I lost my faith a while back

[Sherman]

It doesn't seem so to me if you think a rock can create itself out of nothing.

:thumb: A rock creating itself out of nothing doesn't seem very rational to me either.

 

[Stripe]

Fish turning into people is just a few baby steps away.

 

[alwight]

Anything that actually did violate physical norms or laws would be evidence of a "something else" being true, have you got any?

Life from non-life.

No I've no reason to think there is any magic required here or that it violates physics, not like (say) a man being poofed into existence apparently from some dust probably would be. Now that really would be a stretch of the imagination perhaps.

Matter from nothing.

Yes I actually do have a problem with that, but then I don't pretend to know if that's what actually did happen or if that's all there was to it.

Consciousness, logic and reason.

Emotion, love, hope and justice.

Just to name a few.

:yawn:
Nope no reason all to think any of this is supernatural or outside nature.

:mock:Stripe

 

[alwight]

Fish turning into people is just a few baby steps away.

If dust can turn into a man and a rib can turn into a woman, why not? :idea:

 

[Stripe]

No I've no reason to think there is any magic required here or that it violates physics, not like (say) a man being poofed into existence apparently from some dust probably would be. Now that really would be a stretch of the imagination perhaps.

:AMR:

All sorts of things weird here.

You know of examples of matter coming from nothing where no magic is required?

You think creating a person from pre-existing material is more unbelievable than matter from nothing? Don't you think pre-existing matter turned into people all by itself?

Dang, but atheists are weird. :chuckle:

Yes I actually do have a problem with that, but then I don't pretend to know if that's what actually did happen or if that's all there was to it.

I do.

Nope no reason all to think any of this is supernatural or outside nature.

Any reason to think it isn't? :think:

If dust can turn into a man and a rib can turn a woman, why not?

:rotfl:

You're nothing if not inconsistent. :chuckle:

 

[alwight]

:AMR:

All sorts of things weird here.

You know of examples of matter coming from nothing where no magic is required?

Personally no I don't, should I?

You think creating a person from pre-existing material is more unbelievable than matter from nothing? Don't you think pre-existing matter turned into people all by itself?

Personally I rather suspect that a fully formed man or anything other than just more dust coming directly from dust is highly unlikely and probably would indeed require some godly magic, if it actually happened of course.

Dang, but atheists are weird. :chuckle:

Of course you're never one to generalise Stripe.

I do.

There are probably many things you pretend to know.

Any reason to think it isn't? :think:

You can of course think what you choose to Stripe but I think there is no evidence of a supernatural, have you got any?

:rotfl:

You're nothing if not inconsistent. :chuckle:

When in Rome...:chuckle:

 

[Tambora]

Welcome to TOL.

Although, I'm am perplexed that if you feel happier without God and His wisdom, that you would then join a site that is geared toward God and His wisdom.

 

[The Berean]

Welcome to TOL Spectrox War! :e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Just a note regarding some of the notes on this new posters opening statement:

RE: Atheism, logically.

Being skeptical doesn't constrain one to be forever doubting and never accepting.

I'm skeptical about that.

That said, let me also say that skepticism is always a more logical approach than credulity (although it is certainly not favored by our more baser instincts).

That's a funny supposition, that the impulse to survive and continue would be characterized as "base" speaks to your bias more than anything else.

Being skeptical has a function. So does belief. Skepticism is no more rationally "always a more logical approach" than belief. It depends on the question and the facts at hand. What's knowable and what's known.

By the very fact that a religious person is unwilling to view their own religious beliefs through a skeptical lens

In the sense that I don't continue to ask myself the same question once I have the answer to it.

(although they are only more than happy to oblige using a skeptical filter for other peoples religious beliefs),

You mean critical. They aren't skeptical. That's a reservation, not an understanding.

it stands to reason that an atheistic (the simple withholding of a belief on god) approach is more logical.

No, it doesn't necessarily at all. An atheist does more than withhold to begin with. The moment you make a moral distinction and choice you have set yourself in one of two camps.

Believing in god because it makes you feel good/happier, is not logical.

Actually, it would be if that belief was beneficial to you and the answer no more or less likely, which is the actual case.

And pointing this out as a matter of fact is not insulting.

No, only errant and assumptive...with a bit of condescending sprinkled across it, depending. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

Personally no I don't, should I?

If you want us to take seriously your claim that Christians are irrational for believing that which you claim to be impossible. Yes, you do.

Personally I rather suspect that a fully formed man or anything other than just more dust coming directly from dust is highly unlikely and probably would indeed require some godly magic, if it actually happened of course.

But if it took millions of years and no planning, purpose or creativity then it's perfectly reasonable, right.

Of course you're never one to generalise Stripe.

Actually, I do it rather a lot. Do you always say things this silly?

There are probably many things you pretend to know.

Can't think of any. :idunno:

Are you pretending to know this?

You can of course think what you choose to Stripe but I think there is no evidence of a supernatural, have you got any?

:doh:

Try reading. :thumb:

Welcome to TOL.Although, I'm am perplexed that if you feel happier without God and His wisdom, that you would then join a site that is geared toward God and His wisdom.

Welcome to TOL Spectrox War! :e4e:

Who are you lot talking to? :idunno:

 

[Dr.Watson]

the sense that I don't continue to ask myself the same question once I have the answer to it.

For that which can be known, repeating the question never changes the answer. Religion certainly does not fit in with this model. This is observationally evident as it is taboo in religions to ask pointed and skeptical questions to those that already have the "answers".

No, only errant and assumptive...with a bit of condescending sprinkled across it, depending. :e4e:

If religious belief could survive honest, pragmatic, and unbiased skepticism (if such a thing were even possible), than why won't the religious try it on? What would you have to lose?

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

For that which can be known, repeating the question never changes the answer.

Hence not repeating the inquiry. Just so.

Religion certainly does not fit in with this model.

Yes, it does. It simply hasn't for you.

This is observationally evident as it is taboo in religions to ask questions to those that already have the answers.

No idea what you mean by that.

If religious belief could survive honest, pragmatic, and unbiased skepticism (if such a thing were even possible), than why won't the religious try it on? What would you have to lose?

You're assuming the adherent hasn't already passed through his skepticism into answer and faith, in which case, to borrow from a friend of mine: "For that which can be known, repeating the question never changes the answer." So why would they?

:e4e:

 

[GuySmiley]

For that which can be known, repeating the question never changes the answer. Religion certainly does not fit in with this model. This is observationally evident as it is taboo in religions to ask pointed and skeptical questions to those that already have the "answers".

I've heard there are websites, made and operated by Christians, with this very purpose in mind. To ask each other and people of other beliefs pointed and skeptical questions.

 

[PureX]

My name is Spectrox. I am from the UK....

Well, I seem to be coming way late to the party, and you are probably long gone by now, but I will post a couple of comments, anyway.

I lost my Christian faith about 15 years ago.

I presume that you mean you lost faith in whatever religious beliefs you used to hold, back then. It's not really possible to "lose faith" all together, as we humans have very limited knowledge, and so must act on faith most of the time. The question is, what is it that we are placing our faith in, as we act out our lives. And the answer to that question can and does change according to character and circumstances.

I would now consider myself either an agnostic or an atheist or an agnostic atheist depending on my mood and the definitions being used.

Yeah, the labels don't really mean much, anyway. It's certainly possible to be of two minds about an idea as over-arching as "God". In fact, if we think about it, most ideas have more than one 'side' to them, and often those sides oppose to each other.

I am much more skeptical about religion and spirituality than I used to be (obviously) and I reckon I am more logical and rational now than when I believed Jesus was my saviour.

My guess is that you were taught a childish concept of God and Christ, and you finally grew up. So that the childish concepts you'd been taught just weren't acceptable, anymore. I'd say that's a good thing.

But the question might be asked, have you considered a more grown up concept of these ideals? Are you aware that there are more logical and reasonable ways of conceiving of these ideals?

I am certainly happier.

I enjoy honest debate.

Well, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. All I can do is share my perspective, for others to do with as they wish.

 

[chrysostom]

do you believe in OLAL?

once lost always lost

 

[freelight]

do you believe in OLAL?

once lost always lost

Of course OSAS (once saved always saved) is just as presumptuous.

Where authentic freedom of choice exists....both positions are untenable.


pj

 

[Iconoclast]

Because Bible believers presumably believe in the miracles and other tall tales. These violate known laws of science.


Where? I don't know. I believed Jesus was my saviour and read the Bible everyday after catching the Christian bug. I was very intense about it for several months. But then I began to read stuff in the Bible that I didn't believe was true or could no longer support. I had an inner deconversion struggle for months. So there was no sudden a'ha moment when I lost it. It was a gradual realisation.

So what were these things that were tall tales?
Do you have something specific that you remember?
If you do I am sure that someone here can logically explain it, the problem will arise when you get 100 other posts on the same topic all varied. You wouldn't have time to go into all of there arguments and thus confusion is the result. Like having 4 people talk to you at once.

:cheers:

 

[Stripe]

I've heard there are websites, made and operated by Christians, with this very purpose in mind. To ask each other and people of other beliefs pointed and skeptical questions.

:rotfl:

:mock: Watties.

 

[voltaire]

You think creating a person from pre-existing material is more unbelievable than matter from nothing? Don't you think pre-existing matter turned into people all by itself?

The first has intelligence arranging that pre- existing material into a person. The second has H, C, N, and O arranging themselves over 5.6 billion years into a person through pure chance.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No I've no reason to think there is any magic required here or that it violates physics, not like (say) a man being poofed into existence apparently from some dust probably would be. Now that really would be a stretch of the imagination perhaps.

Why? You don't seem to think it's much of a stretch to believe a bunch of molecules can just line up and form a protein, so why not just go a few steps further?