pretty bad in God's eyes. You know what it is like here. You'd be like me. You seem to have the people here in your heart too.
The circularity to which i refer is the self-reinforcement of belief through means that only those within the circle will accept. Few things are caught within such circles. Most practical activity is not, for example. Most belief might be, but that is why some of us try to steer clear of such belief.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, (other than his claim to evidentiary support) but I also don't consider myself, or many others, having the same belief in the correctness and truth of other philosophies that people do in god.
It might have been formulated by Descartes but that does not mean that everything subsequent is related to what he attempted.
And are you saying that you don't even think "I exist" is self evident?
And you'll have to expand on what you mean by thinking that suffering is self-evident, please.
Is there any area where this principle doesn't apply?
Of course it is. How else do you think people learn to like coffee and cigarettes, how else do they keep doing what they do?
I don't think this circularity can be escaped.
Of course, I'd love to escape it, epistemic autonomy is a much sought-after ability, but I don't think we have it.
I find it odd the way some secularists adopt Descartes...
That's what I'm saying.
To me, "I exist" is equally self-evident as "Others exist", and I can't imagine thinking just one, and not the other.
That sense that something is off, wrong, bad, that there's discomfort. That's something all people seem to have, much of the time.
If you're so sure of your mission already, then why this quest to still get a definitive answer from God?
How do I save someone who is already deceased? Wegs wanted to know how her friend got on? New territory for me. What was your answer?
There are a million different questions that could be asked. I don't have the answer to everyone of them so I am always going back to the Lord with questions.
Help me out here,am new i̶̲̥̅̊n̶̲̥̅̊ this site
Strange text, are you an alien or an Earthling?
You must be an Alien so what Planet/Star system did you come from?
Kind of rude rob, if you went on a Chinese forum where they only wrote in Chinese, would they be as impolite. English isn't his first language.
It was clear to me what the man had said. "Help me out here, I'm new to this forum". He was simply confused by your statement.
It was clear to me what the man had said. "Help me out here, I'm new to this forum". He was simply confused by your statement.
It didn't display as Chinese text on my computer just a row of squares. Why ask me? I'm not the help desk. An alien would be new here too needing assistance. I was only trying to be kind to the possible alien.
I'm not talking about people who are generally perceived as "charismatic." If you're familiar with cats and dogs, then you'll have an idea of what I mean. I'm talking about the kind of people around whom cats and dogs would typically be calm. Of course, this would require you to have a sense for the mental state of an animal, and not all people have that.
??
What do you mean?
Do you mean that you think that your sanity, rationality, freedom, discernment depend on whether you take prophet Joe's claims to heart or not?
Actually, I think they are, as a risk/reward analysis assumes that some permanent, unchangeable, irrepairable consequences will follow if one does X as opposed to Y.
It's this implication of "permanent, unchangeable, irrepairable" that has PW written all over it, because only in a Christian(-like) cosmos are "permanent, unchangeable, irrepairable" consequences possible.
Not at all.
It's not clear how you arrive at that conclusion.
I'm talking about looking into what I think I have at stake when faced with a claim. So, for example, if Adstar (you remember him, right?) would present me with Pascal's Wager, I would think "What do I have at stake for seriously considering the words of an internet preacher who knows next to nothing about me and whose theological expertise I doubt? Bah, it must be that I'm bored, and I should better get back to my work."
IOW, "having something at stake" depends, for me, on the whole situation in which a claim is made, not just on the cognitive content of a claim. If a stranger in the street would tell you that you have cancer, you probably wouldn't give it a second thought, but would believe it if your doctor would make that same utterance after having performed a series of tests.
IOW, I think you're seeing the situation too narrowly, focusing only on the claims, but not considering the whole situation when facing a claim - ie. all that about who made it, where, when, to whom and whatever other considerations there may be.
The ironic reality of the situation is that most of the time, what we have at stake when hearing big claims of whatever kind, is actually very little, usually some boredom, some ego defense, five idle minutes. Although, given the momentuous nature of those claims, it may often feel like our whole happiness and eternity depend on whether we manage to verify those claims or not.
