When I was once an atheist

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
When I was once an atheist

As per request, I am posting a topic as to why I changed from atheist to Theist.

 

I was a Christian for a great deal of my life, I was so during high school. I went to a catholic school, and in my grade 12 biology class, I learned about evolution according to the provincal standard. There were religion classes offered, (you had to take them), but contrary to popular belief, they taught us of other religions as well and promoted tolerance.

I never really gave my Theism a second thought to be honest.

Then I started university, first as a chemistry major, so I had to take courses in chemistry, mathematics, and physics. About the end of the first semester, I did begin to question. How could God exist if the laws of chemistry/physics can explain how things got to be? I had read about the creationist's thoeries and how they could be explained through science. So throughout that time period, I was atheist.

 

That changed about third year. I had switched majors to physics since I enjoyed the classes, and didn't like the chemistry labs. The more I studied it, the more intriging it became.

I read up on physicists/Biologists biographies, and found that some actually did believe in God. This got me questioning my atheism. Why can't science and God co-exist? I pondered this point, and since science is the main argument in any atheist debate, I found it as a key component. Then I realized, yes, they can co-exist. The more I studied science, the more I questioned. By studing, I realized that things may not always be what they seem, and could be dramitically different. 

And so began my re-conversion back to Theism. 

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I read up on physicists/Biologists biographies, and found that some actually did believe in God. This got me questioning my atheism. Why can't science and God co-exist?

 

 

Yes.... but why did you even wonder if they could co-exist. What make think there needed to be a god? Why did you feel this need to rationalize their co-existance? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Cpt_pineapple

BGH wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I read up on physicists/Biologists biographies, and found that some actually did believe in God. This got me questioning my atheism. Why can't science and God co-exist?

 

Yes.... but why did you even wonder if they could co-exist. What make think there needed to be a god? Why did you feel this need to rationalize their co-existance?

 

I wondered because these scientists believed.I wondered how can these people believe?

There was no need for a God to exist per se, but then again that doesn't imply non-existance.

It's like getting an upgraded computer, you don't need it, but it helps you understand things.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I wondered because these scientists believed.I wondered how can these people believe?

There was no need for a God to exist per se, but then again that doesn't imply non-existance.

It's like getting an upgraded computer, you don't need it, but it helps you understand things.

In what way does your 'god' help you understand things? 

If you are a pantheist your god is basically the first 'cause' and that is it. How does this help you understand anything other than the big bang?

You say no 'need' for existance does not imply non-existance, this is true, but are you in the habit of making up answers without proof or evidence in other facets of your life?

 


xamination
xamination's picture
Posts: 420
Joined: 2007-02-01
User is offlineOffline
So basically you felt OK to

So basically you felt OK to convert to theism because in your mind it didn't conflict with science.  Fair enough.  However, this does not actually say why you converted.  There is a huge gap between something being possible and something being true.  What was the impetus that pushed you to theism?

I hope that when the world comes to an end I can breathe a sigh of relief, because there will be so much to look forward to.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Cpt_pineapple

BGH wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I wondered because these scientists believed.I wondered how can these people believe?

There was no need for a God to exist per se, but then again that doesn't imply non-existance.

It's like getting an upgraded computer, you don't need it, but it helps you understand things.

In what way does your 'god' help you understand things?

 

It gives me the why. Science is the how. Why did abiogensis occur? To create the different life forms. How is answered by biochemistry.

 

Quote:
 

If you are a pantheist your god is basically the first 'cause' and that is it. How does this help you understand anything other than the big bang?

Isn't that Deism?

 

Infinte consciousness (God)  helps me understand not only life, but the universe. 

Quote:
 

You say no 'need' for existance does not imply non-existance, this is true, but are you in the habit of making up answers without proof or evidence in other facets of your life?

 

 

When we don't have direct proof, we can only work in probabilites. I like to look at solutions that are probable. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
xamination wrote: So

xamination wrote:
So basically you felt OK to convert to theism because in your mind it didn't conflict with science. Fair enough. However, this does not actually say why you converted. There is a huge gap between something being possible and something being true. What was the impetus that pushed you to theism?

 

I converted mainly because I wondered what the purpose of it was. Why does the universe exist? Why do we exist? Why does the dog next door exist?

I answered that in my infinite consciousness topic. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: When

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

When we don't have direct proof, we can only work in probabilites. I like to look at solutions that are probable.

.... and 'god' is more probable to you?

Can you describe this god with using the term consciousness?  

What is this 'god's' attributes? What questions does he answer that makes him more probable than 'no god'? 

 

I may have mixed up your 'pantheism'. There is also 'pandeism' which is universal consciousness and a first cause, is your pantheism just the universal consciousness part, i.e. god is the universe?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: .... and 'god'

BGH wrote:

.... and 'god' is more probable to you?

While it is one possibility. 

 

 

Quote:

Can you describe this god with using the term consciousness?

What is this 'god's' attributes? What questions does he answer that makes him more probable than 'no god'?

 I'll try.

The universe is made up of data and energy. This energy is then  used to make matter which is of course what stuff is made of. The matter has energy inequalites and transfer data, for example we know the sun is burning hydrogen because of the light emissions. The process of fusing hydrogen creates data. This data is basically useless, unless a sentient being percieves it. That is our purpose. That is how this consciousness exists. Through the data. That is also how we get our consciousness, through our brains interputing data.


 

 

Quote:

I may have mixed up your 'pantheism'. There is also 'pandeism' which is universal consciousness and a first cause, is your pantheism just the universal consciousness part, i.e. god is the universe?

Their are so many sects of pantheism, I don't know which one I fit into. 

I think it is more of panentheism 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: While

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

While it is one possibility.

A possibility yes, probability.... i'm not too sure. I think it is less probable that such an entity exists. 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I'll try.

The universe is made up of data and energy. This energy is then used to make matter which is of course what stuff is made of. The matter has energy inequalites and transfer data, for example we know the sun is burning hydrogen because of the light emissions. The process of fusing hydrogen creates data. This data is basically useless, unless a sentient being percieves it. That is our purpose. That is how this consciousness exists. Through the data. That is also how we get our consciousness, through our brains interputing data.

 

Well, I understand what you are explaining here, I do not understand however how the 'god' conclusion is achieved. I just do not see the need nor the probability that such an entity exists.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Their are so many sects of pantheism, I don't know which one I fit into.

I think it is more of panentheism

I understand.... 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
What's "interputing" mean?

What's "interputing" mean?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I fail to see why you

I fail to see why you existence needs a why. By beginning with why you are assuming that there is a fundamental purpose to being or existence.

You talk about how sentient beings are made to perceive data. That we are made to do something, that things, including data, need purpose to exist. There is no reason to think this.


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
I think the problem here is

I think the problem here is that you haven't yet explained the specifics of your Theism. Can we assume you don't view yourself as a Christian, or as any other Abrahamic religion? Does your god(s) only serve to previde a first cause or are there more elements to your theism?


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
"To lose atheism once, Mr.

"To lose atheism once, Mr. Pineapple, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose it twice looks like thoughtlessness." almost Oscar Wilde

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: I fail to

Voiderest wrote:

I fail to see why you existence needs a why. By beginning with why you are assuming that there is a fundamental purpose to being or existence.

 

I need a why, analogous to the way I need food or water. There is something working in my conciousness that wants a why. Maybe you don't need a why but that does not change my need. Perhaps this is one of the key differences between theists and atheists. Clearly I am generalizing, but it seems that atheists are more content with a view of reality that contains no why.


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
I'm not content with a view

I'm not content with a view that contains no why. But I the question has 3 problems.

1. Everything else I believe has evidence behind it (so I expect the answer to the 'why' question to have evidence).

2. It seems I can put any answer at the end of the 'why' question:

Q: Why are we here?

A: Because of God, advanced civilization test, virtual reality simulation, pan-dimensional mice, infinite consciousness, wave theory of the universe, etc.

