Support NeoGAF

[HeySeuss]

3 words.

Ancient alien theory.

 

[Jintor]

Christianity is united in their beliefs about Christ. The differences in the denominations are practically irrelevant for the most part. Having slightly different views on various traditions and which saints to revere more than others.

What about 'minor' views on such matters as the status of homosexuality as a sin, which divides 'true' Christians from those who lack 'true understanding'? :|

 

[Dan Yo]

What about 'minor' views on such matters as the status of homosexuality as a sin, which divides 'true' Christians from those who lack 'true understanding'? :|

Christians believe that only God can judge, and he will at the time of death. Telling someone you know they are going to hell not only makes you an ass hat, but it is also considered to be disrespectful to God.

Currently the church does see the act of homosexual sex to be a sin, but the notion expressed earlier in this thread that Christianity preaches of a God that hates homosexuals or anyone for having any kind of tendency towards a sin, is the main thing I was contesting.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm not sure what you could really discuss when it comes to pantheism.

You could discuss it philosophically and use examples from science to look into it as a concept... it's not really a hypothesis, a physical claim about the world, that can be proven or disproven like a true believer or true atheist would demand.

I'm not implying Dawkins should have written such a book, he is a scientist who needs a solid hypothesis to disprove. My main point is: TGD is not a complete proof against concepts of god... it's a proof against fundamentalist Abrahamic monotheism. Himuro brought up the book as a proof against god, but I think it only serves to address a certain type of god. A very, very popular one, but a wholly unsophisticated one in my view. It's a popular view, IMO, only because that's the only message that can survive when passed between people and generations.

Ok? Sure, if that's how we're defining god, then I'm no longer an atheist, as I believe in the existence of a universe. Hooray?

That's exactly my interest: this is the kind of god that would be possible and perhaps acceptable under all of the things that an atheist currently believes.

But not just any universe could be defined as god-like. If the universe really was, as we believed through Newtonian physics, a giant void filled with many little particles that collide with one another and accidentally give rise to complexity, that's not exactly a universe I would compare to god. It's just a machine.

But in an interpretation of quantum mechanics, with its perception-dependant phenomena, and entangled particles light years apart that appear to affect one another... well the universe appears to be not many little pieces in a void, but one "piece", one "thing". Considering this object contains within it movement and life, it may make sense to attribute the quality of life to the one universal "object" itself. Such a thing is like a god.

Considering an analogous "all is one" sensation is perceived in the meditative traditions of many isolated cultures: Fransiscan, Hindu, Sufi etc, (as well as psychedelic drug users) I am inclined to believe that this is where the seed of the belief in God comes from. Most religious founders were similarly mystics. I believe they had the "all is one" sensation, defined it as monthotheism, a living universe, a creature, a person, a man, and all kinds of corrupted words that can't help but fail to express the original idea.

Even if this too is a god "delusion", someone should have a discussion about it honestly and intellectually via whatever avenues they can.


EDIT: To put it yet another way, I really want to see atheism take on the God of Alan Watts or Hindu's Brahman. Nothing in this "New Atheist" wave have ever addressed it. I'm unsatisfied.

 

[Dude Abides]

Christianity is united in their beliefs about Christ. The differences in the denominations are practically irrelevant for the most part. Having slightly different views on various traditions and which saints to revere more than others.

You don't seem to know much about Christianity beyond your own particular denomination. There is a significant number of Christians who do not think your version (Roman Catholicism I believe you said) is true Christianity. Transubstantiation, salvation by faith vs. salvation by works, direct communication with God v. priestly intercession, these are just a few examples of significant doctrinal disputes among Christians (and the cause of significant bloodshed). To characterize them as merely "slightly different views on various traditions" and quibbles about which saint is more important is pretty absurd.

 

[Beer Monkey]

My mom warned me that college would turn me into a godless liberal.

Thankfully she was right.

It was gradual.

 

[Muffdraul]

I was raised Catholic. As soon as I was old enough to start using my brain, I would lie awake in bed at night and think about everything we were taught in Sunday school and Catechism, and the more I thought about it, the less sense it made. The real kicker came when I realized, "Wait... if Zeus and Athena and Odin and Thor and Ra and Anu and Quetzacoatl and thousands of other gods were just bullshit made up by ignorant people thousands of years ago to explain things they didn't understand, why is our God any different? Oh, wait..."

 

[zoku88]

That's exactly my interest: this is the kind of god that would be possible and perhaps acceptable under all of the things that an atheist currently believes.

But not just any universe could be defined as god-like. If the universe really was, as we believed through Newtonian physics, a giant void filled with many little particles that collide with one another and accidentally give rise to complexity, that's not exactly a universe I would compare to god. It's just a machine.

But in an interpretation of quantum mechanics, with its perception-dependant phenomena, and entangled particles light years apart that appear to affect one another... well the universe appears to be not many little pieces in a void, but one "piece", one "thing". Considering this object contains within it movement and life, it may make sense to attribute the quality of life to the one universal "object" itself. Such a thing is like a god.

Uh, no. The thing about quantum mechanics is that it shows that the world we live in is made of many things and is NOT continuous. That, once you look very very down, deep enough, it is actually "quantized." Thus quantum. And, btw, many people DO treat the universe as a machine, the biggest quantum computer.

But anyway, the post you were replying to was basically saying that it was a meaningless thing to say. "God is the universe" kind of thing.

 

[mokeyjoe]

I'm not sure what you could really discuss when it comes to pantheism. If "God is the universe", then you've basically just come up with a fancy synonym for the universe. Ok? Sure, if that's how we're defining god, then I'm no longer an atheist, as I believe in the existence of a universe. Hooray?

