I Converted A Catholic To Atheism

To be clear AI, regardless of how this thread started;

Would you rather discuss solutions that we can all come to a consensus about, or learn about my beliefs (which may or may not have any consequence in regards to you)?

reply to post by Serdgiam

As distinct and conscious as our mind is to our own bodies.

Then, to you, your god is the mind of this universe? And the universe is his/her/its body or manifestation?

The universe would contain that as well. However, magnetism and electricity are a unique force here and I think our current understanding of how these things work and intertwine is limited at best.

I agree.

We have knowledge of consciousness, but no real method to directly determine what is conscious or not. I do not attempt to claim otherwise. However, a "distinct, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent entity" succinctly describes the universe, and its constituents, itself.

Uh...that would require the universe to be alive, would it not?

AI, I am doing my best. I am not intentionally doing whatever you think I am doing. It is something that is a team effort. If you think I am not giving you satisfactory answers, then I would appreciate being told specifics. It may seem obvious to you, but it isnt to me.

It's no biggie. I'll just keep whittling it down, with your kind assistance.

reply to post by Serdgiam

To be clear AI, regardless of how this thread started;

Would you rather discuss solutions that we can all come to a consensus about, or learn about my beliefs (which may or may not have any consequence in regards to you)?

Why did you come here? What did you hope to find here? I'm interested in knowing how a scientist (so-called) decides that a god does indeed exist, given the fuzzy nature of such a subject.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Then, to you, your god is the mind of this universe? And the universe is his/her/its body or manifestation?

Not particularly, just communicating a concept of how seemingly separate things can be unified in a single system. How it actually happens on different scales would probably be quite different.

Uh...that would require the universe to be alive, would it not?

It depends on what that word means to you. Alive in the sense that it is continually changing energy from one form to another? Yes. Alive in the sense that it is like a human? No. Either way, I dont see how whether or not we can define it as alive to be necessary for it to attain those attributes. Consciousness may be a different story, but I also feel it is a possibility (different from probability) that consciousness as we know it does not exist.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Why did you come here? What did you hope to find here? I'm interested in knowing how a scientist (so-called) decides that a god does indeed exist, given the fuzzy nature of such a subject.

I came here to learn about other perspectives, but found a group of people that seemed like-minded enough to actually make a difference.

Why do you now say "so-called" now that I have claimed a belief in God? You certainly never questioned it up until this point.

reply to post by Serdgiam

It depends on what that word means to you. Alive in the sense that it is continually changing energy from one form to another? Yes. Alive in the sense that it is like a human? No. Either way, I dont see how whether or not we can define it as alive to be necessary for it to attain those attributes. Consciousness may be a different story, but I also feel it is a possibility (different from probability) that consciousness as we know it does not exist.

What qualifies as a god to you? And how does this deity fit such qualifications?

Why do you now say "so-called" now that I have claimed a belief in God? You certainly never questioned it up until this point.

Incorrect. I just never voiced it.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
What qualifies as a god to you? And how does this deity fit such qualifications?

Something which is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. No deities involved, so no qualifications needed for them.

Incorrect. I just never voiced it.

Fair enough.

"Why do you now say "so-called" now that I have claimed a belief in God? You certainly never openly questioned it up until this point."

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by charles1952

 

Charles as long as you are respectful and don't get into personal attacks you will be just fine! Both Wildtimes and Afterinfinity are beautiful people who have only been responding defensively when feeling attacked. I must say that both have a marvelous sense of humor that leans to the sarcastic side, but I believe any attempt at humor has been ruined by some of the participants who don't understand each other's witticisms. So just be yourself- I find you to be always respectful to everyone you interact with!

Speaking for yourself 100% I suppose, if you like the venue of Ventriliquists on Saturdays (Show Starts AT 9:00pm SHARP, No door cover but must have a 5 drink minimum per person (and that is not ALREADY UNDER THE BELT BTW: "THE CHUCKLE HUT" Weed Street, at North under the Train Viaduct. You must bring your own seating arrangements as its always standing room only.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Something which is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. No deities involved, so no qualifications needed for them.

Out of curiosity, why does a god need to be those things? Why does being all-powerful equate to being godly? There's more than one way to be "better than human".

