Athiests : How did you loose you're faith?

c0rk3r

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

you still have to explain how the creator came to be.

Do I ? I dont have the answers neither does anyone else. I look at whats infront of me and come to my own conclusions.

DublinWriter

It's a flawed question - how did we lose our faith in what exactly?

I never lost my faith in the essential goodness of mankind.

However, I did lose my faith in the Roman-Death-Cult myth I was brainwashed into believing as a child, both at home and at school, when I realised that I'd maxed out money-wise on Confirmation Day and serious questions would need to be asked in the future.

To be an atheist does not necessarily mean that you have no spiritual beliefs; I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist.

OK-Cancel-Apply

c0rk3r wrote: »

Do I ? I dont have the answers neither does anyone else. I look at whats infront of me and come to my own conclusions.

Ok, but I could look at a rock in my garden and come to the conclusion that a man must have made it in a lab, but it wouldn't necessarily be the correct conclusion.

An Fear Aniar

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's a flawed question - how did we lose our faith in what exactly?

I never lost my faith in the essential goodness of mankind.

However, I did lose my faith in the Roman-Death-Cult myth I was brainwashed into believing as a child, both at home and at school, when I realised that I'd maxed out money-wise on Confirmation Day and serious questions would need to be asked in the future.

To be an atheist does not necessarily mean that you have no spiritual beliefs; I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist.

Yes, I think of Irish Catholicism as spiritual poisoning.:)



.

c0rk3r

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

Ok, but I could look at a rock in my garden and come to the conclusion that a man must have made it in a lab.correct conclusion.

Thats a piss poor analogy that just doesnt compare to what im saying at all. Through the knowledge that we have i dont see how you could come to that conclusion. What im saying is that ive looked at the scientific thoeries and find it incredibly difficult to believe it was spontaneous. Again im not talking about biology or evolution

monkeyfudge

AngryHippie wrote: »

Praying related knee injury

Lost the power to kneel without asking myself why:D

Haha... just when you were about to go pro too.

LaVidaLoca

Spontaneous.

But you find it easy to beleive that a book written in 1st Century Judea by hundreds of different authors is the Word of God.

That a Virgin gave birth to the main character in this book.

That he turned water into wine among other things.

That he likes to tranform himself into a peice of bread every Sunday.

That he has a list of ten things he would like you not to do, and if you do any of them he will send you to Hell for all eternity. But he loves you.

Well if your powers of skeptical enquiry can let those zingers slip by it, I'd say it's capable of beleiving pretty much anything.

c0rk3r

Lol LaVidaLoca i suggest you delete that post and save yourself from embarrassment. Who said anything about the bible?

Dades

I can delete it for you, VidaLoca.
Of course then I'd have to delete c0rk3rs post... and mine... dammit

Would you consider yourself some form of deist maybe, c0rk3r?

905

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

Even at 7 or 8 I could plainly see it was nonsense. At 10 I remember testing this by spitting on a statue of the big C and telling him to go **** himself, to see if anything bad would happen to me as a result. Of course it didnt.

Ah, it's good to see rigourous scientific experimentation in one so young.

marco_polo

c0rk3r wrote: »

thats funny. Science is pushing me in the other direction. Things are too perfect to have formed by chance especially when you look at things on a sub atomic level. Maybe in a few years we'll catch god in a test tube. heh

What exactly is so "perfect" about Quantum Physics?

Doctor DooM

marco_polo wrote: »

What exactly is so "perfect" about Quantum Physics?

Indeed, science never assumes to know everything, it reassesesesesesesesess itself every time a theory is disproved, unlike religion which asks you to believe, with no wiggle room. A good example of this is papal fallicy- This was voted for by bishops who were fallible. So what if they made the wrong choice?

905

SDooM wrote: »

Indeed, science never assumes to know everything, it reassesesesesesesesess itself every time a theory is disproved, unlike religion which asks you to believe, with no wiggle room. A good example of this is papal fallicy- This was voted for by bishops who were fallible. So what if they made the wrong choice?

Unfortunately scientists, being only human, often assume themselves to know everything. Science's ability to disprove itself and thus endlessly remake itself is its best characteristic. People saying that it can do no wrong and is infallible itself are doing it a disservice.

Quantum mechanics sounds like complete make-believe, in no way connected to reality. I read somewhere that scientists came up with some completely mad notions in quantum mechanics that could well have been a joke. The experts couldn't dismiss them though, as they couldn't tell serious science and hoax apart!

