|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 20:48:02 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. Thanks, that was a great two cents worth!
I, too, briefly looked at Buddhism, Unitarianism, and still, if in a potentially hostile environment, identify as a Secular Humanist (though to most Evangelicals, that's code for 'satan-worshipper').
Same here! Except I was Baptist, not Catholic. Both hard-core theist folks.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 31, 2017 20:54:52 GMT
Science cannot address whether God exists or not. They are two completely different realms. Science is about figuring out how the world works. Yeah, and the world is everything that exists. If a God exists, then God is not at all outside of the "realm of science." There is no other "realm" that's only accessible by your imagination or whatever you believe it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 21:08:11 GMT
Science cannot address whether God exists or not. They are two completely different realms. Science is about figuring out how the world works. Theology/philosophy tries to get to the "why" behind the "how." So you can absolutely be a person of faith and still accept/appreciate science. Just as people who were far smarter than you (and me) did. But there is no fact-based reason to think that a 'why' exists. It's merely a psychological frailty of our species that we desire a greater, overarchiny meaning for our existence. And of course, being a scientist doesn't make one immune from that frailty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 21:26:33 GMT
My 'faith' was never placed in any God, but in the belief (or at least desire) that the nature of existence was more exciting than it appears on the surface. So I was an avid collector of accounts of supernatural activity from an early age through to well into my 20s and also pseudo-scientific books purporting to provide scientific explanations for supernatural phenomena I was a bit of an erjen, to be truthful, except without any theistic beliefs or desire to believe in God.
It's difficult to explain how I drifted away to a more skeptical mindset, but I can give one example. One if my most cherished desires was for spontaneous time travel to the past, and I had read many accounts of such. Then I realised that by now, given the ubiquity of mobile phones, someone ought to have captured strong evidence of a spontaneous trip back in time. So I eventually felt that I had no other option but to abandon that as even a possibility, because lying to myself is unhealthy. After that, I think it was easier to abandon other theories of the supernatural.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 21:43:47 GMT
My 'faith' was never placed in any God, but in the belief (or at least desire) that the nature of existence was more exciting than it appears on the surface. So I was an avid collector of accounts of supernatural activity from an early age through to well into my 20s and also pseudo-scientific books purporting to provide scientific explanations for supernatural phenomena I was a bit of an erjen, to be truthful, except without any theistic beliefs or desire to believe in God. It's difficult to explain how I drifted away to a more skeptical mindset, but I can give one example. One if my most cherished desires was for spontaneous time travel to the past, and I had read many accounts of such. Then I realised that by now, given the ubiquity of mobile phones, someone ought to have captured strong evidence of a spontaneous trip back in time. So I eventually felt that I had no other option but to abandon that as even a possibility, because lying to myself is unhealthy. After that, I think it was easier to abandon other theories of the supernatural. Oh, the thought of time travel makes my head spin! Having watched Star Trek and the movie "Twelve Monkeys", it is a conundrum.
Have you seen "Twelve Monkeys"? Not intending to spoil anything, but photographic documentation is found... Since it was an attractive thought to you, you might enjoy the movie. It stars Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe, oh, and has the best acting ever of Brad Pitt; he plays a lunatic in an asylum; so not his usual role!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 21:46:43 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. It is impossible for free will (in the sense you mean) to exist. You can act in accordance with your will, but your will itself was shaped by myriad factors outside of your control. This is why I discuss free will so often on this board. It really is the key to disproving the Christian conception if God, when coupled with the epicurus quote.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 21:50:46 GMT
My 'faith' was never placed in any God, but in the belief (or at least desire) that the nature of existence was more exciting than it appears on the surface. So I was an avid collector of accounts of supernatural activity from an early age through to well into my 20s and also pseudo-scientific books purporting to provide scientific explanations for supernatural phenomena I was a bit of an erjen, to be truthful, except without any theistic beliefs or desire to believe in God. It's difficult to explain how I drifted away to a more skeptical mindset, but I can give one example. One if my most cherished desires was for spontaneous time travel to the past, and I had read many accounts of such. Then I realised that by now, given the ubiquity of mobile phones, someone ought to have captured strong evidence of a spontaneous trip back in time. So I eventually felt that I had no other option but to abandon that as even a possibility, because lying to myself is unhealthy. After that, I think it was easier to abandon other theories of the supernatural. Oh, the thought of time travel makes my head spin! Having watched Star Trek and the movie "Twelve Monkeys", it is a conundrum.
Have you seen "Twelve Monkeys"? Not intending to spoil anything, but photographic documentation is found... Since it was an attractive thought to you, you might enjoy the movie. It stars Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe, oh, and has the best acting ever of Brad Pitt; he plays a lunatic in an asylum; so not his usual role!
I have seen Twelve Monkeys, although not for many years. Time travel is the most exciting concept in science fiction, so it's not surprising that I was emotionally wedded to the idea for so long. Much more exciting than the self-aggrandising lore of Christianity, which I did like learning about as a child, but which never really was worthy of my devotion.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2017 21:52:10 GMT
You can be both faith based and fact based. Not really! Faith is not based on facts.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 31, 2017 21:53:00 GMT
You can be both faith based and fact based. Not really! Faith is not based on facts. Any recent melt downs goz?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 22:03:54 GMT
Not really! Faith is not based on facts. Any recent melt downs goz? Well, that wasn't very nice; I don't remember Goz having meltdowns.
