atheist to believer

[XenoFish]

What is the value of spirituality or religion other than satisfying an emotional need?

[Habitat]

17 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

What is the value of spirituality or religion other than satisfying an emotional need?

The only value I can see in spirituality or religion is to make you a better person that you'd be without it. Whether that is what happens is another matter.

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Habitat said:

The only value I can see in spirituality or religion is to make you a better person that you'd be without it. Whether that is what happens is another matter.

My Dad recently said that being a good person is normal behavior.  I think that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks including religion or spirituality it only matters that you give your best. The path is what you make of it, because in the end, you get what you give. IMHO 

Edited December 24, 2016 by Sherapy

[Galactic Goatman]

The Romans actually referred to early Christians as atheists, because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.

But as for the topic at hand, I think a lot of atheists who converted weren't really atheists at all, but people who were more agnostic and "found God" after some event in their life.

^ Your dad has the right idea. Morality comes from within, not from a book.

Edited December 24, 2016 by AustinHinton

[David Henson]

Yes, I have. I was raised an atheist in the general sense, that being that my parents didn't believe in God and were irreligious. I didn't believe in God, though at the time I had no real idea what a god was, I was more irreligious than anything. That hasn't really changed, but now, at 50, I believe in Jehovah the one true God and the Bible. I began to study the Bible when I was 27 and within 6 months became a believer. Since then I have also studied other religions and religious texts, but remain irreligious and have found nothing that compares to the Bible. 

[XenoFish]

4 hours ago, David Henson said:

Yes, I have. I was raised an atheist in the general sense, that being that my parents didn't believe in God and were irreligious. I didn't believe in God, though at the time I had no real idea what a god was, I was more irreligious than anything. That hasn't really changed, but now, at 50, I believe in Jehovah the one true God and the Bible. I began to study the Bible when I was 27 and within 6 months became a believer. Since then I have also studied other religions and religious texts, but remain irreligious and have found nothing that compares to the Bible. 

So you acknowledge the contradictions and inaccuracy of the bible as well I assume?

[Galactic Goatman]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

So you acknowledge the contradictions and inaccuracy of the bible as well I assume?

There are around 600 contradictions, I believe.

[XenoFish]

5 minutes ago, AustinHinton said:

There are around 600 contradictions, I believe.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/08/19/an-incredible-interactive-chart-of-biblical-contradictions/

 

[David Henson]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

So you acknowledge the contradictions and inaccuracy of the bible as well I assume?

I used to spend my time correcting alleged contradictions presented by unbelievers. I've never seen one which they presented that wasn't a product of religious misinterpretation or couldn't be debunked through a little research. Having said that I do, however, acknowledge there are contradictions, mostly having to do with copyist errors of the numerical, as these present particular difficulty, and I'm aware of spurious scriptures which appear in later manuscripts. The translation of the Bible isn't inspired and therefor imperfect. It is fallible. 

[XenoFish]

2 minutes ago, David Henson said:

I used to spend my time correcting alleged contradictions presented by unbelievers. I've never seen one which they presented that wasn't a product of religious misinterpretation or couldn't be debunked through a little research. Having said that I do, however, acknowledge there are contradictions, mostly having to do with copyist errors of the numerical, as these present particular difficulty, and I'm aware of spurious scriptures which appear in later manuscripts. The translation of the Bible isn't inspired and therefor imperfect. It is fallible. 

"If" the bible is the infallible word of god then nothing should need correcting. It should be factual and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which it isn't, so it is evident that it is nothing more than a work of fiction. Copy and pasted from older beliefs into a new framework. It like god is a man made thing. Of course one of my major issues with the bible is why only a group of desert dwellers? Was no other group on earth worthy of "Gods" word? Doesn't make sense. And according to a lot of christian views anyone that's not christian will go to hell and be tormented due to lack of faith. Faith is an assumption that's not based on facts. It's all about that dopamine. You're a Christian because it makes you feel good. It gives you comfort that you're life is worth living and a reward awaits at death. The problem is you've got zero facts to back that up. It's just another way of shrugging off existential dread. 

[David Henson]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

"If" the bible is the infallible word of god then nothing should need correcting. It should be factual and provable beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which it isn't, so it is evident that it is nothing more than a work of fiction. Copy and pasted from older beliefs into a new framework. It like god is a man made thing. Of course one of my major issues with the bible is why only a group of desert dwellers? Was no other group on earth worthy of "Gods" word? Doesn't make sense. And according to a lot of christian views anyone that's not christian will go to hell and be tormented due to lack of faith. Faith is an assumption that's not based on facts. It's all about that dopamine. You're a Christian because it makes you feel good. It gives you comfort that you're life is worth living and a reward awaits at death. The problem is you've got zero facts to back that up. It's just another way of shrugging off existential dread. 

