Has any knowledgeable atheist (Selfish Gene and understanding evolution correct, knowing Dennett and philosphy of mind, Stirner/Nietzche etc.) started believing in god afterwards ?
Cans such people here (no teenagers please, post your age) describe their journey ? Or do know relevant authors/books (necessarily quite contemprary)?
I'm trying to read Guenon but it doesn't click, he starts from the postulate that eastern didn't take interest in science because it's valueless
Me
Augustine, Kierkegaard and Pascal is what did it for me.
I’m 21
I used to think I was an atheist but I realised I was an agnostic the whole time because I never believed there couldn’t be a god just that there didn’t need to be a god
A lot of really more vehement atheists will likely convert because they’re very impressionable and dislike complex answers that acknowledge we don’t know things for sure
you can be an atheist and believe there could be a god
brainlet atheist post
"b-b-b-ut were not making a statement either way!!!"
be an agnostic pussy
23 still don't believe .
Would like to. Imagine how comfy it will be to believe the creator of the universe cares about you .
But after some examination I feel like god exists and non-exists are equal. if god is real my day to day life would not change much.
So you’d consider things portioned up like pic related? With me as an agnostic atheist?
what?
yes
this webcomic chart is wrong and if you use the term gnostic in that way you are peak brainlet
Bro, atheism literally means a(without)-theism(belief in god), a lack of belief in god, whereas agnosticism says we can not possibly have knowledge about god. Agnosticism implies atheism (unless the agnostic subscribes to an epistemology where it is acceptable to believe in things which are impossible to have knowledge about) but atheism does not imply agnosticism. It's a minor distinction but there you go.
I know it’s wrong but I was trying to find an explanation of his definition of atheist
Yeah I was a big stirnerite for a while before I realised that he's completly compatible with christianity, I'm not a catholic larper or anything though
Agnostic: maybe, maybe not. Deal with it, faggot. Imagine not being agnostic, lol. Must suck having an iq below 130.
Oh, and the guide is bait for atheists on the verge to declare themselves theists after all.
I was raised around Christians, but I never went to church or read the Bible or anything like that. I started accepting myself as an atheist around 12 years old. Around 18, I started realizing how little we know about the world, and how easy it is to think you’re right about something, while also being wrong. So while I was still an (agnostic) atheist, I wasn’t the type of guy that called religion retarded/impossible/etc. Somehow I came across an excerpt from Pascal’s Pensées and decided to read the whole thing, because I was curious and never heard of the book, despite always hearing about the wager and only the wager. I found out that the arguments against Pascal were completely misinformed, born from obvious ignorance of Pensées. That book is what started my journey to become Christian.
How sad, you had the chance to transcend the Semitic Gandalf there.
not an argument
There is no possible argument to made, my humble friend. Just an observation. Rethink your subscription to the Semitic Gandalf and expand your horizon. Be ready for when the desert religions all collapse one day because we found life on an exoplanet. It’s inevitable.
>There is no possible argument to made
Then don’t waste your time responding to me
Stop larping for a minute. There is no hard evidence for or against Jewish SFF in case you were expecting it, like some sort of divine revelation on Yea Forums. Haha. Except this: If there is a creator, he’s tied to the Big Bang and all life, and not to some mountain in a terrestrial desert and a Homo sapiens. That much should be clear.
Father Seraphim rose was a hard core nihilist before becoming an orthodox Monk
I'm pretty sure Pascal would be atheist if he knew evolution
Kierkegaard makes more sense but not enough
No, the nu-christians you refer to simply closed their minds to any criticisms of the idea of God and started to actively select pseudo philosophical woo woo that confirmed what they wanted to believe. This is the result of existential dread that comes with the discovery that God doesn't exist, and is motivated by fear, and not reason. Because of this fear, usually for death and the endless void that comes with it, the nu-christian begins to play mental gymnastics with himself, all to avoid the inevitability and futility of death. Thus, a whole new conceptual reality is created out of thin air, where you can simply define your wish fulfillment mechanism out of nothing, and thankfully rejoice in its supposed undeniable existence. When people become aware that this is just a system of fallacies, upon which a coping mechanism is build, they begin to get very angry, as if you've insulted them personally. This is another defense mechanism to keep the system of wish fulfillment intact, through declaration and demonization of enemies, which would be anyone who disagrees with the existence of the wish fulfilling entity.
