Doubting your disbelief?

[The Grave]

A true professor of 'NO god' will of course question their stance.

Has anyone here distinctly doubted their atheistic or agnostic beliefs after having become an atheist or agnostic? I was wondering if anyone here has ever come to a period when they doubted their disbelief in the existence of God for one reason or another. People are always changing and it's rare for a person to hold a single belief their entire lives so I am wondering if anyone here has come upon let's say an argument supporting theism that made them stop and think that maybe their disbelief was faulty.

I am 100% sure in my knowledge that there is not a god. I have arrived at this deduction from considering the evidence for/against a god.

This is a good thread because it exposes the hyper fallacy of the theist mind...that they believe an atheist is a person who 'believes' in the opposite of them...and that's WRONG.

I suppose there are some, who not fully aware of all the arguments, decide to take it on faith...but that's no worse than taking it on faith that Armstrong walked on the moon. It's a fact. But you don't need to prove it to accept it.

Highly educated people can easily 'see' that Armstrong can walk on the moon...if you had a long enough ladder you could walk there...in fact it gets easier as you go, even though I've never been! But you'd have to turn around at some point or you'd land on your head.

Theist:"Sometimes I doubt my god." Now this is to be expected, especially in today's scientifically aware times.

What does it mean...You're going to hell...Or some such idiot belief...
It means that they are being 'scientific' by questioning their god.
It means they are going AGAINST their values...


But for the person who 'thinks' there is not a god...and then questions it...and then reaffirmed the stance, by considering evidence for/against, there lies true happiness.

WE are not going against our values, to question IS what we are about!

We know enough to say there is no god.

It would be up to a faither to come up with some evidence for consideration that could change the knowledge.

Griff...

 

[The Grave]

Yes to true, the Aquinas 'jokes' are pretty funny...I loved browsing them...but they illustrate how the theist mind works...

""I think this/that so this/that is true...qed"" -- notice the lower case end.

And as for the Matrix...a brilliant film...but that's it...more of a puzzle to me is why it contains everybody dressed in black except for one girl in white...just as in Blade???

But to say that this life is just a fake, a simulacra, is truly pathetic...because it stinks of the same false end-cause/first-cause scenario that Aquinas puts forward.

And it belittles our life...creating suicide bombers...child/mother murderers at abortion clinics who say:"Let god judge me!"

In fact if you want an example...it's Sypher...he's the one who 'believes' the false is the true & causes death & destuction in the 'real' world!

So how does the REAL Neo, know he is REAL? And on & on & on....

You can't explain something with something more complex....that's the fallacy of the faither's mind-set....

Griff...

 

[Taffer]

Dustin, I know you and I have butted heads recently, but this is actually a good question.

No, I have never doubted my Athiesm. I have evaluated all evidence I have been presented with, with the intention of changing my belief if I find the evidence supporting the conclusion given. And that has yet to happen.

And Thaiboxerken, Philosophers define 'Strong' and 'Weak' athiesm differently. Agree or disagree, it is not a strawman, as it is what the experts in the field agree upon.

 

[Quavergirl]

Wondering about arguments

I am wondering if anyone here has come upon let's say an argument supporting theism that made them stop and think that maybe their disbelief was faulty.

You question whether or not an argument has affected my personal conclusion as to the existence or non existence of an entity.

I would say no.

Have I wondered about the existence of a god? Of course. I've wondered if our universe is not merely existing in some larger entity's shoebox as well. Wonder is a robust tool of the human mind that can create motivation for exploration and discovery. Wonder can also degrade into paralysing self-entertainment.

But you question whether or not words and logical constructs in and of themselves can cause changes in my conclusions. Arguments are only as worthwhile as the data/assumptions that support them. Without valid data or unassailable assumptions, arguments are only sounds. Can I change my conclusion? Yes, but argument will not be the agent of change.

Mr. Ebert (I think) said regarding taste in films, particularly titillating ones, "you can't argue with an erection." Unfortunately, belief affirming the existence of supernatural entities are in the same form of primal response; they do not respond to any form of persuation--argument or data. There are no weapons against a firmly (...) held belief.

How does this deductively prove God?

Well. That was the point. The argument was an excerpt from Arguinas' famous "proof of God".

Q

 

[calebprime]

Allow me to restate what I said earlier since it's been driven off topic.

I believe that disbelievers/unbelievers are simply missing the forest through the trees. We are examining each tiny aspect of our universe while not looking at the "big picture" to see how it all comes together in a way which contradicts our world view.

I have been thinking about some arguments supporting a theistic world view for a while now and there are quite a few of them which don't fit into your typical theistic arguments but are quite convincing.

I think C.S. Lewis was horrible. Good children's author but didn't support Yahweh well at all. Which arguments of his did you find convincing?

Spinoza felt pantheist from all that I've read. I don't think he supported the Biblical god at all.

To answer the original question, I don't know if I doubt my disbelief. I do question it or say "What if" or "Wouldn't it be cool if" to myself. I don't really think these questions are enough to make me retract my atheism or consider it.

I don't see the point. It's not relevant to this thread.

This thread, like many philosophical threads, is already all over the place.

Dustin, I don't see how you can demand that the thread stay on topic but then start talking about The Matrix.

I'll jump right to my personal take, which is not even original: There are two--and only two--questions which cannot be answered, even in principle:

How did the universe get started? (or, if you have a technical definition of the universe, better substitute the word "everything".) I don't mean what happened after the big bang. I mean, what gave rise to the big bang.

How is the first-person, subjective, what-it's-like-to-be-me experience (consciousness, but not behavior as such) possible?

Now, my asking of these questions might be poorly-worded, but no one can truly say that these are questions that can be answered with further research or reasoning. They are at once very easy questions to ask, and impossible to answer.

There are also questions of value that cannot be answered with science. But these are closer to the category of what films we like.

If you, Dustin, want clarity in the thread, do what Piggy does: have a thesis. Or, pick an argument from Descartes or Spinoza, or even (shudder) C. S. Lewis, and ask what people think.

Now, I've never questioned my atheism except when I took mushrooms. Then, it was completely obvious that God exists. Upon further reflection, though, it was obvious my temporal lobes were getting overstimulated.

I think the valid insight there is that one aspect of the religious feeling has a neurological basis, and it's only a feeling.

When I'm tired and thinking cold
I hide in my music, forget the day
And dream of a girl I used to know
I closed my eyes and she slipped away
She slipped away. she slipped away.

 

[Apathia]

I've not seen any arguments for Theism that have impressed me to doubt my disbelief in God, but I have seen some arguments for strong Atheism that have given me pause to think that maybe there is something to the Divine.

I get what you mean by not seeing the forest for the trees. But when I have looked at the bigger picture, it seems bigger to me than theistic Gods.
Yahweh was sutible for a much smaller and simplistic cosmos.

The Gods themselves are giulty of hubris.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I get what you mean by not seeing the forest for the trees. But when I have looked at the bigger picture, it seems bigger to me than theistic Gods.
Yahweh was sutible for a much smaller and simplistic cosmos.

The Gods themselves are giulty of hubris.

Except are you actually seeing the "bigger picture" or just still staring at a single tree in a huge forest? How can you be sure?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This thread, like many philosophical threads, is already all over the place.

Dustin, I don't see how you can demand that the thread stay on topic but then start talking about The Matrix.

It was an example about how ones worldview can change how one interprets evidence or proof and how one sees the bigger picture. Perhaps atheists are the people who as in the Matrix movies haven't been liberated and haven't seen the big picture and all of their logic and arguments are useless because their worldview exists in the wrong context.

How did the universe get started? (or, if you have a technical definition of the universe, better substitute the word "everything".) I don't mean what happened after the big bang. I mean, what gave rise to the big bang.

Why can't science explain this in the future?

How is the first-person, subjective, what-it's-like-to-be-me experience (consciousness, but not behavior as such) possible?

I don't understand the question.

If you, Dustin, want clarity in the thread, do what Piggy does: have a thesis. Or, pick an argument from Descartes or Spinoza, or even (shudder) C. S. Lewis, and ask what people think.

I've been reading all of their arguments and I have been able to spot the basic flaws in them. I believe that if re-worked those arguments have very special implications though for proving a theistic Christian worldview.

Now, I've never questioned my atheism except when I took mushrooms. Then, it was completely obvious that God exists. Upon further reflection, though, it was obvious my temporal lobes were getting overstimulated.

