Why I'm an atheist.

[stinkinlibs]

if u r so high on getting answers.....y dont u try reading the bible?....thats the foundation of what christians believe....then u might get somewhere rather than having to rely on all these different people feeding u different things and u still coming back to the same spot with u believing that there is no God

 

[Avatar4321]

Would you care to describe one of these answered prayers or miracles?

In detail right now? not really. It's been a long day and quite honestly, i dont think most of the people here would appreciate it. You may, but I know alot of guys here wont even consider it.

However, I will tell you one. I was healed by the Spirit once. I was kicked in the back of the thigh and felt one of my muscles collapse. i spent about 4 days barely able to limp around and my leg was in alot of pain. I didnt have insurance so I couldnt go to the dr. I went to Church and did my best to help others that day and in one of the meetings the Spirit just rolled through my body and my leg was immediately fine. I was walking fine. Had no problem with it after that. I can pinpoint the exact moment. One second, i was in alot of pain, the next i wasnt.

Experience tells me faith proceeds the miracle. thats just one of my experiences. Ive seen countless other things in my life and in the lives of others. Ive had my own experiences with God. And you know what, you dont have to believe me. I dont expect anyone to believe me just because I say something. What I hope people will do is seek out their own experiences. You want to know God? Talk with Him. Exercise a particle of faith, even if its only enough to say you believe He might exist and can reveal Himself. It doesnt take much to start. It grows on its own after that.

 

[Avatar4321]

if u r so high on getting answers.....y dont u try reading the bible?....thats the foundation of what christians believe....then u might get somewhere rather than having to rely on all these different people feeding u different things and u still coming back to the same spot with u believing that there is no God

See, i dont think reading the Bible in and of itself gives people the answers. Anyone can read the Book, doesnt mean people learn anything from it if they dont have the Spirit with them to be taught.

You want to know God? You have to experience Him. You can debate all day, but you'll learn more with five minutes with the Spirit than you can in a lifetime without it.

 

[jillian]

I don't care if you're an atheist. It's your choice. Hope you made a wise choice.

Do you think people can force themselves to believe if they don't?

And if they don't believe, then what's the argument that they should? Fear?

I'd hate for my beliefs to come from fear.

amrchaos Hypothesis about Faith


The more I think about it, the more I come to realize that it is not fear that dictates a believers belief. Call it hand waving, but I think the reasons believers "believe" is to be part of something that is bigger than they are regardless if it actually can be proven to exists or not.

In other words, Faith in believers is more based on hope of a possible realliy than a fear of it. Quite frankly, I detect a kind of snicker behind some of these believers when they talk of hell and so forth.

Of course, this is my hypothesis on faith.

I guess I don't see the "snicker"... I think if you ask the people on this board who are of that belief whether they believe in hell for people who don't believe what they do, they will tell you they do.

And if what you're saying is true, then why the use of a threat of a horrible burning hell to keep people in line?

 

[gcomeau]

I feel, I think. Any relevant questions that I haven't already answered?

That space remains blank.

This space?

But you do choose to apply faith to the ideas and claims encompassed by religion.

You do this because __________________.​

I can't answer it because your premise is faulty. Your premise is that I believe the ideas and claims encompassed by [my] religion. As I don't apply faith to all of those claims and ideas, I cannot answer. It's a nonsensical question.

Good. Grief.

As faith is by definition, a belief in something that has no supporting data

Does that sound familiar? It should, you're the one that said it. I added the emphasis.

Now, take that SOMETHING you just mentioned having faith in, plug it into my question, and explain how you came to the conclusion that that SOMETHING belonged in the "deal with it through faith" category instead of the "deal with it through logic" category.

We're both perfectly well aware that that "something" you were talking about was religious in nature, but if you want to play all obtuse about it now go right ahead, Don't care. Make the "something" an abstract undefined black box of nothingness if it makes you feel better. Just see if you can fill in the blank already.

 

[Si modo]

That space remains blank.

This space?

But you do choose to apply faith to the ideas and claims encompassed by religion.

You do this because __________________.​

I can't answer it because your premise is faulty. Your premise is that I believe the ideas and claims encompassed by [my] religion. As I don't apply faith to all of those claims and ideas, I cannot answer. It's a nonsensical question.

Good. Grief.

As faith is by definition, a belief in something that has no supporting data

Does that sound familiar? It should, you're the one that said it. I added the emphasis.

Now, take that SOMETHING you just mentioned having faith in, plug it into my question, and explain how you came to the conclusion that that SOMETHING belonged in the "deal with it through faith" category instead of the "deal with it through logic" category.

We're both perfectly well aware that that "something" you were talking about was religious in nature, but if you want to play all obtuse about it now go right ahead, Don't care. Make the "something" an abstract undefined black box of nothingness if it makes you feel better. Just see if you can fill in the blank already.

K. I'll play. The communion of saints.

I also prefer Coke to Pepsi. You want to convince me I shouldn't?

Shit, it's like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are just as fascinated with me as you are.

 

[gcomeau]

K. I'll play. The communion of saints.

"You do this because the communication of saints"?

What, are you saying you personally had a conversation with a saint and they gave you a list of things you're supposed to take on faith?

Shit, it's like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are just as fascinated with me as you are.

Ok, listen. I'm getting about enough of this bullshit. This is A RELIGION DISCUSSION FORUM. If you aren't here to discuss the subject of religion then just what the **** are you here for? I didn't come banging on your door interrupting you at dinner or something so knock off the "omg, he just won't leave me alone" act. Yeah, I'm so persistently stalking you I'm going to the irrational lengths of asking you questions in my own damn thread that you're posting in.

 

[Si modo]

K. I'll play. The communion of saints.

"You do this because the communication of saints"?

What, are you saying you personally had a conversation with a saint and they gave you a list of things you're supposed to take on faith?

....

No, that's not what the communion of saints is.

Here:

The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of supernatural offices. ....

There's more here: Catholic Encyclopedia








But, let's be crstal clear on your question so that there are no twists on mutual understanding.

But you do choose to apply faith to the ideas and claims encompassed by religion.

You do this because __________________.​

I asked what you wanted in the blank. You told me to fill it in with something in which I believe (post no. 45)****.

I told you that I believe in the communion of saints (post no. 46).


Then you asked me a new question: "You do this because of the communion of saints?"

Inspecting your original question, the antecedent for 'this' is choosing to apply faith to the ideas and claims of [my] religion.

So, considering your new question and keeping consistency with your original, I choose to apply (the 'doing this' part of your original question) the communion of saints (the 'faith' part of your original question - the 'something in which I believe, from me and which you told me you wanted in the blank) to the ideas and claims encompassed by [my] religion (one of which is the communion of saints).

Seriously, this is still just silly. You are asking me why I apply a part of my faith to believing a part of my faith. It's still a nonsensical question. It's a do loop question - why does a=a when a=a? You really need to rethink what you actually want to know or be more exacting and consistent in communicating what you want to know.

Shit, it's like the Jehovah's Witnesses. They are just as fascinated with me as you are.

Ok, listen. I'm getting about enough of this bullshit. This is A RELIGION DISCUSS ON FORUM. If you aren't here to discuss the subject of religion then just what the **** are you here for? I didn't come banging on your door interrupting you at dinner or something so knock off the "omg, he just won't leave me alone" act. Yeah, I'm so persistently stalking you I'm going to the irrational lengths of asking you questions in my own damn thread that you're posting in.

Thanks. You've made a good point, there. However, understand that faith is quite a personal thing for many. So, this thread seems rather voyeuristic, especially for one who doesn't believe. This voyeuristic attitude is no different from those who try to proselytize to me. Then I need to take into consideration that you've 'witnessed' to your lack of faith. I combine that with my expression of a live-and-let-live attitude about faith and your expression that you can't accept that and ... hmmm.

It's like a stranger asking me why I love a lover when their view is that the feeling of love is stupid - elevated creepy index. One is tempted to tell them they need to figure out on their own if they want to love or not; so, until you do, just get lost and leave me alone.

You're right; I'm posting here. And, I'm telling you quite personal things. My motivation for continuing to do so at this point is to discover what your real motivation for this thread is. I asked what your motivations are at the start. I'm suspecting they are different from your original answer. That doesn't mean I think you were dishonest; but sometimes discussions with others can provide us with a new angle of perspective on our own goals.







****

As faith is by definition, a belief in something that has no supporting data

Does that sound familiar? It should, you're the one that said it. I added the emphasis.

Now, take that SOMETHING you just mentioned having faith in, plug it into my question ....

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This was what I was talking about gcomeau. Once you pinpoint the glaring irrationality of faith, and/or its practical irrelevance, the believer is unable to answer the question of faith without losing their own faith. It becomes impossible for them to answer. Faith must not be analyzed or it loses its power.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Si modo, can you answer these two questions, as I think this is what gcomeau is trying to get from you:

1. Why do you have faith in God?

2. What makes faith in God more important than remaining unconvinced and skeptical due to the lack of empirical evidence supporting His existence - especially considering your acknowledgement of the relevance of real world facts in all other aspects of your life?