But, thank you for changing your avatar. I loved Bugs Bunny as a kid and having someone say things that Bugs would never say was really disturbing.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 31, 2017 22:09:55 GMT
Any recent melt downs goz? Well, that wasn't very nice; I don't remember Goz having meltdowns.
But, thank you for changing your avatar. I loved Bugs Bunny as a kid and having someone say things that Bugs would never say was really disturbing.
She had a melt down on IMDB and deleted her account of 12 years. Stating the truth is not nice?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 31, 2017 22:22:22 GMT
Well, that wasn't very nice; I don't remember Goz having meltdowns.
But, thank you for changing your avatar. I loved Bugs Bunny as a kid and having someone say things that Bugs would never say was really disturbing.
She had a melt down on IMDB and deleted her account of 12 years. Stating the truth is not nice? Perhaps a troll drove her to it? And has it been archived, can you present the evidence to support your statement?
I didn't have access to the old IMDb RFS board for the last three weeks before its demise, so I have no knowledge of what happened in that time frame. But, geez, the board was shutting down. I thought about deleting my account in protest, but to what end?
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Mar 31, 2017 22:37:55 GMT
She had a melt down on IMDB and deleted her account of 12 years. Stating the truth is not nice? Perhaps a troll drove her to it? And has it been archived, can you present the evidence to support your statement?
I didn't have access to the old IMDb RFS board for the last three weeks before its demise, so I have no knowledge of what happened in that time frame. But, geez, the board was shutting down. I thought about deleting my account in protest, but to what end?
Much of the IMDB board witnessed it. Whether you believe me or not doesn't concern me. You're the one who responded to me first so don't act like this is something other than me explaining the situation to you. She made a thread and stated that a woman can not rape a man. Anyone and everyone who responded to that thread told her how wrong she was and what an idiot she was/is. Soon after that she deleted her account in a fit of rage only to show up with an alternate account a few days later. This is the truth of the matter. If you'd like anything else clarified then please ask but dont try and turn this into something it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Mar 31, 2017 23:08:12 GMT
Can confirm. She was busily explaining to men how their own biology works. It was pretty ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 1:08:11 GMT
tpfkar Why should you care to disprove Christianity or they desire to stop being Christian if you believe and you convince them to believe that none of you have the power to effect any actual change whatsoever? for the halibut
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 1:12:32 GMT
tpfkar Perpetually attempting to start random strife is some philosophies' idea of "nice". Catholic lite
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2017 1:26:04 GMT
tpfkar Why should you care to disprove Christianity or they desire to stop being Christian if you believe and you convince them to believe that none of you have the power to effect any actual change whatsoever? for the halibutBecause determinism means causality. I find it baffling that you think that no free will means that nothing influences anything else and it seems like you are still conflating fatalism and determinism. Beliefs can be influences
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 1, 2017 4:19:12 GMT
My 'faith' was never placed in any God, but in the belief (or at least desire) that the nature of existence was more exciting than it appears on the surface. So I was an avid collector of accounts of supernatural activity from an early age through to well into my 20s and also pseudo-scientific books purporting to provide scientific explanations for supernatural phenomena I was a bit of an erjen, to be truthful, except without any theistic beliefs or desire to believe in God. It's difficult to explain how I drifted away to a more skeptical mindset, but I can give one example. One if my most cherished desires was for spontaneous time travel to the past, and I had read many accounts of such. Then I realised that by now, given the ubiquity of mobile phones, someone ought to have captured strong evidence of a spontaneous trip back in time. So I eventually felt that I had no other option but to abandon that as even a possibility, because lying to myself is unhealthy. After that, I think it was easier to abandon other theories of the supernatural. Oh, the thought of time travel makes my head spin! Having watched Star Trek and the movie "Twelve Monkeys", it is a conundrum.
Have you seen "Twelve Monkeys"? Not intending to spoil anything, but photographic documentation is found... Since it was an attractive thought to you, you might enjoy the movie. It stars Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe, oh, and has the best acting ever of Brad Pitt; he plays a lunatic in an asylum; so not his usual role!
The notion of backwards time travel is incoherent. Time is nothing like a substance. It's not something you can "travel in."
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 1, 2017 13:07:21 GMT
tpfkar Personally, I find it baffling that you think you can effect change by behaving differently even though events cannot be changed. Or that you can't grasp that clockwork determinism yields fatalism as a direct consequence. Now I don't find it baffling that you'd type something in no way implied by my post. previously on free willy
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 1, 2017 13:11:06 GMT
Oh, the thought of time travel makes my head spin! Having watched Star Trek and the movie "Twelve Monkeys", it is a conundrum.
Have you seen "Twelve Monkeys"? Not intending to spoil anything, but photographic documentation is found... Since it was an attractive thought to you, you might enjoy the movie. It stars Bruce Willis and Madeline Stowe, oh, and has the best acting ever of Brad Pitt; he plays a lunatic in an asylum; so not his usual role!
The notion of backwards time travel is incoherent. Time is nothing like a substance. It's not something you can "travel in." I am pretty sure it is only a metaphor.
|
|