Why was it obvious?

I think the valid insight there is that one aspect of the religious feeling has a neurological basis, and it's only a feeling.

So is love and hate. So is comprehending what is "true" vs what is "false". You can't dismiss something simply because it has a neurological basis.

When I'm tired and thinking cold
I hide in my music, forget the day
And dream of a girl I used to know
I closed my eyes and she slipped away
She slipped away. she slipped away.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, I know you and I have butted heads recently, but this is actually a good question.

No, I have never doubted my Athiesm. I have evaluated all evidence I have been presented with, with the intention of changing my belief if I find the evidence supporting the conclusion given. And that has yet to happen.

Have you ever openly sought to change your own belief? Why be so passive when it comes to beliefs? Why wait for the evidence to come to you?

I also wonder, in what epistemological and axiomatic context did you evaluate this evidence exactly?

 

[Apathia]

Except are you actually seeing the "bigger picture" or just still staring at a single tree in a huge forest? How can you be sure?

Just get just a little altitude (just a little, I don't claim much myself.) and you see how clear it is that we make God's in our own image. Even the most philosophically abstract of them smack of our little globe or goldfish bowl of consciousness.

It's very helpful to invest some study in cultures that don't assume those notions of the Ultimate and the Godhead that we get in the Greek-Western Tradition.

Go ahead and posit the Judeo-Christain-Islamic Theistic God and simply see if he does appear over the trees or if the forest as an individual sentiant being.
That's a great way to go about it. It's much more revealing than arguments about terms that try to debunk one branch at a time.

 

[Kariboo]

the "bigger picture"

How do you know there even IS a bigger picture? Or why do you believe there is a bigger picture?

 

[Taffer]

Have you ever openly sought to change your own belief? Why be so passive when it comes to beliefs? Why wait for the evidence to come to you?

Do you expect me to look for evidence for every possible idea? Or only certain ones? If only certain ones, how must I decide?

I also wonder, in what epistemological and axiomatic context did you evaluate this evidence exactly?

I evaluate evidence logically and scientifically. Is there a problem with this?

 

[andyandy]

I think the valid insight there is that one aspect of the religious feeling has a neurological basis, and it's only a feeling.

When I'm tired and thinking cold
I hide in my music, forget the day
And dream of a girl I used to know
I closed my eyes and she slipped away
She slipped away. she slipped away.

DA DA DADA

DA DA DADA!

Power chord heaven

 

[calebprime]

as for my more serious points, the only one that will be of benefit here:

That Dustin take a page from Piggy's book:

Find a thesis. Descartes. Dennett. Whoever you like.

State it.

Last I heard, this thread was still about forestry, or something.

 

[D'rok]

I believe that disbelievers/unbelievers are simply missing the forest through the trees. We are examining each tiny aspect of our universe while not looking at the "big picture" to see how it all comes together in a way which contradicts our world view.

I don't mean this to be confrontational, but if you think that you have grasped a hint of "the big picture" then you have succumbed to a common philosophical delusion. But don't worry, you are in good company. You are talking about the Subject/Object distinction and the problem of Absolute Knowledge which has plagued philosophy for millenia and has been declared solved on more than one occasion.

Painting in impossibly broad strokes, there are three ways to approach metaphysics:

1. Platonic Idealism (Subject) - For Plato, the True is always just out of reach – i.e. philosophy is the love of wisdom, not the possession of wisdom. In the Platonic tradition, the eternal Forms are not directly accessible – they remain ideal and remote – and the philosopher must content himself with attempting to reflect the Absolute by cultivating virtue and justice in the soul and the city. Reflection and discourse are the tools.

2. Hobbesian Positivism (Object) - It's a little inaccurate to call Hobbes a positivist, but heck..this is the Internet after all. Hobbes simply removes the Absolute from the picture entirely. His axioms are Newtonian, his Leviathan is an artificial clockwork construction, and his method is to proceed syllogistically from multiple premises to conclusions which in turn become further premises for further conclusions. Deductive logic is the tool.