This. Pantheism is meaningless. Unless you're defining God as a sentient deity then you're simply renaming nature. I don't have a problem with pantheism as a concept, as Dawkins described: it's simply 'sexed up atheism'. The problem is by rebranding the universe as God you're opening things up to the kind of new-age nonsense that wrecked Gaia theory. Really it just feeds back into what I mentioned earlier, that people just like to come up with whatever personal concept of God they like and believe in that.

In all honesty if you feel you need to 'sex up' the universe by calling it God then you probably don't know enough about it. Nature is far more wondrous than anything religion has ever cooked up and the view of atheism as some kind of dry, nihilistic perspective is ludicrous to me.

 

[teh_pwn]

Christianity is united in their beliefs about Christ. The differences in the denominations are practically irrelevant for the most part. Having slightly different views on various traditions and which saints to revere more than others.

That may be true in some places in some parts of history, and more true today, but to say that universally denominations are all puppies and sunshine is just historically inaccurate. Read up on King Henry VIII for an example of Lutherans vs Catholics. Or go to Northern Ireland today.

As an agnostic, I absolutely loathe Catholics and Evangelicals. They're both crazy in different ways. I can tolerate some of the protestant sects, if I ever had to pretend to be religious. At least they don't rape children wearing a gold hat or flail their arms around in cult like thinking (and not just the flailing, their disgusting social political views, glazed look over their eyes).

 

[Knox]

I didn't start going to church regularly until after I stopped believing in the easter bunny and santa claus, and god was never part of my day to day life before that, so I never got indoctrinated. I tried to believe at one point cause everyone around me did, but that didn't last long.

 

[BocoDragon]

Uh, no. The thing about quantum mechanics is that it shows that the world we live in is made of many things and is NOT continuous. That, once you look very very down, deep enough, it is actually "quantized." Thus quantum.

But there's one quantum field, is there not? I think it's debatable, but I honestly don't know details.

And, btw, many people DO treat the universe as a machine, the biggest quantum computer.

Interesting model: just like saying the universe is analogous to a living being, it's an unprovable theory that says more about "meaning" than it does about "facts".

I could argue this machine theory is an error. The thing is, to study the universe, we have to "cut it into pieces" before we can deal with it: numbers, particles, etc. (quanta?) Thus every theory ends up regarding the whole as being made up of individual parts, just like a machine, when it is actually us who has "cut it into pieces" in order to deal with it in the first place.

The universe is actually one continuous process, no piece or event of that universe was ever created independently of the others. We have our connotation with the word "machine" of many smaller parts, because we have placed individually created parts together to create our machines, but the universe was not assembled piece by piece like our machines. Each "part" only ever existed in tandem with the other "parts" of the system, in a way that it only makes sense to consider each event separate by cutting it with our logical knife into two.

Besides, there is the old adage that "to the man with a hammer, every problem tends to look pretty much like a nail." In the 19th century, the universe was a machine (like a steam engine), to the 20th century, the universe was like a computer. These are just models based upon our personal biases... and while they are fun to speculate over, so too is speculating that it operates much like a living being (in terms of self organizing systems that eventually give rise to intelligent complexity: chemical process, cells, organs, etc... I don't mean to imply that it has a "brain" or "intentions"). I think the universe "grows", one cause flowing into each event, and each piece only ever existing in relation to the other pieces... it is not "assembled" of individual pieces as the machine analogy would imply.

But anyway, the post you were replying to was basically saying that it was a meaningless thing to say. "God is the universe" kind of thing.

There are ways we can investigate that question. Don't do the atheist thing of "there is no way we can look at this". You just stated the universe is like a computer. There's no way to investigate that question either, but I just did for a few paragraphs, through philosophy. Obviously there will be no conclusive answer one way or the other. Because in scientific terms, no one is arguing over any facts... only in what those facts might mean, or how they relate together. Science tells us the facts, it cannot tell us what those facts imply. The meaning we take from the facts is debatable.

In all honesty if you feel you need to 'sex up' the universe by calling it God then you probably don't know enough about it. Nature is far more wondrous than anything religion has ever cooked up and the view of atheism as some kind of dry, nihilistic perspective is ludicrous to me.

In atheism, there may well be the implication of a dead, lifeless, nihilistic universe.

Or there may also be an atheist view of a lively interconnected system where every piece in intrinsic to the functioning of the whole system.

The difference between the two is literally the same difference between nihilism and pantheism. It's only a matter of perspective, and I think most atheists are scared to use a "living universe" theory because they are worried it might imply new religions (which is likely true).

I want an honest investigation of that perspective in a philosophical work. I was specifically hoping an atheist would do it... I don't need it to be confirmed... I want it to be taken seriously, then critiqued (which I suppose you posters are doing)

 

[soul creator]

You could discuss it philosophically and use examples from science to look into it as a concept... it's not really a hypothesis, a physical claim about the world, that can be proven or disproven like a true believer or true atheist would demand.

I'm not implying Dawkins should have written such a book, he is a scientist who needs a solid hypothesis to disprove. My main point is: TGD is not a complete proof against concepts of god... it's a proof against fundamentalist Abrahamic monotheism. Himuro brought up the book as a proof against god, but I think it only serves to address a certain type of god. A very, very popular one, but a wholly unsophisticated one in my view. It's a popular view, IMO, only because that's the only message that can survive when passed between people and generations.

Well...yeah. Your version of book would be the equivalent of someone writing a "mass market" US political science book, and ignoring Democrats and Republicans. Oh, and you just called ~4 billion people unsophisticated. Why are you atheists so mean!

That's exactly my interest: this is the kind of god that would be possible and perhaps acceptable under all of the things that an atheist currently believes.

So what does the word "god" help to explain that other, more clearly defined terms don't already do? Why the need to invoke a religiously loaded and vague term like god into the equation, when we already have more solid words like "universe" and "nature" to describe these things?

