Welcome back!

But what do we call you? 

And where do you stand on things today. 

Call me whatever. As for where I stand? I think I'm a more mature atheist than I used to be. ("Agnostic-atheist" if you want to get pedantic about it.) A lot of my world-views have changed or smoothed out some. I'm also quite a bit less self-righteous about certain things, but I'll leave that for future posts to reveal.

Well, welcome back, Whatever.  :)

It is so nice to see that you have settled on atheism.  Of course this will be quite the blow to Copernicus who condescendingly predicted that you were just one more Christian who struggled with the intellectual might of the atheistic position only to finally gravitate back to their childish and fearful origins wrought by abusive propaganda.

*left eye twitches*

Cop said that, did he?

Now that you have settled on atheism, well now of course you are another example of those valiant free thinkers who rose above their conditioning to deal with reality, harsh as it is.  As you can see by such an approach, there is no such thing as a Christian theist who impartially and honestly is one based on their own objective assessment of the evidence.

  Well I wouldn't go that far.

Of course, you are an 'agnostic-atheist' which might not be strident enough for him.  It allows the possibility that you might consider, seriously, the notion that something else might be true after all.  (This of course would prove only that you are one of those Christians struggling with.... gravitating... etc, see above).

The inclusion of "agnostic" is more a concession to the grammar nazis of the world. I do have a strong belief that this sort of thing is just not knowable. I also have a strong belief that there is no such thing as a deity, but the latter is tempered by the former.

Thanks for the opportunity to put a stick in Cop's eye.  :)  He no doubt will not remember his comments.  :)

So what's prompted you to settle on atheism?  And what can I do to persuade you otherwise?

A lot of thinking over a long period of many boring days working in the most boring department in that most boring of stores, Walmart. I doubt if I can remember what exactly prompted it or if it was a gradual thing or whatever. As for what you can do to persuade me otherwise, I'm sure it doesn't involve lots of complicated scientific things that I have no hope of ever deciphering at this point since I haven't learned enough about them, as these days I tend to just shrug my shoulders and leave that stuff to those with more competance than I... but you can try whatever you want. I'll be ready for it.

Quote from: Solaris Paradox on April 29, 2009, 10:42:35 PM

The inclusion of "agnostic" is more a concession to the grammar nazis of the world. I do have a strong belief that this sort of thing is just not knowable. I also have a strong belief that there is no such thing as a deity, but the latter is tempered by the former.

Are you sure the two may not be slightly contradicting?

Not at all. By saying I believe something, I am not saying I know it; and by implying that a deity might not exist, I'm not implying that its nonexistence would be knowable.

Quote

A lot of thinking over a long period of many boring days working in the most boring department in that most boring of stores, Walmart.

Sounds boring.

Obvious statement is obvious.

That's a little nondescript for a Christian turned "agnostic-atheist", but seeing how the whole basis for Christianity is in the historical catagory,

I've read far too many of Johnny's posts not to know that.

I think you're in for a treat. I personally recommend The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, as the most important issue of whether Christianity is true or not is whether Christ did indeed die and was resurrected or not.

Again... I've read far too many of Johnny's posts not to know that.

It usually helps to have a rational reason for that belief. And that reason does indeed need to be knowable. Otherwise anyone can dismiss your beliefs simply on the basis you have no reasoning behind God's nonexistence. You don't have a knowable reason to tell you He doesn't exist (because then His nonexistence could be known), so there is no reason to consider the belief as you have no objective presuasive power. It's simply your opinion based on sheer opinion. See how it works?

My reasoning for the "unknowability" belief is simply that we don't know; it seems reasonable that an entity existing outside of physical perception and experience would have to make itself known, and if it hasn't, then it can't be known. This applies to gods and deities, and to events too far in the past for us to form anything clearer than educated theories, and to objects, entities, or events outside of our "bubble" of perception and experience in terms of sheer physical distance (say, something several galaxies that-a-way). It's pretty easy logic that something outside of our perception and experience, be it in terms of time, distance, or mystical-dimensional-whatever, needs to enter or leave some kind of mark behind within our perception and experience in order to be even vaguely "knowable."

