Can a theist truely convert to atheism?

Originally posted by souverein
[b]"Man's hunt for answers cannot be stopped or delimited by Atheism because that hunt (providing it is genuine) for answers naturally leads to atheism.
A rather amazing statement. Can you clarify that? My search leads me to a point best to describe as "I don't know" and I find it very likely that I never will know.[/b]

Would “I don't know” equate with “I don't know because I haven't got absolute proof” in your mind?
We can think that something is improbable not on the bases of evidence or proof but on the bases of Occam’s razor.
For example, I have no evidence or proof that there is NO teacup currently orbiting planet Mars, so does that mean I simply “don't know” whether there is a teacup orbiting Mars? No, because the assumption that there is a teacup orbiting Mars fails to explain any observation or anything I currently know thus, using Occam's razor, we can rationally consider that hypothesis highly improbable. For EXACTLY the same reason, we can rationally consider the hypothesis that there exists a god as highly improbable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
He didn't say that. Read his post again a with a bit less anger this time. I for one think he is correct. Once you accept one irrational belief it becomes easier accept others.

There was no anger, apologies if it came across that way. And yes Andrew did at the very least, imply what I said.

The problem I have with theism is that once you convince yourself of one absurd belief (such as their exists a god) then it suddenly comes much easier to convince yourself of other absurd beliefs (such as flying passenger aircraft into tall buildings can be a good thing to do). I mean, if one absurdity is acceptable (to you) then why not “anything goes”?

This is an extreme generalisation; my example of blaming Einstein's discoveries for the execution of the atomic bomb is the same type of irrational exemplification.

You claim:

Once you accept one irrational belief it becomes easier accept others.

. No it doesn't - this is just your personal mind-set. What evidence is there for this claim. And don't say "the twin towers" (as Andrew mentioned as an example), or I'll just retort with the "A-Bomb being the next easy step from nuclear experimentation".

Your's and Andrew's argument is the same as theist claiming that religion is a good thing because Mother Theresa did wonderful charitble activities.

Originally posted by divegeester
There was no anger, apologies if it came across that way. And yes Andrew did at the very least, imply what I said.

[quote]The problem I have with [b]theism is that once you convince yourself of one absurd belief (such as their exists a god) then it suddenly comes much easier to convince yourself of other absurd beliefs (such as flying passenger ai at religion is a good thing because Monther Thersa did wonderful charitble activities.[/b]

“...Once you accept one irrational belief it becomes easier accept others.
. No it doesn't - this is just your personal mind-set. What evidence is there for this claim. ...”

the “evidence” for this claim can be in the form of introspection:
for example, can you imagine yourself convincing yourself that Mars is made of cheese?
Surely not! But now imagine that you already HAVE convinced yourself that some planets are actually made of cheese and also convinced yourself that there is nothing absurd or incredible or unreasonable about that belief! But the moon is not a “planet”. But, never the less, if you imagine that you really DO believe that some planets are made of cheese, then surely you wouldn’t think it quite so absurd that the moon could be made of cheese than if you believe that there are no planets made of cheese -right?
I mean, in your mind, you can ask “if planets then why not moons? “
-that is an example of evidence from introspection that one absurd belief makes it easier to form others.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Once you accept one irrational belief it becomes easier accept others.
. No it doesn't - this is just your personal mind-set. What evidence is there for this claim. ...”

the “evidence” for this claim can be in the form of introspection:
for example, can you imagine yourself convincing yourself that Mars is made of cheese?
Surely not! But no ...[text shortened]... n example of evidence from introspection that one absurd belief makes it easier to form others.

No Andrew, it is not an "example of evidence", it is an example (and only an example) of your imagining of what a certain group of theist could believe or a train of thought that group could adopt.

Originally posted by divegeester
No Andrew, it is not an "example of [b]evidence", it is an example (and only an example) of your imagining of what a certain group of theist could believe or a train of thought that group could adopt.[/b]

“...it is an example (and only an example) of your IMAGINING of what a certain group of THEISTS could believe or a train of thought that group could adopt. ...” (my emphases)

firstly, this doesn’t elusively apply to “THEISTS” but everybody, including atheists. It makes no difference if you are a theist or an atheist -believing one absurdity generally makes it easier to believe others.

Secondly, if we are talking here about a claim of what goes on in people's minds (which we are), then, obviously, what we observe in our own minds can be relevant evidence of that. So me “ IMAGINING” this and “ IMAGINING” what would happen in other mind by imaging what will happen in my mind if I was in their position IS relevant evidence.
In fact, what we observe in our own minds is usually the only evidence or clue we have of what is going on in other people’s minds. Have you heard of the technical term in psychology “theory of mind” ?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
firstly, this doesn’t elusively apply to “THEISTS” but everybody, including atheists. It makes no difference if you are a theist or an atheist -believing one absurdity generally makes it easier to believe others.

