On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is.
I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves.
If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
On April 23 2013 00:21 QuanticHawk wrote: just became old enough to realize that rational thought and religion don't mix at all, and I realized that a lot of the religious people i knew at church were huge shitheads.
On April 23 2013 00:17 rei wrote: Education and the internet is the cure to religion. It's getting harder and harder to remain ignorant when information is easily accessible on the internet, and the more educated a person is the easier it is for them to distinguish which piece of information is trustworthy.
I must suffer from the internet resistant strain then...
or perhaps my education is insufficient, or I'm an illogical irrational person.
I don't think "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" or "when I was old enough I realized" is quite a big enough reason to make yourself feel that you're an atheist. Scholars are constantly studying the case of God, whether there is really a god, slowly dissecting each "evidence" people find about any religion (i.e. parchments of Gospel writings, wrecked up chariots found in the Dead Sea a few years ago). They are constantly giving real rational thoughts whether there is a higher power somewhere.
For me, it feels much more logical (as you all would say it in the same way as how you feel it is logical to just not believe in God) to be a Christian. While God appreciates faith more than finding evidence for the existence of God, there are atheists who gave finding evidence of God a shot, and they have come to their own conclusion that there really is perhaps a God out there. People like Lee Strobel have written their own books about their journey in the pursuit of evidences and cracking the deepest of questions.
In the case of the Christian God, it is rather unlikely that God would place evidences right smack in your face that He exists if he wants people to have faith and believe in Him. It's just that there are many occurrences in the world pointing towards the direction that there is God. Prophesies slowly being fulfilled (end time prophesies, basically of how more and more natural disasters will occur), more evidences of Jesus being dug up and analysed, and just the complexity of science related matter (the human body, astronomy, etc.)
To all you atheists, I politely seek that you guys would open up just a little bit, and do a little bit of readings of atheists who turned Christians because of their findings and such. I'm sure you would be surprised by what you may find.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: I don't think "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" or "when I was old enough I realized" is quite a big enough reason to make yourself feel that you're an atheist. Scholars are constantly studying the case of God, whether there is really a god, slowly dissecting each "evidence" people find about any religion (i.e. parchments of Gospel writings, wrecked up chariots found in the Dead Sea a few years ago). They are constantly giving real rational thoughts whether there is a higher power somewhere.
No they aren't.
They're studying historical texts for their historical significance or for various other reasons, not for evidence that there is something supernatural.
Evidence that Jesus existed is interesting on a simply scholarly basis, one that has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus truly rose from the dead.
Evidence for a higher power would have to be incredibly strong, and some parchment of Gospel writings is not enough to even hint toward it.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: For me, it feels much more logical (as you all would say it in the same way as how you feel it is logical to just not believe in God) to be a Christian. While God appreciates faith more than finding evidence for the existence of God, there are atheists who gave finding evidence of God a shot, and they have come to their own conclusion that there really is perhaps a God out there. People like Lee Strobel have written their own books about their journey in the pursuit of evidences and cracking the deepest of questions.
As you say, for you and for you alone. Your failure to grasp how some others can lack belief in God simply, as you put it, "after thinking about it for a long while rationally" is simply personal to you. Indeed, you haven't actually put forth any rational basis for believing in God, you're merely asserting it. An assertion of truth is not a rational basis nor will it ever be.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: In the case of the Christian God, it is rather unlikely that God would place evidences right smack in your face that He exists if he wants people to have faith and believe in Him. It's just that there are many occurrences in the world pointing towards the direction that there is God. Prophesies slowly being fulfilled (end time prophesies, basically of how more and more natural disasters will occur), more evidences of Jesus being dug up and analysed, and just the complexity of science related matter (the human body, astronomy, etc.)
Like what? Name one. I can guarantee you that anything you can come up with that actually happened will have an alternate explanation that does not require belief in the supernatural.
