Question for former theists...

[Altfish]

So your argument is "you are indoctrinated" for anything. nice.

No, but if you say counter arguments are irrelevant, you have a problem.

 

[firedragon]

No, but if you say counter arguments are irrelevant, you have a problem.

Whats the argument brother?

 

[firedragon]

Please. Don't try to insult others when you fail.

I didnt insult you SZ.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didnt insult you SZ.

You tried.

 

[firedragon]

You tried.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Altfish]

Whats the argument brother?

Brother!

Your inability to see the other side of an argument, sister.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What caused you to lose faith? When was the point that you made the step from being a theist to becoming atheist? What was the rationale?

Total absence of evidence for what religions say and better scientific explanation. I made this decision in my middle age, though before that I was a wavering atheist. I have stopped going by faith.

 

[Kfox]

Why do you believe it is necessary for someone or something to build a phone rather than it building itself?

If I told you I have a phone that made itself — the pieces made themselves and then came together without any intelligent being or a machine making them do so — you would call me crazy. Yet you say the human body of yours which is far more complex than a phone just came together by itself, formed itself, grew and developed and continues to do so until you die. Then you call yourself logical.

A phone is a man made machine. We’re not talking about man made machines, we’re talking about nature, so to suggest such a machine creates itself is illogical, only humans create phones. However if we replaced your man made machine in your scenario (phone) with something that is a part of nature; like a tree, THEN the claim that it grew without any intelligent being involved, does make perfect sense.

 

[Kfox]

When did I say "intelligent, eternal being is necessary"? See, when you make statements like that, you are conflating so many things. Try not to expand on things when you need to understand the positions of each of these words you are stating.

You said you believe God to be a necessary being. You did not give a description of God, so I have no idea what you might be talking about when you say “God”. However, I made the assumption that if this God is necessary as you suggest, he is going to be intelligent (self-aware) and eternal. If this is not an accurate description of the God you speak of, I apologize; I mean as far as I know your description of God could be anything to include an inanimate unintelligent object; like a rock (which I wouldn't have an argument against). So perhaps you can give a description of whatever it is you feel is a necessary being and why it is necessary.

 

[firedragon]

Brother!

Your inability to see the other side of an argument, sister.

Brother, sister. Good argument.

 

[firedragon]

You said you believe God to be a necessary being. You did not give a description of God, so I have no idea what you might be talking about when you say “God”. However, I made the assumption that if this God is necessary as you suggest, he is going to be intelligent (self-aware) and eternal. If this is not an accurate description of the God you speak of, I apologize; I mean as far as I know your description of God could be anything to include an inanimate unintelligent object; like a rock (which I wouldn't have an argument against). So perhaps you can give a description of whatever it is you feel is a necessary being and why it is necessary.

no worries. Being against theology is no big deal. Being against reason and logic is kind of stupid and lame. So as long as.......

A necessary being is a being that exists necessarily. Online lets say our earth. It came to being some time ago. Maybe billions of years ago. So its contingent. Thus, when you go back in regression, logically it goes back to a necessary being.

 

[F1fan]

There are still unknowns out there. And energy is one of them. To the best measurements possible the total energy of the universe is zero. There is both positive energy and negative energy and they appear to balance out. That means that a Universe From Nothing does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. How and why the universe began is still largely a mystery. But a God does not appear to be necessary. Gods may be contingent on humans rather than humans being contingent on gods.

Right. Yet this is a different sort of "nothingness" than what creationists propose, that making a God necessary.

 

[F1fan]

no worries. Being against theology is no big deal. Being against reason and logic is kind of stupid and lame. So as long as.......

A necessary being is a being that exists necessarily. Online lets say our earth. It came to being some time ago. Maybe billions of years ago. So its contingent. Thus, when you go back in regression, logically it goes back to a necessary being.

Why can't it just be energy? Where did this being come from? What it is?

When we talk about the singularity that became the known universe what informs us there's a being that is necessary? Necessary for what?

Since the singularity existed there was no creation of energy. At best the theist advocating for a God/creator/being as a necessary element can do is say this being got things started. How significant would that be? How does it get identified and distinguished from all else?

The laws of physics are wrapped up in energy itself, so the "necessary being" isn't needed for that.

 

[Windwalker]

What caused you to lose faith? When was the point that you made the step from being a theist to becoming atheist? What was the rationale?

In hindsight, was it really "losing faith", or was it simply growing it? I believe it was the latter. What really is lost, is old beliefs and ideas, not faith itself.

I make a distinction between beliefs and faith. Faith allows for beliefs to change. A lack of faith means we refuse to change our beliefs, because that is all we have. I have learned there are multiple ways to think about ultimate reality, and theism and atheism are both different perspectives of the same thing: the Unknown.

As a man of faith, I find the idea of one day disregarding my faith to be a bizarre concept.

Maybe it wouldn't be disregarding it, but rather understanding it from a different perspective and not thinking of it the same ways you currently do. But doesn't this describe what is growth in general? "When I was a child, I thought as a child... but when I became an adult, I put away childish things". 1 Cor. 13.

I know everyone believes differently, but faith is a strong emotion, right? How did you overcome your faith to embrace atheism? If you’re able to drop the faith, do you feel it was still true faith in the first place?

I would say the question is, "how is it we can change our beliefs"? And the answer to that is this, by having faith. Without faith, we cannot embrace uncertainty.

 

[Kfox]

no worries. Being against theology is no big deal. Being against reason and logic is kind of stupid and lame.

Actually I’m not against theology; I’m against claims that are only supported by “because the good book says so” I find such claims against reason and logic, or as you call it; stupid and lame

A necessary being is a being that exists necessarily. Online lets say our earth. It came to being some time ago. Maybe billions of years ago. So its contingent. Thus, when you go back in regression, logically it goes back to a necessary being.

Is this necessary being (I am assuming you mean a single being rather than multiple) intelligent? Is it eternal? If so, do you now understand why I made the assumptions I made?

 

[firedragon]

Actually I’m not against theology; I’m against claims that are only supported by “because the good book says so” I find such claims against reason and logic, or as you call it; stupid and lame

Yeah. But that's irrelevant at this point.

Is this necessary being (I am assuming you mean a single being rather than multiple) intelligent? Is it eternal? If so, do you now understand why I made the assumptions I made?

Intelligent or not is a completely secondary matter. But mate, being eternal is just a basic definition of necessary.

I am not saying you are making assumptions at the moment. If you want to clarify something Kfox, just ask for the clarification rather than making statements.

A necessary being by definition is eternal. Thus asking if it is is like asking if drinkability is part of the attributes of water. No, even that is too basic of an analogy.

I just hope you understand. Dont agree with other peoples theologies, but try to understand what they say. Also, dont be following usual atheistic evangelistic apologetics commonly found online. Be an atheist or a theist that's perfectly fine with me, but move beyond the famous internet memes.

 

[Kfox]

Yeah. But that's irrelevant at this point.



Intelligent or not is a completely secondary matter. But mate, being eternal is just a basic definition of necessary.

I am not saying you are making assumptions at the moment. If you want to clarify something Kfox, just ask for the clarification rather than making statements.

A necessary being by definition is eternal. Thus asking if it is is like asking if drinkability is part of the attributes of water. No, even that is too basic of an analogy.

I just hope you understand. Dont agree with other peoples theologies, but try to understand what they say. Also, dont be following usual atheistic evangelistic apologetics commonly found online. Be an atheist or a theist that's perfectly fine with me, but move beyond the famous internet memes.

The idea that something had to exist eternally is something I 100% agree with. What this something is? I don’t pretend to know. However when you say things like “A necessary being,” The fact that you said “A” means one, so you need to demonstrate why only one rather than multiple. When you say “Being”, you imply intelligence because nobody refers to rocks, bacteria, or trees to be beings because they are not intelligent. So sometimes the way you answer a question or make a claim gives the idea of what you really mean without you actually saying it. Does this make sense? If not, tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

 

[viole]

What caused you to lose faith? When was the point that you made the step from being a theist to becoming atheist?

I turned 9.

nope, kidding. I just tried to introspect the logical reasons for me to believe in that God, just to find there were none.

ciao

- viole

 

[firedragon]

The idea that something had to exist eternally is something I 100% agree with. What this something is? I don’t pretend to know. However when you say things like “A necessary being,” The fact that you said “A” means one, so you need to demonstrate why only one rather than multiple.

Logically, can you justify multiple necessary beings? When there is a multiple, one has to be contingent upon another. It is just simply illogical.

When you say “Being”, you imply intelligence because nobody refers to rocks, bacteria, or trees to be beings because they are not intelligent.

You are wrong. A being can be a rock. You are thinking from a the point of view of basic language.

A being can be a rock. Its just a being. There is no necessity of it being intelligent or/and alive as in human or monkey. Thats an inference one has to make after establishing there is a necessary being. Its a logical inference, but a secondary one.

 

[viole]

Who created the universe?

A tortoise.

ciao

- viole