Challenge : Can you turn me into an atheist?

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

But when you consider things like hypnosis, when a person is fully awake but under a "spell", which affects what they perceive, how they perceive it, what they omit from their perceptions, and their expectations...

Phenomena like hypnosis can be fully explained under naturalistic prespectives (or however you would like to put it).

...and when you consider something which I've heard about quantum physics, and I realise that I'm out of my depths so please correct me if I don't say this right, but I've read briefly something about the observer's expectations affecting what they see, how things behave...

And quatum uncertainty doesn't really enter into it, what happens in your mind is more deterministic than what we would like to admit. (I believe you have seen the pseudo-science "what the bleep do we know?").

I would like to spank you as well (in a metaphorical sense) for the bad usage of math, but that is another story.

You are arguing for the supernatural with emotional arguments, you can't do that when trying to determine what it is really out there in the real world, becuase what you think it is is not what things really are. The way you should do it is to detatch yourself as much as possible from what you are trying to analyse, and see what is it that things are really doing without your influence and the influence of your wishfull thinking, and once you do you will start to realise that things aren't special, they just are. The first thing that you should arm yourself is with the notion that if there is away that some sort of event could have happened naturaly then it can not be supernatural, becuase if naturaly it was supoused to do something then the supernatural didn't played a part in it because that just the way things happen to be. Of course you will start to realise that there isn't such a thing as a supernatural, because if it exist then it is a constant of the world, because things are what they are and therefor natural. But that in due time.
I do recognise your concept of God, many deconverted christians, myself included, have gone trough that fase and you can bet on what I say, one day you will look back to yourself and say, I used to believed that but now that is all nonsense.

 

[Open]

I can, read my logic
*This is something I tought of in the bus, so bear with me but it's still pretty good*
Religion Facts
-God is almighty and flawless
-God created humans like himself (as his image) -> Therefore everybody is like God
-Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature (Romans 1:26-27).

Humanity Facts
-Gay people exist :shock:

My conclusion
If God made homosexuals, seeing them as an abomination, 1 - he is flawed :roll: 2 - God is homosexual (Gays are as his image) 3 - Following his own ''logic'', god is an Abomination :facepalm: (facepalm 'cuz there is no facedesk smilies) and 4 - Homosexuals go against what God commands, making them more powerful than him because, you know... God made them. :twisted:
My point 4 is kinda weird but I hope you get the point, it's like if you shape a car with clay (yay for bible reference) and next thing you know, it's a horse, serves the same purpose but not quite the same don't you think? :ugeek:

English isn't my first language so sorry for any mistakes, if I did any.
-Open

 

[Ad Initium]

I can, read my logic
*This is something I tought of in the bus, so bear with me but it's still pretty good*
Religion Facts
-God is almighty and flawless
-God created humans like himself (as his image) -> Therefore everybody is like God
-Heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts which are against their essential nature (Romans 1:26-27).

Humanity Facts
-Gay people exist :shock:

My conclusion
If God made homosexuals, seeing them as an abomination, 1 - he is flawed :roll: 2 - God is homosexual (Gays are as his image) 3 - Following his own ''logic'', god is an Abomination :facepalm: (facepalm 'cuz there is no facedesk smilies) and 4 - Homosexuals go against what God commands, making them more powerful than him because, you know... God made them. :twisted:
My point 4 is kinda weird but I hope you get the point, it's like if you shape a car with clay (yay for bible reference) and next thing you know, it's a horse, serves the same purpose but not quite the same don't you think? :ugeek:

English isn't my first language so sorry for any mistakes, if I did any.
-Open

Sadly, it does not work that way.

The believers way to handle this problem ... is by saying that gayness is a disease and that it can be cured.

This ofcourse shows the ignorance of believers in these true worldly facts. They read the Bible/Quran (or whatever) and do not look beyond the pages into nature itself . Because the BEST way for the indoctrinated believer to stick to his beliefs, is to stay with his/her friends, keep reading that book/scroll and to rant at the disbelievers.

^^ So to the OP .... Yes I can convince you that Atheà¯sm is the way. In fact you are already helping yourself. Do not go to church anymore. Do not read that book you are reading regularly, avoid contact with believers, stop praying .... start reading science books, books about evolution, books about the big bang, books about how butterflies make love, books about monkeys and the great apes, books about UFO's, .... Go watch Harry Potter movies (No ... that is not real witchcraft!! Giosh I dont like Harry Potter myself), Go play "evil" video games.

