Why I'm not an Atheist

[crawlshots]

^1000th post. I've enjoyed this thread.

Crawl- Some necessary qualities I would say are things like being self necessary (total independence, nothing else explaining your existence) being eternal and changless, having no specific form (eg. Not having a physical shape, or something like seven personas). Some more controversial ones are things like the will and the three omnis.

Traits I'd say aren't necessary are things like the trinity, loving us and designing the universe for us. Note that many people who believe in these things don't claim they're necessary. Some people believe God has both necessary and contingent traits.

Why do you think it's necessary that the god would lack a physical shape? Because he exists on a plane above space and matter (being the creator of those)?

This discussion is [further] blowing my mind that the God I believe in is a God of love. I suppose, from a metaphysical standpoint, he would either have to be perfectly loving or be entirely neutral with regards to love, hate, good, evil, etc. If you believe the latter, then the mechanisms of evolution seem to be the only other possible cause for human conscience and the perception of love and hate, good and evil, as well as the preference of love and goodness. Not that the mechanisms of evolution are brute in any way.

 

[GwJ]

Why is everyone always so hung up about if this potential god cares about us or not? It doesn't really have any importance to the matter in my opinion.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Kind of humorous that in a thread that talks about the universe having been created, 1000 posts in a person asks, "Do you think there is a possibility that the universe could have possibly not been created?"

Awesome.

 

[GwJ]

It was a serious question because Dre is talking about necessity of the being that created the contingent universe. I'm trying to understand if he thinks the universe itself had to necessarily be created.

Directly or indirectly.

 

[Veetaak]

I wish every theist was more like Dre, using only reason and logic instead of social/emotional benefits etc in order to believe.

It's so much more respectable that way

 

[john!]

I wish every theist was more like Dre, using only reason and logic instead of social/emotional benefits etc in order to believe.

It's so much more respectable that way

what i've learned from this thread is that people will automatically assume you fall into the latter category unless you use big words. even the most rock-solid logic will fail to take hold in their minds if you don't dress it up properly.

 

[Shorts]

why? We're actually getting somewhere now. If you're not in the discussion, don't try and come here and tell us that we should stop discussing it.

STOP DISCUSSING.

ho.

 

[GwJ]

what i've learned from this thread is that people will automatically assume you fall into the latter category unless you use big words. even the most rock-solid logic will fail to take hold in their minds if you don't dress it up properly.

No, people usually fall into the latter because they genuinely belong in the latter.

STOP DISCUSSING.

ho.

Nah.

 

[john!]

No, people usually fall into the latter because they genuinely belong in the latter.

i see.

so which category should i assume someone is in, provided they don't give me proof either way?

 

[GwJ]

Well, I'll simply ask you. Out of most people you've met that are theists (most likely Christians), do you think they're theists because of any of these reasons:

1. Family is religious
2. Their religion sounds nice
3. Does not understand any other way except theism

OR

arrived at theism through logical thought investigation?

 

[john!]

probably a mixture all of those, except possibly 3.

you really think most christians have never questioned their faith?

 

[GwJ]

Not the the extent that they should. And really? No to number 3? I know, personally, I never even knew the idea of "What if there IS no god?" is fathomable until someone else mentioned it to me.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

^ Same, but that is probably only because we were very young. Older people will surely have pondered the idea, at least getting the concept in their head, whether they entertain it or not.

 

[GwJ]

edit: Lol, I mistook your post.

It doesn't help though that it takes someone until they're older to ponder it because by the time they're older, they're already firm believers. It's a little too late at that point.

 

[john!]

how ironic is it that many modern atheists are indoctrinated to believe that all modern theists are indoctrinated?

 

[GwJ]

How ironic is it that many modern atheists were indoctrinated theists?

 

[john!]

it's true that many of the most militant atheists were at one point fundamentalist christians. in fact i think it's reasonable to say that the most fundamentalist, indoctrinated christians become the most militant atheists if they convert to atheism. it's not religion itself that causes indoctrination, it's just that certain people's minds are very susceptible to stubbornness (not talking about any of you guys btw, if there was a REAL militant atheist in here then i would probably have a field day with them)

 

[GwJ]

Well, of course religion doesn't cause indoctrination. Reliigon and indoctrination work together.

