Anyone ever become an atheist after believing?

[Judgeneo]

If god did exist, he'd disable the multi-quote button in religious Threads.

Amen.

This thread is stupidly hard to read.

 

[Castiel]

Not cannot but for the purposes of discussion my default view point is that it does not until we have enough reason to believe it does.

There are quite a few examples of things we accept as extant without scientific proof...emotional attachments such as love etc springs to mind.....

I'm not a historian but my layman understanding tells me a historian would consider a second handed source written long after the event to be unreliable the same as I have.

Not necessarily, ancient historians are almost totally reliant on secondary and tertiary sources, along with relics and archaeological evidence (see Pilates stone for an example), as most primary sources are either no longer extant or are disputed. That primary sources are considered more reliable (for example, official documents from WW2) it doesn't mean secondary sources are not reliable (for example, Gods War by Tyerman on the Crusades)...Ancient Historians have the problem that records and official documents are either not in existance or are were never kept. Even history as relatively recent as The renaissance is based largely on secondary sources. The trick is multiple independant sources and linguistic and archaelogical analysis to support those sources.

It is a complex multidisciplinary area of Research and it isn't as black and white as saying a lack of primary sources makes that particular field unreliable....particularly the further back in time we go.

 

[ringo747]

Not cannot but for the purposes of discussion my default view point is that it does not until we have enough reason to believe it does.

This reasoning may well be fine for physical objects, but for the concept of a deity your reasoning just doesn't make sense. It is impossible to get scientific evidence for something non-physical so I think your dependence on scientific evidence is unreasonable.

For something non-physical what sort of evidence would be enough to convince you towards a given conclusion?

I'm not a historian but my layman understanding tells me a historian would consider a second handed source written long after the event to be unreliable the same as I have. I believe they construct their opinions based on many sources while trying to take the affects of propaganda into account.

Despite this you still get awesome quotes such as "history is written by the winners" which largely explains it's not an exact science despite being a very useful tool in telling us what went on in the past.

Now as I said, we disagree on the basic concept that theists give scientific evidence to support their views (beyond I don't understand this, so there must be a god) so if you'd like to continue this discussion you're going to need to bring something to the table.

Why would you trust a layman version of supposed historical events? Why wouldn't you consult the experts? Your statement also assumes that you have got the timescales correct in the first place. You may have came to this conclusion rationally or irrrationally. I'm not putting forward evidence for either side of this topic, however, I'm just pointing out that I disagree with your approach in the first instance.

If you were to reject a historical account purely because it happened 200 years after the event then you are going to come under a bit of flak from historians. I'd assume from your reasoning that you discount all historical records where there is a significant gap between the event and the record?

The point I'm trying to get across is that you seem to associate conclusions drawn from science as the only (or certainly most reliable) basis for truth.

Yes, I do think it's irrational but how irrational depends on the specifics.

You want to live and let live, have your faith and you'll rationally accept whats in front of you? No problems. If your faith makes you feel better about what we don't and cannot know, have at it. This is even a fairly rational way to behave despite your faith generally having nothing to do with logic and reason.

You want to judge me? That's not OK. I hold anyone who judges me in contempt. If you want to tell me something I do is immoral then you're going to need to base it on something more than a book. You want to tell me homosexuals are evil for doing something that simply doesn't affect you? I think doing that is closer to an evil act. You want to act like this, you're going to need to bring substance to the table.

I really have a problem with this. How can you possibly claim that faith in general is irrational? "Belief that" or "belief in" statements mean absolutely nothing unless they are associated with an object. To say that faith in general is irrational is simply absurd. Do you never trust what a friend tells you to be true? By your definition that is irrational.

Secondly, why do you conclude that faith generally has nothing to do with logic and reason? If a theist concludes that "God" exists based on scientific, historical and philosophical arguments then you can't seriously claim that this is nothing to do with logic or reason. "Belief in" a deity is more concerned with the act of trust. Similarly, if an atheist believes that "God" doesn't exist due to his interpretation of science then we can possibly have two rational approaches resulting in two different conclusions.

 

[aln]

There are quite a few examples of things we accept as extant without scientific proof...emotional attachments such as love etc springs to mind.....

