I am not an atheist by choice

originally posted by: roberthsiddelljr
To Tangerine: Please open YOUR mind just a little. What has been debunked is the Middle Ages date. There were "modern" threads in the sample that were not discovered until well after the (incorrect) date was announced. Also, the cleaning process may have been inadequate and all the bacteria were probably not removed. Efforts are underway to obtain a better sample. As for other explanations, can you show reasons why we should doubt God The Father did "my" miracles (since Michael said he came from The throne of God and the South African preacher said he was relaying God's/Jesus' messages); how much simpler can it get! Have you heard of Occam's Razor (simplest reason is probably the best). Regarding the saving voice when I was about to crash, the breeze that saved me and the voice telling me to get my wife on the right path: there was no definite reason to ascribe the first two to God but I go first to Occam's Razor. The eyes wide open message was about getting on the right path which is very common Christian language. My sixth miracle was a vivid dream delivered by The Virgin Mary about a deadly South Florida flood she told me to warn people about. I'm Protestant and have concerns about Marian Apparitions but the things she showed me check out with science (which I did not know at the time) and with the Florida Div of Emerg Mgt. Keep looking up for signs in the Heavens and Jesus' return.

Your evidence that the Shroud of Turin dates to the dates Jesus allegedly lived is "efforts are underway to obtain a better sample"? That's not evidence. That's wishful thinking.

You haven't yet cited contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus ever lived. You would have to do that before you could successfully attach a shroud to him.

It's not up to me to prove that God doesn't exist. In fact, it's impossible to prove a negative. You claimed that God exists and it's up to you to prove it by citing testable evidence proving your claim of fact. Belief is not testable evidence. Claims of personal experience are not testable evidence.

Michael? I assume you mean the Archangel Michael. Prove that he exists.

A South African preacher said.... So what? That's a claim not testable evidence proving the claim.

Occam's Razor does not prove that God exists nor is it the simplest explanation. Does common sense tell you that an invisible magic hobbit poofing something into happening via magical means is more likely than a human experiencing delusions due to temporal lobe epilepsy or mental disorder or just plain lying?

You're welcome to your beliefs but that's all they are.

Dear Tangerine, I give you Matt 10:14 that says whosoever shall not receive your words, depart and shake the dust off your feet. If a miracle is given to you, I hope Jesus tells you so and I guess you will demand adequate proof...It was interesting talking to you.

originally posted by: roberthsiddelljr
Dear Tangerine, I give you Matt 10:14 that says whosoever shall not receive your words, depart and shake the dust off your feet. If a miracle is given to you, I hope Jesus tells you so and I guess you will demand adequate proof...It was interesting talking to you.

Quoting from a collection of myths proves nothing. You can hope that Frodo brings you an easter basket and believe that Frodo talks to you. That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I grew up in a church going family, in a very fundamentalist Christian community.

What say you, ATS?

I say this is your problem. You grew up in the Christian equivalent of Muslims who sincerely think they will meet 72 virgins in heaven if they strap themselves with explosives. Most Muslims know these guys are crazy but they can't really do anything about it. They read the same book but the fundamentalists read it literally and that's where all the wrong is coming from.

I would have the exact same reaction in your place. Reading the Bible literally is not only ridiculous, it's damaging the individual and destroying his critical sense.



Now that you are older and wiser, ask yourself; what was this "god" I tried to believe in? The god that created adam and eve with clay? The god that has a long beard and sits in the sky? The god that can read your mind and punishes you for not going to church?

Because I have to tell you that this is the god of fundamentalism, and it's normal to not believe in it because it's a dangerous delusion, like Muslims fundamentalists are deluded and fanatical.

But the vast majority of religious people are not fundamentalist. That means there might be another interpretation of religious texts, another "version" of God. Maybe that other version would be more acceptable to you if you were familiar with it?


