I got sick of being an atheist

[osgart]

What blocked you from having high aims of love without belief in god?

How does not believing in god exclude you from having aims of love?

I still hold high aims of love. They just ain't as high as a God's would be. Because God is eternal love. Humans might have a final end.

I don't expect society to have the same high aims of love as I do.

But love can exist down here. Especially high love of which I have experienced. But more often then not I experience self centered love in the world.

 

[halbhh]

I personally do not lie but i know most humans do to some extent. Without verification all you have is hearsay

My own attitude about such reports from other people is to neither believe nor disbelieve them per se.

Instead, something better: if sufficiently interesting, I would try to do the radical step of altering my life to try out what they testify works, and find out if there is something to it.

If someone claims a certain practice X results in Y, and Y is interesting, then I'll try to do X and find out. To me, personally, this is very superior to merely not knowing. I like to find out.

This isn't the only way to find good things in life -- to only try what others say is good -- but it is one way.

 

[Nakosis]

Glad you are happy in your choice.

Although can i ask? what did you find boring (or whatever) about not having any evidence for a god, you have the same quandary as a christian

Just from my experience, the subconscious can create divine experiences that we are not consciously aware of controlling. Since it is not a conscious process, the assumption is that it originated from an outside(spiritual) force.

These experiences are accepted as evidence of the validity of the belief.

To say there is no evidence, doesn't connect. All the evidence is anecdotal and thanks to the power of the subconscious mind there is commonality amonst believers which reinforces the evidence/experience as valid..

 

[Yerda]

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!

Cool. Maybe Christianity is just more suited to you. Good luck in finding whatever you seek.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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!

When I first clicked into this thread, my mind put the title and the first half of the first sentence together:

I got sick of being an atheist... So I tried atheism

Confused for a second, I then read on, and started to understand a little better, but then ran into this bit:

Christian culture. It's the best, and I love it.

Now I am just more confused than ever.

 

[halbhh]

Just from my experience, the subconscious can create divine experiences that we are not consciously aware of controlling. Since it is not a conscious process, the assumption is that it originated from an outside(spiritual) force.

These experiences are accepted as evidence of the validity of the belief.

To say there is no evidence, doesn't connect. All the evidence is anecdotal and thanks to the power of the subconscious mind there is commonality amonst believers which reinforces the evidence/experience as valid..

So, when a physicist sees 2 competing hypothesis to explain the same event, and then again another day, for a 2nd event, and then again another day, for a 3rd event....

Instead of just believing a more familiar or comfortable hypothesis is the one correct, ideally the scientist attempts to find other ways to test the 2 theories, to find out which one can be disproven or uniquely supported.

Now, God is a being/Person, not an inert object, so therefore it's not merely a search alone, but also there is a question of whether He is willing to let you find Him.

If He has set rules for whether He will allow you to find Him -- such as a true seeking with all the heart for instance, or being humble for example -- then you'd probably have to follow those rules, just like in order to get someone to answer a door at a certain house, you may have to look presentable, and not be somehow visibly offensive to the house owner.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, when a physicist sees 2 competing hypothesis to explain the same event, and then again another day, for a 2nd event, and then again another day, for a 3rd event....

Instead of just believing a more familiar or comfortable hypothesis is the one correct, ideally the scientist attempts to find other ways to test the 2 ideas, to find out which one can be disproven or uniquely supported. Now, God is a being/Person, not an inert object, so therefore if He has set rules for whether He will allow you to find Him -- such as sincerity and humility for instance -- you'd probably have to follow those rules, just like in order to get someone to answer a door at a certain house, you may have to look presentable, and not be somehow visibly offensive to the house owner.

That is not physics nor science as such. You can't use science to find God. The methodology of science is by definition incapable of answering religious question.
Of course you can redefine science, but then it is different kind of science and in effect religion and/or philosophy.

 

[ChristineM]

My own attitude about such reports from other people is to neither believe nor disbelieve them per se.

Instead, something better: if sufficiently interesting, I would try to do the radical step of altering my life to try out what they testify works, and find out if there is something to it.

If someone claims a certain practice X results in Y, and Y is interesting, then I'll try to do X and find out. To me, personally, this is very superior to merely not knowing. I like to find out.

This isn't the only way to find good things in life -- to only try what others say is good -- but it is one way.

I find that idea frightening. Suppose someone tells you that x diet really works. Sounds interesting so you dive into it headlong. First week you lose a few pounds, same next week. 3 months later you are down to the weight you have always wanted to be. Great until the pains start, you then research the evidence and find the diet is known for destroying the liver, or causing carcinogenic cells to develop in the intestines.

 

[Nakosis]

So, when a physicist sees 2 competing hypothesis to explain the same event, and then again another day, for a 2nd event, and then again another day, for a 3rd event....

Instead of just believing a more familiar or comfortable hypothesis is the one correct, ideally the scientist attempts to find other ways to test the 2 theories, to find out which one can be disproven or uniquely supported.

