Have your religious/spiritual beliefs changed in the past year?

[zabu of nΩd]

For all you chumps claiming that the guy was dumb for asking where God was during his hard times, care to ELABORATE? What do you think is wrong with his perspective? As far as I'm concerned, he was spot on. I see no logical reason what-so-ever to put faith in some magical religious crap if it has never done anything for you.

The guy was probably just a troll, and you're getting worked up over nothing.

 

[Zephyrus]

When God gives you lemons, you find a new God!

 

[Onder]

I was a complete atheist till I met a fucking wizard in a pub. I had like 7 beers and she told me something important that I don't remember very well.

 

[Alter]

When God gives you lemons, you find a new God!

What happens if you love lemons?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I've been an atheist for over a year and I reached this conclusion on my own. During the point at which I became sure that I really was an atheist, I was probably exposed to a lot more arguments in favor of Christianity, because I was heavily active in the Boy Scouts at the time.

Supposedly, you can't become an Eagle Scout if they find out that you're gay or an atheist (the two are interchangeable to some of those people), but I because an Eagle when I was only sixteen, and at the time I was an agnost. During my Board of Revw they even asked me "what does the word 'Reverent' mean, and how are you reverent?" Fortunately, I was able to weasel my way around it by simply giving them the definition of the word and then stating that I think the most important thing is to have respect for other people's beliefs regardess of whether or not you actually agree with them. Not only did I get out of admitting that I didn't necessarily believe in a god, but they liked my answer so much that they started clapping \m/

EDIT:

The legal definition of dead is no heartbeat/pulse. Brain activity persists after death, which is why people can die legally for up to about 10 minutes and be ok(ish) after a shot of adrenaline and/or a defibrlatawhatever.

Regardless of what you've seen on TV, there's virtually nothing that can be done for you, once you've flat-lined. A defibrillator provides an electrical shock that over powers your malfunctioning heart's current arrhythmia, hopefully returnng it to a steady pulse. If the heart has simply stopped beating completely, then the electrical shock will cause the heart to contract once in response, but there's virtually nothing that can be done to bring back a steady pulse.

 

[skeptik]

I've been an atheist since I was about 13 or 14, 4 or 5 years before I became an Eagle Scout. My leaders (including my father) didn't give a shit that I was an atheist. I don't think the subject came up explicitly during the board of review, but if it did, I would have just lied.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

For all you chumps claiming that the guy was dumb for asking where God was during his hard times, care to ELABORATE? What do you think is wrong with his perspective? As far as I'm concerned, he was spot on. I see no logical reason what-so-ever to put faith in some magical religious crap if it has never done anything for you.

I just think it's ignorant to assume that, if god were to exist, he would help people who are unwilling to help themselves.

 

[The Ozzman]

I've been an atheist since I was about 13 or 14, 4 or 5 years after I became an Eagle Scout. My leaders (including my father) didn't give a shit that I was an atheist. I don't think the subject came up explicitly during the board of review, but if it did, I would have just lied.

You got Eagle when you were 9-10 yrs old?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

*8-9

 

[skeptik]

Yes.

 

[cookiecutter]

I was a complete atheist till I met a fucking wizard in a pub. I had like 7 beers and she told me something important that I don't remember very well.

I've been an atheist for over a year and I reached this conclusion on my own. During the point at which I became sure that I really was an atheist, I was probably exposed to a lot more arguments in favor of Christianity, because I was heavily active in the Boy Scouts at the time.

Supposedly, you can't become an Eagle Scout if they find out that you're gay or an atheist (the two are interchangeable to some of those people), but I because an Eagle when I was only sixteen, and at the time I was an agnost. During my Board of Revw they even asked me "what does the word 'Reverent' mean, and how are you reverent?" Fortunately, I was able to weasel my way around it by simply giving them the definition of the word and then stating that I think the most important thing is to have respect for other people's beliefs regardess of whether or not you actually agree with them. Not only did I get out of admitting that I didn't necessarily believe in a god, but they liked my answer so much that they started clapping m/

Another Eagle. And we're all atheists

I don't think the subject came up explicitly during the board of review, but if it did, I would have just lied.

