Did God deliberately plan for me to become an atheist ?
Offline My former Christian belief system viewed God as a sort of Divine Police Officer who never allowed anything into the life of a believer ( referring to myself ) except by his divine will. There are no accidents; all circumstances, whether pleasant or unpleasant, were permitted by God.
My question to theists is this: Why would God allow me to encounter skeptic resources, atheist web-sites, books, etc when he knew that doing so would destroy my faith ? If he is truly the engineer of circumstances why did he allow me as a Christian to discover arguments that completely decimated my belief in him ?
If it was a test, was it really worth the the destruction of my faith and the loss of my "eternal soul" ...especially since he supposedly already knew the outcome in advance ?
- Login to post comments
Hi Eloise , I really can relate to alot of what you write, because of my good luck of knowing Alan Watts. Seems you would really enjoy knowing him too. Yes yes, about the "Self" is fiction, Alan is great teacher regarding this, as makes it all so very simple, as all really is ONE.
I would write more now, but the music band here is needing some help .... Alan is a favorite helpful friend of mine .... and maybe your good luck too. Thanks for caring.
The fella's here say hi too, pretty one .... damn these wild animals are out of control, again!
Atheism Books.
The primary source of atheism is anger - anger directed at the so-called "non-existent" God.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Then the atheist is a hypocrite because he professes to be a "free-thinker."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Hey Paisley, From atheist RRS fan static_ (a happy buddha head) Umm, did atheist Jesus Christ get pissed ?
On Atheists & Nihilism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6pshdUL9M
Atheism Books.
Not quite. Atheism makes no claims about making people free. People discover atheism and then find their freedom of thought.
Christianity, on the other hand, promises the believer freedom but stifles it at almost every turn (or says you can have it after you die and go to "heaven"
.
Then again, you're a panentheist (if I recall rightly). If you look at God as naught but an animating force and a/the source of truth, do you really have a dog in this fight?
Panentheism has some interesting ideas but it still seems much like you're saying, "I don't know...so god!"
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Not quite. We're at the point where for all practical purposes, we must act as though we choose theism or atheism out of free will, because if there is no free will, we'll be forced to act like it anyway.
Your point of view is of course as valid as mine, so long as it provides you with the answers you need in order to interact with the universe as you perceive it without going stark raving mad... or at least without knowing you've gone stark raving mad. However, living under such a system, no beliefs are valid, as a belief is an assertion of knowledge, and any assertion of knowledge beyond the mere existence of the observer (which is not a belief, as it is an unimpeachable fact without which there would be, after all, no existence) cannot be demonstrated even to be more likely to be real than to be an elaborate delusion, perhaps a defense mechanism of a mind fighting to stave off insanity, and so cannot be trusted.
One can begin acknowledging nothing other than one's own existence, and still come up with a pretty convincing case for anything, given that the only things you can build your case out of are the perceptions of reality provided to you by the very mind attempting to form the 'pretty convincing case'.
And mine is that since nothing you perceive can ever truly be trusted, there is no natural law you can be aware of which can be stated to be in any way objective beyond (and IAGAY will love this...) "I AM".
But while both can be useful, in the end, neither can be trusted, separately or in conjunction, as both are simply the perceptions being presented to your mind by your mind. Which is why belief itself, from my point of view, is a fatal error. Accept, if you wish... interact, as you must... but Believe? There wait dragons.
It might, it might not. It's a relaxed conversation though, so I'm good with whatever you choose there.
But again, the flaw with your method is that the only source you have for your data is that which is attempting to prove a pre-biased view. Isn't it better to say 'Right now, this seems to be true... but if future evidence provides a more compelling case for another explanation, I may decide to accept that one, instead' than to reach one conclusion, then cut off all further inquiry?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
This thread is fast approaching the literary equivalent of abstract art.
Look, a Jackson Pollack!:
.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
An apt analogy
. Oh well, everyone have fun...
(and IAGAY will love this...) "I AM".
Btw, P added his to the me quote above , the last sentence there (Just to be honest)
Goosh , people really hate life, and I understand , in the sense that we are, what we are , slaves of this the raging river where all our boats are a float, as we try to navigate, knowing the water fall is coming .... FATE , as if we even deserved to exist in the first place, with no clue of a beginning, or WHY, pretending we have an extra special purpose ..... anger management or dogma lies ..... ? How bout a bottle of RUM and a song .... to ease this pain and abstract .... we call LIFE ....
row row row your boat , ((( here is the song !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB31YummgAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iheqOW4pf6U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-bCF2kJ-qM
Atheism Books.
It seems, BMcD, that they've started a thread concerning our free will versus determinism discussion. Perhaps I'll see you there. I think, though, that we've reached the point where we've stated our respective cases pretty well in this thread. I, at least, don't have many more arguments to support my contention that we have free will, nor that the universe is what we percieve it to be. Now I'm off to chow down on my laptop, on the off chance that my perception is askew and it is actually a pepperoni pizza.
Hope to talk with you again soon. Thanks for the polite and challenging conversation. I quite enjoyed it.
"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II
Well, I think our specific discussion pretty much reached concensus where it concerns how much the question of 'do we or don't we?' should affect our daily lives: It shouldn't. We simply have to try to do our best to be our best. But yes, the other thread(s? two of 'em now?) may provide some more interesting discussions. And I do look forward to more engaging conversations in the future. After all, we don't always have to be rabidly foaming at one another.
Good luck w/that laptop, btw... IBM's Thinkpad 600-series made for reasonably good Sicilian pies..
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
You accept someone's premises in order to show that their conclusion is false.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Free will would be moot in a universe with an omnipotent creator... the creator would be responsible for all the parameters of existence that affect your choice, rendering it moot. Additionally, said creator would be responsible for the existence of the free will itself, with full knowledge of the outcome of your choice (seeing as, again this creator creates both your character and every facet of existence that shapes your choice.)
I think the Calvinists have the only answer that theists can turn to... conceding that there's no way around a omnipotent being's perfect responsiblity.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Putting the hurt on Iraq persons
CAN ANYONE FUCKING THINK ?
RATIONAL ?
Atheism Books.
Thank you for reiterating my point. I can assure you, based upon prior experience, that Paisley already understood this method of debate.
It's just his silly way of expressing his contempt for us.
While we're on the free will thing,what do theists make of this verse:
This seems to remove any pretense of free will, since in the end we will serve god wether we want to or not.Why even pretend we have a choice then?
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.
Calvinism totally sucks and fortunately there is another option for theists, it is not necessary to assume a causal universe. Paisley's views almost fit in that loophole - at least a non-causal metaphysic is part of the mention.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
It's amazing to me how much this comes up. Especially when that conclusion is so easy to reach.
... so work harder, dammit!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence