What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[AmbiguousGuy]

LOL, you can delight in your abilities to influence other's thoughts as much as you would like. At the end of the day... You still got SERIOUSLY owned. For me, your tactics are an blatant admittance of your ego's inadequcies, and it trying to compensate by demonstrating it's "worth" in ways that only further it's sense of inadequacy. Vicious cycles are called as such for a reason. :yes:

It still startles me after all these years -- the ugliness in those who most proudly huff and puff about their own religiousness.

A curious thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

NO, I clearly understand the limitations he was speaking of (and I just had deja-vu writing this interestingly enough), I'm just saying that if a 5' 7" white guy can be starter in the NBA, why should I accept limitations?

I believe the technical term for this is "non sequitur".

 

[Willamena]

If I demote all of my time to becoming a professional basketball player and it doesn't pan out then I'm screwed for all instructive purposes, if I have no marketable skills to fall back on, and I wouldn't be content becoming a monk somewhere.

But just so, what limitations was Luis speaking of?

Just that.

 

[Koldo]

NO, I clearly understand the limitations he was speaking of (and I just had deja-vu writing this interestingly enough), I'm just saying that if a 5' 7" white guy can be starter in the NBA, why should I accept limitations?

The other aspect of this, is the risk reward scenario. If I demote all of my time to becoming a professional basketball player and it doesn't pan out then I'm screwed for all instructive purposes, if I have no marketable skills to fall back on, and I wouldn't be content becoming a monk somewhere.

But just so, what limitations was Luis speaking of?

He was speaking of human limitations. In that we are not omnipotent, and there is only so much we can do.

Who says I wish to turn day into night? Why would I demote all of my time and energy to do something totally pointless, other than for the simple joy of spiting you? That's not very logical to me.

Secondly, turning day into night would also not change time. Time, from a human perspective, is the amount of decay that something experiences, or how something moves in comparison to another object. It's a comparitave relationship, not an independent variable. It would simply be a matter of eliminating sunlight from your perspective. If the sun was not out, and you had no clock to measure by, how could you say that something is not "night"? How many "nights" does Alaska have during the winter? Contralily, how many "nights" does California have during the same time? Day and night is a matter of perspective, I can change day to night from my perspective at any point in time.

Regardless, it could be anything seemingly impossible to a human being within a very limited time constraint. I will accept anything you propose as long as you do it right away.
If you can't do anything along these lines, then you can't do everything.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

He was speaking of human limitations. In that we are not omnipotent, and there is only so much we can do.

It seems to me that nash8 doesn't agree with that. He says, "I disagree, I literally believe I can do anything."

So if he has no legs, no arms, half a brain, no vision or hearing... still he can become the best NBA player in the history of humanity. I guess he could even fly to the moon by flapping his armstubs?

But maybe I'm wrong and he'll clarify.

 

[dust1n]

So you think logic is objective? If it is, why do so many philosophers and scientists who base the entirety of their thought proccess on logic, come to different conclusions?

Like who?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is so strange about an atheist switching over to theist? My mother did it- she was an atheist for nearly 30 years before she became a theist. She was a strong atheist, too. Sometimes a person needs to think outside of what they would do in the same situation- so thinking "I don't see how an atheist could become a theist since I would never do that" wouldn't work for another person.

Personally, I see it as strange because it seems to me that religion is a matter of upbringing: aside from a bit of "brand switching", most people in a religion were raised religiously. In the case of an atheist, though, that upbringing wasn't there (or wasn't effective), so the normal reasons for the change are gone.

It's like smoking: I can understand how someone could become a smoker as a teenager, and I can understand why a smoker would quit smoking at 45, but I can't understand why a lifelong non-smoker would take up smoking at 45. It happens, I know, but the reasons why are beyond me.

 

[nash8]

No. Arguments and conclusions are.

So what part of coming to a "logical conclusion" would be objective? Strictly the conclusion part?

So in regard to this, there are things we know due to research that's been conducted. Meditation access and trains the right side of the brain. That's the emotional AND the creative side. It's the side we use to explore our emotions and it's where our subconscious lives as well. (right side handles logic, reason, math, etc...).

Can you please cite some evidence for this? Actually don't, because I know it's not true.

Meditation Gives Brain a Charge, Study Finds (washingtonpost.com)
Counterexample what.

This might be interesting for you to.
Different Types of Meditation Affect the Brain Differently - Memory Forum | Mnemotechnics.org

And actually you have it totally opposite. The left brain handles logic, reason and math according to most traditional accounts. But the thing is, both hemispheres are involved in almost any decision you make.

