atheist to believer

[psyche101]

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

What's embarassing IMO is to reduce the Universe to a randum fluke. Blind chance.

It is not, it has direction and follows laws of physics. I have told you over a dozen times that we postulated "A random fluke" as well as a "Designed Universe" 

Darwin showed us there is a third way. Selection. Everything revolves, everything obey laws. 

To think some creator made all this just for us, is what is embarrassing, small minded and somewhat ludicrous, The ultimate in hubris. It makes God appear as petty and small. 

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

You think it's a modern idea? Some ancient greek thinkers were promoting it.

What you are trying to grasp at here is Atomism, as promoted by Leucippus and Democritus. It too was a "guess" They Got it right, the religious zealots who found a God can be wielded like a sword took the option that gave them control over the people. 

Modern discoveries are much closer to Atomism than Theism, Pantheism or Deism.

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

And yet, one must have a very inflated ego to actually believe that mankind is the apex of intelligence and conciousness. T

Who said that was the case? 

What is to say another species exists who are 10,000 years technologically advanced from us? A creator God making this Universe for us so he can play his weird little games is what takes a monstrous b****** of an ego. 

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

hat the world can't be created by a Supreme Mind but that we ourselves, might be able to design our own little Universes in the future.

Why don't you read these articles before you post them? It is not describing anything like the Universe we live in. Professor Greene is describing a Mini Black Hole. 

From your link:

The seed, he suggests, could be a black hole. Not the big black holes that sit near the centers of so many galaxies, but what he calls a "mini black hole." Black holes, he says, don't have to be big. They can, in theory, be very small.

5 hours ago, TruthSeeker_ said:

What theoritical physics has done in the last 50 years is to underlie the complexity of the system we live in, it's laws and clearly we have much to ponder about it's origin.

No, you just do not understand science, you never will as long as you insist on retaining deliberately obtuse. You eschew knowledge for your faith. Repeating you faith over and over again does not validate it. We have "Physics" as well as theoretical physics, and they compliment each other. One of these strange people who thinks we do not have the right to play God. We have been pondering the origin for thousands of years, now we are actively pursuing it with tools like the LHC. That is giving us the answers that make your philosophical musings obsolete. 

[Frank Merton]

20 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I'd say that sharply drops off depending on how powerful and clever the bad actor is. 

 

I doubt it.  I would say the clever or powerful bad actor is going to "get away" with it over and over, leading the person to take greater and greater risks, so that eventually they fall -- and the bigger they are the harder they fall.  It balances out automatically.

I remember a case in HCMC (Saigon) of a gang leader responsible for many murders and who practically ran the underground there, and who was considered extremely powerful, even in the party, and treated with worshipful respect and all that garbage.  One day they took him and shot him.

I think maybe that is why criminal types take "respect" as being so much more important than most of us do -- that is all they can expect to ever get, and it will come to and end.

[ShadowSot]

3 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I doubt it.  I would say the clever or powerful bad actor is going to "get away" with it over and over, leading the person to take greater and greater risks, so that eventually they fall -- and the bigger they are the harder they fall.  It balances out automatically.

I remember a case in HCMC (Saigon) of a gang leader responsible for many murders and who practically ran the underground there, and who was considered extremely powerful, even in the party, and treated with worshipful respect and all that garbage.  One day they took him and shot him.

I think maybe that is why criminal types take "respect" as being so much more important than most of us do -- that is all they can expect to ever get, and it will come to and end.

I can think of several examples of emperors, kings, and others who lived to old age and died as comfortably as their time allowed. Priests and famous figures whos evils didn't come out until after their death. 

 

[Frank Merton]

I know quite a few people who are now religious in one way or another but who, during the "dogmatic atheist" history of Vietnamese Communism were unabashed, loud, ridiculing (of religion) atheists.

Nowadays it's okay to be religious up to a point, so long as the religion stays out of politics, and the Buddhists (as well, to a lesser extent, the Catholics) have learned how to behave (I might describe it as that they have been housebroken).

