When/ how did you become an atheist?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by spidergoat, Apr 16, 2011.

Page 8 of 26
  1. 420Joey

    420Joey SF's Incontestable Pimp Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,189
    The same song and dance eh Dwy............
    im leaving this alone bro there my beliefs which I dont even plan on elaborating on further although I may be able 2 because it contradicts the very nature of evidence we would require to ascribe to it in any rate so Ill just take it as a big waste of time and hopefully prevent this thread from gettingderailed to no return

    in anyrate arguing about any belief regarding the premise of origin without any belief to contrast it to reminds me of the following picture.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Who cares your not proving anything you know except that we dont know? So ....................... yeah.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2011
    420Joey, Apr 22, 2011
    #141

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Except that you've made claims about "what science says", and still not provided links.
    Well done.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Dywyddyr, Apr 22, 2011
    #142

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Do you have faith that time and space are the only reality, is that how it is? Or can you realize there is a slim possibility, however slight, that experiential and anecdotal evidence exists that these may in fact be illusions perceived by sensory organs existing in the third dimension only? Until you realize time and space are illusions of sight, sound, etc. and of the third dimensional physically oriented mind, you won't be ready to contemplate other scenarios for the existence of the cosmos. Till then, you will remain prisoners of the scientific dictatorship.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2011
    The Esotericist, Apr 22, 2011
    #143

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Faith?
    Why should I have faith in what I experience?

    Experiential evidence? You mean claims and anecdote?
    "In the third dimension only"? Dunno about you but my sense organs exist in (at least) four dimensions...
     
    Dywyddyr, Apr 22, 2011
    #144
  8. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.
    Four? The x axis, the y axis, and time? What other axis do you perceive in? I'm curious?
     
    The Esotericist, Apr 22, 2011
    #145
  9. YoYoPapaya

    YoYoPapaya Trump/Norris - 2012 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,039


    height, length, width´and time would be my guess
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2011
    YoYoPapaya, Apr 22, 2011
    #146
  10. KilljoyKlown

    KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    That's just all types of wrong. But speaking for myself, I like both evidence and reasoning.
     
    KilljoyKlown, Apr 22, 2011
    #147
  11. JuNie

    JuNie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    163
    Never became an Atheist, Agnostic is close enough. Father took me out of church when I was young...we just never went back. He said I could read the book for myself if I wanted to become a Christian. I got involved in science and eventually decided all religions I encountered were a load of shit and so rejected them.

    My stance is always, if there isn't a God then who cares...
    If there is a God then direct him to me so that I might punch him in his face. If he had a face...If he didn't I'd ask him to take some sort of physical manifestation of himself so that I could then proceed to break his face...
     
    JuNie, Apr 22, 2011
    #148
  12. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Wrong.
    I trust my reason almost implicity (and many others trust it too).
    Theists, on the other hand, appear to use faith instead of reason.

    Length, breadth, height (the 3 spacial dimensions) and time.
     
    Dywyddyr, Apr 22, 2011
    #149
  13. The Esotericist

    The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    If you use reasoning, then you necessarily have to reason that your evidence is only as good as your sensory input is.

    The x and y axis' of space are considered just two dimensions, time the third, that is why it is said we inhabit the third dimension. But this is semantics, I don't wish to quibble over sophomoric terms.
     
    The Esotericist, Apr 22, 2011
    #150
  14. Dywyddyr

    Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Correct.
    X is one. Y is another. Z is the third. That would make time the fourth. This is standard physics, standard geometry... hell, even standard engineering.

    No, we don't "inhabit the third" we exist in all of these dimensions at the same time.
     
    Dywyddyr, Apr 22, 2011
    #151
  15. JuNie

    JuNie Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    163
    I always assume people don't know the basics of any of the sciences. Just today actually a guy yelled at me cause he thought plants didn't have DNA...he was literally like..."all life on earth has DNA? What about plants moron?..."

    I was speechless..
     
    JuNie, Apr 22, 2011
    #152
  16. chimpkin

    chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Oh Gawd, somebody emigrated from Texas again!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They should build education camps at the state border before they let us out...Notice I didn't say "RE-education"....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    chimpkin, Apr 22, 2011
    #153
  17. universaldistress

    universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Senses are not about faith. But about proven fact. If you are denying the reality of the world this is close to insane delusion. There is no reasoning in belief in god, only blind faith.
     
    universaldistress, Apr 22, 2011
    #154
  18. universaldistress

    universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Why so angry. things happenas they do. Why attribute blame for the world when it is our decisions that mould it. If you want to punch anyone punch yourself, or me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    universaldistress, Apr 22, 2011
    #155
  19. universaldistress

    universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Solipsistic conjecture with no founding in reality.


