What kind of atheist converts to a theist?

[Monk Of Reason]

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

I would also like to add that most of these stories are more or less former Theists that became atheists and after certain events they were scared back into theism. Its more of a relapse than a conversion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

 

[philbo]

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.

In which case, maybe you should get over your incredulity and read beyond the first sentence in that post you've been so disgusted by. Because it's rather obvious that you haven't.

ITYFIABMCTT - I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
..sorry, forgetting which forum I'm on: it's a bit like a mantra on one of the other places I frequent.

 

[nash8]

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.

And I don't think you've studied the phenomenon of suicide bombers specific to the Islamic culture that much, which is the post I was directly refferring to. If your vision of God and/or heaven is a stage production after you have been administered mass amounts of methamphetamine, and been deprived sleep for days at a time, then we can state that the direction was man-made.

What "all reports" are you talking about lol. I would agree with you that a lot of people attribute the behavior to God's direction, but in the general case of suicide bombers within the Islamic culture, not so much.

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

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.

For the athiest of peace, you sure are angry.

The five precepts of Sila.

1. What if someone is trying to kill you?
2. What if someone is trying to take things that belong to you?
3. I don't even neccesarily know what sensual misconduct is, so I won't speak on it.
4. What if you wife asks you if she looks fat in her dress?
5. Abstaining from alchohol and other (intoxicants) as an objective morality, you have to be kidding me lol.

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

Buddhism, Gnosticism, Sufism, many forms of Paganism, and just about any other mystical tradition you can think of. And I would say all the time, as far is connection with the inifinite goes.

I would also like to add that most of these stories are more or less former Theists that became atheists and after certain events they were scared back into theism. Its more of a relapse than a conversion.

I was a thiest at one point, took a short trip into athiesm, although I would say it was more agnostic then pure athiesm, and came back round to thiesm, and nowhere was their an emotional event or traumatic experience. It was actually logical deduction and inquiry in my case.

I will agree that I am the exception rather than the rule though when it comes to thing's like this though.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I was a thiest at one point, took a short trip into athiesm, although I would say it was more agnostic then pure athiesm, and came back round to thiesm, and nowhere was their an emotional event or traumatic experience. It was actually logical deduction and inquiry in my case.

I will agree that I am the exception rather than the rule though when it comes to thing's like this though.

"Pure Atheism"?

 

[YmirGF]

My guess is the only atheists that revert to theism are the stupid ones. Not much of a loss, really.

 

[Windwalker]

My guess is the only atheists that revert to theism are the stupid ones. Not much of a loss, really.

So many assumptions of superiority going on in this statement.

 

[LuisDantas]

1. What if someone is trying to kill you?
2. What if someone is trying to take things that belong to you?
3. I don't even neccesarily know what sensual misconduct is, so I won't speak on it.
4. What if you wife asks you if she looks fat in her dress?
5. Abstaining from alchohol and other (intoxicants) as an objective morality, you have to be kidding me lol.

No, I am not.

Come back to me when you decide that you want to talk seriously.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And I don't think you've studied the phenomenon of suicide bombers specific to the Islamic culture that much, which is the post I was directly refferring to. If your vision of God and/or heaven is a stage production after you have been administered mass amounts of methamphetamine, and been deprived sleep for days at a time, then we can state that the direction was man-made.

What "all reports" are you talking about lol. I would agree with you that a lot of people attribute the behavior to God's direction, but in the general case of suicide bombers within the Islamic culture, not so much.

OK, man. If you want to believe that Islamic suicide bombers never consider themselves to be doing God's will, then that's what you should believe, I guess.

It perplexes me, such a position, but I guess you have your reasons for it.

(Just curious: Have you worked out why some of them shout, "Allah Akbar" as they go to their deaths?)

 

[YmirGF]

So many assumptions of superiority going on in this statement.

LOL. I DO see why you would think that, but I was meaning it in more general terms. Of course, there will be some large brained individuals who through the agency of their enhanced imagination will be able to fabricate a meaningful "god" scenario - if but only for them - but for the general public, it'd see "back-sliding" into theism as little more than capitulation to wishful thinking. They ask themselves questions they cannot satisfactorily answer and are forced to use God putty to fill in the gaps. Sad, really.

 

[Windwalker]

LOL. I DO see why you would think that, but I was meaning it in more general terms. Of course, there will be some large brained individuals who through the agency of their enhanced imagination will be able to fabricate a meaningful "god" scenario - if but only for them - but for the general public, it'd see "back-sliding" into theism as little more than capitulation to wishful thinking. They ask themselves questions they cannot satisfactorily answer and are forced to use God putty to fill in the gaps. Sad, really.

