Did you "Choose to Believe," or "Choose not to believe"?
Therion Ware
If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
or that 2 + 2 = 5.
But what do you think?
Fred Stone
news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com:
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
Quite the opposite. I tried very hard, between age 15 and 20 or so, to
"choose" to be a Christian, and just couldn't manage to convince myself
that I believed any more.
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
>
>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken
Therion Ware
wrote:
>Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
>news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>
>Quite the opposite. I tried very hard, between age 15 and 20 or so, to
>"choose" to be a Christian, and just couldn't manage to convince myself
>that I believed any more.
Thanks for that. In due course would you be prepared to go in to more
detail?
asilentskeptic
I definitely didn't choose to become an atheist. I fought it for
years! Struggled, studied (went to Bible college), etc.
I partially agree with the statement that our beliefs are a product of
who we are and what we know. I am an atheist because of how I choose
to accept things. I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
something to be evidenced.
I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
it did not point towards a god)
panam...@hotmail.com
Not really. It seemed the only choice once I discovered the truth
behind all the mythology. I suppose I could have gone onto some "New
Age" tangent, but Occam's Razor says why bother? <g>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
Nah. It was taught to me by my parents during my early childhood-at
the same time they were teaching me fire is hot, and not to stick
something metal into the electrical outlet.
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
I tend to agree, especially if you include one's upbringing as part of
what makes us what we are.
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
This is a difficult concept to express to devout theists. I know what
I know, and could not anymore "choose" to ignore it than I could
choose to ignore the weather.
> But what do you think?
I think you've struck the nail on the head. I just wish there was a
way to explain it better to the theists in my life.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
chibiabos
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
Coming first from a Mormon then a Southern Baptist background, it was
more a gradual reformation (don't read more into that word than
necessary) of my thoughts about religion in general, until I realized
that there could not possibly be any such critter as god.
At some point in that process I suppose I thought, "Gee, I really AM an
atheist now."
Whether you call that "choice" or merely "change" is up to you.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Therion Ware
wrote:
>In article <agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com>, Therion Ware
><autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>>
>> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>>
>> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>> But what do you think?
>>
>
>Coming first from a Mormon then a Southern Baptist background, it was
>more a gradual reformation (don't read more into that word than
>necessary)
Getting married 6 times and nationalising monasteries isn't entirely
necessary, I understand.
>>of my thoughts about religion in general, until I realized
>that there could not possibly be any such critter as god.
>
>At some point in that process I suppose I thought, "Gee, I really AM an
>atheist now."
>
>Whether you call that "choice" or merely "change" is up to you.
Well, the reason I used "choice" is that a not uncommon theme in
Christian evangellicals (in the widest sense of the word) is that we
can choose our beliefs. I don't agree, but I thought I see what other
people think.
Therion Ware
Thanks for that.
caza...@nortel.com
> ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
> something to be evidenced.
>
> I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
> am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
> it did not point towards a god)
Hello !
I'm new to the area.
The statement above says a lot.
You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
proof of the existence of god.
This thinking I can understand.
How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
even though there is no evidence for the belief.
I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
god, because there is no evidence either way'.
Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
itself.
michel
asilentskeptic
I do not hold an absolutely positive belief that there "is no god".
That just seems the most probable conclusion considering the evidence
that I have seen. There may, in fact, BE a god. I will willing
"believe" that a god exists when the evidence points me towards that
fact, but I will not accept the claim that a deity exists without
positive evidence for that assertion.
I can definitely say that certain specific deities do not exist,
especially if certain aspects of their "godhood" are self-
contradictory.
When it comes to specific deities who's existence is self-
contradictory, I will claim that they do not exist. When it comes to
an abstract or undefined "god", I have suspended belief until I can
find evidence proving that it exists.
Not sure how you would define my atheism, but there you have it.
Thanks
~a silent skeptic
Christopher A. Lee
>On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
>> something to be evidenced.
>>
>> I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
>> am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
>> it did not point towards a god)
>
>Hello !
>
> I'm new to the area.
> The statement above says a lot.
> You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
Hardly a choice.
> You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
>proof of the existence of god.
Learn to read for comprehension.
> This thinking I can understand.
> How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
>a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
Learn to read for comprehension.
> It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
>even though there is no evidence for the belief.
What is it with you morons?
Is it really so difficult to understand the world beyond your
religion?
> I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
>god, because there is no evidence either way'.
Why do you imagine anybody outside your religion has anything to be
agnostic about?
> Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
>itself.
Because it is simply not being any kind of theist.
What you believe, is merely somebody else's religious belief.
We are totally outside your religion, as well as all the others.
So we cannot be described as though your inside-the-religion
presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Do YOU "have faith that Zeus doesn't exist" or is it simply a
character in somebody else's mythology?
Please think before answering, try to be honest and don't back
yourself into a corner.
>michel
SkyEyes
I grew up christian fundamentalist and a born-again christian. I
beleived because that's how they indoctrinated me, I didn't choose it.
As I got older and got a good secular education in logic,
anthropology, and biology, I came to understand the difference between
"faith" and "knowledge" and to see how christian mythology had grown
out of other mythologies in the middle east. I also learned how
evolution *actually* works (instead of the fundy version of it).
One morning when in my 20s, I woke up and simply realized that I no
longer believed in *anything* supernatural, including god, and that I
was an atheist. I didn't "choose" to believe or disbelieve, I just
grew into atheism as a result of education.
I'm like you, Therion; I could no more "choose" to believe in the
supernatural than I could "choose" to sprout wings and fly. An
atheist is just what I turned out to be, after a long intellectual
journey.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
caza...@nortel.com
Thank you for the feedback!
Would you then consider yourself agnostic rather than atheist?
I might not have a clear definition of 'agnostic'.
SkyEyes
"A-theism" simply means "without belief in gods." That's known as
"weak atheism," and the vast majority of regulars on alt.atheism
probably fall into this category. ("Strong atheism" is the positive
statement "I don't believe a god exists." There are a few strong
atheists on a.a., and they have very good reasons for their positive
belief, but don't make the mistake of thinking that all of us are
strong atheists. Most of us just lack the belief.) You can view it as
a kind of agnosticsm if you like, but that's not really right.
Agnosticism is a statement about knowledge, whereas atheism is the
condition of lacking belief in gods. One can be both an agnostic
*and* an atheist, and I consider myself to be one of those people.
If some actual evidence that supports the existence of a god (any god)
comes along, we'll be happy to consider it, and if the evidence stands
up to examination, I daresay many of us will become theists, it's that
simple.
What you want to know is because there's no *negative* evidence - hard
evidence that no god exists - why we don't believe that god *does*
exist? And the reason is that you cannot "prove" a negative, and what
is the point in believing that something exists when its existence has
no supporting evidence? Where does a person draw the line? There's
also no evidence that vampires don't exist, or unicorns, or
leprechauns. I daresay *you* don't believe in the existence of any of
these things, and we are the same way when it comes to god belief.
There simply is no reason to sustain a belief in any god, because
there's no evidence that one exists. Want us to become believers?
Simple. Provide evidence that a god exists. We'll be delighted to
examine it for you.
caza...@nortel.com
No need for the animosity.
I'm curious.
It should be possible to have a discussion without anger or name-
calling.
I'm not generally dense by any means, but this is an area I don't know
well.
'Learn to read for comprehension'?
If I comprehended, I wouldn't have to ask questions.
You read the text and understand it differently because of your
significant background of the topic.
Since the topic is new to me, I might not see the same 'understanding'
that you see in the same words.
I am not trying to describe atheism as though my inside-the-religion
presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.
I am not making this presupposition.
I don't feel that I'm in a boxing ring worried about being 'backed
into a corner'.
I'm only asking questions about your beliefs.
michel
asilentskeptic
The definitions definitely get argued about by many people. I do not
call myself an agnostic because I do not believe in every specific
deity I have ever heard about. I also hold the existence of any deity
at all as highly unlikely.
While I may technically (by definition) be an agnostic, my position
towards any persons specific deity is more accurately portrayed by the
term atheist.
caza...@nortel.com
This was a great explanation. Thank you for that.
I don't think I was asking you to believe in god since there is not
evidence that he doesn't exist.
I was only asking how someone could 'believe' there is no god, when
there is no evidence to support that there is no god.
As logical as an athiest is in saying there is no proof of god, I
would expect the same person to say there is no proof of the absence
of god.
I thought this would lead a logical person to agnosticism.
(There's no proof or hard evidence either way)
I understand from your explanation, though, that not all athiest are
alike.
Again, thank you for the response.
Salut!
michel
caza...@nortel.com
Understood. Thanks for the response.