.

You got Eagle when you were 9-10 yrs old?

He means that he was an atheist at 13 or 14 then 4 or 5 years later he got his eagle.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Okay, time to respond to Cairath's posts:

This is a common argument in religious threads and it displays either a lack of familiarity with the scientific method or just an outright rejection of it (in which case we might as well stop the argument). In science, yes, the "truth" can change.

Religion's concept of "truth" is not the same as the scientific concept of "truth". Religion offers up truths that are unequivocal and cannot be questioned (they often are, but that clearly wasn't the intent when they were written down). The scientific truth is always a pending truth in a way. Any scientific hypothesis could (theoretically) at some point in the future be falsified. However, until that happens it's considered true. That is why the scientific world model is not static and infact changes over time as the body of knowledge expands and as technological progress makes it possible to reveal or test things that might previously have been impossible.

Science is not (unlike what I've again seen many people insinuate in this thread) an arrogant assumption that it is all-knowing and that the answers it offers are unquestionable and perpetual truths (infact you might say that is exactly what religion often does). It is the opposite, the whole concept of science is based around actively questioning what we know using clearly defined and rigorous scientific principles rather than randomly making stuff up and calling it the truth with no proof of any kind.

Your search for absolute truths to me seems futile. Science will by definition never offer those, and religion will claim to but will never be able to actually convey a compelling basis for them unless you are willing to open yourself up to the avenue of blind faith.

This is probably very much connected to the way I've traditionally thought about the theism vs. atheism spectrum. Since theists are pretty much always pushing for belief in an absolute truth, it is natural for me to assume that the same thing applies to atheism.

I know I've done a fuckload of nitpicking and trifling over terminology in this thread, but to me that seems like where the bulk of misunderstandings about atheism come from (at least, my misunderstandings). When I hear someone say they are completely atheist (which seems to be what all the atheists here say), I tend to assume they're saying that there's no possible way for a god to exist - which no atheist could actually be committed to. For some reason I keep getting hung up on that issue, and I have yet to have it explained to me in a way that actually sticks.

So, the big problem for me is: why would anyone call himself an atheist if the naturalistic model of the universe has such a giant fucking gap in it at the origin of the universe? If you can't even begin to explain that in naturalistic terms, I think there's something a tiny bit wrong with simply proclaiming that the naturalistic model of the universe is the only one that should be believed.

Actually, following the commonly accepted theory of the big bang being the starting point of our universe it isn't really contradictory at all. The big bang theory states that it was the moment when all dimensions came into being. Time is one of those dimensions. That means effectively that trying to say anything about what happened before then would simply be both pointless and impossible (which completely undermines any first-cause argument). I believe that is Stephen Hawking's view on the matter (atleast it was at the time of writing his books) but I imagine it probably requires his immense insight and knowledge of the subject to not see it as sort of a cop-out answer from your point of view.

But as I stated earlier there are still plenty of scientists who are looking into alternate theories. But without the guidance of applicable laws of nature it is difficult to formulate anything other than pure speculation (which is why none of those theories are commonly presented as being anything more than pure theories).

I'm not sure how this is supposed to resolve any contradictions regarding the origin of the universe. All the big bang theory really seems to be saying is:

"We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, so... nothing happened before the Big Bang!"

And I can't see how it would matter whether you're an expert on the physics behind the Big Bang theory or not to be able to deem it a cop-out theory, since it still doesn't (and can't) explain why any of this shit actually exists in the first place. All it is, really, is just a prediction of the timeline of the universe up to (and excluding) the 'time' of singularity.

I think expecting a definite answer to the creation of the universe problem that can be grasped by current human constructs (which I think is what vihris-gari is after) is just not very likely to happen. The way I see it, in the end you're either going to have to accept a universe that just sprung into existence from nowhere (a concept we are obviously uncomfortable with because it has no precedent in our world model) or a universe that simply has always been (again a concept we are uncomfortable with because our linear concept of time doesn't really allow for that). The quest for an easily digestible answer to the creation of the universe just seems kind of naive. In all likelihood there just isn't any.

And you can still be comfortable with atheism given all that? I find that a little hard to swallow.

 

[SouthernTrendkill]

Now that I think of it, I guess my religious beliefs have changed. Probably not in the past year though, maybe 2 years ago...

I went from being devout atheist to being totally nihlist. I used to cling to the idea that there was any such thing as the ability to arrive upon truth, but eventually I gave up on that. I mean, there are things that I personally assume to be true, like the lack of a God, but I think it's reckless to have faith in your own perception. No matter what anybody says, there's always somebody who can make a good argument as to why what they said is wrong.

 

[cookiecutter]

This is probably very much connected to the way I've traditionally thought about the theism vs. atheism spectrum. Since theists are pretty much always pushing for belief in an absolute truth, it is natural for me to assume that the same thing applies to atheism.

I know I've done a fuckload of nitpicking and trifling over terminology in this thread, but to me that seems like where the bulk of misunderstandings about atheism come from (at least, my misunderstandings). When I hear someone say they are completely atheist (which seems to be what all the atheists here say), I tend to assume they're saying that there's no possible way for a god to exist - which no atheist could actually be committed to. For some reason I keep getting hung up on that issue, and I have yet to have it explained to me in a way that actually sticks.

How do you feel about the existence of Santa? That's how atheists feel about the existence of god.

So, the big problem for me is: why would anyone call himself an atheist if the naturalistic model of the universe has such a giant fucking gap in it at the origin of the universe? If you can't even begin to explain that in naturalistic terms, I think there's something a tiny bit wrong with simply proclaiming that the naturalistic model of the universe is the only one that should be believed.

Because no other model of the world has any supporting evidence. Just because we have not discovered everything doesn't mean it's wrong. Was science wrong before Curie discovered radioactivity? Was science wrong before Einstein discovered relativity? No, humans just had not discovered all the answer and we still haven't discovered all the answers. It is foolish to dismiss a tried and true method just because it has not yet succeeded especially when the alternative is mythology.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to resolve any contradictions regarding the origin of the universe. All the big bang theory really seems to be saying is:

"We don't know what happened before the Big Bang, so... nothing happened before the Big Bang!"

As explained earlier "before" the big bang is actually a misnomer since time began with the big bang, so there was nothing before. It is hard to think about.

And you can still be comfortable with atheism given all that? I find that a little hard to swallow.

As I said above, not knowing a scientific fact means just that. Not knowing something should not make the existence of a mythical figure more likely just because the myth makes claims to such knowledge.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That makes sense. Sorry if I'm slow on picking up on these points. I'll get back to you once I've thought about this some more.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

One thing I should probably mention:

In case any of you are getting extremely frustrated with my stubbornness on this topic, I have a reason for it. I don't like to say I believe something unless I can actually explain it to someone else in a coherent manner. I have yet to accomplish this with atheism, so until I am actually able to defend atheism in an argument, I have to go through this excruciating process of working out all the doubts and grey area.

So, if a lot of this debate has seemed circular to you guys, I assure you it isn't for me. It's really just my way of teaching myself how to think about it.

 

[Alter]

As explained earlier "before" the big bang is actually a misnomer since time began with the big bang, so there was nothing before. It is hard to think about.

That is not true. Time had to exist before big bang or that ball of material would have been there.

 

[cookiecutter]

I think I'll believe scientists before I believe you

 

[Alter]

I think I'll believe scientists before I believe you

Scientists have backed what I am saying with the theory of the cosmos working like a rubber-band.

 

[cookiecutter]