Has anyone here changed their opinion on God? [Archive]

Georgia Avenue

10-03-2005, 05:09 PM

I change my views about God all the time. I have certainly been influenced in one direction or another by the things people write here, usually away-from rather than towards, but nevertheless...
Of course-- I am in the gray middle ground of Christians often represented by RJT and PTB...we're all wishy/washy!

I would give examples but I am ready to go home. Another busy day at work reading this infuriating, fascinating Trainwreck!

SpearsBritney

10-03-2005, 05:17 PM

Yeah, I used to think god didn't exist. Now I know he doesn't.

10-03-2005, 05:19 PM

ROFLMO

10-03-2005, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I used to think god didn't exist. Now I know he doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one to say that he KNOWS that God exist or does not exist is a statement of great ignorance. Especially when you say you KNOW that something does not exist.

Aytumious

10-03-2005, 07:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I used to think god didn't exist. Now I know he doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

For one to say that he KNOWS that God exist or does not exist is a statement of great ignorance. Especially when you say you KNOW that something does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an infinitely large and wise multidimensional blueberry pancake -- which rides on the back of a finite purple unicorn -- control our every move?

bluesbassman

10-03-2005, 07:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For one to say that he KNOWS that God exist or does not exist is a statement of great ignorance. Especially when you say you KNOW that something does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an infinitely large and wise multidimensional blueberry pancake -- which rides on the back of a finite purple unicorn -- control our every move?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I was going to respond to the OP above that being agnostic about every arbitrary claim (such as "god exists") leads to epistemological absurdities, but this post demonstrates that point in a much more efficient and amusing way.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

10-03-2005, 08:00 PM

I wouldn't say I've changed my opinion but I've definitely made some finer refinements on it and come up with more reasons to back my position. I doubt that many actual posters have had their minds changed much because most posters feel strongly one way or the other to begin with. They post because they feel strongly.

My guess is that there could be a silent minority of lurkers here who never thought very deeply about these things but now have been exposed to some new ideas and possibly shifted their thinking a little or a lot. The first reason they ever came to this site is probably because they are fans of Sklansky. They are fans of his poker thinking and therefore probably give his thoughts on religion a fair shake. Since most people are religious to begin with, I would guess that of the shifts that have occured because of these forums, the vast majority of those shifts have been away from unexamined religous beliefs toward more critically thoughtful questioning of popular beliefs, which I think is a great shift.

This may all be wishful thinking on my part though. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chezlaw

10-03-2005, 08:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

For one to say that he KNOWS that God exist or does not exist is a statement of great ignorance. Especially when you say you KNOW that something does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does an infinitely large and wise multidimensional blueberry pancake -- which rides on the back of a finite purple unicorn -- control our every move?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. I was going to respond to the OP above that being agnostic about every arbitrary claim (such as "god exists") leads to epistemological absurdities, but this post demonstrates that point in a much more efficient and amusing way.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres no epistemological absurdity with agnosticism. I believe that anything that isn't logically impossible could possibly be true.

There's no problem with that, in fact not believing it requires an absurd leap of faith.

chez

malorum

10-03-2005, 08:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anything that isn't logically impossible could possibly be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this platonist approach to logic.
So Logic is not just a context dependent tool then?
It exists as a thing in itself?
Is it perhaps a God?

If Christian then goto First Commandment.

RJT

10-03-2005, 08:22 PM

This does not really answer your question, more of a comment. One thing I have noticed on the forum (and was surprising to me) is the amount of passion many agnostics/atheist have expressed in their “belief” (stance?, not sure of the proper word) on the forum. Almost like zealots evangelizing. Interesting, I thought.

chezlaw

10-03-2005, 08:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that anything that isn't logically impossible could possibly be true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this platonist approach to logic.
So Logic is not just a context dependent tool then?
It exists as a thing in itself?
Is it perhaps a God?

If Christian then goto First Commandment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements.

Logic adds nothing (in a sense is nothing) which is why its silly to disagree with logical statements.

Nothing to do with god.

chez

malorum

10-03-2005, 09:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements....
Logic adds nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

The various truth functional formal deduction systems such as propositional or predicate calculus should serve to show that a deductive framework effectively defines both 'logical truth' and 'proof' in a context dependent way.
Inference rules, and the semantics of the system are perhaps relevant.
The deductive system applied does more than just add something, it defines the terms.

Turning models into God is heretical. Confusing them with strange ideas about objective reality is a Platonist approach some scientists object to.