I've already stated that the Bible is fallible. It is, however, factual when presenting facts. Being provable to a reasonable person having given it a good deal of attention is often obscured by the person's own doubt. The claim that it was copy and pasted from older beliefs is moot, at best, due to the time lapse that would have evolved from the scattering of the tower of Babel and the writing of the text. If you heard a distorted version of a true event from the offspring of those who allegedly witnessed the event but only read about it later in a respected journal that wouldn't negate the authenticity or, if you will, historicity of the account. I don't take very seriously any mainstream Christian nonsense, like hell, which you mentioned. The Bible doesn't teach hell. It's a pagan myth adopted by later Christianity. Like Christmas, Easter, The Trinity from Plato, immortal soul from Socrates, cross from Constantine. There are two strict definitions of faith, the first being a deserved trust in a reliable source and the second belonging to a specific group with specific doctrine. Example: "I have faith in God," of "I have faith in my wife," or Example 2: "I'm of the Christian faith." I never said I was a Christian, I said I believe in the Bible, and I do so not for the reasons you project upon me wrongfully but because it's never given me a reason not to.  

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, David Henson said:

I said I believe in the Bible, and I do so not for the reasons you project upon me wrongfully but because it's never given me a reason not to.  

You must not have read the right bible. That thing is littered with absurdities. 

[David Henson]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

You must not have read the right bible. That thing is littered with absurdities. 

That I won't argue, but the same can be said of any written work, from science, history, and the news of the day. 

[simplybill]

I'm not responding to anyone in particular, though as I read through the responses I think it should be pointed out that those of us living in Western society have been immersed in Judeo/Christian ideology for our entire lives, and therefore we mistakenly view our sense of morality as coming from within. A society lives and breathes in the dominant ideology it follows. We become what we're taught. If we're going to survive, it's necessary for the majority to follow an ideology that actually works in real life.

It's shouldn't be difficult to decide. For one example, should we "look after widows and orphans in their distress" (James 1:27 in the bible), or should widows be thrown on their husband's funeral pyres: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Widows-still-pressured-to-throw-themselves-on-husbands'-pyres-6332.html  and orphans be used as street beggars?

We've had millennia to work out which ideology offers society the greatest amount of freedom and justice for the greatest number of people. We're now at a point in world history where the most aggressive followers of various ideologies are seeking to force the entire world to adopt their beliefs. Any society that lacks a solid, unifying ideology will be easy prey to the aggressors. So, should we defend our way of life, or should we continue to complain about the ideology that has given us Western Civilization?

Well, I'm off to Christmas dinner with my contribution of homemade mashed sweet potatoes with bacon and brown sugar. Merry Christmas to everyone.

 

 

[David Henson]

4 minutes ago, simplybill said:

I'm not responding to anyone in particular, though as I read through the responses I think it should be pointed out that those of us living in Western society have been immersed in Judeo/Christian ideology for our entire lives, and therefore we mistakenly view our sense of morality as coming from within. A society lives and breathes in the dominant ideology it follows. We become what we're taught. If we're going to survive, it's necessary for the majority to follow an ideology that actually works in real life.

It's shouldn't be difficult to decide. For one example, should we "look after widows and orphans in their distress" (James 1:27 in the bible), or should widows be thrown on their husband's funeral pyres: http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Widows-still-pressured-to-throw-themselves-on-husbands'-pyres-6332.html  and orphans be used as street beggars?

We've had millennia to work out which ideology offers society the greatest amount of freedom and justice for the greatest number of people. We're now at a point in world history where the most aggressive followers of various ideologies are seeking to force the entire world to adopt their beliefs. Any society that lacks a solid, unifying ideology will be easy prey to the aggressors. So, should we defend our way of life, or should we continue to complain about the ideology that has given us Western Civilization?

Well, I'm off to Christmas dinner with my contribution of homemade mashed sweet potatoes with bacon and brown sugar. Merry Christmas to everyone.

 

 

It sounds reasonable, but is it? I mean your interpretation of ideology, not mashed sweet taters.

It seems to me that the debate between believer and unbeliever regarding morality is pointless. Perhaps due to a sort of moral inferiority complex on the part of the believer? The believers like to present themselves as moral, as if there were no need of a Christ, and the unbelievers appear to fancy themselves the intellectuals for probably the same reason and degree of accuracy. Failing to realize that they, as Jesus said, would likely be the first to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. To the apostles he said this. Your explanation sounds reasonable, yes, on the surface, but the further you examine things you see that the conflicts that pose a threat to our survival are manufactured, by robber barons, fractional reserve bankers, and the like that are more than as happy to use ideology as a smokescreen as they are to use elected officials as puppets to that end. 

[simplybill]

38 minutes ago, David Henson said:

It sounds reasonable, but is it? I mean your interpretation of ideology, not mashed sweet taters.

It seems to me that the debate between believer and unbeliever regarding morality is pointless. Perhaps due to a sort of moral inferiority complex on the part of the believer? The believers like to present themselves as moral, as if there were no need of a Christ, and the unbelievers appear to fancy themselves the intellectuals for probably the same reason and degree of accuracy. Failing to realize that they, as Jesus said, would likely be the first to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. To the apostles he said this. Your explanation sounds reasonable, yes, on the surface, but the further you examine things you see that the conflicts that pose a threat to our survival are manufactured, by robber barons, fractional reserve bankers, and the like that are more than as happy to use ideology as a smokescreen as they are to use elected officials as puppets to that end. 

