Any atheists here who were once believers?

[elte]

Hey elte :wave:

Please explain this a bit more if you wouldn't mind? It sounds interesting.

Well, I had access to a Bible, a Catholic study variety in particular, so I figured what better thing could there be for me than to try to put serious effort into building faith in God, since what is more important than heaven, if it exists? I couldn't move onto trying to actually do anything else while this issue was clogging my mind. So, I read the whole thing and all the notes very attentively once. Then later, I read the whole thing again more casually. It reminds me of the thing I mentioned earlier, knowing more weakens the faith.

How does that saying go? To be so heavenly minded so as to be no earthly good? That saying reminds me of what I felt was necessary, a conundrum. :wave:

 

[Bells]

Bells - firstly apologies for my past stupidity (I'll say no more).

Bells - When you set out to be a master criminal normal concepts of right and wrong are out the window. I know what is right and wrong now but then it was different. No one tells me what is right, I have to figure it out.
I am very astute too, like you I'd notice when they are trying to deceive me; anyone caught deceiving me would be liable for the chop, but now I leave that up to the moderators.
I'll reply in more detail but I'll get one more job done today and catch up later.

Yes but the bible won't teach you that.

Animals know right from young from their perspective. Watch some big cats with their cubs. If the cubs misbehave, they whack them on the nose.

Criminals often try to use the excuse that they didn't know what they had done was something wrong. That it was illegal, for example. I call bullshit. You know what you are doing is wrong, but you choose to ignore it for your own benefit. In other words, you will do something bad because you feel it will benefit you in some way. You will gain from it. Unless you are a psychopath, where you are completely incapable of understanding that the crimes you commit are wrong or you are incapable of caring...

Which is why I tend to be very disbelieving when people in prison try to claim that they have found God now and now know the errors of their ways. So their dozens of arrest, charge sheets that go for miles, none of that was enough of an indication that selling drugs or raping and abusing women and children, for example, were bad things to do to someone else?

I see people who claim that God showed them the error of their ways and that God has put them on the right path to be taking a cop-out. It is a way to try to absolve themselves of their past wrongs and criminal behaviour and it is a complete and utter way to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their crimes. The claim that now they know it is wrong, because God taught them it was wrong, is pure and utter bullshit and merely a means to walk away from any responsibility they do have for their previous behaviour. And then of course you have the 'I asked God for forgiveness'.. Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

You chose to be the criminal. Saying it was God who taught you the error of your ways is you trying to absolve yourself of any responsibility for your actions. You knew it was wrong. The only way you couldn't know that is if you were a psychopath or within the range of mental illness that meant you were actually incapable of understanding right from wrong. In which case, if you are saying that now you know it was wrong, because the bible told you or you believe God told you, then it would mean you are also narcissistic because you feel you can get away from it. It's a cop out. Own up to your mistakes and own up to fixing it yourself. Stop using God as a crutch to fix your wrong doing.

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes but the bible won't teach you that.

It was when I went to Otago University that I started reading the New Testament, with the idea that jesus can forgive your sins. That seemed to be the thing I really struggled with that year. For I had done things that I had vowed would never cross my lips, so how was I going to confess my sins for it appeared they had to be said. Does the sound have to come out of your mouth when making a confession? But even in the privacy of my own room at University College I barely could muster enough courage to break my own vow in order to ask Jesus for forgiveness, but I did it.

Animals know right from wrong (young?) from their perspective. Watch some big cats with their cubs. If the cubs misbehave, they whack them on the nose.

Animals look after their own young, but cattle couldn't care less for calves from other cows. They are extremely selfish, I see their behaviour every day.
Different species different behaviours. No real consistency.

Criminals often try to use the excuse that they didn't know what they had done was something wrong. That it was illegal, for example. I call bullshit. You know what you are doing is wrong, but you choose to ignore it for your own benefit. In other words, you will do something bad because you feel it will benefit you in some way. You will gain from it. Unless you are a psychopath, where you are completely incapable of understanding that the crimes you commit are wrong or you are incapable of caring...

I knew it was not considered right but you tested your nerve to overcome fear to do the crime.

Which is why I tend to be very disbelieving when people in prison try to claim that they have found God now and now know the errors of their ways. So their dozens of arrest, charge sheets that go for miles, none of that was enough of an indication that selling drugs or raping and abusing women and children, for example, were bad things to do to someone else?

After going to University and getting my degree and working the days of crime seemed to a thing of the past. Yet it took 5 years before I could see a police car and not get an adrenalin rush.

