blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 31, 2017 16:59:44 GMT
irony  And you still can't understand that you're being made fun of or what the emotes means. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 17:02:00 GMT
^^^^ apparently still doesn't understand the word ^^^^ And you still can't understand that you're being made fun of or what the emotes means.  You are one sad little entity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 17:02:50 GMT
But that was never what I was talking about... Actually you made references such as "Some of history's greatest scientists were people of faith." "You can be both faith based and fact based." The overwhelming majority of people of faith, including those scientists, hold to religious doctrines which fly in the face of science... ... so yeah, it was. No, it wasn't. I was talking about people like Isaac Netwon. A brilliant scientist who was far smarter than you and still believed in God. That was clear, but you had an agenda to bring and wanted to argue about minutiae that no one was talking about. |
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 31, 2017 17:04:17 GMT
And you still can't understand that you're being made fun of or what the emotes means. You are one sad little entity. irony |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 17:08:16 GMT
If this is asking those of us who used to be religious when we transitioned to non-, then it was college for me. Particularly an interest in astronomy, which led to a more remote perspective on our existence, which led to questions that had no answers but let me unwilling to buy into much of what's described in the Bible or countless other holy books. College was a factor in my transition, too. Though not the sciences; I was in Fine Arts, majoring in advertising and editorial art, which required me to take Art History courses. Seeing art on a screen where Christians are killing non-Christians in historical perspective clashed with the 'loving god' concept I'd been sold on. How could there be a loving god that thought this behavior was okay?
I took multiple courses on the Italian Renaissance, one intro course on art history from primitive times to present day, and then took Oriental art history. And no one truth seemed evident in all of it. Well, on second thought, religion has paid a lot of artists throughout history, so artists had jobs. But to the nature of the universe and how the world worked, everyone had a different perspective.
I finally came to the same conclusion as another atheist; "Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong." Christopher Hitchens
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 17:14:59 GMT
If this is asking those of us who used to be religious when we transitioned to non-, then it was college for me. Particularly an interest in astronomy, which led to a more remote perspective on our existence, which led to questions that had no answers but let me unwilling to buy into much of what's described in the Bible or countless other holy books. College was a factor in my transition, too. Though not the sciences; I was in Fine Arts, majoring in advertising and editorial art, which required me to take Art History courses. Seeing art on a screen where Christians are killing non-Christians in historical perspective clashed with the 'loving god' concept I'd been sold on. How could there be a loving god that thought this behavior was okay?
I took multiple courses on the Italian Renaissance, one intro course on art history from primitive times to present day, and then took Oriental art history. And no one truth seemed evident in all of it. Well, on second thought, religion has paid a lot of artists throughout history, so artists had jobs. But to the nature of the universe and how the world worked, everyone had a different perspective.
I finally came to the same conclusion as another atheist; "Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong." Christopher Hitchens
He didn't think it was okay. The church has screwed up many times throughout history. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 17:22:05 GMT
I decided to start this thread after reading another poster's thoughts on the mind of believers. This was my post to him.
So, if you started out raised in religion, and eventually ended up agnostic, atheist, et al, how did it start? Was there a specific incident that triggered it or a long period of questioning small things, leading to bigger things? I was a solid bible toter until my late teens, then I began to find that many of my questions were resulting in dead ends. I realized there's a greater path to the possible divine in all the books of the world, and the out in the world and nature itself than the interpretations of a single book from a pulpit in a brick and mortar building That reminds me of a poem by Emily Dickenson:
Some keep the Sabbath by going to church; I keep it by staying home, With a bobolink for a chorister, And an orchard for a dome.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 17:30:33 GMT
College was a factor in my transition, too. Though not the sciences; I was in Fine Arts, majoring in advertising and editorial art, which required me to take Art History courses. Seeing art on a screen where Christians are killing non-Christians in historical perspective clashed with the 'loving god' concept I'd been sold on. How could there be a loving god that thought this behavior was okay?
I took multiple courses on the Italian Renaissance, one intro course on art history from primitive times to present day, and then took Oriental art history. And no one truth seemed evident in all of it. Well, on second thought, religion has paid a lot of artists throughout history, so artists had jobs. But to the nature of the universe and how the world worked, everyone had a different perspective.
I finally came to the same conclusion as another atheist; "Since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right, the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong." Christopher Hitchens
So how could a loving, perfect god allow those things to be done in his name?
"Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" David Hume
I have read a few books.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 17:39:35 GMT
He didn't think it was okay. The church has screwed up many times throughout history. So how could a loving, perfect god allow those things to be done in his name?
"Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" David Hume
I have read a few books.
Free will is necessary for genuine love (God's goal) to exist. If you're pre-programmed to behave in a certain way, then there's nothing genuine about your character. And free will entails risk. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2017 17:41:53 GMT
tpfkar One can simultaneously be both brilliant and a total nutcase (Newton, for example). God loves you so much |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 17:50:00 GMT
Actually you made references such as "Some of history's greatest scientists were people of faith." "You can be both faith based and fact based." The overwhelming majority of people of faith, including those scientists, hold to religious doctrines which fly in the face of science... ... so yeah, it was. No, it wasn't. I was talking about people like Isaac Netwon. A brilliant scientist who was far smarter than you and still believed in God. You should probably read this- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_viewsThere is no agenda. The fact is that almost all people of faith believe in some theological texts that do not concur with scientific opinion. You claimed that belief in god and science aren't mutually exclusive, then conflated it with faith and science aren't mutually exclusive... these two are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 17:58:52 GMT
So how could a loving, perfect god allow those things to be done in his name?
"Epicurus' old questions are yet unanswered. Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" David Hume
I have read a few books.
Free will is necessary for genuine love (God's goal) to exist. If you're pre-programmed to behave in a certain way, then there's nothing genuine about your character. And free will entails risk. Sigh...
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead ." Thomas Paine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 18:00:53 GMT
No, it wasn't. I was talking about people like Isaac Netwon. A brilliant scientist who was far smarter than you and still believed in God. You should probably read this- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Religious_viewsThere is no agenda. The fact is that almost all people of faith believe in some theological texts that do not concur with scientific opinion. You claimed that belief in god and science aren't mutually exclusive, then conflated it with faith and science aren't mutually exclusive... these two are not the same. Mmm hmm. Whatever you say, Eddy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 18:01:22 GMT
Free will is necessary for genuine love (God's goal) to exist. If you're pre-programmed to behave in a certain way, then there's nothing genuine about your character. And free will entails risk. Sigh...
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead ." Thomas Paine
Okay...? |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 18:09:28 GMT
Sigh...
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead ." Thomas Paine
Okay...? It means that I'm not going to argue with you.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to edit your previous posts where you misspell Newton's name as 'Netwon'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 18:12:53 GMT
It means that I'm not going to argue with you.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to edit your previous posts where you misspell Newton's name as 'Netwon'.
K. |
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 31, 2017 18:18:46 GMT
i woke up to the reality that everyone revolves around self-preservation. and religion was this embedded corporation interested in only perpetuating itself, by any means necessary. there is nothing mysterious or sacred or profane about religion. it is like any other business entity, looking to survive.
and the power of handed down fables is a hard nut to crack. but it can be and should be cracked and exposed to the light of reality-based thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 18:26:07 GMT
i woke up to the reality that everyone revolves around self-preservation. and religion was this embedded corporation interested in only perpetuating itself, by any means necessary. there is nothing mysterious or sacred or profane about religion. it is like any other business entity, looking to survive. and the power of handed down fables is a hard nut to crack. but it can be and should be cracked and exposed to the light of reality-based thinking. Well said, and a perspective I'd never looked at before. Thanks for weighing in! |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 31, 2017 20:16:44 GMT
My two cents.
I was raised Catholic, and went the whole way (first Communion, Confirmation, even an Altar Boy for a short while).
Then, at around 16, I started to question theism. It came gradually. I don't remember exactly how. Maybe theistic explanations that didn't make sense to me.
When I was 20 I left the Catholic Church because I didn't like the institution. But I didn't call myself atheist at the time.
When I was mid-20 I left the Christian faith, because their trinitarian god image didn't make sense to me.
And when I was in my 30s I learned about Ockham's Razor, and about Benjamin Libet's experiments on free will.
Knowing now that there is no afterlife, and that the existence of a deity is unlikely, I wondered what could fill the spiritual void.
I took a belief-o-matic test. And I took it several times throughout the years.
At the beginning, I got a 100% match with Unitarian Universalism; but this belief still often relied on mythical unproven stuff.
Other beliefs I was close to 100% were Quakers, some branches of Buddhism, and Secular Humanism.
But my materialistic beliefs reinforced throughout the years, and the last time I took the belief-o-matic test, I got 100% compatibility with Secular Humanism.
So how did I fill the spiritual void? A better question might be: Was there even a spiritual void? I am not sure.
Anyway, today I believe that life has no intrinsic purpose, but is fun. And it's the only life I got; after I die, it's over.
So, a long journey from Catholic to Atheist.
Will it end there? I don't know. Maybe some day evidence for a deity will present itself to me, and the dice will be rerolled.
But until then, I am an atheist.
|
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 31, 2017 20:38:37 GMT
tpfkar "Free will" doesn't explain why some are created with the traits needed to get through life complying and some aren't. Meat Puppets |
|