Thats not really the same though. First of all if If god was to fly down from the heavens, perform a few miracles and then tell me he was real, I'd probably not dispute that either. Secondly science can and will prove those are largely chemical reactions and it's something every person will experience, thus it's hard to anyone to dispute.

Where that debate gets interesting is the why. We're essentially magic from my understanding, there are too many gaps as to explain the whys and while science may get there in the end, I suspect it is sufficiently complicated that I'll be long dead before then.

This is where faith comes into play in it's most rational sense. I'm fairly happy with not knowing, life is wondrous even without the answers, however if you need answers, filling in the gaps with religion is all you're going to get.

Personally I think the better man doesn't but I can totally understand why some of us do. I'm fine with this until it's used as a springboard for hate.

Not necessarily, ancient historians are almost totally reliant on secondary and tertiary sources, along with relics and archaeological evidence (see Pilates stone for an example), as most primary sources are either no longer extant or are disputed. That primary sources are considered more reliable (for example, official documents from WW2) it doesn't mean secondary sources are not reliable (for example, Gods War by Tyerman on the Crusades)...Ancient Historians have the problem that records and official documents are either not in existance or are were never kept. Even history as relatively recent as The renaissance is based largely on secondary sources. The trick is multiple independant sources and linguistic and archaelogical analysis to support those sources.

It is a complex multidisciplinary area of Research and it isn't as black and white as saying a lack of primary sources makes that particular field unreliable....particularly the further back in time we go.

Just for the record I didn't claim a primary source itself was reliable, just that the type of sources we're discussing would not be without something else to back it up.

Like my earlier point stating that some historians believe Jesus existed due to Roman record or such (my memory is well fuzzy on this topic so thats probably wrong, I actually said "disinterested parties" in my previous post) which gives context from another point of view which is interesting.

If you read all my posts you'll see you're not actually telling me anything new but even at a best guess that only lends credence to the the man (Jesus) being a real fella, not that god himself is real.

 

[aln]

This reasoning may well be fine for physical objects, but for the concept of a deity your reasoning just doesn't make sense. It is impossible to get scientific evidence for something non-physical so I think your dependence on scientific evidence is unreasonable.

For something non-physical what sort of evidence would be enough to convince you towards a given conclusion?

First of all, are you actually trying to debate that mavity is a physical object?

Secondly, I think your dependence on accepting things with no evidence is unreasonable? You think you have evidence, I've already said, leave me alone or bring it. Stop trying to debate semantics and actually show me something worth believing.

Why would you trust a layman version of supposed historical events? Why wouldn't you consult the experts? Your statement also assumes that you have got the timescales correct in the first place. You may have came to this conclusion rationally or irrrationally. I'm not putting forward evidence for either side of this topic, however, I'm just pointing out that I disagree with your approach in the first instance.

I consult experts all the time but theres nothing wrong with attempting to understand how experts come to their conclusions and validating that they've at least put in a minimal amount of effort. Otherwise you live in a world where you believe anything you're told.

If you were to reject a historical account purely because it happened 200 years after the event then you are going to come under a bit of flak from historians. I'd assume from your reasoning that you discount all historical records where there is a significant gap between the event and the record?

You completely misunderstood my point.

The point I'm trying to get across is that you seem to associate conclusions drawn from science as the only (or certainly most reliable) basis for truth.

Yep, so what?

I really have a problem with this. How can you possibly claim that faith in general is irrational? "Belief that" or "belief in" statements mean absolutely nothing unless they are associated with an object. To say that faith in general is irrational is simply absurd. Do you never trust what a friend tells you to be true? By your definition that is irrational.

I wouldn't trust him if he told me he had a purple dinosaur in his garage and I'd ask him to prove it.

Secondly, why do you conclude that faith generally has nothing to do with logic and reason? If a theist concludes that "God" exists based on scientific, historical and philosophical arguments then you can't seriously claim that this is nothing to do with logic or reason. "Belief in" a deity is more concerned with the act of trust. Similarly, if an atheist believes that "God" doesn't exist due to his interpretation of science then we can possibly have two rational approaches resulting in two different conclusions.

You know it's called faith for a reason. At some point you need to leave logic and reason behind and make that leap of faith into the unproven and just accept it as a reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

No offense mate but you're your only real argument is I can't prove something doesn't exist if you can't see, measure, detect or otherwise observe its effects. That takes me right back to dragons, purple dinosaurs, and anything else I care to make up as being real because I've decided they don't follow the rules of reality and thats apparently all the justification I need.