Salut!
asilentskeptic
That was actually my first post on alt.atheism, so this helped me get
myself sorted out :) Thank YOU!
Christopher A. Lee
Couldn't answer this?
>> > I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
>> >god, because there is no evidence either way'.
>>
>> Why do you imagine anybody outside your religion has anything to be
>> agnostic about?
Or this?
>> > Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
>> >itself.
>>
>> Because it is simply not being any kind of theist.
Or this?
>> What you believe, is merely somebody else's religious belief.
Or this?
It's at the heart of your problem.
>> We are totally outside your religion, as well as all the others.
Well?
>> So we cannot be described as though your inside-the-religion
>> presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.
Well?
>> Why is this so hard to understand?
>>
>> Do YOU "have faith that Zeus doesn't exist" or is it simply a
>> character in somebody else's mythology?
Was this really too hard for you?
>> Please think before answering, try to be honest and don't back
>> yourself into a corner.
>>
>> >michel
>
>No need for the animosity.
>I'm curious.
>It should be possible to have a discussion without anger or name-
>calling.
Then try not to be so stupid.
>I'm not generally dense by any means, but this is an area I don't know
>well.
If you bothered to think it would have been obvious.
Especially in the light of earlier posts in this self-same thread.
There is a real world beyond the end of your nose.
In which there are hundreds of religions.
Each only taken seriously by their own followers.
The rest of the world does not revolve around the hypothetical object
of your god-belief.
Is this really so hard to understand?
>'Learn to read for comprehension'?
>If I comprehended, I wouldn't have to ask questions.
If had bothered to think you would not have asked them. Especially in
the light of earlier posts in this thread.
>You read the text and understand it differently because of your
>significant background of the topic.
No.
Because I am in the real world beyond your religion.
>Since the topic is new to me, I might not see the same 'understanding'
>that you see in the same words.
Only because you couldn't be bothered to think.
>I am not trying to describe atheism as though my inside-the-religion
>presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.
Yes you are. Like your god-presumption and your limited alternatives
which presume it.
>I am not making this presupposition.
Of course you are.
>I don't feel that I'm in a boxing ring worried about being 'backed
>into a corner'.
Idiot.
The question (that you haven't answered) was: Do YOU "have faith that
Zeus doesn't exist" or is it simply a character in somebody else's
mythology?
If you have backed yourself into a corner you will use the same
language about it that you use to invent positions we don't have about
your exact equivalent.
Whereas you most likely see it as a character from the ancient Greek
beliefs, myths and legends.
Yet for some reason you won't let people outside your religion, see
your equivalent the same way.
A point you are ignoring.
>I'm only asking questions about your beliefs.
What "beliefs"?
>michel
Christopher A. Lee
Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
religious beliefs as though they were real?
Arturo Magidin
<caza...@nortel.com> wrote:
[...]
>I don't think I was asking you to believe in god since there is not
>evidence that he doesn't exist.
>I was only asking how someone could 'believe' there is no god, when
>there is no evidence to support that there is no god.
Isn't one of the attributes of "god" supposed to be omnipresence and
another detectability? If so, there is evidence there is no such
thing.
The absence of intervention also provides (weak) evidence in favor of
the proposition that no such thing exists, just as the lack of
blood-spatter evidence provides evidence that no murder was committed
in your house while you were out this morning.
>As logical as an athiest is in saying there is no proof of god, I
>would expect the same person to say there is no proof of the absence
>of god.
Depends entirely on what "god" is supposed to mean. While absence of
evidence is not dispositive evidence of absence, in many situations
the absence of evidence constitutes valid evidence in favor of
absence.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org
Lucifer
I think, therefore I am an atheist.
I can't switch it off, nor would I want to.
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
Michelle Malkin
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com...
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" to become an atheist?
I realized that I was already an atheist by the age
of 13. I'd thought that I'd chosen to be one at age
12, but by 13 knew that it wasn't something you
could decide on your own. I asked myself if I
could go back to being a believer, but knew that I
couldn't and that religion was all mythology. Years
later, I added lack of evidence to my reason for
not believing in the myths. And, of course, all the
theist arguments are total failures.
'Feeling' that something is right is not enough to
accept that it is right and being told that something
is right (authority figure or not) is not a reason to
accept that something is right. You have to study
whatever it is and then determine whether you
think it is right or wrong. Even then, you may make
the wrong choice simply because you are still going
by your feelings. You have to go by your knowledge,
not your feelings.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Blind faith is the mind killer.
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
Hash: SHA1
I have received insufficient evidence to allow me to make an informed
decision as to belief. Therefore, I do not believe due to the failure
on the believers part to convince me otherwise.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
~ http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIKecbf+wl0F6+jvgRAqF+AKCFSZl0n+4qaKEJi98V4tELaVkelQCfSWih
aDoywRWzzutHIBD4HXEVw/4=
=vWmH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
caza...@nortel.com
>
> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
> religious beliefs as though they were real?
>
Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
of so may beliefs, including atheism.
No need to be so defensive, Chris.
It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is the
least confident in what they are saying.
They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
Yes, I have beliefs, even without proof.
This is what makes it my faith.
It doesn't make me illogical or delusional, but it's obvious you
disagree.
I'm not asking you to change your thinking in any way, only to help me
understand it.
You see me as wearing a set of glasses that I see the world through.
We all do.
Since you know that I wear these glasses, explain in a way that I can
understand.
Your total disrespect for me shows way too much emotion for me to
consider you logical in your ideas.
You seem to be angry with anyone that has faith.
No need to be.
michel
Geode
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
what if believe is product of a taming? Imagine that parents and
relatives, as well as acquaintances, are conspiring together to make a
child believe this or that. This can be called a choose but a
domestication of the mind.
And what about atheists? Well atheist are not necessarily tamed but
raised free of any artificial superstition.
You teach your child to stem off the arguments of any theists, in a
cased, or you teach him to hide and keep a low profile to save the
child any harassments.
Other atheists, most of them, are product of fanatical Christian
families that were playing rough on their kids to make them good
xians. One day, this children explode and after reaching eighteen or
nineteen, they run away and desert their fanatical families.
In this late case there is not involved any choice, it is simple a
fleeing away the bastard parents.
leopoldo
Christopher A. Lee
>
>>
>> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
>> religious beliefs as though they were real?
>>
>
>Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
>of so may beliefs, including atheism.
>No need to be so defensive, Chris.
Atheism isn't a belief,moron.
Why don't you learn to read for comprehension instead of lying about
people being defensive?
>It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is the
>least confident in what they are saying.
>They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
>Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
Yow you're amateur-psychologising your own lies.
>I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
I didn't rant, liar.
You ignored what you were told.
>Yes, I have beliefs, even without proof.
>This is what makes it my faith.
>It doesn't make me illogical or delusional, but it's obvious you
>disagree.
About what you say about atheists, moron.
>I'm not asking you to change your thinking in any way, only to help me
>understand it.
WE'RE PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION WHO AREN'T ANY KIND OF THEIST.
What is there not to understand?
How many times does this need to be explained?
>You see me as wearing a set of glasses that I see the world through.
Which prevent you listening to people explaining things outside your
religion.
>We all do.
>Since you know that I wear these glasses, explain in a way that I can
>understand.
WE'RE PEOPLE OUTSIDE YOUR RELIGION WHO AREN'T ANY KIND OF THEIST.
What is there not to understand?
>Your total disrespect for me shows way too much emotion for me to
>consider you logical in your ideas.
A liar as well as an idiot.
>You seem to be angry with anyone that has faith.
Liar.
>No need to be.
I'm not, liar.
>
>michel
caza...@nortel.com
>
> Isn't one of the attributes of "god" supposed to be omnipresence and
> another detectability? If so, there is evidence there is no such
> thing.
>
omnipresence and detectability... hmmm
if you define that detectibility is required, then you define how to
measure this as well.
I don't have detectibility as a measure for my faith, so this isn't
one of the attributes I'd try to measure.
It would be a strawman for you to define me, then prove by your
definition that I'm wrong.
This would only be a supposition for you.
> The absence of intervention also provides (weak) evidence in favor of
> the proposition that no such thing exists, just as the lack of
> blood-spatter evidence provides evidence that no murder was committed
> in your house while you were out this morning.
In science we say that a theory can never be proven, only disproven.
When a stated theory is disproved, it might lead to a new theory or a
more defined theory.
Absence of proof is not, in science, proof of the negative.
It is still just an unproven theory.
From your example, the proof is not there there was no murder in my
house this morning.
The proof is only that there was no blood splatter.
Someone could be murdered in a number of ways that don't involve blood
splatter.
And even if the murder involved blood splatter, there could be a
number of ways not to have blood splatter on the wall.
