Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2016, 06:04 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(11-10-2016 09:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 07:53 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Imagine a world where the concept of God never existed, was never discussed, or even imagined. Yet, in reality, a God was out there that no one knew anything about. If that God made its presence known to you in the way that you described, you would not have concluded it was God, because no such concept would have been preconceived in your mind. You simply wouldn't have known what that experience was.

I want to second this because I think you hit the nail on the head. Thumbsup
Again, I didn't "conclude" it. It was presented. It wasn't a thought process. It was added to me not decided by me.

I did not contemplate it until afterwards.

And I've contemplated it a whole lot.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 06:18 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(13-10-2016 06:04 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 09:07 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I want to second this because I think you hit the nail on the head. Thumbsup
Again, I didn't "conclude" it. It was presented. It wasn't a thought process. It was added to me not decided by me.

I did not contemplate it until afterwards.

And I've contemplated it a whole lot.

We know that that people have false memories about events and that as time progresses those memories become more distorted. It is pretty certain that you contemplating it afterwards and "a whole lot" means that your testimony about what happened is not credible.

Face it pops, you have nothing that anybody with even minimal critical thinking skills would accept.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
13-10-2016, 06:20 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Unfogged,

Yes, everyone had heard stealing is wrong and can generally understand this to be true.

I had assuredly never heard anything similar to the words about children in scripture.

What don't you get about I had already accepted a flawed ideology of myself and had previously actually embraced the possibility or potential of psychosis? As damning as that sounds; my point is that no, I would have actually been predisposed to conclude that it was indeed a trick of the mind or some episode, though I had never experienced such, nor have.

Yes... Afterwards, I did question it often, to varied levels, and by my own thought processes found my initial understanding to be true.

What explains why I am not orthodox is that I wasn't indoctrinated at childhood and my faith is based on experience and expounded on through all core scriptures, as opposed to being indoctrinated at childhood by erroneous prideful man.


No sir; when I speak of the small sliver of hope I had. I'm referring to one time that I was setting in a graveyard contemplating death and my seeming lack of ability to change, within myself, what I knew to be wrong. I sincerely prayed to no specific God, but with the ones I had heard of. Lord, God, Christ, Jesus. This was a genuine plea based in the genuine want to change, even die, than to stay in my own knowing error because of twisted greed. That hope neither was a product of any outside source. It was of necessity. The word depravity comes to mind, now that I have studied and learned of the doctrines written by men.

It wasn't delusion friend.

It really wasn't.

Peace


Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 06:21 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(11-10-2016 09:18 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 09:13 AM)unfogged Wrote:  The point, O dense one, is that you had heard scripture. You'd heard "thous shalt not steal" and "Suffer the little ones to come unto me" and many, many other bits of scripture. It's ubiquitous in the culture and to say you had not heard it is just denying reality. Not that you aren't good at that.


I did not say you were looking to link things to a god. I said it's more likely that when you had an unexplained experience you latched onto the the idea of god because that's the easy out. I don't find it a bit surprising that somebody would prefer to believe it was a god than to admit that they had a mental lapse. I just don't think it is a reasonable explanation.


So you thought about it after and concluded by your own thought that it was god.


I think you seriously underestimate how much you absorb from the general culture. You may not have paid much attention to it but that isn't all that important. It may explain why your concept is not entirely aligned with the common view.


Hope? That there might be a god or an afterlife or something along those lines? Then you did know about the common claims and had thought about it "to some extent". It sounds to me like you are either completely dishonest about your thinking or are unable or unwilling to actually examine your thinking.


You combined half-remembered religious claims with your own delusion. Nothing to see here.

He also has selective memory, it's apparent he's remembering things that support his beliefs and has long forgotten those things that don't.

Count the hits but not the misses.....
What sorts of things are you suggesting I conveniently forget?