Really, it all boil down to this:


You say you don't believe in God. How do you picture God in the first place? Because there are like hundreds of different version of God and one is even the whole universe, so saying you don't believe God is real is like saying the universe isn't real in that case

So how do YOU picture God? The God you don't believe in?

a reply to: Develo

why does any of that matter? we arent shopping for gods here. the title itself says that the op isnt atheist by choice. that means s/he cant just choose a god and suddenly their life is all better again. that approach kind of pokes at the fact that you arent arriving at a rational conclusion, but custom designing your own fairy tale. but maybe its just me.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Develo

why does any of that matter? we arent shopping for gods here. the title itself says that the op isnt atheist by choice. that means s/he cant just choose a god and suddenly their life is all better again. that approach kind of pokes at the fact that you arent arriving at a rational conclusion, but custom designing your own fairy tale. but maybe its just me.

It's very important for comprehension sake! Most atheists and Christians on this board are from the US where there is this incorrect beliefs that you either believe in a supernatural god as depicted by fundamentalism, or you don't believe in god because you don't believe in the supernatural.

There is of course a whole spectrum of positions between the two and it's almost only in the US that this fake polarization exists.


For example, the automatic assumption that God is a supernatural being made by atheists is quite damaging for the sake of discussing the topic in a constructive way.


You are correct, the OP isn't atheist by choice, but because of her personal story, of the social pressure and tradition in her family that pressed a pre-formatted fundamentalist version of god on her so that she cannot imagine any other definition for this term could exist.


The reality is that plenty of non religious people use the term god to describe different realities (even Einstein did), and to dismiss all of them at once by calling yourself an "atheist" is IMHO an intellectual mistake arising from the ignorance of all the possible definition of god.

The point isn't to go shopping for a god. The point is to understand what the vast majority of non-atheists on earth talk about when they say "god" so you can make an informed choice regarding whether you want to decide your personal stance, whether you want to interest yourself more to this vast topic instead of rejecting all of it as a monolithic whole.


Calling yourself an "atheist" simply because you disagree with the Christian fundie (or more widely all fundamentalists views of god) is, well, misleading.


I consider the personal and supernatural god impossible, yet I will not call myself an atheist since for me god was never presented as being only a supernatural being.


What I mean is that fundamentalist atheism (criticizing a literal interpretation of religious texts) is as wrong as religious fundamentalism.


Both are based on the idea that religious texts must be read literally and describe a supernatural and personal god, three assumptions that are nothing more than that: assumptions. The current trend of scientific atheism lead by people like Dawkins is intellectually incorrect. Dawkins criticize the fundamentalism version of god and extend his criticism to religions as a whole while admitting he doesn't really know about these religions he is criticizing. Doing so he ignore reality which is infinitely more complex and nuanced than his own preconceptions about god.

originally posted by: Develo

It's very important for comprehension sake! Most atheists and Christians on this board are from the US where there is this incorrect beliefs that you either believe in a supernatural god as depicted by fundamentalism, or you don't believe in god because you don't believe in the supernatural.

There is of course a whole spectrum of positions between the two and it's almost only in the US that this fake polarization exist.

For example, the automatic assumption that God is a supernatural being of made by atheists is quite damaging for the sake of discussing the topic in a constructive way.

99% of people that have belief in a god believe in a supernatural god, so its a fair assumption to make.

The fact is we do not have any evidence of a supernatural god or a natural god.....or any kind of supreme being w/e.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

99% of people that have belief in a god believe in a supernatural god, so its a fair assumption to make.

I would like figures to back this up. All my talk with religious people have proved this preconception wrong.

Though I understand that this belief is widespread in the US (fundamentalism again), it doesn't mean its shared throughout the world.

What emerged during all my discussion is that god was a vague concept usually tied to a transcending reality. Not a personal and supernatural being.



Even a quick look at wikipedia can confirm this, you probably invented this figure from your own preconceptions:
en.wikipedia.org...

It says the Christian personal God is mainly an analogy, that Judaism states God isn't a person and that Shia Muslims do the same. Not even talking about eastern religions clearly having a great and impersonal "Absolute" overarching all its lower personal avatars.

Obviously it's mainly fundamentalism that claims God is personal.


People like Dawkins mainly criticize fundamentalism (even if they wrongly think they criticize all religions), and OP current belief is entirely based on the rejection of the Christian fundamentalism god.