And there is a sense of bitterness that comes with deconverting to an atheist from a religion, because deconverting means that the person believes they've wasted a good portion of their life believing a complete lie. There's also a sense of frustration in being an outspoken atheist in this society, but I'm sure I don't have to explain that to you.

 

[Chuee]

how ironic is it that many modern atheists are indoctrinated to believe that all modern theists are indoctrinated?

Not all modern theists are indoctrinated, but a lot are.

 

[Dre89]

probably a mixture all of those, except possibly 3.

you really think most christians have never questioned their faith?

Thing is most believers who question their faith only seek to prove that what they believe is logically possible. They don't seek to prove that it is the most reasonable belief for a neutral, because they themselves aren't neutrals.

 

[GwJ]

Thing is most believers who question their faith only seek to prove that what they believe is logically possible. They don't seek to prove that it is the most reasonable belief for a neutral, because they themselves aren't neutrals.

This.

They're a lot like the bigfoot hunters on TV (don't take offense). They're out there to prove bigfoot exists, not to prove IF bigfoot exists.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Actually, they're out there to make money. I am thinking what they find as "clues" or "evidence" is actually stuff they put there so the show isn't a big failure and people think something compelling is happening.

 

[Muro]

Well, of course religion doesn't cause indoctrination. Reliigon and indoctrination work together.

I think it's more that religion relies on indoctrination at a young age to succeed. I doubt many adult atheists would be confronted with the bible and say "well.. this makes sense".

 

[GwJ]

I think it's more that religion relies on indoctrination at a young age to succeed. I doubt many adult atheists would be confronted with the bible and say "well.. this makes sense".

That's because it doesn't really. It takes a lot of convincing to get an adult non-believer to convert to a religion. Telling a non-believer that all this magical stuff happened 2,000 years ago and expecting them to go, "Yeah, I can believe that happened." is not the way to do it.

And you know what I meant, HotH.

 

[Dre89]

In America over 80% of Christians said they were Christians before the age of 14.

You will get adults converting, but they'll usually be the lesser minds or looking to fill a whole in their life.

 

[john!]

In America over 80% of Christians said they were Christians before the age of 14.

You will get adults converting, but they'll usually be the lesser minds or looking to fill a whole in their life.

one of your more disappointing posts tbh

edit: here is why

that statistic does not mean much when it is relative to nothing. how many [insert religious beliefs here] held that same worldview at age 14? what was the age range that was asked this question? why do christians have "lesser minds"? why do you not know the difference between "hole" and "whole"?

 

[GwJ]

The reason many people change religions is because their current one does not give them what they need; whether it does not 'feel' right, etc... That's why he said they have lesser minds I would guess.

And I would assume the poll asks people of mixed ages all over 14 obviously.

 

[Fuujin]

The reason many people change religions is because their current one does not give them what they need; whether it does not 'feel' right, etc... That's why he said they have lesser minds I would guess.

This is the exact reason I converted to Gagaism.
My life was incomplete and I lacked a true guidance and drive to move forward.

Fortunately I opened my heart to Godga and she has saved my soul, I look back and now I'm honestly not sure how I ever made it through life without her.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

one of your more disappointing posts tbh

edit: here is why

that statistic does not mean much when it is relative to nothing. how many [insert religious beliefs here] held that same worldview at age 14? what was the age range that was asked this question? why do christians have "lesser minds"? why do you not know the difference between "hole" and "whole"?

One of your moar disappointing posts tb... wait no, not even close.

He didn't even say Christians have lesser minds, you didn't read his rather short post very well. As for the other questions, I don't really know what you're going on about.

 

[Vinylic.]

@fuujin

Spoiler

You know, It's fine that you're everywhere in the forums, just like I am.
But I don't post 90% of every goddamn gaga gif crap and stuff.

This is just a little note. Don't mind this. Take it to my vm, please.

 

[john!]

He didn't even say Christians have lesser minds, you didn't read his rather short post very well. As for the other questions, I don't really know what you're going on about.

have you taken a course in statistics?

also, he said most christian converts have lesser minds. i never claimed that he said "all christians have lesser minds", in case you are unaware of the difference (which you seem to be)

 

[camerino1]

Seems like an honest and caring religion, I may convert to Gagaism... ohwait, I only listen to metal

But yeah, I don't feel like Gaga is that big on the pop industry, like MJ or Madonna was.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

why do christians have "lesser minds"?