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 06:24 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(11-10-2016 09:20 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(11-10-2016 08:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I see what you are saying. And perhaps this is the case. But it would have happened instantly with no noticed thought process.

The thing is that my preconception of God other than that it didn't exist were non existent.
But surely you had some concept of God even if you didn't believe in one yourself. Your concept would have been what God is to others.

(11-10-2016 08:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I had no clue as to the nature of GOD as it pertains to man.

I did not know of mercy, or benevolence and surely had no clue that all was ordained or that God had been wholly aware of the happenings of my life prior to my very conception.

These things I hadn't heard of. Unlike many here, I did not study about what I didn't believe in and had very little contact with the religious. None really that spoke of the attributes of GOD.

If I had a mold for God to fit into then yes.
Again, the mold is whatever you knew about the concept of God even though you didn't believe. As for the things you did not know, I'm not convinced you knew those immediately either. It may seem like that now looking back, but maybe you knew less then than you now think and learned more along the way after you took an interest.

If it helps you any, I had personal experiences in my past where I was positive at the time they could not be possible without at least the supernatural being true at some level. There were 3 instances of seeing into the future (more or less). Each manifested when an event happened that I "remembered" having previously dreamed. This was not deja vu because it wasn't remembering it happening before, it was remembering having dreamed it; and I knew exactly when I had dreamed each one. On one of those occasions, I was even able to say what would happen next because I "remembered" that too from my dream. So how convincing is that? Being able to say what will happen before it happens? It was VERY convincing to me at the time. However, I am now certain that my brain was playing tricks on me. It was simply storing the event in memory and recalling it at the same time in a way that gave the illusion of "remembering" it from a dream. As for knowing what would happen next, the "next" was also a logical conclusion that could be deduced from the circumstances and, when I was willing to be more honest with myself later, I realized that is how I really had known. But when these happened, I was still a theist so the idea of seeing into the future being possible didn't seem ridiculous and having it "happen to me" was wonderful confirmation of my belief in supernatural things. So I had readily accepted the experiences as evidence. And I really didn't know I was being dishonest with myself.

In addition, my former beliefs came more from needs than from anything else. It sounds like you may have similar needs with the difficulties you have had in your life. Food for thought.
Your examples have happened to me multiple times.

Never not once did I attribute it to any divine entity.

Good post though.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 06:27 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(13-10-2016 06:18 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(13-10-2016 06:04 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Again, I didn't "conclude" it. It was presented. It wasn't a thought process. It was added to me not decided by me.

I did not contemplate it until afterwards.

And I've contemplated it a whole lot.

We know that that people have false memories about events and that as time progresses those memories become more distorted. It is pretty certain that you contemplating it afterwards and "a whole lot" means that your testimony about what happened is not credible.

Face it pops, you have nothing that anybody with even minimal critical thinking skills would accept.
Face it; you may very well deny any and every possibility in favor of solid physical explanations though our understanding of the physical and not is quite limited.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2016, 08:15 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(13-10-2016 06:20 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Yes, everyone had heard stealing is wrong and can generally understand this to be true.

I had assuredly never heard anything similar to the words about children in scripture.

As usual, you miss the point completely.

Quote:What don't you get about I had already accepted a flawed ideology of myself and had previously actually embraced the possibility or potential of psychosis? As damning as that sounds; my point is that no, I would have actually been predisposed to conclude that it was indeed a trick of the mind or some episode, though I had never experienced such, nor have.

Yes... Afterwards, I did question it often, to varied levels, and by my own thought processes found my initial understanding to be true.

You are probably the least qualified person to make those judgements about yourself. You need professional help.

Quote:What explains why I am not orthodox is that I wasn't indoctrinated at childhood and my faith is based on experience and expounded on through all core scriptures, as opposed to being indoctrinated at childhood by erroneous prideful man.

I don't care whether you are orthodox or not. Your crap about "core scripture" has already been debunked as it is just you cherry-picking the bits and pieces that you like.

