I got sick of being an atheist

[Valjean]

Take 2:
Here is another version of religion:


I am religious and I hold no ontological truth.

On what do you base your religion?

 

[Valjean]

Since this is in a debate section, let us play. What is objective truth?
Do you believe in any positive metaphysics and ontology?

I believe in theoretical physics, and Advaita Vedanta. Two approaches to the same objective truth.

 

[osgart]

You're mistaking atheism for hedonism. I'd bet there are more idealistic atheists doing good work than there are Christians doing so.
Atheists question convention, Christians take refuge in it. Atheists think, they question -- out of moral sentiments. Atheists are philosophical. Christians have the option of not thinking about these things. They can claim nominal Christianity while paying no heed to philosophical questions.

Christianity is a bad example of compassionate religion.

There should be some things to take refuge in by way of reasonable justification.

Atheism as a movement or cause is a waste of time. It gets to being hateful and derogatory. Humanism I can understand.

I question everything by nature of being me. But I certainly don't want to live in paralysis by analysis.

There's nothing wrong with pursuing God. To Assume God would be chalk full of error. Although I might imagine a God to qualify as God would be of highest virtues and love.

 

[chinu]

I always get wrong perceptions ?
That is very insulting, and obviously intended to be.


You always ask the questions. When asked about your own beliefs, you almost never give an answer.
After years on RF, your beliefs are still pretty much your secret.
So it is to be expected that everyone would have wrong perceptions of you.
You have made sure of it.

Why is that ?
Why do you start dozens of threads asking others to reveal their beliefs, but you keep yours hidden.
It is very strange behaviour.
And now you want to mock me because I have misunderstood some detail of your belief.

That is perverse.
And honestly, I suspect deliberately so.

You are saying.. that you insulted me by saying that you get wrong perceptions, and at the same time you are also saying that you insult everyone by doing the same -- which is kinda making it a very serious public issue. Whereas, this is NOT the case because along with, saying it is wrong perception, I have also TRIED to provide the fallacy behind a certain perception. And WE ALL do that here on RF. (NOT only me)

And there's nothing wrong in this because we ALL already know in advance that we are entering a debate.

 

[Valjean]

Atheism as a movement or cause is a waste of time. It gets to being hateful and derogatory. Humanism I can understand.

What's the difference?
Atheism, "as a movement" is largely wishful thinking. True, there are a few atheist organizations, but these are tiny and powerless.

I question everything by nature of being me. But I certainly don't want to live in paralysis by analysis.

What does that mean, that you don't want to think about things too deeply, lest it give you pause and might inhibit impulsiveness?

 

[osgart]

What's the difference?
Atheism, "as a movement" is largely wishful thinking. True, there are a few atheist organizations, but these are tiny and powerless.

What does that mean, that you don't want to think about things too deeply, lest it give you pause and might inhibit impulsiveness?

The deeper the better. I certainly don't want to be impulsive. I do want to make progress with reason and justification. I want to be on solid ground where I know and can rely on what I know to be true.

I do believe The New Atheists had quite a large following.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

On what do you base your religion?

The belief that the universe is fair in the sense of the cosmological principle and the problem of Boltzmann Brains. Further if there is a God, that the God is secular humanistic God.
I based my belief in the end on the problem of no JTB knowledge and epistemological skepticism. I got tired of claiming a knowledge I couldn't find and thus I admit I believe in a certain version of possible universe and/or God.
In a sense I am an agnostic/skeptic to what the universe really is and I don't even believe strongly in material or idealistic version as such. I just believe that the universe/God is fair, because it makes me feel better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe in theoretical physics, and Advaita Vedanta. Two approaches to the same objective truth.

Thanks.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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!

Fortunately I can tolerate sickness, so don't expect a conversion from me any time soon. Seems to be catching though (converting).

 

[PureX]

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.

Neither is logically justified.

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?

Religions 'work' for a great many people. Yet somehow this 'evidence' is not acceptable to the atheist.

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

I don't know what that means.

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?

We do have evidence that faith in God works for a great many humans. But the atheist doesn't want to accept it as evidence, because it's subjective. Yet that same atheist cannot produce and objective evidence that no gods exist, or even and subjective reasons for presuming so. And then they try to hide behind this irrelevant gibberish about "unbelief". It's just so tiresome.

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.