Arturo Magidin
Michelle Malkin <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
(I am piggybacking but have attempted to modify the headers so this
appears as a direct reply to Therion; hopefully it will work)
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com...
>>
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" to become an atheist?
>> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
Indeed.
Back in January 2002, I wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.agnosticism/msg/5b1f9da0fc48e9e6
(in response to a post in a thread called "HAS ATHEISM IMPROVED YOUR
LIFE?"
Surely this is ridiculous? I mean, are beliefs and lack thereof some
sort of convenience game? This may be the gist of Pascal's Wager, but
don't we all agree the very notion of "choosing to believe" is rather
silly?
Seriously. Whether or not my life "improved" by becoming an atheist is
hardly the issue. I do not choose to be an atheist, I did not choose
to become one[1]. There was no choice involved, and there is no
choice. And presumably, if I ever cease being an atheist, there will
be no choice involved either.
I am an atheist for the simple reason that I have no choice. I do not
believe in the existence of gods. I cannot "make myself" believe in
them, even if I wanted to. Sure, I could ->lie<- about being an
atheist; there ->is<- choice involved in the decision to be
honest. But there is no choice involved in whether or not I believe in
something. It is a natural consequence of a bunch of things.
I guess one could say that openly admitting to atheism makes my life
better insofar as I find it easier to shave when I can see myself in
the mirror, and I find it easier to see myself in the mirror when I am
honest.
*******************
In May 2000:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/6afcf9970df71982
As to your final question, what makes you think I "choose" not to
follow religion? I didnt' wake up one morning feeling contrary and
decided to stop being religious. The fact is, I ->cannot<- follow
religion, because it does not meet with what I consider to be
essential requirements for my adherence and my belief. I don't believe
in god not because I choose to, but because given the evidence before
me, I have no choice.
*******************
And August 2000: (AQTOM nominated!)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/cf9783f4e0910026
>But at the end of the day it comes to a simple matter of choice.
To you, perhaps. Good for you.
To me, it is not a matter of choice. I don't "choose" to be an
atheist. I happen to be one. If it were a matter of choice, believe
me, 'atheism' in our society is a masochist's choice. Why on Earth
would anyone purposely subject himself to the sheer amount of
prejudice and insult an atheist does, if it were really simply a
matter of choice?
But it isn't one. Given my understanding of the world, my knowledge of
religion and philosophy, and my observations, I have ->no choice<- but
to be an atheist. Any other conclusion would be lying to myself.
You may be able to "choose" your beliefs. I'm too honest with myself
to be anything other than an atheist.
Geode
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 10:46:23 -0700, chibiabos <chibia...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article <agqg24pfrvs28avmusut1nbk51dib77...@4ax.com>, Therion Ware
I think this idea of a choice comes from changing to certain dogma to
other similar.
It is not a difficult change at all, same stories about Jesus and all
that crap. So there are involved only some minor alterations of the
dogma. You can call it a choice, but it is bad name. It is only that
they show you a better face, and a more kind treatment that the former
members of the other church you came from .
Leopoldo
Arturo Magidin
<caza...@nortel.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 1:44 pm, magi...@math.berkeley.edu (Arturo Magidin) wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't one of the attributes of "god" supposed to be omnipresence and
>> another detectability? If so, there is evidence there is no such
>> thing.
>>
>
>omnipresence and detectability... hmmm
>if you define that detectibility is required, then you define how to
>measure this as well.
I am told that this "god" thing interacts with the world in visible
ways. That makes it detectable, without having to establish "how" one
measures it.
If "god" is not detectable, that means that there is no measurable
effect of "god" on the observable universe; no way to distinguish the
alleged "god" from... nothing. Is that the premise that most people
talking about "god" have? In my experience, no. They talk about how
one can "feel the presence", how one can "see miracles", etc.
>I don't have detectibility as a measure for my faith, so this isn't
>one of the attributes I'd try to measure.
That's not the point, though. I wasn't saying your faith requires you
to be able to measure or to attempt to measure. I was replying to the
proposition that "there is no evidence to support that there is no
god."
If "god" is supposed to have observable interactions with the world as
we know it, and no such interactions are observed, then this
constitutes "evidence to support that there is no god". I'm not saying
you must observe it to believe in "god", I'm addressing the assertion
(which you removed, thus depriving my statement of needed context)
that there is no evidence to support the proposition that there is no
"god".
>It would be a strawman for you to define me,
I'm not defining ->you<-. I'm addressing the assertion that there is
no evidence to support the proposition that there is no "god".
> then prove by your
>definition that I'm wrong.
>This would only be a supposition for you.
Huh?
>> The absence of intervention also provides (weak) evidence in favor of
>> the proposition that no such thing exists, just as the lack of
>> blood-spatter evidence provides evidence that no murder was committed
>> in your house while you were out this morning.
>
>In science we say that a theory can never be proven, only disproven.
I know. And yet, we consider evidence in favor of a theory; namely, if
attempts to disprove FAIL, then this is considered evidence IN SUPPORT
of the theory.
That's ->precisely<- my point.
>When a stated theory is disproved, it might lead to a new theory or a
>more defined theory.
>Absence of proof is not, in science, proof of the negative.
I know. I even said so. However, it is EVIDENCE IN FAVOR of the
negative, when properly conducted.
You did not say there was "no proof" that there is no god. You said
there was NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT, and that is simply false.
>It is still just an unproven theory.
>
>From your example, the proof is not there there was no murder in my
>house this morning.
>The proof is only that there was no blood splatter.
Did you bother reading what I wrote? I never said "proof". I said
EVIDENCE. The absence of blood spatter is EVIDENCE that no murder was
committed. Not ->dispositive<- evidence, of course; I even said so
myself. But it ->does<- constitute ->EVIDENCE<- in favor of that
proposition.
>Someone could be murdered in a number of ways that don't involve blood
>splatter.
>And even if the murder involved blood splatter, there could be a
>number of ways not to have blood splatter on the wall.
Given the incredible speed with which you decided to invoke an alleged
strawman, perhaps you might try not to engage in them yourself. I
never said "proof"; perhaps you can try addressing what I wrote
instead of whatever it is you imagined I wrote next time.
Leo Marx
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
I was raised a christian. When I matured as an adult, I began to
question the hypocrisy in religion and mankind. I embarked on a ten year
study of the world's major religions and the various sects within those
religions. I also studied science and history and the effect religion
has had on these subjects.
I eventually concluded that religion, belief in a god or gods, has never
played a positive role in the history of mankind. I realized that all
religion was nothing more than a collection of ignorant myths. These
myths are used by the ignorant to explain what they do not understand in
the natural world and in themselves. These myths are also used by the
wealthy and powerful to control and subdue the ignorant and the poor and
to rationalize the heinous acts they commit.
It was after all that that I decided that I was an atheist. I chose to
live my life in the light of truth and reason, not in the darkness of
ignorance and hypocrisy.
JAM
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>Therion Ware wrote:
>>
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>>
>> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>>
>> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>> But what do you think?
>
>I was raised a christian. When I matured as an adult, I began to
>question the hypocrisy in religion and mankind. I embarked on a ten year
>study of the world's major religions and the various sects within those
>religions. I also studied science and history and the effect religion
>has had on these subjects.
Up to a certain level it is a societal survival factor.
It's easier to say "God says don't kill" than explain how "an eye for
an eye eventually makes the world go blind" to an uneducated
primitive.
Or "God says wash your hands after taking a dump and before touching
food" than "I have noticed how often people are ill if they don't do
this but I can't explain why".
But beyond another level it is detrimental.
>I eventually concluded that religion, belief in a god or gods, has never
>played a positive role in the history of mankind. I realized that all
>religion was nothing more than a collection of ignorant myths. These
>myths are used by the ignorant to explain what they do not understand in
>the natural world and in themselves. These myths are also used by the
>wealthy and powerful to control and subdue the ignorant and the poor and
>to rationalize the heinous acts they commit.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful."
- Seneca (5 BC to 65 AD)
>It was after all that that I decided that I was an atheist. I chose to
>live my life in the light of truth and reason, not in the darkness of
>ignorance and hypocrisy.
That's it.
You realise you are, rather choose to be one.'
>JAM
Geode
> On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
> > something to be evidenced.
>
> > I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
> > am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
> > it did not point towards a god)
>
> Hello !
>
> I'm new to the area.
> The statement above says a lot.
> You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
>
> You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
> proof of the existence of god.
> This thinking I can understand.
> How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
> a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
> It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
> even though there is no evidence for the belief.
>
> I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
> god, because there is no evidence either way'.
> Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
> itself.
>
We are only obliged to believe in material things; things that can be
checked and proved. So, if you get involved in this idea, because you
are a scientist or a technician, then it is easy to discover there is
not god, for there is no the slightest shred of it the real life.