It is all very clear, unless you can get yourself out of this false dichotomy, you will be stuck in a incorrect, American-based vision of religions where you have only to possibilities, to believe or not in a personal supernatural god, while as I have shown above, it's only a characteristic of fundamentalism.


Hence my first question to OP which is critical: how do you see what you call god?

Wake up and smell the truth; are you an anti-Christ troll; is you brain locked shut by a disease or demon? It HAS happened (Jesus appearing/speaking to people) and keeps on happening to millions of sane Christians (and some non-Christians) world wide over 2,000 years. Sure, some people are schizo, some are liars etc and latch onto subjects and bring discredit to themselves but the subject itself is discredited only in the minds of the ignorant. If some nut-job atheist murders three people over a parking slot, I don't claim that all atheist are murders. Same with UFO witnesses (although I have no idea how they fit in with God/Satan). Some visionaries and UFO witnesses are nuts but some are 100% reputable. There are people that interact with Satan too; they are nuts but their interactions are real; do you absolutely deny that also? If you are seeking truth but you keep making blatantly insulting remarks about God as Fido or whatever and always express an opinion that Christians are dolts etc, you will drive away your favorite punching bags (a source of virtues and truths you blindly seem to hate).

originally posted by: Develo
I would like figures to back this up. All my talk with religious people have proved this preconception wrong.

Though I understand that this belief is widespread in the US (fundamentalism again), it doesn't mean its shared throughout the world.

What emerged during all my discussion is that god was a vague concept usually tied to a transcending reality. Not a personal and supernatural being.

You do not have to be a fundamentalist to believe in a supernatural god, but to say that people that believe in a supernatural god (muslims, christians, hindus etc etc etc) are fundamentalists is a wild claim.

Your 'talk' with the religious people you may have encountered would be anecdotal at best, surely you recognize this?

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: Develo
I would like figures to back this up. All my talk with religious people have proved this preconception wrong.

Though I understand that this belief is widespread in the US (fundamentalism again), it doesn't mean its shared throughout the world.

What emerged during all my discussion is that god was a vague concept usually tied to a transcending reality. Not a personal and supernatural being.

You do not have to be a fundamentalist to believe in a supernatural god, but to say that people that believe in a supernatural god (muslims, christians, hindus etc etc etc) are fundamentalists is a wild claim.

Your 'talk' with the religious people you may have encountered would be anecdotal at best, surely you recognize this?

No, I updated my post above with sources to show you you are the one making incorrect assumptions about religions, like most so-called "atheists".

Unless you can post a link to something showing your "99%" figures I'll guess you pulled this out of somewhere dark and moist between your buttcheeks.[




This is a Shia description of god. Tell me what is supernatural or personal about it? Or maybe it's only you who thinks so?

Anyone with half a brain can understand this is all symbolic to say god is infinite, unknowable, transcending physical reality, and that's it. If you get more from this text, you are imagining it.

Praise be to God who is proof of His existence through His creation, of His being external through the newness of His creation, and through their mutual similarities of the fact that nothing is similar to Him. Senses cannot touch Him and curtains cannot veil Him, because of the difference between the Maker and the made, the Limiter and the limited and the Sustainer and the sustained. He is One but not by the first in counting, is Creator but not through activity or labour, is Hearer but not by means of any physical organ, is Looker but not by a stretching of eyelids, is Witness but not by nearness, is Distinct but not by measurement of distance, is Manifest but not by seeing and is Hidden but not by subtlety (of body). He is Distinct from things because He overpowers them and exercises might over them, while things are distinct from Him because of their subjugation to Him and their turning towards Him. He who describes Him limits Him. He who limits Him numbers Him. He who numbers Him rejects His eternity. He who said "how" sought a description for Him. He who said "where" bounded him. He is the Knower even though there be nothing to be known. He is the Sustainer even though there be nothing to be sustained. He is the Powerful even though there be nothing to be overpowered.

a reply to: Develo

For example, the automatic assumption that God is a supernatural being made by atheists is quite damaging for the sake of discussing the topic in a constructive way.

