Zone1 I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god

[zaangalewa]

Okay, you do you. I don't seek your approval.

In fact, reading your replies in general, maybe a language issue? If I soke German maybe that would help, but I don't.

"No" = "nein" (spoken like "nine") in German.

I do, not the same pain, but it hurts. Same thing my mom has, something I took from her, what I consider her greatest and most positive influence on me.


Says most of what I observe... As does history too. You'll notice I have not tried to insult you, I have only tried to understand you,

Aha.

even if you don't agree with me. With almost all that disagree with me, I try to understand from their perspective. Often though, I find people lack the same interest, they are CONVINCED in their view, they lack any ability to empathize and understand from another's perspective.

This thread is nothing, and the majority of the ones like it on this forum and the internet, are filled with that kind of behavior. You are blindly participating in it, I perused these forums and you're quite active in this regard. So, your reply is hardly surprising.



Make of them whatever you will, like I said, I don't really seek your approval, and personally, I doubt a fruitful discussion of this is at all possible with you.

Aha

Perhaps Logos is real, as a nonphysical creation which DEFINE what is logically consistent.

This remembers me to a Russian general of the Cold War who said to the highest Soviet: "Sure you can define a wire scratch brush to be an hedgehog - but nevertheless the brush will get no babies."

I think it would contain this abstract 'structure in meaning' that I try to allude to. Also Physics does not communicate with this 'structure', but it is still affected and dependent on it. We 'hang' from this creation, simply by existing we are subject to this 'structure in meaning'.

Hmm ...

We only see life on Earth, but it's because we are mostly blind. We do know, however, that life here has evolved. We know many of the physical processes that play into that evolution, and we know they exist elsewhere.

One paradigma of natural science is it that natural laws are everywhere in the universe the same. Up to now we found no exception from this rule. But is a biological evolution somewhere else in the universe realized? Up to now we know nothing about any other lifeforms in the universe.

Everywhere we look we see stars, and when we CAN detect exoplanets (which is when we look very closely) we do find them. Earth started out as a hellish place, not even with oxygen, but that still did not stop life.

Explain to me why a billion years ago no multi-cellular lifeforms existed on planet Earth.

My view is that life is a physical phenomenon, like stars.

Your problem is this "view" is currently only an interesting form of belief. Only because you grew up with science fiction films doesn't mean this films are anything else than pure fantasy.

Also, I don't think the chance of life approaches zero, I think it's very high given the right basic conditions (like early Earth), which is why personally, I'm convinced Alien life (even intelligent) exists, somewhere at least.

You are convinced from something what you don't know.

 

[Insaneworld]

"No" = "nein" (spoken like "nine") in German.



Aha.



Aha



This remmerb me to e Russian gernla of the Cold War who said to the highest Soviet: "Sure you can define a wire scratch brush to be an hedgehog - but nevertheless it will get no babies."



Hmm ...



One paradigma of natrula since is it thzat natural laws are everywhere in the universe the same. Up to now we found no exception of this rule. But is a biological evolution somewhere else in the universe realized? Up to now we know nothingh about any other lifefotms in thr universe.



Explain to me why a billion years ago not multi-cellular life existed on planet Earth.



Your problem is this "view" is currently only and interesting form of belief. Only becasu you grew up with science fiction films doesn't mean this films aer anytuhng else than pure fantasy.



You are convinced from something what you don't know.

You know how I said I perused the forums, and saw you engaging in much the same bad faith discussion? I know I wouldn't be the first to cut conversation off with you lol.

There is little point in discussing with you. Like I said, maybe if I spoke German, or if you spoke Spanish, but I suspect language is less than half the issue here.

 

[zaangalewa]

So they rebelled against an abusive and cruel government system

If so, so what? They created an abusive and cruel governmental system.

and you think they should have just obeyed and lived and died for the king right?

I think to justify crimes and criminals helps no one.

 

[zaangalewa]

You know how I said I perused the forums, and saw you engaging in much the same bad faith discussion? I know I wouldn't be the first to cut conversation off with you lol.

There is little point in discussing with you. Like I said, maybe if I spoke German, or if you spoke Spanish, but I suspect language is less than half the issue here.

So what is your problem if you express it in German, Spain or English?

 

[Blues Man]

If so, so what? They created an abusive and cruel governmental system.



I think to justify crimes and criminals helps no one.