The more you meditate and or hallucinate (or both at the same time), the only thing you acquire a deeper meaning of is yourself and your own mind... your subconscious, your old memories that are repressed, or have been forgotten, your feelings and where they come from, where you thoughts come from, how they form and originate. These "experiences" may allow you to understand your self, which is not a bad thing at all, but if it leads you to "there is a god", then all you've discovered is that you believe there is a god... it does not provide ANY evidence that there is one... At the risk of being cliche' ... it's all in your head. And we know this due to scientific research done with brain activity and meditation, revelations, emotions and religious experiences.

How bout this?
Endogenous Light Nexus Theory of Consciousness

Or how bout deactivation of the OAA, where one literally loses the "boundries" created by your brain, so you literally become "one" with nature because your brain no longer proccesses it's sense of self?

I forgot bookmark the link for this, but I'll find it for ya.

I provided an explanation of "expanded consciousness" when I said " you acquire a deeper meaning of yourself and your own mind"... because that's all it provides (on a simplified level). You can facepalm all you want, but there have been many experiments done in monitoring brain activity while the test subjects would meditate, hallucinate, or engage in religious activity (including the "speaking in tongues" experience that many hold so dearly.) And we can clearly see that there is "more" activity than with our normal day-to-day experiences... aka, expanded consciousness... aka, nothing supernatural.

You need experiments to tell you that meditation affects the brain? The question you have to ask yourself is what induces these changes in brain activity?

Endogenous Light Nexus Theory of Consciousness

In fact there are some experiences, such as listening to music which evokes a deep emotional response, which trigger more brain activity in those same areas than when compared to meditation and religious experiences...

Listening to music is, or can be meditation, but I have yet to see studies that show listening to music induces extremely high levels of gamma waves yet. Can you cite some evidence.

I doubt the 911 victims would agree with you. Their attackers took direction from a perfected being, and look how that turned out.

Actually, their attackers most likely took direction from a methamphetamine induced vision that was created by men who like to create chaos.

What goes into the making of a suicide bomber – The Express Tribune

They take people, geek them up on meth, sometimes for weeks at a time with minimal sleep. Then they stage "heaven", complete with virgins and milk and the whole nine yards, then stage "the voice of God" that tells them if they commit these horrible attrocities they will reach the heaven they are currently experiencing permanently. So is it religious fervor, maybe? Would suicide bombers most likely do these things without the help of drugs, and staged hallucinations? Probably not in my opinion.

So you're saying that no one can ever claim to be directed by God?

You can claim whatever you wan't? But because you claim something, does that mean that you are that?

Morality is very objective indeed. And belief in some sort of connection to the "infinite" has often shown to be corruptive or at least unhealthy.

Cite me one objective morality? And belief in some sort of connection to the "infinite" has often been shown to be decorrupting, and to promote healthiness.

I believe the technical term for this is "non sequitur".

The following of formal logic huh? Would the fact that following a formal pattern of something mean that that particular would have to be subjective? If one has to distinguish between two different "forms" of something, would that not make it subjective, even in the most minimal sense of the word?

Regardless, it could be anything seemingly impossible to a human being within a very limited time constraint. I will accept anything you propose as long as you do it right away.

LOL, if that is your requirement, than the ability of human's is almost non-existent no?

Like who?

These guys.
List of atheist philosophers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And these guys
Philosophical theism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ImprobableBeing]

Personally, I see it as strange because it seems to me that religion is a matter of upbringing: aside from a bit of "brand switching", most people in a religion were raised religiously. In the case of an atheist, though, that upbringing wasn't there (or wasn't effective), so the normal reasons for the change are gone.

It's like smoking: I can understand how someone could become a smoker as a teenager, and I can understand why a smoker would quit smoking at 45, but I can't understand why a lifelong non-smoker would take up smoking at 45. It happens, I know, but the reasons why are beyond me.

Excellent post and i'll steal that last paragraph to use at a later time. :run:

 

[nash8]

Personally, I see it as strange because it seems to me that religion is a matter of upbringing: aside from a bit of "brand switching", most people in a religion were raised religiously. In the case of an atheist, though, that upbringing wasn't there (or wasn't effective), so the normal reasons for the change are gone.

It's like smoking: I can understand how someone could become a smoker as a teenager, and I can understand why a smoker would quit smoking at 45, but I can't understand why a lifelong non-smoker would take up smoking at 45. It happens, I know, but the reasons why are beyond me.

In both of those cases, personal experience.

 

[philbo]

It's like smoking: I can understand how someone could become a smoker as a teenager, and I can understand why a smoker would quit smoking at 45, but I can't understand why a lifelong non-smoker would take up smoking at 45. It happens, I know, but the reasons why are beyond me.

