I see I am waisting my time. I don't see how this COULD turn into a productive conversation so I will have to say goodbye.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I. Well I place my faith on science, the natural world, my family, and my friends. I have just don't have faith on the 'superstituous', in other words, in things we don't know or see/measure.So basically bordome and curiosity. I see. Well I am glad anyway that you are both here to discuss. I just have two questions for both of you.
I. Why do ALL people have faith in something? Whether Buddist, Hindu, Christian, Agnostic or Atheist there has never been a person born who did not place faith in something.
II. Do you see a difference in Christianity from every other religion? I mean why come to this site and not to a Hindu or Buddist website? There must be a reason.
What do you think?
Why did you disbelieve?
I see I am waisting my time. I don't see how this COULD turn into a productive conversation so I will have to say goodbye.
Oh yes, the golden question. This is a complex question to answer. The simple answer is the same reason you do not believe in all the other gods man has ever believed in.
I do not have any evidence for and against the existence of god, because there isn't any, I choose not to believe. Same way an adult doesn't choose to believe in a child's santa clause. Also, I believe I do not need a belief in a god in order to live a good life, all you need is a personal philosophy on how to live peacefully with the rest of the world.
So in summary, until you find out why you don't believe in all the other gods, you will understand why I do not believe in yours.
No, you see, it could be a productive conversation if you wanted to have a conversation. You just wanted to come preach, hurl scripture and try and convince us we're wrong. That ain't conversation.
You see how the other people are asking polite, serious questions (As you did in your first post), and getting polite, serious answers? Yeah. That's what you should be doing, not coming here setting out to preach at us about how wrong we are, chucking bible quotes at us. Believe me, we've seen it all before.
Now if you come back and ask a genuine question, then it wouldn't be a waste of time.
I believe there are evil people (murderers,rapist,pedophiles, etc.)Ok then, I will try to ask as politely as possible. I appologize coming across as preachy. I really was just trying to share. Anyway, my question then is that many people who say they do not believe in God say there is no evidence. Do you believe in evil and sin?
Ok then, I will try to ask as politely as possible. I appologize coming across as preachy. I really was just trying to share. Anyway, my question then is that many people who say they do not believe in God say there is no evidence. Do you believe in evil and sin?
No I mean what made you disbelieving, is it something happened to you or you never believed in the first place?
Well I answered this like in the first few posts I made.
It was nothing emotional, it was purely logical. I will just copy and paste my previous responses.
Well there wasn't any strictly one thing that change my mind. It just flowed together, and it was a very slow transition. I used to be a catholic, which was almost exactly a year ago, since the first week of January. Well for 18 years I never questioned my religious beliefs with my scientific beliefs. I went to school, learned about science and history, and I went home and I read the bible and went to saturday 'church school'. So after I left home and went to college, I took various classes like anthropology and rhetoric writing and argument, which I had to read and learn about differing opinions, and evaluate and make an argument of the case. So I first applied it to my political beliefs. With all the presidential debates and news, I became almost addicted at politics, really exciting. So after reading a bit of political philosophy like plato and others, I slowly shifted my political mentality from a conservative to a constitutionalist/libertarian ideaology, jefforsonian. So then after much reading I became a moderate, took ideas from each side, like progressive taxing, and ACLU ideas, and more oversight of goverment by the people and so on.
After, a day before I started my second semester of college, I was bored and I went to my usual channels which are discovery/science/history channels. So there was this film on early human civilization, like farming, politics, and so on. Then at one segment, there was how religion started. That got me thinking. I asked, what if religion is just a human made idea? So then I started reading more on religions and did as I did before with politics, look at both sides and see which one make more logical sense. Then I asked, could god be human made too? an idea? So after a few weeks, I became an agnostic. I believed that god may or may not be real, we don't know really. Atheists don't have any evidence sayng there is no god, as well as all the theists with their god(s). So I was like its either there is a god or isn't. So it equally as wrong to say there is or there isn't. Then I remembered that there could be one, two, three, or more gods, or gods with diffrent ideas, so which religion is right, or which interpertation of god is right? So then the odds were realistically not 50/50, more like 1 in an infinity. So I became an agnostic-atheist, or atheist for short. There is a possibility there is a god, very small, but unlikely. So therefore I don't believe, I am an atheist. Atheism: lack of belief of the existence of a god(s). Agnosticism: Lack of knowledge of the existance of a god(s)
and finally I am a skeptic, one who questions, and seeker of the more probable and logical truth.