I see people who claim that God showed them the error of their ways and that God has put them on the right path to be taking a cop-out. It is a way to try to absolve themselves of their past wrongs and criminal behaviour and it is a complete and utter way to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their crimes. The claim that now they know it is wrong, because God taught them it was wrong, is pure and utter bullshit and merely a means to walk away from any responsibility they do have for their previous behaviour. And then of course you have the 'I asked God for forgiveness'.. Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

As I said I was trying to resolve the issue of sexual sin that drove me to search for God at the age of 36. From then on I have never told lies or stolen anything.

You chose to be the criminal.

No I was only ever trying to find which direction I should go. If there was no God I would go criminal, otherwise just become a normal law abiding citizen.

Saying it was God who taught you the error of your ways is you trying to absolve yourself of any responsibility for your actions. You knew it was wrong. The only way you couldn't know that is if you were a psychopath or within the range of mental illness that meant you were actually incapable of understanding right from wrong. In which case, if you are saying that now you know it was wrong, because the bible told you or you believe God told you, then it would mean you are also narcissistic because you feel you can get away from it. It's a cop out. Own up to your mistakes and own up to fixing it yourself. Stop using God as a crutch to fix your wrong doing.

So I think you have misunderstood me a bit.

 

[Robittybob1]

Well, I had access to a Bible, a Catholic study variety in particular, so I figured what better thing could there be for me than to try to put serious effort into building faith in God, since what is more important than heaven, if it exists? I couldn't move onto trying to actually do anything else while this issue was clogging my mind. So, I read the whole thing and all the notes very attentively once. Then later, I read the whole thing again more casually. It reminds me of the thing I mentioned earlier, knowing more weakens the faith.

How does that saying go? To be so heavenly minded so as to be no earthly good? That saying reminds me of what I felt was necessary, a conundrum. :wave:

That sounds very much like what I did at 36, really trying to find the "truth of God". Did you come to any insights?

 

[Robittybob1]

.....

My family are very religious. My parents are strict Catholics, and my other relatives are also very religious, with quite a few now born again Christians. Several years ago, in a bid to draw me back to believing as they do, they dragged me to a born again revival mass. We were in this giant hall and the music was exceptionally loud and this guy was screaming gospel into the microphone. All were on their feet, really getting into it. And I noticed it was starting to get warmer and warmer. This was a modern church, with airconditioning vents all around the room, so I couldn't understand why it was suddenly getting so warm, since it was very comfortable and cool when we first came in. And then I realised the guy at the front was saying how the heat everyone was feeling deep inside, that heat we were all feeling, was apparently the Holy Spirit descending on us.

By this point, we were all sweating, because it was really hot. And the crowd went wild. A large majority had their eyes roll back into their heads and waved their hands in the air and started speaking in tongues. The band eased off and then it was just the preacher at the front telling them to feel the holy spirit enter them, to feel the heat of the holy spirit. And I have to say, it was damned hot. I felt like I was boiling. So I got up from my chair and walked to the back of the room, and lifted my hand up to the airconditioning vent at the back. And it was blowing hot air into the room. It was in summer, so very hot outside. And they turned on the heater. All those deluded fools, my relatives included, thought it was the holy spirit. It was just the heater turned on high.

Then the laying on hands started. So people queued up, to feel the 'lord Jesus descend into them'.. And with the heat, not drinking for a couple of hours, mass hysteria, dehydration.. And just doing what was expected of them. Many collapsed when the dumbarse preacher put his hand on their heads. Apparently this was Jesus descending into them through the holy spirit.

The night culminated in their finding someone possessed by the Devil apparently. They had gone out, and found someone 'possessed'. That someone ended up being a drunk homeless guy who was so drunk, he could barely stand up. So the crowd hushed and sweating profusely. The poor guy was taken to the front, supported between two other people who had gone out to apparently find him. They literally had to carry him, he was so drunk and passed out, he could not walk. And the preacher did the whole lay on hands.. And the drunk by that stage passed out cold and was fast asleep when they let him go to the ground..

And all the deluded fools in there believed it. No one questioned why it was so hot, because they were told it was the holy spirit. No one questioned the drunk passed out guy passing out cold. They thought it was Satan leaving his body that they did not question or realise the waft of alcohol haze around this guy.

It is easy to believe Robittybob1, and it is easier to believe that you need someone to tell you what the right thing to do is.. It is harder to look around you and analyse the reality of what goes on around you and see your own strengths in yourself. That reality, that clarity is what atheism is. It is believing in yourself.

That is a good story Bells and I have seen all of those things as well. They were trying to imitate the Early Church but had no idea how it worked. If I went up front they wouldn't be able to knock me over, I wasn't hysterical, and when they tried to exorcise the Devil out of me it made no difference. I never spoke in tongues for it sounded like gibberish to me.
But behind it all there was my desire to receive the Holy Spirit and we did get it in the end. But it backfired on them for they didn't like the result.
So they excommunicated me, and had me arrested by the Police to embarrass me, to see if the fear would make me back down.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Another avoidance. Maybe your faith isn't so unshakable after all.