Speaking of prideful, you may want a mirror. You're the one claiming to have been chosen for direct contact and to be special enough to figure all this out. Your while presence here is an exercise in arrogance.

Quote:No sir; when I speak of the small sliver of hope I had. I'm referring to one time that I was setting in a graveyard contemplating death and my seeming lack of ability to change, within myself, what I knew to be wrong. I sincerely prayed to no specific God, but with the ones I had heard of. Lord, God, Christ, Jesus. This was a genuine plea based in the genuine want to change, even die, than to stay in my own knowing error because of twisted greed. That hope neither was a product of any outside source. It was of necessity. The word depravity comes to mind, now that I have studied and learned of the doctrines written by men.

It wasn't delusion friend.

It really wasn't.

You simply reek of delusion. You can't stay on subject and your claims are meaningless, rambling nonsense. You need help.

(13-10-2016 06:27 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Face it; you may very well deny any and every possibility in favor of solid physical explanations though our understanding of the physical and not is quite limited.

I do not deny that our understanding of reality is limited. I just don't invent wild fantasies to explain things that I do not understand. I deal in reality, not mysticism. If you have evidence for your claims then present it. If not then you are apparently just another self-deluded fool preaching where it isn't wanted.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
13-10-2016, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2016 10:34 AM by Impulse.)
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(13-10-2016 06:24 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Your examples have happened to me multiple times.

Never not once did I attribute it to any divine entity.
Again, that was an example to illustrate a point, which it seems you missed.

In your case, you did attribute radio issues or at least perceived radio issues to a divine entity...

And, while you may not have already believed in God, you were having some serious difficulties in life which left you needing some support (whether or not you realized it) and would have made a "sign from God" more easily accepted and believed - if it if it wasn't really that at all.

Edit:
That last part should say "even if it wasn't really that at all".

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
13-10-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
(13-10-2016 08:15 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Speaking of prideful, you may want a mirror. You're the one claiming to have been chosen for direct contact and to be special enough to figure all this out. Your while presence here is an exercise in arrogance.
This is a very good point. Here we are on planet Earth which, compared with the vast universe, proportionally isn't even a speck of dust. Then on this microscopic planet, out of billions of people who are yet far smaller than Earth, this "god" picks out one special one for communication, part of which includes manipulating the radio signal as if "god" need to turn it down to be "heard" or "god" wanted to send some sort of proof that couldn't be accomplished another far more unambiguous way. Facepalm

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
13-10-2016, 10:49 AM
RE: Arguments against religion, not to defend atheism?
Here's a funny story: Hoaxes will always haunt paranormal history

One of the most famous stories in rock history involves Alice Cooper, Frank Zappa, and a chicken. At the Toronto Rock and Roll Revival concert in 1969, a chicken mysteriously appeared on stage during Cooper’s set. Cooper’s story is that he grabbed the bird, threw it toward the crowd thinking it could fly, but then watched in horror as it plummeted into the crowd and was ripped to pieces. The media reported he killed the chicken on stage by biting off its head, and then drinking its blood, before throwing it to the crowd. The headlines led to Alice Cooper getting a call from Frank Zappa, who after hearing Cooper’s side of the story said, “Well, whatever you do, don’t tell anyone you didn’t do it.”

So there were a lot of people at this event and the media didn't even report it correctly, but a lot of people think Alice Cooper bit a chicken's head off.

See how easy it is to not remember things, even when you are sure that it happened?

A misstated occurrence can become an urban legend, even when thousands of people are there to witness it.

What about someone alone, that wants to believe in something? How many details will they get wrong when recounting a tale years later?
How does the account change gradually over time as a person forgets some minor but crucial detail and this process repeats itself to where a given incident bears no resemblance to what actually happened?

This is the normal way we remember things, very faulty and riddled with errors, altered to favor the person recounting the events, inaccurate in almost every detail.

This is the normal process of human recollection.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: