I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Nope, never.

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Not really. Why are you having second thoughts?

No second thoughts here.
Care to explain what caused yours?

I accept the possibility that I may be wrong about the existence of God, but that's as far as it goes.

I don't, however, accept the possibility that the Judeo-Christian religion(s) are true... at least if scripture's taken literally. Carbon dating, etc. Have taken far too many blocks from the Jenga tower.

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Nope.

rEvolutionist wrote:

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Not really. Why are you having second thoughts?

Well it's a maybe. Lately I've been wondering about how someone can either decide that they believe, or decide that they don't, and it got me thinking. Maybe I'm just assuming that what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears and so on is all that's perceivable. Maybe those who genuinely believe in god are onto something that I haven't been able to get. They talk about "knowing" and feeling, what if they're right? What if there is a god but to really understand it you have to approach it in a different way? Maybe we're all going on about evidence in something that we're just not even prepared to see or accept as evidence. What would convince me that there's a god? I think that depends entirely upon my own subjective criteria for what constitutes evidence. Like I say it's just a maybe.

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

No.

Karljett wrote:

rEvolutionist wrote:

Karljett wrote:I'm starting to have second thoughts. Does anyone else ever wonder if they've got it all wrong?

Not really. Why are you having second thoughts?

Well it's a maybe. Lately I've been wondering about how someone can either decide that they believe, or decide that they don't, and it got me thinking. Maybe I'm just assuming that what I see with my eyes and hear with my ears and so on is all that's perceivable. Maybe those who genuinely believe in god are onto something that I haven't been able to get. They talk about "knowing" and feeling, what if they're right? What if there is a god but to really understand it you have to approach it in a different way? Maybe we're all going on about evidence in something that we're just not even prepared to see or accept as evidence. What would convince me that there's a god? I think that depends entirely upon my own subjective criteria for what constitutes evidence. Like I say it's just a maybe.

I think I spot the issue. One can't decide to not believe, one simply just stops believing.

I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

Karljett wrote:I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

Uhhh...no. I want evidence.

Karljett wrote:I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

Not necessarily. Many people get the gut feeling from what you call the "justification".

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Karljett wrote:I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

Not necessarily. Many people get the gut feeling from what you call the "justification".

Exactly, and vice versa. For example, as far as I'm aware anyway, theists believe in god and then they use whatever comes to mind to justify that, whether it be science or philosophy or what have you. I think I do the same. I don't know a great deal about science, not that I think it's necessary to be an atheist, but I do sometimes use what little science I know to explain to theists why I don't believe in god. It's not that I don't believe in god because science has shown me that one can't exist. I already don't believe, but not because of science, but because of my gut feeling, that's all. I mean, we can't actually prove that it's not possible for a god to exist, and a theist can't conclusively prove that it does. To be honest I don't lack any belief on god because of science, I just feel that a god doesn't exist, just a theist feels that one does. I don't think we're that different at all.

Karljett wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:

Karljett wrote:I think choice does come into it to an extent, but it's more of a choice of whether or not to go with your instincts, or to ignore them. Other than that, everyone judges god's existence or otherwise based on their gut feeling, and the rest is nothing more than justification for that.

Not necessarily. Many people get the gut feeling from what you call the "justification".

Exactly, and vice versa. For example, as far as I'm aware anyway, theists believe in god and then they use whatever comes to mind to justify that, whether it be science or philosophy or what have you. I think I do the same. I don't know a great deal about science, not that I think it's necessary to be an atheist, but I do sometimes use what little science I know to explain to theists why I don't believe in god. It's not that I don't believe in god because science has shown me that one can't exist. I already don't believe, but not because of science, but because of my gut feeling, that's all. I mean, we can't actually prove that it's not possible for a god to exist, and a theist can't conclusively prove that it does. To be honest I don't lack any belief on god because of science, I just feel thata god exists, just a theist feels that one does. I don't think we're that different at all.

We are different. We do not believe in fairy tales.

As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

Mac_Guffin wrote:As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

What evidence would make you change your mind?

Karljett wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

What evidence would make you change your mind?

How's about... any? A jot? An iota?

irreligionist wrote:

Karljett wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

What evidence would make you change your mind?

How's about... any? A jot? An iota?

What I mean is, what type of evidence? An event? A revelation?

Karljett wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

What evidence would make you change your mind?

Are you changing your opinion due to new evidence, or is it just a mutation in your world view? If it is just a re-appraisal of a previous opinion, what part of your analysis that led you first to conclude that a belief in god was non-parsimonious-is wrong? And why?

Can you do a memory trace to work out when and what additional factor led to the change of conclusion. If you can identify what that is, then we could discuss that on its merits.



My guess is that you have been confronted with a puzzle, mystery or anomaly which you can't explain in naturalistic terms. Is this correct? If so, let's discuss it.

Everyone in this thread who said "No" is ridiculously close-minded.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Karljett wrote:

Mac_Guffin wrote:As far as my stance goes, I'd rather go with what's most likely true. If the evidence were in favor of God's existence, I'd be a theist.

What evidence would make you change your mind?

Are you changing your opinion due to new evidence, or is it just a mutation in your world view? If it is just a re-appraisal of a previous opinion, what part of your analysis that led you first to conclude that a belief in god was non-parsimonious-is wrong? And why?

Can you do a memory trace to work out when and what additional factor led to the change of conclusion. If you can identify what that is, then we could discuss that on its merits.



My guess is that you have been confronted with a puzzle, mystery or anomaly which you can't explain in naturalistic terms. Is this correct? If so, let's discuss it.

I'm not necessarily changing my mind, I'm just wondering if we've got it wrong.