On April 23 2013 00:44 ElusoryX wrote: To all you atheists, I politely seek that you guys would open up just a little bit, and do a little bit of readings of atheists who turned Christians because of their findings and such. I'm sure you would be surprised by what you may find.
Doesn't sound like you have many findings yourself.
In fact, I'd be surprised if you've even read a fraction of the Bible. I don't see how anyone can accept for truth a book that condones slavery, genocide, misogyny, homophobia, and racism, among a host of other despicable things.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is.
I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves.
If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
He's a human being in the modern age. That makes it unlikely that his morality is worse than catholicism. I never said there can be no worse morality than catholicism, I said that I don't think his morality is worse than it.
If morality is defined by an authority, that means the authority could say that making innocent people suffer is righteous, and it would be righteous. This is not the case. No matter what any one says, that is never moral. I don't care if a government says it, if my parents say it, or if a god says it.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then?
The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible.
Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality.
All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things.
Think about these things:
The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals?
In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no?
Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that.
There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses.
As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other.
How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?" Why is it that whenever people talk about religion, we can't talk like rational adults?
Can't I believe in god but not believe in the "holiness" of the crusades? Can't I believe in God without believing in everything anyone has done in his name? If some guy out in the wilderness says "the only people who are really atheists are people who murder rampantly for no real reason" - does that mean that all atheists think this way?
And regarding your comment about human history, I'm fairly certain that religion has had a relatively large influence both in current events and past ones, too - both good and bad. So your notion that just because slavery wasn't abolished single-handedly by Jesus Christ that christianity had no part in it is pretty outrageous.
In the end, though, it's hard for me to respond to anyone on the topic of religion, because at some point it all becomes rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that for whatever reason it has to be that way, instead of each of us saying to the other "I believe/don't believe in this God or that God." - and there is actually no real evidence why I do or why you should. Hopefully, the example I set is sufficient argument that my way is better - and if it isn't, I hope you find your way well through life anyway.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then?
The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible.
Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality.
All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things.
Think about these things:
The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals?
In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no?
Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that.
There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses.
As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other.
How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?"
I was raised in a family that went to church and even was an altar boy. Mind you, the catholic church is pretty tame in Germany, and I did actually go to the kindergarten of the protestant church in the next suburb.
Church was more of a social thing. Later in life my sister became pretty religious and I got to know quite a lot of religious zealots in the 'free churches', and some people I know founded their own cult. 90% of the strong believers are batshit crazy and the closest minded people you can imagine, so I pretty much turned away from anything church-related in disgust and was some kind of agnostic, now I'm a non-militant atheist. Big turning point also was the death of said religious sister.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
That is a logical fallacy. Just because a being who created us says that something is moral, does not make it moral. If god was real and he really did order and / or condone the genocide and rape and slavery that's in the bible, it does not mean that it would be moral. It would still be evil. Morality can never be defined by an authority, no matter who it is.
I don't know how moral the original poster is, but his morality can't be worse than that of catholicism.
Morality is defined by an authority almost as a rule. Morality defined by someone without authority would be useless. Even individually-defined morality is assigned by virtue of each individual's authority over themselves.
If you can think of no morality worse than catholicism (which may contain instances of poor behavior in stories, but overall at least contains undertones of well-being for people), you have both a very small imagination, and a very limited knowledge of history.
Authority is required to enforce morality but I do not believe it is required to define it.
The Golden Rule, for example, requires no authority for definition.
Morality is generally defined within the confines of a society, both geographically and temporally. However there are some things that transcend even societal bounds. For example, I think almost every society would think of the murder of a fellow citizen of that same society as morally reprehensible. This has been true for thousands of years, and is honestly probably inherent in our very biology.
You don't see animals of the same species wantonly killing each other. Self-preservation is a strong motivating factor in that regard.
On April 22 2013 22:58 woreyour wrote: I am mature enough to know what is right or wrong. I don't need that to be "moral"; I just don't need to be an asshole. And best of all, I can fap without feeling bad about it.