So then by your logic it would have been criminal to defy Hitler.

And it was criminal for the US to defy the King Of England

And it was criminal to abolish slavery

The reality is humans are violent animals and we have done and will continue to do violent things to one another.

The best we can do is create a society where the people can exert control over the government.

idealism is naivete to the point of mental retardation

 

[zaangalewa]

So then by your logic it would have been criminal to defy Hitler.

Who is Hitler?

And it was criminal for the US to defy the King Of England

The so called "tea party" was for sure a way to try to make Red Indians responsible if "you" had failed.

And it was criminal to abolish slavery

Hmm ... indeed for many slaves the way "you" did it was a very heavy disaster, if I am well informed.

The reality is humans are violent animals

?

and we have done and will continue to do violent things to one another.

An universal excuse for every form of crime.

The best we can do is create a society where the people can exert control over the government.

? ... I'm not sure whether to do great things do not need first of all trust.

idealism is naivete to the point of mental retardation

I fear you have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about. One chliche hunts the next cliche and between is no place for any other "idea".

 

[Donald H]

That's fair, like I said somewhere along here, I thought the same too for some time. I was agnostic most of my life.

I think that's possible.



Well, I see the Earth as not necessarily special, but just another planet of many out there. Life (in my eyes) is a result of natural processes compounded through time. Those processes that made life here on Earth exist elsewhere and throughout time. And, almost everywhere we look with a telescope, we see trillions of galaxies. It would be extremely unlikely that Earth is the only planet with life, even intelligent life. My view, based on physics and evolution and the assumption that Earth is not a uniquely special planet, is still that life, and especially intelligent life, will emerge in time everywhere it can. If the Earth isn't special, then many goldilock planets like it are out there, and if the laws of physics are the same in those planets (which we readily assume in physics), then that is enough to see that life will emerge there. Just like it did here.

I believe there is life beyond our earth. I was only making the point that it's unknown and doesn't apply here.

Again, I think it's possible. In His crucifixion, Jesus became a martyr and that propelled His message in a way that was not possible otherwise, I think. If He had not existed, and sacrificed Himself as He did, I don't believe that same basic message would have been spread as it was. My mom is a very strong believer, and even though I agree that morality does not derive from religion, the catholic faith gave my mom strength when she needed it most, and a strong sense of what is 'right', which she passed on to us. I admit it's impossible to give credit for certain, to say whether, without Jesus, we would still see that same (moderate) humanist improvement of today.

Yes, the church gives people strength when they need it most.

Since that IS my perspective though, I wanted to wear a cross, just as a matter of appreciation and admiration at first. I have no issues seeing myself a 'primitive' by the way, I think humans still are.

You tell me that your were indoctrinated into being a believer at childhood, but you're questioning your faith. You're going to have to fight hard to escape that indoctrination. You most likely won't.

Well, the view that Jesus had a hugely positive impact, regardless of divinity, was the first step, which lead me to wearing the cross. I had, since I started giving the question more thought, been agnostic, but my conception of 'God' and 'divinity' was too restricted, I think. I initially ONLY thought of God as a personal God that had a detailed plan, and has a kind of relationship with people. This is the kind of God I heard most often about growing up, or at least that was I understood then. But as I matured more, met more people (believers and nonbelievers) I think I saw that there can be so many more ways of understanding God and creation. I realized I had been biased against the idea because of these past experiences, and slowly I think I opened up.

I'm not really hearing any indications that you are trying to escape mainstream religion in a church.

Ouroboros does come from Greek. It's an ancient symbol of a serpent eating its own tail, and had a lot of significance for Gnosticism and Hermeticism.


I think this is ties to the most interesting point, in my opinion. Triangles are abstract objects attached to a definition, the same goes 'length' and 'a^2', etc. These are all abstract concepts which are inspired by the physical world, but which can be defined independently of it.

You're going to have to explain your point on that.

When we define the concepts and agree on the axioms, what we find is the logically necessary pattern that is known so well. The point I want to make is that the statement (Axioms of Euclidean geometry) => (right triangles have a^2 + b^2 = c^2) is a tautology, its truth is derived from the meaning of the terms themselves. I see it as an eternal and infinite pattern within meaning, observable by anyone who can 'visit', like a mountain we 'see', although we have to think abstractly to do so.

Same again, with all due respects to your point which escapes me.