Now, God is a being/Person, not an inert object, so therefore it's not merely a search alone, but also there is a question of whether He is willing to let you find Him.

If He has set rules for whether He will allow you to find Him -- such as a true seeking with all the heart for instance, or being humble for example -- then you'd probably have to follow those rules, just like in order to get someone to answer a door at a certain house, you may have to look presentable, and not be somehow visibly offensive to the house owner.

I've found God. Many times through many different religions. Finding God is not a problem. The problem I find is that the subconscious is capable of creating God for you. Most folks who believe feel the can tell the difference between a "divine" experience and an experience created by the subconscious mind. They can't because everything we subjectively experience is a creation of the subconscious mind.

 

[ChristineM]

Just from my experience, the subconscious can create divine experiences that we are not consciously aware of controlling. Since it is not a conscious process, the assumption is that it originated from an outside(spiritual) force.

These experiences are accepted as evidence of the validity of the belief.

To say there is no evidence, doesn't connect. All the evidence is anecdotal and thanks to the power of the subconscious mind there is commonality amonst believers which reinforces the evidence/experience as valid..

So what you seem to be saying here is, your own internal subconscious creates an experience internal to your own brain. You decide its a spiritual event and so accept it as evidence.

Evidence : the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Not the available body of thought that you belief to be true or valid


I think we have different thresholds of what is your evidence.

 

[halbhh]

That is not physics nor science as such. You can't use science to find God. The methodology of science is by definition incapable of answering religious question.
Of course you can redefine science, but then it is different kind of science and in effect religion and/or philosophy.

Christ chose to have grace towards Thomas. As He said at a different moment, Matthew 20:15 Do I not have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you envious because I am generous?'. And here we see an instance of how God can show Grace even to those seeming less worthy of it in our mortal eyes. God has His own standards, superior to ours. Here's a hint at that:
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

It's not that He has no criteria for us to meet(!), but rather that His criteria are not those humans tend to value most here in the worldly ways.

 

[halbhh]

I've found God. Many times through many different religions. Finding God is not a problem. The problem I find is that the subconscious is capable of creating God for you. Most folks who believe feel the can tell the difference between a "divine" experience and an experience created by the subconscious mind. They can't because everything we subjectively experience is a creation of the subconscious mind.

ah, ok. For me, I needed a more definite and just unambiguous confirmation it seems (not things that can be explained in other ways), and He, knowing me better even than I knew myself it would seem, provided that. That is, after I did the things Christ said to do. Not before of course.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Christ chose to have grace towards Thomas. As He said at a different moment, Matthew 20:15 Do I not have the right to do as I please with what is mine? Or are you envious because I am generous?'. And here we see an instance of how God can show Grace even to those seeming less worthy of it in our mortal eyes. God has His own standards, superior to ours. Here's a hint at that:
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5

It's not that He has no criteria for us to meet(!), but rather that His criteria are not those humans tend to value most here in the worldly ways.

But it is not science. And it requires that you believe in a certain version of God.

 

[halbhh]

But it is not science. And it requires that you believe in a certain version of God.

I think you might be addressing something I did not mean to convey (some other possible way of taking my words than the way I meant them).

I was responding on the assumption you were referring to something I did mean, so it seems likely that we've been talking past each other.

So, this isn't necessarily about what you meant about what you thought I meant -- but just to be sure what I did say is clear, when I pointed out Thomas, I did mean that even though Thomas demanded outright proof like a skeptical scientist, God chose to show grace to him anyway. This is because (if I didn't answer it better already), God sees other criteria than the ones we think matter.

 

[MonkeyFire]

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!

FTW!!!!

 

[PureX]

Have you encountered atheists who defend their views on life and challenge others in a less gibberish and doublespeak way?

Sure. As I stated above, it's reasonable for someone to dismiss the theistic proposition based on their own personal disinterest and lack of apparent need for the possible advantages faith in some sort of "god-concept" can offer. The problems come when the atheist tries to posit the counter proposition that no gods exist in any way that effects humanity and then they cannot defend it using the exact same criteria for evidence that they demand of the theist in defending his claim. And the hypocrisy and double standards increase when the atheist then claims he doesn't have to defend his counter-assertions because they are merely "unbelief" in the theist's assertions. And for some reason the theist is required to defend his assertions with evidence that must comply with the atheist's standards, while the atheist does not have to defend his assertions using that same evidential criteria. And in fact, he is even so absurd as to claim that the fact that no such evidence exists, is his evidence!

The whole conversation is patently absurd, and riddled with illogical assertions and demands and contradictions and wildly biased criteria.

Intelligent conversations and proper debate?

Not possible unless the atheist is willing to let go of their absurd insistence on "objective evidence" for a non-objective ideological proposition. And unless the atheist is willing to avoid the nonsensical gibberish about "unbelief" and actually discuss the reasoning behind the theist's proposition. And the actual reasoning behind the atheist's counter-proposition.

 

[columbus]

Christ chose to have grace towards Thomas.