I betya ... If there is a God ... he wont mind if you try it for a while ... Just ask those Mormons before they have to decide to stay woth the community. ;D

Go have fun ... enjoy yourself ... be a "normal" none indoctrinated person for a few years .... and then .... only then ... come back and tell us if you still believe.

Do you have to be an atheist to have fun? Naaaah, ofc not .... Lucky atheists science of evolution made it possible for indoctrinated people to have fun too. But ... try it for some years.

 

[somtwo]

I exist. I'm aware that I exist. When I try to imagine not existing, it's impossible. When I try to imagine never having existed, it's impossible. When I try to imagine ceasing to exist, that's impossible too.

Yeah but without existence, you wouldn't comprehend anything, so trying to say your inability to comprehend something that can not be defined in your current state proves that your existence is absolute is flawed.

If I exist, I exist absolutely. I exist, that's it, end of story, I just exist.

You currently exist. This does not mean that your existence is permanent, nor does it imply that your existence always was.

My existence is absolute, without beginning or end. Existence is absolute. My awareness of my existence is my existence. I am awareness, I am my consciousness. I am, I just am.

You are a biological creature made of up a configuration of atoms. Nothing more, nothing less. Saying you can't imagine not existing speaks more to the limits of the human imagination that it does anything else.

The universe and everything in it exists. I'm aware that it exists, I am my consciousness, what I am aware of is what I am. Everything that I'm aware of is what I'm aware of, which is what I am.

There's no division. 1+1=1. Multiplication is division.

... source please.

Existence is absolute. It has no beginning or end. I'm aware of this : If you take away existence, you're left with existence. So existence is absolute. I'm aware of this : If I cease, what's left is that I've ceased. So I can't cease. I'm aware of this : If I am something other than what I am, what's left is me being something other than what I am. So I just am. I'm everything. I am the only thing.

This is becoming more of a mantra than an expression of any kind of intellectual understanding.

Things are what they are, they are not what they're not. If they were, what you'd have is things being what they're aren't. So everything is everything.

I'm aware that I never created anything. I have always been, and I've always been aware. I am (noun--->) aware. What I'm aware of is what I am and I am everything that I'm aware of. I am aware of everything. I was always aware and nothing is created. If I wasn't aware, I'd be aware that I wasn't aware. Something would be aware that I wasn't aware. Otherwise I wouldn't not be aware.

What doesn't exist is aware that it doesn't exist. Everything exists, everything is aware. I'm aware of this.

There is no nothingness. Just consciousness. Everything is consciousness. Existence is being conscious, existence is conscious. Everything exists.

... AND THERE IS NO SPOON. *gasps*

 

[Worldquest]

My current state dictates what I can understand, and what I can even define. I have a faith that that I am literally everything and that I know everything, but that I am currently experiencing a state in which I'm limited. My belief that I have and always will exist is my belief. I have no evidence whatsoever. Multiplications is division, of course. If you believe that everything is (one) 1, then all division is merely thinking of something as having various aspects. If you take something and divide it by 2, you end up with 2 things. You now have 2 things, but they are of the same source. Where did I get this from? nowhere, I just thought it up, it's my philosophy, as is my philosophy that everything is absolute.

I'm sorry if that's very frustrating for you to read but I'm just being honest about what I believe. At least it's coming from me, and at least I genuinely believe it. My purpose isn't to prove anything at all, my purpose is to talk about what I believe. Your paradigm and mine and worlds apart so there's nothing I can say to convince you of anything. In fact I don't even feel the need to try.

 

[Dockar03]

My belief that I have and always will exist is my belief. I have no evidence whatsoever.

This statement essentially ends this thread, you cannot be 'converted' into an atheist if your belief system has no logical foundation, and if it is as you infer, indelibly set, then there is no way we can try to logically convince you if you don't believe in the importance of logic yourself.
It's like if you decided to try argue that a sinister Armada of Unicorns with Fluro Purple Cowboy Hats were indeed the actual perpetrators behind all the world wars because of their mind control abilities. You need evidence, you need logic; without either you have automatically failed.

However the day you decide to believe in logic and evidence, essentially the debate that follows will most likely end your faith, forever.

 

[Worldquest]

My belief that I have and always will exist is my belief. I have no evidence whatsoever.

This statement essentially ends this thread, you cannot be 'converted' into an atheist if your belief system has no logical foundation, and if it is as you infer, indelibly set, then there is no way we can try to logically convince you if you don't believe in the importance of logic yourself.
It's like if you decided to try argue that a sinister Armada of Unicorns with Fluro Purple Cowboy Hats were indeed the actual perpetrators behind all the world wars because of their mind control abilities. You need evidence, you need logic; without either you have automatically failed.

