I got sick of being an atheist

[ecco]

I made a conscious decision that on the balance of probabilities there was no God.

A conscious decision? OK, I decide there is no God. Something like that?

It lasted about nine months until I relented and started turning to God.

Here your words belie your previous assertions. Your words that you "started turning to God" indicates that you still believed there was a God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see no recognized definitions of science to back up your claims there

You really don't understand what you are doing. What is recognized as correct is cultural, cognitive and subjective.

You in effect claim that you and your culture is the objective, universal source for recognized as correct. You are functionally incapable of recognizing that you are subjective, because you can't actually see as see with your eyes as correct a recognized definition.
So here it is a psychology as for cognition. Some people treat some cases as concrete, when they are not. They are mental, psychological, cognitive, abstract, subjective, cultural and not objective as properties of things. A recognized definition is not a property of a thing or something physical and natural.
A recognized definition has not physical properties and it is only real in your mind. It is mental and refers to your cognition.

Here are some different definitions of science:

Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
Knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.
Systemic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observations and experimentation.

A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: for example, mathematical science.
Knowledge attained through study or practice.
Systematized knowledge in general.
Knowledge of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Skill especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principle.

The word Science comes from Latin word "scientia" meaning "knowledge" and in the broadest sense it is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice capable of resulting in prediction. Science can also be understood as a highly skilled technique or practice.

Now all of them do not include your version of natural science and some include a more broad understanding of science.
So here is something you could learn to do:
In google be specific. E.g. different definitions of science and just don't read the top part. Scroll down and read closer and check several links. If you are unable to learn that and I must do it for you, just ask.
It gets old that you only use the top definition as given by google.

Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Cooky, How does one try atheism?

I did that. Because of my feelings towards some aspects of religion, I decide to become an atheist. I didn't reflect on it and then I tried it out in broad sense of all the different claims some non-religious people make about religion. I then figured out it didn't was for me and became religious.

 

[ChristineM]

You really don't understand what you are doing. What is recognized as correct is cultural, cognitive and subjective.

You in effect claim that you and your culture is the objective, universal source for recognized as correct. You are functionally incapable of recognizing that you are subjective, because you can't actually see as see with your eyes as correct a recognized definition.
So here it is a psychology as for cognition. Some people treat some cases as concrete, when they are not. They are mental, psychological, cognitive, abstract, subjective, cultural and not objective as properties of things. A recognized definition is not a property of a thing or something physical and natural.
A recognized definition has not physical properties and it is only real in your mind. It is mental and refers to your cognition.

Here are some different definitions of science:

Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
Knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.
Systemic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observations and experimentation.

A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: for example, mathematical science.
Knowledge attained through study or practice.
Systematized knowledge in general.
Knowledge of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
Skill especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principle.

The word Science comes from Latin word "scientia" meaning "knowledge" and in the broadest sense it is any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice capable of resulting in prediction. Science can also be understood as a highly skilled technique or practice.

Now all of them do not include your version of natural science and some include a more broad understanding of science.
So here is something you could learn to do:
In google be specific. E.g. different definitions of science and just don't read the top part. Scroll down and read closer and check several links. If you are unable to learn that and I must do it for you, just ask.
It gets old that you only use the top definition as given by google.

Mikkel

Science does not change by culture. If too can it show your method is repeatable then it is not science in any culture

I make no such claims, you make the claim for me, i am simply contesting your incorrect claims about science.

Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena

concerned with the physical world.

physical or material world

Actually some do and if chose to analyse word definitions i would think all refer to the study of natural, physical phenomena.

However i see none that in any way touch on supernatural, philosophical or woo

FTI I always read all variants of a definition, is saves confusion (mostly). I am if nothing else. I realist and literalist. Definitions are one of the ways i educate myself

 

[PureX]

Maybe he is into "math", "riddle" or the "joke-mood" or "all-mood" today

From the second quote "Theism works for a whole lot of people" I deduct a whole lot of people = Theists
Substitute "Theists" in the third quote gives "Atheism does not work for Theists"
Which makes perfect sense

Of the 7 billion humans on the planet, over 90% are theists.

 

[ChristineM]

Of the 7 billion humans on the planet, over 90% are theists.

I make it less than 85% and including godless folk religions, ancestry worship etc, probably less than 80%

 

[PureX]

Because for many atheists...myself included...it's a statement about our best guess regarding reality. Not about whether that belief holds utility or not.

I know. And I find that reasoning quite foolish, as I have pointed out many times.

 

[PureX]

I make it less than 85% and including godless folk religions, ancestry worship etc, probably less than 80%

From Psychology Today:

"According to the latest international survey data, as reported by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera in the recently published Oxford Handbook of Atheism, there are approximately 450-500 million non-believers in God worldwide, which amounts to about 7% of the global adult population."

