Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?
- Thread starter Philluminati
- Start date
Yeah, but that's also why I added the additional qualifier that claims which also have a series of rules & changes a person must live by - or by believing you have to act in such a way.
Anything which plays a significant part of your life, influences your behaviour or world-view or is extraordinary should require evidence.
That pretty much mirrors one of my earliest memories, but replace brainwashed with insane & speaking to somebody who wasn't there.
How would you define faith?
Have you never watched any debates on this topic? I think both sides claim to have evidence. You may not accept the evidence from either side but to say no evidence exists doesn't make sense to me.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
The definition I hear most often is beliefe without evidence.
It is possible to believe that a deity exists, and yet not believe in that deity. The requirement to live in such a way does not follow from the belief that a deity exists.
And the mistake is assuming these people do not have evidence which they accept to be a valid and rational reason for following the path they do....just because we may either disagree or not believe as they do we should not assume they have not come to their decisions rationally.
We all make decisions based on very little (real) evidence other than what we accept to be true or what others tell us, human nature is such that we follow a range of decision making that we might term intuition and is without extant justification, sometimes we have a rationale for such based on experience or what we consider to be true, sometimes it is a gut feeling or the aforementioned intuition.
It is part of being who we are.
I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I don't think that faith is simply to fill a gap in evidence.
Theists for example can hold "that" beliefs as well as "in" beliefs. If you watch debates on these issues you will see that theists may believe THAT a "God" exists based on various reasons/evidences. Belief IN that "God" is what I would define as the faith part of it.
I was simply bored, I didn't presume to think anyone was insane or brainwashed...I wonder how much people's remembrance of such early memories is influenced by what they believe now, rather than what they actually thought then....it is an interesting part of human psychology that when we remember events we add to those events and we also unconsciously rewrite them in a way that mirrors our current level of cognition.
Faith is about Trust and Confidence in something or someone that may not necessarily require substansive evidence to support other than the individuals cognitive reason....Faith is not independent of Reason in the context of Theological Philosophy, the concept of Faith being independant from Reason is called Fideism and is something few religions follow and many oppose.
I can see how that could be the case, but I've never believed in a deity, I felt uncomfortable with the entire concept as a child - I felt stupid when pressured to join in prayer (as I felt like I was talking to myself).
I didn't reject it for any reason other than I couldn't see it & it seemed silly (obviously not great reasons) - but I'm not looking at it with a hind-sight, as I had plenty of stupid beliefs as a child/adolescent which I grew out of (such as a lust for vengeance to be inflicted on criminals) out of a twisted sense of justice.
While I agree evidence is subjective - good evidence isn't, for one it's independently verifiable & available to all.
As for the personal message, how can anybody know it's a message from god & not the onset of schizophrenia?.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,442
I've watched many discussions on the topic yes.
You seem to have it slightly backwards.
Theism. The belief in a deity.
Atheism. The rejection of this belief.
Most atheists do not claim there is no God, only that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe in one. It is the theist that must provide evidence as they are the ones making the claim.
I'm confused as to what evidence you think atheists have provided to support their claim. We're not making a claim, we simply reject your claim based on the lack of evidence.
I admit I did not like praying either, I was always self conscious about it as a child and I still don't do it even when I attend Church with my wife or when I spend time in places that hold such requirements (research for work). As a child I don't thing I really thought about it conceptually, I just didn't like doing it. Much like I didn't like rugby.
I think group praying is silly even now, I feel that a relationship with God is something between an individual and God, that doesn't mean not attending Church, listening to sermons, even singing and so on...just the praying part...I think that is something that should remain personal.
The problem with that is one of interpretation...we see all kinds of evidence (scientific) that is interpreted according to how said evidence is expressed. For one expert it may indicate one conclusion, for another it may indicate the opposite (climate, linguistic and criminal science are all subject to this)....we can try to define good evidence from bad, but again that would be subjective to some degree as well.....
I'm not sure what this is in reference to?
Last edited:
Surely you must lean towards either believing or not believing, at least to an extent?
I can't say for certain that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy executed by the US Government and if I was presented with convincing enough evidence, my beliefs on it would change. But while I may not and may never possess all of the evidence, I still think I can make a reasonable judgement on it. I'm not trying to imply you give equal weight to conspiracy theories but hopefully you see my point.
I see your point, however in the case of whether there is a God or not I have not yet come to any conclusions and so remain ambivalent and have yet to lean in any one direction.
With something such a 9/11 where there is identifiable evidence in either case we can to some extent make an analysis of the evidence and take some conclusions from them, but where there is a distinct lack of evidence for either position this is not possible therefore I would remain undecided.
There will never be any evidence for non-existence of deity. By definition it is beyond our laws. (and to avoid pedantic of definition lets go with Abrahimic god)
In essence you're waiting for confirmation of god and until you have confirmation of god you abstain from leaning either way. I do not think such position equally treats belief and non-belief.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
That's fine for a deistic god, but what about the claims of the Abrahamic religions?
Well, you have made a specific definition (would you like to define the Abrahamic God?) I have not. You may believe that we will never have convincing evidence one way or the other, we may not, however I have not the knowledge to make such a definitive statement and therefore choose not to base any position on such. I think that any definition of God assumes too much and I am still considering what is actually meant by the term God, rather than making definitive decisions on whether such exists...before we can decide whether something exists or not, we must first have a coherent definition of that something...as yet this is not the case.
I'm not waiting for anything, I am still in a state of learning and considering...I simply do not yet take a position either way. I give equal consideration to either position, I am undecided about the validity of the concept.
What about them...if you are asking whether I am a Christian, Muslim or are Jewish then the answer is no, if you are asking whether I believe or disbelieve in their God, you will first have to offer a cognisant and coherent definition of the Abrahamic God.....and even then that would not necessarily impact on whether I believe or disbelieve in the Concept of God, it would simply mean that I would either accept or reject that particular definition, which unless universal and within the aforementioned criteria would be meaningless.
Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent would be a good umbrella that would catch most of people's criteria of a God.
Around 55% of population is either Muslim or Christian, they both have the same God and have a specific definition for him.
Can you apply your reason and knowledge to tell if Muslim/Christian God has equal 50% chance to exist and 50% chance not to exist?
For a way to lean either way there has to be a possibility of evidence either way. If we take 55% of population definition of God, he can not be disproved. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't sound to me like a balanced position either way, I think it's slightly biased towards existence of God as there is no information that will ever lean your view towards non-existence of such God.