"supernatural" is kind of gods shtick in most spiritual texts, dont you think?

The reality is that plenty of non religious people use the term god to describe different realities (even Einstein did), and to dismiss all of them at once by calling yourself an "atheist" is IMHO an intellectual mistake arising from the ignorance of all the possible definition of god.

just because the goalposts can be moved doesnt change the fact that theism as a hypothesis is down by several points.

I consider the personal and supernatural god impossible, yet I will not call myself an atheist since for me god was never presented as being only a supernatural being.

how are those split-ends working for you?

Dawkins criticize the fundamentalism version of god and extend his criticism to religions as a whole while admitting he doesn't really know about these religions he is criticizing. Doing so he ignore reality which is infinitely more complex and nuanced than his own preconceptions about god.

dawkins is old news. i refer to more current pioneers like stephen hawking for my understanding of what modern science tells us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
"supernatural" is kind of gods shtick in most spiritual texts, dont you think?

No. Your preconception. Most spiritual texts are about spiritual stuff. Hence not material. Hence mental. Hence nothing is impossible in the mental world, it's all symbols and allegories.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
just because the goalposts can be moved doesnt change the fact that theism as a hypothesis is down by several points.

I'm not talking about theism (I'm agnostic). I'm saying most atheist are actually only atheist regarding fundamentalist versions of god.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
dawkins is old news. i refer to more current pioneers like stephen hawking for my understanding of what modern science tells us.

Modern science and religions do not describe the same things so one cannot be used to explore the realm of the other.

Science is studying the material and objective world.
Spirituality is describing the experienced and subjective reality.

Two disciplines exploring the different facets of a same coin. I studied modern science and nothing in it concerns spiritual matters.

Hawking, despite having said this:

"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science, the laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws."

Is like Dawkins in that he simply doesn't believe in a supernatural god while completely ignoring the fact that the supernatural god is mainly how laymen sees it, like children think Santa Claus isn't their parents.

The Big Bang expansion was described by a priest. This is what he thinks about science;


That you think religious people mostly believe in supernatural stuff and reject science tells volume about YOUR beliefs.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: BlueMule

Should I be seeking to "cure" my atheism though? I've finally begun to understand that there is nothing really WRONG with me as it is, but is there?

No, nothing is wrong with you. You just have not had the eye opening experiences to show you any different than what you already know. Maybe some day you will, maybe not. Just keep on observing the world and be yourself and if it is meant to be, you will learn about "other worldly" things.

We don't really choose what we believe, it chooses us through experiences.

a reply to: Develo

No. Your preconception. Most spiritual texts are about spiritual stuff. Hence not material. Hence mental. Hence nothing is impossible in the mental world, it's all symbols and allegories.

miracles are the staple in any religion. unusual events attributed to divine aka "supernatural" intervention. thats what makes it "special". miracles are the poles that support the tent of theism.

I'm not talking about theism (I'm agnostic). I'm saying most atheist are actually only atheist regarding fundamentalist versions of god.

and im saying you are selling a build-a-god workshop. what pieces can we throw together that will fall within the specially prepared margin of plausible deniability?

That you think religious people mostly believe in supernatural stuff and reject science tells volume about YOUR beliefs.

these objections have been raised before, and i will say what i said then: the big bang theory was not discovered nor proven through spiritual texts. none of the theories we have today were discovered in nor proven through spiritual texts. perhaps they were inspired by some glorified common sense (billion dollar franchises have been made this way) but in the end, science established them as viable theories.

theism on the other hand is still at the hypothesis stage, where it will remain until someone devises a means of testing god and succeeds in executing it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's your opinion and any serious comparative study of religions and theology would easily prove your point as either simplification either plain wrong.

If you seriously believe miracles are the staples of religion, I'm sorry to tell you you are stuck at the superficial and superstitious part of religions, like most people.

That most people get religions wrong doesn't mean it's what religions are about.

It's not because most people believe electron orbits around the nucleus that it is what nuclear physics is saying. And yet, it's what most people believe because they don't take the time to dig deeper and get to the heart of the subject. You are doing just the same with religions. You take the common and most basic views about it and consider it the whole deal. If you truly want to pass an informed judgement about religions, you have to read academic texts on the subject; not what you read on a Chick tract or in a Watchtower leaflet.

