Has anyone here gone down this path?
theist --> atheist or agnostic --> theist --> atheist or agnostic
It's been a lifelong struggle for me, bouncing between the two. There were times I was absolutely convinced there is no God, times I did not know or care, and times I was absolutely convinced God was working in my life. Currently, I am probably in the area of not knowing for sure, but I am too ashamed/scared/confused to admit it to anyone. But the question is weighing heavily on my mind.
Anyone else have a similar experience?
Not me, but welcome to the forum anyway.
Questioning should be done thoroughly, but as for most people it is not always done this way; leading to lapses in logic.
Normal people don't go through all the arguments people make and can be convinced to theism again.
It can take a while if you just consider one or two arguments at a time to conclude one's atheism.
Take your time, it's OK if you make mistakes we all rush.
I would suggest that fear is the only thing that really stops you. It stops most people. Fear is very difficult to overcome. But the fear is misplaced when one realizes that there is nothing to fear from something that does not exist.
Religion is about four things: fear, guilt, condemnation and judgment. This is not the same as spirituality, the beief or awareness in something greater than yourself.
And welcome.
Welcome aboard. For me, my faith was shattered long ago. It just took a while for me to realize it. But once I did there was no turning back. Also, we all start out as atheists, then get brainwashed. Some of us swallow the red pill and some of us don't.
During the night everyone thought it was supposed to be the "Mayan Appocolypse", there was a HEAVY thunderstorm. While I was jerking off to some pretty good porn during the storm, the power went out in the entire area of my town. Aside from me being annoyed that I lost my wood, I looked around the inside of the house and didn't notice anyone waking up from the battery backups' alarms beeping away... I didn't see any lights in surrounding houses either and for a split second I thought... "holy shit... I wonder if they were raptured". But it was only for a split second and then I realized how the Mayan apocalypse has nothing to do with christian mythology. I think the worst part of that night is my jerking off got interrupted... Still kind of annoyed by that.
But yeah. Other than that, I have not had a similar experience. I know a few people either from online and on the forum as well as in person that shifted from not believing back to theist... the person that I know in real life that went back to Catholicism and now is a raging cunt explained her "atheism phase" in the way of "even when I didn't believe in god, I felt like there was something more out there to believe in" Which doesn't really make you an atheist, I forget the exact terminology, but I think that is a deist.
Me and her are no longer friends because she told me that no matter how good of a person I am, I am going to hell if I don't accept Jee-zussss as my savior. I don't feel like being friends with someone that believes I should burn in torment for all eternity.
Anyway... that was a bit of a tangent. Back on topic. Do some "soul-searching". Does any of that spiritual stuff have any validity? Even if it is attractive to believe, does that mean it is reality?
Have a quick browse of the forum and take part in some conversations. Ask questions. We will be glad to offer any help or answers we can.
Thanks for the replies!
As I've spent my life in science, and read all the big atheist books (Hitchens, Dawkins, etc, etc), I really don't want to go down that path again. For one, I don't want to put the little free time I have into going back over those things (and partly because I made a promise that I will not go back to re-read anything unless I really, really need to). So I was wondering if there are some simple videos or articles you guys can suggest. Or maybe some of you are willing to share the one, absolute, major reason that made you decide once and for all?
And for the agnostics out there, feel free to share your thoughts as well.
I really do appreciate everyone answering... it is incredibly relieving. :)
Quote from: andreaslagom on January 26, 2015, 03:43:34 PM
Or maybe some of you are willing to share the one, absolute, major reason that made you decide once and for all?
There's no compelling reason to believe in any of the gods. It's the lack of a reason to believe.
That in itself is pretty major.
Quote from: andreaslagom on January 26, 2015, 03:43:34 PMAnd for the agnostics out there, feel free to share your thoughts as well.
Agnostic and gnostic refers to beliefs about knowledge of gods. Theism and atheism refer to the belief in gods.
Quote from: andreaslagom on January 26, 2015, 03:43:34 PM
Thanks for the replies!
As I've spent my life in science, and read all the big atheist books (Hitchens, Dawkins, etc, etc), I really don't want to go down that path again. For one, I don't want to put the little free time I have into going back over those things (and partly because I made a promise that I will not go back to re-read anything unless I really, really need to). So I was wondering if there are some simple videos or articles you guys can suggest. Or maybe some of you are willing to share the one, absolute, major reason that made you decide once and for all?
And for the agnostics out there, feel free to share your thoughts as well.
I really do appreciate everyone answering... it is incredibly relieving. :)
Well, I usually define myself as an ignostic (as well as agnostic and atheist) because no one ever really defines god that well.