How has your experience led you to believe that a deity is scientifically possible according to the above qualifications?

reply to post by vethumanbeing
I have no idea if that is your idea of humor, or exactly what it is. I am decidedly Christian and have discussed matters of religion and spirituality with several of the people who have been participating in this thread many times before, and have done so without the badgering and personal attacks I have seen occurring in this thread from either side side of the aisle.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

However, I believe in God and I can assure you, that with my life circumstances, it is most certainly *not* the easy way out.

Why? Why do you believe in a deity? Why is a god the only logical conclusion?

edit on 22-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

You have failed to supply YOUR DOGMA of ALTERNATIVES to contramand a GodForm. What are your logical conclusions as to "Absence of God", you have not specifically/adequately explained your personal platform and how you came to such a belief system (insofar as much can convince others your word as the Better choice). Why do you NOT believe in a deity.

reply to post by littled16


Don't feed the trolls, please.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

To be clear AI, regardless of how this thread started;

Would you rather discuss solutions that we can all come to a consensus about, or learn about my beliefs (which may or may not have any consequence in regards to you)?

Why did you come here? What did you hope to find here? I'm interested in knowing how a scientist (so-called) decides that a god does indeed exist, given the fuzzy nature of such a subject.

edit on 22-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Why did you start a thread 'you' as a non-scientist could (in the same way) decide that A God does not exist, given the fact youve not supported your position. What is fuzzy about this, the nature of the subject or your waffling inability to explain yourself.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by littled16

 

Don't feed the trolls, please.

Define troll; and their feeding habits.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Why do you NOT believe in a deity.

1) There are no standard universal parameters for what a god actually is. The closest semblance is horribly vague and gives us almost nothing to work with. See #2.

2) The parameters we've been given so far are outlandishly written, to the point that they don't follow any clear rules other than "be as powerful as the imagination allows". Wherever such parameters came from, it's clear they were designed to avoid loss or sacrifice or any sort of weakness and limitation at all costs. This is not natural, nor is it conducive to the human experience.

3) Deities encourage their followers to avoid independence on pain of eternal suffering. Almost every deity in history has treated its subjects as pawns and playthings, and anyone who is not a subject is garbage to be disposed of at the most opportune juncture.

4) Deities often represent something we wish we could be. They represent perfection, capability, invulnerability, beauty, everything that we would imagine to be plentiful and intrinsic in a utopian world with utopian species. a significant portion of our fascination with, and adoration for, deities stems from our insecurities as a result of being weak, finite, ignorant creatures. We're not satisfied with what we are, so we worship what we want to be in the hopes that if we wish for it hard and long enough, we will eventually be it. And even if that never happens, we'll never be foolish enough to be satisfied with what we are now.

Toward that end, I advocate the appreciation and recognition of what we are. Just because we're imperfect doesn't make us worthless. Just because we're weak in some ways doesn't mean we're not vastly powerful in others. Belief and worship of deities discourages us from such a stance because we are forever in the shadow of that which we admire. That which is arrogant, oppressive, discriminatory, and conditionally compassionate. That which is all about entitlement and the desire to rule. Why can we not admire ourselves instead? Perhaps if we began to value the lessons taught by our imperfection and ignorance, and appreciate such attributes because of that, we might learn more from ourselves. Then we would be able to progress as a species and as a world.

4) Gods are not necessary anymore, if they ever were. We have science now.

That's off the top of my head.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by vethumanbeing

 

Why do you NOT believe in a deity.

1) There are no parameters for what a god actually is.
2) The parameters we've been given so far are outlandishly written, to the point that they don't follow any clear rules other than "be as powerful as the imagination allows". Wherever such parameters came from, it's clear they were designed to avoid loss or sacrifice or any sort of weakness and limitation at all costs. This is not natural.
3) Deities encourage their followers to avoid independence on pain of eternal suffering. Almost every deity in history has treated its subjects as pawns and playthings, and anyone who is not a subject is garbage to be disposed of at the most opportune juncture.
4) Gods are not necessary anymore,if they ever were. We have science now.

1) So you have no condition that would allow anything "Faith Based", as in you think you will wake up tomorrow morning.
2) What parameters have ever been given, its faith based. I thought you were more of 'The Secret" Laws of Attraction variety.
3) How would you know what Deities encourage if you are an Atheist and do not recognise them in the first place. You believe yourself to be spurned and so take this position out of angst, betrayal and self hatred.
4) The WORSHIP of GODS is not necessary. Science is what it is, trying to place the human in this Universe without Dogmatic influence of UNDUE faith. Material Science. Understanding the elements of matter, it cannot explain the animation of it.

reply to post by vethumanbeing


Please view my post again. I edited it. If your points then remain the same, please let me know and I will answer them.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Something which is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. No deities involved, so no qualifications needed for them.

Out of curiosity, why does a god need to be those things?

They dont need to be those things, they are simply our observation of what exists.

Why does being all-powerful equate to being godly?

Because that is the definition of omnipotent. Like I said, after researching physics, I came to the conclusion that what I was exploring as the universe was the exact same thing that other "cultures/paths/idealogies" were exploring as God. We were looking at exactly the same thing, and we happened to come to the same conceptual conclusions. e=mc^2 is akin to "all-powerful," in that it defines an absolute. Consciousness is akin to "omniscient," in that if there is one sliver of consciousness, then the universe is aware of itself. The inherent locality of space-time is akin to omnipresence. When you take the entire system in consideration as a whole ("the universe), the inherent locality of space-time is all derived from a single source, or beginning. It is all directly connected to that single event, it is just stretched out through the fabric of time and space. And so, even the different cultures throughout history have even had the same tenets, they are just based around different cultures and periods.

To expand a little, I do not believe that e=mc^2 applies to arenas which do not have space-time as a medium. While it explains the absolute energy of what exists in the universe, we seem to be able to catch glimpses of arenas where it does not apply. If this is actually the case, then our scientific understanding of what "absolute energy" really means will need to adapt a bit. Really, every ideology will need to expand if that is the case, which all points to the same idea I concluded. That every individual ideology was just one "bubble" in something like the eye of a fly. Even more amazing was the fact these were all simultaneously sustained in the same medium/universe. The very existence of that vast diversity points to a pretty incredible system, whether it is called God, the Universe, or All That Is.. we are all looking at the same awe-inspiring event.

There's more than one way to be "better than human".

Would you mind expanding on this? I am not sure where you are getting that part out of what I said.

How has your experience led you to believe that a deity is scientifically possible according to the above qualifications?

The issue I have with "deity," is that it tends to carry some pretty strong connotations. One is that a "deity" is somehow separate from the system over which it presides. Kind of like the idea of a human male figure sitting on a throne. While this is how it is viewed in some contexts, it is not one that I hold true. "Deities" also tend to require some type of worship. As a human concept, I am not sure this is even relevant to the rest of the Universe. Another is that somehow this "deity" actively punishes and rewards those who do it the "right" way, but we seem to all of that just fine on our own. I think that people try to get out of personal responsibility with this single concept because regardless of a God/s, we are fully capable of choosing and creating either concept of heaven or hell. It just happens here and now.

reply to post by Serdgiam

Why does being all-powerful equate to being godly?

Because that is the definition of omnipotent.

But does a god really have to be omnipotent to be a god? Does it really have to be omniscient to be considered a god? Thor wasn't omniscient. Minerva wasn't all powerful. Quetzlcoatl sure as hell wasn't omnipresent. How many gods in the history of religion and mythology claim to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent all in one neat little package? When did that become a necessity to be considered a god?

This suggests to me that you're looking in one particular direction regarding gods. Your belief comes from one specific set of materials. Otherwise, your idea of "gods" would be a little more open, don't you think? Please correct me if I'm missing something here.

Like I said, after researching physics, I came to the conclusion that what I was exploring as the universe was the exact same thing that other "cultures/paths/idealogies" were exploring as God. We were looking at exactly the same thing, and we happened to come to the same conceptual conclusions. e=mc^2 is akin to "all-powerful," in that it defines an absolute. Consciousness is akin to "omniscient," in that if there is one sliver of consciousness, then the universe is aware of itself. The inherent locality of space-time is akin to omnipresence. When you take the entire system in consideration as a whole ("the universe), the inherent locality of space-time is all derived from a single source, or beginning. It is all directly connected to that single event, it is just stretched out through the fabric of time and space.

But that means there isn't a god at all. There's just a universe that inspires as much awe and appreciation as a god. A god is inherently a conscious, thinking, processing entity, correct? Since when does the universe qualify as a conscious, thinking, processing entity? Sure, I'm conscious and processing, but I have no conscious or subconscious connection to the rest of the universe. The universe does not react when I stub my toe. I do not cry out in pain when a supernova annihilates a dozen moons.

There's a lot of differences between the universe and a traditional god. I'm not being aggressive or antagonistic here, I'm trying to understand. And I think, from what you have explained so far, that "god" is the wrong word for what you're trying to say.