Actually you did say that, I suggest reading your own posts as well.

Anyways, no I have not, but I don't understand your issues with his post. Jumpman said older individuals would be harder to change their worldview (which rings the common sense bell quite nicely, especially taken in the context of a Chrisitan individual, what kind of revelation can drive them from so many years of faith that hadn't met him/her before then? And said people don't suddenly start questioning at later ages, so they will obviously be well grounded into their beliefs) and then Dre gave a statistic that indicated that.

On a more personal note, I was a very faint Christian at 14 (didn't study the bible but believed in God, prayed, and would on rare occasion go to church). I didn't swap until more around 16-17.

 

[Fuujin]

ohwait, I only listen to metal

Then yoü will fit righ† in †bh.

But yeah, I don't feel like Gaga is that big on the pop industry, like MJ or Madonna was.

Excep† if yoü want to conver†, yoü will have to repen† for comparing Godga to hagdonna.

@fuujin

Spoiler

You know, It's fine that you're everywhere in the forums, just like I am.
But I don't post 90% of every goddamn gaga gif crap and stuff.

This is just a little note. Don't mind this. Take it to my vm, please.

Eaux

 

[Chuee]

Then yoü will fit righ† in †bh.



Excep† if yoü want to conver†, yoü will have to repen† for comparing Godga to hagdonna.

Eaux

We've been over this.
Gaga is bad, and you should feel bad for listening to her.

 

[Dre89]

I said people of mature age who convert have lesser minds.

That was probably bad wording. Um-informed would be better. Most late converters either aren't educated in facts about the universe and chemistry, or aren't educated in philosophy and logic.

I converted at 19 or so, then started studying philosophy and logic and gradually learned more reasons why it was irrational. Then I started educating myself on the universe and religion seemed even more ridiculous than before.

 

[MuraRengan]

Not really. The basic answer to the things he said are because it does. All we can really give as to why the Laws of Physics work, are that they work, because data shows that they do. When you ask the why question you just push further and further back.

Not true. The answer to those questions go further than that.

The reason why 1+1=2 is because the laws of mathematics deem it to be so. Without the laws of math, 1+1=2 is an unjustifiable statement. You may have trouble recognizing this as so, because when we think of something like math, we see it as an apparent truth, but that apparent truth is not necessary so. We have trouble distinguishing natural truths from contingent truths.

For example, if I assert something ridiculous, like "water can be set on fire" what would be your response? Which would be a more accurate answer, "It's just wrong," or "It's wrong because the laws of physics don't allow it?" See my point? Saying "Because it does is insufficient for fully understanding any problem. All physical things are contingent upon some binding concept or law. Accepting them without attempting to explain them is not acceptable. That's why you have to push the question further and further back.

Side note: Does no one have any thoughts about my previous post? I'm very interested in hearing other opinions, as the matter I brought up is of much importance to my understanding of the universe.

Then I started educating myself on the universe and religion seemed even more ridiculous than before.

Could you elaborate? Do you mean all religions? Because I still think there's a strong case for Christianity being reasonable.

 

[GwJ]

Could you elaborate? Do you mean all religions? Because I still think there's a strong case for Christianity being reasonable.

1,000+ posts in and we still haven't seen it.

Also in regards to your previous post, please define "time" and "space" in the context of which you are using it.

 

[Fuujin]

We've been over this.
Gaga is bad, and you should feel bad for listening to her.

Insulting my religion.

Personal attack.

 

[MuraRengan]

1,000+ posts in and we still haven't seen it.

Also in regards to your previous post, please define "time" and "space" in the context of which you are using it.

You've seen it, people just chose to ignore it. Namely you, when you asked for sources of evidence of miracles you just ignored my reply (which I can point you to if you need). And awhile ago Dre and I discussed the accuracy of the Bible and I brought up historical evidence that corroborates and necessitates truth in New Testament recounts of historical events. I've definitely backed this argument up already.

As for defining time and space:

Time - the principal difference between "now" and "then"

Space - the principal difference between "here" and "there"