The logical consistency of Zermelo Fraenkel is not something we can settle within ZF, but ZF contains basically all of math. Almost everyone takes ZF's logical consistency for granted, we all assume it, otherwise there would be no point using it at all.

Personally, I believe there is an implicit structure in meaning itself which allows for that consistency, it 'defines' and determines what is logically consistent, and it is a divine creation.

Math and science place great faith upon this assumption of consistency (of ZF and axiomatic systems in general). If they didn't, there would be no point using it.

I can't make the connection to creation.

Well, you DID ask for my view.


More than scientists. Godel for example showed what I tried to allude to above. He showed that Zermelo Fraenkel set theory (as a logical system) cannot prove its own consistency, it must be taken as an independent assumption. He helped establish limits on what is knowable and provable.


I disagree, we can in many ways decide what to study, what to envision, etc. Maybe there's few limits, but as Godel showed, there are inherent limits out there, written into the fabric of meaning itself, as I try to put it. The second of Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Wikipedia is what I'm alluding to here, which deals with a logical systems ability to prove its own logical consistency.


That's good to hear, like I said I appreciate it.



Maybe indirectly. I see life as a kind of inevitable, higher order effect of physics, like stars. And I see physics, and the physical Universe in general, as a creation which was made by a limited but well-intentioned God, chosen such that empathetic conscious life COULD emerge. This physical Universe in turn depends on that abstract structure in meaning deriving from the supreme God, which defines what is logically consistent, in a way. Put all together, to me, that constitutes a kind of creation.

I believe that life on earth evolved and I can't reconcile 'creation' as being part of it or consistent with it.

It's a choice between the two, creation and evolution and the Catholic church isn't providing an answer.

 

[Insaneworld]

I believe there is life beyond our earth. I was only making the point that it's unknown and doesn't apply here.

On the contrary, the topic is my source of faith. If that's your view that's fine, but with respect, you are no one to say what is or is not relevant to my source of faith, which is the topic I expanded on from your question.

You tell me that your were indoctrinated into being a believer at childhood, but you're questioning your faith. You're going to have to fight hard to escape that indoctrination. You most likely won't.

With respect, you misunderstand, and I've told you no such thing. I said I was agnostic most of my life, my mom never indoctrinated us, we never attended Church. My mom is Catholic indeed, but she has a lot of distrust for the institutions and people, and she never forced her beliefs on us. In fact, I remember arguing with her as a teenager about these things lol. Since about 13 I considered myself agnostic, especially as I learned more about space. This was true until I was about 28.

The wearing of the Cross came about 3 years ago, before that I did not wear it. This was all after being agnostic and tending to believe there was no purpose, like I stated in my first long post. In fact, in college, I remember being surprised to learn some of my close friends held personal beliefs on God, despite not attending church either, since I thought most people in academia and science paid little attention to the idea of God.

I'm not really hearing any indications that you are trying to escape mainstream religion in a church.

I was never in mainstream religion. Or a church of any kind. Since I cared to decide for myself, I identified as agnostic, because I saw too many contradictions when I tried to ask questions to people who did believe, like my mom. In this thread I've basically had disagreements with both the believers and the nonbelievers.

For the believers, I'm not mainstream, since I don't follow orthodoxy and I don't believe agnostics or atheists will necessarily go to a 'hell'. At the same time, even the mention of faith marks me in the eyes of closed-minded atheists, as evidenced by your own words here. You think me as just another member of some 'mainstream, 'primitive' and indoctrinated group. Despite my honest efforts to outline my path to you, you are nothing but ready to fit me into a nice box you already understand.

If you hear none of these indications, I think it's because you refuse to listen... I found my faith through a perspective inspired by Gnostic ideas. I found these ideas from a symbol that, in my view, represents the character of the physical Universe, given what we know about science, that symbol being the Ouroboros. The Gnostics were persecuted by the mainstream church you claim I belong to... The church is mainstream as a consequence of the destruction of these Gnostic ideas, and others.

Same again, with all due respects to your point which escapes me.

What I'm trying to get at here, is the perspective that 'sealed' my faith, that convinced me (in a genuine way) of God's existence. That perspective involves nonphysical 'features' within meaning, that I believe (thanks to how I found this perspective) were created by the supreme God.

These features have two important properties.