You want to believe that? Fine. Personally I think thats stupid as ****. You can debate that until you're blue in the face but I'm not going to bother anymore.

 

[kedge]

There is no evidence to prove the man in the sky.

God's handiwork stretches throughout this universe, many choose not to believe that. I have tried viewing all things from an atheistic worldview, but to remain in such a position i would have to ignore the real science and truth.

 

[Castiel]

Thats not really the same though. First of all if If god was to fly down from the heavens, perform a few miracles and then tell me he was real, I'd probably not dispute that either. Secondly science can and will prove those are largely chemical reactions and it's something every person will experience, thus it's hard to anyone to dispute.

Where that debate gets interesting is the why. We're essentially magic from my understanding, there are too many gaps as to explain the whys and while science may get there in the end, I suspect it is sufficiently complicated that I'll be long dead before then.

This is where faith comes into play in it's most rational sense. I'm fairly happy with not knowing, life is wondrous even without the answers, however if you need answers, filling in the gaps with religion is all you're going to get.

Personally I think the better man doesn't but I can totally understand why some of us do. I'm fine with this until it's used as a springboard for hate.

Hate is not inherent in religion, it is however inherent in human nature...I am not sure I would like to judge myself the better man because I have no religious faith, I would rather base those kind of judgements on action and deed, and people use all kinds of justifications for their prejudices, religion is only one of them.

As to the initial subject of God, I wasn't equating what I said with evidence of God, only relaying it in the context of accepted evidence which we as humans rely upon in our every day lives that is not subject to scientific evaluation as the basis of that acceptance.

Just for the record I didn't claim a primary source itself was reliable, just that the type of sources we're discussing would not be without something else to back it up.

Quite, I would point out as well that Primary Sources are also subject to verification and multiple attestation in order to test their authenticity and reliability.

Like my earlier point stating that some historians believe Jesus existed due to Roman record or such (my memory is well fuzzy on this topic so thats probably wrong, I actually said "disinterested parties" in my previous post) which gives context from another point of view which is interesting.

If you read all my posts you'll see you're not actually telling me anything new but even at a best guess that only lends credence to the the man (Jesus) being a real fella, not that god himself is real.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the man) is a matter of consensus amongst scholars and academics, there are a few who dispute it, but their evidence has been largely debunked. The claim of whether he was divine/son of God or not however, is a theological and not a historical matter, you will find even theologically there is dispute over this claim, within Christianity as well as without. I was not disputing this particular example, I saw you mentioned it earlier..I was simply added some flesh to how historians and those in related fields attribute value to sources to build a record of events and that a lack of primary sources doesn't necessarily impact upon the authenticity and validity of that record. It is preferable to have primary sources, but outside of modern history they are rare and subject to dispute themselves.

I have read most of your posts, and it seems that you are making an assumption that Science, in regard to God lends itself to the logical assumption of Atheism. In the following short clip, Eugenie Scott explains why Science is Agnostic, rather than Atheistic.

 

[aln]

God's handiwork stretches throughout this universe, many choose not to believe that. I have tried viewing all things from an atheistic worldview, but to remain in such a position i would have to ignore the real science and truth.

Post it then.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

Ballsack on the outside = Proof of no God.

 

[Castiel]

Post it then.

You don't know what you've done.....

 

[crinkleshoes]

How about an atheist skeptic materialist becoming a believer?

You bring something to the table that doesn't need to be backed by faith, then you win. Until you do, you lose.

Why are you trying to make a competition?

What personal or social benefit do you achieve by attempting to quash the beliefs of others? Self-satisfaction?

Your dogmatic scientific belief system is just as bad as that of an evangelical.

 

[JoeF1]

Post it then.

popcorn.gif

 

[ringo747]

First of all, are you actually trying to debate that mavity is a physical object?

Secondly, I think your dependence on accepting things with no evidence is unreasonable? You think you have evidence, I've already said, leave me alone or bring it. Stop trying to debate semantics and actually show me something worth believing.

I assumed we were still discussing scientific evidence for metaphysical questions here.

I haven't stated that I accept anything without evidence. I have simply stated that contrary to your own opinion theists do utilise scientific evidence in support of their views. I'm not interested in attempting to present any evidence for either side.