But not just any universe could be defined as god-like. If the universe really was, as we believed through Newtonian physics, a giant void filled with many little particles that collide with one another and accidentally give rise to complexity, that's not exactly a universe I would compare to god. It's just a machine.

But in an interpretation of quantum mechanics, with its perception-dependant phenomena, and entangled particles light years apart that appear to affect one another... well the universe appears to be not many little pieces in a void, but one "piece", one "thing". Considering this object contains within it movement and life, it may make sense to attribute the quality of life to the one universal "object" itself. Such a thing is like a god.

Ok.

Considering an analogous "all is one" sensation is perceived in the meditative traditions of many isolated cultures: Fransiscan, Hindu, Sufi etc, (as well as psychedelic drug users) I am inclined to believe that this is where the seed of the belief in God comes from.

Are we discussing about the origins of the human propensity to call things god, or actual gods? Those are two entirely different topics.

Most religious founders were similarly mystics. I believe they had the "all is one" sensation, defined it as monthotheism, a living universe, a creature, a person, a man, and all kinds of corrupted words that can't help but fail to express the original idea.

Even if this too is a god "delusion", someone should have a discussion about it honestly and intellectually via whatever avenues they can.

I would imagine that some people have that discussion all the time

EDIT: To put it yet another way, I really want to see atheism take on the God of Alan Watts or Hindu's Brahman. Nothing in this "New Atheist" wave have ever addressed it. I'm unsatisfied.

"new atheists" are pretty much only concerned with religions that actually make false statements about the world, and meddle in political affairs. Religions that take existing concepts and add fancy language on top of it aren't really high on the list, for obvious reasons.

 

[Venomgxt]

Its simple. If the Christian God exist, then he's an asshole. Its not my fault i dont believe because of lack of evidence.

 

[zoku88]

But there's one quantum field, is there not? I think it's debatable, but I honestly don't know details.

No. This is wrong.

Interesting model: just like saying the universe is analogous to a living being, it's an unprovable theory that says more about "meaning" than it does about "facts".

It's not a "theory". It's just a way to think of the way things interact with eachother. It, actually, is NOT analogous to saying the universe is a living being, for obvious reasons.

I could argue this machine theory is an error. The thing is, to study the universe, we have to "cut it into pieces" before we can deal with it: numbers, particles, etc. (quanta?) Thus every theory ends up regarding the whole as being made up of individual parts, just like a machine, when it is actually us who has "cut it into pieces" in order to deal with it in the first place.

The universe is actually one continuous process, no piece or event of that universe was ever created independently of the others. We have our connotation with the word "machine" of many smaller parts, because we have placed individually created parts together to create our machines, but the universe was not assembled piece by piece like our machines. Each "part" only ever existed in tandem with the other "parts" of the system, in a way that it only makes sense to consider each event separate by cutting it with our logical knife into two.

By any practical sense, yes, you can take parts of the universe as being independent from eachother. While in reality, everything interacts with everything else, but practically, most of those interactions are negligeable.

The only continuous thing in this universe is time. Everything else can be separated. They have interactions with eachother, yes, but they're still separate things. Many interacting parts. Like a machine. Most scientists are not concerned about how the universe came to be, but rather, how the world works. Most scientific researchers spend time on "what is" not "what was." Thus, why they use "machine." The origins of the "machine" need not come in to play.

Besides, there is the old adage that "to the man with a hammer, every problem tends to look pretty much like a nail." In the 19th century, the universe was a machine (like a steam engine), to the 20th century, the universe was like a computer. These are just models based upon our personal biases... and while they are fun to speculate over, so too is speculating that it operates much like a living being (in terms of self organizing systems that eventually give rise to intelligent complexity: chemical process, cells, organs, etc... I don't mean to imply that it has a "brain" or "intentions"). I think the universe "grows", one cause flowing into each event, and each piece only ever existing in relation to the other pieces... it is not "assembled" of individual pieces as the machine analogy would imply.

There's a difference between calling the universe a 'living being' and a 'computer/machine'. They mean completely different things...

There are ways we can investigate that question. Don't do the atheist thing of "there is no way we can look at this". You just stated the universe is like a computer. There's no way to investigate that question either, but I just did for a few paragraphs, through philosophy. Obviously there will be no conclusive answer one way or the other. Because in scientific terms, no one is arguing over any facts... only in what those facts might mean, or how they relate together. Science tells us the facts, it cannot tell us what those facts imply. The meaning we take from the facts is debatable.

I'll just explain this as simply as possible. The universe operates under quantum mechanics (or seems to, as far as we know.) Every operation in the universe is a quantum operation. Quantum computers perform quantum operations. Thus, the universe is a quantum computer. (or quantum computers are a subset of whatever computation class the universe is.) It's just a mathematical model. Think, when we learn physics, we are learning mathematical models.

AGAIN. I repeat. Saying the universe is a quantum computer is saying that the universe operates under a certain mathematical model. Saying the universe is a 'living being' is meaningless.

 

[BocoDragon]

Well...yeah. Your version of book would be the equivalent of someone writing a "mass market" US political science book, and ignoring Democrats and Republicans. Oh, and you just called ~4 billion people unsophisticated. Why are you atheists so mean!

That's actually a good analogy.

It'd be like if someone wrote "The Politics Delusion" and only attacked Dems and Reps.... the few Libertarians are like "but you didn't address my position at all". That's how I feel. :lol

So what does the word "god" help to explain that other, more clearly defined terms don't already do? Why the need to invoke a religiously loaded and vague term like god into the equation, when we already have more solid words like "universe" and "nature" to describe these things?

It's just a metaphor or a way of explaining it. Is the unverse a tool? A machine? A human? A computer? A game? A living being?

I don't so much like the term God either. I'm more atheist than anything. But when I say "the universe is a living being", every culture on earth will be like "yeah, we already have a name for that... maybe you've heard it before?"