100% of the people who say that they are mature enough to "know right from wrong" are just not mature enough to know that the distinction isn't always easy. You have a strange sense of what morality is - it is intended to be the set of rules which prevent a person from being "an asshole".
Consider that sociopaths also view their version of morality (whereby some people are just supposed to die) to be completely legitimate. Now, explain why your views are superior without using statements like "everyone knows..." and "well obviously...". This is where religion/morality comes in. It gives people a context in which to discuss right and wrong. Outside of religion, there is no good and evil, there is only legal and illegal.
So do you believe slavery is morally acceptable, then?
The banning of slavery in most countries certainly wasn't a religiously motivated event. In fact, many people in the United States in particular used religion to defend slavery. That's not all that surprising, given what is actually contained in the Bible.
Human history shows that your assertion is just straight up wrong. Morality is based a lot on human knowledge and understanding both of the past and the current. I do not believe that people, even religious people, actually look toward religion for moral guidance. I think statements like "if it weren't for religion I'd probably be out there murdering people" are pretty fallacious because it doesn't hold up in reality.
All one needs to do to affirm this is to look at actual human history. Let's take some examples from American and European history, since we can probably relate to or exemplify some of these things.
Think about these things:
The numerous inquisitions throughout the middle ages. Let's focus on the Spanish Inquisition, since it's probably the most famous. The Spanish Inquisition was essentially intended to force Muslims and Jews to convert, or leave/die. The enforcement of Catholicism in Spain consisted of censorship, persecution, oppression, suppression, and torture of offenders: the nature of the punishable offenses could range from the verbal (blasphemy) to sexual (sodomy) to supernatural (witchcraft) among many many others. Thousands of people were affected over many years, many dying in the process. Do you consider this a good example of religious morals?
In the colonial period, did religion stop the American colonists from trampling over the natives, killing them, eradicating their peoples and their lands, and subjugating them? No. In fact, in many cases, religious leaders encouraged many practices we would consider today to be completely immoral. Many many people died in the interests of conversion and absolution/purification. At the time, it was considered absolutely the morally right thing to do: these people were being "saved" from an eternity in hell. And of course, if they didn't listen, the converters were doing a favor for everyone by killing the heathen unbelieving savages. Sounds pretty ridiculous, no?
Again, during the colonial period: do you recall the numerous witch trials and the results of Puritanism in New England? I can guarantee you that today, burning a teenage girl at the stake over mere religious hysteria would be outrageous. No one would stand for that.
There are many more examples from human history that I can find and display for you, some of which are happening right now. The simple fact is that religion is not and never has been a good moral compass. It's honestly actually one of the worst things you can use as a guide, given its track record. No other human societal institution has demonstrated as much propensity to subvert, oppress, control and hurt both the individual and the masses.
As to the subject of this blog, I don't actually remember when I became atheist. I was born in a Muslim family and grew up half-practicing, even reading the Koran till I was around 12 or 13. However I do know for a fact I never really believed in God or any sort of higher power. I started questioning why others believed probably in elementary school and I was pretty taken aback at the beliefs in Santa, God, the tooth fairy, and all sorts of other things at a very young age. By the time I was a freshman in high school I had spent lots of time on the internet reading about almost everything, and a lot of the time it was about logic and religion; two things I found in utter contradiction of each other.
How on earth did you get from my post to "So you think slavery is okay, do you?" Why is it that whenever people talk about religion, we can't talk like rational adults?
Can't I believe in god but not believe in the "holiness" of the crusades? Can't I believe in God without believing in everything anyone has done in his name? If some guy out in the wilderness says "the only people who are really atheists are people who murder rampantly for no real reason" - does that mean that all atheists think this way?
And regarding your comment about human history, I'm fairly certain that religion has had a relatively large influence both in current events and past ones, too - both good and bad. So your notion that just because slavery wasn't abolished single-handedly by Jesus Christ that christianity had no part in it is pretty outrageous.
