Can a theist truely convert to atheism?

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]

“....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”? (my quote)
…..
A teacup is an object invented and fabricated by man and used for drinking tea. Not really something to expect orbiting Mars. ...”

you wouldn't expect something to NOT be orbiting Mars BECAUSE it is “an object invented and fabricated by man and used for drinking tea” but, rather, BECAUSE you have no evidence or reason for thinking it being there. If, hypothetically, a manned space ship orbiting Mars exploded and all its contents, including a tea cup, could have been released into orbit, then you WOULD have good evidence or reason for it being there! And the fact that it is “an object invented and fabricated by man and used for drinking tea” would be irrelevant!

“...It is rather weird to suppose it orbits Mars (unless an astronaut lost it somewhere in space). ...”

exactly! Because “an astronaut lost it somewhere in space” could be (depending on where and how) a good reason to believe that it could be there!
And, using exactly the same kind of logic as above, it would be rather weird (from my perspective) to suppose there exists a 'god' UNLESS there is actual good evidence/reason to believe that there exists a 'god'.

“...True. I am not trying to prove there is something like the supernatural. Neither see I a good reason to exclude the possibility. ...2

You can never logically exclude the possibility just as you can never logically exclude the possibility that there exists a tooth fairy because, in both cases, you cannot deductively logically disprove the possibility. BUT Occam's razor is a good reason to believe it is improbable .

“....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. ….”

One fundamental difference between science and religion is that science is [partly] about changing the hypotheses in the light of new evidence while religion is not. If science didn't do this, then it is not science! It is the triumph of science that it rejects its own hypotheses that don't stand up to new evidence and never a weakness for this allows science, in the long run, to evolve and adapt its hypotheses so as to become ever closer to the truth (whatever that 'truth' may be).
This contrasts with religion that just says/implies X and Y is true and insults the intellect by implying you must believe this without question nor rational scrutiny (and in some (not all) cases even implies you are a fool for not blindly believing it! ).

“...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. (my quote)
….
I cannot prove that. But I disagree that accepting there might be more than we see and know has no value. ….”

That's not what I said or implied -only a total idiot without imagination would always refuse to ever CONSIDER the hypothetical!
But there is a huge difference between CONSIDERING something hypothetical and BELIEVING that hypothetical thing or even merely BELIEVING that hypothetical thing to be 'plausible' with a more than a vanishingly small probability of being true.

“....I have lost the vanity to think that man can understand everything. ….”

who is claiming that “ man can understand everything”? Not me just for starters!
And neither does science. In fact, science says the exact opposite (the uncertainty principle and the unpredictability of chaotic systems and the unpredictability of quantum events being just three examples of that).


“...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'! (my quote)
….
No, why should I exclude that possibility? ….”

you cannot LOGICALLY “ exclude that possibility” in the deductive sense just as you cannot LOGICALLY “ exclude that possibility” that there is a tea cup orbiting Mars in the deductive sense because, in either case, there is no LOGICAL contradiction in the hypothesis being true and I am not saying you can “exclude the possibility” in that sense.
But I WOULD claim that, using Occam's razor, you can only rationally conclude that you should have a very low level of certainty of it being true if you are to be totally rational about how you form your level of certainties.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
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 ev ...[text shortened]... l and settle on other planets, what is more important is the journey into our inner selves.

“....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. ...”

as I just pointed out in my last post to him:

“who is claiming that “ man can understand everything”? Not me just for starters!
And neither does science. In fact, science says the exact opposite (the uncertainty principle and the unpredictability of chaotic systems and the unpredictability of quantum events being just three examples of that)” (my quote)

science actually says we “don't know” about many things and this is not a “failing” of science (as you claim above) but a triumph of science for, as I also pointed out in that post; “ One fundamental difference between science and religion is that science is [partly] about changing the hypotheses in the light of new evidence while religion is not. If science didn't do this, then it is not science! It is the triumph of science that it rejects its own hypotheses that don't stand up to new evidence and never a weakness for this allows science, in the long run, to evolve and adapt its hypotheses so as to become ever closer to the truth (whatever that 'truth' may be). “ (my quote)

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 at words,indeed all the faculties of human brain return from this area totally defeated.

“....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....”

why do you equate right-brain activity with what I call “blind belief”?
I certainly don't!
And I did not say nor imply in any way this!
I didn't even mention “right-brain activity”!
And I see no evidence that right-brain activity is the cause of what I call “blind belief”!
Where is your evidence of this?

And I do NOT “rule out Intuition/right brain activity as an aid to arrive at a conclusion” for “Intuition/right brain activity” can be implicitly rational! Just because you cannot articulate it doesn't mean it is irrational! Rationality is not necessarily causally linked to language for it is possible for your conclusions to be logically sound even when you cannot articulate how you got there.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....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”? (m ...[text shortened]... ou are to be totally rational about how you form your level of certainties.