1) They are tautologies. The Pythagorean theorem, as a logical implication, can be stated as (Axioms of Euclidean geometry) => (right triangles have a^2 + b^2 = c^2). Stated this way, it is a tautology, it is true by virtue of the meaning of the terms alone. To give another example of a tautology, the sentence (John is a bachelor) => (John is single) is ALSO a tautology, since it is also true by the meaning of the terms (bachelor, single, is) alone. The simple sentence DOES NOT require proof, it's obvious, while the Pythagorean theorem is a much more intricate statement and does require proof. The proofs however use ONLY the meaning of the terms, they don't need to make reference to anything external, so PT is also a tautology (though not obvious).

2) Being that the truth of these features, like the PT, depend only the meaning of terms alone, they are NOT physical in nature, but something else. Something more fundamental, independent of time and space but still impacting them.

I can't make the connection to creation.

Continuing along the lines above, there is an important third point.

3) These features in meaning, which are more fundamental than anything physical, are (in my view) also creations. I believe they exist as a consequence of the supreme God, who created a vast infinite structure within meaning itself, within which the Pythagorean theorem and many other features like it exist. These features existed 'before' there was a physical Universe to depend on them, before physics required their existence. This is why I see all of the physical Universe, AND the much vaster world of 'features in meaning' I try to allude to, as creations.

I believe that life on earth evolved and I can't reconcile 'creation' as being part of it or consistent with it.

Do you accept life comes from physics? Meaning, it is the result of natural processes explained by science (physics, chemistry, etc)?

 

[Donald H]

On the contrary, the topic is my source of faith. If that's your view that's fine, but with respect, you are no one to say what is or is not relevant to my source of faith, which is the topic I expanded on from your question.

The source of your faith has come out of your mind in my opinion and that won't change until you can produce evidence of life beyond earth. Fwiw, I can accept a story of you seeing extraterrestrials.

I think that your mother has been a huge influence on you, without any influence coming from your father. Are you married to a woman?

 

[Insaneworld]

The source of your faith has come out of your mind in my opinion and that won't change until you can produce evidence of life beyond earth. Fwiw, I can accept a story of you seeing extraterrestrials.

I think that your mother has been a huge influence on you, without any influence coming from your father. Are you married to a woman?

I fully admit the source is my mind, I think that is the only source of genuine faith one can have. Even if someone has a divine experience, I think it's the subjective understanding of that person that gives genuine faith. It's not something we can readily control, I think it's something each person has to find for themselves.

Also, I have not seen Aliens, it might be cool though, maybe. My mom has probably been my greatest influence, but this was mostly something early on in my life, when she taught us empathy and compassion (before say, 10 years or so). Since I believe that compassion is key to the story of how I gained faith (many years later), and an important part of what I believe is the purpose of physical Universe, I did mention her a lot.

My dad has been a huge influence as well, we spoke a lot about science and space as I was growing up, we still do, and that impacted my agnostic view (which I held at first). He was just a little less present as I was growing up, but he always encouraged my brothers and I to study science, which I value very highly as well.

 

[Blues Man]

Who is Hitler?



The so called "tea party" was for sure a way to try to make Red Indians responsible if "you" had failed.




Hmm ... indeed for many slaves the way "you" did it was a very heavy disaster, if I am well informed.



?



An universal excuse for every form of crime.



? ... I'm not sure whether to do great things do not need first of all trust.



I fear you have absolutelly not any idea what you try to speak about. One chliche hunts the next cliche and between is no place for any other "idea".

Goodbye

 

[Batcat]

But an omnipotent omniscient god would see right through that wouldn't it?

Pascals wager assumes that a mere mortal can deceive one that knows everything every person will ever think say and do.

Pascal’s wager may give a Christian an excuse for his belief in God. No problem with that as long as he actually does believe.

 

[zaangalewa]

Goodbye

I wish you a merry Christmas.

 

[Mashmont]

Pascal was saying even if you don't believe act like you do so you can hedge your bets.

That assumes that your god is able to be deceived therefore it is not perfect.

I find it contradictory that you support such a ruse as Pascal's wager because it diminishes your perfect god

I already explained it in post #636. It doesn't matter about the other stuff Pascal said; he said it makes mathematical sense to believe in God. Add that to the fact that we Christians already know it's the way to live life.

 

[Blues Man]

I already explained it in post #636. It doesn't matter about the other stuff Pascal said; he said it makes mathematical sense to believe in God. Add that to the fact that we Christians already know it's the way to live life.

