An Atheist who Found God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2017, 11:38 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2017 11:42 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 11:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(04-01-2017 11:16 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  But only for the first 4 hours.

But what a test of stamina it would be!

Can we do it without food and drink like Jesus in the wilderness or Mo in his cave?

But I've got to have a some way of making notes... no point if there ain't gonna be some revelations coming out of it.

I wanna trade Qunt and WailOfTheChild for PoopyHeadBoulder and Metatron. Metatron could also take care of the note taking being his job and shit. I'll keep the little Borgy though to bait them.

EDIT: Never mind, I just saw TrainWreck post. I want him instead of PorgyAndBess.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
04-01-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 10:07 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(04-01-2017 09:01 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Nope, wouldn't be rational. My personal experience would not match independent observations of the picture. My personal experience would not match experiments done with the picture to confirm what ONLY I was seeing.

Therefore I would conclude that something was altering my perception of reality.

If you see a unicorn and you're unaware that you've been drugged, it's perfectly rational to conclude that there was a real unicorn there.

This is precisely why evidence of an event is needed before you believe the claim. If my sole basis for belief is based on my personal experience without any evidence to backup what I have observed, then it's NOT rational to believe what I have seen.

If I can't justify my observation with evidence then my observation of reality isnt consistent with reality, therefore something in my brain isn't functioning in such a way as to allow me to observe reality as close to 100% as is humanly possible.

If I see leprechauns dancing around in the backyard or hear bells that can't be recorded by any device nor heard by anyone else, then it's time for me to see a doctor. Something in my brain isn't functioning the way it should.

My experiences are irrational if I can't justify them with evidence.

If for whatever reason, I might enjoy seeing leprechauns play in the backyard and I understand that it's not real and accept it as a quirk of my brain, then so be it.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
I think it's worth pointing out the difference between "irrational" and "not rational".

Irrational means it is against reason. It is unreasonable. Meaning in the case of the leprechauns and the security camera, it would not make sense to believe what you saw was real despite the invisibility to the cameras of what you think you saw.

Not rational means the belief does not necessarily conflict with direct evidence, but that it is a belief held because of a hope, or a feeling, that simply lacks a rational reason (direct evidence) to hold that belief... or that the reasons the person holds the belief are not based on direct evidence but a feeling of "the sum of the evidence", when another might come to a different conclusion about those sparse bits of evidence.

The difference between the two terms is the same as the difference between atheist (lacking a belief in gods) versus anti-theist.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2017, 11:53 AM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2017 11:57 AM by Vosur.)
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 11:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  You're welcome to your opinion. I can respect a person that I disagree with.
The crux of the issue is not whether or not you respect him, but why. I respect KC as well, but I do so in spite of his whacky beliefs, not because of them. I find it hard to believe that you differ from me in that regard. Aliza put it nicely in her post when she expressed the sentiment that the reason why KC is respected around here is that he's a good guy and an upstanding citizen rather than that his theology is admirable in some way. Maybe your wording was just ambiguous, but to me it sounded like you were saying that the merits of his theology are the primary reason why we respect him, a notion that is completely at odds with my experience on this forum.

(04-01-2017 11:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I offer you the following thought experiment:

You are about to be condemned to 24 hours in a locked room with three other people. As you are marched to the end of the hall where this is to transpire you notice two doors. On one the names "KingsChosen", "Aliza", and "Shai-Hulud" are listed. The other features "Q", "TheBorg", and "CalloftheWild".

Choose wisely.
I choose Aliza. Wink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
04-01-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 11:47 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I think it's worth pointing out the difference between "irrational" and "not rational".

Irrational means it is against reason. It is unreasonable. Meaning in the case of the leprechauns and the security camera, it would not make sense to believe what you saw was real despite the invisibility to the cameras of what you think you saw.

Not rational means the belief does not necessarily conflict with direct evidence, but that it is a belief held because of a hope, or a feeling, that simply lacks a rational reason (direct evidence) to hold that belief... or that the reasons the person holds the belief are not based on direct evidence but a feeling of "the sum of the evidence", when another might come to a different conclusion about those sparse bits of evidence.

The difference between the two terms is the same as the difference between atheist (lacking a belief in gods) versus anti-theist.

Not sure I buy the last bit but the first bits read almost right. ... almost.

[Image: clown_zpsvclk8jsc.jpg]

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2017, 12:14 PM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 08:27 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 09:19 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Peter, you see to be having some difficulty with this whole faith/truth/reason/logic business.

I am having no difficulty with what does not exist. I believe in absolute truths. Now what difficulty in logic do you suppose?

Your difficulty isn't in your logic, it's in your expectation that personal truths should conform to it. Do you love your mother and can you give me a purely logical explanation why?

Quote:
Quote: A few thoughts:

(1) On this forum you will encounter a few theists. We like them because they are cool people with interesting minds who don't preach at us. We have our differences to be sure, but we have much more in common. It's strangely like real life that way.

I think that the beliefs of theists and atheists alike should be able to explain and defend them in a reasonable way.

