Thoughts on Atheism (and a plea to the religious)

[KnockEmOuttt]

I am sure that Knockemoutt would like his ythread back...he may have even asked for it back once or twice, a couple of pages back behind this irrelevant quibbling bullshit....

Yeah, my intention here was not to have to prove my atheism. If CliveStaples had even bothered to read my original post, I think he would have understood my reasoning.

[FallentoReason]

No more mental backflips to avoid the questions.

An observation and a memory. They evidence matches up. Prove to me that doesn't mean a thing.

Right, all you're proving is that if the memory and the experience match up, then the memory and the experience match up. That's obvious.

What I'm asking is different. What I'm asking is how you can know that your memory is accurate.

How you know p is true is different than whether p is true.

You keep asserting that I'm hopeless and can't show anything for my belief. I tell you the evidence is very much real and out there. Then you subtly try and change the question and pretend like that's what you didn't ask.

My belief is justified. Show me why I can't believe the data otherwise you've got nothing.

You haven't given any data. All you've said is that if the memory of an experience corresponds to the experience, then the memory is accurate. But that was never in dispute.

You haven't given any evidence that your memory is reliable.

Two, and just to push you on this point, how do you know that the evidence exists?

Because the experiments have been done.

How do you know that the experiments have been done?

Let me ask you, what happens if I put mentos into a Coke bottle?

Depends on what's in the Coke bottle.

Ok, let's go there. My argument is circular. What changes?

Well, it means that you've admitted that you haven't supported your belief that your memory is accurate.

P.s. I'll just note that you still haven't answered me in the other thread. I'll just leave this right here for you:

Okay.

Please... GET TO THE POINT.

I wasted most of yesterday seeing where this is going to go, but so far all you have done is ask 'but how do you know'? When I then ask you how does any of this work for your Jesus, you just shrug your shoulders... genius.

So what's the implication of all this? Convert me. I dare you.

[KnockEmOuttt]

How do you know that the experiments have been done?


Depends on what's in the Coke bottle.


Well, it means that you've admitted that you haven't supported your belief that your memory is accurate.


Okay.

Please... GET TO THE POINT.

I wasted most of yesterday seeing where this is going to go, but so far all you have done is ask 'but how do you know'? When I then ask you how does any of this work for your Jesus, you just shrug your shoulders... genius.

So what's the implication of all this? Convert me. I dare you.

This is exactly my problem. It's all about deciphering the religious banter and pseudo-philosophical blah blah, but the principle behind this whole thing is classic. Us, the atheists need to prove, and anything we have as proof isn't good enough. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot...

The problem with the whole thing is that atheists have got to provide proof in absolutes. We've got to mean what we say and say what we mean. The religious folks are allowed to bend and interpret and change the meanings of things to suit their needs. That is why I find most arguments on behalf of the religious to be nonsense. I need to provide an absolute, black and white, infallible statement of evidence. You get to point at an ancient book, whose inconsistencies do not matter just because. And really, that's the reason. Just because.

[FallentoReason]

Please... GET TO THE POINT.

I wasted most of yesterday seeing where this is going to go, but so far all you have done is ask 'but how do you know'? When I then ask you how does any of this work for your Jesus, you just shrug your shoulders... genius.

So what's the implication of all this? Convert me. I dare you.

This is exactly my problem. It's all about deciphering the religious banter and pseudo-philosophical blah blah, but the principle behind this whole thing is classic. Us, the atheists need to prove, and anything we have as proof isn't good enough. Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot...

The problem with the whole thing is that atheists have got to provide proof in absolutes. We've got to mean what we say and say what we mean. The religious folks are allowed to bend and interpret and change the meanings of things to suit their needs. That is why I find most arguments on behalf of the religious to be nonsense. I need to provide an absolute, black and white, infallible statement of evidence. You get to point at an ancient book, whose inconsistencies do not matter just because. And really, that's the reason. Just because.

I couldn't agree more. I understand that there are limitations when it comes to knowledge in general, but the point he's trying to push is honestly analogous to someone that should be put into a straight jacket. Reality = irrational belief.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

I am sure that Knockemoutt would like his ythread back...he may have even asked for it back once or twice, a couple of pages back behind this irrelevant quibbling bullshit....

Yeah, my intention here was not to have to prove my atheism. If CliveStaples had even bothered to read my original post, I think he would have understood my reasoning.

He's not into understanding any reasoning. He's into disrupting as much as he can and waving his little diagrams around and kidding himself that he knows shit from shine-ola.

Hope someone clears out the troll soon so you can get your thread back.