I would imagine that some people have that discussion all the time

You could discuss "why videogames are fun" from the perspective of Neuroscience or Anthropology. My feeling is that if you made that a topic on gaming discussion, you'd get your topic locked. It's not approaching it at face value at all... it's almost an ad hominem way of approaching the topic: "here's why people would ask such stupid questions, according to a methodology that explains their delusions away as a byproduct of serving some subconsious need."

"new atheists" are pretty much only concerned with religions that actually make false statements about the world, and meddle in political affairs. Religions that take existing concepts and add fancy language on top of it aren't really high on the list, for obvious reasons.

Well fair enough. New Agers aren't trying to hijacks politics and classrooms.

 

[BocoDragon]

It's not a "theory". It's just a way to think of the way things interact with eachother. It, actually, is NOT analogous to saying the universe is a living being, for obvious reasons.

That's interesting, because you could represent a living body as a machine just as easily as you could the universe. It seems to me most people did that in the "soul thread". So the universe is like a machine, a living being is like a machine... But the universe cannot be like a living being? It seems to me that they are very closely related concepts... the difference is one of tiny degrees, not warranting smug dismissal. I think the dismissal has more to do with an atheist hostility towards theist-related terms (I understand), and the computer-immersed modern zeitgeist of most intelligent people today.

I did NOT imply the universe was like conscious fauna, with a brain, mind, etc... I meant to imply that it is analogous to a living being: flora, fungus, cellular biology, etc. Smaller order pieces make up a larger logical system that acts in certain complicated ways: gravity, magnetism, chemical processes, lead to higher level organization that exhibits a kind of "intelligence" (at least as "smart" as a dandelion)

Or.... perhaps the universe is a lifeless machine... but then so are we. Or perhaps we are both animated and "alive" in the same exact way. It's just a matter of analogy.

The only continuous thing in this universe is time. Everything else can be separated. They have interactions with eachother, yes, but they're still separate things. Many interacting parts. Like a machine. Most scientists are not concerned about how the universe came to be, but rather, how the world works. Most scientific researchers spend time on "what is" not "what was." Thus, why they use "machine." The origins of the "machine" need not come in to play.

There's a difference between calling the universe a 'living being' and a 'computer/machine'. They mean completely different things....

I think this is a result of human labeling, and calling different areas of the universe different things in order to better understand and manipulate it. Time itself is mere labelling of regular intervals.. it may have no objective reality at all.. The pieces of this universe are not separate pieces at all, in my opinion... they are wholly one thing, and we have separated it into pieces in order to deal with it.

I think it's an error to disregard the series of events that led up to the universe before now, as they are actually part of the same single event. You are cutting out the present as its own little thing, once again cutting it into pieces to deal with it. Luckily I don't believe scientists actually do disregard the past. The big bang is absolutely fundamental to the universe as it is right now... there is no separability except in human thinking.

I'll just explain this as simply as possible. The universe operates under quantum mechanics (or seems to, as far as we know.) Every operation in the universe is a quantum operation. Quantum computers perform quantum operations. Thus, the universe is a quantum computer. (or quantum computers are a subset of whatever computation class the universe is.) It's just a mathematical model. Think, when we learn physics, we are learning mathematical models.

AGAIN. I repeat. Saying the universe is a quantum computer is saying that the universe operates under a certain mathematical model. Saying the universe is a 'living being' is meaningless.

But you're believing in the numbers too much. We have assigned those numbers to the universe... they are not secretly underlying the universe waiting for us to uncover them (unless a sky daddy god really does exist and is a mathematician/computer programmer). It's more labelling.

If we figure out the complete mathematical model of the quantum universe, we won't have discovered that the universe is "really" a computer... we will have translated the geography of the universe into our imaginary (but practically useful) language of mathematics, and because both the unverse and computers can be reduced to mathematical formulas, we might think they are comparable because they have both been translated into the same language.

I'd say this insistance on computerfying the universe is identical to my biologizing the universe... They are both just models with no underlying truth except in analagous similarity. I only mean to assert that a "living universe" analogy is as acceptable as any, and that may be comparable to concepts of God long past. Perhaps you'll disagree. Oh well.

 

[zoku88]

That's interesting, because you could represent a living body as a machine just as easily as you could the universe. It seems to me most people did that in the "soul thread". So the universe is like a machine, a living being is like a machine... But the universe cannot be like a living being? It seems to me that they are very closely related concepts... the difference is one of tiny degrees, not warranting smug dismissal. I think the dismissal has more to do with an atheist hostility towards theist-related terms (I understand), and the computer-immersed modern zeitgeist of most intelligent people today.

I'm saying "the universe is a living being" is a meaningless statement. What does it even mean?

I did NOT imply the universe was like conscious fauna, with a brain, mind, etc... I meant to imply that it is analogous to a living being: flora, fungus, cellular biology, etc. Smaller order pieces make up a larger logical system that acts in certain complicated ways: gravity, magnetism, chemical processes, lead to higher level organization that exhibits a kind of "intelligence" (at least as "smart" as a dandelion)

So basically, like a machine... So, what is the meaning of saying "living being" if it doesn't have to be alive...?

Keep in mind, by calling it a quantum computer, I did not call it a machine. One statement is mathematical. The other is... a useless analogy.

Or.... perhaps the universe is a lifeless machine... but then so are we. Or perhaps we are both animated and "alive" in the same exact way. It's just a matter of analogy.

I'm not seeing the point of such an analogy.

I think this is a result of human labeling, and calling different areas of the universe different things in order to better understand and manipulate it. Time itself is mere labelling of regular intervals.. it may have no objective reality at all.. The pieces of this universe are not separate pieces at all, in my opinion... they are wholly one thing, and we have separated it into pieces in order to deal with it.