In short, what you're asking for is an existential coping mechanism
Why would evolution stop pascal’s belief in god? Surely it would be more likely to make him into a deist?
I have since a young age been interested in evolutionary biology, studying it now at university I don’t see how it precludes the existence of god; evolution is perhaps the most beautiful mechanism of the universe, a God that created the mechanism that allows for such fluidity of form and function in life would be a far greater God than one that gave us a set (and very flawed) creation.
Darwin didn’t become an atheist because of his discovery (not that he got everything right anyway), he became an atheist because he was sad that his daughter died.
Even if evolution weren’t real, then these people would still say “talking snakes aren’t real, so any intelligent person wouldn’t be a Christian.” Yet Pascal and many other of the brightest men throughout history were Christians despite never seeing any talking snakes.
That's an argument from authority
Yes, one can do that. Technically. However, it tends to be a form of Deism.
My trajectory:
atheist
catholic
atheist again
liberal
nihilist
pagan
hindu
and catholic finally
I'm 27 now and I was an atheist for ~5 years from 20 to 25.
Nietzche is basically a weak faggot who drugged and whored himself to death because he believed that pride and ego were strength when it's just the opposite and all of his work is just an attempt at rationalizing his delusion.
Sure, we will never be able to definitely prove God, because the supernatural can't be proven by inferior methods, but given the fact that religious societies create high quality civilizations and civilizations that abandon God break down and collapse, I am willing to take the risk that God exists and act accordingly, so in a sense Im taking the utilitarian approach, however what really convinced me was persistent spiritual practice and my own experiences during that practice.
Reading books is entirely secondary to that.
I would recommend that you study advaita vedanta hinduism side by side with catholicism to get a holistic picture.
>muh what if apace aliens speculation
Yeah buddy call me back when we left the solar system as a species.
Pro-tip: Not gonna happen
Do you even know what the second commandment is?
Yeah I do.
If you are a protesant you are retarded and dont matter though.
Agnostic Theists are still going to hell.
You know what it says and yet you still subscribe to your trainwreck of a theological system?
>Reading Pensees turned me into a Christian
If your faith is based on rationalism, then it's not really faith.
Citing any scientist, academician, writer, or historical figure is argument by authority. What's your point?
No, it isn't. That's not the same way you used your argument. You said that, because Pascal was a Christian, and a smart man, we must all be Christians. That's a textbook example of an argument from authority. It's like saying that, because Newton believed in alchemy, and Newton was a smart man, we must therefore beluece in alchemy. Your argumentation is fallacious. This doesn't apply when you cite a scientist or anyone from academia, because their word is based on some facts they've established. Their proof is in the pudding. Anyone can test their claim, which isn't the case with your argument from ignorance. In your argument from ignorance, we somehow have to take Pascal's word for it, and believe because he believed. That's fallacious reasoning
>trying to force the issue when he's obviously wrong
*argument from authority
What's the point though? Just play along, this coming from someone that went backwards, from a fundamentalist family to complete "material realism", I never stopped believing though, that's the key word, don't have faith, just BELIEVE in the abstract entity that your brian think God is, if you don't get it what's the point? That's why I'm asking
When did I imply that because smart people believe, it means it’s true? And that therefore you should believe? I didn’t.
>t. hasn’t read Pensées
>You said that, because Pascal was a Christian, and a smart man, we must all be Christians
Who are you quoting?
I don’t think he was saying that because those smart men were Christians we should be too; I think he was saying that atheists commonly misattribute foolish beliefs to Christians (eg taking genesis literally, which very few Christians actually do) to make them into straw men as it were. Pascal probably did not believe in talking snakes just because he was a Christian.
...
...