If it were, you wouldn't be running from questions that force you to examine it.

Leaving you with your analasys, is ''avoidance'' how?

Faith, unshakable or not, is not a claim I make, nor need to make.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I know you don't believe in God, and I am aware of your reason.
I know that you say you are open to the idea of God's existence should evidence present itself.
Evidence has not presented itself, and therefore God cannot exist (until such time), as you sit there reading this post.

Why can't you just admit that simple fact? :shrug:

Because you continue to misunderstand: God can exist even if I don't believe in Him.
As stated previously: God either exists or does not exist, whether I believe he exists or not.
For you to conclude my position to be that God "cannot exist (until such time)" implies that when evidence does present itself that God suddenly springs into existence, when my position is that God either exists or He does not. Me getting evidence does not alter the fact of his existence/non-existence. I do not have any evidence currently, therefore I conclude that I do not know whether God exists or not.
But from a practical viewpoint I live my life as though this unknown thing does not exist, the same way as I live my life as though all things I do not know about also do not exist.

So the reason I can not "admit that simple fact" is because, as it applies to me, it is NOT a fact.

Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Why do you try so hard to push all atheists into your view of what atheists should be, rather than listen to what their view actually is?
You hear the word "atheist" so you try your damnedest to turn what they say into meaning "God does not exist", irrespective of their actual view.
And it is tiresome.

 

[Balerion]

Leaving you with your analasys, is ''avoidance'' how?

Because you claim it to be mistaken, yet fail at every opportunity to clarify. You're obviously hiding a very fragile worldview behind this evasion. If you had any confidence in your beliefs whatsoever, you'd have no trouble explaining them.

Faith, unshakable or not, is not a claim I make, nor need to make.

So your belief is knowledge? But I thought you said you had no knowledge.

It's almost as if you're intentionally talking in circles to avoid criticism, Jan. Again, quite effective if the object is to prevent oneself from examining one's own position.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

Because you claim it to be mistaken, yet fail at every opportunity to clarify. You're obviously hiding a very fragile worldview behind this evasion. If you had any confidence in your beliefs whatsoever, you'd have no trouble explaining them.

I took the trouble to chart the thread of that discussion, which not only showed seattle's ''misunderstanding''. But actually explained the subject of his misunderstanding.

So your belief is knowledge? But I thought you said you had no knowledge.

It's almost as if you're intentionally talking in circles to avoid criticism, Jan. Again, quite effective if the object is to prevent oneself from examining one's own position.

So all discussions are either unshakeable faith, or knowledge?

''It's almost as if''....................

IOW I'm not, but you wanna put it out there anyway. People should read up on neural linguistic programming, to get where ypur coming from.

Either that or you're just causing trouble. Either way you're being under-handed.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

But from a practical viewpoint I live my life as though this unknown thing does not exist , the same way as I live my life as though all things I do not know about also do not exist.

The bolded signifies God, right?

Why is it so hard for you to understand?
Why do you try so hard to push all atheists into your view of what atheists should be, rather than listen to what their view actually is?

I explained your view.
But you cannot deny that as you stand now, God does not exist.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,



I took the trouble to chart the thread of that discussion, which not only showed seattle's ''misunderstanding''. But actually explained the subject of his misunderstanding.

But it doesn't, as evidenced by not one, but two different posters coming to a conclusion that you claim to have intended conveying.

Perhaps you should consider being more clear, if this is in fact what you didn't intend to say.

Or maybe it is what you intended to say, but having it repeated back to you in such a way has made you uncomfortable. Who's to say, since you won't be bothered explaining yourself? I guess we'll have to stick with our original interpretations. After all, with the excepting of your claim that they are incorrect, all you've done are reinforce them.

So all discussions are either unshakeable faith, or knowledge?

I didn't say that. You said that faith is not something you make a claim of. This implies (again, whether you intended it or not is apparently a different story) that you have knowledge.

''It's almost as if''....................

IOW I'm not, but you wanna put it out there anyway. People should read up on neural linguistic programming, to get where ypur coming from.

It's "you're," not "your." Remember, "you're" is "you are" in contracted form. And do you know what an ellipsis is? It's three dots (...), and it's all that's needed. Your use of twenty is, well, overkill.

Either that or you're just causing trouble. Either way you're being under-handed.

Or your pattern of behavior is indicative of a truth that doesn't jibe with your claims.

 

[Seattle]

I think this was Jan's explanation...

"Dis lil lite o' mine
I' mo led it shine
Dis lil lite o' mine
I' mo led it shine
Dis lil lite o' mine
I' mo led it shiiiine
led it shine, led it shine, led it shine..."

Classy.

 

[wynn]

Not wavering a viewpoint does not amount to unshakable faith, if anything it shows an ''unshakable viewpoint''.