Depends on how you mean "time". If you mean a timespan, its a name for a span of time. Time, itself, is an idea. Continuous. "time" is a name for that idea. It's a dimension. Nothing more, nothing less. Like, in linear algebra.

I think it's an error to disregard the series of events that led up to the universe before now, as they are actually part of the same single event. You are cutting out the present as its own little thing, once again cutting it into pieces to deal with it. Luckily I don't believe scientists actually do disregard the past. The big bang is absolutely fundamental to the universe as it is right now... there is no separability except in human thinking.

Whether or not the big bang happened as no effect on what happens when I apply some operator to some current state. The thing about being a quantum computer, is that every operation can be expressed using linear algebra.

Ie, operator A applied to state x yield state y. Knowledge of the original state has no bearing on the calculation.

But you're believing in the numbers too much. We have assigned those numbers to the universe... they are not secretly underlying the universe waiting for us to uncover them (unless a sky daddy god really does exist and is a mathematician/computer programmer). It's more labelling.

We explain the universe through numbers. Nothing, NOTHING that has been explained by humans that hasn't had a mathematical basis. Saying that something can not be mapped mathematically is equivalent to saying that something can not be understood by logic.

Seriously, "too much faith in numbers" is the dumbest critique I've ever heard.

If we figure out the complete mathematical model of the quantum universe, we won't have discovered that the universe is "really" a computer... we will have translated the geography of the universe into our imaginary (but practically useful) language of mathematics, and because both the unverse and computers can be reduced to mathematical formulas, we might think they are comparable because they have both been translated into the same language.

What is a computer? Something that is capable of performing computations. If everything that happens in the universe is a quantum computation, then why wouldn't the universe be a computer by definition?

This is opposed to you calling the universe a "living being". Not only because a "living being" is not well-defined. Which is why I say it's meaningless to say "the universe is a living being". If you really just mean that it's comparable to an organism, ie it's made up of a lot of parts that work together to form a system, then i say "of course it is. and it was pointless to even state it."

 

[mokeyjoe]

In atheism, there may well be the implication of a dead, lifeless, nihilistic universe.

Or there may also be an atheist view of a lively interconnected system where every piece in intrinsic to the functioning of the whole system.

The difference between the two is literally the same difference between nihilism and pantheism. It's only a matter of perspective, and I think most atheists are scared to use a "living universe" theory because they are worried it might imply new religions (which is likely true).

I want an honest investigation of that perspective in a philosophical work. I was specifically hoping an atheist would do it... I don't need it to be confirmed... I want it to be taken seriously, then critiqued (which I suppose you posters are doing)

The universe isn't living. It doesn't fill any of the requirements that would define it as life and in order to do so would require such a drastic reinvention of the term as to render it meaningless. Sound familiar?

You seem to think that to reject pantheism is to automatically embrace nihilism which is essentially an empty theistic argument. No-one's 'scared' to use the theory of a living universe because it's not actually a theory. In polite terms it is, at best, a fanciful analogy, of no more use than seeing pictures in the constellations. It may help help you visualise things, but it bears no relation to reality.

Yes pantheism is a difference in perspective; it's a difference between clear-thinking, scientific rationale and, let's face it, hippy drivel. Just because there's a Sun which sustains us doesn't mean there's a Sun-god, just because we're we rely on our planet to survive doesn't mean there's an Earth-goddess, and just because we're part of an incredibly complex and vast universe doesn't mean there's a Universe-god. Why do people always seek to mysticise nature? It really doesn't need it and serves to do nothing but cloud the truth.

 

[iapetus]

Christianity is united in their beliefs about Christ.

There's always someone who goes out of their way in these threads to make me feel faintly ashamed to be an atheist with their rank ignorance or disrespect for basic logic.

 

[SmokyDave]

There's always someone who goes out of their way in these threads to make me feel faintly ashamed to be an atheist with their rank ignorance or disrespect for basic logic.

Why?

The connection between the two of you as atheists is no stronger than the connection between the two of you as males. Does every ignorant viewpoint spouted by a male make you feel ashamed to be male?

I really don't like the idea of a collective atheist entity. It just seems like an easy way to group an incredibly diverse range of people together and then use the dopier members of the group to discredit the whole.

 

[Souldriver]

Why?

The connection between the two of you as atheists is no stronger than the connection between the two of you as males. Does every ignorant viewpoint spouted by a male make you feel ashamed to be male?

I really don't like the idea of a collective atheist entity. It just seems like an easy way to group an incredibly diverse range of people together and then use the dopier members of the group to discredit the whole.

What confuses me more: Dan Yo is atheist?


I think we're misreading Iatepus or something.

 

[Hanmik]

As a kid I used to belive in religion. It was forcefed through the danish schoolsystem. But the older you got (around 8-10) and you started to question things yourself, you could see the plotholes in the bible. It was more obvious than a Dan Brown book.
And when you go to class with different people believing in different religions (Jehova, some missionary people etc.), you (as a kid) start to see more and more things that is just plain wrong with religions.

Several things comes to my mind when I think back, (I´m 35 so I have to think WAY back) that just helped me NOT to believe in religion.

- When my father commited Suicide by gassing himself in his car.

- When My 14 year old female coworker (in a cinema where I worked at when I was 18-20) Hung herself in the horse stable.

- When my 17 year old Cousin got killed when his moped got hit by a car. He was drunk and it was his own fault, still very unfortunate, because it was the day he turned 18, and a big party was planned.

that was just some personal shit that happened way back. But these things made it even more clear to me that no God or whatever decided who has to live or die..

But for people who believe in religion, good for them, if this makes their lives easier. That stuff just isn´t for me..