Since now it is okay to practice a religion, and in many cases advantageous, there you see it.  They probably always believed and were hypocrites earlier, and now they have reverted.  It is a sorry unpersuasive scene.

I think in the West some of those of the "atheist" persuasion I have met are not really atheists, but only objecting to the corruption one sometimes sees in the church.  What we were taught as children is hard if not impossible for some people to abandon -- there is a strong instinct we inherit to stay with the tribe and it shows itself in all sorts of ways.  Often these people eventually "go back" and experience the joy and peace the body rewards us with when we follow such an instinct.

[Frank Merton]

3 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

I can think of several examples of emperors, kings, and others who lived to old age and died as comfortably as their time allowed. Priests and famous figures whos evils didn't come out until after their death. 

 

Valid point.  Of course it is easy for me to point out that they may not have been happy.  They are also few in number and may have suffered guilt (although of course there are sociopaths in powerful places all the time).   I can only say that each individual case is different and that a few may seem to "get away" with it does not prove much.  There is also the simple point that what we learn about a person's life after their death may not be the full truth, since it necessarily does not have the defendant around to tell their side of the story.

There is a quandary here; I don't "believe" in the supernatural, so I don't turn to it for answers.  I do, however, believe in truth and beauty and justice much as I believe in mathematics (to say that I don't think we invent it -- it exists on its own and all we do as rational beings is figure it out.  You can see, I think, given such a fundamental view, where my attitude comes from.

[Frank Merton]

28 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

I can think of several examples of emperors, kings, and others who lived to old age and died as comfortably as their time allowed. Priests and famous figures whos evils didn't come out until after their death. 

 

Valid point.  Of course it is easy for me to point out that they may not have been happy.  They are also few in number and may have suffered guilt (although of course there are sociopaths in powerful places all the time).   I can only say that each individual case is different and that a few may seem to "get away" with it does not prove much.  There is also the simple point that what we learn about a person's life after their death may not be the full truth, since it necessarily does not have the defendant around to tell their side of the story.

There is a quandary here; I don't "believe" in the supernatural, so I don't turn to it for answers.  I do, however, believe in truth and beauty and justice much as I believe in mathematics (to say that I don't think we invent it -- it exists on its own and all we do as rational beings is figure it out.  You can see, I think, given such a fundamental view, where my attitude comes from.

[ShadowSot]

Well, I do not believe in inherent fairness  or justice. 

 I think the case could be made that groups, like dynasties of power, that habitually carry out bad behaviours eventually have it catch up to them more quickly than ones that don't. 

 But I don't think the case can be made on the individual level. 

 And supposing to know their mental state at the end of their life, or that there was an invention to make them seem at peace, is just trying to bolster that belief with assumptions. 

 

Edited January 11, 2017 by ShadowSot

[Habitat]

14 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

just trying to bolster that be loo if with assumptions. 

 

[ShadowSot]

*sigh* 

 I really should not put my trust in my keyboard when I'm focusing on something else. 

 I have no idea how it pulls up the corrections it does. 

[ShadowSot]

56 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I know quite a few people who are now religious in one way or another but who, during the "dogmatic atheist" history of Vietnamese Communism were unabashed, loud, ridiculing (of religion) atheists.

Nowadays it's okay to be religious up to a point, so long as the religion stays out of politics, and the Buddhists (as well, to a lesser extent, the Catholics) have learned how to behave (I might describe it as that they have been housebroken).

Since now it is okay to practice a religion, and in many cases advantageous, there you see it.  They probably always believed and were hypocrites earlier, and now they have reverted.  It is a sorry unpersuasive scene.

I think in the West some of those of the "atheist" persuasion I have met are not really atheists, but only objecting to the corruption one sometimes sees in the church.  What we were taught as children is hard if not impossible for some people to abandon -- there is a strong instinct we inherit to stay with the tribe and it shows itself in all sorts of ways.  Often these people eventually "go back" and experience the joy and peace the body rewards us with when we follow such an instinct.

I've thought something along those lines myself. Certainly a lot of the conversion stories I've read the person usually mentions belief in a deity after some fashion previously. 