You completely misunderstood my point.

I took your statement to mean that you would reject scripture due to the fact that it was written well after the events happened. I was merely asking if you use the same approach for all historical texts where there is a gap between the record and the event? Failure to do so wouldn't appear to be rational.

Yep, so what?

So you are saying that unless something can be evidenced scientifically then it can't be accepted as truth?

I wouldn't trust him if he told me he had a purple dinosaur in his garage and I'd ask him to prove it.

And what about if he told you he got a new job? Would you ask to see the contract before believing him?

You know it's called faith for a reason. At some point you need to leave logic and reason behind and make that leap of faith into the unproven and just accept it as a reality. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I think this is quite a narrow view of faith. I don't agree that you need to leave logic and reason behind totally. Some of the pillars central to the belief may well be evidence based in the first instance.

 

[crinkleshoes]

This is quite succinct at only 18 minutes in length and well presented... he makes good points about dogmas to which most scientific minds subscribe:

Just because evidence fits to one idea, does not mean it could not apply to other ideas too

 

[estebanrey]

There are quite a few examples of things we accept as extant without scientific proof...emotional attachments such as love etc springs to mind......

We actually know quite a lot about the biological and psychological factors surrounding love, its certainly not 'magic' that's for sure. But even if we didn't, there's a difference between accepting/believing in something you can clearly see exists by it's effects (the wind as another example) and something like God which is both invisible and has no measurable effects or at best no useful measurable effects if you believe in an intervening God.

I really have a problem with this. How can you possibly claim that faith in general is irrational? "Belief that" or "belief in" statements mean absolutely nothing unless they are associated with an object. To say that faith in general is irrational is simply absurd. Do you never trust what a friend tells you to be true? By your definition that is irrational.

If you never believed your friends no matter what they said that would be irrational but believing something your friend says isn't "faith" either. IMO, people tend to miss-use the word 'faith' to mean accepting anything you can't categorically prove on the spot, by that definition everything we believe is faith unless you have done rigorous scientific tests on everything.

To me 'faith' is believing in something not just with no evidence, but also with no supporting evidence or consideration of probabilities and rejects counter evidence.

So if my friend tells me he has just bought a new dog and I believe him, that's not 'faith'. I'm calculating the likelihood of it being true and I know he likes dogs, I know people often keep dogs and there is no dog shortage so I believe him. If that same guys then tells me he was abducted by aliens the night before I probably won't believe him (although I'd probably humor him out of basic human social politeness).

So when a friend tells you something, it's not 'faith' because you are balancing up the evidence and coming to a conclusion in your mind, it involves a thought process which is the opposite of faith in that sense,.

 

[Castiel]

I think this is quite a narrow view of faith. I don't agree that you need to leave logic and reason behind totally. Some of the pillars central to the belief may well be evidence based in the first instance.

I think the problem lies with how people perceive the idea of Faith...they assume it means to accept blindly, when in fact it is about confidence and trust in what you believe....Gandhi once said "Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies." and he is right, we have a few members whose faith is blind, they ignore what the world and their own reason tells them, instead they listen to others and blindly accept what they are told as being the Truth...against that which is self-evident. Staying with Gandhi, he also said "Faith is not something to grasp, it is a state to grow into." Again, this makes sense, Faith is about Truth, and to find the Truth you must experience it to embrace it, you cannot simply be told it without reason or thought.

 

[Castiel]

We actually know quite a lot about the biological and psychological factors surrounding love, its certainly not 'magic' that's for sure. But even if we didn't, there's a difference between accepting/believing in something you can clearly see exists by it's effects (the wind as another example) and something like God which is both invisible and has no measurable effects or at best no useful measurable effects if you believing in an intervening God.

If you read on I make it clear that I was not equating emotional responses to evidence of God...however as you bring it up, we understand some of what happens in the human body when we experience these emotions, what we do not understand is why an individual experiences such emotions at certain times, or why one individual is attracted to/loves another individual and so on...all I was saying is that within our everyday lives we accept many things as true without supporting scientific evidence.

I didn't mention magic either...that was someone else.