>next big scientific breakthrough
God made it, God rules, look is here on the bible
>we reach the point where we are able to understand ultimate reality
Yeah it's so obvious God is behind this, look Pascal thought about it and he was right
>humanity is about to end and science never found something like "God"
Yeah bro, God made everything, hear this: nobody like me moved his ass and use the scientific method to understand reality, I just think really hard about stuff and believe everything I conclude, therefore God, don't you hear my rhetoric?
Just read Einstein's essays, he's right about everything.
I suggest you don't. He was a jew
So what
Teens at the university of Delft proved him wrong though
Werner von Braun, the ex nazi rocket scientist who founded NASA. If I recall correctly, he was an atheist for a long time but he died a Christian. He was probably one of those people who knew far more than your average joe since he worked up there for the government. Pic related is his tombstone btw.
Firmament could refer to space
>christcuck says atheists are impressionable
kek
If we find life on an exoplanet that means the Great Filter is ahead of us. Then revelation would engulf everything
Sure buddy. Space is void of life save for earth, which Jehova created for the Jews.
lel
It would immediately disprove and therefore crush most religions
how so?
Because they won’t have the same biblical stories obviously. Also, Jesus or Mohammed were already born here, so none of that either. Etc. No Abrahamic religions possible on other planets. Also no mention of aliens that god created in the bible either.
Are you retarded? Are you totally illiterate? I’m not a Christian
>I used to think I was an atheist but I realised I was an agnostic the whole time
At no time did I mention being a Christian
>Because they won’t have the same biblical stories obviously.
So?
>Also, Jesus or Mohammed were already born here, so none of that either
So? “Before Abraham was, I am”
>No Abrahamic religions possible on other planets
Why not?
>Also no mention of aliens that god created in the bible either.
So?
The Bible says we're not the only intelligent life God has made. I don't think it would change much to be honest. The catholic church has already explained many times that aliens don't inherently 'disprove' catholicism.
>Evolution
Zogbot.
...
>It would immediately disprove and therefore crush most religions
Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and a shitton of religion have cosmologies that all include descriptions of infinite worlds with intelligent life
I don’t know enough about them, which is why I didnt include them. It would seem possible that other life forms would have some convergent ideas. Except for Abrahamic stories obviously.
Why haven’t you responded to ?
This
The Catholic Church has already said you can be a catholic and believe in evolution so long as you still believe humans have special immortal souls and God guided evolution, there’s no reason they couldn’t explain aliens
Swedenborg has already gone so far to claim there are other “humans” in the universe
wrong.
I did more or less in my other comments, except the very self evident ones like aliens not having copies of our bible.
That’s sad and very desperate. They’re hedging against their inevitable downfall. Either they push god back into abstract divine/whatever or they perish one day. And they’ve already started this. Long way to go yet.
Friendly reminder none of you are actual Christians and delude yourself by pretending to larp as enlightened orthodox / catholic intellectuals because it triggers an imaginary sjw boogeyman in your head
None of you have ever experienced the sublime. If you did you wouldn’t be on the most nihilistic and contrarian website on the internet
>I did more or less in my other comments
Where? Your argument is very weak. It’s as if you expect people to agree with you automatically. It’s not as if the Bible ever says there are no extraterrestrials. You could even interpret Ezekiel 1 as an illustration of aliens.
It’s safe and honest to be agnostic with regard to a creator, or some form of higher being. But claiming to have been an actual atheist and later returned to the fold sounds either foolish or tragic. A wasted chance either way. There is no caring or intervening Jehova. If there is a god, he doesn’t give a fuck. And the sublime? The sublime is exactly that. Something universal we could theoretically share with other civilisations.
>None of you have ever experienced the sublime. If you did you wouldn’t be on the most nihilistic and contrarian website on the internet
imagine thinking thinking any of this
Horseshit. How would their copies of our bible work without any of the figures or locations? Maybe even sexes or water, etc. Makes no sense. It’s a thoroughly terrestrial story, and just one of many at that.
If Christianity wasn’t a signifier for le based logical western civilization you wouldn’t be a Christian
>How would their copies of our bible work without any of the figures or locations?
Why do the stories have to be the same? What kind of thinking process is this?
I was referring to how you described Yea Forums
If we find aliens on another planet who have rational intellects, we traditional Catholics would do the same we did when we found the new world....