IOW, I'm saying that we don't care all that much about the words of other people anyway, and kindergarden kids do this straightforwardly (they can decide within seconds whether to take some claim seriously or not), while as we get older, we seem to tend to lose that decisiveness and get seriously involved with and worry about things that we don't really care about.
Presuming that you act intentionally, you must have something at stake.
I think a religion is a closed-off system, it cannot be entered by an act of will and discernment. It's like a native language: it is given to one. However, it appears we can enter closed-off systems, including religion, just not by a process of intersystemic verification, but by a kind of holistic immersion. Like going to a country whose language you don't understand a word of, nor do the people there speak any language that you do, so you're entirely on your own and left to the mercy of the people there to try to teach you their language - but nevertheless you make an effort to learn it and to get along.
My answer is that you're having typical Christian problems ...
you can't
It was more of a rhetorical question. If God exists, then only he knows. And that is the truth. I happen to believe that if he exists, he is loving. At least that is what I used to believe about my overall ‘concept’ of a god. Going with that, if he is the embodiment of love…he will love those who do not wish to know or love him.
I mean, isn’t that the essence of God? If God exists, do we suppose that he would ask us to love and forgive those who hurt or abandon us, but he won’t do the same for us?
I can’t say for certain if a god doesn’t exist. (or does) But, if he does, only he knows. No human being or religion is going to tell me, otherwise.
But, I do appreciate your prayers for her, I know you mean them.
Last edited:
If that is the case, then "soul" can never have / be objective reality. It is private or personal reality for "true believers" but not the majority of Christianson who are "convenience believers"* and in this secular age in the USA, they greatly outnumber the either the atheists or the "true believers." Religion, but not god, still has Social reality in the USA.
* One who needs church for business connections, weddings, Christmas music and smell of Easter flowers, mainly. There was in the Lutheran church I went to a couple married. He had been a convenience Jew and she a convenience Catholic - that compromise helped both their families attend. I don't think we saw much of them after the wedding.
Probably because they have only read his POV in the Cliff notes. If you actually read his "on pure reason" (or title like that - I forget exact title) You will find that within less than 20 pages after Cogito Ergo Sum (again, if not correct, excuse my failing memory for little used items) he has "logically" concluded that it was a logical necessity for Christ to die on the cross for man's sins!. Descartes was a great mathematician but a fraud as a philosopher. I find it very odd that many think otherwise, but that is what happens when most at best have only read Cliff notes.
Become an old style Mormon (back when multiple marriages were fine, almost mandatory)
Then you could and should marry the unwed dead as being married, if a woman, was essentially a pre-requisite for entering into heaven. It was a man's moral duty to wed the unwed. As I recall, marriage was a sacrament, like baptism, that gave the soul a clean re-start - washed away all prior sin.
Hey - Don't knock beliefs you don't hold - they have an equally valid claim to being true as yours do. Apply Pascal's wager logic - what have you got to loss?
Not a very sound test. You could never repeat the following un-intended experiment with 20 or so dogs - The SPCA would skin you alive. The keeper of the pound had no funds to buy food for the caged dogs, so after a few days he took the dogs out one-by-one to the back yard and tied them to stakes in a circle, a few feet between each, with a short piece of rope. He then went to the center of the circle with a club. When he approached each dog, first thru last, it was happy to see him approach, tail wagging and straining at the short rope to come to him. Probably expecting to finally get some food from the man who always feed him, but got his head crushed with one swift blow instead. The man noted in the pounds record book how calm all the still living dogs in the circle were despite watching the other dogs die.
I'm just guessing, but perhaps if one or more dogs after the first to die had shown fear, comprehension of what was about to happen, the man may have let it live, cut up some of the other dogs to feed it (or them) but none did. - They all calmly, perhaps even happily, died..
Sorry, but souls and spirits have never been shown to exist and have nothing to do with physics or reality, they are just myths and superstitions.
That is circular. You can't opine on something that has never been shown to exist and is invisible and undetectable. That is just elementary logic. Obviously, your beliefs are driven by your religion and nothing more.
Spirits have never been shown to exist, they are myths and superstitions, that is the explanation.