 

[SolsticeZero]

I guess I never really had a strong faith in a higher power. My grandmother is extremely Christian, but my parents never raised me to be. They never forced me to church or made me say grace before meals or anything. I guess I was extremely lucky growing up.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

But for people who believe in religion, good for them, if this makes their lives easier. That stuff just isn´t for me..

The thing is, for most people, I don't think it does. It just makes everything some stressful conversion game where they have to get all their friends into heaven. When they seriously believe in eternal life, that sort of thing can really, really fuck you up.

Anecdotally, I also don't see them cope with grief well, because they don't accept death like atheists can. There's always the element of magic and wonder connected with the death rather than the grim acceptance of loss.

 

[Dan Yo]

That may be true in some places in some parts of history, and more true today, but to say that universally denominations are all puppies and sunshine is just historically inaccurate. Read up on King Henry VIII for an example of Lutherans vs Catholics. Or go to Northern Ireland today.

I'm well aware of the many mistakes of the church throughout history. For instance, there was a time when it was seen as normal for the Catholic church to charge for the Eucharist. Something that would be extremely blasphemous today.

Sometimes the church changes its policies, sometimes the church changes its interpretation of scripture, and sometimes the church breaks off into new denominations, but the belief of a forgiving and loving God, is something all Christians believe in. That was the basis for Christianity when it was started by Peter and the Apostles and it remains unchanged today. If that were changed, it would cease to be Christianity anymore. No one that preaches about a hateful God is an actual Christian, even if they claim to be. They know nothing about the Christian god.

 

[Dan Yo]

What confuses me more: Dan Yo is atheist?


I think we're misreading Iatepus or something.

I'm agnostic.

And I don't think Iatepus understands what I'm saying about Christianity and the Christian God. I think he's substituting the word Christianity for Religion in that sentence.

 

[mantidor]

But when it comes to marriage... I haven't given it much thought. I think I would prefer someone that didn't believe as well just for the sake of not having incongruencies when raising children, but I don't think it would be a requisite. Any opinions?

This can be a problem, I was raised with an atheist father and a catholic mother, so I know the conflict first hand.

As long as no parent tries to impose their own belief in the children, and they don't ridicule one another I think it can be a great advantage, it really makes open minded children who can be very tolerant, respectful and overall just more free in their lives. But this is an ideal scenario, humans are humans, (yes even atheists ), fights are almost inevitable so it should be handled with care. Overall I think I came out alright, but I also think it would be really easy to mess up the kid's mind.

In my experience I just became a believer of a more sensible god for some time, which of course doesn't include any god from any religion, just about a superior being. It brought certain magic to the universe, and I think it's really nice to have that and to deny a kid from that is something I don't really approve. It's a middle ground between the kid who believes in Santa and the adult who doesn't believe in anything.

I dropped that belief gradually anyway, but it became more of an awe to the universe and existence itself. It makes you hungry of information, of discussion and ultimately it can make life more enjoyable. For me it's just important to be humble, the worst atheists are the arrogant ones.

 

[SenorDingDong]

Much like many others here I never really felt a connection with religion, so there wasn't any distinct moment. I've just never believed.

 

[Autodidact]

(First big post on GAF! Yay! I'm just sorry it had to be a bump of a year-old thread, but I wasn't sure where to post this. Skewer the junior as you wish.)

Before I detail my personal troubles, I'd like to give you guys a little background. I'm a seventeen-year-old student living in rural Oklahoma, which, as you might imagine, is neither the most tolerant nor accepting of places. I've had church forced down my throat for most of my life, along with plenty of supplementary lessons courtesy of my crazy evangelical grandmother. Though I've taken most of it in silence, I've always had a distinct feeling in the pit of my stomach, a hunch that something wasn't exactly right. A couple of years ago, I decided to embark on a journey of research and intense reflection, to determine where I REALLY stood on religion without having somebody tell me where I should stand. I think my presence in this thread tells you what my conclusion was.

Anyway, I recently built up the courage to come out to my family as atheist. (I'm saving my trip out of the closet for a little later; I figure they can only handle one major life revelation at a time.) Suffice it to say that the response has been... not great. Even worse, I'm a little surprised. My parents and maternal grandparents (not crazy grandma) are not the crazy religious wackjobs like the ones on TV, nor are they particularly prejudiced or judgmental. I expected them to be a little shocked, sure, but I thought they'd come around pretty quickly. I realize now that I was being hopelessly naive. Ever since I told them, I've been fighting a defensive, uphill battle that has left me unsure of what to do. I'm not in danger of being disowned or anything, but I want my last year at home before college to be as pleasant as possible. I'm hoping that if I give you guys some insight into our conversations, maybe you can give me some suggestions about what to say and how to handle the situation appropriately.

Most of my irritation stems from my family's complete unwillingness to consider any alternatives. During my "unsure period," as I like to call it, I frequently subjected myself to "what if" sessions. I would sit down and consider the possibility that maybe there was a God, that perhaps I as an ignorant teenager had missed some essential fact that would solidify my faith. Basically, I tried to entertain both sides of the argument, which is something I think any adult should be able to do. Apparently my family thinks otherwise. Every time I've asked them to do the opposite, to sit down and consider that there may not not be a God, they've balked, saying that they "just can't." The sad thing is, I understand this. I know that faith is important to a lot of people, that without it their lives would be virtually empty, and that scares them. I don't agree with it, but I get it. It just bothers me that they don't love me enough to see things from my perspective and acknowledge that my opinion is valid, too. When they tell me that I'm just "not experienced" or that I'm just "repeating what I've heard," I feel as though I've been completely dismissed. How do I make them understand that I'm not trying to make them give up their faith, but that I just want them to examine my point and respond to it like adults?

