Why I changed my faith Icon

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

to atheist scientists:

Top athetist scientist converts to christianity. - YouTube

[Wretched: An atheist professor converts to Christianity. - YouTube
and here is Ravi Z. (intro to him anyhow...)not specifically to atheism, yet if u like can include his vids re: same subject/discussion.
/I]Let My People Think: Ravi Zacharias at Yale University - Part 1 - YouTube

 

[Wiccan_Child]

and here is Ravi Z. (intro to him anyhow...)not specifically to atheism, yet if u like can include his vids re: same subject/discussion.

You never answered my question before - is he the guy who believes thermodynamics contradicts evolution?

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

and here is Ravi Z. (intro to him anyhow...)not specifically to atheism, yet if u like can include his vids re: same subject/discussion.[/quote]
You never answered my question before - is he the guy who believes thermodynamics contradicts evolution?

He may've made such a stmt in his lifetime perhaps, but to my knowledge he hasn't said so video-wise.

don't think he'd 'depend' on thermodynamics being his proof for "contradicting evolution." More likely, he'd present 'intelligent design' theory for serious consideration in disproving evolution.

let me/us know what u think of his videos as u say u have an 'open mind.'

 

[selfinflikted]

More likely, he'd present 'intelligent design' theory for serious consideration in disproving evolution.

let me/us know what u think of his videos as u say u have an 'open mind.'

I don't think ID qualifies as a theory, and don't think it's taken seriously enough in the scientific community to ever be a threat to the ToE.

 

[now faith]

I don't think so, no, although there's no evidence such beings exist. What would they even look like? How does one 'transcend time'? It you're not part of time, then you're a static photograph, unable to think, live, or change. When theists say God transcends time, to me that neuters him, as it means he cannot do anything.


Yes... but humans are clever. Despite being virtually identical to our ancestors who lived 20,000 years ago, we are phenomenally smarter than them, because we are standing on the shoulders of giants - each generation rapidly educates the next to the current level of knowledge, and then makes advances.

No human could independently deduce what we know in a mere 80 years. It is because of cooperation and education that I, in my twenties, know more than Newton or Einstein ever did.

So I don't think humans are quite as limited as you give them credit for


Perhaps. Personally, I think the notion that there is some 'spirit' that animates us is a very tidy idea in terms of explaining mysteries: it nicely explains the difference between 'alive' and 'dead' (the corpse simply lacks the 'spirit' that once made it alive), it explains the sensation of conciousness (the thing looking out from the eyes is the 'spirit'), etc. It can go further and explain why bad things happen (volcanoes are angry spirits), why weird or unlikely things happen (good harvests are auspicious spirits), etc. It provides solace to the grieving or the vengeful (spirits live on; good spirits go to a better place, bad spirits get justice). It leads to theism as well (gods are bigger or more powerful spirits).

Nowadays such things are explain with logic, mathematics, and science. We now know that a lot of apparent coincidences and correlations are actually just human bias - our brains are exceedingly good at spotting patterns, so much so we spot patterns were none exist (such as seeing faces in clouds).

So the notion that human conciousness is the animating 'spirit' that dwells within, could well be born out of early humans trying to explain what they were seeing. Both because it gives people such hope and comfort, and because we haven't yet explained core mysteries like the nature of conciousness, the idea of a 'spirit' is here to stay, I think.

But it does mean there are (thus far) two proposed explanations: one that says humans really do have a spirit, and one that says spirits are how humans make the world explicable.

If we look beyond our realms,to not apply limits of our own understanding but to accept the infinite realty of the universe,then it would be a logical assumption,that beings existed,that are not bound by the physical laws of this little earth.

I come to this idea by the first event that created a spark of life on earth,compared to the billions of other circumstances,the odds are highly in favor of superior life forms elsewhere.

Time is only a reality in our perspective,the Hubble telescope has brought a new idea on the formation of galaxies.

They had revealed our galaxy began multi dimensional,and evolved into the four dimensions
We are familiar with.

That is the advantage of a high powered camera looking so far back in time,they can see the formation of space.

Just by realizing other dimensions exist, adds a huge factor to the already infinite in our perspective.

So time may be limited to the confines of our understanding,not galactic physical laws
That are beyond our comprehension.

 

[now faith]

If you didn't have religion, then everyone would be an Atheist. Although it would be rather trivial to label oneself as an Atheist at that point.