There are more ways to discover god does not exist.
1rst argument)
People are prone to lie. That is many people are lying for a living,
like politicians and priests of fake gods.
then, if people can lie about anything to live from other people, like
politicians, quacks, priests, then priests of you won church can also
be liars.
If there are fake gods, why the god of your church cannot be also
fake?
2on. argument)
The character of god is depicted as a god creator that wanted to send
humans a message.
Suppose there is such a character or god. Then if god wanted to send
us a message, where is that bloody message? Is it there any bloody
message? Where it is? Why only a bunch of goat and sheep herders new
about the message of the true god?
Is not this a bit absurd? If god creator wanted to send us a message,
everybody in this planet would have know it since tens of thousands of
years ago. If only a fraction of humanity thinks they know the true
message of god, then this is sure a swindle.
Then the conclusion is there is not god, unless it would be an unknown
god, who did not care less for what humans think or do, and never
bothered to send us any message.
So, there is zero evidence about a god similar to that of any
religion.
leopoldo
SkyEyes
> Yes, I have beliefs, even without proof.
> This is what makes it my faith.
> It doesn't make me illogical or delusional,
Yes, actually, it *does*. It's the very definition of delusional, and
it's utterly illogical.
I recommend that you pick up a copy of Daniel C. Dennett's _Breaking
the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon_. In it, Dennett provides
evidence that god-belief is a psychological phenomenon that some
people (but not all of us) inherited from distant ancestors at a time
when belief in the "unseen agent" provided an evolutionary advantage.
No supernatural beings required.
Seriously, read the book. It'll do you a world of good.
Kelsey Bjarnason
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
A newborn babe has no beliefs whatsoever, including beliefs in deities.
They are, as a result, atheists at birth.
Which means one must either make a conscious decision at some later point
to become a theist, or must soak up his theism with his mother's milk, so
to speak - having the disease of theism inflicted upon him before
developing the resistance to fight it off.
Only in the latter case would one need to choose to be an atheist, to rid
oneself of the disease and regain a state of health.
Many, if not most of us, simply managed to avoid being infected in the
first place.
duke
wrote:
>
>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>But what do you think?
I believe because the evidence is overwhelming for the existence of God. It's
the only reality that makes sense.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Kenny McCormack
duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
...
>I believe because the evidence is overwhelming for the existence of God. It's
>the only reality that makes sense.
This speaks volumes about you.
Tells me everything I need to know.
BTW, weren't you the one who infected a large group of Usenetters
because you stupidly ran a virus that you got in email???
G-Ride
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
>
I think that I "sort of" chose to be an atheist. I say sort of because for
me, there just came a point where I accepted my lack of belief and realized
that I was an atheist.
Before that, I was a christian because that had been chosen for me by my
parents. They were, and continue to be, fairly devout christians. I became
an atheist sometime in my early 20s, but it wasn't an easy
choice/realization and I struggled with it for awhile.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
Fred Stone
> On 13 May 2008 17:26:15 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
>>news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an
>>> atheist?
>>>
>>
>>Quite the opposite. I tried very hard, between age 15 and 20 or so, to
>>"choose" to be a Christian, and just couldn't manage to convince
>>myself that I believed any more.
>
> Thanks for that. In due course would you be prepared to go in to more
> detail?
>
Sure. Not sure what kinds of details you want...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge
to rule." - H L Mencken
Leo Marx
I could have chosen to remain a christian, and use my faith to take
advantage of others, but I did not.
JAM
Geode
> On May 13, 1:24 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
> > > > something to be evidenced.
>
> > > > I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
> > > > am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
> > > > it did not point towards a god)
>
> > > Hello !
>
> > > I'm new to the area.
> > > The statement above says a lot.
> > > You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
>
> > > You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
> > > proof of the existence of god.
> > > This thinking I can understand.
> > > How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
> > > a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
> > > It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
> > > even though there is no evidence for the belief.
>
> > > I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
> > > god, because there is no evidence either way'.
> > > Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
> > > itself.
>
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes nine at cox dot net
>
>
> evidence that he doesn't exist.
> there is no evidence to support that there is no god.
>
> would expect the same person to say there is no proof of the absence
> of god.
> (There's no proof or hard evidence either way)
>
> alike.
> Again, thank you for the response.
> Salut!
>
> michel
think that again. If you tell me there is marble inside a box, I
would ask you the reasons to believe that.
You tell me something but is not satisfactory to me. Then I ask you,
have seen the inside of the box? And you tell me, no I have not
looked inside. Then I would ask you, how do you know there is a
marble inside? Because it is written in this book. In a book? Yes,
it is holy book. This marble has magic properties, and I am the
custodian of the marble that is inside the box.
Can I open the box to see there is inside any magic marble?
No, you cannot open the box. Nobody can open the box.
And what is the purpose of this marble?
This marble helps people in his worries, keep them to be healthy and
rich, etc.
Then can I ask a favor to the marble? I want to bed a lady that is a
little tight.
No, you can't. You are not a member of our church.
What I need to do to become a member?
You have to pay each month some money to our church, and I will teach
you the proper way to ask the marble any favors and wonders you need.
I will be pondering this.
Well, I have not any way to prove there is not any real magic marble
inside the box. But if I am not too naif .
I can understand easily this marble story is nothing but a swindle.
leopoldo
Satan
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:12:36 +0100, Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>>
>>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>>
>>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>>But what do you think?
>
>
> I believe because the evidence is overwhelming for the existence of God. It's
> the only reality that makes sense.
>
That wasn't the question, you stupid fuck. I'm still waiting for you dookie.
cap...@aol.com
Yup! One and the same. Stupid is, as stupid does.
MarkA
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
I think Dr. Steve Novella said it best, on a recent episode of SGU: we
choose what to believe with the more primitive parts of our brains, then
use our frontal lobes to generate reasons to justify those beliefs.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
raven1
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>On 13 May 2008 17:26:15 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in
>>news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>>
>>
>>Quite the opposite. I tried very hard, between age 15 and 20 or so, to
>>"choose" to be a Christian, and just couldn't manage to convince myself
>>that I believed any more.
>
>Thanks for that. In due course would you be prepared to go in to more
>detail?
Yet Fred has absolutely no problem convincing himself to believe every
word that comes from the Bush Administration. Amazing.
raven1
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>But what do you think?
I realized that "God" was bogus around the same time as I stopped
believing in Santa Claus, and have never been able to take the idea
seriously since then, despite (because of?) many years of studying
comparative religion and Ceremonial Magick.
John Locke
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>But what do you think?
>
Very simple. Religion made absolutely no sense to me. They always
try to tell you "God did this and God did that" but they can never
tell you HOW it was done. Science tells you HOW but religion is
blinded to the truth. So I dumped the religious baggage and have
never regretted it.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
One could say there was a conscious choice involved in my case, though it
was not about "believing" in the sense one would normally suspect.
There came that one day when suddenly an unexpected path was visible to me,
so to say. The question was whether I should walk down that path.
I refuse to say "I chose to believe" because that would probably sound too
much like "I threw reason totally out of the window"... but I did choose to
give this stuff, strictly speaking, the benefit of the doubt (remember that
I don't claim to have any objective evidence for the existence of the
deities I honor today) and assume the position of "well, as long as others
aren't drawn into it and it doesn't do harm to me, why not try it out and
see if it makes me feel better or worse?".
<Kosh> And so it began... </Kosh> ;)
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
raven1
> You hint that you believe there is no god
This is a point that many theists have a real problem grasping: not
believing that something exists is *not* the same as actively
believing that it doesn't exist. Specifically, saying "I do not
believe that god/s exist" is not the equivalent of saying "I believe
that no god/s exist". I'm willing to grant that some kind of
extraordinary evidence might materialize tomorrow to convince me of
the existence of some kind of god/s, but I'm hardly going to hold my
breath waiting for it.
> because there is no solid
>proof of the existence of god.
> This thinking I can understand.
> How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
>a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
You're putting the cart before the horse. In the absence of any
evidence for something existing, the default position is to withhold
belief in it. Logically, the burden of proof rests with the claimant,
and theists are the ones claiming that god/s exist. Atheists aren't
making a counter-claim, we're simply saying "we don't believe you".
raven1
>On May 13, 1:12 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:04 am, cazay...@nortel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
>> > > something to be evidenced.
>>
>> > > I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
>> > > am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
>> > > it did not point towards a god)
>>
>> > Hello !
>>
>> > I'm new to the area.
>> > The statement above says a lot.
>> > You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
>>
>> > You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
>> > proof of the existence of god.
>> > This thinking I can understand.
>> > How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
>> > a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
>> > It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
>> > even though there is no evidence for the belief.