What really gets me, though, is the pity. I do not like to be pitied by anyone for anything whatsoever. If I want someone to feel sorry for me, I think I can manage that alone. I want to scream whenever one of my relatives tells me how sorry they are, how I'll never have a "full, happy life" unless I accept Jesus. That sort of speech just reeks of arrogance and self-righteousness. I'm a firm believer in personal freedom. I think that as long as we're not violating someone else's rights in the process, we have the right to live our lives however we see fit. Because each person's outlook on life is different, it's incredibly presumptuous to tell someone else what will make them happy. This is more of a complaint about religious people than the Bible itself, but I thought it was relevant.

So... there you have it. Any advice, suggestions, complaints, or why-the-hell-is-this-so-long replies? I promise you guys I'm much less whiny than this post would have you believe, and I'm not normally inclined to share so much. It seems like a lot of you might have experience with this, so I'm willing to consider any responses.

 

[OttomanScribe]

Haha, even though I'm not one now, I still get to answer because I was.. and because I like talking about myself.

I became an atheist when, at 9 years old, I read the Bible. Specifically the bits about killing the men and divvying up the virgins. Around that time my cousin was killed in a car accident at 18. I remember praying that it was all a mistake, and nothing happened.

I was a gnostic atheist for a time, I thought I knew for certain that God did not exist. It was quite a simplistic form of atheism but I was young. Around 16 I started reading philosophy a lot more actively, both in the form of Marxist politics and in the Western tradition. I realised I was more of an agnostic atheist than an atheist. I liked Kant and Descartes and started to think a lot about the nature of knowledge. I was also a bit of a fan of Spinoza.

That last til around 20, then things changed.

 

[Tornado Condor]

The more i get educated, the more i realize religion is bullshit. Religion is simply a coping mechanism for people to gain a basic (yet wrong) understanding of the things they cannot comprehend.

 

[Lesath]

University freshman cognitive science class. When faced with the question of what a soul accomplishes that the physical brain cannot account for, I was left with one sensible realization, and from there, the way I come to think of faith today. Prior to that, I had entertained the ideas of both the traditional Chinese form of Buddhism that my family practices, as well as the Catholicism of my elementary school. It certainly helped that I was never too invested into faith.

 

[Subtervotion]

The first time I really started to question my religion was in 2007. I was living in Orlando at the time taking classes at UCF.

I just thought to myself 'Where does a good atheists soul go when they die?' I knew what the answer should be, but it wasn't the answer I got. After that there was a domino effect. I started asking more question to myself (and my religious friend).

Eventually I became some sort of deist, but quickly gave that up and just lumped in with the agnostic. After awhile I started saying I was an agnostic leaning towards atheism. Then I just started saying 'i have no religion'. Just recently I've come to full realization that I am an atheist. I think it took so long because society has such a negative connotation for the word atheist.

 

[krypt0nian]

I was searching for something all my life. After two comparative religion courses I realized that it was all the same. Humans that were searching for the meaning behind things before science could offer the truth.

We learned that Thor doesn't bring the lightning, and Isis didn't make you fertile but the Christians, etc found a way to recruit and brainwash from birth and so it endures.

I'm just thankful that these days it seems to be on a downturn. I firmly believe we'd be much better off as a society without delusion.

I just cannot accept things without suitable proof, especially after learning how the strings behind religion are set up.

 

[speedpop]

My parents weren't religious when I was born. I specifically remember, when I was 12 or 13, asking my mother to write down letters to excuse myself and my siblings out of the ridiculous religion classes they tried to force down children's throats at school. Those were good times.

 

[that1dude24]

Used to be a christian until I was about thirteen, I started reading debates on the subject and gradually slipped towards agnosticism. As for atheism, I don't know what episode but I was watching mythbusters when I was around fourteen. Adam said something along the lines of "gods were used to explain the unexplained". I thought about it for a while, and suddenly it just hit me, how ridiculous the notion that a god exists was, how there wasn't any shred of evidence supporting the existence of god, and how it hadn't changed from the days of Greek gods and Native American spirits.

My parents weren't too supportive at first, but they came around eventually. I had arguments with my mom about the subject, she eventually turned atheistic.

 

[Ptaaty]

I wished I was a Christian. My entire family is...it is actually a big reason why I left the area to live.

There is a peace that comes from being able to give up the terrible things that happen, the hope of a better future, etc. In addition, "good" Christians do a lot of good to help those around them, reduce reliance on welfare, provide strong social network.

It is actually amazing to see the love, caring and strength delivered to a person in need by a good church.

I grew in a very strong religious family that remains so to this day. I am the only one who has stepped away. I am an engineer by trade and education, and very logic driven. After years of struggle, culminating in college I realized I couldn't do it any more.

I tried for about 2-3 more years trying to force myself to believe, until I realized the misery and torture it brought me. I let go and said if god wants me to believe he'll make sure it happens...I just live my life as good as I can which brings me happiness.

Am I a full on atheist? Maybe, probably more of a agnostic...being so convinced there is nothing takes too much effort and conviction and belief for where I am at.

 

[TacticalFox88]

If it wasn't for the internet, I'd probably still be a theist, no questions asked. I just can't bring myself to believe in a deity who would send children he supposedly loved and created to eternal damnation.

Not only that, but my parents basically disowned me because of me telling them that (there's a thread on it if you search it). They STILL haven't talked to me....two years later.

 

[Tenck]

I believe I was full Atheist around 6th grade. Probably even in the 5th grade.

When I was really young, (4), my mom and grandma would take me to church to do what was "required" of us to do. It started out good with me being in a small class having fun and my mom and grandma listening to the boring stuff. Then when I was 6 we moved very far away. My mom wanted a place close to a church. When we found a we liked, we immediately moved into it. Not even one day went by, and we left for church, leaving our unpacked goods in our house. The church seemed really nice and all the people seemed very friendly.