My belief that it isn't there is just me firing a blind shot in the dark, and has more to do with internal musings and rationalizations than any kind of factual evidence.

So then, what's the issue that prompted your atheism? If you've read SJ's posts then you should indeed be able to point out an issue you have that causes you to reject his arguements, right?

Or maybe I'm just crap at following his arguments? That could be true, too.

Actually, I just haven't heard anything from him that, by itself, compells me to believe that a god or deity might exist; I've heard enough to believe that people can believe that without being idiots or indoctrinated parrots, but that's not quite on the same level as hearing enough to sway my own stance. Part of this is lack of expertise--not as much when it comes to history as with science, but I'm no pro when it comes to forming or understanding those kinds of arguments, so I just kind of jog along in everyone else's dust and try to collect whatever scraps fall my way, I guess.

I think it's the "if it hasn't" that's the issue to 'knowability'. Though this reasoning doesn't go so far with a belief that says the Being is fully transcendant and fully immanent.

Does "fully transcendant and fully immanent" imply that the entity in question exists within our perception and experience?

Yes, almost as if that Being would need to reveal himself and the knowledge of that revelation could be passed on in some way to the generations who can't witness the event. Would you accept historical documents and acceptable "mark behind"?

Provided I could understand them and evaluate their validity enough to make such a decision, something I'm not quite sure I have the competance to do at this point.

Which is why one can dismiss your belief as no one need be persuaded by your internal musings and rationalizations. If your belief is totally removed from objective reality (in which it's knowable) it won't be considered as sound. It begs why one can't 'fire a blind shot in the dark' for theism.

Heh... people do that, actually. They're called "deists."

Sway your own stance? I thought your stance was originally Christianity and you had "internal musings" and turned to atheism. Was I wrong? If not, that's all the more reason why you've got to give a specific issue why you settled on atheism (which I'm beginning to wonder if you even have a reason now), as 'not being swayed' means you can give a reason that hasn't been addressed.

My "religious history" begins with Catholicism. I got fed up with the religious fanfare and hypocrisy and turned to atheism for pretty pee-poor reasons. Some time later I arrived here as "Sir Somebody Something," and through a series of conversations that I can't clearly remember, I found myself converting to non-denominational Christianity for almost equally innane reasons. And then eventually I drifted back into atheism as the first vaguely intelligent belief-related decision I can ever recall making--a decision based on the realization that my reasons for converting to Christianity were just plain retarded.

That version of my atheist self wasn't very mature, though. It attempted to meld a lot of its indoctrinated ideals, a pre-determined moral framework, with its atheism and didn't actually have a logical reason for doing so--it just wanted to. It was a smarter "me" than the "me" that came before, but it was still an idiot at heart. This was the "Deep Thought" that once frequented these forums.

"Deep Thought" left for personal reasons unrelated to atheism or religion (and these haven't been entirely resolved, but oh well), and during that time "Deep Thought" just soaked in experience and matured into something smarter. At some point along the way he popped in as "Trent" just to see how things were and then discreetly faded back into obscurity.

The person you now see before you is "Solaris Paradox," who differs from "Deep Thought" in one very crucial way: he keeps always in mind that he may well be wrong about whatever he's currently feeling or thinking. It's a quality that, I think, leads to the most intellectually honest beliefs. I also try my hardest to recognize and acknowledge those times when I'm simply out of my depth, which is something I wasn't so willing to accept a year or so ago.

The "atheism" I've settled on now, and the one to which you refer with this question--well, it's not a transition from Christianity to Atheism, but a transition from atheism to a more mature atheism, if you get what I mean.

I don't see why expertise is needed as science is totally meaningless to the issue anyway.

What I mean is, "I'm not as bad with history as with science, but I'm pretty shyte with history anyway."

I invite you to look up what 'immanent' means and tell me.