What I was hoping to get to at some point is what is really the issue. which is that these questions are really not about the theistic belief, whether that is traditional theism or atheism, but that those represent the true underlying issue which is prerational beliefs versus rational beliefs. Theism is not fused inextricably with the prerational, mythic-literal dogma. Nor is rationality, by any means whatsoever, bound to atheistic beliefs.

You can have just as much prerationality in atheism as you do in theism, with its attendant myths and symbols and irrational cognitive dissonance as you do in fundamentalist theism. And you can have rationality in theism as you do in 'freethinker' circles. If someone were to try to say that atheism is predominately rational, where theism is predominately prerational, I'm not so sure I'd really agree with that when you come forward to today's various neo-atheist movements and spokespersons. As an easy target, I find anti-theism to be on equally irrational footing as the religious fundamentalists claim the downfall of society is its godlessness. Same set of lungs bellowing.

So the real issue to me is to ask this question. Can someone who has moved away from prerational beliefs, move to a rational foundation and hold to theism? If not, why not? Why can't atheism move beyond defining itself as "not-theism" and integrate religion into higher mind in some sort of meaningful, useful way?

 

[Koldo]

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

Depends on the perspective.
But you said that you believe you are able to do anything, isn't that right?

 

[nash8]

"Pure Atheism"?

The total lack of belief in God, no doubt about it?

No, I am not.

Come back to me when you decide that you want to talk seriously.

I guess we can never talk again, I'lll miss you LuisDantas.

But on a serious note, what is your definition of objective morality? My definition is something that everyone agrees is bad and/or good for you.

OK, man. If you want to believe that Islamic suicide bombers never consider themselves to be doing God's will, then that's what you should believe, I guess.

I'm not saying that they never do believe themselves to be doing God's will, I'm just questioning the basis of why they believe that? If they believe it because of methatmphatine induced scenes created by man, than I would argue from an evidential basis that their beliefs were based on thoughts specifically created by men.

If they did these things free of drugs and psychological manipulation, which I agree with you that some do, then yes they would consider themselves doing God's will. I definitely do believe this happens, but is more of the excpetion than the rule.

It perplexes me, such a position, but I guess you have your reasons for it.

Did you read the link I posted?

[/quote] (Just curious: Have you worked out why some of them shout, "Allah Akbar" as they go to their deaths?)[/quote]

Pervitin induced psychiatric response, and years of conditioning?
What goes into the making of a suicide bomber – The Express Tribune

Depends on the perspective.
But you said that you believe you are able to do anything, isn't that right?

Irrespective of your perspective of time being a factor, and according to my own perspective, most definitely.

 

[Koldo]

Irrespective of your perspective of time being a factor, and according to my own perspective, most definitely.

In other words: You can do anything... in your perspective only.

 

[LuisDantas]

The total lack of belief in God, no doubt about it?

That would be strong atheism.

I guess we can never talk again, I'lll miss you LuisDantas.

But on a serious note, what is your definition of objective morality? My definition is something that everyone agrees is bad and/or good for you.

Not everyone agrees on anything, no matter how objective.

Objectivity is demonstrable, independently verifiable. It is not unanimous, though. While we are used to hear and think of morality as subjective, it really isn't.

Sam Harris is a bit too liberal for my tastes, but he does make a good case for it in "The Moral Landscape".

I'm not saying that they never do believe themselves to be doing God's will, I'm just questioning the basis of why they believe that? If they believe it because of methatmphatine induced scenes created by man, than I would argue from an evidential basis that their beliefs were based on thoughts specifically created by men.

Such as religions, you mean?

Until and unless you can offer some clear criteria to tell what is "God's will" from what is "thoughts specifically created by men", I don't think this argument holds any water.

If they did these things free of drugs and psychological manipulation, which I agree with you that some do, then yes they would consider themselves doing God's will. I definitely do believe this happens, but is more of the excpetion than the rule.

Considering that arguably over six billion people believe in some kind of God, it better be.

All the same, that is irrelevant. Being an exception does not make it any less true. It is a true, frequent, dangerous and important consequence of unchecked, unquestioned belief in God.

(Just curious: Have you worked out why some of them shout, "Allah Akbar" as they go to their deaths?)

Pervitin induced psychiatric response, and years of conditioning?
What goes into the making of a suicide bomber – The Express Tribune

I take it that you are not very informed about religious fanaticism and psychiatric cases? Delusions about being the Sword of God are hardly that rare, specific, planned or intentional.

If only they were.

Irrespective of your perspective of time being a factor, and according to my own perspective, most definitely.

That... is just silly.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm not saying that they never do believe themselves to be doing God's will, I'm just questioning the basis of why they believe that? If they believe it because of methatmphatine induced scenes created by man, than I would argue from an evidential basis that their beliefs were based on thoughts specifically created by men.