”exactly! Because “an astronaut lost it somewhere in space” could be (depending on where and how) a good reason to believe that it could be there!
And, using exactly the same kind of logic as above, it would be rather weird (from my perspective) to suppose there exists a 'god' UNLESS there is actual good evidence/reason to believe that there exists a 'god'. ”

I can see that from your perspective.
From my perspective the spaciousness I experience when I feel well centered and at home brings me to another vista. You seem to see science as the ultimate tool to experience the riddle of existence; I don't. Science is for me a handy tool to measure and hopefully improve life; not for experience. For me is inward silence more important to find the meaning of life (for me). When I go inward I don't see teacups, neither gods. But the spaciousness I experience makes me realize I shouldn't limit myself to atheism.

”But there is a huge difference between CONSIDERING something hypothetical and BELIEVING that hypothetical thing or even merely BELIEVING that hypothetical thing to be 'plausible' with a more than a vanishingly small probability of being true. ”

That might be true if science was the only tool at our disposal. For me it is more than a vanishingly small probability of being true. I have little confidence science can lead humanity to the ultimate (truth). Her tools and rules are rightly applied also her limitation.

When I was child I was concerned that nobody in my surrounding could explain to me if space was, finite or infinite. One day, when I was musing with my grandfather about this riddle he smiled and said half serious I should study astrophysics or microphysics. But he warned me. “Be prepared, they also cannot give all the answers to your questions” He tried to explain to me that (at that time) recent scientific discoveries showed that there was a relation between observer, observed object and measuring tool that unavoidable affected the observed and the results of the observations...

”But I WOULD claim that, using Occam's razor, you can only rationally conclude that you should have a very low level of certainty of it being true if you are to be totally rational about how you form your level of certainties.”

Yes, and I am claiming that when you go inward you will be able to see the limitation of that concept.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
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 U ...[text shortened]... tualisation. ii) Reason and Logic fail to come to grips with a matter well beyond their powers.

I agree with most of what you write. but I don 't know if that is what Andrew Hamilton is doing. I even don't know if he calls himself an atheist.

Originally posted by divegeester
Addiction: It is said that once you are addicted to alcohol or nicotine you are always addicted - even if you actually stop drinking or smoking. It cannot be possible to attribute the same principle to theism, because if you take the position that there is no God, then there is actually nothing to be "addicted" to, is there. So therefore, why would a t ...[text shortened]... o adamantly to their belief and why can't they so easily change their own mind on the matter?

In this world there are hundreds of religions, and these religions are all substitute, for religion is one and cannot be substituted.

Substitute religion is a watered down fabricated presentation, usually created from the imaginings of some delusional dreamer, thinking he/she is communicating with God.

Persons who subscribe to substitute religion can easily succumb to atheism, for they had not in actuality developed any spiritual realization, and therefore had nothing to renounce in the first place, except their delusion.

You could then say they swapped their religious delusion for atheism.

On the other hand persons who are following true religion and have received spiritual realization and insight, will never embrace atheism.

The bottom line is, a true theist will never and could not take to atheism.....ever.

Originally posted by Dasa
In this world there are hundreds of religions, and these religions are all substitute, for religion is one and cannot be substituted.

Substitute religion is a watered down fabricated presentation, usually created from the imaginings of some delusional dreamer, thinking he/she is communicating with God.

Persons who subscribe to substitute religion can easi ...[text shortened]... atheism.

The bottom line is, a true theist will never and could not take to atheism.....ever.

Are you saying it is possible for any person to be an atheist unless they are following the one true religion? Isn't this what KellyJay was saying on page one?

Originally posted by divegeester
Are you saying it is possible for any person to be an atheist unless they are following the one true religion? Isn't this what KellyJay was saying on page one?

Yes I am saying that.....but there are many who do not know what is true religion, and they would accept substitute religion as true.

In fact this is what is happening all over the world.....everyone who is subscribing to a substitute religion will say their religion is the true religion.

But if you show them that their religion presents error, they will not accept.

But this is why substitute religion is called substitute, because it presents error.

True religion will not present error.

Originally posted by souverein
[b]”exactly! Because “an astronaut lost it somewhere in space” could be (depending on where and how) a good reason to believe that it could be there!
And, using exactly the same kind of logic as above, it would be rather weird (from my perspective) to suppose there exists a 'god' UNLESS there is actual good evidence/reason to believe that there exists a aiming that when you go inward you will be able to see the limitation of that concept.[/b]

“....You seem to see science as the ultimate tool to experience the riddle of existence; ….”

I don't know what you mean by “experience the riddle of existence “ so the above may not be true depending on what you mean.

“...I don't. Science is for me a handy tool to measure and hopefully improve life; not for experience. ...”

I don't know what you mean by “FOR experience” in the above context.
If you are talking about the applications of science (mainly in the form of using technology) as opposed to scientific method (the method of obtaining new scientific facts) then science is useful for purely practical reasons. But if you are talking about scientific method as opposed to the applications of science, then that method is simply the best and only means we have of rationally obtaining facts about the world around us other than using personally generated flawless deductive and inductive logic.