Doesn't say anything about experience or perception.

So that's a yes then, as long as they're valid.

As long as I can tell that they are, which I probably can't.

Would you say that if one was persecuted and pressured to recant the personal experiences recorded in these historical documents to the point of death, yet always maintained it as true even under such pressure, would that convince you of it's validity?

It would convince me that they most likely believed in its validity.

So what's that say for the strength of your reasoning when the opposite conclusion is equal?

That both are worthless. I told you, it's a crapshoot in the dark--I don't expect anyone but myself to take it as valid.

So I wasn't wrong. In which case, it's all the more reason for you to elaborate on what those reasonings specificly are. Especially when you give such a contradicting account of them being strong enough that you 'aren't swayed away', yet now say they're poor.

...You're not paying attention. That's not the stance I hold now, that was the stance my younger, stupider self held.

Still waiting for elaboration on what those reasonings are.

Primarily, the dumbest reason of all: because I wanted to.

It's a bad sign when someone keeps refering to himself in the third-person. Worse when that third-person keeps changing.

Talking about this in the third person makes it easier for me to express my disdain and exasperation for my younger "selves," somehow.

In my experience many just use this as an excuse to avoid real self-examination. Yes, there's the issue of open-mindedness, but as you always may be wrong oppositely you may be right. As the two are equal the only thing to do is get knowledgable (do some work and study) and find out which.

I mean it as something to encourage self-examination, and also to discourage jumping to hasty conclusions.

I'm afraid I don't.

I'm atheist because I think it makes sense, as opposed to, say, because I want it to make sense. The moral framework I've built up around my beliefs makes sense now, because I built it based on what makes sense rather than what I want to make sense. I'm living based on what what seems true, rather than what I want to be true. In short, I'm not trying to force it--which is what I used to be doing. I feel more "free" because of it, I guess.

That said, I know that my knowledge is limited, and that fact may be hindering my perception of what "seems" true. I'm open to correction, but I'm also cautious of being steered the wrong way, so in the tradition of humanity's typical pig-headed stubborness, I'll fight tooth and nail to prove myself right--at least to myself. But it's more out of a desire to push myself and improve myself than out of actual pig-headedness. Or at least, that's what I like to think. My self-psycho-analysis could be wrong, who knows?

Well, fortunately one doesn't have to be an expert in history either.

I certainly helps decipher the epic walls of text, though.

gee whiz.   Didn't I go to bed and there were just 3 posts on this thread?  :)

For the record, Cop said the things I put in his mouth but not in those terms, at least in regards to you.  He has said similar things about religion.

In other words, he said nothing of the sort.  Sntjohnny is getting soft in his old age.  He didn't wait for me to step in to correct his worst distortions.     Of course, his "paraphrase" of what he thinks I would say about religion is very far from the mark, but you probably knew that.

Welcome back, man of a thousand names.

It wasn't a paraphrase, it was a consolidation.  You certainly have said things along those lines and you certainly did poo-poo his position at the time.  I merely synthesized your statements across the forum.  It doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't recall making them.  You've been known to contradict yourself within a sentence or two, so I won't hold it against you for forgetting what you've said over the course of four or five years or so. 

Neither your recall nor your powers of "consolidation" are anything to brag about, my friend.  I don't much like it when you pull things I've said out of context and juxtapose them with other things in order to create a false impression, but at least you are cutting and pasting things I've actually said.  In this case, you simply made things up out of whole cloth, based on what you imagine I would say.  I may misconstrue your positions from time to time, but I try not to put words in your mouth.

It occurs to me that we can just let you set the record straight here.  Perhaps we might start with whether or not you think it is possible that a person can be a theist and Christian simply based on the evidence?  Do you have any objection to Christians raising their children to be Christians?  For example, do you have any objection to Christians teaching their children that the universe is young and there was a flood, as a fact of history and reality, not merely of 'religion?'  In the same vein, what about teaching them about hell?

Rise up and defend thyself, oh grayhaired ancient!