Andy-Pandy

Im God and so is my wife.

c0rk3r

Dades wrote: »

Would you consider yourself some form of deist maybe, c0rk3r?

Cheers dades, wasnt aware there was a label or even movement for it. I guess if you were to categorize it that would be the pigeon hole id be churping from.

Doctor DooM

905 wrote: »

Unfortunately scientists, being only human, often assume themselves to know everything. Science's ability to disprove itself and thus endlessly remake itself is its best characteristic. People saying that it can do no wrong and is infallible itself are doing it a disservice.

Quantum mechanics sounds like complete make-believe, in no way connected to reality. I read somewhere that scientists came up with some completely mad notions in quantum mechanics that could well have been a joke. The experts couldn't dismiss them though, as they couldn't tell serious science and hoax apart!

Well I am not a physicist, so I will not comment on that either way, as I simply don't know.

I'm not going to argue that some silly- billys don't end up as scientists. That still doesn't make the absolutist religions any better.

Dades

c0rk3r wrote:

I guess if you were to categorize it that would be the pigeon hole id be churping from.

We're all put in a pigeon hole...

Better to choose your own than be told which one you're in, I say!

OK-Cancel-Apply

c0rk3r wrote: »

Thats a piss poor analogy that just doesnt compare to what im saying at all. Through the knowledge that we have i dont see how you could come to that conclusion. What im saying is that ive looked at the scientific thoeries and find it incredibly difficult to believe it was spontaneous. Again im not talking about biology or evolution

My rock in garden analogy was intended to illustrate a potential obstacle in finding the truth - coming to one's own conclusions, and basing those conclusions on nothing but how one feels.

But if you say that the scientific theories don't add up, maybe you can tell us in what way...? The aim of science is to best make sense of and understand the world around us. We don't have all the explanations yet (perhaps we never will), but we are always on the road to discovering new things. It would be unscientific to jump to conclusions and say that a divine creator started it all, because there's no evidence to support that. Also, that idea would also raise new questions (e.g. Where did the creator come from?).

I think it all comes down to the simple fact that it is hard for humans to use the words "I don't know" - we're too eager to jump ahead and say, "I don't know, so that MUST mean X". That's not to say you are jumping to a conclusion - you said that science is pushing towards the 'divine creator' side... I'm just wondering how science could lead somebody down that path.

OK-Cancel-Apply

905 wrote: »

Unfortunately scientists, being only human, often assume themselves to know everything. Science's ability to disprove itself and thus endlessly remake itself is its best characteristic. People saying that it can do no wrong and is infallible itself are doing it a disservice.

Even when scientists are wrong, science is still right!

c0rk3r

Jaysus this is getting annoying with people constantly misquoting and misintrepreting or even just not reading my post correctly. Or maybe just cant comprehend or accept what im saying. I dunno

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

and basing those conclusions on nothing but how one feels.

I never put it to down to feelings. If you read were you quoted me i said after that sentence "through the knowledge we have"

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

But if you say that the scientific theories don't add up.

I didnt say they dont add up. I said the complete opposite! My belief is an application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature.The designs presuppose a Designer. It not that hard a concept

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

you said that science is pushing towards the 'divine creator' side... I'm just wondering how science could lead somebody down that path.

Again no i didnt! I said science is pushing me in that direction

c0rk3r

c0rk3r wrote:

I didnt say they dont add up. I said the complete opposite! My belief is an application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature.The designs presuppose a Designer.

Only because you're presupposing they're designs and not wholly natural.

OK-Cancel-Apply

c0rk3r wrote: »

I never put it to down to feelings. If you read were you quoted me i said after that sentence "through the knowledge we have"

But I put forth my analogy based on what you originally said, and that was, "I dont have the answers neither does anyone else. I look at whats infront of me and come to my own conclusions."

That's different to saying, "I look at what's in front of me and I investigate it and study it."

I didnt say they dont add up. I said the complete opposite! My belief is an application of our reason on the designs/laws found throughout Nature.The designs presuppose a Designer. It not that hard a concept

In what sense to you mean the 'designs' found throughout nature? Is your 'diviner creator' theory based only on a trick of language?

I assume that because you think there was a designer, you also think that another designer designed him? Or did the designer of the universe (an undoubtedly complex being) just pop out of nowhere?

Again no i didnt! I said science is pushing me in that direction

Sorry, I mistyped. I meant to say 'you'.