But my retort was in reponse to you saying "the problem I have with theism". I agree with what you say here in you last post, but I do not agree with your first post in this thread.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Would “I don't know” equate with “I don't know because I haven't got absolute proof” in your mind?
We can think that something is improbable not on the bases of evidence or proof but on the bases of Occam’s razor.
For example, I have no evidence or proof that there is NO teacup currently orbiting planet Mars, so does that mean I simply “don't know ...[text shortened]... on, we can rationally consider the hypothesis that there exists a god as highly improbable.

For example, I have no evidence or proof that there is NO teacup currently orbiting planet Mars, so does that mean I simply “don't know” whether there is a teacup orbiting Mars? No, because the assumption that there is a teacup orbiting Mars fails to explain any observation or anything I currently know thus, using Occam's razor, we can rationally consider that hypothesis highly improbable. For EXACTLY the same reason, we can rationally consider the hypothesis that there exists a god as highly improbable.

Your example is not convincing because a teacup got well defined properties. Applying Occam's razor makes it indeed highly improbable it orbits Mars.

The possible existence of a supernatural being is a radical different matter. Science seems to get closer to a discovery of the theory of everything (stephan hawking), but that doesn't explain the essence of everything. Science gets closer. But getting closer is no guaranty it will ever reach her goal. I wouldn't be surprised to find that we are at the best on an asymptotic road with science.

If there exists a power at the base of existence it might be beyond our comprehension. We can use Occam's razor to eliminate all possible qualities and properties we can imagine. But we cannot eliminate properties we cannot comprehend.

This leads me (with the help of Occam and others) to a rejection of all man-made concepts of the supernatural. I also don't find any logic in messages from 'beyond'. But that doesn't lead me in the atheistic camp. It leads me to the point where I have to admit in awe "I don't know".

Originally posted by souverein
[b]For example, I have no evidence or proof that there is NO teacup currently orbiting planet Mars, so does that mean I simply don't know whether there is a teacup orbiting Mars? No, because the assumption that there is a teacup orbiting Mars fails to explain any observation or anything I currently know thus, using Occam's razor, we can rationally consid ...[text shortened]... heistic camp. It leads me to the point where I have to admit in awe "I don't know".

An excellent summary of the fact that Science is a collection of successful recipes. Your statement that " I do not know " is verily the starting point of the search for the " essence of things " that the Scientific Method has failed to find. I am reminded of Charles Lindbergh's statement to the Time Magazine that while it is certain that Mankind will eventually travel and settle on other planets, what is more important is the journey into our inner selves.

Originally posted by souverein
If there exists a power at the base of existence it might be beyond our comprehension. We can use Occam's razor to eliminate all possible qualities and properties we can imagine. But we cannot eliminate properties we cannot comprehend.

Actually, we can eliminate properties we cannot comprehend.

But there is no need for that argument. Your claims are based on properties that you do believe you comprehend. You mention 'a power' and 'at the base of existence'. Both these are properties and both you either claim to comprehend, or shouldn't introduce them in the first place.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, we can eliminate properties we cannot comprehend.

But there is no need for that argument. Your claims are based on properties that you do believe you comprehend. You mention 'a power' and 'at the base of existence'. Both these are properties and both you either claim to comprehend, or shouldn't introduce them in the first place.

I expected such a reply and you are right. Any description will fail because it points to a quality or property and will be rightly attacked. I should follow Wittgenstein, keep my mouth shut and go inside. (thanks to rvsakhadeo for the reminder)

And yes you are right again: we can chose to eliminate everything we cannot comprehend. But I experience myself as more than a computer and refuse to amputate myself; so I don't do that.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]For example, I have no evidence or proof that there is NO teacup currently orbiting planet Mars, so does that mean I simply “don't know” whether there is a teacup orbiting Mars? No, because the assumption that there is a teacup orbiting Mars fails to explain any observation or anything I currently know thus, using Occam's razor, we can rationally consid heistic camp. It leads me to the point where I have to admit in awe "I don't know".[/b]

“....Your example is not convincing because a teacup got well defined properties. ...”

what does “ well defined properties” got to do with it?
Would my example be any more “convincing” if it didn't have “ well defined properties”?
Lets say we are unsure/don't know its size and colour and whether it is clean or dirty -now is it a more “convincing” example?
If not, then why should the “god” example be any more “convincing”?

“...Science seems to get closer to a discovery of the theory of everything (stephan hawking), but that doesn't explain the essence of everything. Science gets closer. But getting closer is no guaranty it will ever reach her goal. ...”

the absence of any rationally-based explanation does not equate to something supernatural probably being involved.
History shows this: a long time ago some people thought a god causes rain and thunder etc just because they didn't have any rationally-based explanation -now we know better.

“...If there exists a power at the base of existence it might be beyond our comprehension. We can use Occam's razor to eliminate all possible qualities and properties we can imagine. But we cannot eliminate properties we cannot comprehend. ...”

how could you or anyone know that there exists any properties we cannot comprehend?
If we cannot even comprehend those properties then we cannot even rationally deduce that any of them probably exist.