The reason I do not think there is a creator god is because that is incompatible with the world we live in (I can post the argument if you want). The reason I do not believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the universe is because that is also incompatible with the universe we live in.
Most definitions of god are internally incoherent. Those definitions that manage to be internally coherent usually end up being externally incoherent.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 04:15:17 PM
Well, I usually define myself as an ignostic (as well as agnostic and atheist) because no one ever really defines god that well.
The reason I do not think there is a creator god is because that is incompatible with the world we live in (I can post the argument if you want). The reason I do not believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the universe is because that is also incompatible with the universe we live in.
Most definitions of god are internally incoherent. Those definitions that manage to be internally coherent usually end up being externally incoherent.
Please do!
I've never been on that path, always preferred to be on the Grass....... :weed:
An Welcome to the forum.
Quote from: andreaslagom on January 26, 2015, 04:53:00 PM
Please do!
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist
P3) Tensed facts do not exist
C1) The universe does not have a cause
C2) God could not have created the universe.
P1 is true by definition.
P2 is pretty much uncontraversial among time theorists and is true based off the concept of causality.
C1 follows from P2 and P3.
C2 follows from P1 and C1.
This means that only P3 needs support.
There are currently 3 interpretations of relativity, only the Lorentz ether theory (least popular interpretation) supports the A-Theory of time (where tensed facts exist), the other 2 support the B-Theory of Time (where tensed facts do not exist).
There are also 2 current interpretations of delayed-wait in quantum mechanics, one which supports retrocausality (the least popular one) which would support the B-Theory of Time, the other has no bearing on either theory of time.
Recent experiments in Quantum Mechanics has shown that time is emergent from quantum entanglement, which (ulitmately) supports the B-Theory of Time.
From this, we can conclude that P3 is probable (has a chance of being true greater than 50%), leaving the conclusions as being probably true.
Oh no, here we go again.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 04:15:17 PM
The reason I do not believe in an immaterial god that interacts with the universe is because that is also incompatible with the universe we live in.
btw, I can also give you an argument for this one as well.
Quote from: Desdinova on January 26, 2015, 05:03:44 PM
Oh no, here we go again.
Okay, what is wrong with that argument? Is it perfectly sound? No, one of the premises is not definitively true. Is it a good argument? Yes, the only premise which needs support is likely true.
SN, I like you, I really do. But haven't we been over all this already?
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:06:21 PM
Okay, what is wrong with that argument? Is it perfectly sound? No, one of the premises is not definitively true. Is it a good argument? Yes, the only premise which needs support is likely true.
Your first premise is a tautology, and your second premise is nonsense.
Quote from: Desdinova on January 26, 2015, 05:07:56 PM
SN, I like you, I really do. But haven't we been over all this already?
We have only ever talked about our disagreement on Modal Logic, this one uses deductive logic.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2015, 05:08:49 PM
Your first premise is a tautology, and your second premise is nonsense.
Explain how. Besides, are we even talking about the argument I provided here or the devil's advocate one? I no longer accept the devil's advocate one (as I have recently learned a major fault in the premises).
What's a god?
My mistake. I guess I jumped the gun by not reading your post carefully.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:02:53 PM
P1) If God created the universe, the universe has a cause
And if I tied a knot in a piece of string then the string would have a knot in it.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:02:53 PM
P2) The universe can only have a cause if tensed facts exist
Is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that tensed facts are the only reason the universe can have a cause.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:02:53 PM
P3) Tensed facts do not exist
As if that had any effect on anything.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2015, 05:23:57 PM
And if I tied a knot in a piece of string then the string would have a knot in it.
Okay, I could drop the point, but how many theists do you think will try and weasel their way out of causality by claiming that creation does not necessarily mean a cause? I have seen it before, which is why I state this as P1.
QuoteIs a non-sequitur. It does not follow that tensed facts are the only reason the universe can have a cause.
Pretty much every expert on time theory disagrees with you, and the concept of causality requires times progression to be actual, which it is not if there are no real tensed facts.
QuoteAs if that had any effect on anything.
Makes the argument valid.
Welcome aboard andreaslagom! It's later than you think! Live it up, it's the only chance you get.
Again, no kind of logic can prove what the facts are! I have not believed in God since I was 6 years old, and have not found any evidence to believe there is one, and all kinds of evidence to not believe in one since then. How in the hell could anyone know about god that doesn't present himself accept to lunatics and crackpots? :wall: It's just another fairy tail to make people feel good about the human condition: get old and die. :wall: :madu: Solitary
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:30:34 PM
Okay, I could drop the point, but how many theists do you think will try and weasel their way out of causality by claiming that creation does not necessarily mean a cause? I have seen it before, which is why I state this as P1.