>>
>> > I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
>> > god, because there is no evidence either way'.
>> > Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
>> > itself.
>>
>> > michel
>>
>> I do not hold an absolutely positive belief that there "is no god".
>> That just seems the most probable conclusion considering the evidence
>> that I have seen. There may, in fact, BE a god. I will willing
>> "believe" that a god exists when the evidence points me towards that
>> fact, but I will not accept the claim that a deity exists without
>> positive evidence for that assertion.
>>
>> I can definitely say that certain specific deities do not exist,
>> especially if certain aspects of their "godhood" are self-
>> contradictory.
>>
>> When it comes to specific deities who's existence is self-
>> contradictory, I will claim that they do not exist. When it comes to
>> an abstract or undefined "god", I have suspended belief until I can
>> find evidence proving that it exists.
>>
>> Not sure how you would define my atheism, but there you have it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> ~a silent skeptic
>
>Thank you for the feedback!
>Would you then consider yourself agnostic rather than atheist?
>I might not have a clear definition of 'agnostic'.
Theism and atheism are statements about what one believes, gnosticism
and agnosticism about what one claims to know. There is a difference.
For example, I "believe", but don't "know" (some last-minute surprise
could derail his chances before the Convention) that Barack Obama will
be the Democratic nominee for President this year, while I both
"believe" and "know" that George W. Bush is the current President.
I leave it to you as an exercise to work out the combinations as
regards a/theism and a/gnosticism.
ath...@home.com
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>But what do you think?
Well, this is probably going to be the most bizarre explanation of how
and why anyone became a solid atheist that you’ve ever read but I can
remember the very moment of enlightenment including a clear picture of
my surroundings and circumstances.
I was nine years old, agnostic at the least and uncaring in one way or
the other at most.
I was also very, very, very ill.
It was wintertime and really cold, my stomach and bowels were in an
uproar and living in the country as my family typically did in those
days I had made numerous trips to an outside toilet about thirty yards
or so from the house.
<Those are not the most pleasant places to visit for one who is
already queasy and nauseated so I wasn’t in the best of moods>
At any rate I had been ill for a couple of days and while I wasn’t
sure if a god did or did not exist <Jack Chick had started me
doubting> I had hedged my bets and prayed in a fashion for healing.
On the way back from one of those many trips I cursed God for whatever
disease it was that he had blessed me with as well as His refusal to
offer any relief.
I remember wondering why man had to suffer such things if there was a
god who cared about us.
Sounds simple and somewhat shallow eh?
But it went from there to wondering about other diseases <Polio was
big at the time> and from that to wondering about storms, floods,
earthquakes and other natural disasters that the world is prone to.
These rather random thoughts proceeded on to circus "freaks," men and
women born with physical deformities and who through no fault of their
own were in general shunned by the rest of humanity except when they
displayed those deformities for the amusement of "normal" people.
There were other things of course and I remember thinking that an all
knowing, all caring and all powerful god could not coexist with all
the evil that man is faced with on a daily basis and then shaking my
fist towards the heavens growling "Bullshit!"
So it wasn’t really a matter of choice.
And then years later I had that "saved" experience in my late thirties
which is the most wonderful thing I have ever felt and having a need
share it and be able to explain the "truth" to everyone else I started
studying the Bible along with other religions and again in short order
was forced to admit that it was all bull.
It wasn’t a matter of choosing belief over unbelief but more one of
accepting the facts for what they are.
If in truth I had had a choice in the latter instance it would have
been to cling to the belief and all the promise and peace that went
with it.
But to do so I would have been forced to choose idiocy over reason and
the comfortable lie over the uncomfortable truth.
It was a difficult thing to give up in a sense but I am far better for
having done so.
atheist@home#1554
Fred Stone
news:l94k24dktts5vjffn...@4ax.com:
You believe every lie that comes from the Democrats and you can say that?
Hypocrite!
ath...@home.com
>On May 13, 1:13 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 May 2008 11:04:32 -0700 (PDT), cazay...@nortel.com wrote:
>> >On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
>> >> something to be evidenced.
>>
>> >> I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
>> >> am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
>> >> it did not point towards a god)
>>
>> >Hello !
>>
>> > I'm new to the area.
>> > The statement above says a lot.
>> > You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
>>
>> Hardly a choice.
>>
>> > You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
>> >proof of the existence of god.
>>
>> Learn to read for comprehension.
>>
<snip>
>
>I am not trying to describe atheism as though my inside-the-religion
>presumptions had any automatic validity outside it.
>I am not making this presupposition.
>
>I don't feel that I'm in a boxing ring worried about being 'backed
>into a corner'.
>I'm only asking questions about your beliefs.
And in a very polite and reasonable manner making your questions
welcome among some of us.
Unfortunately politness is a rarity among most believers who post
here.
And among some atheists who respond to anything a believer might say.
atheist@home#1554
Christopher A. Lee
He ignored what had previously been explained in the thread, and
ignored what he was told directly.
He has difficulties reading for comprehension.
>atheist@home#1554
beelzebub
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
killing me. Atheists reminded me of Christians, with their arrogance
and certainty...and faith. That is when I knew something had to give.
I soon realized that agnosticism was the only rational, logical
option. It wasn't by choice, it was process of elimination. No
regrets.
raven1
<yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
>killing me.
Septic, you wouldn't be able to spot logic if we spotted you "L_GIC"
and let you buy a vowel. Back into the killfile with you for the
umpteenth time.
<plonk>
Free Lunch
<yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What utter hogwash.
Why don't you try to explain how not believing in any gods is illogical.
Kenny McCormack
raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
...
>You're putting the cart before the horse. In the absence of any
>evidence for something existing, the default position is to withhold
>belief in it. Logically, the burden of proof rests with the claimant,
>and theists are the ones claiming that god/s exist. Atheists aren't
>making a counter-claim, we're simply saying "we don't believe you".
Of course. That's their whole game. To move the burden of proof from
them to you. Since they reject science and everything it stands for,
they don't understand that you can't do this. That the most basic point of
the scientific method is to assume the null hypothesis.
Only an idiot would buy into this, but there's no shortage of those.
ath...@home.com
>On May 13, 1:24 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On May 13, 11:04 am, cazay...@nortel.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 13, 12:30 pm, asilentskeptic <asilentskep...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > ...I am not a "faith" person, and therefore require
>> > > something to be evidenced.
>>
>> > > I am not an atheist because I chose to believe a god does not exist. I
>> > > am an atheist because I chose to follow wherever the evidence led (and
>> > > it did not point towards a god)
>>
>> > Hello !
>>
>> > I'm new to the area.
>> > The statement above says a lot.
>> > You have a 'belief' and you 'chose to follow .. the evidence'.
>>
>> > You hint that you believe there is no god because there is no solid
>> > proof of the existence of god.
>> > This thinking I can understand.
>> > How can you state a firm belief that there is no god, when there is
>> > a lack of evidence of there not being a god?
>> > It seems that the athiesm you practice involves faith. You believe
>> > even though there is no evidence for the belief.
>>
>> > I can understand an agnostic who states 'I don't know if there is a
>> > god, because there is no evidence either way'.
>> > Help me to understand atheism better in how it is not a faith
>> > itself.
>>
Maybe this will help.
Let's say there was a murder in Chicago on March 3rd.
It looks like a hit by organized crime so homicide detectives begin
scouring neighborhoods questioning various informants who are in
general privy to the scuttlebut regarding such matters.
Word comes to them from burglary that one such informant, "Ricky da'
Rat" has been arrested for breaking into a home in which the residents
were presumed by eveyone in the area to be two elderly ladies.
But to da' Rat's surprise and horror the two old ladies weren't in
fact old ladies at all but rather two elderly male transvestites and
former professional wrestlers who beat him to a pulp and held him for
police.
Now da' Rat is looking for a deal and tells buglary detectives that he
knows who did the job and is willing to sing if they will give him
something in return.
Homicide detectives and the local prosecutor interview Ricky and come
to the conclusion that convicting Ricky is less important than
convicting a murderer and they all believe him when says "Dem two old
broads done taught me a lesson boss, an' I ain't never doin' nuthin'
like dat again," making him a far less threat to public order than a
cold blooded killer.
They agree to drop charges against him if he will be a witness, to
which he in turn agrees and he later records a statement in which he
says "I seen Joe da' Nose whack Louie Linguine on March da' toid and I
seen it wid me own eyes!"
Well that excites the detectives and they get an arrest warrant and go
balling the jack over to Mom's Flop and Slop where da' Nose lives when
he isn't in jail, expecting to arrest him.
Problem is da' Nose not only isn't there but hasn't been to Chicago in
two years and when they do finally catch up with him he can prove it.
So as a source of information da' Rat it turns out doesn't quite meet
the standards required by law and that along with the fact that da'
Nose wasn't even in Chicago at the time of the crime suggests that he
can't be guilty.
If no source making a claim can offer up resonable evidence of the
truth of the claim, and if more than one source exists and they all
fail in their proof then the claim is not only questionable but in all
likelyhood false.
And no source over thousands of years making any claim for the
existence of any god has ever offered up any logical proof whatsoever
that the claims are true.
In fact they all rely on appeals to emotion or threats of punishment
for non believers and rewards for believers because that's all they
have.
In many cases they even admit they cannot prove their claims and
insist on faith, not just in the claim, but in the person making the
claim.
<The Christian for instance insists that we trust backward people who
wrote things thousands of years ago, who knew nothing of science and
whom we know nothing about except what little they may tell of
themselves.
In effect believers have taken the word of strangers who made
unbelievable and nonsensical statements which is not likely the same
thing they would do regarding anyone they met on the street today who
made similarly absurd and unreasonable claims>
And it isn't a matter of some sources offering at least something akin
to evidence, it's a matter of none of them offering anything even
resembling it.
None of them can be trusted.
Btw, shortly after the incidents mentioned in the story God came to
da' Rat in a dream and gave him the winning numbers for the next
week's Powerball Lottery.
He played the numbers and won but on his way to the lottery office to
collect his winnings he was caught in a sudden and unexpected
thunderstorm during which he was struck by lightning and killed.
But that's the way it goes sometimes.
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
R.I.P. Rat :(
And every thing I related in the story is true but I can't prove it so
you'll just have to take my word for it ;)
>As logical as an athiest is in saying there is no proof of god, I
>would expect the same person to say there is no proof of the absence
>of god.
There is proof that none of the sources for the claims that any god
exists has ever offered up any sort of real, logical and reasonable
evidence.
atheist@home#1554
ath...@home.com
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:19:32 -0700 (PDT), caza...@nortel.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
>>> religious beliefs as though they were real?
>>>
>>
>>Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
>>of so may beliefs, including atheism.
>>No need to be so defensive, Chris.
>
>Atheism isn't a belief,moron.
>
>Why don't you learn to read for comprehension instead of lying about
>people being defensive?
>
>>It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is the
>>least confident in what they are saying.
>>They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
>>Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
>
>Yow you're amateur-psychologising your own lies.
>
>>I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
>
>I didn't rant, liar.
Sorry, you most certainly did.
atheist@home#1554
<snip>
raven1
My first draft of the above post actually referred to the null
hypothesis, until I realized that the theists the post was directed at
likely wouldn't have a clue as to what I was talking about.
beelzebub
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
Septic? Logical fallacy is the sign of a weak mind.
Christopher A. Lee
>On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:26:44 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
><ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 May 2008 12:19:32 -0700 (PDT), caza...@nortel.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you imagine the rest of the world revolves around your
>>>> religious beliefs as though they were real?
That and other explanations were ignored.
>>>Obviously other beliefs are in the world, evidenced by the existence
>>>of so may beliefs, including atheism.
>>>No need to be so defensive, Chris.
That was a lie.
>>Atheism isn't a belief,moron.
After this had been made clear.
>>Why don't you learn to read for comprehension instead of lying about
>>people being defensive?
He didn't answer this.
>>>It's been my experience that the one hollering in a discussion is the
>>>least confident in what they are saying.
>>>They don't speak, they yell, as if that make the point better.
>>>Call off the dogs, lower your tone.
>>
>>Now you're amateur-psychologising your own lies.
>>
>>>I'm glad to have met people here that explain rather than rant.
>>
>>I didn't rant, liar.
>
>Sorry, you most certainly did.
Nope.
It had already been explained that atheism wasn't a belief, and that
an atheist is somebody who isn't theist.
He ignored explanatuons about our being in the rest of the world
outside his religion, etc, its being merely somebody else's religious
belief etc.
The real world consequences are obvious.
Yet he asked the same question again.
And amateur-psychologised the response.
>atheist@home#1554
>
><snip>
Kenny McCormack
ath...@home.com
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
You were a bit aggressive.
It isn't easy being a theist and having your beliefs challenged in the
way that some of us do.
He or she seemed to be asking honest questions with no intent to
proselytize.
>It had already been explained that atheism wasn't a belief, and that
>an atheist is somebody who isn't theist.
That's a difficult concept for some people and it's understandable.
>He ignored explanatuons about our being in the rest of the world
>outside his religion, etc, its being merely somebody else's religious
>belief etc.
Patience ;)
>The real world consequences are obvious.
>
>Yet he asked the same question again.
>
>And amateur-psychologised the response.
No great crime.
I'm interested in the conversation and what he or she has to say.
I can personally afford to give a little leeway.
atheist@home#1554
Christopher A. Lee
Maybe, but when you take the trouble to explain that outside the
religion whether you are atheist or eg a Hindu etc it's no different
than eg Zeus is to him.
Not something to believe exists or doesn't exist. It's a character in
the Greek myths, something they worshipped, prayed to, sacrificed to
and wove stories about. A cultural phenomenon.
Which is why I made the remark about backed into a corner.
Because I've seen far too often, believers saying they "believe Zeus
doesn't exist" when I doubt they give it a thought except in the
context of the Greek myths.
Having committed themselves to inventing a position we don't have,
using over-simplified language and meaning, they have to use the same
"logic" themselves for Zeus and all the others. Suddenly developing a
view they never had before.
If we use their restricted vocabulary, meanings and logic it is
impossible to get our POV through to them.
It's almost Orwellian. When words or meanings disappear it becomes
impossible to explain concepts that use them. In "1984", "free" meant
"not costing you anything". The concept of free as in freedom didn't
exist any more.
This is why I insist on using more exact words and meanings to try to
get through to them.
It's a mistake to say we "don't believe in God" because that gets
interpreted as "they don't believe in something that exists". Or
"believe God doesn't exist" which to them is the same as "they believe
something supremely important whose existence is obvious, doesn't
exist". They can't even tell the difference anyway.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
something he can understand."
- Bertrand Russell
>atheist@home#1554
G-Ride
news:l94k24dktts5vjffn...@4ax.com...
Fred shouldn't claim to be an atheist. He has a god.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
Smiler
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com...
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
>
My parents were/are weakly theistic and encouraged me to learn about their
faith.
I wouldn't call it indoctrination, as there wasn't ever much discussion
about it. It was just assumed that I would be a believer.
I cannot remember a time when I did believe in any dieties and remember
questioning the story of Cain & Abel when I was about 8 or 9.
(If Cain was the only person, apart from his parents, after Abel was killed,
who did he marry to produce children with? Notice the presumption of
marriage being required to procreate, but this was due to my innocence and
the era.)
At about age 14, I came to the conclusion that there were no dieties and
that belief in any god(s) was laughably stupid.
At about that age, I used to have (friendly) arguments with a schoolfriend
about belief.
He has since gone on to become a minister in the Baptist Church (The
moderate UK Baptist Church, not the US Southern Baptists!).
We remain distant friends, though never discuss beliefs nowadays.
So no, no choice involved, only a conclusion that dieties don't exist.
Nearly 50 years later, no evidence has been produced that could persuade me
that my conclusion was wrong.
Smiler,
The godless one
a.a.# 2279
rogue
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
At the age of 14 I chose to believe, and became a young Christian.
However, as I got more involved in the church, I started reading the
bible more. The more I read, the more I wondered about the
possibility that the book wasn't true.
(especially the Resurrection morning accounts)
Once I started researching the bible for the factual accuracy of those
things I could test, I came to the conclusion that the bible wasn't
true. From there, it was a short hop to atheist. After all, if I
didn't believe in any other gods, and the bible wasn't true, then the
god of the bible wasn't true either, ergo, there were no gods.
johac
Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
It wasn't so much a choice as the evidence, or lack thereof, screaming
at me: "Religion is bad for us. There are no gods."
--
John #1782
DanielSan
Actually, I am of the opinion that religion is a double-edged sword.
See, there are people that claim that, without their particular brand of
religion, they'd go "savage". They claim "there would be no
consequences for my actions and I could do anything I want."
The inference here is that they want to do something that would send
them to Hell. The inference here is, without religion, they'd be a
violent person.
I think it's good that religion is there to protect me from that evil.
However, I do sometimes wonder if that evil isn't spawned from the
religion itself...
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for *
* a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord *
* doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked *
* Him to forgive me." --Emo Philips *
****************************************************
Fred Stone
news:68v46rF...@mid.individual.net:
G-Ride shouldn't claim to be an atheist. He has deified George W. Bush.