 I would add to that's it's sort of cool right now to be an atheist in a way. Lots of the younger people (I'm saying that at 28, oi my back!) I've met who ascribed to being an atheist have little clue what that means, or any real understanding of religion. 

 I've had a couple of opportunities to play the theist for them and can stump them. 

 Then according to surveys there are those who identify as atheists and believe in gods. 

 This is getting rambley, it's pretty lat-urm, early here and the temp is dropping. 

[Frank Merton]

21 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

Well, I do not believe in inherent fairness  or justice. 

 I think the case could be made that groups, like dynasties of power, that habitually carry out bad behaviours eventually have it catch up to them more quickly than ones that don't. 

 But I don't think the case can be made on the individual level. 

 And supposing to know their mental state at the end of their life, or that there was an invention to make them seem at peace, is just trying to bolster that be loo if with assumptions. 

 

I can't say I believe it either; I should say this is an opinion I have reached after a lot of thought.  My background no doubt predisposes me to belief in ultimate justice, and thinking about mathematics, I wonder where that comes from, and then there is truth and beauty.  These exist "on their own" in maybe a Platonic way or something of that sort.  The metaphor of mathematics is powerful to me -- do we invent it or discover it -- it is hard to say we can invent it -- it seems to be "there" already.  (Of course this topic is debated but most mathematicians see it that way and I certainly can see no way otherwise).

The same it seems can be said about almost any of the four I mentioned.  Certainly truth exists on its own unless we are inventing some sort of fantasy, and both beauty and justice have their own internal consistency (although the argument is weaker until looked at closely).  They exist independently on their own.  This is radical enough I guess to Western minds.

[ShadowSot]

Well, not exactly radical. It's the basis of most liberal conceptions of God after all.

 But that there is some objective standard of beauty or justice I have to disagree. 

 In some ways we have to a point now where we can make arguments about justice and something being fair, who live in fairly wealthy countries. 

 But in less prosperous areas, or heck even parts in my countries, doing something that we would see as unjust is a matier of survival. 

 And we can generally all agree to get along, but what that ends up meaning to people tends to vary a great deal. As does beauty. 

 I personally, probably not surprisingly, like the look of well worked wood and stuff that has wear to it. 

 A solid wood desk is a thing of beauty to me. To my ex, a very light weight modern design of glass and metal is much more aesthetically pleasing. 

 In a similar way, I think a lot of insects and spiders are actually very beautiful. Not many people would agree with me on the spiders, I think. 

 

[eight bits]

SS

Quote

 I would add to that's it's sort of cool right now to be an atheist in a way. Lots of the younger people (I'm saying that at 28, oi my back!) I've met who ascribed to being an atheist have little clue what that means, or any real understanding of religion.

They are, however, correctly applying the movement's self-definition, that everybody who does not affirmatively "believe in" some god is an atheist.

Absurd, ill-defined premises result in absurd, ill-defined conclusions. It's not the younger people's fault.

Not that you would take my advice, but the time you spend doing this:

Quote

 I've had a couple of opportunities to play the theist for them and can stump them.  

might be better spent addressing the movement elders, to straighten out the problems of an inherently defective definition.

[ShadowSot]

2 minutes ago, eight bits said:

SS

They are, however, correctly applying the movement's self-definition, that everybody who does not affirmatively "believe in" some god is an atheist.

Absurd, ill-defined premises result in absurd, ill-defined conclusions. It's not the younger people's fault.

Not that you would take my advice, but the time you spend doing this:

might be better spent addressing the movement elders, to straighten out the problems of an inherently defective definition.

Ok

. I take the simple definition of atheist that being an atheist simply means not believing in a diety. 

Under this definition many types of philosophies and some religions get included. 

 What would be the definition you would use?

[eight bits]

SS

Quote

What would be the definition you would use?

Somebody who professes that there is no god.

Fine print: As is always the case, regardless of subject, it is irrelevant here whether or not the atheist states that this is their personal opinion, or that they do not "know," or that belief is always a matter of probabilities, or any other self-evident observation that they may wish to articulate in addition to how they answer to the Question of God.