You could have a conga line of theists weaseling. It wont make your premise any more valid.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:30:34 PM
Pretty much every expert on time theory disagrees with you, and the concept of causality requires times progression to be actual, which it is not if there are no real tensed facts.
I was unaware that time had become a solved problem in physics. Could you link to the research paper?
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:30:34 PM
Makes the argument valid.
Only if it were true.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2015, 05:58:08 PM
I was unaware that time had become a solved problem in physics. Could you link to the research paper?
You do realize that time theory falls under the realm of PHILOSOPHY, right?
QuoteOnly if it were true.
WRONG! A valid argument is one where the conclusion is reached from the premises, a sound argument is one where the premises are all true (therefore the conclusion is true). Something can be sound and wrong. This shows that you do not know how arguments or philosophy works.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 06:28:30 PM
You do realize that time theory falls under the realm of PHILOSOPHY, right?
Exclusively?
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 06:28:30 PM
WRONG! A valid argument is one where the conclusion is reached from the premises, a sound argument is one where the premises are all true (therefore the conclusion is true). Something can be sound and wrong.
Ok, I'll agree to that. But your argument is neither sound nor valid. It still doesn't stop P1 from being a tautology, and P2 for presenting a false dichotomy.
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 06:28:30 PM
This shows that you do not know how arguments or philosophy works.
Rather than insisting that you're right, why not demonstrate your understanding and show us why your argument is both sound and valid?
Quote from: Jason78 on January 26, 2015, 06:52:30 PM
Exclusively?
Almost. We only recently have been able to scientifically test "time" in a very simple way, which is an experiment that actually supports the B-Theory of Time (https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/quantum-experiment-shows-how-time-emerges-from-entanglement-d5d3dc850933). Other scientific points that deal with time do not do it directly.
QuoteOk, I'll agree to that. But your argument is neither sound nor valid. It still doesn't stop P1 from being a tautology, and P2 for presenting a false dichotomy.
Let's say that P1 is a tautology. How does that make the argument invalid?
Also, how is P2 a false dichotomy? Causality requires tensed facts. If there are tensed facts, then causality can occur. If tensed facts do not exist, causality cannot happen. This is because cause and effect (as we currently understand it) REQUIRES a before and after. If there is no before or after (which are examples of tensed facts), causality cannot occur.
QuoteRather than insisting that you're right, why not demonstrate your understanding and show us why your argument is both sound and valid?
Never said it was sound. It is closer to being sound then unsound. The reason it isn't perfectly sound is because P3 is only supported through inductive reasoning, and thus is subject to being falsified in the future.
I will give you ONE point. Simultaneous causality could be conceivable under a tenseless universe, but there is no reason to think such causality is possible. It also runs into the problem that things never actually begin or end if tensed facts do not exist, so it still cannot exactly explain the "start" of the universe
A tensed fact is a tenseless fact lacking its proper context. Ergo, tensed facts do not exist, per se.
The only time we know of is the time of the universe. This time cannot exist without the universe itself existing. Ergo, the universe cannot be caused into existence with respect to the only time that is known about. The only time it may be said to have such a cause is some exo-time that is completely unevidenced.
Tensed facts? Uh, yeah. :think: Whatever.
Bottom line is this. Either there is a god (choose one of thousands) or not. God is supernatural and therefore beyond human comprehension. Anything that is describable or quantifiable is in the natural world, and hence not a god or godly. No evidence either directly observable or implied proves the existence of a god. All the so-called actions or attributes of god do not work; prayer, miracles, faith healing or whatever. consider the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/UYCsGTT.jpg)
Essentially the same can be said about any other aspect of god. Absence of any applicable evidence by default can be considered as lack of a god. If you believe you believe by faith in a contradictory being that lives outside of time yet operates within the natural world, supposedly interacts with humans without leaving any real clues, and in truth can only be believed by faith alone, and no other method.
Why is it assumed that space-time, particles and energy are not eternal with no beginning or end? Even space itself has particles, as well as energy. Perpetual machines are impossible, and yet that is exactly what an atom is. The whole universe is an emerging property of energy and space-time. Time is an illusion, but a very persistent one. Any motion that repeats itself is a clock, so movement is the measure of time, and time is a measurement of motion. If nothing moved there would be no time, like at the Big Bang. But wait, that was all about motion in a nut shell. It still didn't come from nothing, anymore than a balloon being blown up. Philosophy asks questions it can't answer because there are no answers, because philosophy is imaginary like God. It's based on black and white thinking because that is how our minds work in the world we live in. Good and bad, up and down, male and female, load and quiet, left and right, dumb and smart, ugly and beautiful, hard and soft, because that is how we experience the world with our senses. And final, alive and dead. :eek: :shifty: :fU: :angel: :cool: Solitary
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 07:40:15 PM
Also, how is P2 a false dichotomy? Causality requires tensed facts.