“...This leads me (with the help of Occam and others) to a rejection of all man-made concepts of the supernatural. ...”

isn't you concept of of a posible 'god' you may have not “ man-made”? You are a man -right? If so, then from your above claim, you should reject your own concept of 'god'!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....Your example is not convincing because a teacup got well defined properties. ...”

what does “ well defined properties” got to do with it?
Would my example be any more “convincing” if it didn't have “ well defined properties”?
Lets say we are unsure/don't know its size and colour and whether it is clean or dirty -now is it a more “convincin ...[text shortened]... right? If so, then from your above claim, you should reject your own concept of 'god'!

what does “ well defined properties” got to do with it?
Would my example be any more “convincing” if it didn't have “ well defined properties”?
Lets say we are unsure/don't know its size and colour and whether it is clean or dirty -now is it a more “convincing” example?
If not, then why should the “god” example be any more “convincing”?
A teacup is an object invented and fabricated by man and used for drinking tea. Not really something to expect orbiting Mars. It is rather weird to suppose it orbits Mars (unless an astronaut lost it somewhere in space).

the absence of any rationally-based explanation does not equate to something supernatural probably being involved.
True. I am not trying to prove there is something like the supernatural. Neither see I a good reason to exclude the possibility.

History shows this: a long time ago some people thought a god causes rain and thunder etc just because they didn't have any rationally-based explanation -now we know better.
That is true. We had an have many false concepts, frequently fed by religious belief systems. At the other hand science also claimed many times it had the explanation of our universe (almost) in their pocket. I learned at school that neutrons, electrons and protons were the smallest particles there exist and they would explain everything....
Reality is more stubborn. From a philosophical point of view I find the idea we never can know everything more attractive than the belief we will understand everything some day.

how could you or anyone know that there exists any properties we cannot comprehend?
If we cannot even comprehend those properties then we cannot even rationally deduce that any of them probably exist.
I cannot prove that. But I disagree that accepting there might be more than we see and know has no value. I have lost the vanity to think that man can understand everything.

isn't you concept of of a possible 'god' you may have not “ man-made”? You are a man -right? If so, then from your above claim, you should reject your own concept of 'god'!
No, why should I exclude that possibility? All I can say I don't know and that feels right for me. As I said I have no concept of the supernatural nor do I know if it exists; I'm just sometimes filled with awe for the universe. Why is it so hard to accept there might be things we cannot grasp with our intellect?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
The problem I have with theism is that once you convince yourself of one absurd belief (such as their exists a god) then it suddenly comes much easier to convince yourself of other absurd beliefs (such as flying passenger aircraft into tall buildings can be a good thing to do). I mean, if one absurdity is acceptable (to you) then why not “anything go ...[text shortened]... Atheism because that hunt (providing it is genuine) for answers naturally leads to atheism.

Do you rule out Intuition/right brain activity as an aid to arrive at a conclusion ? for you,going from point a to point b is possible only by left brain activity? If so,you are throwing out a huge mass of human thinking into dustbin as unacceptable because in your words " blind belief " is an unacceptable tool. Belief in a Cause or belief in one's credo.belief in one's destiny has often worked wonders in real life in the teeth of overwhelming left brain evidence to the contrary. Belief is not blind as you describe it but many a times it clears away all unnecessary baggage of observed"facts" which impede action. Why even scientists (e.g. Kekule ) have many a times used their "alogical" thinking facilities to arrive at conclusions.
Spiritualism is based on Belief. There is no escape from this premise if at all you want to even have a look at its concepts. All our Upanishads and the Gita say that words,indeed all the faculties of human brain return from this area totally defeated.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Do you rule out Intuition/right brain activity as an aid to arrive at a conclusion ? for you,going from point a to point b is possible only by left brain activity? If so,you are throwing out a huge mass of human thinking into dustbin as unacceptable because in your words " blind belief " is an unacceptable tool. Belief in a Cause or belief in one's cred ...[text shortened]... at words,indeed all the faculties of human brain return from this area totally defeated.

you cant start up that part of the brain without a premise

Originally posted by souverein
[b]what does “ well defined properties” got to do with it?
Would my example be any more “convincing” if it didn't have “ well defined properties”?
Lets say we are unsure/don't know its size and colour and whether it is clean or dirty -now is it a more “convincing” example?
If not, then why should the “god” example be any more “convincing”?
A teacu ...[text shortened]... Why is it so hard to accept there might be things we cannot grasp with our intellect?[/b]

Very well replied !
Trouble with Atheists is that i) they equate Religion with Spiritualism. Religion bashing is quite easy and many a times well justified. In their glee in squashing religious scriptures under their feet they don't realise that Man has all the time tried to figure out who or what might have erected this Magnificent Spectacle called Universe and has tried to give answers to himself in his limited language and limited conceptualisation. ii) Reason and Logic fail to come to grips with a matter well beyond their powers.