Yes, as I noted earlier.
Conversational proficiency, even philosophical proficiency, does not amount to faith, what to speak of "unshakeable faith."

Can you cite any such discussion wherethe atheist change their opinions or mind about something?

I do.

In their heads, theists aren't supposed to argue back, and if they muster up the courage to, they should do it in a way that doesn't upset their sensibilities.
Persistence is out of the question, because from the get go, you are wrong.

Oh, come on, don't play coy. And by all means, don't play the victim.

On principle, you've got the stronger position. Sometimes, you just don't seem to know it.

How many theist are on here?
How many of them state their case with confidence (with the exception of LG)?
People who express a belief in God on here tend to; end up not bothering to discuss, or become a football (like Robbitybob1).

The problem with many theists, including often you, is that they want to be seen as gurus - they try to unilaterally impose themselves as teachers on others.

And if you bothered to read your BG a bit more, you'd know where the problem with that is.

 

[wynn]

and my guess is because he can't actually articulate his beliefs.

Hehe, I agree. I think - because I also know the scriptures Jan refers to - that Jan is actually representing a much stronger position than he is able to get across in his words.
Bah, I just don't feel like helping him out, given that he can behave like such a cocky bastard!

 

[wynn]

Who are you picking on now? Am I a "cocky self-assured bastard"?

I'm not picking on anyone.

For an ordinary person, the only way they can usually attain what in scriptural commentaries is called "unified mind" or "single-pointed awareness" is through anger and conceit - which, for practical purposes, means behaving like a cocky self-assured bastard.
Having a "unified mind" or "single-pointed awareness" or, in plain terms, being able to concentrate at will, is necessary in order to accomplish anything anyway, but the need for it becomes even more evident when talking about matters of God.

In the different exchanges I've had with Jan, and in his exchanges here with others, I believe he has an "unshakeable faith," as they say. I've posted something similar earlier in the thread. He really believes what he believes, and while I don't agree with his beliefs, I admire his tenacity in conducting himself here both candidly, and with class.

You have a different approach to these discussions than Jan, and neither is right or wrong, just different.

Oh, come on, let's not be agnostic softies!

 

[wynn]

Why do you try so hard to push all atheists into your view of what atheists should be, rather than listen to what their view actually is?

My guess is that he does this because he lacks piety and lacks love for the Dharma.

 

[wynn]

Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about. Musicians who adopt it as a concept, are not as influential as those that don't. They are merely copying, just like you copied a belief in God.

So, you're practically describing realization. Okay.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

But it doesn't, as evidenced by not one, but two different posters coming to a conclusion that you claim to have intended conveying.

But it does. I've shown that it does. The ball is in your court.

Perhaps you should consider being more clear, if this is in fact what you didn't intend to say.

Perhaps you should consider quoting the part where I say I believe in God because of a feeling and explain what I mean when I say why I believe in God.

Or maybe it is what you intended to say, but having it repeated back to you in such a way has made you uncomfortable.

Or maybe it said with the intention of making me feel uncomfortable.
Do you know, Balerion, I think we may be on to something.

Who's to say, since you won't be bothered explaining yourself?

That's just it though, maybe you're just not looking hard enough.
Repeating myself would be a waste of time, so I suggest you put your thinking cap on, and pour through the response, and make a note of what it is you lack understanding of, then we'll discuss it in our next exchange. How's about that?

I didn't say that. You said that faith is not something you make a claim of. This implies (again, whether you intended it or not is apparently a different story) that you have knowledge.

Why does it imply I have knowledge?

Or your pattern of behavior is indicative of a truth that doesn't jibe with your claims.

My turn! My turn!

Or you don't like people who you see as inferior, reveal that about you.

Your turn....................

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

So, you're practically describing realization. Okay.

I'm practically describing concepts, and how they are ideological copies of original things.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

The bolded signifies God, right?

Indeed. But as explained, how I live my life has no bearing on whether god actually exists or not. I cannot say that god does not exist. I live my life as though god does not, the same way I live my life as though the infinite other things I don't know about also do not exist. But that does not mean I believe them to not exist.
For some reason you can't see this rather important difference.

I explained your view.

No, you explained your incorrect understanding of my view, which I have tried to explain to you repeatedly, all to no avail.

But you cannot deny that as you stand now, God does not exist.

I can deny it. I do deny it.
I simply do not know whether good exists or not, and as such can not say that god exists or that god does not exist.
I thus deny that god exists, and I deny that god does not exist.
Do I live my life as though god exists? No. The same way that I don't live my life as though every other unknown thing (that might possibly exist) exists.
When two lines of reasoning can lead to the same action, it is important to be aware of the reasoning in understanding what the action means to that person.
You fail to do this.
You thus misunderstand my position.