Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What turned you?

Page 6 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 8:17 am

Cleekster wrote:
it also seems that many of you are confusing Atheism with ANTI-Theism


When it comes to anti-intellectual, gay-bashing theism, then yes, I'm an anti-theist. Deism is fine in my book. Deists don't go around telling people that they are sinful and immoral and will burn in hell.

Btw, I have a hard time understanding why Deists would side with religious fundamentalists against atheists. If the fundies have their way, we are all screwed. You should be just as interested as other rational thinkers in keeping religion, politics and science separate, which is really all that atheists are asking for.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

08 Feb 2012, 8:23 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:

The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.


If cats didn't exist, someone would have to make them up. :)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:40 am

donnie_darko wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:

The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.


If cats didn't exist, someone would have to make them up. :)


Why not unicorns, instead of cats?

ruveyn



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:44 am

CrinklyCrustacean wrote:
For those who've changed from believers to agnostics or atheists and vice versa, why did you change?


Evil persists, the bad guys keep winning and there is little love or kindness manifested by the universe. If God exists, why is He hiding? God is most notably Absent from the doings of mankind.

When men were ignorant and afraid they saw gods everywhere. Now that we know something about how nature works there is little place for God in how we live in nature.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

08 Feb 2012, 10:48 am

I was raised lutheran/deist but graduated to agnostic due to the behavior of the Christians in my family. Their behavior just wasn't consistent with the Bible scriptures they kept shouting so the more "arguments" they came up with to rationalize god, the more arguments I came up with against god in the end my memory is much better than theirs. Somewhere along the line of finding arguments against god, reading various editions of the Bible (If the Bible is the literal word of God, how can there be different versions of it?) and various other books, I just left my faith behind. I also noticed that threatening to stab bullies was a lot more effective than praying for god to help me. I guess that could have made me a "Stabbian" but that's more of a philosophy than a religion.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:52 am

TM wrote:
I was raised lutheran/deist but graduated to agnostic due to the behavior of the Christians in my family. Their behavior just wasn't consistent with the Bible scriptures they kept shouting so the more "arguments" they came up with to rationalize god, the more arguments I came up with against god in the end my memory is much better than theirs. Somewhere along the line of finding arguments against god, reading various editions of the Bible (If the Bible is the literal word of God, how can there be different versions of it?) and various other books, I just left my faith behind. I also noticed that threatening to stab bullies was a lot more effective than praying for god to help me. I guess that could have made me a "Stabbian" but that's more of a philosophy than a religion.


It is called growing up. When we are children we play with toys and believe in imaginary friends. When we grow up we put our toys away and attempt to deal with facts.

The gung ho Christians tell us: Unless ye be as children, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Religious belief is an attempt to extend childhood beyond its proper and natural bounds.

ruveyn



ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

08 Feb 2012, 12:08 pm

Image


_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

08 Feb 2012, 12:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
TM wrote:
I was raised lutheran/deist but graduated to agnostic due to the behavior of the Christians in my family. Their behavior just wasn't consistent with the Bible scriptures they kept shouting so the more "arguments" they came up with to rationalize god, the more arguments I came up with against god in the end my memory is much better than theirs. Somewhere along the line of finding arguments against god, reading various editions of the Bible (If the Bible is the literal word of God, how can there be different versions of it?) and various other books, I just left my faith behind. I also noticed that threatening to stab bullies was a lot more effective than praying for god to help me. I guess that could have made me a "Stabbian" but that's more of a philosophy than a religion.


It is called growing up. When we are children we play with toys and believe in imaginary friends. When we grow up we put our toys away and attempt to deal with facts.

The gung ho Christians tell us: Unless ye be as children, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Religious belief is an attempt to extend childhood beyond its proper and natural bounds.

ruveyn


I think Freud was right when he in essence said that everyone who believes in god really want their father. God/Allah whatever you call him is a replacement for a father.



Cleekster
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Kentucky, USA

08 Feb 2012, 7:03 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
The non-existence of a deity or deities is rational and logical

I find the possibility of a Deity to be just as rational and logical.....and your position is unprovable being a negative.


The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.

IMO there's a big difference between saying that God's existence isn't knowable based on current evidence and saying that God DOESN'T exist......the former is logical the latter is not. Science is a self correcting discipline based on the evidence at hand....IOW just because Science says that the world doesn't Need a creator to explain it's origen doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE a Creator.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

08 Feb 2012, 7:15 pm

Cleekster wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
The non-existence of a deity or deities is rational and logical

I find the possibility of a Deity to be just as rational and logical.....and your position is unprovable being a negative.


The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.

IMO there's a big difference between saying that God's existence isn't knowable based on current evidence and saying that God DOESN'T exist......the former is logical the latter is not. Science is a self correcting discipline based on the evidence at hand....IOW just because Science says that the world doesn't Need a creator to explain it's origen doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE a Creator.