    X Y and Z actually. How do you plot a position in space without three measurements? I think you are confusing positioning on the earth. But even on the earth we still use height as well as lat and long.
     
    universaldistress, Apr 22, 2011
    #156
  20. John99

    John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    hmm...yeah i dont understand this either.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    John99, Apr 22, 2011
    #157
  21. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    We certainly never talked about atheism either. I was unaware of the entire religion/atheism issue. The only people in my family who went to church were my paternal grandparents. They talked about "church" as though it were a social club, but never about the religious aspect. Given that my grandfather was from an assimilated Jewish family and "converted" to the Episcopal church simply because that's the one his wife belonged to, I doubt that either of them had very strong feelings about it. No one else who came to our house ever mentioned church or religion.
    In the 1950s nobody ever asked. They just assumed that everybody was Christian. We learned Christmas carols in the first grade, my first formal exposure to music, and I absolutely loved them. I had no idea what those words all meant, "savior," "manger," "little Lord Jesus," and I didn't care.
    Jung's studies of archetypes suggest that belief in the supernatural may be an instinct. This would explain why it is so difficult to overturn. When you're born believing something, it feels more true than anything beliefs you acquire later through reasoning and learning. As to why that particular instinct survived (belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe whose creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the behavior of the natural universe), since instincts tend to be survival advantages, like running away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face or else you won't live to reproduce, that's a tough question. Our species has passed through two genetic bottlenecks so perhaps it's simply a random mutation survived by chance. However, at the cusp of the Neolithic Revolution it may have been a species-survival advantage, since if two rival tribes discovered that they had the same beliefs it may have made them more inclined to try living together instead of hating each other. Unfortunately the basic archetypes of religion have been weighed down with accretions that vary from one population to another, so today it reinforces the rivalry and hatred rather than damping it.
    Fortunately the rules of science and scholarship remind us that we are not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion, not the one who demands evidence to support it. Otherwise we would dissipate all of our resources disproving every crackpot theory that's ever been hatched, and research and scholarship would grind to a halt. The Rule of Laplace codifies it even further: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Laymen can be excused for not understanding this, but there is no excuse for people who call themselves scholars demanding that we disprove the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe.
    A reminder: Evidence against is not required. An assertion remains false until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (the closest science comes to absolute truth).
    You need to review your Science 101A textbook.
    No. We have proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent, overwhelming evidence. We have volumes of evidence from two completely different, unrelated branches of science: paleontology and genetics. That proof is so solid that even the Pope and the leaders of all the mainstream religions accept evolution.
    This is a place of science and scholarship, so it's not enough to state an assertion. You have to explain it. Please explain what evidence suggests that our existence in the natural universe is proof of a supernatural universe?
    You're not much of a scholar, and a compete failure as a scientist, if you don't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Evolution speaks only to the development of lifeforms from each other. It says nothing about how the first one came into existence.
    For the record, so far you have provided abundant evidence to support the assertion that you are, at the very least, not very well educated, if not downright stupid. You don't understand science at all, which is pretty much a prerequisite for being respected on SciForums.
    Churches are founded upon the fallacy of argument from authority. "My daddy told me and his daddy told him so it must be true." The fact that this trail of so-called evidence leads us logically back to someone in the Stone Age seems to escape the religionists--since, by definition, they are not logical.
    Well put, for a change. Since science as we know it arose around five hundred years ago, we have been established its fundamental premise, that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Since science is recursive, this premise has been tested and peer-reviewed for centuries, and no evidence has ever been found that challenges it, much less refutes it.
    You still have not explained why the existence of creatures with consciousness--which includes (at least) all mammals and birds--is evidence for a supernatural creator. In other words, you are still babbling incoherently.
    That's an interesting science fiction story. But it is not science and it is not scholarship. You have no evidence for this assertion so the only place you can get away with it is right here on the Religion subforum where we loosen the rules.
    Too late for that. You've already succeeded in derailing it. We're no longer discussing why and how people came to be atheists, but instead we're trying to teach you some semblance of rationality so you can get along here.
    Reasoning??? What utter bullshit! The faith of the scientist is a reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an unreasoned faith. My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I reasonably assume that she will continue to do so. The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.
    Hmm. Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud. None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.
    Amusing. Plants and animals share about 50% of their DNA. I'm sure this Redneck doesn't even know that besides plants and animals there are four more kingdoms: fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea. And they all have DNA.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Fraggle Rocker, Apr 22, 2011
    #158
  22. universaldistress

    universaldistress Extravagantly Introverted ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,468
    Sure, I am with you there.

    Evidence against may not be require per se but science must be prepared to analyse the evidence offered if it has possible substance (generally doesn't take a lot of effort or resources to question blind faith with no evidence as yet?). Evidence would theoretically be used to build an argument for or against. The fact there is no evidence to support God, and no real evidence that can deny existence of god within a cleverly cooked up fictional framework is the problem.

    The conclusion is always that both of these sides never get satisfaction.


    How so? To place bias on the review of evidence to the point it isn't looked at isn't science. Before it is cast away out of hand it must be subject to unbiased analysis. The fact the theists have nothing tangible is by the by? The fact it is easy to blow out the water is more relevant than ignoring it?
     
    universaldistress, Apr 22, 2011
    #159
  23. 420Joey

    420Joey SF's Incontestable Pimp Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,189
    Prove a negative? Science has no place regarding the premise of origin.

    Who is making the extraordinary claim? I'm inclined to believe that god exists because the very fabric of consciousness exists in this sterile physical universe that does not require this exchange of data with our senses, the enviorment and various triggers, which produces instantaneous non-scientific realities. Isnt it more sound to believe the thread of consciousness is god (1) which is a consequence of the evolution of matter?? Are we to believe that evolution only takes place in physical organisms? Or is it more sound to believe that physical organisms are a consequence of matter evolving so the universe can "create everything" and collapse its vaccum instantaneously??
    I dont care if my assertion "remains false" whats your problem your in a religion topic. I love this. "illogical supernatural universe" because of the label "god". What is so logical about the universe? Please explain and enlighten. Your position is a convinient one relating to whether god can exist or not. My definition of god isnt a conventional one but in summary I believe me and you are one in the same. You rationalize the anthro principle based on sheer probability I assume?? Can this probability not be lended to the concept of god as consciousness? What is so scientific about the scientific premise for reality? You seem like a scientifical person, I anticipate your response.

    Seriously Fraggle your like the master in linguistics and you are wayy off base here. I have explained in several posts that I do not doubt evolution in any sense. You are clearly not reading responses, just skimming and putting your input which is fine but weve went over this exact point a few times. My point about that was that it took over 1900 years for us to figure out (dwy was saying its been over 2000 years and we still havent found evidence for god) my point was that we could find it in the future. Again. I believe evolution is real.
    I must have missed the scientific theories in the religion subfora, my apologies.

    The fact that we have a universe we deem natural? What exactly is natural to you and how is this different from my definition of god? Furthmore why do you continue asking why and demanding evidence in something not natural to begin with? I'm speculating about how we came to be. Your leading this thread to regress. I havent ascertained anything as the truth.
    Your not much of a linguistic lad if you cant read in context.... Please explain to me specifically how Im not much of a scholar, please...

    Are you even reading what I put down!! Did I say evolution and abiogenesis were the same thing?? I know evolution doesent explain the premise of origin. What is the matter with you! You are sounding downright stupid Fraggle your wayy too off base. I never said evolution is not real and I never said that abiogenesis and evolution are one of the same. Are you sure your the linguistics guy to go to?

    But were not talking about a closed system. I was talking about the matter systems are based on.

    I am babbling incoheerently? Can you outline how I'm doing so?? Please. Because I didnt explain the birds?? I did I explained that god is consciousness and there is no reason for me to believe I wont resurface instaneously in the consciousness of an existing bird.

    What do you believe in? I cant wait to hear this scientific and scholarly religion.

    So you want to turn "belief" into fact? What do you believe? You have nothing to contrast my "belief" with I suspect. I dont give a fuck about the rules fraggle I really dont.
    I derailed it?
    Nah people baited and trolled me into it. You just stimulated it after dying. Your not "teaching" anyone anything. What is so rational about the premise of origin. I want to hear what you think.
    I agree with you trying to reason relating to the question being asked is hard to do, eh

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What is the scientests reasonable faith extend to when it has to do with the premise of reality and origin?

    Someone give that woman a cigar.
    Seems like you have some predisposed bias. Why is god interchangable with western organized religion systems? Hmm.

    Religionists versus saying we dont know yet and were on stand by for evidence of god?? Your standards for proof are to narrow-minded. I want to hear a rational explanation of how we exist and what our reality is based on!

    DNA is a cornerstone to my little theory. Matter is definitely evolving in more ways than we can imagine. You think, no. It's fine. I am curious to find out about your scientifical theory on origin. I cant wait for this..
     
    420Joey, Apr 22, 2011
    #160
Page 8 of 26

Share This Page