Fast forward a couple months and what do I get? I get to go to church on Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday for services that last 3 hours. Then on Sunday I'd get the very best service anyone here could imagine. I got to stay from 4-5 hours hearing some crazy guy rant about how the world is corrupt, and how we will go to hell if we don't set an example for the next generation.

It definitely was a change from sitting in a smll class and having fun all day for about an hour, to some of the most uncomfortable shit I've ever been through. Don't get me wrong though. Sitting for hours isn't what made me hate religion, it was the way everyone tried to explain god to me. It didn't make sense that a whole lot of fucked up shit happened all around me and could only be explained by someone telling me that god worked in mysterious ways.

Throughout my life I've gone through so much crap. My father went to prison because of my asshole uncle, my other uncle that used to live with us was a raging drug addict that would scare the shit out of me to show his dominance, my sister was beaten by him with hair brushes, my mom was barely in my life because of so much work, my grandmother hated my guts for no reason, my cousin got raped by my asshole uncle, I did prety bad in school because of too much church, and last but certainly not least is the fact that people still want to cram all their beliefs down my throat.

I have contemplated about committing suicide when I was younger, but now I'm much more chill because I just block all the negativity I've gone through. What's sucks is that all that has made me a somewhat grouchy person. I've gone through so much that I really have to control myself from getting mad easily. I have a short fuse and sometimes sucks to go through some random anger issues :/

 

[quaere]

(First big post on GAF! Yay! I'm just sorry it had to be a bump of a year-old thread, but I wasn't sure where to post this. Skewer the junior as you wish.)

Why are you so insistent on engaging your family in religion talk? It just won't end well. Just accept that they believe what they believe just as you do.

I have a strict religion ban with my family. They are permitted to email me religious materials, which they do every day. But I will never respond. And they know that if they bring up the subject in person I will immediately end the conversation and walk away. It's the only way I can maintain the relationship without it being poisoned by constant conversion attempts, and I think it works rather well.

 

[Autodidact]

Why are you so insistent on engaging your family in religion talk? It just won't end well. Just accept that they believe what they believe just as you do.

I have a strict religion ban with my family. They are permitted to email me religious materials, which they do every day. But I will never respond. And they know that if they bring up the subject in person I will immediately end the conversation and walk away. It's the only way I can maintain the relationship without it being poisoned by constant conversion attempts, and I think it works rather well.

That sounds a little... abrupt, but I see where you're coming from. Sometimes it really is better to bury a dead horse. I'd be completely willing to do that, and some of my family would, too. It's just that when I talk to some of them, there's this hostility - or something that feels a hell of a lot like hostility - bubbling underneath the surface. I'm not a fan of grudges or bad blood. Maybe those are the people I should ignore, huh?

 

[Insane Metal]

I only became an Atheist recently. But honestly I have never been a religious guy at all.

One of the things that bother me the most is that God creates everything, and everything needs to be created from something (or somebody). Except Him. He just exists and is the all powerful. He didn't have to be created at all, and it's something you can't question.

Then I see manyyyyyy other religions. Some with a similar story, some with different stories. But all of them have some things in common. Seems like folklore to me.

 

[Orayn]

I'd always been a skeptical little shit, asking all sorts of annoying questions to parents and pastors on religious matters, but I gradually learned to shut up and go along with it for the sake of not causing a ruckus around people I respected. I was just indoctrinated enough that I'd occasionally lash out at nonbelievers, but that broke down when I realized the horrors of fundamentalism. Meanwhile, science and rationalism filled up more headspace, leaving religion little room, despite the fact that I went to a Catholic school.

I think my actual moment of realization was probably some random 4chan thread that drifted into a religious debate. I was about to post my own comment, starting with "I'm a Christian, but..." then I stopped, and realized I had been rooting for a faithless point of view the entire time. My ability to reconcile my supposed religion with the views I'd adopted in every other area of life was breaking down, so I gave up. No more trying to fit that square peg of faith into the round hole of a scientific, naturalistic worldview, just a refreshed perspective without any gods in it.

 

[Giard]

Fun story: When I was a kid, during my first communion, the priest asked us what we thought about the Bible and Jesus' teachings. I quickly raised my hand, and yelled out loud "JESUS IS A NICE FAIRY TALE, ISN'T IT?"

I had some nasty looks from the priest and some parents.

I guess you can say I've never been religious. My mother is into a lot of spiritual stuff (including being catholic), my dad is atheist.

 

[Scrow]

mine was a gradual progression. i'd sway back and forth between "feeling religious" to being less theistic. with each swing i was more atheist and less religious (buddhist, universalist, spiritualist, agnostic etc.), until finally i went full atheist.

always go full atheist.

 

[speculawyer]

When I realized those Richard Leakey books and Carl Sagan books I was reading as a kid made a fucking lot more sense than the stuff at church.

 

[OttomanScribe]

mine was a gradual progression. i'd sway back and forth between "feeling religious" to being less theistic. with each swing i was more atheist and less religious (buddhist, universalist, spiritualist, agnostic etc.), until finally i went full atheist.

always go full atheist.

What does 'full atheist' mean? Are you a gnostic atheist?

 

[Dice]

My faith has crumbled into the shitter. The interesting bit is that the trigger had jack shit to do with anything I ever heard argued against theism or Christianity, nothing from people here. It was all triggered by difficulties I found all on my own, even within words of comfort I spoke to a friend concerning the gracious nature of God and the implications they necessitated despite being necessary themselves.

As a very self-aware person, I have written about this crumbling in detail if anyone wants to hear it. It gets bonus juicy bits in that I have been involved in ministry for 15 years, technically still am, my family doesn't know, and only an elder at my church knows of it as a process that began that I warned him may well finish. Aside from that, I have only been discussing it with my closest friends. As I become more certain, the troubling issue of how to resolve it in my life becomes more pressing.

 

[slidewinder]

You tease. Of course people want to hear it.