 

[crinkleshoes]

We actually know quite a lot about the biological and psychological factors surrounding love, its certainly not 'magic' that's for sure. But even if we didn't, there's a difference between accepting/believing in something you can clearly see exists by it's effects (the wind as another example) and something like God which is both invisible and has no measurable effects or at best no useful measurable effects if you believe in an intervening God.

Just because no-one has yet ascribed some observable evidence to the effect of a deity, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Heck, we can only observe 4% of the mass and energy in the universe that we "believe" to be present.

How does consciousness spring from what numerous believe to be an unconscious mechanical universe? In my mind, that may be the closest we will ever get to proof of a deity.

A much older belief system seems more plausible - that consciousness is the foundation of the universe. Our maya is nothing more than a complicated hologram.

If you never believed your friends no matter what they said that would be irrational but believing something your friend says isn't "faith" either. IMO, people tend to miss-use the word 'faith' to mean accepting anything you can't categorically prove on the spot, by that definition everything we believe is faith unless you have done rigorous scientific tests on everything.

If you wish to put it in the box of a word, perhaps you should try to understand what the word means - a dictionary may be of use to you.

 

[crinkleshoes]

I think the problem lies with how people perceive the idea of Faith...they assume it means to accept blindly, when in fact it is about confidence and trust in what you believe....Gandhi once said "Faith... must be enforced by reason... when faith becomes blind it dies." and he is right, we have a few members whose faith is blind, they ignore what the world and their own reason tells them, instead they listen to others and blindly accept what they are told as being the Truth...against that which is self-evident. Staying with Gandhi, he also said "Faith is not something to grasp, it is a state to grow into." Again, this makes sense, Faith is about Truth, and to find the Truth you must experience it to embrace it, you cannot simply be told it without reason or thought.

Exactly... "faith" and "blind faith" are two very different things

 

[aln]

Hate is not inherent in religion, it is however inherent in human nature...I am not sure I would like to judge myself the better man because I have no religious faith, I would rather base those kind of judgements on action and deed, and people use all kinds of justifications for their prejudices, religion is only one of them.

It didn't actually say it was.

However most popular religions do have some level of judgment and if you do not prescribe to these beliefs (whether because you are non religious, you follow a different religion, or you pick and choose your beliefs) then you are a better man (at least where thats concerned).

Thats about my only reason to really actively dislike religion.

As to the initial subject of God, I wasn't equating what I said with evidence of God, only relaying it in the context of accepted evidence which we as humans rely upon in our every day lives that is not subject to scientific evaluation as the basis of that acceptance.

It largely is actually. You observe, you draw conclusions based on those observations. Alright it's not scientific theory with peer reviewed journal publications but as humans we do a lot of fantastic shortcuts in our minds to figure things out. Sometimes this messes us up and we'll be later be found out to be wrong, but generally it comes from logic and reason.

Quite, I would point out as well that Primary Sources are also subject to verification and multiple attestation in order to test their authenticity and reliability.

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth (the man) is a matter of consensus amongst scholars and academics, there are a few who dispute it, but their evidence has been largely debunked.

The claim of whether he was divine/son of God or not however, is a theological and not a historical matter, you will find even theologically there is dispute over this claim, within Christianity as well as without. I was not disputing this particular example, I saw you mentioned it earlier..I was simply added some flesh to how historians and those in related fields attribute value to sources to build a record of events.

I don't care about the example itself, it was just a fairly shallow example of why one could in theory accept he existed on the basis of information from several view points. I didn't exactly show the work because the example is less important than the point.

Again we are not disagreeing. People themselves aren't good sources and people are involved in many of our sources. We forget things, we lie, our minds play tricks on us, we write things as facts based on what we've been told Thats just a fact of life. Essentially though, we're using different words to say the same thing.

I have read most of your posts, and it seems that you are making an assumption that Science, in regard to God lends itself to the logical assumption of Atheism. In the following short clip, Eugenie Scott explains why Science is Agnostic, rather than Atheistic.

There are videos that make the case for why atheism is the preferred choice and I still believe for the sake of argument it is.

The dragons point is supposed to illustrate why the burden of proof is on the believer, which is why I'm happy for science to be atheist by default. That seems sensible to me.

However, I've also stated that there are far too many missing "whys" and that makes being agnostic a good fit too.

I've also suggested being religious (within reason) doesn't stop you being scientific in the rest of your life.