3. Hegelian Absolute Knowledge (Wisdom) - This is what you are after. Hegel actually claimed to have definitively merged Subject and Object into a system of Total Thought and Absolute Truth as revealed by the internal struggles of self-conscious individuation which are reflected and actualized by the external struggles of History. Hegel's system supposedly merges idealism and positivism into a harmony of discourse that resolves all previous philosophical contradictions and reveals Truth as Total, Circular and Absolute. In other words, he claimed to have revealed the "big picture" and how "it all comes together". He did this by merging Subject/Object, deduction/induction, and idealism/positivism.

He was wrong.

I evaluate evidence logically and scientifically. Is there a problem with this?

This is the only reliable path to anything worthy of being called knowledge or, perhaps eventually, Truth. The devil is in the details, but so is wisdom. Before we can begin to reflect on the Whole, we have to work out all the details. Experience tells us that the only reliable way to do this is through the scientific method.

It is an open question whether or not we can ever master the details well enough to perceive the Whole, but enquiry is about the journey not the destination. Questioning your beliefs/disbeliefs is admirable...but I would humbly advise you not to mistake the love of wisdom for the possession of wisdom. Be a philosopher, not a wise man.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Except are you actually seeing the "bigger picture" or just still staring at a single tree in a huge forest? How can you be sure?

I see the forest as good as any believer. The difference is, when I can't see beyond a tree, I don't invent a pixie-village behind it. I simply admit that I'm not sure what's on the other side of the tree until I look, although I'll say that it's probably more trees and dirt. Believers, however, claim all kinds of absurdities beyond the tree, from pixies, to gods, to bigfoot.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Do you expect me to look for evidence for every possible idea? Or only certain ones? If only certain ones, how must I decide?

It's up to you.

I evaluate evidence logically and scientifically. Is there a problem with this?

That's extremely vague. Define "Logically". Explain how you evaluate evidence "Scientifically" as well. Do you form hypothesis then theories and then do experiments on it only to have the experiments repeated independently by others and the results peer reviewed and continually tested?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I see the forest as good as any believer. The difference is, when I can't see beyond a tree, I don't invent a pixie-village behind it. I simply admit that I'm not sure what's on the other side of the tree until I look, although I'll say that it's probably more trees and dirt. Believers, however, claim all kinds of absurdities beyond the tree, from pixies, to gods, to bigfoot.

I've seen your posts and your form of reasoning (if one can even call it that). You're the equivalent to some drunken deaf, blind man stumbling through the forest unaware that a forest even exists.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I don't mean this to be confrontational, but if you think that you have grasped a hint of "the big picture" then you have succumbed to a common philosophical delusion.

How do you figure?

You are talking about the Subject/Object distinction and the problem of Absolute Knowledge which has plagued philosophy for millenia and has been declared solved on more than one occasion.

Actually I'm not.

Painting in impossibly broad strokes, there are three ways to approach metaphysics:

1. Platonic Idealism (Subject) - For Plato, the True is always just out of reach – i.e. philosophy is the love of wisdom, not the possession of wisdom. In the Platonic tradition, the eternal Forms are not directly accessible – they remain ideal and remote – and the philosopher must content himself with attempting to reflect the Absolute by cultivating virtue and justice in the soul and the city. Reflection and discourse are the tools.

2. Hobbesian Positivism (Object) - It's a little inaccurate to call Hobbes a positivist, but heck..this is the Internet after all. Hobbes simply removes the Absolute from the picture entirely. His axioms are Newtonian, his Leviathan is an artificial clockwork construction, and his method is to proceed syllogistically from multiple premises to conclusions which in turn become further premises for further conclusions. Deductive logic is the tool.

3. Hegelian Absolute Knowledge (Wisdom) - This is what you are after. Hegel actually claimed to have definitively merged Subject and Object into a system of Total Thought and Absolute Truth as revealed by the internal struggles of self-conscious individuation which are reflected and actualized by the external struggles of History. Hegel's system supposedly merges idealism and positivism into a harmony of discourse that resolves all previous philosophical contradictions and reveals Truth as Total, Circular and Absolute. In other words, he claimed to have revealed the "big picture" and how "it all comes together". He did this by merging Subject/Object, deduction/induction, and idealism/positivism.

He was wrong.

None of this is really on topic to my actual discussion.

 

[D'rok]

None of this is really on topic to my actual discussion.

Sure it is. But that's OK. Carry on with your quest to rise above the Subject/Object distinction and glimpse the meta-reality of the "big picture". The red pill awaits.