"Atoms are not things" Heisenberg.

chezlaw

10-03-2005, 09:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Logical statements are true because of the meanings of the concepts within the statements....
Logic adds nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

The various truth functional formal deduction systems such as propositional or predicate calculus should serve to show that a deductive framework effectively defines both 'logical truth' and 'proof' in a context dependent way.

The deductive system applied does more than just add something, it defines the terms.

Turning models into God is heretical. Confusing them with strange ideas about objective reality is a Platonist approach some scientists object to.

"Atoms are not things" Heisenberg.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't. If you believe the bible is true then you believe the statements in the bible are true.

The logic is undeniable but it hasn't added anything. It's just made explicit what it means to believe the bible is true.

Look again at my original statement.
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true. Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible. Hence anyone who believes it isn't possible is not being rational and requires a leap of faith.

Again the logic has added nothing. No extra objects in Platonic heaven, nothing!

chez

malorum

10-03-2005, 10:04 PM

Wether or not something is "logically impossible" within a given deductive framework, depends upon the inference rules, and the semantics of the system applied.

The semantics serve to define 'truth' in a logical sense.

Q. Is a square circle 'logically' possible.
A. It depends on the definitions to which, and the framework within which the labels are applied.

This is were I part ways with the theology of CS Lewis.

For example the deductive framework applied by orthodox lutheran theologians suggests that human logic is fallen, and that it should only be used ministerially rather than magisterially.
In its application it means that if inference rules such as modus ponens etc. highlight 'apparent' contradictions in the 'truth' statements of the bible, then this can not be used to assess the truth of those statements.
The theological deductive system discussed, defines truth primarily upon the basis of the axiomatic innerancy, veracity and historicity of the Bible. In this particular system even basic inference rules can be dissaplied if appropriate (see for example the lutheran response to Calvin's double predestination). This deductive system thus has a set of conditional inference rules, which make it different to the kind of system we are used to.

chezlaw

10-03-2005, 10:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Q. Is a square circle 'logically' possible.
A. It depends on the definitions to which, and the framework within which the labels are applied.

[/ QUOTE ]

It just depends on what you mean by circle and square. I'm not really sure what else you mean.

chez

malorum

10-03-2005, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a cat in that box over there?

Interesting definition. I'm sure sure I can devise system with inference rules and semantics that define 'prove' in an appropriate way.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

~(~A)=>A

All things are either possible or impossible?
Are we talking synthetic are analytic?

chezlaw

10-03-2005, 10:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
'something isn't logically impossible' means that there is no method of proving it isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there a cat in that box over there?

Interesting definition. I'm sure sure I can devise system with inference rules and semantics that define 'prove' in an appropriate way.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence it is not impossible. Hence it is possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

~(~A)=>A

All things are either possible or impossible?
Are we talking synthetic are analytic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not making definitions. When I say something isn't impossible, I mean that its possible.

If you thought I was making definitions then I understand your point, but I'm not.

chez

10-03-2005, 10:45 PM

I haven't really changed my opinion on god. But, this forum has reconfirmed(for me) the futility of discussing god with 95% of people.

mackthefork

10-04-2005, 06:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I used to think god didn't exist. Now I know he doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats on your 1000th post.

Mack

bocablkr

10-04-2005, 08:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This does not really answer your question, more of a comment. One thing I have noticed on the forum (and was surprising to me) is the amount of passion many agnostics/atheist have expressed in their “belief” (stance?, not sure of the proper word) on the forum. Almost like zealots evangelizing. Interesting, I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I think most atheists have always been a little reluctant to express their 'beliefs' in this country (especially under the current climate) where they are outnumbered 9-1. I think the odds are much better on this forum and there is definitely some spirited debate on both sides. It is nice to have a place to express oneself freely.

10-04-2005, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This does not really answer your question, more of a comment. One thing I have noticed on the forum (and was surprising to me) is the amount of passion many agnostics/atheist have expressed in their “belief” (stance?, not sure of the proper word) on the forum. Almost like zealots evangelizing. Interesting, I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I think most atheists have always been a little reluctant to express their 'beliefs' in this country (especially under the current climate) where they are outnumbered 9-1. I think the odds are much better on this forum and there is definitely some spirited debate on both sides. It is nice to have a place to express oneself freely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless. I rarely discuss the topics I discuss here because its pointless trying to explain something to someone who doesn't want to think about things (I don't avoid the topic because I'm afraid of being outnumbered). The "evangelizing" on this forum, at least for me, is due to the fact that it is (was) assumed that people on a Sci/Math/Philo forum are seeking more understanding and are generally far more reason-oriented rather than emotion-oriented compared to the average person. However, threads indicate that this may not be the case. Also, I just like being a smartass when I read absurd statements spread as logical reasoning.

txag007

10-04-2005, 11:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi Kettle. You're black."

