Why I Am No Longer An Atheist

[Winchester]

Man does not live by bread alone. Can't make no sammich, you only got bread.

[Guest]

I've heard there's some good weed out there. You might have even forgot that you smoked it.

I've smoked a lot of weed in my life ( not anymore ) and not once have I seen things or hallucinated (sp) I'm postive of this. When these 2 miracles happened it was not something my mind made up or drug induced. It was the God of lights making Himself known to me. It was nearly 10 years ago and I remember it as it happened yesterday. I know it means nothing to you since you don't know me but to me its everything. I was touched by God and the Holy Spirit. Not that I'm special or anything but then again I have the creator of the universe and everything that is living inside me. Edited December 12, 2012 by Guest

[XIX]

In your own world.

 

Dude, I'm not arguing with you.  I'm stating a fact.

 

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable.

--wiki

 

 

Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

--wiki

[Guest]

Ya I just had this conversation with my dude I play poker with out here in Vegas. He's agnostic and we talk about God. He says he's agnostic because he doesn't know. He says he chooses to live a moral life because the possiblity exist that God could be real.

[XIX]

I also can't disprove that the American Founding Fathers were space aliens, so would it be irrational for me to reject that belief too?

 

Science is engineered to work by not believing in something until evidence is presented otherwise.

 

I'd argue that such a claim has been soundly disproven.  But since you asked...I do "reject (that) belief."  So if that's what you mean by atheism, then sure.

 

Semantic, so whatever.

[Gabriela]

You can make a rational argument for anything, including X and ~X.

 

Why anyone is not an atheist: God intervened.

 

To Him be all the glory!

[theculturewarrior]

I also can't disprove that the American Founding Fathers were space aliens, so would it be irrational for me to reject that belief too?

 

Science is engineered to work by not believing in something until evidence is presented otherwise.

 

 

The scientific method mostly examines material evidence.  There is plenty of evidence for the existence of God and plenty of reasons to doubt.  But you seem to be saying that because this cannot be tested in a laboratory it is false.  I do agree that the existence of God cannot be validated through controlled experimentation.  For some reason that does not bother me.  Science has limitations.  The sum of the unknown will exceed the sum of the known in homo sapiens at least for next few thousand years and maybe more.  The scientific method begins with observation, and that relies on human instruments which continue to advance but still leave even more questions unanswered.  So if science begins with what can be observed, and our ability to perceive the Universe, the world, and ourselves is limited, then how are we going to design an experiment to prove the existence of God?  Why should this bother me as a theist?

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Papist]

You're the one with something to prove.  It's your job to find the evidence.

 

Yes. But evidence will you accept?

[theculturewarrior]

With reason alone, you cannot prove conclusively that the chair you are sitting on exists.

[4588686]

With reason alone, you cannot prove conclusively that the chair you are sitting on exists.

Beleiving in the God of the Catholic Church is akin to believing that the 'external' world exists? You're right that you cannot prove to a Cartesian certainity that the chair exists but your wrong to try to use that to grandfather in God

[theculturewarrior]

Beleiving in the God of the Catholic Church is akin to believing that the 'external' world exists? You're right that you cannot prove to a Cartesian certainity that the chair exists but your wrong to try to use that to grandfather in God

 

I have not done that though.  I am only pointing out the futility of using reason in a vacuum.  I can imagine very valid arguments against the existence of God (I naturally disagree) but they cannot be exclusively rational.  It is impossible and dishonest to claim otherwise.

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

Beleiving in the God of the Catholic Church is akin to believing that the 'external' world exists? You're right that you cannot prove to a Cartesian certainity that the chair exists but your wrong to try to use that to grandfather in God

 

I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point.  I think that I could make you struggle for an answer.  But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone.  Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not.

[4588686]

I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point.  I think that I could make you struggle for an answer.  But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone.  Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not.

 

I'm sitting on a chair.  

 

I've read an into philosophy text too.  You can come up with all sorts of 'brain in a vat' scenarios and intellectual riddles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm sitting on a chair and right now there's probably a woman crying and begging God to stop the man who is currently raping her and receiving only silence for a response. 

[theculturewarrior]

My favorite proof for the existence of God is found in the Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius.  For the uninitiated, it is basically an extrapolation of human behavior and the conclusion that because of what we know about the way people are, God must exist.  It is very easily discredited, no doubt.  And believe every word of that book.  But it does not really lose the credibility that it deserves, due to the wisdom contained within and the foundational effect that it has had on Western thought.  My approach to the existence of God is similar.  I can make an argument, and you can discredit it with equal force and credibility, and we can go in circles, regurgitating the history of Western thought until we are both nauseous.  It does not really mean anything.  It is just argument and persuasion.

[theculturewarrior]

I'm sitting on a chair.  

 

I've read an into philosophy text too.  You can come up with all sorts of 'brain in a vat' scenarios and intellectual riddles but that doesn't change the fact that I'm sitting on a chair and right now there's probably a woman crying and begging God to stop the man who is currently raping her and receiving only silence for a response. 

 

 

One of Bertrand Russel's favorite arguments against the existence of God was the problem of human suffering.  How could God exist and allow children to starve to death everyday?  The Church's reply was to go feed the children. 

[4588686]

One of Bertrand Russel's favorite arguments against the existence of God was the problem of human suffering.  How could God exist and allow children to starve to death everyday?  The Church's reply was to go feed the children. 

 

Some people in the Church have made admirable efforts to cover up their God's abject failure.  I agree.  

[theculturewarrior]

Some people in the Church have made admirable efforts to cover up their God's abject failure.  I agree.  

 

We are the face of Christ on earth.  He works through our hands.

[4588686]

We are the face of Christ on earth.  He works through our hands.

 

He hasn't done a very good job.  You'd think omnipotence would be more effective.

[theculturewarrior]

He hasn't done a very good job.  You'd think omnipotence would be more effective.

 

LOL.  Fair enough.

 

This brings to my second reason for why I am no longer an atheist:

 

 

The Cross. The problem of human suffering.

 

I will type this one out later though as the doctors tell me that I must sleep sometimes or I will begin to think that I am the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte (not Dynamite as my wife would have me believe).

Edited December 12, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Anomaly]

I am tempted to ask you why in regards to your second point.  I think that I could make you struggle for an answer.  But I do not want to betray the fact I do not need proof in the mathematical sense, and I do not need to prove the existence of God to anyone.  Spiritual geometry problems do nothing for me. The truth is many things, but formulaic it is not.

 

So are you saying people choose among various reasonable assumptions about unknowables, and are only arguing about the reasonableness of how we build on these fundamental assumptions, or how correctly we build other conclusions based on these fundamental assumptions?