[KnockEmOuttt]

I did kind of get the feeling he was looking for converts.

[Mystic]

I come from a christian background. I was a devout christian for more than half of my life. It was actually through bible study and religious instruction that I came to be an atheist (amongst other factors, but it was largely an informed decision).

When you find out a religion is false, you automatically know your faith was misplaced. But was it totally misplaced? I feel there is an attraction to the divine in religions, and our previous faith really is centralized on faith in the sacred link to the soul and greatness and beauty beyond us. But the religion muddles that with all sorts of complexity, some of it of beauty, some of it not, but none of it divine.

It's emotional way to distance ourselves from the Creator protrayed by the Abrahamic religions, and then we feel distanced from the Creator as we never worshipped other then it but now are disgusted by it.

However if you recall, you really were attracted only to one aspect, and that as the aspect of beauty, that of love, mercy, compassion, forbearance, grace.

Once that distance from God happens, then it's hard to feel God exists as believers do.

But something that happened to me, is that while I was in my religion, I began seriously questioning the image of the Creator, and realized I was attracted of one side of that Creator and not the other opposite side.

I suggest trying to recall your memory of faith in God and to see really if it was all an illusion, of that your faith was partially an illusion, and partly based on reality.

The reality that is based upon I feel, is that, whatever ultimate honor, ultimate greatness, ultimate goodness, and ultimate beauty is, is that exists and is the necessary existence. Everything can exist, but doesn't have to, except that. However, religion misplaced that properly basic knowledge of God with attributes unbefitting of ultimate honor/beauty etc...

As your mind matured or when religion was proven false, you realized that image of the Creator was not the ultimate being. But was your faith misplaced that there was an ultimate being?

This is no one can answer but yourself. Everyone must answer this honestly.

I believe all answers are dignified, as long as one is honest to themselves about it.

[KnockEmOuttt]

I come from a christian background. I was a devout christian for more than half of my life. It was actually through bible study and religious instruction that I came to be an atheist (amongst other factors, but it was largely an informed decision).

When you find out a religion is false, you automatically know your faith was misplaced. But was it totally misplaced? I feel there is an attraction to the divine in religions, and our previous faith really is centralized on faith in the sacred link to the soul and greatness and beauty beyond us. But the religion muddles that with all sorts of complexity, some of it of beauty, some of it not, but none of it divine.

It's emotional way to distance ourselves from the Creator protrayed by the Abrahamic religions, and then we feel distanced from the Creator as we never worshipped other then it but now are disgusted by it.

However if you recall, you really were attracted only to one aspect, and that as the aspect of beauty, that of love, mercy, compassion, forbearance, grace.

Once that distance from God happens, then it's hard to feel God exists as believers do.

But something that happened to me, is that while I was in my religion, I began seriously questioning the image of the Creator, and realized I was attracted of one side of that Creator and not the other opposite side.

I suggest trying to recall your memory of faith in God and to see really if it was all an illusion, of that your faith was partially an illusion, and partly based on reality.

The reality that is based upon I feel, is that, whatever ultimate honor, ultimate greatness, ultimate goodness, and ultimate beauty is, is that exists and is the necessary existence. Everything can exist, but doesn't have to, except that. However, religion misplaced that properly basic knowledge of God with attributes unbefitting of ultimate honor/beauty etc...

As your mind matured or when religion was proven false, you realized that image of the Creator was not the ultimate being. But was your faith misplaced that there was an ultimate being?

This is no one can answer but yourself. Everyone must answer this honestly.

I believe all answers are dignified, as long as one is honest to themselves about it.

The God I had believed in was a character (which is why when I talk about the christian god I use a capital G) much like in any storybook. Man in the sky wearing a robe with a white beard.

I can say that, initially after leaving the religion, I wanted to believe in an "ultimate creator." This changed the more I looked into things. Eventually sentience was simply no longer part of the equation. I've come to think of the universe as a series of chances: by chance this, and as a result that and so on and so on. It's taken an ultimate being out of the equation for me. Again, neither I nor anyone else can truly prove one way or the other, but that's where my head's at. It's been an evolution.

[Mystic]

I can say that, initially after leaving the religion, I wanted to believe in an "ultimate creator." This changed the more I looked into things.

What exactly changed your "want" to believe? Was it the problem of evil?

[KnockEmOuttt]

I can say that, initially after leaving the religion, I wanted to believe in an "ultimate creator." This changed the more I looked into things.

What exactly changed your "want" to believe? Was it the problem of evil?

I think it was mostly because I'd stopped caring. The more my "chance" belief developed, the less important a creator being became.