I explicitly said scientific theories are the result of scientific research. That you said religions never proved anything scientific shows you haven't understood what I said.

I simply said religions and science are two different fields, and contrarily to a common belief in the US, they aren't contradicting. For a simple reason.

Religion is about subjective and internal phenomenons.
Science is about objective and external phenomenons.

That you keep opposing them to explain the material world is your main mistake.

Religions never had the objective to explain the material world.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
theism on the other hand is still at the hypothesis stage, where it will remain until someone devises a means of testing god and succeeds in executing it.

Science can only prove defined hypothesis. You haven't even defined what kind of god you want to prove/disprove.

That has been my whole point all along my posts; people like you throw around the word god like there's some common accepted definition while there isn't.

I met plenty of religious people who do not believe in a supernatural and personal god. Science has nothing to say about such a god because it does nothing that science can't acknowledge. It's mainly in your mind that god is NOTHING ELSE than supernatural.

Many people believe god is a transcendental experience of reality and there is no shortage of scientific theories to explain how such a transcendental level of reality is not only plausible but real.

a reply to: Develo

If you seriously believe miracles are the staples of religion, I'm sorry to tell you you are stuck at the superficial and superstitious part of religions, like most people.

i dont think people would have taken jesus nearly as seriously if he hadnt raised lazarus and cured the blind and crippled merely by touching them or commanding them. miracles are a classic storytelling element.

It's not because most people believe electron orbits around the nucleus that it is what nuclear physics is saying. And yet, it's what most people believe because they don't take the time to dig deeper and get to the heart of the subject.

comparing physics to spirituality. apples and oranges man.

Religion is about subjective and internal phenomenons.
Science is about objective and external phenomenons.

how does a subjective and internal phenomenon effectively and accurately study itself?

Religions never had the objective to explain the material world.

because they cant, not with the techniques they use. leaning upon the open-ended nature of a hypothesis to support its validity is poor form in most scientific fields.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
i dont think people would have taken jesus nearly as seriously if he hadnt raised lazarus and cured the blind and crippled merely by touching them or commanding them. miracles are a classic storytelling element.

Wrong
How come there are tons of cult leaders today who get followers without any miracle?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
comparing physics to spirituality. apples and oranges man.

Exactly, apples and orange. So why you keep insisting religions never explained the Big bang? They don't have the same objective nor same means.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
how does a subjective and internal phenomenon effectively and accurately study itself?

Why studying subjective experiences instead of simply living them? Do people study "love" or do people simply fall in love?



It's been interesting talking to you, but obviously you aren't really open to talk about the topic since you really want to believe religion is nothing but the belief in a personal and supernatural god supported by superstitions, completely dismissing entire realities of the experience of the sacred. A quick read on the subject would easily show you how wrong this view is but since you probably don't want to open yourself to any field that isn't "hard" science I would probably have more success trying to get you interested in art or philosophy than to make you read one line about comparative study of religions. Too bad, you are the one missing out, not me. I have no more problems reading about cosmology or genetics than about myths or religions.

Hi,do not worry,the bible teaches that we dont choose GOD,but stead he chooses us.JESUS said once "no man can come to.me unless the father draws him",and even the faith that we need to be saved is a gift from GOD.we bring nothing to the table.and just as we all have a date with death,thows who are being saved have a specific day and time chosen by GOD when they are saved.but fear not,its a very good sign that your even concerned about this,if you were not elect,I doubt you would care.I will pray for GOD to give you faith and save you both.he always answers me,everytime GOD bless reply to: Shadow Herder

a reply to: Develo

Perhaps people are reacting to your aggressiveness and insistence that you are, defacto, right and they are wrong. You have decided that everyone should believe in God using your definition of God. You have decided that your definition of religion supersedes the common definitions of religion which certainly involve supernatural deity/deities. Perhaps you would have more success attempting to engage people in a discussion of the numinous and leaving out the words God and religion.