As the Devil.
bob young
Therion Ware wrote:
>
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> But what do you think?
Hardly anyone choses. It is done for them by the same
'other humans' who made
up gods in the first lace - usually from the cradle.
Many, on reaching a thinking age then chose to move away
from primitive superstition
It's that simple
ath...@home.com
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Having committed themselves to inventing a position we don't have,
>using over-simplified language and meaning, they have to use the same
>"logic" themselves for Zeus and all the others. Suddenly developing a
>view they never had before.
>
>If we use their restricted vocabulary, meanings and logic it is
>impossible to get our POV through to them.
>
>It's almost Orwellian. When words or meanings disappear it becomes
>impossible to explain concepts that use them. In "1984", "free" meant
>"not costing you anything". The concept of free as in freedom didn't
>exist any more.
>
>This is why I insist on using more exact words and meanings to try to
>get through to them.
As I'm sure you know, latin is used by those engaged in certain
intellectual disiplines because as a "dead" language it is less open
to corruptions.
If the word means something to one scientist, or a term to one
attorney it means the same to the other.
I once objected to people claiming that religion is a form of insanity
and while I've been forced to alter my position on that to a degree I
do for some reason prefer the term "madness."
It seems to me less "medical" and is used in general to describe
something less than a physical or emotional disorder but instead
describes thinking disorders regarding everything from love to
racisim, to homophobia, as well as many other circumstances in which
the emotions construct illusions that guide our thoughts and deeds.
Strong believers are in fact suffering from a form of madness.
And I don't mean that disrespectfully.
<We find the same thing in politics to the point that it becomes
difficult to tell the two apart>
But that madness alters their view of the world and disturbs their
thinking to the point that words actually do take on different
meanings than the dictionary definitions and it leaves us trying to
communicate with them in language that means one thing to us and
something else to them.
Many of us can get frustrated by it and sometimes even angry but we
may as well get angry at a five year old who doesn't understand things
that are obvious to most adults.
<And again, I don't mean that disrespectfully>
We have to remember that despite all evidence to the contrary they do
honestly believe they are in possession of absolute knowledge and one
may as well try to take down a mountain with a pick ax as to try and
communicate in logical terms with most of them.
<They even redefine the terms knowledge and evidence so that they mean
exactly the opposite of what they actually mean>
And it might also do us well to remember that there are brilliant
scientists, philosophers and practitioners of other intellectual
disiplines who are also believers, that religious belief is in fact so
seductive that it can ensnare even the most intelligent and reasonable
among us; and the more intelligent the victim the better his or her
arguments are in defending those beliefs.
We are at a disavantage in the discussion because all we have to offer
is the cold, hard and unemotional light of reason and they have
eloquent language and dreams and the promise of beautiful things that
reason cannot provide.
But we can't exorcise their demons by shouting at them in the fashion
of the priest who believes he can scare them away.
And this one wasn't being rude and imo we make a mistake by believing
that such types are deliberately avoiding a question or deliberately
distorting his answers.
They very often simply don't know any better.
What we are doing by trying to convince them that their beliefs are
false is also an attempt to relieve them of their hope and faith that
in the end it will all be ok.
That in the end they will be reunited with those they love and have
lost and that one day all the suffering that mankind is subjected to
will magically vanish and that they will no longer have anything to
fear.
Why would they want to give that up any more than we would want to
give up our belief that it's all bullocks?
>It's a mistake to say we "don't believe in God" because that gets
>interpreted as "they don't believe in something that exists". Or
>"believe God doesn't exist" which to them is the same as "they believe
>something supremely important whose existence is obvious, doesn't
>exist". They can't even tell the difference anyway.
Again, sometimes they have to be handled in the same way we would
handle children whose heads are filled with magical beliefs and who
don't know how to reason their way out of them.
They need deprogramming and as anyone in the field of psychology can
attest that can be a very, very difficult thing to do.
>"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be
> accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into
> something he can understand."
> - Bertrand Russell
All too true and all too common.
Except that in the case of religion it isn't stupidy that causes the
irrational beliefs, it's social indoctrination that most often begins
in childhood and is reinforced on a daily basis by a religious culture
that inundates the believer with messages that the belief is true.
And that's a difficult thing to counteract.
In the movie A Beautiful Mind the psychiarist asked what sort of
nightmare would it be to wake up one morning to discover that every
thing that you had always believed and known was false.
And to a great degree we are dealing with the same sort of thing here.
Religion isn't just a religious philosophy with true believers; it's
who and what they are.
It's the sum total of their identities.
And giving up that identity can be a very distressing, deeply
disturbing and difficult thing to do.
And sometimes the world of the madman, however poorly constructed it
may be, makes more sense to him than the real world ever will.
atheist@home#1554
G-Ride
news:Xns9A9E4F6EF2...@216.151.153.48...
lol. Like I said, Fredo shouldn't claim to be an atheist. He gets all
riled up when you mention his god.
G-Ride
news:qctj24tr4movnkcp4...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:12:36 +0100, Therion Ware
> wrote:
>
>>
>>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>>
>>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>>
>>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>>But what do you think?
>
> It's
> the only reality that makes sense.
>
There is overwhelming evidence that you are a fucking idiot.
Daniel Kolle
<autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
Yes.
>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
>But what do you think?
I would say we have a natural predisposition to believe in god, for
whatever reason it may be. Is some of this belief culturally
conditioned, though? Yeah, sure, some of it is. Lots of things are
natural to us -- some good, some bad. Most in alt.atheism have
outgrown this natural propensity.
Christopher A. Lee
No. There are plenty of us here who were never taught to be theist,
and never had that predisposition.
A young child has the ability to absorb programming, learning from
those around them, their parents and other care givers.
At this early stage, it becomes almost hard wired, and ids the base on
which everything else is built.
Most believers can't step aside from this base to look at it
objectively and think what is implanted at this stage, is some kind of
instinct.
ath...@home.com
Humans 'hardwired for religion.'
James Randerson guardian.co.uk, Monday September 4 2006 Article
history.
The battle by scientists against "irrational" beliefs such as
creationism is ultimately futile, a leading experimental psychologist
said today.
The work of Bruce Hood, a professor at Bristol University, suggests
that magical and supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains
from birth, and that religions are therefore tapping into a powerful
psychological force.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/04/04/neurotheology/index.html
This is much better than either of the above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_religion
atheist@home#1554
Christopher A. Lee
And I've just demonstrated that they're not.
ath...@home.com
<ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
We are apparently hardwired for certain things that lead to religion.
At any rate, as so often happens this thread led to a search for a
book and I found and ordered this;
In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion-Scott Atran
Looks really interesting and the reviews are excellent.
http://tinyurl.com/4wy9m4
atheist@home#1554
Christopher A. Lee
That CAN lead to religion.
Which isn't the same as DOES lead to it.
>At any rate, as so often happens this thread led to a search for a
>book and I found and ordered this;
>In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion-Scott Atran
>Looks really interesting and the reviews are excellent.
Does he think that I, my siblings and all those other atheists who
were never taught religion, were hard wired for religion as well?
See the problem?
According to your original article, none of us exist.
Richo
> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
friends became born again Christians - as opposed to being just
nominal Christians.
These were the people I most admired and liked to hang out with.
I tried to follow them - I had the teenage urge to belong - I just
couldn't make myself swallow the bullshit.
I suppose the thing I did choose to do was to be open about being an
unbeliever and to defend the reasonableness of that position.
Mark.
bob young
Nicely put.
Makes Pres. Bush even more frightening !
bob young
Are you sure it isn't simply 'fear'
In many cases fear of the unknown?
bob young
We are gregarious pack animals so we fall for any excuse to
club together.
Pleased you could see the folly of it though
Bob
>
> Mark.
johac
DanielSan <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> johac wrote:
> > In article <agqg24pfrvs28avmu...@4ax.com>,
> > Therion Ware <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
> >>
> >> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> >> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
> >>
> >> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> >> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
> >>
> >> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> >> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> >> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> >> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
> >>
> >> But what do you think?
> >
> > It wasn't so much a choice as the evidence, or lack thereof, screaming
> > at me: "Religion is bad for us. There are no gods."
>
> Actually, I am of the opinion that religion is a double-edged sword.
> See, there are people that claim that, without their particular brand of
> religion, they'd go "savage". They claim "there would be no
> consequences for my actions and I could do anything I want."
But in a civilized society, there are secular sanctions for bad
behavior. That's why we have police forces.
>
> The inference here is that they want to do something that would send
> them to Hell. The inference here is, without religion, they'd be a
> violent person.
>
> I think it's good that religion is there to protect me from that evil.
I'm not sure of the attribution, but I believe that it was Napoleon who
said: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
>
> However, I do sometimes wonder if that evil isn't spawned from the
> religion itself...