Proof was never going to be possible. It's like proving something existed before existence as we know it, existed. So demanding it is illogical and disingenuous. Yet the demand for it never ends, even as the atheist cannot prove his own contention that no gods exist.

.... 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?

God does exist as a fact. And the fact that we are talking about it, proves it. But you're interpreting "existence" as a physical material phenomenon, only. And then demanding physical material evidence. Yet God's existence has never been proposed as a physical material phenomenon. And when we try to point this out, the atheist runs to the Bible and begins citing literary artifice as if it were proposed fact. Which has nothing to do with anything, and is yet another dishonest ploy to avoid his own illogical hypocrisy.

Wouldn't that logic be worth questioning?

Sure, but that isn't what's happening.

Both sides are guilty of this.

People on both "sides" are, but I am not a "side". And I am capable of sticking to the logic. Unfortunately, I get very little of this in return from the atheists I encounter, here. Just as I get little of it from the religious zealots I encounter.

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.

The vast majority of religious theists are not evangelistic. In fact, it's only a fraction of religious Christians that believe it is their calling to evangelize. Judaism, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, Paganism; none of these are evangelistic practices. Even many Christians do not evangelize, even though it would be somewhat justified by their religious ideology. And yet this indictment is constantly being used by atheist to condemn all religious practice and expression, and to justify their own proselytizing.

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

I am not evangelizing. I am not religious. I am not here to defend other people's religious practices. And that isn't a logical part of any reasoned debate of the theist proposition.

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

I think many self-proclaimed atheists are willful idiots who refuse to recognize the difference between theism and religion because it serves their bigotry against religion. Which they don't understand, much, either.
their own proselytizing.

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.

Your pathological obsession with the fiction of "objectivity" is not their responsibility. Nor is it mine.

 

[ChristineM]

But, you seems more worried than a club.

You think?

Or put another way

You think!

 

[ChristineM]

We see evidence for God everywhere, from our unique human nature -- even as alienated from God as we are, at the moment -- to the functional structure & harmony of matter, living and non-living.
As Fred Hoyle put it:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

I see evidence as fact based

You seem to be one who thinks its belief based.

I am sure your way is more comforting to you.

 

[ChristineM]

Are you including Christianity in your phrase "many religions"? Just for the record, I was wondering if you're calling it "a club."

The biggest club in the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see evidence as fact based
...

Your "see" is not concrete because evidence has no observable properties like say a rock. Again you are confusing what is in your mind as abstract with the concrete ability to see as sensible experience through external perception using your eyes.

You really have to learn to check your words and how they work. You use see as not concrete, but figuratively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The biggest club in the world.

It is not one single club. There is no single unifying aspect of all religions other than all religious humans are humans.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Religions 'work' for a great many people. Yet somehow this 'evidence' is not acceptable to the atheist.

So does tyranny for many, but I would hardly use that as an acceptable justification for such. What works is never a justification for any particular belief.

We do have evidence that faith in God works for a great many humans.

As does the opposite.

But the atheist doesn't want to accept it as evidence, because it's subjective.

No, it is just a belief - and without sufficient evidence.

God does exist as a fact. And the fact that we are talking about it, proves it.

As much as lemon-meringue planets exist. Woe is me in my belief.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not one single club. There is no single unifying aspect of all religions other than all religious humans are humans.

I was asked about Christianity which is what i answerd. Christianity is a club with 2.4 billion members, the biggest club in the world.

 

[ChristineM]

Your "see" is not concrete because evidence has no observable properties like say a rock. Again you are confusing what is in your mind as abstract with the concrete ability to see as sensible experience through external perception using your eyes.

You really have to learn to check your words and how they work. You use see as not concrete, but figuratively.

You really need to stop playing with hairy fairy woo and branding other people with it.

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

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was asked about Christianity which is what i answerd. Christianity is a club with 2.4 billion members, the biggest club in the world.

Well, it is not a single club, because not all Christians are Christians according to some Christians.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, it is not a single club, because not all Christians are Christians according to some Christians.

Not my problem. I am petty sure it is not up individuals to dictate who is and who isn't in their club. In fact. I believe the bible is explicit on not judging others. So perhaps those finger painting are the ones not real members of the club

However. It is a club with around 50000 branches, all believe slightly differently. All have particular views on what Christianity is. The fact remains they are all Christians