The experience of converting

This was sometime during my junior year in high school. For a period of many weeks, I spent almost every moment of my waking hour thinking about myself and my religion. After the whole ordeal, I was presented with 2 choices: (1) continue to be as religious as I was or (2) stop being religious.There was a problem with choice 1. I thought for a very long time and very hard and I couldn't figure out how to continue being the way I was (I was raised catholic) and not be ignorant, selfish, and condeming.Before you say anything, let me explain. By that time in my life, I had come to certain realizations that I accepted as absolute. By such standards, being christian is down right evil. In other words, I either had to force myself to be what I defined as evil or abandon the faith and live a moral life.The transition itself was somewhat gradual. It wasn't something that was over night. Believe you me, I struggled for the longest time trying to figure out how to be a christian and not be evil (no offense to Jar and the rest of our resident christians here).Over time, as I began to explore other religions, I also came to realize that no matter what I try, evil (by my standard) is destined to spawn. Another reason why I would define myself as a militant atheist.Now, the hard part is having a wedding without a priest looking down on me... or have a wedding at all.

The so-called invisible/immaterial pink unicorn dilemma is probably the most well known among everyone who has ever dealt with philosophy.This message has been edited by GAW-Snow, 07-05-2005 05:08 PM

You think the existence of something beyond our understanding is beyond dispute?Do you think that the non-existence of god(s) is so impossible that to dispute their non-existence is simply absurd?Here's what else Wiki had to say about axioms:

quote:

---

In epistemology, an axiom is a self-evident truth upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. Not all epistemologists agree that any axioms, understood in that sense, exist.

---

Are you saying that the non-existence if god(s) is self-evident?In what way?A person who does believe in god(s) will tell you exactly how self-evident the existence of god really is.I guess that's just an axiom of their religious philosophy and not dogma at all. To me faith means certainty without evidence.Your statement about the elephant and your certainty as to his non-existence is based on previous experience. It's based on what you know about corridors around you and what you know about elephants and your confidence level or certainty level is based on that.Now, to say that you are 100% all the way certain, without peeking, is a matter of faith, I believe.You put faith in your ability to predict outcomes based on previous experience.Now, where is your experience of the supernatural?
I would wager that you have none, so perhaps you don't have any previous experience upon which to base a conclusion. But you have drawn a very sweeping conclusion about the supernatural by sayingthat you are certain it doesn't exist. This, to me, is faith (certainty without evidence.)

I see!How can it be invisible and pink at the same time?{shrug}If that's the rub, then I can say by definition, something can't really be pink and invisible at the same time, but I could be wrong.If I said that I was certain beyond dispute, then yes, that would be faith.Then do or anyone here have FAITH that intellegent extra-terrestrial being don't exist, never existed, and will never exist?

I don't see how it's a dilemma.We can't say for certain that it doesn't exist.If I said that I know it does...faith.
If I say that I know it doesn't...faith.If I tell the truth and say that I don't know one way or the other and probably never will, that's agnosticism.This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-05-2005 05:27 PM

quote:

---

Are you saying that the non-existence if god(s) is self-evident?

---

Yes, I am.

quote:

---

A person who does believe in god(s) will tell you exactly how self-evident the existence of god really is.

---

Indeed she will. That's a funny thing about axioms -- they are fairly arbitrary. The only requirement is that the logical conclusions derived from them are self-consistent and consistent with reality.Do you think that it is self-evident that given a line and a point not on that line, exactly one line passes through that point and is parallel to the first line? To someone working in Euclidean geometry it is pretty self-evident. To someone working in Lobachevian geometry, it is equally self-evident that there are infinitely many lines parallel to the first line that passes through that point.--

quote:

---

To me faith means certainty without evidence.

---

Then it is not by faith that I believe that there is no god. I see no evidence for any deity -- for me, in this case, the absence of evidence is good enough to be evidence of absence. You might not like this evidence, but that's too bad.A fundamentalist Christian believes in the truth of her religion, also not by faith -- her evidence is the subjective religious feelings that she experiences. I don't think it's very good evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless.In fact, I cannot think of a single belief that is based on faith, according to your definition. I'm sure there are some, but they seem to be so rare that it seems to me that your definition of faith is limited in its usefulness.Slight edit to remove overly confrontational tone.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 05-Jul-2005 09:40 PM

So saying "God exists" is merely an axiom, and not dogma is what you're saying?And then, saying that God created the world in 6 days, that would be the dogma?Maybe I could say that this is pretty self-evident and make it an axiom.Can a statement be axiomatic and dogmatic simultaneously? Actually no, because I don't think you finished your thought here...
If the one point (not on the first line) had a line passing through it, then it could be parallel or not. Since you are analogizing this way, then you would say that another's belief in god(s) is just as valid as your outright dismissal of the possibilty simply because you are operating in different geometrical spaces?Ok, forget the geometry, what you seem to be saying is that your dismissal of god(s) is based on just as tenuous a foundation as another's belief in it/them?That belief in Christianity or the IPU is just as valid in a superstitious mind as non-belief is in a less-superstitious mind seems to be what you are saying here.You just decided to say with utter confidence that there is definitely zero god(s), without testing that hypothesis.
You made a leap of faith.All you can honestly say is that, so far, you haven't come across any convincing evidence.edit:
I don't care if you get confrontational, no big deal to me.. No, I think perhaps people are calling things faith when they are not faith at all.Like you said, a xian will profess his strong faith and say how his faith is unshakeable, but if he is basing his beliefs on emotional "evidence" then this really isn't faith in the pure sense.But really, can emotions be considered "evidence" as we define this term? Maybe.If not, then this person is exercising faith (certainty without evidence).This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-05-2005 05:55 PM

quote:

---

Since you are analogizing this way, then you would say that another's belief in god(s) is just as valid as your outright dismissal of the possibilty because you are operating in different geometrical spaces?

---

I am just saying that the choice of axioms, statements that need to be assumed without proof to begin the argument, are arbitrary. It is just as arbitrary to assume that no god exists as it is that the Olympian gods exist.The question is how useful the model is in describing our limited experience of reality. The axioms should be self-consistent, they should be consistent with our experience with reality. Some people (like me) would add that the quality of being pasimonius, in the sense of Occam's razor, is desirable as well.-

quote:

---

All you can honestly say is that, so far, you haven't come across any convincing evidence.

---

Convincing evidence? Now you are changing your definition of faith. Concincing seems to be an subjective standard, does it not? I find the absense of evidence for the existence of god, but for some reason you don't. Who are you to judge that it is convincing or not? The fundamentalist Christian feels she has convincing evidence that her entire religious belief system is truth -- I don't believe that, but who am I to judge whether this evidence is convincing or not?

It's a dilemma because it implies something much greater than just that horsey like creature that has a horn. So, are you saying that it is possible for immaterial and invisible unicorns to exist and are now roaming the streets? Well, according to our current official definition of the word faith, it is an unsupported belief in something, not unsupported disbelief. Otherwise, every human thought could be considered as faith. Get my drift? Well, good for you.

I don't know if it's possible or not. I got your drift, but disbelief can be "strong" or "weak."
You can be incredulous. The Bears won! I don't believe it!Or you can be totally convinced that something is totally impossible.
In this case, it requires faith to hold that position.It's all a matter of the confidence level of the believer or non-believer. ..and you too.

Right, as in evidence that has convinced you. Exactly. Well, I seem to never find the absense of anything.
But I have no evidence for God and I also have nothing to prove that something like that is impossible. Ok. If it didn't convince you, then it's not convincing.
If it convinced the xian, then it is.If the xian is basing his beliefs on evidence and not faith, then under their system, from what I understand, this is bad.

I would have agreed if the season of lent did not take on new symbolic significance for my intuition on reading The Book Nobody Read. It has not.see book-
http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/scibio/copernn1.htm
with the author reading the bookThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-09-2005 08:36 PM

I respect that you would want to call it a conversion experience, but what did you convert from?
Being forced to believe in something you really don't understand?
Having religion forced down your throat to the point that it doesn't make sense anymore?
Being condemned by some guy in a robe who molests children?
Being told that you will go to hell for this, that , and the other thingy?Or did you just make a decsion to free yourself from your parents reign on your religious beliefs, and start the process of finding out for yourself? I would love to explore this one more. How could it be possible for an atheist to believe in good and evil? Don't you mean good and bad? And isn't it all subjective what people think good and bad are?
History would show that murder is very natural to our species, and is beneficial to some. Murder can save lives after all. Evil on a whole is extremely complicated. Because if it exists, this thing you call evil, then the devil has been around for a thousand years +, and he can trick us rather easily. To me dogma is evil. But there is a fine line between dogma, and real Christian values. Dogma is just man's poor interpretation of those values. Catholithism is all that + time = tradition = BS. However it seems to work for some people.Bad, which is what I think an atheist believes in, is just things that interfere with his/her life schedule. Having been raised catholic, then "converting" to atheism, then being agnostic, then being baptised with the Holy Spirit, and "converting" or being "born again", I can say this. (bunch of labels there) Out of all those experiences, the Holy Spirit was the only one that converted me. Like I always say, that day, I either found God for myself, or I became crazy.I think you experienced a sense of freedom, because deep, within the deep, within the deep of your soul, you knew something wasn't right. Getting rid of that monkey on your back, has released you to find your purpose in life, or what you were created for. I think its awesome.

We have probably been through this before, but can you explain how being Christian means you have to be evil?The way I see it, is being Christian has really only 2 guidlines, that's love God, and love others. Where is the evil?

The evil is the fact that many "christians" insist that not only that their specific beliefs are the only way to get to god, but those people who 'Do not accept christ's blood for the remission of their sins" go to hell forever. This causes them to be arrogant, obnouxious, and treat other people as second class citizens. That is the evil