[ShadowSot]

6 minutes ago, eight bits said:

SS

Somebody who professes that there is no god.

Fine print: As is always the case, regardless of subject, it is irrelevant here whether or not the atheist states that this is their personal opinion, or that they do not "know," or that belief is always a matter of probabilities, or any other self-evident observation that they may wish to articulate in addition to how they answer to the Question of God.

Ok. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the difference between mine and yours. 

 Remember, I'm an idiot.

[eight bits]

SS

Oh, no, you're not.

One difference is between professing neither that there is nor that there isn't a god, versus professing either one. Atheism is professing the one that urges that there is not a god. Theism is professing the other one, that urges there is some god.

There's also the difference between professing and "believing in," the latter raising a host of problems. Among them:

- I personally don't know what "believing in" means and notice that other people use it different ways (to have trust in something , for example, as opposed to bare to believe that something exists)

- Neither I nor anybody else have much basis for knowing what any other person believes (or for any private interior mental states). Presumably, if I say "Joe believes there is a god," then I've asked Joe or heard him volunteer. What is gained by not simply stating what I know to be true in the sense of direct observation: "Joe says there is a god." ? OK, then, Joe is a theist.

Edited January 11, 2017 by eight bits

[ShadowSot]

 

32 minutes ago, eight bits said:

SS

Oh, no, you're not.

One difference is between professing neither that there is nor that there isn't a god, versus professing either one. Atheism is professing the one that urges that there is not a god. Theism is professing the other one, that urges there is some god.

There's also the difference between professing and "believing in," the latter raising a host of problems. Among them:

- I personally don't know what "believing in" means and notice that other people use it different ways (to have trust in something , for example, as opposed to bare to believe that something exists)

- Neither I nor anybody else have much basis for knowing what any other person believes (or for any private interior mental states). Presumably, if I say "Joe believes there is a god," then I've asked Joe or heard him volunteer. What is gained by not simply stating what I know to be true in the sense of direct observation: "Joe says there is a god." ? OK, then, Joe is a theist.

Oh, I would have to assure that I'm am idiot. It's just the medium, gives me a bit of cover.

 

I have to say, my impression reading this is more an issue with language in general, not the specifics of its use by atheists. 

 Certainly for myself I have difficulty saying there is no God. 

I can easily say that I don't think there is one, that I don't believe there is one, the same way I would say I don't believe there are fairies. 

 Not to say I wouldn't say it if asked, but in an actual discussion or debate I wouldn't.  

 I am not a big fan of Dawkins, and while I am sure he has said it at some point, in the debates and interviews I have seen, he has phrased it as "I have seen no evidence for such a thing."

 Someone like David Silverman of the American Atheists is a bit of a different beast, as he is running a more political movement than anything. He does very often state that there is no god. 

 I think it's a mixture of the language and that generally certain people in the movement tend to be critical thinkers and want to weigh their statements carefully. And frankly any attempt to institute a top down effort of labeling has backfired tremendously. 

 Partly because people seem to enjoy creating new labels for themselves, or adopting a label without actually knowing anything about it.

 Case in point a group I started under the American Humanist Association. 

 Despite its charter establishing it as an atheist organization, despite some pretty clear labeling and association, the board members simply denied it but used the label. 

 I think it's a fault of the type of people who would identify as an atheist or Humanist or free thinker or secular or what have you. 

 Of course there's a larger issue that an "atheist movement" is sort of a problem in itself. The closest real thing would be the AA itself. 

 There's an effort to get people who identify as non religious or secular (which is not necessarily atheist under any definition), or the assorted what have you's, to kind of come out, as it were. But that's mostly an effort to focus many different groups of varying focus and philosophy, many of which don't hold to the same figures. Dawkins and Silverman, Harris and Dillahunty, have as many detractors as they have supporters. There's no overall organization. 

[ShadowSot]

Sorry, getting too tired and running onto stream of consciousness rambling.

[eight bits]

SS

Quote

I have to say, my impression reading this is more an issue with language in general, not the specifics of its use by atheists.

