I see your point, but I think the debate comes in the “Why” rather than the “What”. Though that’s really for the OP to clarify.
Y’know, this ‘pile-on’ thing isn’t really a pile on at all; it’s just evidence of the very thing that made this place ‘sticky’ for me - that there aren’t necessarily any firm, polarised ‘sides’ to debates here.
Sleel your post explained how I feel about religion better than I could have ever put it. The only difference was instead of having that single moment of “epiphany” it was more of a gradual realization for me.
My direct answer to the OP is that my eye opener occured when I was about 11 or 12 - in, of all places, Sunday School. We were on the preamble to the Exodus and God hardened Pharoah’s heart so that he wouldn’t let the Israelites go. Then because Pharoah wouldn’t let them go, God killed all the first born.
That did it. I didn’t want to have any part of such a monstrosity.
And, like you, I’ve never felt the need for any sort of supernatural support. As LaPlace is alleged to have said, “I had no need for that hypothesis.”
He made other comments that inspired other responses. That happens in every single thread. The reason there seem to be so many of those is that, as probably half a dozen people already said, there’s no debate here anyway.
True. And I would have already kicked this over to IMHO, but every time I do that, someone starts up a genuine debate in the thread and poor czarcasm has to take the time to send it back here.
I would consider the OP a sort *anti-*witnessing, so despite its flaws, I guess it stays in GD.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
On the other hand, looking back I think my first reply was too harsh. There’s some bitterness in IAMMYOWNGOD’s posts, but it’s not that much. It’s really not an over-the-top-caricature. And obviously, though I wasn’t one of them, people do lose faith through reading the Bible sometimes.
That’s funny, I almost called it that in my last post.
I wonder if anybody ever read anything in the bible that made them give up atheism.
Now a “what made me give up god” thread is interesting, and doesn’t attack anybody.
It happened for me sitting in the English book room my senior year of high school. We had stacks of Bibles that were used in Bible as literature part of Senior Honors English. I read the introduction, where I found out about J etc. Seeing that Moses did not write the Bible (and noticing that the Bible never is a part of Hebrew Society until way late) just made it very clear. Being Jewish, Christianity has never made sense to me - it’s about as believable as a Cargo Cult.
First, he didn’t say, “willing to consider a god figure if it can be proven”; he said, “I am an atheist only in that I am ‘against theism.’ I’m willing to entertain the possibility of a divine creator.” YOU are characterizing it as a person who doesn’t believe in God, but wouldn’t rule out the possibility if it could be proven. But he didn’t explain it that way; he explained it as being against God.
Second, that’s hardly a ‘technical’ difference.
With all due respect to your desire to dictate what we can or cannot say, I felt it was important to point out how this person’s views differ from those of many other atheists. And I’ll tell you why it’s important: The number one misconception held by theists about atheists has to do with why we are atheists. Far too many theists incorrectly believe that ALL atheists ‘hate’ God, or are angry at Christians, and that our beliefs stem from this hatred. This misconception tends to get propagated in churches and other places where everyone is of the same faith. So when theists do encounter atheists in real life, it’s crucial that they understand that one person does not speak for us all. It would be far too easy for a religious person to read the OP, and think, “Aha! I KNEW all those atheists were just hateful people who are angry at God.” So while the OP is certainly entitled to his opinion, I believe it’s necessary to point out that his view does not represent the views of most atheists.
I thought he said he was against theism. He seems to mean Christianity instead of theism, but that’s not the same as being against god. I would summarize his statement as “there may be a god, but I hate religion/Christianity/whatever.”
Point of correction: I never “left the faith” because I was never in it to begin with. I first learned about the Bible at around seven years old, and even then my first response was, “How do we know any of it is true? Maybe someone just made it all up.”
To be fair, when I got older I did spend a year studying the world’s major religions – and I still found them wanting.
The problem with attacking religion from this perspective, IAMMYOWNGOD, (Does anyone else keep wanting to end that username with “MOO”?), is that it only works if you are attacking a person who holds the bible to have been written by God reaching down and holding the hand of each of the biblical authors, expressing exactly what God wanted said for each verse.
Those of us who do not believe that bible was created using any similar method look on your “arguments” as so many strawmen, attcking a belief we do not hold. I believe that Polycarp and others have attempted to convey ths idea to you in your other thread, apparently without success.
Now, of the many other ways in which people believe that God acted to inspire the creation of scripture (whether the Bible, the Qur’an, the Vedas and Upanishads, or any of dozens of others works), I know of none that are so persuasive that understanding them will bring you to a conversion experience. But then, I am not attempting either to compel you to my beliefs or to “successfully” defend my beliefs against your attacks on beliefs I do not share.
Atheist checking in. Never read the book, so the question in the OP isn’t really applicable.
Sure, I’ll buy that. Either way, my point stands: Scule’s paraphrasing is wrong.
No, no! It’s “On the gripping hand”! Do Niven and Pournelle mean nothing to you? :eek:
It walked like a duck and it quacked like a duck, but I accept that this was no excuse for throwing it bread.
I’ll accept that perhaps my paraphrasing of the OP’s stance (where’d he go, anyway?) regarding atheism itself may have wrong, but my point still remains that it isn’t really relevant to the question he asked of people. I can see the frustration in having the wrong view presented so often, though. It’s why I won’t call myself an atheist, because I’ve read enough to know my views are more agnostic than atheist. I still think the main debate here is in the why of things.
I sometimes say “non-religious” instead of “atheist”, because of people’s misconceptions about the word. “Agnostic” doesn’t fit for me, because, from what I understand, an agnostic believes that the question of God’s existence is unknowable. I don’t see any reason that, if a god existed, that it would be impossible to have knowledge of that god; I simply don’t see any evidence that such is the case.
That’s why I’m going to take any opportunity I can to educate people. Why should we have to mince our words just to stave off other people’s misconceptions?
Genesis 1:1: “In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth…”
Completely lost me after that at a very young age. The sheer lack of a real sense of proportionality in that one phrase just switched off my junior astronomer’s mind.
Of course I backslid for two years during high school and college and became a born-again Christian, but during that time I trained myself to ignore all the stuff in the bible that made not one damn bit of sense to me. Thank goodness that’s over with.
An official definition of agnostic includes: “a person who believes that, at their present level of knowledge, they cannot know whether or not a God exists.”
I disagree with your definition of an agnostic. It isn’t so much that they must believe that knowing if god exists is completely unknowable, that they believe it is unknowable to them at the current time (although it is true that many do believe it is unknowable). I would say that maybe there are different types of agnostics within a larger group. From your description you sound like you are agnostic, if you believe in the possibility that god MIGHT possibly exist, but you are unsure. If this is the case, non-religious would be very incorrect, as many people consider themselves christians, still firmly believe in god, but consider themselves “non-religious” as they may not attend church or agree with a particular doctrine. These 2 things would not be the same thing.