 

[gcomeau]

But, let's be crstal clear on your question so that there are no twists on mutual understanding.

But you do choose to apply faith to the ideas and claims encompassed by religion.

You do this because __________________.​

I asked what you wanted in the blank. You told me to fill it in with something in which I believe (post no. 45)****.

I told you that I believe in the communion of saints (post no. 46).

Umm, no. That is not what I asked. You were refusing to answer the original question because I asked you what made you place "religious claims" in the "deal with it with faith" category and you started denying you did any such thing.

So I said fine.... but you place SOMETHING in the "deal with it with faith" category. So answer the question for that something. Plug that something into the question, THEN fill in the space. The "something" is not itself the space filler.

What goes in the space is the reason you decided that that "something" belonged in the "deal with it through faith" category" instead of placing that something in the "deal with it through logic category".

And now, after having indignantly denied that you applied faith to religious ideas and telling me I was being nonsensical for even suggesting you did such a thing... when asked what you DO apply faith to you provide me with, a religious idea.

This is getting increasingly not funny. But fine. Now that we've established one of your personal articles of faith, that being the "communion of saints"... please answer the question.

What make you decide that "the communion of saints" was something to which logic was not supposed to apply? What exactly is it about "the communion of saints" that, in your opinion, renders it immune from logical inquiry and places it in the realm of "faith"? You made that decision because ________?

There's the blank space again. It's the same blank space that has been there the whole time. Can you or can you not fill it with an explanation?

Then you asked me a new question: "You do this because of the communion of saints?"

That wasn't a new question. I plugged your "answer" directly into the blank space and that's what resulted. It made pretty much no sense to me so I put the question mark on the end, kind of as my way of saying "are you serious"?

Thanks. You've made a good point, there. However, understand that faith is quite a personal thing for many.

If you don't want to talk about faith it seems to me that you are really in the wrong place.

You're right; I'm posting here. And, I'm telling you quite personal things. My motivation for continuing to do so at this point is to discover what your real motivation for this thread is. I asked what your motivations are at the start. I'm suspecting they are different from your original answer.

I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

 

[Si modo]

....
I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over. If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask. I even suggested that you ask someone who does, if you recall. I don't make any such substitution if the 'specific subject matter' is real world shit. What is so unclear about that?

 

[gcomeau]

....
I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over.

You have not answered it at all. Ever. Not once.

If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That "the communion of saints" isn't real? That it isn't "real world shit"?

Are you arguing that your "faith" applies only to the imaginary?

What's so unclear about that is... everything about it. You now appear to be saying that you only apply "faith" to imaginary objects that don't exist in reality. However, saying things aren't real is kind of the opposite of having faith in them. So what the heck are you even talking about?

 

[Si modo]

....
I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over.

You have not answered it at all. Ever. Not once.

If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That "the communion of saints" isn't real? That it isn't "real world shit"?...

Nope.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

....
I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over. If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask. I even suggested that you ask someone who does, if you recall. I don't make any such substitution if the 'specific subject matter' is real world shit. What is so unclear about that?

Either you're intentionally misunderstanding the question or you're hitting some sort of mental blockage.

The question is this: Why, if you apply rational reasoning to real world aspects of your life, would you not use that same reasoning when it comes to religious belief?

Love fits into this. There are practical reasons why human beings experience love. And there are, not necessarily, rational reasons involved in loving someone i.e. if s/he abuses you or is unfaithful to you, you can choose not to be in a relationship with him/her. One would hope that you would make healthy, practical decisions regarding your personal relationships. Now, you might retort that God treats you well, and is faithful to you, but there are no tangible reasons to say so. Nor can you make a direct association between your life going well and it being because of God. If you were to get cancer and die or lose a child in an accident, would you say God treats you well? Or would you go with real world data to come up with the conclusion that life isn't fair and that's just how it is and God had nothing directly to do with it?

 

[Si modo]

....
I have continued asking you the exact same thing since this thread started. I am trying to figure out how you reached the point where you decided to substitute faith for logic when dealing with specific subject matter. Something you appear incredibly reluctant to even think about yourself.

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over. If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask. I even suggested that you ask someone who does, if you recall. I don't make any such substitution if the 'specific subject matter' is real world shit. What is so unclear about that?

Either you're intentionally misunderstanding the question or you're hitting some sort of mental blockage. ...