 3. Maybe the 'why' question is invalid because, as Voiderest said, it's assuming that there is a fundamental purpose to being or existence.

As I see no solution I have to cope with the reality of no answer to any 'why' questions.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
BGH wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I read up on physicists/Biologists biographies, and found that some actually did believe in God. This got me questioning my atheism. Why can't science and God co-exist?

 

Yes.... but why did you even wonder if they could co-exist. What make think there needed to be a god? Why did you feel this need to rationalize their co-existance?

 

I wondered because these scientists believed.I wondered how can these people believe?

Well firstly the number scientist believers is dramatically lower than the number believers in the rest of the population. In fact it is hugely lower. Perhaps a more interesting question to ponder would be why does a education in science correlate strongly with a rejection of religion? Why some scientists still believe in God is an interesting question and one that can only be answered by looking at the psychology of the individual in question. Scientists are still subject to social conditioning, indoctronation, erronious reasoning, stupidity and all the other causes of religion. They tend to be far less prone to these afflications than the normal population but some still get caught out.

Quote:
There was no need for a God to exist per se, but then again that doesn't imply non-existance.

Indeed but it makes the God hypothesis a very far fetched idea. We need to postulate the existence of something utterly increadible , never seen before that it is simply not necessary to postulate. This is just plain old bad reasoning! It is is irrational.

Quote:
It's like getting an upgraded computer, you don't need it, but it helps you understand things.

But God does not explain anything. Magic is not an explanation!

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:

 

But God does not explain anything.

 God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Then

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Then I started university, first as a chemistry major, so I had to take courses in chemistry, mathematics, and physics. About the end of the first semester, I did begin to question. How could God exist if the laws of chemistry/physics can explain how things got to be? I had read about the creationist's thoeries and how they could be explained through science. So throughout that time period, I was atheist.

You was an atheist for a year? During this time, was it your belief that there was no god or was it that you had no belief of a god or was it that you just didn't believe in any of the gods everyone else believed in?

Then, when you found out 2 scientists believed there was a god, you decided to believe also. Do those other scientists believe in intelligent design also?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: evil

wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:


But God does not explain anything.



God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.
So what you are really saying is "My need for a god is what I think is the why of science".

What need does "god" sate?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: wavefreak

AiiA wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:


But God does not explain anything.



God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.
So what you are really saying is "My need for a god is what I think is the why of science".

What need does "god" sate?

Obviously, the need sated is the need for a why.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: AiiA

wavefreak wrote:

AiiA wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:


But God does not explain anything.



God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.
So what you are really saying is "My need for a god is what I think is the why of science".

What need does "god" sate?

Obviously, the need sated is the need for a why.

Obviously it is not obvious; the need sated is 'to feel safe and secure that everything and everyone are obeying a higher power'.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Obviously it

AiiA wrote:

Obviously it is not obvious; the need sated is 'to feel safe and secure that everything and everyone are obeying a higher power'.

 

What gives you the right to tell me what my need is?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: AiiA

wavefreak wrote:

AiiA wrote:

Obviously it is not obvious; the need sated is 'to feel safe and secure that everything and everyone are obeying a higher power'.

 

What gives you the right to tell me what my need is?

?

What gives you the right to tell me (and everybody who reads your posts) there's a god?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: wavefreak

AiiA wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

AiiA wrote:

Obviously it is not obvious; the need sated is 'to feel safe and secure that everything and everyone are obeying a higher power'.

 

What gives you the right to tell me what my need is?

?

What gives you the right to tell me (and everybody who reads your posts) there's a god?

I don't have any expectation that you abandon your absense of god belief. Nor do I try to redifine your position to suit my tastes. You injected obedience and feelings of safety into the conversation when nothing warranted it. You are projecting your own conceptions of theism onto mine.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: evil

wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:

 

But God does not explain anything.

 God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.


"Why" is because of "god?" Why not just "because," then? Saying "god" explains it is drawing windows on a cardboard box. A real answer could be tested, falsified, incorporated in some way into the data. What is "god's" contribution but an empty label?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote:

magilum wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:

 

But God does not explain anything.

God is the why to the what of science. Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.


"Why" is because of "god?" Why not just "because," then? Saying "god" explains it is drawing windows on a cardboard box. A real answer could be tested, falsified, incorporated in some way into the data. What is "god's" contribution but an empty label?

 

I have a need for the why. Science cannot fill that need. "Just because" most certainly fails to fill it.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:   I have

wavefreak wrote:
 

I have a need for the why. Science cannot fill that need. "Just because" most certainly fails to fill it.


Sorry to keep on it. I'm just wondering how it can be a satisfying answer; or an answer at all. If I genuinely wanted to know, for instance, how the CPU in my computer worked, I'd expect a primer in semiconductors. It would probably take years of study to understand it at all. There are many "whys" along the way: the radio, the calculator, telecommunications, the computer. And each of those has its own number of explainable "whys." If something like the transistor could have a hundred different reasons for coming about, how can a single concept offer a reason for existence as we know it? Does it just feel right to give the universe a personality (if that's even the right word)?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: wavefreak

magilum wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

I have a need for the why. Science cannot fill that need. "Just because" most certainly fails to fill it.


Sorry to keep on it. I'm just wondering how it can be a satisfying answer; or an answer at all. If I genuinely wanted to know, for instance, how the CPU in my computer worked, I'd expect a primer in semiconductors. It would probably take years of study to understand it at all. There are many "whys" along the way: the radio, the calculator, telecommunications, the computer. And each of those has its own number of explainable "whys." If something like the transistor could have a hundred different reasons for coming about, how can a single concept offer a reason for existence as we know it? Does it just feel right to give the universe a personality (if that's even the right word)?

 

The calculator, etc are not whys, they are hows or whats. And, yes, it feels right. And personality isn't the right word. Personality is too anthropomorphic. 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:
The calculator, etc are not whys, they are hows or whats. And, yes, it feels right. And personality isn't the right word. Personality is too anthropomorphic. 

They're why development proceeded on semiconductors. Their development proceeded to address identifiable problems, or to prove hypotheses.
We could only speculate on a "god's" motives, but  we'd have to first assume such a thing exists.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: wavefreak

magilum wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
The calculator, etc are not whys, they are hows or whats. And, yes, it feels right. And personality isn't the right word. Personality is too anthropomorphic.

They're why development proceeded on semiconductors. Their development proceeded to address identifiable problems, or to prove hypotheses.
We could only speculate on a "god's" motives, but we'd have to first assume such a thing exists.

 

None of that is an existential why. 

The existence of a god class entity is axiomatic in my thinking. This entity provides the existential why. My understanding of that why may never be satisfactory, but I'm OK with that.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: magilum

wavefreak wrote:
magilum wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
The calculator, etc are not whys, they are hows or whats. And, yes, it feels right. And personality isn't the right word. Personality is too anthropomorphic.

They're why development proceeded on semiconductors. Their development proceeded to address identifiable problems, or to prove hypotheses.
We could only speculate on a "god's" motives, but we'd have to first assume such a thing exists.

 

None of that is an existential why. 

The existence of a god class entity is axiomatic in my thinking. This entity provides the existential why. My understanding of that why may never be satisfactory, but I'm OK with that.


It's interesting. I stop one step before that assumption. I'm OK realizing I don't know why, and that there may not be a reason at all. I have asked "Why?" in the past. Looking back, I would say I was looking for approval; like if there were some ultimate benchmark for the significance of a person and their achievements, none of the criticism in my life would matter. I consider it looking for a "third space," a place outside the limitations of the known; a fulfillment of desires that is really only a statement of them.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I don't

wavefreak wrote:
I don't have any expectation that you abandon your absense of god belief.
Then you converse here for the sole purpose of learning atheism?
Quote:
Nor do I try to redifine your position to suit my tastes.
But you did above, "... it seems that atheists are more content with a view of reality that contains no why". And it was wrong.
Quote:
You injected obedience and feelings of safety into the conversation when nothing warranted it.
You brought up the "why". Your need cannot be physical because there's no evidence of god; your need cannot be intellectual because you've committed anti-intellectualism by way of presuppositionalism, because you cannot think of any other answer for (or gave up trying to answer) unanswered questions; so it is probably an emotional need.
Quote:
You are projecting your own conceptions of theism onto mine.
Actually, this is what several theists told me their reason for their need for a god was.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Then you

AiiA wrote:
Then you converse here for the sole purpose of learning atheism?

Close enough. There are some people with very sharp minds that hang out around here. I have no problem with others making me think and forcing me to examine my ideas. I also can say pretty much whatever I want without being condemned to hell by a fanatic.

 

Quote:
But you did above, "... it seems that atheists are more content with a view of reality that contains no why". And it was wrong.

If you re-read that post, I admitted I was generalizing.

 

Quote:
You brought up the "why". Your need cannot be physical because there's no evidence of god; your need cannot be intellectual because you've committed anti-intellectualism by way of presuppositionalism, because you cannot think of any other answer for (or gave up trying to answer) unanswered questions; so it is probably an emotional need.

I made no claim that it was an intellectual stance. Emotional needs are real.

Quote:
Actually, this is what several theists told me their reason for their need for a god was.

Now you are generalizing. I've been posting here long enough that it should be obvious that I am not a typical theist.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak    I am ok

wavefreak   

I am ok with the questing of why, and you seem ok with answering it with god.  Why does god exist in you theism? 

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:
BGH wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I read up on physicists/Biologists biographies, and found that some actually did believe in God. This got me questioning my atheism. Why can't science and God co-exist?

 

Yes.... but why did you even wonder if they could co-exist. What make think there needed to be a god? Why did you feel this need to rationalize their co-existance?

 

 

I wondered because these scientists believed.I wondered how can these people believe?

Well firstly the number scientist believers is dramatically lower than the number believers in the rest of the population. In fact it is hugely lower. Perhaps a more interesting question to ponder would be why does a education in science correlate strongly with a rejection of religion? Why some scientists still believe in God is an interesting question and one that can only be answered by looking at the psychology of the individual in question. Scientists are still subject to social conditioning, indoctronation, erronious reasoning, stupidity and all the other causes of religion. They tend to be far less prone to these afflications than the normal population but some still get caught out.

 

Argument by popularity.

I personally think it's because they don't think God and science can co-exist.

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:
There was no need for a God to exist per se, but then again that doesn't imply non-existance.

Indeed but it makes the God hypothesis a very far fetched idea. We need to postulate the existence of something utterly increadible , never seen before that it is simply not necessary to postulate. This is just plain old bad reasoning! It is is irrational.

Science can only take us so far. 

 

Quote:
 

Quote:
It's like getting an upgraded computer, you don't need it, but it helps you understand things.

But God does not explain anything. Magic is not an explanation!

 

I didn't say explain, I said understand.

 

AiiA wrote:

You was an atheist for a year? During this time, was it your belief that there was no god or was it that you had no belief of a god or was it that you just didn't believe in any of the gods everyone else believed in?

 

Actually a year and a half to two years, by my math,

atheism-A lack of belief in a God.  So yes, I dis-believed there was a God.

 

Quote:
 

Then, when you found out 2 scientists believed there was a god, you decided to believe also. Do those other scientists believe in intelligent design also?

 

More than two actually, and no, they were not advocates of ID that I know of.  

 

 

 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument by popularity.

I personally think it's because they don't think God and science can co-exist.


Yours was an argument from authority. Just sayin'.

[MOD EDIT - fixed post... I think]


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum

magilum wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument by popularity.

I personally think it's because they don't think God and science can co-exist.

Yours was an argument from authority. Just sayin'.

Not really. An argument from authority would be 'these scienctists believe in God, therefore God exists.'

 

That is not the case. They encouraged me to question.

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed quotes] 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
magilum wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Argument by popularity.

I personally think it's because they don't think God and science can co-exist.



Yours was an argument from authority. Just sayin'.

 

Not really. An argument from authority would be 'these scienctists believe in God, therefore God exists.'

