I got sick of being an atheist

[Cooky]

IF it continues, the troubles, would you then consider going back to Atheism?
IF it stops, the troubles, do you consider it a sign of God, that you are "back on the right track"?

Best wishes. I hope that it stops here and now with all your troubles.

No. I only see the troubles as dangerous, and I have no internal person to summon for direction on a daily basis.

...Before, I used to place a lot of trust that God would give me signs or influence me in ways, either through my environment or dealings. Now having gone it solo, without his help, I feel lost. I don't have anyone to go to for direction.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So I tried atheism, and found that it didn't work out for me, so I'm back to faith again and realize how much I appreciate Christianity and Christian culture. It's the best, and I love it.

Glory be to God the highest. And peace to his people on earth!

Well of course! Atheists usually don't have meetings. If emotional support from like-minded folk is what you need, atheism isn't going to do it.

 

[Cooky]

Well of course! Atheists usually don't have meetings. If emotional support from like-minded folk is what you need, atheism isn't going to do it.

If anything, I just need that guiding spirit to make the biggest decisions... And even the little decisions a lot of times.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why would anyone choose it if it doesn't?

Because for many atheists...myself included...it's a statement about our best guess regarding reality. Not about whether that belief holds utility or not.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What 'works' for people is what works for people. Theism works for a whole lot of people. Atheism does not work for a whole lot of people. That's the way it is.

How can you blithely say this when atheism obviously works for many just as much as religion does for many. The evidence suggests that atheists are just as moral as those with a religion, and any indication that the religious might be happier overall is rather easily explained by the effects of religious belief (being in the majority) on those in the minority, especially where they have more influence (eg the US) or being more dominating. One can hardly argue that religions don't affect the non-religious, and often in fundamental ways.

And if you are saying that for some they just cannot unburden themselves of some kind of belief (that being religious) then I will agree. Some are less strong so as to exist on their own, and much the same occurs with a need to socialise. Some can exist alone whilst for most they do need others in their lives. Hardly makes one way right or superior though.

Atheists would be obliged to share their evidence and reasoning for their counter-proposition that no God/gods exist that effect humanity for the same reasons that theists are obliged to share their evidence and reasoning for proposing that God/gods do exist and effect humanity. It's the logical and honest thing to do.

Many who believe in any particular religion will not be doing so because they have gone through every piece of evidence or argument with a fine comb but because it either makes sense to them or they might have had some special experience to cause such (apart from it being handed down to them). Why ask an atheist to do more work than any with a religion? I think it is only a minority who have looked at every conceivable argument or piece of evidence and it is hardly a clear cut thing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science has no interest in god or gods or supernatural or woo. It is only concerned with evidence

I like how you are science and can talk for all scientists. In effect you are the God of science.

 

[stvdv]

I like how you are science and can talk for all scientists. In effect you are the God of science.

Not all scientists are like that. I am also a scientist, and I have lots of interest in spiritual life.

 

[stvdv]

What 'works' for people is what works for people.

Theism works for a whole lot of people

Atheism does not work for a whole lot of people

How can you blithely say this when atheism obviously works for many just as much as religion does for many.

Maybe he is into "math", "riddle" or the "joke-mood" or "all-mood" today

From the second quote "Theism works for a whole lot of people" I deduct a whole lot of people = Theists
Substitute "Theists" in the third quote gives "Atheism does not work for Theists"
Which makes perfect sense

 

[Dawnofhope]

So I tried atheism, and found that it didn't work out for me, so I'm back to faith again and realize how much I appreciate Christianity and Christian culture. It's the best, and I love it.

Glory be to God the highest. And peace to his people on earth!

It was a long time ago when I tried atheism. It was one of the worst times of my life.

 

[stvdv]

I tried atheism. It was one of the worst times of my life.

I wonder "How does one try Atheism"?

Reading it was one of your worst times ever

I guess you were failing Atheism, thinking about God 24/7

Am I right?