There's more than one way to be "better than human".

Would you mind expanding on this? I am not sure where you are getting that part out of what I said.

People seem to think "god" means something extreme. It could just mean something more. It doesn't have to embody everything, it can just embody more than we do as humans. Perhaps there's something bigger than a god, something bigger than that thing that's bigger than a god, something that's bigger than that thing, etc.

There's more than one direction to go with this "god" stuff, and it doesn't have to cover all directions at once. That's what I meant in Point # 2: the modern definition of a god tries too hard. It's a deliberate stretch to cover all the bases. There's no room left for anything but this one being. The only point in time that's theoretically had only enough room for one was the Big Bang. Ever since then, there's always been at least two of everything that exists. And each of those things was only omniexistent in the most broadest of senses. They came from the same source. Same material. Ok. Their nature was limited and their activity was limited. They were by no means anything more than rock hurled from a volcano. Basically, the modern definition just tires too hard. It's like someone actively tried to avoid something when they wrote it down.

Anyway, moving on...

How has your experience led you to believe that a deity is scientifically possible according to the above qualifications?

The issue I have with "deity," is that it tends to carry some pretty strong connotations. One is that a "deity" is somehow separate from the system over which it presides. Kind of like the idea of a human male figure sitting on a throne. While this is how it is viewed in some contexts, it is not one that I hold true. "Deities" also tend to require some type of worship. As a human concept, I am not sure this is even relevant to the rest of the Universe. Another is that somehow this "deity" actively punishes and rewards those who do it the "right" way, but we seem to all of that just fine on our own. I think that people try to get out of personal responsibility with this single concept because regardless of a God/s, we are fully capable of choosing and creating either concept of heaven or hell. It just happens here and now.

So your idea of a deity is something you arrived at entirely on your own? Interesting. I like that. So your idea of a god is nothing like the traditional or modern definition?

reply to post by AfterInfinity


REVIEW MY EDIT: I will, but you havent responded to my answer to your first 'stab' at justifying your position.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
But does a god really have to be omnipotent to be a god? Does it really have to be omniscient to be considered a god? Thor wasn't omniscient. Minerva wasn't all powerful. Quetzlcoatl sure as hell wasn't omnipresent. How many gods in the history of religion and mythology claim to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent all in one neat little package? When did that become a necessity to be considered a god?

This suggests to me that you're looking in one particular direction regarding gods. Your belief comes from one specific set of materials. Otherwise, your idea of "gods" would be a little more open, don't you think? Please correct me if I'm missing something here.

Those are not only different individual ideologies, but they are from vastly different cultures than my own.

I am more interested in my own personal exploration in these aspects, and feel that our own beliefs are all that we can really talk about with much authority.

I am talking about a larger concept. That we all explore the Universe according to our time period and culture. The definitions we apply in our current culture of science actually starts putting numbers and patterns to things, which allows for minimization in subjectivity. This is a good thing for better communication. However, every single human to have ever lived is working with the exact same data set (the universe itself). What we do with that, psychologically, depends on different variables.

But that means there isn't a god at all. There's just a universe that inspires as much awe and appreciation as a god. A god is inherently a conscious, thinking, processing entity, correct? Since when does the universe qualify as a conscious, thinking, processing entity? Sure, I'm conscious and processing, but I have no conscious or subconscious connection to the rest of the universe. The universe does not react when I stub my toe. I do not cry out in pain when a supernova annihilates a dozen moons.

I do think we have a difference here in that I see no relevance in the word that is used whatsoever. I use God, because while we are putting numbers to things now, its the same thing as it always was. Remember too, you only speak for your own perspective.

You are also a part of the universe. When you stub your toe, the universe responds by sending signals to your brain, which you react to with various other systems. All are part of the Universe. If you werent, then stubbing your toe wouldnt hurt in the first place.

There's a lot of differences between the universe and a traditional god. I'm not being aggressive or antagonistic here, I'm trying to understand. And I think, from what you have explained so far, that "god" is the wrong word for what you're trying to say.

No, it isnt. Its exactly the word I wish to choose, and I am talking about the exact same thing just from a different culture. You arent only trying to understand, you are trying to convert. We are going to come at this from different perspectives, period. In your perspective, you might choose a different word according to your bias, but I have my own understanding of God (something which many religions and ideologies have attempted to discourage throughout the centures).