"And according to the Pew Research Center, if we broaden the category to include all non-religious people in general—those unaffiliated adults who do not identify with any religion—we’re talking 1.1 billion people, which equals about 16.5% of the global adult population."

This issue I was commenting on was about atheists to theists, not religious to non-religious.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know. And I find that reasoning quite foolish, as I have pointed out many times.

Well, I guess that's that then. Thanks for explaining to me how foolish my position is. I was previously incapable of coherant thought or rationality, clearly.

I love the irony of someone suggesting atheism is a position of hubris, and that they know better.

 

[PureX]

Pardon the intrusion, but...

How many atheists have knocked on your door with the objective of converting you to atheism?

How many have jumped on my and any other theist's posts? Door knocking is not the only way people proselytize.

Do you consider it to be atheist proselytizing to object to school prayers being led over the intercom system by the principal?

Do you consider it to be atheist proselytizing to object to schools teaching Creationism?

Of course not. I am a theist and I object to these.

Can you give some examples of atheist proselytizing or is that just another strawman you are trying to erect?

You can find plenty of examples yourself, right here on this thread. Just look for folks slandering religion, glorifying 'scientism', and worshiping "objective reality" as the fountainhead of all existential truth.

 

[PureX]

Well, I guess that's that then. Thanks for explaining to me how foolish my position is. I was previously incapable of coherant thought or rationality, clearly.

All you had to do is go back through this thread and read the posts for the explanations. Apparently that's what you were "incapable" of.

If you're gonna jump on the "atheists are never wrong or stupid" bandwagon, you should probably see where it's been, first.

 

[ChristineM]

From Psychology Today:

"According to the latest international survey data, as reported by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera in the recently published Oxford Handbook of Atheism, there are approximately 450-500 million non-believers in God worldwide, which amounts to about 7% of the global adult population."

"And according to the Pew Research Center, if we broaden the category to include all non-religious people in general—those unaffiliated adults who do not identify with any religion—we’re talking 1.1 billion people, which equals about 16.5% of the global adult population."

This issue I was commenting on was about atheists to theists, not religious to non-religious.

The estimates vary wildly and while i agree your figures are those you chose, there are others with more accurate statistics on europe and China

 

[PureX]

The estimates vary wildly and while i agree your figures are those you chose, there are others with more accurate statistics on europe and China

None of which change the ratio significantly. The vast majority of humans on Earth choose to trust in the their god-ideal than choose to trust in their own baseless assessment of a godless existence.

 

[ChristineM]

None of which change the ratio significantly. The vast majority of humans on Earth choose to trust in the their god-ideal than choose to trust in their own baseless assessment of a godless existence.

Yes it can change the ratio considerably, from your 90% estimate to my 80% estimate, is what? 10%, however it is 100% different in Quantity.

And what is baseless about following the evidence (or lack) compared to guessing?

 

[stvdv]

Of the 7 billion humans on the planet, over 90% are theists.

That was my second guess, but I liked the other one better. Only ca. 7% Atheists, that's not a whole lot of people.
Now I get curious. Some religious people hope that more people become religious, would Atheists entertain such thoughts?

 

[ecco]

I'll ask you the same thing I asked Cooky, How does one try atheism?

I did that. Because of my feelings towards some aspects of religion, I decide to become an atheist. I didn't reflect on it and then I tried it out in broad sense of all the different claims some non-religious people make about religion. I then figured out it didn't was for me and became religious.

No. You did not decide to be an atheist. At most, you decided to evaluate some claims you believed were made by atheists. Perhaps you even decided to skip church. None of that makes you an atheist. You never became an atheist. So, to state that you became an atheist is not true.

 

[stvdv]

No. You did not decide to be an atheist. At most, you decided to evaluate some claims you believed were made by atheists. Perhaps you even decided to skip church. None of that makes you an atheist. You never became an atheist. So, to state that you became an atheist is not true.

That almost sounds like a religious Atheist to me. Were you Christian once in your life?

 

[ecco]

Of the 7 billion humans on the planet, over 90% are theists.

What's your point?
At one time, most Egyptians believed their leader was an incarnation of the sun.
At one time, most Greeks and Romans believed in multiple Gods.
Of the 7 billion humans on the planet, over 75% don't believe the Christian God(s) is a God.
What's your point?

 

[ecco]

How many have jumped on my and any other theist's posts?

It's a forum. When you post, anyone may respond. If that causes a problem for you, well...

 

[PureX]

Yes it can change the ratio considerably, from your 90% estimate to my 80% estimate, is what? 10%, however it is 100% different in Quantity.

And what is baseless about following the evidence (or lack) compared to guessing?

Well, since in this case the lack of evidence means nothing (as there is no logical expectation of there being any perceptible/discernible evidence) the atheist IS "just guessing". Even as he so vociferously accuses the theist of doing the same thing. ... And the irrational hypocrisy just flows on from there.