I've thought about this Bible story many times.
Ironically, my name is Thomas.

Over many years, Christians have consistently told me that God cannot give me a simple clear message. Because doing so would destroy my Faith, my free will, my ability to Choose to Believe. I'd be forced to believe by the evidence. God doesn't want to destroy my freedom of choice.

But God didn't have that problem with my namesake apostle.
At least according to the story told in the New Testament. God took away Thomas' free will, by delivering a very concrete message.

What's with that?
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not only did a lot of bad things start happening, but I realized that the culture I was becoming a part of was cold hearted.

And you contributed these 'bad things' as being a direct result of your lack of belief in a god? And exactly what 'culture' were you becoming a part of? I'm not sure of any cultures that are based on a lack of belief in something.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Sure. As I stated above, it's reasonable for someone to dismiss the theistic proposition based on their own personal disinterest and lack of apparent need for the possible advantages faith in some sort of "god-concept" can offer. The problems come when the atheist tries to posit the counter proposition that no gods exist in any way that effects humanity and then they cannot defend it using the exact same criteria for evidence that they demand of the theist in defending his claim.

Well, it's justified that one can say there is no god. It is also logical that any person (does not need to be an atheist) would ask for evidence for a theist to defend his claim. I know religion is personal, but in a logical sense if you said "this COVID medicine works" and the other says "but give us evidence", wouldn't it make sense to back up your claim with evidence to validate your statement?

I'm sorry some atheists demand these things, but taking out the attitude and debate, it just makes sense, no?

And the hypocrisy and double standards increase when the atheist then claims he doesn't have to defend his counter-assertions because they are merely "unbelief" in the theist's assertions. And for some reason the theist is required to defend his assertions with evidence that must comply with the atheist's standards, while the atheist does not have to defend his assertions using that same evidential criteria. And in fact, he is even so absurd as to claim that the fact that no such evidence exists, is his evidence!

Which makes sense. If you don't have evidence that this COVID medicine works, how can the other person give evidence that it doesn't?

If anything, he would agree with you and say "well, I guess it does not" because there is no presented evidence for both parties to prove otherwise.

The atheist shrugs. The theist is offended.

The reason the theist is required (or asked) to defend his claims is because he says something that is questionable, it would make sense the other party wants some verification of fact for this statement. The problem with many theist is that their evidence is personal experience and testimony. So, if they choose not to present any evidence, then why get mad at the atheist for asking for something you don't want to provide? Or can provide?

The better thing to do for a theist is to say there "is no" objective evidence. Owning that statement and admission that there is no evidence to god (there isn't a "there must be because of X" doesn't or shouldn't invalidate theists belief). It's just being honest.

Which is interesting.... how can theist say god does exist as a fact and at the same time need belief or faith (rather than knowledge) that he exists as a fact?

Wouldn't that logic be worth questioning?

The whole conversation is patently absurd, and riddled with illogical assertions and demands and contradictions and wildly biased criteria.

Both sides are guilty of this. Which is better if both sides change their attitude and perspective. Most atheists can care less, though. It's the theist (christian theist seems so) that wants to evangelize about it.

Why evangalize if you don't want people to challenge you on the information you (believers in general) want to provide?

Do you think atheists will just believe you (people) just because you said it?

Not possible unless the atheist is willing to let go of their absurd insistence on "objective evidence" for a non-objective ideological proposition. And unless the atheist is willing to avoid the nonsensical gibberish about "unbelief" and actually discuss the reasoning behind the theist's proposition. And the actual reasoning behind the atheist's counter-proposition.

I know it's absurd to have "objective evidence" but the problem is that theists are presenting personal experiences, assumptions, and beliefs as if it were objective evidence. Then expect atheists (and non-believers) to take their statements as facts. Since they present it as facts (god Does exist rather than I Believe god exists), of course they will question your claim.

It's not religious in nature, though. They won't ask if the claim isn't mentioned as a fact. (In a christian chat room or DIR is fine but not talking to just anyone)

Maybe both parties need to change you guyies attitude. But then I only know majority christian-theists to want to bring people to christ. Atheists just don't care.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I've thought about this Bible story many times.
Ironically, my name is Thomas.

Over many years, Christians have consistently told me that God cannot give me a simple clear message. Because doing so would destroy my Faith, my free will, my ability to Choose to Believe. I'd be forced to believe by the evidence. God doesn't want to destroy my freedom of choice.

But God didn't have that problem with my namesake apostle.
At least according to the story told in the New Testament. God took away Thomas' free will, by delivering a very concrete message.

What's with that?
Tom

It's truly a bizarre argument, isn't it? God clearly wasn't worried about destroying Paul's freedom of choice when he gave him his road to Damascus experience. So why isn't everyone worthy of their own road to Damascus experience? And what about Lucifer? He had absolute proof that God was real, yet SOMEHOW that didn't deprive him of his free will to defy God. So clearly this notion that being provided with evidence somehow destroys free will is nonsense.