For example, everyone is born an Atheist and most turn into theists when they get taught about their parents religion as kids.

Hi Dave,

If you did not have religion that would not nessatate atheism.

Atheism contradicts religion,without religion there would be nothing to contradict.

You would not be atheist due to it being taught by adaptation,same as religion.

A child would not dispel or promote religion,they simply would not have a opinion,
Since opinions are based on experience.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

]I don't think [/U]ID qualifies as a theory, and don't think it's taken seriously enough in the scientific community to ever be a threat to the ToE.

only in your opinion. (see underlined) there are plenty w/in the sci-comm that are "believers" and either debunk or incorporate the THEORY (theory, mind u....so what are we really arguing over folks?) of Evol into creationism, depending on their acceptance or rejection of the "law of contradiction(s)."

I for one, am more apt to listen to a converted scientist, atheist, Satanist, etc (over any brainwashed Brahmin, on both sides, mind u) who understands BOTH sides of the issue via the evidence required to have a truly informed, intelligent discussion, as he/she is (rather) uniquely qualified having been on both sides "of the tracks," as it were.

 

[selfinflikted]

only in your opinion. (see underlined) there are plenty w/in the sci-comm that are "believers" and either debunk or incorporate the THEORY (theory, mind u....so what are we really arguing over folks?) of Evol into creationism, depending on their acceptance or rejection of the "law of contradiction(s)."

I didn't say some scientists weren't believers. I said that ID isn't a theory, and it isn't a serious threat to the theory of evolution. Beyond that, I can see you are using the word "theory" differently than I am, and differently than scientists do. Realize that a theory is about the best you can do in science. Gravity is "only a theory" but no one disputes that.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

You believe my unbelief is the result of my being a nuclear/particle physicist? <--maybe, maybe not; u wouldn't be the first by any means. methinks my intent was to "investigate" your attitude/pride level. SO far, so good.


As I explained, your questions cannot be answered per CF rules. Let's go through this from the beginning.

You began by asking me questions about the particulars of the Wiccan religion (post #361) - the kinds of Wiccans, its relation to ethics and morality, etc.

I replied that, per CF rules, I cannot answer those questions. If I do, the thread gets reported or shut down, and I get warnings or even get a temporary ban.

Despite that quite reasonable reason for declining to answer, you instead concluded that I was avoiding the questions, stating that I could have PM'd you if I was "hungry to be understood" (post #366).

I replied that it never occurred hmmm, didn't see that reply to me to answer your questions via PM. Most people either PM me directly, or ask questions that I'm allowed to answer. Nevertheless, I said, you're free to PM me if you so wish. like many, I'm not fond of repeating myself or "work/efforts" if not absolutely necessary. (one of my flaws perhaps? hmmm, working on it; lol)

But no PM has been received, so I figured you simply didn't care that much. But then you butted into my discussion with 'now faith', declaring that I won't answer questions and instead make excuses (despite the fact that CF rules really do forbid me from answering; I'm not going to risk a ban for that) (post #372).<---strange u go out of yer way to list/link & repeat for me (thanks, but...) all that needn't be repeated EXCEPT for my questions. I've asked others questions that they felt the need or it "occurred" to them to do so via PM. I believe I invited u to do so. u didn't, which is your prerogative but then u play the CF rules card, which doesn't pertain to PM quite as much as these public postings/threads.
I believed u intelligent enough to understand all of this w/out explanation but methinks I assumed too much judging by yer responses hence. "my bad," in todays parlance.

You asked questions I am forbidden to publicly answer. I didn't answer your questions because the rules forbid it. Quite why you're making hysterical accusations is beyond me.


Why? It's quite obvious we were responding to 'now faith' at the same time, and I finished my post first. My point is that you made wild accusations about me that turned out to be completely untrue - despite your predictions, I did respond to 'now faith', and since my post appeared before yours, it was of my own volition.

Frankly, you owe me an apology for jumping the shark. u have my apologies for assuming too much/misunderstanding u (but certainly not for 'jumping the shark' whatever THAT means/entails...lol)

You should take your own advice. Notice that my sentences ended with a '?', a question mark - I was asking a question, not "inflicting my problem" upon your thinking. <---granted.