I so love false dichotomies. It either demonstrates ignorance or willful ignorance. *tongue in cheek*

Or, there is a third possibility: I compartmentalize, as I said from the start. It seems that is rather a foreign concept to some.

 

[gcomeau]

OK. You're asking the same question that I've already answered over and over.

You have not answered it at all. Ever. Not once.

If the specific subject matter is real world shit, I don't make any such substitution - same answer as before, yet you still ask.

What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That "the communion of saints" isn't real? That it isn't "real world shit"?...

Nope.

Ok, fine. So helpful. Really. You're just covering yourself in glory in the "explaining your position" department here.

Alright, so what do have so far...

You first say you compartmentalize your faith from 'reality'... which started off making no sense since that's just a blatant contradiction in terms already but whatever.

Then you seemed to modify that by saying what you really do is compartmentailze "things to which logic applies" like the sciences from "things to which faith applies" like certain religious ideas (ie: the communion of saints"). Which while not terribly helpful as an explanation for how you reached your positions was at least internally consistent.

Then when I tried asking you how you decided which things went in which compartments you started throwing up roadblocks. First refusing to acknowledge you did so after you were the one who said you did it, and acting all offended just because I repeated what you had said, then finally declaring that you didn't perform that compartmentalization on any "real world shit".

You also said you DO perform that compartmentalization on "the communion of saints". Therefore placing that apart from "real world shit".

You then denied that the communion of saints was not "real world shit". Which brings us back to step 1. If it IS real world shit then you DON'T apply that compartmentalization to it so why the hell isn't it in the "apply logic to it" category instead of the "apply faith to it" category?

Frankly, I'm beginning to settle on the conclusion that you don't have a clue and you reqlly don't want to think about it at all becaue you don't like where you think it will lead.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Or, there is a third possibility: I compartmentalize, as I said from the start. It seems that is rather a foreign concept to some.

Yes. I don't compartmentalize certain aspects of my life from logic. If there isn't enough evidence to believe in something, then I don't believe in it, whether I want to or not. If that were so, I'd still believe in Santa Claus. I'd believe that Christy Turlington wants my body and that I am independently wealthy and famous. Maybe even a Nobel prize winner. But, unfortunately for me, all aspects of my life come under rigorous scrutiny to see how well they align with what I perceive as reality. Having a religious belief would certainly have real world aspects, such as how it affected my life in a practical sense.

So why, then, do you compartmentalize your religious belief from logic? Wouldn't logic apply even to God? Or does God not make logical sense? If logic doesn't apply to God, then why believe anyway? What causes you to have faith in God despite no evidence supporting that He exists? What makes Him so special, from your point of view? Is it that you believe in God ONLY because you want to? And no matter how irrational it is, you're gonna do it anyway?

 

[Si modo]

Or, there is a third possibility: I compartmentalize, as I said from the start. It seems that is rather a foreign concept to some.

Yes. I don't compartmentalize certain aspects of my life from logic. ....

I call bullshit.

 

[Si modo]

You have not answered it at all. Ever. Not once.



What the hell is that even supposed to mean? That "the communion of saints" isn't real? That it isn't "real world shit"?...

Nope.

Ok, fine. So helpful. Really. You're just covering yourself in glory in the "explaining your position" department here.

Alright, so what do have so far...

You first say you compartmentalize your faith from 'reality'... which started off making no sense since that's just a blatant contradiction in terms already but whatever.

Then you seemed to modify that by saying what you really do is compartmentailze "things to which logic applies" like the sciences from "things to which faith applies" like certain religious ideas (ie: the communion of saints"). Which while not terribly helpful as an explanation for how you reached your positions was at least internally consistent.

Then when I tried asking you how you decided which things went in which compartments you started throwing up roadblocks. First refusing to acknowledge you did so after you were the one who said you did it, and acting all offended just because I repeated what you had said, then finally declaring that you didn't perform that compartmentalization on any "real world shit".

You also said you DO perform that compartmentalization on "the communion of saints". Therefore placing that apart from "real world shit".

You then denied that the communion of saints was not "real world shit". Which brings us back to step 1. If it IS real world shit then you DON'T apply that compartmentalization to it so why the hell isn't it in the "apply logic to it" category instead of the "apply faith to it" category?

Frankly, I'm beginning to settle on the conclusion that you don't have a clue and you reqlly don't want to think about it at all becaue you don't like where you think it will lead.

As I said, you need to figure out what you want to know. You haven't a clue.