So what really made me an atheist? Math.
Heres another post I made before which may go slightly more in depth: sergiogutierrez90.blogspot.c o m/2009/10/change-how-logic-changed-way-i-see.html
Any further questions, please ask.
Ok then, I will try to ask as politely as possible. I appologize coming across as preachy. I really was just trying to share. Anyway, my question then is that many people who say they do not believe in God say there is no evidence. Do you believe in evil and sin?
When you thought that religion is a man made story and you saw that there are different Gods and different religions, did you look at the explaniation of that by your own religion? isn't that part of being an anthropologist?
Interesting. I never heard of the term skeptic before.
"Sin" is a religious term that denotes an infraction against a deity. I don't subscribe to the idea of a deity, so I don't subscribe to the idea of sin. Furthermore, as has been stated, I believe "evil" is a relative term that has a lot to do with societal norms and the ability of humans to coexist. What I consider "evil" may not, by another person, be considered "evil."Ok then, I will try to ask as politely as possible. I appologize coming across as preachy. I really was just trying to share. Anyway, my question then is that many people who say they do not believe in God say there is no evidence. Do you believe in evil and sin?
Well I looked at it, as I said, in a culturally relative point of view. Without putting my prior beliefs and opinions, in order to make a just opinion. An anthropologist is not able to put its own prior beliefs and experiences in order to make a just opinion. Its like putting a jury, who all had a personal experience with murder, who is getting a murderer convicted. There will be a biased opinion.
Look at politics, if we put a democrat to give their opinion on how an economy should be run, he will give his normative opinion, as well with a republican. An economics cannot be a democrat or a republic, he has to give the facts and say what should be done according to the facts.
So I did the exact same thing with religion. Once I did, well I made a rational opinion that religion may be a human made idea as long with god.
From there, and asking questions, is how I lost my belief.
Sir, you have a noble point of view. Alas, it is one that does not escape the problem it describes. I don't know whether this observation is of any relevance, but no matter how much a person tries to be "impartial", it is impossible to achieve such a status--unless one is non-human.
On a tangent, it's very interesting how humans think about what I term "moral infinitives", such as fairness, even when living in a world that is quite obviously "unfair" and has always been so.
Just to pose some questions for a sounding board: why do you think it is that way? Why do finite, physical humans think about moral infinitives?
Well sometimes, even us atheists, have to have some faith that people are fair and rational. Hope for the best, plan for the worst idea. Economists assume that all people act rationally when making a purchase. They must assume, because then it would just make the system too hard to analyze. So we must find common ground and simply make decisions on what is probable and what we know.
It always depends in the situation. In my part of the field which I am majoring for, I need to analyze the pros and cons of any system.( My major is information and decision Systems). So when designing for a security system, we must assume that the whole world is unfair, or a robber, in order to make a solution that works best. For accounting systems, accountants like to use the term conservative, which means they need to provide the gloomiest picture for the company.
So in order to make descions, we must make assumptions. Although it may sound a bit 'heartless' it is the best problem solving system we have. This is the thing various philosophers have tried to fix. Creating a philosophy to solve a problem most efficently. Like Mills had his idea with utilitarianism, which says that we must do what provides the greatest happiness for the greatest number, which proved ineffective, because it left some people worse off and allowed for things such as slavery and injustice at extremes.
So kant created his categorical imperivatives in order to make the most fair solution of things.
So this is my opinion on this subject.
That first assumption of Economics quickly turned me off the subject--not to mention the maths that followed. If people did base their purchases on rationality the marketing industry wouldn't exist.
I used to be a systems man myself--in many ways I still am, bureaucratising my life to the extreme. But with regard to dealing with other people, I personally shy away from systems, or stereotyping. At a risk of over-individualisation, each person has a unique story behind him or her, which any system is unable to explain or categorise.
Alas, as you said, humans have too many problems to solve, and I understand that my manner will be incompatible with many modes of modern life. But we never want to reduce humans to too many numbers.
Anyway, this is probably off topic. You may have the last word. Then shall we let the thread return to its original course?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?