10-04-2005, 12:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi Kettle. You're black."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I was raised Christian.

txag007

10-04-2005, 12:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi Kettle. You're black."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I was raised Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what made you change your mind?

10-04-2005, 12:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi Kettle. You're black."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I was raised Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what made you change your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

An accumulation of a lot of factors, but mainly just saw through the absurdity of the basic premises and realized that my "faith" was in direct conflict with my reasoning faculty.

RxForMoreCowbell

10-04-2005, 12:30 PM

I see alot of Christians who believe Atheists and Agnostics must have been raised as Atheists/Agnostics. Personally, I've never met anyone who was raised as a non-believer. Have you? What led you to believe kidluckee was?

Piers

10-04-2005, 12:48 PM

I was brought up as a Christian, I remember when I ‘lost my faith’.

It was when I was about eight or nine; there was this boy my patents had told me to avoid. He as a few years older than me, a bit rough and his father was in prison for something.

So while I was out playing with him, I made some religious based remark, I can not remember what, and he said

“You don’t want to listen to that nonsense, its just one big fairy story.”

That was the first time someone had demonstrated a non-theistic belief to me.

Something in my mind clicked, and I thought, “Of course, that’s right”.

David Sklansky

10-04-2005, 01:07 PM

Among the incorrect beliefs of religious people is the belief that non believers get that way because of ulterior motives rather than thinking things through. Some Catholics and Jews are apparently exceptions.

bocablkr

10-04-2005, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I see alot of Christians who believe Atheists and Agnostics must have been raised as Atheists/Agnostics. Personally, I've never met anyone who was raised as a non-believer. Have you? What led you to believe kidluckee was?

[/ QUOTE ]

I must admit I was raised as a non-believer. My father is an atheist and my mother agnostic. I try and let my children decide for themselves but obviously when they ask my opinion on the subject my bias comes through. Plus, I am not qualified to present the other side - so they are non-believers at this point.

txag007

10-04-2005, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the average person is such a dolt that clings to their indoctrinated beliefs to such an extent that discussion of the topics expressed here is useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Hi Kettle. You're black."

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, I was raised Christian.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what made you change your mind?

[/ QUOTE ]

An accumulation of a lot of factors, but mainly just saw through the absurdity of the basic premises and realized that my "faith" was in direct conflict with my reasoning faculty.

[/ QUOTE ]
Was your faith blind or was it based on something? By blind, I mean was it based solely upon the "teachings" of your parents?

10-04-2005, 03:29 PM

It was based on the Bible (and how I was raised and educated, of course). I read the Bible myself and took my faith very seriously.

txag007

10-04-2005, 04:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was based on the Bible (and how I was raised and educated, of course). I read the Bible myself and took my faith very seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how did you reason the Bible to be incorrect? The reason I ask is because I believe appearances of conflict within the Bible to be resolved when placed in the proper context.

10-04-2005, 04:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was based on the Bible (and how I was raised and educated, of course). I read the Bible myself and took my faith very seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how did you reason the Bible to be incorrect? The reason I ask is because I believe appearances of conflict within the Bible to be resolved when placed in the proper context.

[/ QUOTE ]

A "god" created the universe.

He sent his "son" to save us from our "sins."

If we have "faith" in this "god" we will have "eternal" life.

These are but a few of the "details" that trouble me. Are they so easily resolved?

Alex/Mugaaz

10-04-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There appears to be two main camps on this forum - theists and non-theists. I am sure the are few agnostics for good measure. Has anyone on either side ever changed their views based on what has been presented in this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

IronUnkind

10-04-2005, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Among the incorrect beliefs of religious people is the belief that non believers get that way because of ulterior motives rather than thinking things through.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we stipulate that this is true, it is no less fair than your incorrect belief that religion is a product of psychological defect/mental illness.

David Sklansky

10-04-2005, 08:49 PM

"Among the incorrect beliefs of religious people is the belief that non believers get that way because of ulterior motives rather than thinking things through."

"Even if we stipulate that this is true, it is no less fair than your incorrect belief that religion is a product of psychological defect/mental illness."

You forget that there are other alternatives. I throw in the one above to be charitable.

10-04-2005, 11:07 PM

Im a 15 year old who has been raised jewish and been bar-mitzvah'ed but never really believed in god or religion in general. This forum simply helped to confirm my belief that there being a god didnt really make sense and that there were other people with the same thought process as me