The evolution of an atheist.

I absolutely agree with the separation of church and state if for no other reason that if the church becomes a route to power then it will inevitably become corrupt. However, as I believe that there is more truth to be gleaned than just from what we can learn from the scientific method. We just can’t know it in the same way. Just as we should keep looking for truth through science we should keep looking for truth through theology. Fair enough but in the end God exists or He doesn’t. I do want to be clear I most certainly don’t believe that if you don’t get your theology right that you will be damned to hell. I believe that all our paths are mis-aligned. It is just a matter of degree. I don’t know if your path is more or less mis-aligned than my own. I do believe that my own life is less mis-aligned because of my Christian faith. I’m not convinced that happiness is the goal. Frankly I prefer the term joy or even contentment and the measure of my joy and/or contentment should be measured by the joy and/or contentment that I bring to others. I just wish I lived up to that. I believe that at its most basic Christianity is about taking the focus off of the self and putting it on the rest of God’s creation which of course includes our fellow man.Many non-Christians do this far more effectively that do many Christians such as myself. Just the same I believe that the job of all mankind is to bring God’s love, justice, forgiveness, peace, truth etc to the world. As I see it Christians have been given the task of trying to be the carriers of that message. It doesn’t mean that we are any better at it than anyone else, and frankly I am of the opinion that the church is a major disappointment to God in most cases.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

OK I started a new thread on this segment - Philosophy and Science

My point is not that all truth can be found through science. My point is that theology isn't a required path to find all truth For example: I agree that science isn't a path to determine who I should marry and spend my life with. However, I disagree that theology is required to determine who I should marry and spend my life with.Another, more religious example: I agree that science isn't (at least currently...) a path to determine what may or may not happen in the afterlife. However, I disagree that theology is required to pursue any possible "truth" that can be identified about the afterlife.I agree that we should not limit ourselves to strict, rigorous, objective pathways to knowledge (although they're the only way we have for objective verification... but that's another point...). What I'm saying is that we can pursue "other truth's" that science can't touch without using theology. Not only that, we can pursue them more efficiently and effectively. My point is that theology may (and this can easily be corrupted and turned into an almost "always" by certain... negative-theologies...) add a certain level of "baggage" that is not required and can possibly become restrictive. Strip that baggage, and you can at worst get to the same level as if you used theology, and at best you can go even further. Agreed. Yes, I understand this is where you're coming from. It's greatly appreciated. I did not intend my use of the word "happiness" to be limiting or specific. It was intended, in fact, to be so broad as to include what you say above, and any other pursuit anyone else may have that they would deem "positive" for themselves.Again, I should note that I am enjoying having this conversation with you, but my comments are not really specifically geared towards you. I'm just sort of using our dialogue as a spring-board to make general comments towards anyone who may be reading and be unaware as to what options are available.
I understand that what I have written can easily be seen in a "your stance isn't good enough" tone... that is not my intention. Your stance certainly is good enough for you (and possibly even "best" for you) as far as I'm concerned... as long as you're being honest with yourself and your personality... this is not something I believe can be judged by others (myself included), this can... even "must"... be judged by one's self, on one's own.

Absolutely Essentially yes but I don't think that it would be a great idea to marry someone who adhered to a radically different life style than your own because of their theology. Can you go into more detail. For instance, where else would you suggest looking. I can't agree with that. I would agree with your statement if I knew without doubt that all sacred texts are nothing more than something that someone dreamed. For myself, I do believe that the Biblical writers were inspired by God. That doesn't mean that it was word by word, but I do believe that we should take it seriously and that there is much to be learned from it. I realize that by not taking it literally, but seriously, means that it requires a lot more study than it would otherwise. What is historical? What is metaphorical? What changed from the OT to the NT? The questions go on and on.On the other hand I agree that we shouldn't allow the baggage that we pick up along the way from any source to prevent us from learning something new which requires us to adjust our beliefs. Frankly there is nothing to appreciate. That has been the position of people from Augustine to Lewis, and currently people like N T Wright. The view that it isn't getting our theology right that makes us right with God is solidly scriptural. Thanks for that. I would add though, that I'm a Christian because I fervently believe the basic tenets of the Christian faith. I have no doubt that there are many people with other beliefs that lead a far more, so called, Christian life style than I do. In the end I do believe that there is a final truth on the matter and that some people are closer to that truth than others. The point being, is that I think it is more than just what works for me or you. However, I certainly agree with you that it isn't about judging one another. I'll leave that to God. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

This is an excellent example of a common logical fallacy. "I can't think of another answer" isn't a good reason to think that your conclusion is the only correct answer.For instance, Creationists might say "I cannot think of how the human eye might come about other than by supernatural creation." Their ignorance of any other avenue of its existence does not constitute evidence in its favor, or its exhaustiveness.Consider this: Science may be unable to tell us what happens inside a completely sealed and isolated room, but neither is philosophy likely to enlighten us. Science is similarly blind to the existence or nature of a potential afterlife, but why should we think philosophy has a better view? Because it is the only answer that currently occurs to us? Shouldn't you be looking for particular sacred texts which are beyond a shadow of a doubt *not* something someone dreamed, rather than the other way around?In the case of data of questionable reliability, it seems reasonable to discount it until such a time as it is proved accurate and reliable. It is not reasonable to demand inclusion and consideration of all questionable data until such a time as it is proven false.This goes back to the common thinking error that spurs the reminder: The burden of proof lies upon the claimant to prove their claim, not the beholder to prove it false.

You misunderstood me. I meant it as a straightforward question wondering what he had in mind. I'm not convinced that theology is the only way. I can even suggest that philosophy might be another way and I'm not at all convinced that in the long run science, or at least theoretical science might give us insights into an afterlife. Who knows? I'm not suggesting that I can prove any of what I believe to you, but on the other hand I don't have to. All I am giving are the reasons that I think that there is justification for believing that the basic tenets of the Christian faith are true. Some will say it's hogwash and there will be those like myself who say this sounds reasonable and on faith base our life on it.

Yes, agreed. But notice that your conclusion of this point did not require theology. I can understand my own priorities and understand that I hold theology (or the lack of it) higher than average. I can understand that spending (hopefully) 50+ years with someone else would be... difficult... if they did not respect some of my highly-held priorities. This logic/"commone sense" works for any theology (or lack of) that someone may hold. My imagination and the imagination of others.
Afterall, theology and imagination have at least one thing in common... they have the same amount of verifiable evidence to back them up.
With no verifiable evidence available from theology regarding the afterlife, we may as well use other sources with an equal amount of verifiable evidence for they have the same claim to reality (strictly rationally speaking).
Subjectively we may feel more inclined towards one over the other.
However, since this is subjective, there's no rational reason to think that "theology" somehow has a "better shot" at being a part of reality than pure imagination does... for as long as no verifiable evidence is available.
One person may find theology to be more subjectively compelling to them about the afterlife.
Certainly not myself, though.
With no verifiable evidence to support the claims... theology (in my subjective opinion) is therefore equivalent to the imagination of folks from far in the past.
I subjectively find my own imagination to be much more compelling than the imagination of those long dead.Perhaps some certain theological aspects are more than "other's imagination"... if so, verfiable evidence will come about, and at that point I will certainly take a longer look in that direction.
However, if it is not anything more than other's imagination, then there will never be verifiable evidence either way. No matter how long or hard we look.
It should also be noted that it is equally possible that some verifiable evidence will come about that will coincide with what my imagination comes up with.My imagination vs theology - rationally there is no difference (because there is currently zero verifiable evidence for both).
I will always know that my imagination is not "something I know".
However, within theology, it is possible for me to feel that "I know something" just because of the theology and it's background and history and popularity. And there are plenty of theologies that take advantage of this very point to try and abuse it's followers. That is the potential baggage of theology I was talking about. Now, certainly not all theology is bad... there certainly do exist theologies where this is avoided. I'm just saying that because of this pitfall it is possibly less efficient than pure imagination in the search for subjective answers. And, since both imagination and theology have the same amount of verifiable evidence to back them up (none at all)... rationally speaking, they are both predicted to be equally successful in determining any "subjective truths".And, so far, I have understood many, many more subjective truths about my life since I abandoned theology than when I was within it.
It turned out that, for me, the pitfall of theology was very large. I constantly found myself thinking "I know this already" and telling myself to not "waste time" searching for the actual answer... however, a part of me knew that the theological answer I had was not "known" and not "good enough" and I needed to do more searching. For me, theology was the cause of my confusion, as opposed to helping me find answers. However, I am not everyone So it certainly is not something that everyone will have to deal with. In fact, I fully believe that some people require theology in order to find the answers they are searching for in their life.
It could even be argued that I required theology in order to find my path. That is, perhaps it is banging my head against the wall of theology for so long that gave me the courage I needed to look past it into other areas. Sort of how some young kids need to be pushed by "the bully" a few times before they overcome that fear and find their own inner-strength to resist outside oppression.
...but that's just my own subjective reasoning and rambling

Thanks Stile great post. Essentially I agree. I've pointed out in other threads, (or maybe even this one), that I believe that we have two scriptures. The first being the Bible and the second His creation. I would certainly include imagination in the second aspect of scripture.My experience has led to a strong belief in the scripture as laid out in the Bible as I find it completely consistent with the scripture of creation. I would include such things in that 2nd scripture as imagination, life experience, our relationships as well as science. I contend that this view is consistent with what the Bible tells us, when read as it, (in my view), was meant to be read. Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:

quote:

---

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

---

I was interested that you focused on imagination. Here is something from my imagination. When I was young I would look at older people and assume that their mind thought old. Now that I've gotten older I realize that isn't true. It seems to me that the mind just is. I still relate to myself and the world in the same way that I did when I was 20. Certainly I've gained knowledge and matured, (I gave myself lots of scope there), but I have a very real sense that I haven't aged at all. My body has certainly aged but the essential me is still the same as it was when I was 20. Even though the brain may not be as quick as it was, it hasn't changed the essential me. In other words it sure seems to me that my body is getting older but I'm not. This view of course comes strictly from imagination. Still when I've talked about this with family and friends I've found that most people seem to know what I'm talking about.Of course there is no verifiable evidence for that, and the only verifiable evidence for the Bible is the fact that it exists, but of course its accuracy can't be verified by any other means. In the end of course Christianity is a faith, but you have to believe in something even if it's nothing. As you pointed out, none of that is science.I'm sure we would agree that we should learn and form opinions by taking in as much as we can from wherever we can. Some things we'll reject and some things we'll take on board. I am quite open to changing my ideas based on new or better ideas or information. As a Christian, I can look back and say that there are many of my views that have changed over the last number of years as I continue to read and listen. I have no doubt that my views will change again in the future.

quote:

---

Even though the brain may not be as quick as it was, it hasn't changed the essential me.

---

That is common to most if not all people but it doesn't actually tell you anything. I'm pushing 50 and I still feel 'me' (who else?) but I kjnow intellectually that I am not. I can look back at things I wrote 20plus years ago and wonder who the hell it was who wrote them - even though I know it was me. Your views on lots of things change, but they change incrementally over time and you don't notice until you have reason to.
You can't test the feeling of 'me-ness' but you can test all sorts of related things - beliefs, opinions, mental agility, memory/recall, spatial reasoning etc etc and they all change with age.I also still don't see how you can equate believing in nothing with a belief. Most of us don't believe in Thor, Hermes, Rah (and another few thousand Gods). Are all those lack of beliefs themselves beliefs? Did you have a belief regarding Rah until I mentioned the name?

Absolutely but they are all brain things, that come partly from experience and partly from an aging brain. It just seems to me that there is something more fundamental.There is no question that many things have changed since I was 20. I'm now in my mid-sixties and I've changed my views on many things. At 20 I was agnostic for example. (Not that I thought much about it.) There is a sense that there is this "me" that perceives the world going by in a way that is unique to me but in a way that is more than just " beliefs, opinions, mental agility, memory/recall, spatial reasoning etc etc ". Certainly I have changed intellectually, (thank heavens) but still there is something, that I can't pin point that doesn't change. It's just me.However I agree it is completely subjective view point and we can all make what we want of it. It is anything but conclusive. I find it interesting to think about. I believe Rah doesn't exist.
You say that you are an atheist which means that you believe that there is no god(s). You can't prove it so therefore you have to believe that you are correct. Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity is.

Out of curiosity, in what other circumstances would you consider the likelihood of something being objectively real is increased by its conformity to your imagination? Would say, consider a lottery ticket more likely to win because it is closer to the number you imagine would be lottery-winning material? Would you cross a road that you imagine is clear without looking?I find it interesting that you admit the Bible's veracity isn't supported by any evidence. Surely you are aware that there are similar religions out there, but you presumably don't believe in them. So why believe the Bible? Because it is closer to your imagination?

quote:

---

You say that you are an atheist which means that you believe that there is no god(s). You can't prove it so therefore you have to believe that you are correct. Atheism is a belief just as much as Christianity is.

---

Not believing in something is not the same as asserting it does not exist.
Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn?
Are you sure she doesn't exist?
Since I have not asserted that God does not exist, yet I do not believe in God, I see no contradiction and I see no belief.

That makes as much sense as saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I might imagine winning the lottery but in doing so I know that it is unlikely to actually be true. (Particularly seeing as how I never buy lottery tickets.) I also might imagine that I'm going to a Thai restaurant with my wife tonight knowing very well that most likely will be the case. I guess we have to access the likelihood of the truth of where our imagination leads us. I didn't say that there isn't any evidence, I said that there is no verifiable evidence. I find the Christian ethos compelling. For example, Christ's message of love, forgiveness, mercy etc makes sense in that I can see that if we lived to the standard that He espoused, the world would be much more desirable place to live for all of us. Certainly that message can be found elsewhere, (Buddhism for example), but the whole Christian story from creation to new creation just rings true for me.Even though I do it poorly I base my life on the Christian faith. We all have to choose something to base our life on. It all boils down to faith in the end.As far as other religions are concerned, there are aspects of them I don't agree with. I don't believe in reincarnation for one thing. There are aspects of their faith I do agree with. As I mentioned I'm inclined to believe that the original Buddha was an inspired prophet in that he taught the whole concept of loving your enemy etc. His message was very similar to what Jesus taught.

I don't believe in the IPU. Can I prove that she doesn't exist? Therefor,e I have chosen to believe that that is the case. Can you define for me what you mean when you call yourself an atheist? Are you saying that you believe that there is no god, are you saying that he exists but you don't believe in what he stands for, or are you saying that there might be a god but he is ambivalent about us.In the end the fact remains that we exist and that we face what we call moral choices. Those choices have to be based on some standard. We have to have a general faith in where that standard comes from even if we believe that it is only from our own consciousness. In the end it is faith as none of us can conclusively prove the basis for our moral choices.