The point is that the adage doesn't make sense. Atheists are better at finding rotten eggs than laying them? By any interpretation that would seem to be a good thing, yet your tone suggests it's a bad thing. Hence my puzzlement. Of course, instead of making snarky remarks you could have elucidated on your point, but no, instead I have to endure your snide insults. oh do forgive me for leaving out an apparently necessary adjective:
"GOOD" as in, normal, healthy, (etc) eggs. Now do u "see?" atheists with an inherent negative bias (see Richard dawkins et al) lay &/or find the rotten/rotting eggs instead of laying &/or finding GOOD ones (eggs).


Well, if I had to guess, 'HimiH' seems to be an initilism of your username (I can only speculate why you refer to yourself in the third person; are you royalty?),<--actually, yes I am...by adoption specifically. But that's beyond u for now, unless u know more about the NT than u "let on" currently. and 'n-p-p' seems to be an initilism of 'nuclear particle physicist'.<---very good;

as always....

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hi Dave,

If you did not have religion that would not nessatate atheism.

Atheism contradicts religion,without religion there would be nothing to contradict.

You would not be atheist due to it being taught by adaptation,same as religion.

A child would not dispel or promote religion,they simply would not have a opinion,
Since opinions are based on experience.

You're incorrect because Atheism is the default position in regards to theological claims.

You are correct that it contradicts theism, however if theism went away, that would not make Atheism go away.... In fact, the only possible way theism will go away is if all theists adopt the atheist perspective.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

You're incorrect because Atheism is the default position in regards to theological claims.
Default: 1.preset option: an option that will automatically be selected by a computer if the user does not choose one
2.failure to do something: a failure to meet an obligation, especially a financial one
3.nonappearance in court: a failure to make a summoned court appearance.

May we assume u mean def#1 as it applies (best?) to your usage?
Regardless, HimiH finds it ironic that "default" is a failure oriented option/result or explanation chosen by another party(including a computer? hmmm......), ex-post facto. Much "food for thought" here; Selah.

You are correct that it contradicts theism, however if theism went away, that would not make Atheism go away.... In fact, the only possible way theism will go away is if all theists adopt the atheist perspective.

This is both T & F stmt by secular logic standards.

Yet methinks the OP u quoted mainly intended to say/show something more along the general lines of this:

IF u are talking GOOD vs. evil, or LIGHT vs. darkness, or theism vs. atheism, one cannot exist w/out the other (so to speak), as there would be no contrast, no contradiction, and therefore NO cognition/knowledge of either singular belief/way of life w/out the duality of co-existence.

Now, one can go 'round n 'round arguing the strengths/weaknesses of OP's theory vis-à-vis many hypothetical scenarios, as many are wont to do but, again....this I believe is what OP intended to say.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

to all theists & atheists who say they have "open minds" (as open minds will be curious, and closed minds ARE NOT curious, but fearful-timid, dare we say ignorant?):

here's a (somewhat) amusing Ytube video analysis on the divinity of Judaism origins.

Rational Approach To Divine Origin of Judaism - YouTube

 

[bhsmte]

This is both T & F stmt by secular logic standards.

Yet methinks the OP u quoted mainly intended to say/show something more along the general lines of this:

IF u are talking GOOD vs. evil, or LIGHT vs. darkness, or theism vs. atheism, one cannot exist w/out the other (so to speak), as there would be no contrast, no contradiction, and therefore NO cognition/knowledge of either singular belief/way of life w/out the duality of co-existence.

Now, one can go 'round n 'round arguing the strengths/weaknesses of OP's theory vis-à-vis many hypothetical scenarios, as many are wont to do but, again....this I believe is what OP intended to say.

I think you are making this, more complex than it needs to be.

The OP stating he went for agnostic to atheist is not some complex issue and the difference between the two is really razor thin.

In regards to being open minded as you stated in another post, it really comes down to the probability in your head in regards to what you have decided your position to be. If believers are truly honest, they will admit they could be wrong about their beliefs, but maybe they are 90% sure there is a God. If non-believers are honest, they will also admit, they may be wrong that there is no God.

For me, I am atheist towards the christian God of the bible, because the more I studied the bible (from a scholarly and historical standpoint) and compared that to the reality of the world we live in, I am 99% sure the christian God is simply manufactured by man. In regards to a universal God, one who is not a personal God and does not interact with humans, I am agnostic, but still pretty sure this God does not exist either, but the percentage of certainty is lower.

 

[HIM_In_Me_In_HIM]

I think you are making this, more complex than it needs to be.