That may be, but the particular aspect of the problem that kicked off this discussion was your discovery that some (younger) people who self-identified as atheists didn't seem very atheist when you Socratized them.

That is often diagnostic of a definition problem, and not anything peculiar to discussions of the Question of God. The definition having the problem, however, would be the definition of the word the younger people used, atheist.

Quote

I can easily say that I don't think there is one, that I don't believe there is one, the same way I would say I don't believe there are fairies.

We've both been posting here for a long time, so I'm going to take a leap and say I'm confident that you'd be willing to say that (you believe, in your opinion, it is more likely than not, ... however you'd like to frame it) there are no fairies.

So, if it is "the same way" with gods, then you're an atheist by my reckoning (and by many others').

Quote

"I have seen no evidence for such a thing."

Which is cute, but isn't what the QoG asks. And, Dawkins does have a professed opinion: he helped to organize a campaign which bought advertising space for a message that included the phrase "There's probably no God."

Thank you, Professor Dawkins, I have no further questions at this time.

Quote

Partly because people seem to enjoy creating new labels for themselves, or adopting a label without actually knowing anything about it.

Speaking personally, I'm usually fine with people's self-descriptions (even if some of them I can't parse easily). Which maybe brings us full circle, since some of those younger people's problem may simply have been a wish to align themselves with famous atheists they've heard of. As you said, it might be being cool.

Atheism is the new Goth?

Quote

come out

Lol, that's a whole other topic.

[ShadowSot]

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

SS

That may be, but the particular aspect of the problem that kicked off this discussion was your discovery that some (younger) people who self-identified as atheists didn't seem very atheist when you Socratized them.

That is often diagnostic of a definition problem, and not anything peculiar to discussions of the Question of God. The definition having the problem, however, would be the definition of the word the younger people used, atheist.

We've both been posting here for a long time, so I'm going to take a leap and say I'm confident that you'd be willing to say that (you believe, in your opinion, it is more likely than not, ... however you'd like to frame it) there are no fairies.

 In general, yes. But if I were to be in a conversation with someone who believes there are fairies, I'd take the same position as I do when discussing god/s with believers. 

 But there are far fewer of them than there are of theists. 

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

 

Which is cute, but isn't what the QoG asks. And, Dawkins does have a professed opinion: he helped to organize a campaign which bought advertising space for a message that included the phrase "There's probably no God."

Thank you, Professor Dawkins, I have no further questions at this time.

It should be noted he attached himself to it but it started without him and the phrase wasn't his. He was supporting an atheist thing more than the phrase itself. It was publicity more than anything.

Even then it isn't a definitive statement.

 Personally I don't see the question of God being naturally tied to identification of either theist or atheist. 

 I agree that it should follow, and anyone self reflective would examine the question, but it is not necessary.

1 minute ago, eight bits said:

Speaking personally, I'm usually fine with people's self-descriptions (even if some of them I can't parse easily). Which maybe brings us full circle, since some of those younger people's problem may simply have been a wish to align themselves with famous atheists they've heard of. As you said, it might be being cool.

I wouldn't even go so far as saying it's due to a famous atheist. For all their popularity inside our circles, most of these people are vaguely known if at all outside of them. 

 It's more "oh old people don't like atheists? I'm that then."

 The thing is that atheists aren't the only one making the definition. Younger folks are much more likely to hear a description from their preacher or youth minister or something.

 That can range from "people who know God exists but are angry with him" to "people who know God exists but like to act badly and have sex and use contraception," to any number of things that I don't really remember because I stopped paying attention after the sex part. 

Actually, I do remember one where "all homosexuals are atheists." 

 

[eight bits]

SS

Quote

Even then it isn't a definitive statement.

On the contrary, it's the strongest statement that a mere mortal can make. As I've said, self-evident trimmings are irrelevant. It's a matter of opinion and Dawkins stated his.

Since what's in the ad agreed with that famous "scale" essay he included in his book, The God Delusion, I do think he was expressing his view when supporting the campaign. If not, or even if it's in doubt, then all the more reason to stick to what he professed, rather than the unobservable interior mental state behind it.

Quote

Actually, I do remember one where "all homosexuals are atheists."