Dr Galen

Brought along by the family to mass on a sunday etc as many others were too. When i reached adolescence i noticed i really wasn't listening in the slightest and checking out the girls instead. that was fun for a bit but i began to realise that i really had no faith in the church etc, and by the age of 16 or so had stopped going altogether. By 18 or so the rows over going to mass etc on Xmas/Easter had stopped and it was accepted that it wasn't my thing. Though the folks realy thought i'd come back to the fold.

Just over 10 years later, I have definitely not returned, in fact i've gone from being kinda/sorta agnostic while in my early 20's, to atheist.

In the

LaVidaLoca

that science too also contains elements of faith, and is sometimes wrong. This is presented so that it appears as if science and religion are on an equal playing field. This quite simply, isnt the case.

Science, as a system, has the possibility of it's own falseness built in to it. A scientist is always open to the possibility that he is wrong. That's why he has to spend years doing experiments to try and prove himself wrong.

Try this: Ask an atheist if his beleif that there is no God could be challenged. He will answer "I have seen no evidence that God does exist, but, if he came down from the heavens tomorrow, bought me a pint and told me about the Meaning of Life, I would change that view instantly."

Ask the same question of a theist: "Is there anything that could happen, that would convince you that God does not exist?". The answer of course would be a flat "No. I know he exists already."

These are not comparable in their honesty. Science NEVER asserts anything 100% - it always says "From the data available this is true. If new data arrives, then this assertion can be overturned.

It is colossally intellectually dishonest to suggest that these two ways of thinking are on a par with each other. The only reason we allow people to assert such nonsense without laughing in their face is because we have a long tradition of exempting religion from such criticism.

If somebody asserted to you that their dog could sing "The Star Spangled Banner" in Spanish, but only when there's noone around, you'd laugh your ass off, or call a psychologist. If somebody says there's an invisible man in the sky who cannot be perceived using the same critieria we use to perceive everything else, we givehim an award and call him "A man of deep and abiding faith."

JC 2K3

c0rk3r wrote: »

thats funny. Science is pushing me in the other direction. Things are too perfect to have formed by chance especially when you look at things on a sub atomic level. Maybe in a few years we'll catch god in a test tube. heh

Perfection, complexity, intricacy, chance etc. - all entirely human concepts that are non-applicable in this context of talking about the origin of humans, and these concepts, themselves.

estebancambias

Another Human concept is believing it impossible that there is something ''greater'' out there.

Only under our interpratation is this impossible.

I'm sure a wasp would find it quite hard to believe that people watch tv and crack jokes.


To the guy who spitted on the statue(I think) you sound like a scumbag.

estebancambias

DublinWriter wrote: »

It's a flawed question - how did we lose our faith in what exactly?

I never lost my faith in the essential goodness of mankind.

However, I did lose my faith in the Roman-Death-Cult myth I was brainwashed into believing as a child, both at home and at school, when I realised that I'd maxed out money-wise on Confirmation Day and serious questions would need to be asked in the future.

To be an atheist does not necessarily mean that you have no spiritual beliefs; I'm both a Buddhist and an atheist.

How did you lose your faith in the belief in a God, there was nothing subtle, or ''flawed'' about the question. The thread was posted in an Atheist forum. what having faith in the goodness of mankind is irrelevant, although it is good to hear.

LaVidaLoca

"To the guy who spitted on the statue(I think) you sound like a scumbag."

I was only ten years old and it was in a cave in Belgium, nobody saw me do it so there was nobody to be offended.

If wouldnt do it now, a nice statue is still a nice statue,whether you beleive in God or not. But to a non-beleiver it is nothing more than a statue.

PDN

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"To the guy who spitted on the statue(I think) you sound like a scumbag."

I was only ten years old and it was in a cave in Belgium, nobody saw me do it so there was nobody to be offended.

If wouldnt do it now, a nice statue is still a nice statue,whether you beleive in God or not. But to a non-beleiver it is nothing more than a statue.

You could have started a mini-revival with the faithful flocking to see the statue that was miraculously producing a white frothy substance.

estebancambias

LaVidaLoca wrote: »

"To the guy who spitted on the statue(I think) you sound like a scumbag."

I was only ten years old and it was in a cave in Belgium, nobody saw me do it so there was nobody to be offended.

If wouldnt do it now, a nice statue is still a nice statue,whether you beleive in God or not. But to a non-beleiver it is nothing more than a statue.

Honestly I don't give a **** about the statue. I didn't know your age, I assumed you would be older, in fact I hoped.