The OP stating he went for agnostic to atheist is not some complex issue and the difference between the two is really razor thin.

In regards to being open minded as you stated in another post, it really comes down to the probability in your head in regards to what you have decided your position to be. If believers are truly honest, they will admit they could be wrong about their beliefs, but maybe they are 90% sure there is a God. If non-believers are honest, they will also admit, they may be wrong that there is no God.

For me, I am atheist towards the christian God of the bible, because the more I studied the bible (from a scholarly and historical standpoint) and compared that to the reality of the world we live in, I am 99% sure the christian God is simply manufactured by man. In regards to a universal God, one who is not a personal God and does not interact with humans, I am agnostic, but still pretty sure this God does not exist either, but the percentage of certainty is lower.

HimiH used "OP" when he should've said to dave: "NewFaith" as the person he quoted. Thus not really OP as understood here on CF.
As to u, bhsmte, I would say, based on this quoted response of yers, u of all people need to watch/listen to the Ytube video I linked for (especially) u.

O/wise, I'd say my last para re: "...'round n 'round...." applies to u most def.

HimiH will address your other comment material, later on here, or in PM (if yer mailbox isn't full like wiccans apparently is), when I have more time & not in a rush as am at present.

 

[bhsmte]

HimiH used "OP" when he should've said to dave: "NewFaith" as the person he quoted. Thus not really OP as understood here on CF.
As to u, bhsmte, I would say, based on this quoted response of yers, u of all people need to watch/listen to the Ytube video I linked for (especially) u.

O/wise, I'd say my last para re: "...'round n 'round...." applies to u most def.

HimiH will address your other comment material, later on here, or in PM (if yer mailbox isn't full like wiccans apparently is), when I have more time & not in a rush as am at present.

I have researched religion, the historicity of the bible and christianity more than you could know. Because I disagree with you, I should watch a youtube video?

 

[Dave Ellis]

This is both T & F stmt by secular logic standards.

Yet methinks the OP u quoted mainly intended to say/show something more along the general lines of this:

IF u are talking GOOD vs. evil, or LIGHT vs. darkness, or theism vs. atheism, one cannot exist w/out the other (so to speak), as there would be no contrast, no contradiction, and therefore NO cognition/knowledge of either singular belief/way of life w/out the duality of co-existence.

Now, one can go 'round n 'round arguing the strengths/weaknesses of OP's theory vis-à-vis many hypothetical scenarios, as many are wont to do but, again....this I believe is what OP intended to say.

It doesn't really matter how he wants to argue it... his base point is wrong.

Just because a contradictory position does not exist, has no effect on the original position. It will still exist, especially if there are no views that contradict it.

Basically, my point was is that everyone is born an Atheist... mainly because no newborn babies have any knowledge or concept of God. They lack a belief in God, therefore they are atheists. However, once they reach a certain age their parents start teaching them about Jesus, or Muhammad, or whatever, and many then become Theists.

That's why atheism is the default position. Nobody is born believing in God, you only become a theist when you're educated about theism, and up until that point you are atheist.

 

[malckiah]

Used to be agnostic. Now atheist.

I have been on the border for a while, but recent Christian comments in several threads, especially ones about atheists volunteering have finally pushed me over the line.

It is sad that soooo many people are turned off by Christianity because of "Christians". Its a well known fact that many call themselves Christian but are indeed hypocrites and truly do not follow the Christian way. Then you must also consider that Christians are in no way perfect...just forgiven. So it is never a good idea to choose or not choose Christianity based on those who follow it. Base it solely on Jesus and what the Bible actually teaches. If you yourself read The Bible and decide after fully searching it out that you do not agree then so be it, that of course is your choice. But please do not let comments and such made by "Christians" sway you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Used to be agnostic. Now atheist.

I have been on the border for a while, but recent Christian comments in several threads, especially ones about atheists volunteering have finally pushed me over the line.

So, Keith, your beliefs depend on what Christian people say, whether accurately or erroneously, on various forums?

Peace

 

[selfinflikted]

So, Keith, your beliefs depend on what Christian people say, whether accurately or erroneously, on various forums?

Peace

I mean, it's really only fitting. Belief starts with what other people say, so why not unbelief?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean, it's really only fitting. Belief starts with what other people say, so why not unbelief?

Actually, unbelief gets touted as being based on reason/logic, whereas belief is touted as being based on "blind faith." C'mon my friend, you know this!

Peace