Kinda makes you wonder how time proceeded before we invented grammar!
It's ordinary for me to have doubts about my convictions, but as so far as thinking that the Christian god (of my upbringing) is real? No.
I have often the thought of "there must be more than this", of course, but I always fall back to the default: If there's no corroborative evidence for it, I won't believe it. I.e. someone other than me has the same evidence that I have, I won't give it a second thought.
Now, is there a god? I don't know, and as along as I remain unconvinced from the available evidence, I will remain an atheist.
Quote from: Jason78 on January 27, 2015, 01:16:53 PM
Kinda makes you wonder how time proceeded before we invented grammar!
Just like gravity didn't exist until there was a word for it!
Quote from: SNP1 on January 27, 2015, 03:04:28 PM
Just like gravity didn't exist until there was a word for it!
HEY! Gravity is just a theory you know!!
Same for me. Right now Im Atheist. Long back Muslim and other day agnostic. Lol
Many great replies, thanks again.
One thing that has always been at the root of my "problem" is the origin of the universe. To me personally, solving this equation is the truest and most final answer. Since we as humans are programmed to comprehend beginnings and ends, we cannot wrap our brains around this concept. Even science is somewhat murky on it.
Every time I begin thinking about who or what started the universe, I immediately start thinking -- "what began the thing that began the universe?" -- and I get throw into this endless loop of mindfuckery. It really is a vicious circle, isn't it? Butterflies attack my stomach as if I'm ready to plunge downwards on an endless rollercoaster and my mind is blown to the degree that I may as well be an infant again. I can't carry on examining this question. I almost feel ill. Why do I react this way? No clue. Sometimes I get fed up and just say "fuck it, there MUST BE some sort of intelligent designer!"; I insist that it's the only way to reconcile the issue. As I type this now I am in the headspace that makes me wonder if there is some omnipotent (a loaded word and concept, I know) power, not necessarily God or some other intelligent designer, but a force that we just can't comprehend because it's not knowable to us. But that's physics, isn't it (I can hear me Christian friends yelling: "No! It's God!")? I'm sure sometime next week I'll be back to thinking that everything is absolutely fucking random, not real and NOTHING. :surprised:
Anyway, you can see that I'm clearly fucking confused. That's really the main problem I have, and sadly it's something I don't think we humans will ever be able to comprehend. The point is that this question doesn't resolve anything for me; instead it fuels both sides of the argument. I remember my Christian friends swearing that this is definitive proof that there is a God while my staunch atheist friends claimed the exact opposite. My Christian friends say that God has no beginning or end, He just is, and we cannot comprehend this because we are merely human. I must admit that as far as a cozy and neat explanation, I've always liked this. It sounds and feels a lot better than the scientific explanations. They always made me feel cold and depressed. But whatever the truth is, it doesn't matter how it makes me feel. It matters if it's true. But what is really true?
What started it all? What was the beginning? What came before the beginning? Before that? It's incomprehensible and a mindfuck of the highest order! :eyes: :rotflmao:
But I suppose that's why I am neither a believer nor a non-believer. I'm in the middle, at times leaning to one side over the other...
Quote from: SNP1 on January 26, 2015, 05:30:34 PM
Okay, I could drop the point, but how many theists do you think will try and weasel their way out of causality by claiming that creation does not necessarily mean a cause?
Zero.
Literally. I have never seen theists try to argue against causality like that. They just special plead that their god does not require a cause as a solution to the infinite regress of causes. You have seen this? I am surprised.
Frankly, your argument would be more compelling if you were talking about argle bargle bum fluff instead of "tensed facts." The average person will get confused and lose interest before you even explain your terms. Those with nothing better to do but continue to listen to you will think you're stupid.
There are no tense facts? Who is this idiot. Of course there are tense facts Before I stared listening to this guy, I was bored. Now after listening to him, I am filled with regret. And this shithead is telling me there is no before and after. What nonsense! I hope his parents spent all their money on his education because they deserve to be poor.
Quote from: stromboli on January 26, 2015, 03:14:47 PM
Religion is about four things: fear, guilt, condemnation and judgment.
And playing the victim when people start making fun of you for it.
My journey was fairly standard. Christian (but "lukewarm" like most teenagers) to agnostic to atheist.
For, it started off as indignation that these guys would say "this is absolutely how the afterlife is going to be" and you are going to be punished forever if you don't think like me.
Over time, it went from indignation to apathy. I don't know if it's the same for everyone, but it's the same for me. Nearly a decade has gone by for me since losing my religion and you really don't care where someone thinks you are going when you die or whether you deserve it for not having their religion.