Based on a lot of assumptions. The first being that people MUST choose one of 2 beliefs. The assumption that the god of the bible is the god that might exist and not some other god that doesn't really care about us mere mortals.

Then there is the fact that Pascal doesn't say anything about following any particular religious dogma

Therefore it is not an endorsement of your or any religion for that matter.

Not to mention that it is naively oversimplified.

For example Pascal states that no belief must result in this earthly life being of less quality that that of believers. Obviously this is not true. Far too many people have found a very good quality of life and immense happiness in the pursuit of Buddhism and Taoism that do not require a belief in any gods.

At best Pascal's Wager is an oversimplified example of game theory.

 

[Meriweather]

Pascal’s wager may give a Christian an excuse for his belief in God. No problem with that as long as he actually does believe.

First of all....Dismiss Pascal's wager. It doesn't deserve any consideration.

Both Jewish law and Christ's teachings focus on the way(s) to live this present life. Study these teachings, and live them every day. They are great gifts. Sometimes I imagine these abundance of gifts coming with me into the next life. How many will look like they were never used at all? How many will look as well used and well loved as a child's battered Teddy bear?

 

[Batcat]

First of all....Dismiss Pascal's wager. It doesn't deserve any consideration.

Both Jewish law and Christ's teachings focus on the way(s) to live this present life. Study these teachings, and live them every day. They are great gifts. Sometimes I imagine these abundance of gifts coming with me into the next life. How many will look like they were never used at all? How many will look as well used and well loved as a child's battered Teddy bear?

To you Pascal’s wager deserves no consideration. It may bring another person to Christ.

 

[Meriweather]

To you Pascal’s wager deserves no consideration. It may bring another person to Christ.

Consider this. Your best friend comes to see you bringing along another friend. "Hi, Batcat! This is my friend, John. I had to threaten him with hell before he would come see you."

Knowing Christ ourselves, is this best we can do? If so, perhaps Jesus needs better friends?

 

[HeyNorm]

When I was 10 years old, we had a dog named Silver. A sealyham - sort of a largish Westie. He had been struck by a car when I was much younger and that had left him blind in one eye. We adapted. He adapted. But whenever he entered an unfamiliar space (the furniture moved, for instance) he would collide with things. I felt bad for him. Like most children my age I believed what I was told was the truth by my parents and the church they took me to. So I prayed as fervently and selflessly as I could manage that God would restore his vision. But, as would happen in any bad movie, his poor vision led Silver to wandering out in front of another car where he suffered another concussion which left him completely blind. Now all dogs go to heaven because all dogs are innocent. Every non-human form of life is innocent of the many sins the Bible spells out. Initially, I was angry. How could God cause my innocent dog to suffer, regardless of his motive or intent? The standard "mysterious ways" line didn't help at all. What did help was the realization that the best explanation was not that god was mysterious or unknowable, but that he simply wasn't there. The existence of the god described by the Bible and by our preacher and the believers I would talk with was simply not possible; not only because it violated all the laws of nature but because absolutely no evidence I could find supported the idea. Every thing I could learn about the world and how it worked refuted the idea of a caring, personal god who had created miraculous humans and a miraculous Earth to be their home and was everpresent, watching over us and, on proper supplication, violating the laws that he himself had set in place - if he felt like it.

As the years went by I simply became more and more convinced that there is a great deal about the working of the universe we do not yet know, but the basics - the principal of uniformitarianism, holds, everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is supernatural. No will directs or inspires the stream of events taking place over the passage of time. Only physics.

What signs or signals should I have caught that might have lured me back to my childhood faith? And how might my life have been different had I done so? I have lots of friends and I'm pretty sure most of them think I'm a nice guy. I buy fully and heartily into the Golden Rule. I believe it to be the sole basis of human civilization. How do you think my complete lack of divine faith hurt me? Will your god throw into a lake of fire because I led a good life but failed to do him obeisance? That is, of course, precisely what scriptures tells us. Why would ANY of you believe, much less WORSHIP such a god? He seems a monster. Would anyone care to correct me?

That caring for a disabled dog can make you a stronger, more moral person.

You chose not to listen. That’s on you.

 

[Couchpotato]

So because I am not sure I should just believe in the god you believe in.

Sorry that's not a good enough reason for me.

If you’re not sure you’re not an atheist. Your an agnostic.