David - and yet Judeo/Christian ideology works in real life. Not just for believers, but for all of society. It benefits everyone. Should we minimalize and discard an ideology that has withstood the test of time?   

[David Henson]

33 minutes ago, simplybill said:

David - and yet Judeo/Christian ideology works in real life. Not just for believers, but for all of society. It benefits everyone. Should we minimalize and discard an ideology that has withstood the test of time?   

Works? How? To what end and for whom does it, as you say, work? It certainly doesn't work for the Jews and Christians. Nor for the Buddhists,  Islamic, Confucians, Shintoists,  Hindu, or Taoist. In fact, as a successful economic or political paradigm the only ones to benefit from it seams to be the godless robber barons aforementioned, who are no doubt devout atheists. The question of should we minimize or discard an ideology that has withstood the test of time would depend upon the times themselves. Is it time to do so? I believe it is. The book of Revelation would seem to concur. 

[simplybill]

David - I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, however I really like your Frank Herbert quote: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." 

[David Henson]

37 minutes ago, simplybill said:

David - I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, however I really like your Frank Herbert quote: "Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty." 

It's my favorite quote by my all time favorite writer. 

[Davros of Skaro]

On 12/23/2016 at 3:46 PM, markdohle said:

Yes, or cynical beliefs as well ;-).  

Peace
Mark

I prefer not to placebo the motivators of learning, and reward.

I can see how that's cynical to those that have taken the path to substitute understanding the world through the fuzzies.

[Rlyeh]

On ‎24‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:02 AM, PersonFromPorlock said:

To the OP; the point is simply that a belief in God and a belief in a religion are two separate things, and that it's entirely possible to reject religion without declaring yourself to be an atheist.

Who you have much evidence for as God. So God posts on internet forums then?

[markdohle]

9 hours ago, davros of skaro said:

I prefer not to placebo the motivators of learning, and reward.

I can see how that's cynical to those that have taken the path to substitute understanding the world through the fuzzies.

 

A little black and white thinking there my friend.  But if you must, if it makes you feel good, well ok ;-).  Happy Holidays......hope you have a nice day with family and friends.

Peace
Mark

[PersonFromPorlock]

6 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Who you have much evidence for as God. So God posts on internet forums then?

Well, I use a pseudonym .

[Only_]

On 2016-12-22 at 7:21 AM, eight bits said:

TS_

No, Anthony Flew wasn't much of an atheist. Flew, prior to his retirement, was an agnostic as most people use the word. He coined the term "negative atheism" for his view, specifically reserving his use of "agnostic" for what he felt was Huxley's original detailed position. Flew didn't seem to correct people when they called him simply "atheist."

His "conversion" was complicated by his plainly visible descent into dementia, and shameless ideological and commercial exploitation by Christian "friends." Flew's basic "religious crisis," however, was well thought out, consistent with modern norms of evidential reasoning, and happened long enough before he died that dementia probably wasn't a factor.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/antony-flew’s-spiritual-journey-part-i/

Deism was a resonable conclusion for him. I am unaware of any occasion where Flew had ever argued strongly against deism, and his final embrace of it apparently coincided with his first clear appreciation that it was a tenable position, based on the bulk of what else he had believed about the world all along.

Bottom line: it was an odd example of a conversion, and depending on what the OP meant by both "end point" terms, atheist and believer, may not be an example at all.

Have you even read the book? He clearly states that he was raised an atheist and growing up as a teenager far into adulthood he totally disbelieved into any concept of God whatsoever. He has debated against quite a few prominent Theistic philosophers throughout his career on the atheist side of the fence. He was a very respected atheist thinker as well. There is really no mistaking his position and I don't think it's very useful to put words like 'agnosticism' into his mouth that he never actually uttered.

As for the whole 'demented' thing I call it complete nonesense. The man was plainly lucid and knew exactly was he was doing. People can change their minds at any age. And it wasn't for fear of death since he never believed in an afterlife. This is a typical New-atheist argument to claim that he has necesserily ''regressed'', that his brain must be ''wasted'' to even reconsider the God theory. I disagree.

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by TruthSeeker_

[eight bits]

TS_

Quote

He clearly states that he was raised an atheist and growing up as a teenager far into adulthood he totally disbelieved into any concept of God whatsoever.

Flew described himself as having been raised a Methodist and leaving that church at age 15.

As to the book, you do realize that Flew didn't write it, right? It was written for him by his Christian handlers.

Quote

There is really no mistaking his position

I agree. His youthful Methodism is a well-defined religious profession, as is the agnsoticism he embraced in adulthood and rebranded as "negative atheism," and so is deism, the last stop on his spiritual journey.

Quote

As for the whole 'demented' thing I call it complete nonesense.

Dementia. Not "being demented," which is a colloquial phrase meaning something else entirely.

Merry Christmas.