 

[Mock Turtle]

It was a long time ago when I tried atheism. It was one of the worst times of my life.

Have faith - tis all that is needed.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I wonder "How does one try Atheism"?

Reading it was one of your worst times ever

I guess you were failing Atheism, thinking about God 24/7

Am I right?

I made a conscious decision that on the balance of probabilities there was no God. Therefore practices such as prayer were futile. My life went from bad to worse. It lasted about nine months until I relented and started turning to God. Soon after things just started falling to place and haven’t looked back since.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Have faith - tis all that is needed.

That’s right. I lost faith in being faithless

 

[stvdv]

I made a conscious decision that on the balance of probabilities there was no God

Good experience, now you "know" (have experienced). I never tried Atheism, but I experience that "with God" works perfect for me

"My soul" knows. "My conscious decisions" can be way off. Best to connect to my soul
IF I would declare "there is no God" I could easily end up "cutting the connection to my soul"
What would be left is, that I only have my mind to rely on; I would rather not follow that road

 

[ChristineM]

I like how you are science and can talk for all scientists. In effect you are the God of science.

Ok wow, an insult from you, how im shocked.

Look at the definition of science. If you don't change it to suite your woo you will see precisely what science is...

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I made a conscious decision that on the balance of probabilities there was no God. Therefore practices such as prayer were futile. My life went from bad to worse. It lasted about nine months until I relented and started turning to God. Soon after things just started falling to place and haven’t looked back since.

I made the conscious decis

Ok wow, an insult from you, how im shocked.

Look at the definition of science. If you don't change it to suite your woo you will see precisely what science is...

Science : the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

No, stop using one definition of science as just the one and only one. Check if there are more than one. Check if there are cultural influences in how people understand science. Check if there are other cultures who understand science differently.
Check the history of science, the philosophy of science and the study of scientists as humans being studied by other scientists.
Yes, that is right. Scientists have started the study of how scientists in the wild act and behave just like you could study other animals.

You have just scratch the surface of human behavior, which humans call science.
So here is an example.
Check science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary

Notice this one: "Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation""

It goes even deeper that. So here it is: You are in effect a Cultural Authoritarian Imperialist. Your culture as specific to your understanding is correct one for all humans, because you are the judge of how and where to look and what to choose when deciding what science is.
But you are not. Science is a field of human behavior and depending on where you draw the borders of the field science changes. E.g. in the Scandinavian culture your science is natural science and there is in effect no science as such because all variants are named as variants: Natural, cultural and human science.
So you are no the controlling body of what science is. And nor am I, but I won't bow to your culture.
That you don't have the ability in understand that your definition of science is cultural and not physical and natural and that I use another culturally, is really not my problem. That is yours. You are in effect no different that some religious believers. We all have to understand the world like you, because you are clever enough to use Google.

Well, you asked me once if I am teacher. Well, I have worked alongside teachers for over 30 years. My parents and most of my mother's family were teachers. My wife is a teacher. So yes, I can do a teacher. Your answer to what science is as rated for your ability to intellectually account for what science is on scale from 1-10, gets around a 5. You have a basic understanding of the Anglo-Saxon understanding in the narrow sense of natural science.

"Look at the definition of science. If you don't change it to suite your woo you will see precisely what science is..."
I don't use woo-woo. I am of another culture than you. It is that simple and there is no precise definition of science. There are different cultural understandings of what science is. And that is a cultural science answer. So yes, I know what science is and it is more that you dogmatically believe.

 

[ChristineM]

I made the conscious decis


No, stop using one definition of science as just the one and only one. Check if there are more than one. Check if there are cultural influences in how people understand science. Check if there are other cultures who understand science differently.
Check the history of science, the philosophy of science and the study of scientists as humans being studied by other scientists.
Yes, that is right. Scientists have started the study of how scientists in the wild act and behave just like you could study other animals.