In the end, though, it's hard for me to respond to anyone on the topic of religion, because at some point it all becomes rhetoric.
It's unfortunate that for whatever reason it has to be that way, instead of each of us saying to the other "I believe/don't believe in this God or that God." - and there is actually no real evidence why I do or why you should. Hopefully, the example I set is sufficient argument that my way is better - and if it isn't, I hope you find your way well through life anyway.
Your argument was that morality is defined under religion.
So, how exactly is Christianity morally acceptable when in 1800 years it condoned slavery? Every major facet of Christianity supported slavery for literally 90% of the time it has existed.
You're fairly certain that Christianity has had a large part in current and past events, and yet a perfect Jesus Christ did not abolish slavery. A perfect God did nothing, and in fact, slavery is condoned in the Bible.
If you're going to resort to a no True Scotsman fallacy, and you don't subscribe to the Bible, one can easily turn it around on you: how are you Christian? You can't both believe in the moral authority of God and then turn around and say that God's acceptance, nay, encouragement of slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and genocide are not directly contradictory.
Oh wow. This thread is headed straight to hell. Yes. That pun's intended. My wit is razor sharp.
I imagine you, the OP, wanted to have people tell about crises and subsequent loss of faith, rather than their general world-view, correct? You might want to edit the title to properly reflect this, if you do. The first impressions I got when reading the title, was that you implied that people were born with faith, and turning atheist was a development from this, which of course would be a preposterous claim.
That said, I went through the entire attempt at religious indoctrination. Softly, mind you - there wasn't any cult things going on. But during my grade school, we had "Christianity" rather than religious / social class, we did pseudo-prayersongs for lunch, and went to church during all major holidays - easter, christmas and so on. But during my early years of grade school, this social conditioning, if you want to call it such, made me beleive that the christian faith was how the world worked, since people seemed to respect the faith naturally around me.
Once I got aware of the attempts at social conditioning around 4th grade or so, however, I started looking into why I considered christianity to be sensible. I realised that I didn't - the only reason I had thought of it such previously, was because of the appeal of tradition, and a feeling of invisible, accepted social values that one had to adhere to.
In later years, having read religious texts of all the major world religions, as well as a plenthora of mytholological writings, I have found no reason to follow any religion. They're too filled with inner conflicts, nonsense, claims of superiority / uniqueness and ignorance of their own origins and surrounding context, which gives me no reason to believe in their claims. And while I'm loathe to claim with conviction that there's no greater conciousness than our own in the entirety of existance, I find no reason to connect any greater conciousness to any of humanity's faiths, even if they could be touching on a closer connection, simply because there's too much non-connected bullshit in the organized faiths.
I went to an Anglican church (Sunday school mostly) until I was about 7. I cared more about sneaking around and goofing off with my brother so I didn't listen to much of what was being said. I actually have very few memories of actual "church" stuff, so it was never a big influence. My parents decided they weren't going to bother going anymore and that was pretty much it.
I never really believed in God, but didn't label myself as an atheist until later. Whenever people asked what religion I was I just said I was raised Anglican. It wasn't until I started paying attention to all the stupid, hateful and harmful things that religious people believe and do that I began identifying myself as atheist.
This thread is spiraling dangerously close to a absolute morality vs. a relative morality discussion.
I hope it does. I always love to see the bizarre things people will say to defend moral absolutism.
OT: Was born in a family that wasn't religious. I experimented with believing in some sort of god when I was younger (12-15 ish). Didn't seem to make any sense. Been a non-believer since.
I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
On April 23 2013 02:02 farvacola wrote: I became an atheist after "discovering" rationality and finding it very complementary to an egoistic view of the world. I lost my atheism once I figured out that not all knowledge is rational and, more importantly, that the symbol precedes the symbolized.
an example of not all knowledge is rational please.
On April 23 2013 00:21 QuanticHawk wrote: just became old enough to realize that rational thought and religion don't mix at all, and I realized that a lot of the religious people i knew at church were huge shitheads.
EPT
