Coming home . . .

[Haven]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

You're exactly the same person you have always been since you first joined the forum, Haven. The only thing that has changed is, now you can perturb the Christians by claiming to be one of THEM.

[His Name Is John]

I imagine some are celebrating haven's atheism.
I imagine some celebrated his temporarily returned theism.
I'm just celebrating Haven, a good guy.

And given his 2 changes of heart and very open questions, I'd also like to congratulate him for creating what could become the mondo thread of everything!!

I second this.

I love seing a guy who is able to change his mind on issue like this. Now I also respect a guy who will stick to his guns, but really I think the key thing in both is honesty, and not going with the flow.

I was happy for him when he came back to theism, but I respect his choice if he returns and stays an atheist. I have said many times before, I think both views are logical.

Good for Haven, and Haven, I just want to let you know that I respect you as a person, not just as a statistic. Your arguments are good, and your grasp on the English language is brilliant (I only realized how great it was today when I was reading back over our head-to-head and reading it out loud).

[Molly]

I'm returning to atheism, and deeply embarrassed I posted this.

Don't be. Emotion is part of what makes us human. You done have absolutely nothing worthy of causing embarrassment.


Just, though, for some bits of thought, I thought I might address some of your original concerns.

The three points that were most convincing for me were:

1) The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem invalidating an eternal universe/multiverse

It doesn't, though. Especially when you start looking at Vilenkin's earlier work which inform that particular theorum. Where did you hear this?

2) The inability to account for a coherent view of morality on atheism / naturalism / non-theism

There are some coherent views of morality that are naturalistic. What's particularly interesting is that chimps and bonobos have demonstrated altruism, reciprocity, basic understanding of motivations, etc. We can watch how human ethics developed by studying the early stages in our close animal relatives.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cg ... 20juice%22
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.0050184
http://www.phillipscentral.net/uploads/ ... 20Mind.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... ce&f=false

My favorite is the spilled juice experiment with the chimps. Pg 76 of the last (though it is covered in some of the others). There are books and books and books more of this stuff too.

3) The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the ineptitude of all other naturalistic explanations. Only a presumption of naturalism and a devaluing of the prior probability of miracles kept me from believing since discussing this topic with a few Christian academics (who shall remain nameless).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the most statistically unlikely naturalistic explanation makes more sense than a resurrection.

Even so -> Richard Carrier's Empty Tomb explanation is pretty good. It accounts for everything, follows Jewish law of the time, temporary burial, etc.

[revelationtestament]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even the most statistically unlikely naturalistic explanation makes more sense than a resurrection.

Oh this sounds good, but is meaningless. If taken to a court of law, the same standard of proof applies to extraordinary claims.
Nevertheless, I believe there is extraordinary evidence. The testimony of Paul, a previous persecutor of Christians, to the resurrected Lord is fairly extraordinary. The testimony of the apostles that Christ reappeared to them in a palpable, resurrected state is extraordinary given the crises of faith they had demonstrated at the time of his crucifixion. Sure it would be nice to have photographs of the risen Lord or a reappearance to satisfy everyone or ???? What evidence would satisfy everyone? How would the Lord be able to call out his sheep from the goats? Alas, it seems we have the evidence that will be provided until the next resurrection anyway. How about prophecies coming true? Is that evidence that God exists?

[Molly]

Oh this sounds good, but is meaningless. If taken to a court of law, the same standard of proof applies to extraordinary claims.

Yes, but it takes more to reach that standard when the extraordinary claims are made. It is easier to prove that a regular African elephant walked into a store than it is to prove that an invisible, flying, soundless, flea-sized elephant walked in.

[99percentatheism]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

That those that deny there is a God because of evolution, or suffering, try in the next breath to preach a morally sound humanism (and attempt to shore up materialis via evolution), proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are all made in the image of the One True God.

Christian "faith" is purely a rational choice.

Well done that you made it yet again. But don't be surprised if the merry-go-round of doubts and pain still doesn't have a few more rides left for you.

[Haven]

99%, did you read my latest post? I went back to atheism (actually igtheism, if we're being specific). I simply cannot justify believing in a being for which there is no evidence or coherent definition. My heart longs to return, but my brain runs the show.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Is Haven crazy?

Naw, just missing his rocker

I have no reason to conclude you haven't come to your position by what are for you perfectly valid reasons. As such, a charge of insanity would itself indicate a bit of it on the charger's part.

Have I lost my mind?

Yes. My sole piece of evidence is that you disagree with my own position

Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism?

Regardless of the amount of evidence either way, I contend the most rational and logical conclusion is that the god concept is a purely human construct.

Does God exist?

Only as a concept.

Is rational theism possible?

Only so far as are married bachelors

I don't doubt many a theist has come to their position by what they consider to be perfectly rational reasons. I disagree with 'em as to what constitutes a rational reason. Thus, I think it a bit off to declare theism less than rational - except where a given reason (conclusion) is presented.

[Clownboat]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

That those that deny there is a God because of evolution, or suffering, try in the next breath to preach a morally sound humanism (and attempt to shore up materialis via evolution), proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are all made in the image of the One True God.

I need to understand your thought process here because I cannot follow. You seem to have made a jump somewhere here that even Evil Knievel could not have made.

Please explain how you arrived at this "One True God".

Christian "faith" is purely a rational choice.

Clearly, it is not.
The moon is clearly made of cheese. You see, just me saying it does not make it sound any less foolish.

Well done that you made it yet again. But don't be surprised if the merry-go-round of doubts and pain still doesn't have a few more rides left for you.

Do you still have merry-go-rounds of doubt and pain about Santa or the Easter Bunny? Once freed from your indoctrination, why would anyone have doubts and pain about a god concept?

[jamesmorlock]

Having two voices shouting in your head over an issue is a sign of wisdom. Only the foolish have absolutely no doubt about things. Because of this, whatever reasoning you decide to accept in the end will be your best shot, and that is the ultimate goal of reasoning.

Unless the God that exists happens to be non-benevolent (like some common models of Yahweh), in that case you and me are just boned. But it's silly to believe something just because you are afraid that it might exist.