BAPTIZE
COLONIZE
CONVERT
INTERBREED
Maybe God also created aliens and came to the aliens to make a similar covenant with them, they’d have their own stories
Yea Forums is just polemic to what it perceives as the cultural norm. Look at how it was in the Bush administration. Fox News called the website a leftist anarchist hacker cult. The zeitgeist of the website will probably shift to whatever paradigm the next decade creates and you will go back to being blackpilled. This is a decidedly insincere and cynical aesthetic
ok
Wow, lol
So he’s got chosen tribes on each planet? And sends his son to each one so he might die as a sacrifice for their sins?
>There is no caring or intervening Jehova. If there is a god, he doesn’t give a fuck.
And you know this how?
Why can’t they have different stories with similar meanings? Why does it matter if Jesus rides in on a donkey or a an alien donkey? Don’t you know that the Bible was made specifically for humans on earth? Do you really think God can’t make another one? Do you really think that the spiritual meanings are less important than the superficial images of the stories?
>Wow, lol
Is that all you can say? Embarrassing
Yeah something like that
Of course for there to be christian aliens there’d need to be Jewish aliens first
Forgot pic
WE HAD THIS EXACT THREAD LESS THAN A WEEK AGO FUCK OFF
Antony Flew
Mortimer J. Adler
GEM Anscombe
Edward Feser
Terry A. Davis
Sepharim Rose
So, what if they don’t even have legs, and are immortal. Or are like ameoba, or not even guilty of any sin. For the bible to be true, it would have to be absolutely universal. It isn’t and cannot be. What little remains of a truly universal bible would fit on a single page.
If they were sinless, then they would be sinless. How do you conclude that the Bible is therefore wrong? Weren’t Adam and Eve once perfect? So what if there are other Adams throughout the universe who haven’t sinned? How does that falsify the Bible?
Nihilism is perfectly compatible with the sublime, particularly to those who are routinely given to episodes of spontaneously elevated mood, and highly self-conscious of the cause, or simply its effect on perception--for instance the egotistical sublime of Whitman and Stevens. Longinus puts more emphasis on the darker majesties of sublime horror and precognizance of disaster, on how foresight in the beholding of sublime beauty, or in the midst of outrageously fortunate circumstance, forebodes ruin's inevitability, and a terrible sense of loss, with a correspondingly negative vividness. Irony abounds in experiences of that kind, but of the least dry kind, even when it settles into sustained reflection about making experience of extremes into leisure as idle as it is instructive, or for that matter about the drive to discovery in general. Mere contrarians are an entirely different, and altogether silly, bunch, always trying to get in early on a stock that speculation may, or may not, lift them into power along with gangs of later players on the team.
>knowledgeable
>atheist
keep us posted
Define atheist and God first.
>subscribing to massively different ideologies like trying on different pants at a store
You lack depth.
*Faith and Reason: Philosophers Explain Their Turn to Catholicism*
you can find this book on amazon.
>Guenon
that's why you're not getting it. he's a pseud who doesn't know God.
Yeah I did lack depth.
I like how you tried to hurt me with this but all you did was display your malevolence and not even achieved your goal.
I wasn't trying to hurt you, but instead help you to realize that you have lived foolishly, so you can better yourself.
atheism- disbelief in God, contrasted with agnosticism, and theism.
God- the scholastic definition of God was e.g. the uncaused cause. "Perpetual negation of determinate being as such" is one I've also heard, or the eternal lack of discernible form and being, which is consistent with the view that God is ultimately unknowable and such because that would therefore mean God has limits and thus wouldn't be omnipotent.
In any case, God is difficult to define because God by nature is incomprehensible. We can deduce very few things about God and even what we can deduce is technically just negative theology- like omnipotence is defined better as specifically lacking limits rather than as unlimited power or something.
Ultimately "God is God". He is existing outside of the universe and responsible for creation and sustainment of the universe. That is roughly what we can say with certainty.
The further issue is the conflation in many languages of God and gods, when the two terms fairly distinct... pagan gods who were human-like beings that sat on clouds bear no resemblence to God.