However the day you decide to believe in logic and evidence, essentially the debate that follows will most likely end your faith, forever.

In terms of evidence, it's all subjective and I admit that and of course I can't prove it to you any more than I can prove what thoughts I have or any more than you can prove to me what you're thinking. The word evidence is closely linked to the word conviction, and I have a conviction yet I can't pass it on to you unfortunately and so you can't "see" it. But I do, I have that conviction. I can't prove that what I believe is true and you can't prove that it isn't. Now I realise that to you I'd have to prove a positive whereas you don't have to prove a negative. But, you could try proving an alternative to what I believe. Either god exists, or the universe doesn't have a god. If it doesn't, then you could try proving that that is the case, somehow. I'm saying that you could try, as opposed to saying that you have to, the reason being that whenever someone says "you must prove..." I ask myself, "in order to what? Convince the other prson?" If our paradigms, or philosophies dictate different things to each of us in the first place, how could that even be achieved? That's a serious question by the way, not a rhetorical one, I mean how can one do it?

 

[Dockar03]

In terms of evidence, it's all subjective and I admit that and of course I can't prove it to you any more than I can prove what thoughts I have or any more than you can prove to me what you're thinking. The word evidence is closely linked to the word conviction, and I have a conviction yet I can't pass it on to you unfortunately and so you can't "see" it. But I do, I have that conviction. I can't prove that what I believe is true and you can't prove that it isn't. Now I realise that to you I'd have to prove a positive whereas you don't have to prove a negative.

In scientific terms evidence is a tangible/quantifiably proof, utilised to promote or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. If you use evidence and alter its definition to more subtly be suited synonymously with conviction then i would say you're wrong. By extending of your logic with with synonyms then i can say conviction synonymous with conjecture, which is synonymous with opinion... Opinion, is by no means synonymous with evidence, even if conviction is slightly similar to evidence, the intrinsic definition is vastly different. A conviction is subjective, evidence is objective in the field of science. It can be perceived as subjective however evidence is merely utilised to appropriately fit within a context, the person positing that context may be biased, however the evidence shown is purely objective, and should be treated as such (i.e. the manner evidence is used can be seen as subjective).


I surmise by my interpretation of your logic, that if you believe what you just stated then this thread is unnecessary. Your position is unwavering, as i stated before the logic you are utilising is indelibly set as the foundation for your beliefs.
Ergo, i fail to see the reason you would start this thread, unless considering...

1+. Your conviction does not suffice as the plausibility of your claim. ergo...
2. If this is the case, but you accept this and posit that your position stands unwavered due to the fact 'you know it to be true' then one can say...
= Why bother coming to a scientific forum at all, knowing full well that your logic dictates an indelible position and that all claims posited by the contrary can be refuted by inferring your logical position.

However, the only excuse (i haven't read this entire thread so i apologize if i seem ignorant) is that this is an experiment on your part as to assertain the responses a scientific community would throw at you, allowing you to appropriately practice your logic so that it is better suited in real-world debates.

 

[Worldquest]

Dockar -

Yes, it's an experiment. Our philosophies differ vastly, but that's all they are, and as such they're very subjective, and our philosophies serve as fundamental premises for everything we believe, accept or reject. My philosophy allows me to believe in certain things and yours allows you to believe certain things (ie that the universe is purely material...based on what? Observation of the material? Is that all? If you are in a room, is the room all that is?)

What I'm highlighting is the fact that our philosophies are entirely subjective. You see material things, I see them too. You believe that that's it, I don't. You don't know whether or not, and your philosophy doesn't allow you to consider, that what you see is a part of something bigger. Mine does. It's not useful at all for me to try and convince you to adopt my philosophy, and vice versa. It won't work.

In your philosophy, god can't exist. But your philosophy isn't any more objective than mine. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[Dockar03]

Dockar -

Yes, it's an experiment. Our philosophies differ vastly, but that's all they are, and as such they're very subjective, and our philosophies serve as fundamental premises for everything we believe, accept or reject. My philosophy allows me to believe in certain things and yours allows you to believe certain things (ie that the universe is purely material...based on what? Observation of the material? Is that all? If you are in a room, is the room all that is?)

What I'm highlighting is the fact that our philosophies are entirely subjective. You see material things, I see them too. You believe that that's it, I don't. You don't know whether or not, and your philosophy doesn't allow you to consider, that what you see is a part of something bigger. Mine does. It's not useful at all for me to try and convince you to adopt my philosophy, and vice versa. It won't work.