Not all, but a lot of it is.
--
John #1782
Richo
> On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
> > If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> > If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> > to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> killing me.
Maybe you were doing it wrong.
Atheism does not involve certainty or make a strong claim to
knowledge.
Mark.
Richo
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> >> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> >> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> >> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> >I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
> >killing me.
>
> and let you buy a vowel. Back into the killfile with you for the
> umpteenth time.
>
> <plonk>
I am not sure he is Skeptic - he has a similar aura of invincible
ignorance about him - but the style and the language are different.
Cheers, Mark.
Christopher A. Lee
He's used plenty of the same fallacies in the same context.
>Cheers, Mark.
Richo
> On May 13, 6:19 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> > <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> > >> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> > >> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> > >> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> > >I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
> > >killing me.
>
> > Septic, you wouldn't be able to spot logic if we spotted you "L_GIC"
> > and let you buy a vowel. Back into the killfile with you for the
> > umpteenth time.
>
> > <plonk>
>
One of our pet names for the Troll known as Skeptic.
Are you denying that you are Donald R Alford (AKA Skeptic, AKA Muddy
Boggs, AKA Dixit, AKA Sippuuden etc)?
> Logical fallacy is the sign of a weak mind.
Hmmm. He says things like that too.
Two indications that you are not him:
(1) Septic doesn't usually use Yahooo. (he has used hotmail and gmail)
(2) Septic claims to be both atheist and an agnostic.
Mark.
Richo
Sure - but he hasn't called anyone "Bonehead" or "knucklehead" or
"Son" and he hasn't quoted Huxley yet.
Skeptic usually gives his identity away within a paragraph.
It's possible he is Skeptic - but I think we probably have a new boy.
Mark.
Daniel Kolle
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 16:53:36 -0500,DanielKolle
>
>
>
> <Daniel.Ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 May 2008 18:12:36 +0100, Therion Ware
> ><autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>
> >>If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> >Yes.
>
> >>If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> >>to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> >>Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
> >>rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>
> >>This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
> >>in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
> >>could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
> >>or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>
> >>But what do you think?
>
> >I would say we have a natural predisposition to believe in god, for
> >whatever reason it may be. Is some of this belief culturally
> >conditioned, though? Yeah, sure, some of it is. Lots of things are
> >natural to us -- some good, some bad. Most in alt.atheism have
> >outgrown this natural propensity.
>
> No. There are plenty of us here who were never taught to be theist,
> and never had that predisposition.
How do you know you did not have the predisposition? And I am not
trying to quibble here.
> A young child has the ability to absorb programming, learning from
> those around them, their parents and other care givers.
Well, obviously. But we are not merely blank slates.
> At this early stage, it becomes almost hard wired, and ids the base on
> which everything else is built.
>
> Most believers can't step aside from this base to look at it
> objectively and think what is implanted at this stage, is some kind of
> instinct.
Okay, this last sentence is not making much sense. Could you rephrase
it?
Christopher A. Lee
The same way I know I don't have a predisposition to speak Swahili.
I didn't have a predisposition to speak English.
I was taught to speak it by those around me.
The predisposition was to absorb programming.
Which in the case of not just myself, my siblings and many of my
friends, did not include religion or gods.
>> A young child has the ability to absorb programming, learning from
>> those around them, their parents and other care givers.
>
>Well, obviously. But we are not merely blank slates.
Pretty close to blank slates.
>> At this early stage, it becomes almost hard wired, and ids the base on
>> which everything else is built.
>>
>> Most believers can't step aside from this base to look at it
>> objectively and think what is implanted at this stage, is some kind of
>> instinct.
>
>Okay, this last sentence is not making much sense. Could you rephrase
>it?
Sigh.
Believers think it is instinctive because they can't grasp that it was
taught before they could think for themselves.
It's not.
Or that those who weren't taught it, don't grow up believing it.
Which refutes claims of predisposition to believe.
Fred Stone
@mid.individual.net:
Lol. G-Ride gets all riled up when I refute his claims about his Devil.
beelzebub
> On May 14, 11:22 am, beelzebub <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 13, 6:19 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> > > <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> > > >> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> > > >> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> > > >> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> > > >I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
> > > >killing me.
>
> > > Septic, you wouldn't be able to spot logic if we spotted you "L_GIC"
> > > and let you buy a vowel. Back into the killfile with you for the
> > > umpteenth time.
>
> > > <plonk>
>
> > Septic?
>
> One of our pet names for the Troll known as Skeptic.
>
> Are you denying that you are Donald R Alford (AKA Skeptic, AKA Muddy
> Boggs, AKA Dixit, AKA Sippuuden etc)?
I am who I am. Stop resorting to idiotic guilt by association fallacy,
and *deal* with the argument. If you can....
> > Logical fallacy is the sign of a weak mind.
>
> Hmmm. He says things like that too.
What "Septic says" is irrelevant, and more reliance on logical
fallacy. Focus on the argument, or kindly stfu.
>
> Two indications that you are not him:
> (1) Septic doesn't usually use Yahooo. (he has used hotmail and gmail)
Fascinating. Your powers of deduction rival that of any atheist when
it comes to explaining the unknown.
> (2) Septic claims to be both atheist and an agnostic.
That is a common ploy of the modern atheist, co-opting and perverting
agnosticism as a shield against criticism. A true agnostic can't be
an atheist because being an agnostic means that one has reserved
judgment on the matter, absent evidence one way or the other. The two
are antithetical. Either you reject god, or you don't, you can't have
your cake and eat it too.
beelzebub
> On May 15, 4:40 pm, Christopher A. Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 14 May 2008 23:35:35 -0700 (PDT), Richo
>
> > <m.richardso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On May 14, 10:19 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 13 May 2008 17:02:04 -0700 (PDT), beelzebub
>
> > >> <yank_ees_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >On May 13, 11:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
> > >> >> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>
> > >> >> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
> > >> >> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>
> > >> >I tried to be an atheist when I was younger, but the illogic was
> > >> >killing me.
>
> > >> Septic, you wouldn't be able to spot logic if we spotted you "L_GIC"
> > >> and let you buy a vowel. Back into the killfile with you for the
> > >> umpteenth time.
>
> > >> <plonk>
>
> > >I am not sure he is Skeptic - he has a similar aura of invincible
> > >ignorance about him - but the style and the language are different.
[...]
> > He's used plenty of the same fallacies in the same context.
Could that be because the same fallacies apply? Work through it....
>
> Sure - but he hasn't called anyone "Bonehead" or "knucklehead" or
> "Son" and he hasn't quoted Huxley yet.
> Skeptic usually gives his identity away within a paragraph.
>
> It's possible he is Skeptic - but I think we probably have a new boy.
An atheist crawls out of the primordial soup, and pokes his head out
of the slime....
Kate
wrote:
>On May 13, 10:12 am, Therion Ware <autodel...@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
>> If you're an atheist, do you think you "chose" the become an atheist?
>>
>> If some stripe of Christian, or other kind of theist did you "choose"
>> to believe in whatever form of Christianity/other you now espouse?
>>
>> Personally I don't think, at root, people "choose" their beliefs but
>> rather our beliefs are are product of what we are and what we know.
>>
>> This is to say, for me at least, I could no more "choose" to believe
>> in any form of Christianity, or any of the theist religions, than I
>> could "choose" to believe that the sky is green and the grass is blue,
>> or that 2 + 2 = 5.
>>
>> But what do you think?
>
>I grew up christian fundamentalist and a born-again christian. I
>beleived because that's how they indoctrinated me, I didn't choose it.
>
>As I got older and got a good secular education in logic,
>anthropology, and biology, I came to understand the difference between
>"faith" and "knowledge" and to see how christian mythology had grown
>out of other mythologies in the middle east. I also learned how
>evolution *actually* works (instead of the fundy version of it).
>
>One morning when in my 20s, I woke up and simply realized that I no
>longer believed in *anything* supernatural, including god, and that I
>was an atheist. I didn't "choose" to believe or disbelieve, I just
>grew into atheism as a result of education.
>
>I'm like you, Therion; I could no more "choose" to believe in the
>supernatural than I could "choose" to sprout wings and fly. An
>atheist is just what I turned out to be, after a long intellectual
>journey.
>
>Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
>EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
>skyeyes nine at cox dot net
I did choose to believe for a while. I was raised Unitarian, which is
basically no pressure for anything and some exposure to a variety of
beliefs. I decided at some point, maybe about 12 to be a deist
because it sounded warm and cozy to have some entity taking care of
everything. Basically it was a decision to pretend it was true.
About 13 or 14, I decided that it was stupid to pretend, so I dropped
it.
Maturity took over.