We could argue that virtually all belief in an Abrahamic God are based on thoughts created by men. Without parents and culture to indoctrinate children, there would be no Christianity or Islam.

But I still find it a legitimate formulation to claim that people behave immorally (911) because they are following the direction of their God. You can blame it on their parents if you like, though. I won't object.

 

[nash8]

In other words: You can do anything... in your perspective only.

Is there any other perspective? But in all seriousness, I believe I have the ability to do anything. Whether I actually do it or not, that's an entire different discussion.

That would be strong atheism.

I knew there was another word for it, I just couldn't think of it.

Not everyone agrees on anything, no matter how objective.

Objectivity is demonstrable, independently verifiable. It is not unanimous, though. While we are used to hear and think of morality as subjective, it really isn't.

I disagree. Independently verifiable in my opinion means that it would have to be verfiable in every situtation in every parameter stated. Thus it would have to demonstrated that these things are verified to be immoral in all situations. If I provide one counter-example to any of the things on the list you provided, then they cease to be objective in my opinon.

There are some times when it is good to lie, or at the least not tell the whole truth, which is akin to lying for me. If lying directly saves someones life, then it is morally good in my opinion. There is nothing from my perspective that is morally good in all situations, and/or morally bad given all context. It all depends on the context of the situation.

Granted their are things, which I would agree with the list you provided, that are usaually tend to lead to morally unjust behaviors more of the time than not. But stil

Such as religions, you mean?

Until and unless you can offer some clear criteria to tell what is "God's will" from what is "thoughts specifically created by men", I don't think this argument holds any water.

Religions is a philosophy directly related to someones interpretation of "Gods will", God's will is not necceserily interpreted by religion.

Honestly, I would say that all religions are "thoughts created by men". I don't see how it could be so given that all religious texts are written by men. But in the particular case of suicide bombers, the beliefs are directly implanted into people through drug use, and staging by men. Men literally physically create the environment and thought proccess.

Now in the case where people hear the "voice of God" where no physical interaction between them, and other people occur. That's an entirely differnt argument.

Considering that arguably over six billion people believe in some kind of God, it better be.

Exactly, and if all of those people were doing God's will, and God's will was to be a suicide bomber, then we wouldn't be conversing over this here internet forum right now. Is God's will subjective?

All the same, that is irrelevant. Being an exception does not make it any less true. It is a true, frequent, dangerous and important consequence of unchecked, unquestioned belief in God.

I would argue that the same goes for any unchecked, unquestioned belief.

I take it that you are not very informed about religious fanaticism and psychiatric cases? Delusions about being the Sword of God are hardly that rare, specific, planned or intentional.

If only they were.

Can you provide a counter-example that states that pertaining to the case of suicide bombers within Islam, which was the subject we were speaking on, that drugs and/or psychological manipulation or not more than often the case?

That... is just silly.

In the words of the immortal "Soldier Boy Tell "Em" Get silly, get silly, get silly.

We could argue that virtually all belief in an Abrahamic God are based on thoughts created by men. Without parents and culture to indoctrinate children, there would be no Christianity or Islam.

I generally agree with you on the former, but on the latter, we literally wouldn't have anything if that were not the case.

But I still find it a legitimate formulation to claim that people behave immorally (911) because they are following the direction of their God. You can blame it on their parents if you like, though. I won't object.

Not knowing the specific drug tests, or if they're were any done considering the circumstances in that particular situation. I would agree with you. And there is a definitely a trend where parents will "donate" their children to these radical groups in order to gain "wealth and honor" for their family by being a suicide bomber. Even still I would argue that drugs and psychological manipulation play a role in the creation of these types of people.

 

[Koldo]

Is there any other perspective? But in all seriousness, I believe I have the ability to do anything. Whether I actually do it or not, that's an entire different discussion.

Then you wouldn't have a problem doing anything i ask in a given time constraint, would you?

 

[LuisDantas]

@nash8: I don't think you are adopting reasonable premises and constraints. That is all I will say.

 

[nash8]

Then you wouldn't have a problem doing anything i ask in a given time constraint, would you?

The problem I have with this, is that time is a constraint. I don't hold this view. Time for me, is infinite, so the only constraint that I personally would have concerning time would be that I would have to do it at all.

@nash8: I don't think you are adopting reasonable premises and constraints. That is all I will say.

Agreed. Given specific parameters and context, I do not have the ability to do anything. However, that goes for anything. Given specific premises and constraints it is possible to discern repeatable results and objective limitations. However, I would argue that repeatable premises and constraints, are impossible to impose given any realistic situation.