Lol. I guess "coming out" wasn't a whole other topic after all .

[ShadowSot]

3 minutes ago, eight bits said:

SS

On the contrary, it's the strongest statement that a mere mortal can make. As I've said, self-evident trimmings are irrelevant. It's a matter of opinion and Dawkins stated his.

Since what's in the ad agreed with that famous "scale" essay he included in his book, The God Delusion, I do think he was expressing his view when supporting the campaign. If not, or even if it's in doubt, then all the more reason to stick to what he professed, rather than the unobservable interior mental state behind it.

Maybe, but I would consider a more true representation would be something not part of a publicity stunt, or to a crowd of fans, but in a format allowing for some deliberation on the response. A book, or ano interview or debate.

 I don't really like off the cuff or sound bite sized statements. 

[jps]

On 2016/12/21 at 9:52 PM, bigjim36 said:

Has an atheist ever converted to being a believer? I'm an atheist, I was born and raised roman catholic however in my teens I began to question organised religion. Later in my early 30's I finally came to the conclusion that there is no god, that it was a purely man made concept. You often hear of people turning to atheism after examining the history of religions and/or god/s so that got me thinking "has anyone gone the other way and what made them do so?"

 

I'm sure its possible. In my own journey i have gone from one extreme to the other multiple times. Going from devoting my life to God to hating him, to just not caring, to agnosticism, to atheism and back again. Some may say I wasn't truly atheist but for a couple of years I fit most of the attempted definitions for atheism. It seems the older I get the more pressure I feel to commit to one of the sides, maybe for fear of the approaching "end" of my time, or that I won't be able to figure it out in time. I must say when I was devout I had a great feeling of direction and warmth from having a clear conscience (by the blood of Jesus) in my life. On the other hand while not believing in any deity it also lifted a great weight from my shoulders, and made me feel more empowered. Knowing that I could get power from myself to do good, and not constantly fearing to disappoint some imaginary being. The problem is when religious, you need to overlook many things that are uncertain to be able to continue. Like a horse with blinders on. For example: Some religions use the name Jehovah. Are they certain that's his name? Or have they settled for the closest match? For me that was a major blow when studying with Jehovah's witnesses. On the other hand, not believing in the supernatural doesn't do anything to ease my fear of the "end" being all she wrote. And by the way there is some real strange things going on that science can't remotely explain at this stage. So.... wait for the second coming or Armageddon? Or wait for death or the Singularity? Why cant we switch between them now and then, and if there is a God, would he really blame us in light of the information and feelings we have?

[Stubbly_Dooright]

I like what jps said. I feel the same thing sometimes. 

For me, I don't know if my history is a good example for this thread. I grew up secular. So, despite the facts my folks both came from Protestant backgrounds, (though I think later my father was an Atheist before he died) us kids grew up not going to church, not reading the bible, and not behaving religious like. 

Yes, we had Christmas, because I think it became more secular in a sense in society. And frankly, the way I look at it, from what I have read and researched, there seems to be a lot of paganism and secular traditions that have been put into the holiday. The date of Jesus's birth doesn't seem to be that day either, from what I understand. 

Anyhow, being secular, I don't know, maybe there was some sense of religion because it was in society. Thinking about it, naw, there really wasn't in my family growing up. So, it makes sense, that I do believe I was an Atheist as a young adult. ( my mother even told us, we have the right and sense, to chose the paths we felt fit our beliefs or lack there of ) 

Here's the thing. My Atheism didn't last long. I never reverted or converted to Christianity. I became New Age. And as the years went by, a very unique New Ageism. (Sometimes I did dabble in traditional New Ageism,(( I bought the books, I practiced it )), but there were times.) Even today, I kind of done somethings that seem traditionally New Age, as opposed to my strange New Age path. ( confused yet? ................... sorry )  

I think it was because, coupled with my fascination with it, various paranormal, interesting, and varying degrees of experiences that I have had that took me down the path. I agree with jps. There does seem to be a lot of strange things happening that I have found science and logic hasn't explained them. 

So, there's my story. *shrugs*