Just because science can't conclusively disprove that I have a winged pink unicorn in my garage does not mean it is logical to believe that I do. If someone seriously professed that they had one of these Pink Pegasus' at their beck and call, they have exactly as much evidence as you do of god. Both are illogical, both are nonsense.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Cleekster
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Kentucky, USA

08 Feb 2012, 7:30 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
When it comes to anti-intellectual, gay-bashing theism, then yes, I'm an anti-theist. Deism is fine in my book. Deists don't go around telling people that they are sinful and immoral and will burn in hell.

so what you're saying is that since Adam and Eve sinned then everybody else should be punished right?
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Btw, I have a hard time understanding why Deists would side with religious fundamentalists against atheists.

i don't side with fundies or bible thumpers.....but lumping everyone in the same category unfairly isn't gong to cut it with me.
CrazyCatLord wrote:
If the fundies have their way, we are all screwed.

Agreed...the last thing we need is a Theocracy.
CrazyCatLord wrote:
You should be just as interested as other rational thinkers in keeping religion, politics and science separate, which is really all that atheists are asking for

no, Athiests want to eradicate any belief that involves any type of higher power which is a losing battle imho.......though it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see Conservative Christianity disappear.



Cleekster
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Kentucky, USA

08 Feb 2012, 7:38 pm

abacacus wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
The non-existence of a deity or deities is rational and logical

I find the possibility of a Deity to be just as rational and logical.....and your position is unprovable being a negative.


The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.

IMO there's a big difference between saying that God's existence isn't knowable based on current evidence and saying that God DOESN'T exist......the former is logical the latter is not. Science is a self correcting discipline based on the evidence at hand....IOW just because Science says that the world doesn't Need a creator to explain it's origen doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE a Creator.


Just because science can't conclusively disprove that I have a winged pink unicorn in my garage does not mean it is logical to believe that I do. If someone seriously professed that they had one of these Pink Pegasus' at their beck and call, they have exactly as much evidence as you do of god. Both are illogical, both are nonsense.


so then you're saying that logic is situational and subjective then......that the Atom only exists because we can prove it's existence and when we couldn't it didn't exist,right?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 7:39 pm

Cleekster wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
The non-existence of a deity or deities is rational and logical

I find the possibility of a Deity to be just as rational and logical.....and your position is unprovable being a negative.


The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.

IMO there's a big difference between saying that God's existence isn't knowable based on current evidence and saying that God DOESN'T exist......the former is logical the latter is not. Science is a self correcting discipline based on the evidence at hand....IOW just because Science says that the world doesn't Need a creator to explain it's origen doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE a Creator.


I agree that it is not completely impossible that the universe had a creator. But we don't have any evidence of a creator as of yet. Like abacacus said, it is not logical to believe in something on the basis that it can't be disproven. The logical approach is to believe in things that can be proven.

(Btw, is it "can be proven" or "can be proved"? I'm never quite sure).



Cleekster
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2012
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 18
Location: Kentucky, USA

08 Feb 2012, 7:47 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
Cleekster wrote:
Hexagon wrote:
The non-existence of a deity or deities is rational and logical

I find the possibility of a Deity to be just as rational and logical.....and your position is unprovable being a negative.


The assumption of nonexistence until proven otherwise is rational and logical. Very few atheists think that a (generic, undefined) god can't possibly exist. We'd simply like to see convincing evidence before we believe in something.

IMO there's a big difference between saying that God's existence isn't knowable based on current evidence and saying that God DOESN'T exist......the former is logical the latter is not. Science is a self correcting discipline based on the evidence at hand....IOW just because Science says that the world doesn't Need a creator to explain it's origen doesn't mean that it didn't HAVE a Creator.


I agree that it is not completely impossible that the universe had a creator. But we don't have any evidence of a creator as of yet. Like abacacus said, it is not logical to believe in something on the basis that it can't be disproven. The logical approach is to believe in things that can be proven.

(Btw, is it "can be proven" or "can be proved"? I'm never quite sure).


but that's just it......what i interpret as lets say circumstantial evidence you might interpret as my delusion or whatever......that's my gripe with Atheists, they want to act like thy're open minded but they think that their interpretation is THE interpretation and then turn around and criticize religious fundies for doing that very thing.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

08 Feb 2012, 7:50 pm

Cleekster wrote:

Just because science can't conclusively disprove that I have a winged pink unicorn in my garage does not mean it is logical to believe that I do. If someone seriously professed that they had one of these Pink Pegasus' at their beck and call, they have exactly as much evidence as you do of god. Both are illogical, both are nonsense.


so then you're saying that logic is situational and subjective then......that the Atom only exists because we can prove it's existence and when we couldn't it didn't exist,right?[/quote]

What? How did you get any of that from my post?

We proved the atom to exist because it does exist. Even before we proved it, logic dictated that large things are built of smaller things.

We currently know that the universe did not need a creator, therefore it is not logical to assume that there is one when there is no evidence of one.

I feel like a bad Vulcan simulation.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 7:55 pm

Cleekster wrote:
so then you're saying that logic is situational and subjective then......that the Atom only exists because we can prove it's existence and when we couldn't it didn't exist,right?


Before the existence of atoms and molecules was confirmed, it was a hypothesis that best explained the different density and weight of different elements, as well as the chemical reactions between elements. It was simply the best explanation for an observable phenomenon. But at this point, there is no phenomenon for which an incredibly powerful, supernatural being would be the best explanation.