I agree. I aslo think that individuals should not need to defend their beliefs, or lack thereof, unless they are making a nuiscance of themselves. You likely know what a pain it is when some theist demands that you justify your atheism. Why should the reverse be any less annoying?

Quote:
Quote:(2) As I'm sure you know, nobody likes being preached at. That's sort of how you're coming across. That may be unintentional but you should try and check that at the door regardless.

Ok. Explain what you mean. [Without being preachy if you will. And thanks in advance.]

In the post that you replied to, KC was telling the OP that he found her "divine experience" uncompelling and should be treated with skepticism. He mentioned his religion because that statement will carry more authority coming from another christian than it would coming from an atheist. He was not preaching, really rather the opposite, and was not directing the comment at you.

You subsequently asked KC to justify his beliefs. Now imagine how the reverse situation would look. If KC had asked you to justify your atheism we would rightly think he was being a preachy jerk.

When Chas disagreed with you, you asked him if he was a theist. You don't get how funny that is, which is a clear indication that you haven't lurked enough.

In the process you've managed to completely derail this thread, for which we owe you some gratitude. The OP was complete rubbish. Tongue

Quote:
Quote:(3) The truth of anything as complex as a worldview is rarely as simple as a matter of reason and logic. At least if you have a worldview more elaborate than "Yay! Cookies!" Take this "simple" example:

Would you describe this person as "beautiful"?

[Image: BN-LN957_STARWA_12S_20151203125155.jpg]

Some would say yes. Others would say no. Some particularly foolish types might go with a 1-10 ranking scale, as if you could meaningfully render a person down to a single digit. We could conduct a thorough examination of her entire life, peeling away the Hollywood veneer from the actual person and digging into who and what she "really" was. At the end of the day it's all pointless though because the "truth" that you arrive at is going to be based on a whole host of your own personal predispositions, opinions and prejudices that have little or nothing to do with reason.

That doesn't make it any less true to you, it just means that your truth is personal and shouldn't be imposed on others. Can you provide an "absolute truth" for why this person is or is not beautiful that is clearly separated from your pubescent predelictions for bikini-clad slave girls? If you can't even master this "simple" truth about one individual then why would you expect the same from theists about a personal philosophy and theology that is complex and mature enough to earn the grudging respect of a forum full of atheists?
In nature beauty as we perceive it is governed by two things, as I understand it. Our own genetics and the natural number called the "golden ratio." So there are some absolutes involved.

Symmetry is also important. Yes, there are absolutes at work here. Another absolute truth would be that absolutes are not the only factors in play. Your answer is going to be influenced by a host of outright unreasonable emotional factors, many of which will never even register with your conscious mind. That doesn't make it wrong, it just means that it's a personal truth.

Absolute truths are fine for math and symbolic logic. Much beyond that they start hitting some severe limitations.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
04-01-2017, 12:17 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2017 12:20 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 12:14 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Absolute truths are fine for math and symbolic logic. Much beyond that they start hitting some severe limitations.

Not appreciating that is the source of much confusion. We made "truth" up. It's a theory of correspondence, that's all. There are many different ones.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like GirlyMan's post
04-01-2017, 12:19 PM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 11:10 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(04-01-2017 11:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  ...
You're welcome to your opinion. I can respect a person that I disagree with. I offer you the following thought experiment:

You are about to be condemned to 24 hours in a locked room with three other people. As you are marched to the end of the hall where this is to transpire you notice two doors. On one the names "KingsChosen", "Aliza", and "Shai-Hulud" are listed. The other features "Q", "TheBorg", and "CalloftheWild".

Choose wisely.

I don't see what that has to do with Vos's remark but given that choice ... gimme the latter. Yes, please.

It'd be gold!

Laugh out load

I know. Curiosity killed the cat, but I'd be sorely tempted to meet the real life incarnations of some of this forum's droolier denizens.

Mind you, five minutes in I'd be trying to chew my way through a cinderblock wall.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
04-01-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 08:41 AM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  
(03-01-2017 04:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  Faith is not required - one can inspect the actual evidence.
Oh. Are you saying evidence does not need to be believed[to have faith in]?

How could you possibly interpret it that way? Consider Try again. Drinking Beverage

Quote:[I have only personally known the evidence of the 4 moons of Jupiter. Having seen them.]

There is photographic evidence of many more than 4 moons. And of rings, too.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
04-01-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: An Atheist who Found God
(04-01-2017 11:38 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-01-2017 11:20 AM)DLJ Wrote:  But what a test of stamina it would be!

Can we do it without food and drink like Jesus in the wilderness or Mo in his cave?

But I've got to have a some way of making notes... no point if there ain't gonna be some revelations coming out of it.

I wanna trade Qunt and WailOfTheChild for PoopyHeadBoulder and Metatron. Metatron could also take care of the note taking being his job and shit. I'll keep the little Borgy though to bait them.

EDIT: Never mind, I just saw TrainWreck post. I want him instead of PorgyAndBess.

Girlie's Dream Team for all your worst nightmares.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: