Why The Dude Converted

[TimWillTell]

This is not what I expected at all.
I thought you where going to explain why you told your wife about all this and put your mariage in danger because of atheism.

Converted to atheism!?

When I became an atheist it never felt as a conversion.
Im beginning to see that there are different kinds of atheism.
Yours is definitely not mine!

[Alobar]

Personally I don't really believe in God. But I dont really understand when people argue for or against God the use of logic.

It would be like a cockroach trying to comprehend human existence. That example seems pretty ridiculous and stupid. Cockroaches don't even have thoughts, stfu Alobar stop being stupid. But if there was a God we wouldn't even come as close to comparing to him as a cockroach compares to us. It's like trying to fathom something completely beyond your ability to comprehend. You might as well spend your time trying to imagine a new color as trying to imagine God. You'll have equal success in both endeavors.

Basically I think that's why its called faith. To quote pulp fiction

"Don't you see, Vince, that [censored] don't matter. You're judging this thing the wrong way. It's not about what. It could be God stopped the bullets, he changed Coke into Pepsi, he found my [censored]' car keys. You don't judge [censored] like this based on merit. Whether or not what we experienced was an according-to-Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is I felt God's touch, God got involved."

You either feel Gods touch or you don't. Both are equally valid imo. Using logic and forming arguments on assumptions of how the universe works, when we can't even figure out the simple rules that govern the universe is kinda foolish IMO. Hell for all we know, the universe isnt even real (so far as I know, no one has proved it is) and your own thoughts are reality, so by believing in a God you make him exist. Yeah that sounds stupid too, but so would our current view of reality if you went back in various stages of time and explained it to people and no doubt how the view of reality that someone hundreds of years in the future sharing to us would sound.

so yeah, anyway, dont really know the point of what im saying, but there it is.

[guids]

But if there was a God we wouldn't even come as close to comparing to him as a cockroach compares to us. It's like trying to fathom something completely beyond your ability to comprehend. You might as well spend your time trying to imagine a new color as trying to imagine God. You'll have equal success in both endeavors.

Bingo. Logically, Im about 70/30 there is no god, but the fact that there could be, and the fact I think there is just no way to comprehend it, prevents me from doing a lot of things I could do to benefit myself.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I got a little rushed toward the end and don’t feel like I did the “Ultimate 747 Argument” justice, but it is what it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to address the 747 argument briefly. What I'm saying was more or less stated by Plantinga as I understand it, so I just want to attribute him.

The first difficulty with the argument is that it assumes God is subject to the laws of nature and to the laws of thought with which we are familiar. It's not really very different from the opposition to the cosmological theistic proof. It involves the famous infinite regress and it has the same validity as any other argument against God that assumes God doesn't exist. Dawkins assumes naturalism is true which means God could only exist as a product of nature. But God is supernatural and the Creator of the natural laws. Therefore, though Dawkins' logic could be correct, his conclusion is contained in the premise, and the premise can't be scientifically established..

Another flaw in the Dawkins approach is the application of the laws of probability to God's existence. To do so can only be valid, once again, if Naturalism is true. Even then we would have to have far greater knowledge of natural law to make any reasonable attempt at a probability calculation. But if God is supernatural the entire enterprise is bogus.

I've never liked Hoyle's analogy (the original idea of a 747 argument). Though I think something positive can be done re probability and evolution, at best it can only be of mild interest. People were atheist long before Darwin was a gleam in a monkey's eye. They didn't need "scientific" evolution or probability arguments. And evolution doesn't disprove God, which I believe you indicated from reading Bonhoeffer. I think he was probably echoing the admonition of Augustine for Christians to be careful about drawing scientific conclusions from the Bible, which was wise advice then and now.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
Excellent series of posts Dude. I hope things with your wife are getting a little smoother.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly what i wanted to say.

[thatpfunk]

"... prevents me from doing a lot of things I could do to benefit myself. "

Im really curious... Like what?

(this would prob be an interesting thread)

[daryn]

alobar is on fire lately

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
"... prevents me from doing a lot of things I could do to benefit myself. "

Im really curious... Like what?

(this would prob be an interesting thread)

[/ QUOTE ]

Id rather not get into it, there will be just too many people who would go nuts on me, and this thread would de-rail badly. Ive just been wrestling lately on which direction I want to go in life, one is fairly normal, one is a little less on the up-and-up.

[bernie]

Quite a path.

Question: Other than the outside reactions(wife, family, etc), do you personally feel as if a weight has been lifted off you?

I ask that because when I denounced it for myself, it felt alot more freeing. I could see people for who they were regardless of affiliation and such.

I also saw that many religious people are held back by hangups propogated by their religious beliefs. Basically, that they believed and preached somethings because that's what their religion wanted for them to be a follower, not necesarily because they really believe it.(make sense?) In some ways, it seemed to parallel a racist(religion v religion instead of race against race) frame of thought. Anyways, I started seeing that alot more clearer. Not in all of them, but many of the more outspoken ones.

b

[SharpObject]

Absolutely great read! I'm impressed by your journey. Keep questioning.