In your philosophy, god can't exist. But your philosophy isn't any more objective than mine. Can we at least agree on that?

As i am agnostic and often consider the existence of a type of energy that created the universe, but i do nothing more than consider, as it is illogical for me to conclude (i.e. conjecture) that what i can suppose or consider is true, does not make it so, so in context of consideration i believe that our philosophies are actually quite similar. The only difference is that although my personal philosophy is subjective, the philosophy itself intrinsically relys on objective observations... however that is only a branch of my philosophy as those observations can have cannotations of various other things that are subjective, i.e. a god.
I can often consider to see the universe that bares meaning, however i cannot logically posit it without going against my philosophy, which dictates that i require evidence for the latter inference.

I believe we can agree that essentially our philosophies are actually quite similar, atleast from my perspective. Intrinsically they are almost identical, the only difference is that you have concluded there is a meaning, and that i have not yet followed the same conclusion. It would be remiss for me to suggest there is meaning, only within the limitations of my philosophy is it conjecture, however it seems in your philosophy as there is no limitations, as so, you can freely suggest that this meaning exists, and it clearly pertains to your emotional satisfaction.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I'm a theist, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment:

Why should they bother to try to return you to the way yo were born? You were born atheist, and only after that fact were you taught what you now believe. It's like a person wearing clothes, insisting that everyone wears clothes and there's no such thing as skin -
but believe me, at the base of everything you're really naked. You're just wearing clothes because you were taught to wear clothes.
We don't have to provide evidence of nakedness - all you have to do is look down your collar to observe such a phenomena. then it's up to you to accept it.

Now that I'm done with that, I'll return to weatring my obnoxiously large hats and useless garbs.

 

[Dockar03]

, I'll return to weatring my obnoxiously large hats and useless garbs.

I like hats.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Dockar -

Yes, it's an experiment. Our philosophies differ vastly, but that's all they are, and as such they're very subjective, and our philosophies serve as fundamental premises for everything we believe, accept or reject. My philosophy allows me to believe in certain things and yours allows you to believe certain things (ie that the universe is purely material...based on what? Observation of the material? Is that all? If you are in a room, is the room all that is?)

What I'm highlighting is the fact that our philosophies are entirely subjective. You see material things, I see them too. You believe that that's it, I don't. You don't know whether or not, and your philosophy doesn't allow you to consider, that what you see is a part of something bigger. Mine does. It's not useful at all for me to try and convince you to adopt my philosophy, and vice versa. It won't work.

In your philosophy, god can't exist. But your philosophy isn't any more objective than mine. Can we at least agree on that?

Nope. Your 'philosophy' is necessarily less objective, because it is not based on anything objective. It is a bunch of superstitions, collected into holy books and institutions by people who had limited perspective (subjective). In my philosophy a God (or at least, certain entities that could rightfully be called God-like) CAN exist. However, there is no proof of such entities. That is all a require: objective facts. As such, my 'philosophy', science, is objective, whereas religion/faith based belief is necessarily subjective.

I do not believe that the universe is only material. I do not believe that all we can see is all there is. But I know that in making claims about things that are not 'in the room i'm in' I am simply playing games of make believe. Science instead endeavors to open the door and actually see whats there. Sadly, religion rarely wants to open those doors: It would prefer to shut its eyes and keep playing make-believe.

So go ahead, play your games of make-believe about the things that exist that we can no way measure or interact with. The rest of us will be continuing to open the doors to what actually exists: you're welcome.

 

[Worldquest]

Ozy, since you don't believe in god, I assume, and very confidently so, that your morals are not highly developed. You presumably don't value the same things that I value, and you are probably cruel and evil. By the way, which holy books did I get my beliefs from? I can't remember doing that, but you sound like you know. Maybe you were there.

 

[nasher168]

you are probably cruel and evil.

lolwut? Judgemental, much? I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Ozy, since you don't believe in god, I assume, and very confidently so, that your morals are not highly developed.

On what do you base this cretinous asumption? Do you really believe that credulous fuckwits who accept the wibble of various deranged lunatics from before any real understanding of how reality works gives a more highly developed sense of morality? This is highly fucking offensive, and I insist that you provide some evidential support for this utter shit.

You presumably don't value the same things that I value,

Clearly not, since you seem to value rectally extracted blind assertion, as your various posts here demonstrate beautifully.

and you are probably cruel and evil.

Again, on what do you base this assessment?

Unless you can provide some evidence to support this vacuous nonsense, I feel compelled to report it as a personal attack.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Ozy, since you don't believe in god, I assume, and very confidently so, that your morals are not highly developed. You presumably don't value the same things that I value, and you are probably cruel and evil. By the way, which holy books did I get my beliefs from? I can't remember doing that, but you sound like you know. Maybe you were there.

Don't have to report him, he is clearly being sarcastic. But the vehemence is still there, did I hit a nerve? Are you sad that most religious stances are based on the say-so of people who lived thousands of years ago, combined with thousands of years of post-hoc rationalizations? Because that is just a fact about religions. I'm sure your post-hoc rationalizations are better than most... but that doesn't change the root of what you believe. The foundation on which religion stands is and always will be ancient revelations which were given to a few select (subjective) people. Unless you are merely some sort of deist who believes in vague non-personal deities, but even they would probably not exist if not for the major 'revealed' religions.

As for my own moral compass, it is based on the real world that I find myself in: I look at how people really suffer and how they really achieve happiness and then I find ways that I can lessen the suffering and increase the happiness. Seems to work quite a bit better for me than the God-Given morality that I grew up with.

 

[Samuel Harris]

I'm sure some of you good people aren't too bothered about converting people to atheism, however I'm sure there are some of you who would very much like to do that. I'm going to give those people a chance to convert me.

Not many theists would do this, so do please at the very least appreciate that much. My idea of open minded may be different to yours, but generally speaking, I'm open minded enough to reconsider what I believe. I find atheism as interesting as theism (well, close enough) and it doesn't hurt to learn. I'm not making any promises though, obviously, it depends on whether or not you concvine me.

I'm not going to try and convince you to believe (although I may need to explain why I do), the offer is the other way around. I'm inviting you to convince me not to believe. Generally, for some reason, people tend to change their minds on their own, however the idea here is to establish which methods, if any, work best to make theists reconsider.

Like I say I'm open minded. If anyone posts a link or gives any explanations about anything, please make sure it's reasonably simple and straightforward.

First off, are you sure you want to be an atheist?

Samuel.

 

[justsomefnguy]

I have to say that the entire premise of this post is slightly silly. Of course I'd like all people to atheists, just as I'd like all people to be reasonable, generous and kind towards others. What I don't want is anyone to be 'talked into' being an atheist. Atheism is a position that one must come to on their own, at least at the beginning. Atheism doesn't need 'converts', it doesn't need people that have to be convinced of the correctness of the position. If such things are imposed from the outside they tend to be rather shallow and often only socially induced, casually discarded when they no longer serve that purpose.

So in short, no I can't turn you into an atheist, nor do I desire to. Its contrary to the ideals of free thought, skepticism and plain common sense. If a person isn't intelligent enough to genuinely question theistic assumptions, then I don't want or need them to take up atheism. In fact, I would strongly oppose it as wrong for both them and atheism in general. So please, until you get to the point where you begin to question the validity of theistic fairy tales, don't bother those of us that have already come to the conclusion that theism is at best useless and at worst dangerous and harmful with false please of 'oh please, convert me if you can'. The idea that atheist desire or need converts is simply a case of theists projecting their aims and goals onto us, and I would say I rather don't care for it.

 

[Mafiaaffe]

My current state dictates what I can understand, and what I can even define. I have a faith that that I am literally everything and that I know everything, but that I am currently experiencing a state in which I'm limited. My belief that I have and always will exist is my belief. I have no evidence whatsoever. .

I can not turn you into an atheist, nobody but yourself could. I can merely give you reasons why being atheist is more rational (much more rational in fact) then being a theist. I think the term atheism shouldn,´t even exist, there is so much other garbage you can believe in, like unicorns, afterlife, trolls, goblis, dragons etc. and there isn,´t a word for disbelieving in those thinks either, thats why I prefer the term "rationalist". But if you already say that you do not care if your believes are rational or not that I do not think that anyone here could ever say anything that will make your change your mind.

Ozy, since you don't believe in god, I assume, and very confidently so, that your morals are not highly developed

I believed in a god for the most time of my life, but the more i think about the idea of a god now the more ridiculous it appears to me. However, I am not a worse person then before, in fact, I think I am better person because I am giving life more value. To think that you have to believe some ridiculous garbage in order to be more moral is just dumb. It is like saying: "Quest since you don,´t believe your morals come from magic sky squirrels, I assume,....."

You presumably don't value the same things that I value, and you are probably cruel and evil.

I hope you are being sarcastic here.

By the way, which holy books did I get my beliefs from?.

I do not know, but you probably didn,´t wake up one moring thinking there might be a supernatural being in the sky and that believing this would suddenly make you more moral.