This is vaguely odd, in that the only time I've been very tempted to take up smoking has been since I turned 45 - probably inspired more by the smoking ban than anything else. It's not that I'm so reactionary as to take up smoking because it has been banned, but it has caused a camaraderie amongst smokers who have to hang around outside: being a smoker can under some circumstances & at some companies be a good career move... you get to hang out & socialize with people you wouldn't otherwise meet, at all levels in the heirarchy. I often join the smokers outside, especially when it would otherwise mean breaking off a conversation. And in times of stress, it actually seems quite appealing.

Main reason I haven't, though, is probably more financial than anything else. But I've definitely been tempted recently.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They take people, geek them up on meth, sometimes for weeks at a time with minimal sleep. Then they stage "heaven", complete with virgins and milk and the whole nine yards, then stage "the voice of God" that tells them if they commit these horrible attrocities they will reach the heaven they are currently experiencing permanently. So is it religious fervor, maybe? Would suicide bombers most likely do these things without the help of drugs, and staged hallucinations? Probably not in my opinion.

Then I don't think you've studied human history and human psychology very much. From all reports, lots of people attribute their behavior to God's direction. Even people who've had no drugs of any kind.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

This is vaguely odd, in that the only time I've been very tempted to take up smoking has been since I turned 45 - probably inspired more by the smoking ban than anything else.

That may be the stupidest, most immature thing i have ever heard anyone say.

I would have loved the smoking ban to be in effect when i has to cross the streets quite a few times because retarded smokers saw it fit to smoke at EVERY location, both inside and outside and i was pushing my grandmothers wheelchair. She smoked until she got COPD, i can tell you that there is no glory in trying to breath so hard that you have to go around with an oxygen tank at all times.

Anyone who smokes is per definition a damn idiot. I used to smoke before my grandmother got ill, there is absolutely no benefit to it. Smoking crack is a more intelligent thing to do than smoking tobacco. At least with crack you get a high, with tobacco you get hooked and you need it just to feel like everyone else is feeling.

 

[LuisDantas]

Cite me one objective morality?

The five precepts of Sila.

And belief in some sort of connection to the "infinite" has often been shown to be decorrupting, and to promote healthiness.

Okay, I am calling your bluff. Give me some examples. Tell me how often do you think that happens as opposed to its opposite.

 

[ImprobableBeing]

The five precepts of Sila.



Okay, I am calling your bluff. Give me some examples. Tell me how often do you think that happens as opposed to its opposite.

You should have gone with the golden rule since it's based on inherent empathy that everyone shares.

Well, except socio and psychopaths.

 

[LuisDantas]

You should have gone with the golden rule since it's based on inherent empathy that everyone shares.

Well, except socio and psychopaths.

Such as those who are certain to have a privileged line with the infinite, ironically enough.

 

[philbo]

That may be the stupidest, most immature thing i have ever heard anyone say.

My word, you have led a very sheltered life.

Anyone who smokes is per definition a damn idiot. I used to smoke before my grandmother got ill, there is absolutely no benefit to it. Smoking crack is a more intelligent thing to do than smoking tobacco. At least with crack you get a high, with tobacco you get hooked and you need it just to feel like everyone else is feeling.

ITYFIABMCTT

 

[ImprobableBeing]

My word, you have led a very sheltered life.

Indeed i have not, it's so stupid that it's beyond most things people say out of pure ignorance. At age 45 you considered taking up smoking because you were angry at the smoking ban that helps people specifically those who have smoked for a long time? I'm sorry but that is so immature and stupid that i will have no choice to believe you are a day over 13.

ITYFIABMCTT

I have no idea what that means but i stand by what i said, crack smokers are more intelligent than tobacco smokers.

 

[ChristineES]

Indeed i have not, it's so stupid that it's beyond most things people say out of pure ignorance. At age 45 you considered taking up smoking because you were angry at the smoking ban that helps people specifically those who have smoked for a long time? I'm sorry but that is so immature and stupid that i will have no choice to believe you are a day over 13.





I have no idea what that means but i stand by what i said, crack smokers are more intelligent than tobacco smokers.

Except that the tobacco smokers I've seen can hold down a job and most crack smokers I have seen live on the streets. Indeed, I don't think it healthy to either smoke tobacco or smoke crack, but smoking crack is a lot worse in my opinion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... MOST of the "Atheist to Theist" conversions I have heard of involved some sort of traumatic event in their life. Possibly suggesting their conversion was emotional... out of fear or a need for comfort??

This does often seem to be the case- that the conversion is on an emotional, rather than intellectual or rational, basis.