“...For me is inward silence more important to find the meaning of life (for me). ...”

not sure if you imply otherwise but, science isn't about finding the “meaning” of life. We can make our own meaning.

“....”But there is a huge difference between CONSIDERING something hypothetical and BELIEVING that hypothetical thing or even merely BELIEVING that hypothetical thing to be 'plausible' with a more than a vanishingly small probability of being true. ” (my quote)

That might be true if science was the only tool at our disposal. ...”

But it is the only RATIONAL tool we have to obtain various facts about the world (excluding personally generated flawless deductive and inductive logic) -unless you count superstition and hear-say and mysticism as “rational” means of judging what the facts probably are?

“....I have little confidence science can lead humanity to the ultimate (truth). ...”

but that isn't what is claimed by science.
Also, why would the most rational means of obtaining the facts about the world necessarily lead to “ultimate truth” (whatever that is supposed to mean) ?
And what does “ultimate truth” supposed to mean anyway?

“...But he warned me. “Be prepared, they also cannot give all the answers to your questions” ….”

that isn't a mark against science for it is logically impossible to RATIONALLY answer ALL possible questions no matter how rational the means are of obtaining answers and that is just something we must accept and live with and that fact does NOT in any way diminish the value of the answers science DOES rationally answer! To think otherwise would be like thinking aerial photographs can never REALLY give us useful information because they cannot directly see through walls and directly see beneath the surface of the soil etc.

“....”But I WOULD claim that, using Occam's razor, you can only rationally conclude that you should have a very low level of certainty of it being true if you are to be totally rational about how you form your level of certainties.” (my quote)

Yes, and I am claiming that when you go inward you will be able to see the limitation of that concept. ...”

give me a specific example of one of these “limitation”.

Originally posted by souverein
I agree with most of what you write. but I don 't know if that is what Andrew Hamilton is doing. I even don't know if he calls himself an atheist.

Well Andrew Hamilton appears to be a physicist well conversant with low temperature physics,if I recall correctly some of his contributions. But,yes,he is firmly convinced that Science has solved or is on the way to solve all the riddles of Universe.He also firmly believes that "Religion" and " God " are rubbish,moreover " Mind " does not exist.
He is a Darwinist and " believes " totally in whatever Dawkins has stated.That makes him a true atheist !
I am a Structural Engineer but I am convinced that Science has its limitations.I also believe that ,bluntly speaking,Science is a collection of successful Recipes. It cannot deal with many mysteries and questions because it has no algorithm to deal with them.

Originally posted by souverein
I agree with most of what you write. but I don 't know if that is what Andrew Hamilton is doing. I even don't know if he calls himself an atheist.

I am Definitely an atheist. I do not believe there exists a god therefore, be definition, I am an atheist (and I don't even have any superstitions of any kind)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....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....”

why do you equate right-br ...[text shortened]... r your conclusions to be logically sound even when you cannot articulate how you got there.

The word " Blind Belief " implies that no logic was used in arriving at the particular conclusion. This sort of activity is done in the Right Brain.

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
Well Andrew Hamilton appears to be a physicist well conversant with low temperature physics,if I recall correctly some of his contributions. But,yes,he is firmly convinced that Science has solved or is on the way to solve all the riddles of Universe.He also firmly believes that "Religion" and " God " are rubbish,moreover " Mind " does not exist.
He is a ot deal with many mysteries and questions because it has no algorithm to deal with them.

“...But,yes,he is firmly convinced that Science has solved or is on the way to solve all the riddles of Universe. ...”

NO I DON'T !
I OBVIOUSLY don't believe “ Science has solved or is on the way to solve all the riddles of Universe” 😛
where did you get that from? And, as far as I know, I don't know of anyone that IS claiming that!

“...He also firmly believes that "Religion" and " God " are rubbish ...”

the CONCEPTS of there being a 'god', yes. It cannot be rationally based.

“...moreover " Mind " does not exist. ...”

MIND EXISTS! It exists in us.
I NEVER said mind does not exist! 😛

“...He is a Darwinist and " believes " totally in whatever Dawkins has stated ...”

NO! I am a Darwinist that does NOT “believes totally in whatever Dawkins has stated”!

“...That makes him a true atheist ! ...”

there is no other kind of atheist other than a true one! 😛

“... but I am convinced that Science has its limitations....”

...and nobody I know of nor I nor science itself claims that science has “no limitations”!

Originally posted by rvsakhadeo
The word " Blind Belief " implies that no logic was used in arriving at the particular conclusion. This sort of activity is done in the Right Brain.

“...The word " Blind Belief " implies that no logic was used in arriving at the particular conclusion. ...”

Correct, and the fact remains the right-brain hemisphere CAN use valid logic.
and “blind faith” can occur in the left-brain hemisphere (why not? )
Therefore, I implied nothing about the right-brain hemisphere.

rvsakhadeo

rather than just endlessly putting words in my mouth like this by saying I believe this and that, why don't you have a look at and acknowledge what I really DO believe for a change?