 

That is not the case. They encouraged me to question.

 


Based on evidence? They probably know a lot in their respective fields, but do they have a factual basis for proposing even a deistic entity?

 

[MOD EDIT - fixed post]


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: wavefreak

Magus wrote:

wavefreak

I am ok with the questing of why, and you seem ok with answering it with god. Why does god exist in you theism?

 

Why does god exist? I dunno. I have my hands full trying to figure out why I exist. There are some things I don't even bother trying to figure out. Things like omnicient and omnipotent, who created god, or what ever. I have a limited capacity to understand reality.  So  I just shrug my shoulders at some things and move on.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Magus

wavefreak wrote:
Magus wrote:

wavefreak

I am ok with the questing of why, and you seem ok with answering it with god. Why does god exist in you theism?

 

Why does god exist? I dunno. I have my hands full trying to figure out why I exist. There are some things I don't even bother trying to figure out. Things like omnicient and omnipotent, who created god, or what ever. I have a limited capacity to understand reality. So I just shrug my shoulders at some things and move on.

  Ok thats a good answer, what do you have then that makes you at least leaning towards a deity existing instead of just shrugging your shoulders at that why question?.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: I fail to

Voiderest wrote:

I fail to see why you existence needs a why. By beginning with why you are assuming that there is a fundamental purpose to being or existence.

 I see this as a reasonable assumption. That there is a reason.

 

Quote:
 

You talk about how sentient beings are made to perceive data. That we are made to do something, that things, including data, need purpose to exist. There is no reason to think this.

Not that it needs purpose, but that it has purpose. 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote:

Magus wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
Magus wrote:

wavefreak

I am ok with the questing of why, and you seem ok with answering it with god. Why does god exist in you theism?

 

Why does god exist? I dunno. I have my hands full trying to figure out why I exist. There are some things I don't even bother trying to figure out. Things like omnicient and omnipotent, who created god, or what ever. I have a limited capacity to understand reality. So I just shrug my shoulders at some things and move on.

Ok thats a good answer, what do you have then that makes you at least leaning towards a deity existing instead of just shrugging your shoulders at that why question?.

 

Experiences affectionately labled woo-woo by skeptics.

 

And, as weird as it sounds, the mental construct I carry about clicks into place when I allow ideas of a deity to become part of the framework. When I strip out those ideas, nothing fits. It is really quite impossible to explain. Which is also why I don't put too much effort into "converting" people. How the hell can I do that when I can't even articulate it to myself.

 

[edit:spelling] 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
magilum wrote: What's

magilum wrote:
What's "interputing" mean?

process the data into information. 


AModestProposal
AModestProposal's picture
Posts: 157
Joined: 2006-12-26
User is offlineOffline
It seems to me that your

It seems to me that your god belief strictly stems from an uncomfortableness with the idea of life existing without an inherent purpose or function, rather than from evidence or any real reason at all. But then it seems that because you are yourself aware that this is not a good reason to believe in something, you try to have it both ways by insisting that this is only an answer to "YOUR needs" and that you aren't out to convert others to your way of thinking. I find this far too wishywashy to devote any more time to. If I conversed with everyone who kinda sorta believed something about the things they kinda sorta believe, I'd never get anything done. I'd rather focus my search for truth on things capable of being proven true or false rather than such wishywashy abstracts that are unfalsifible and aren't even convincing enough for the individual postulating them to really stand by them.

 

And in search for a why, why stop with god? Why not consider the Thetan victims of Xenu, leprecauns, or the Pants Pixies of the G-String Nebula?


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I see

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I see this as a reasonable assumption. That there is a reason.

Explanation in how does not equal or mean there is a motive in why.

Quote:
Not that it needs purpose, but that it has purpose.

'Useless unless percieved' sounds like you are trying to find a purpose to make it fit.

 

If you ask why X does A you are assuming that there is a motive. This will lead to the idea of an intellect because a motive needs intellect. It doesn't matter if you can't answer why once you got the idea of motives to the workings of existence. The assumption has been made by asking the question. That was my point.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
AModestProposal wrote: It

AModestProposal wrote:

It seems to me that your god belief strictly stems from an uncomfortableness with the idea of life existing without an inherent purpose or function, rather than from evidence or any real reason at all. But then it seems that because you are yourself aware that this is not a good reason to believe in something, you try to have it both ways by insisting that this is only an answer to "YOUR needs" and that you aren't out to convert others to your way of thinking. I find this far too wishywashy to devote any more time to. If I conversed with everyone who kinda sorta believed something about the things they kinda sorta believe, I'd never get anything done. I'd rather focus my search for truth on things capable of being proven true or false rather than such wishywashy abstracts that are unfalsifible and aren't even convincing enough for the individual postulating them to really stand by them.

 

 

 

I think I've been insulted. So I'm not good enough for your time? Cool. I've removed one atheist from the universe of discourse. Millions to go.

 

AModestProposal wrote:

And in search for a why, why stop with god? Why not consider the Thetan victims of Xenu, leprecauns, or the Pants Pixies of the G-String Nebula?

I have no evidence of those things. I have had personal experiences that, so far at least, are best interpreted as spiritual. This is evidence of something that as of yet I have found no empirical, scientific explanation. I know for certain these experiences are not evidence of the Thetan victims of Xenu, leprecauns, or the Pants Pixies of the G-String Nebula.

 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:

 

But God does not explain anything.

God is the why to the what of science.

No it is not. As I said God does not explain anything.

In God theory, or to give it its correct name the Theory of Magic, nothing is eplained at all. Saying the universe was magicked into existence by a God that just happened to already exist for no apparrent reason does not explain anything. It does not supply a "why" in any way shape or form. In fact it actually throws up a whole heap of "whats" and "hows"

What method did God use to crete the universe?

What where his motives?

How did he get created?

Any "answer" that explains nothing and just throws up even more questions is really not much of an answer.

Magick is not a stuitable explanation for adults.

Quote:
Again, just because you don't need a why doesn't invalidate my need for it.

I would love to know why. I really would like nothing more than to know how the universe started, why we are here etc etc but I don't. We have not worked it out. We do not have the answers. Perhaps we never will. It is frustrating I admit, it really frustrating but throwing ones hands up in the air and invoking magic is just plain silly. The only rational and sensible thing to do is just to admit to ones ignorance on the mater. The begining of wisdom is to understand what ones ignornace.

I do not know the answers to the mysteries of the universe but I'm fairly certain that magic has nothing to do with it.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
evil religion wrote:   No

evil religion wrote:

 

No it is not. As I said God does not explain anything.

 

 

Apparantly I need to repeat myself: 

"I have had personal experiences that, so far at least, are best interpreted as spiritual. This is evidence of something that as of yet I have found no empirical, scientific explanation."

 


evil religion
evil religion's picture
Posts: 232
Joined: 2006-10-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: evil

wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:

 

No it is not. As I said God does not explain anything.

 

Apparantly I need to repeat myself:

"I have had personal experiences that, so far at least, are best interpreted as spiritual. This is evidence of something that as of yet I have found no empirical, scientific explanation."

So you can't explain it. So that means it must be magic right? Seriously is that your argument? 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
evil religion

evil religion wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
evil religion wrote:

 

No it is not. As I said God does not explain anything.

 

Apparantly I need to repeat myself:

"I have had personal experiences that, so far at least, are best interpreted as spiritual. This is evidence of something that as of yet I have found no empirical, scientific explanation."

So you can't explain it. So that means it must be magic right? Seriously is that your argument?

Who said anything about magic? I don't consider supernatural a valid concept. I don't hold to the idea that any entity can violate whatever laws of physics exists. I don't expect any entity to conform to my anthropmorphic conceptualizations. I am a damn sight better at not jumping to conclusions than many atheists. So far the ONLY explanation that fits some of the experiences that I have had is that there is indeed a part of reality that for lack of a better term is spiritual. I'm sorry if you don't like that classification. You can call it "other" if it makes you feel better.