You have just scratch the surface of human behavior, which humans call science.
So here is an example.
Check science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary

Notice this one: "Modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning a particular subject or speculation""

It goes even deeper that. So here it is: You are in effect a Cultural Authoritarian Imperialist. Your culture as specific to your understanding is correct one for all humans, because you are the judge of how and where to look and what to choose when deciding what science is.
But you are not. Science is a field of human behavior and depending on where you draw the borders of the field science changes. E.g. in the Scandinavian culture your science is natural science and there is in effect no science as such because all variants are named as variants: Natural, cultural and human science.
So you are no the controlling body of what science is. And nor am I, but I won't bow to your culture.
That you don't have the ability in understand that your definition of science is cultural and not physical and natural and that I use another culturally, is really not my problem. That is yours. You are in effect no different that some religious believers. We all have to understand the world like you, because you are clever enough to use Google.

Well, you asked me once if I am teacher. Well, I have worked alongside teachers for over 30 years. My parents and most of my mother's family were teachers. My wife is a teacher. So yes, I can do a teacher. Your answer to what science is as rated for your ability to intellectually account for what science is on scale from 1-10, gets around a 5. You have a basic understanding of the Anglo-Saxon understanding in the narrow sense of natural science.

"Look at the definition of science. If you don't change it to suite your woo you will see precisely what science is..."
I don't use woo-woo. I am of another culture than you. It is that simple and there is no precise definition of science. There are different cultural understandings of what science is. And that is a cultural science answer. So yes, I know what science is and it is more that you dogmatically believe.

There are several definitions for sure but all require the narural, physical world, all require falsifiable evidence.

None entertain supernatural.

However, if you want to believe in a science that does not require reality that is entirely up to you but please don't sell it as the real thing

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are several definitions for sure but all require the narural, physical world, all require falsifiable evidence.

None entertain supernatural.

However, if you want to believe in a science that does not require reality that is entirely up to you but please don't sell it as the real thing

No, not all requires the natural, physical world and that is without claiming that the world is supernatural.
There are at least 3 options.
The world is natural/physical.
The world is supernatural.
The 2 above are both to simple and the world is in effect a construct of a combination of the natural, cultural and human.

You are to focused in a overly reductive version in metaphysical/ontological terms and that is a certain approach. And there are other options than your duality as natural/physical and supernatural.
You do the error of not thinking outside the box. You assume due to your culture, that there are only 2 options. There are more.
So you reduce all understanding down to correct or woo-woo. But there are more.
This is by a natural scientist.
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

All of that applies to you as well as me. I have just gone and checked what that means, when you read other sources of what science is. That you are in effect unable to go beyond your culture and look differently, is again your problem and not mine. And you don't even have science on your side. Read the quote again and pay attention to all the words.
Now if you somehow get it, we can look at the 3 different versions of science. Natural, cultural and human and compare them as how they deal with observation and testing. Because what that is, is also cultural.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ChristineM]

No, not all requires the natural, physical world and that is without claiming that the world is supernatural.
There are at least 3 options.
The world is natural/physical.
The world is supernatural.
The 2 above are both to simple and the world is in effect a construct of a combination of the natural, cultural and human.

You are to focused in a overly reductive version in metaphysical/ontological terms and that is a certain approach. And there are other options than your duality as natural/physical and supernatural.
You do the error of not thinking outside the box. You assume due to your culture, that there are only 2 options. There are more.
So you reduce all understanding down to correct or woo-woo. But there are more.
This is by a natural scientist.
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

All of that applies to you as well as me. I have just gone and checked what that means, when you read other sources of what science is. That you are in effect unable to go beyond your culture and look differently, is again your problem and not mine. And you don't even have science on your side. Read the quote again and pay attention to all the words.
Now if you somehow get it, we can look at the 3 different versions of science. Natural, cultural and human and compare them as how they deal with observation and testing. Because what that is, is also cultural.

Regards
Mikkel

I see no recognised definitions of science to back up your claims there

 

[ecco]

It was a long time ago when I tried atheism.

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Cooky, How does one try atheism?