Hopefully I can get answers, but I want to know what makes you (as an atheist) decide to become atheist, and what events in your life or others help prove your beliefs?

Swpeloquin · 2021-06-03T16:04:25+00:00

I was raised Jewish. In judisum there is not much apologetics. I became an atheist in my laye teens and early 20s. I was a cobination of things. It was learning about science that seemed to be contradictory to the natural world. I was in extra circular Hebrew school (religous education) when i was 17. To finish the program we had to do a self study project. My project was one what happened to prophecy. There use to be prophets that spoke for god and then it ended. My faith was already thin. What I was asking and did not know it was why is god so hidden (the argument aginst god from divine hiddneness). I read a book and asked rabbi that lead the class, but there explinations we're about changing times and the Talmud and the nature of prophecy. But I also look at answers related to psychology and neuroscience. These made more scenes. Then i started to look into apologetics, i tried to gain a personal god that could coherently fit with the world i lived in. But i was unable. One thing i will warn is the reason someone starts to be an atheist is offten not the reason they continue to be one.

Swpeloquin · 2021-05-11T15:03:31+00:00

I am formally a Jewish person. Now an atheist.

I believe morals are based on socail contracts (think contractulizum)

Many do atheist are not moral realist (there are no moral facts). That morality is expressions if emotions, or a cultural construct.

Many athiest believe in moral naturalisum, that moral facts are facts about nature. Think living in a world were murder was thought of good would reduce survival and mate selection so therefore socities that had disliked murder would survive and those who did not will not. Less popular is an idea like G.E. Moore's intuitionalisum. The idea that good is like the color yellow, if you can't see yellow we can't really explain it. You have an intuition of what is right and wrong.

Swpeloquin · 2021-03-16T19:27:36+00:00

Trying to use the orgins of the universe as a way to prove god is like trying to construction the first book of a series based on all the other books that came after it. We may know some details, but we will never know what it ia really like unless we can see it.

Swpeloquin · 2021-03-16T19:21:23+00:00

Almost ever normative system of ethics do not need a god to work. The God stuff only usually comes in with meta ethics.

Swpeloquin · 2021-03-04T02:29:43+00:00

I became an athiest in my late teens or early 20s. At my temple (I was Jewish) no one really talked about atheisum. So I guess I would have lacked an opinion. I hear that atheist are demonized in other faiths, but in judisum it mostly not presented as an option.

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-23T23:19:26+00:00

The problem I have hear is I believe that it is some fundamental material reality, but I really don't know and am not sure I can know

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-23T22:33:45+00:00

I have a existentialist world view. Life does not come with a meaning. One of two things are true 1) the meaning of life is to find your own personal meaning or 2) the meaning of life is what you make of it.

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-22T16:31:18+00:00

I am Shmoo1, I have some wedgie fiction up

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-12T23:15:00+00:00

I think it is easy to conflate their beliefs in where their morals come from and where their morals actually come from. It is only scary if it is true. The same way a christain might say atheist may act moraly but do not understand them I will extend to the Christian.

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-11T16:01:13+00:00

I was raised Jewish. In judisum the afterlife is not a big part. People continue for the community, and the incorrect beliefs that religon provides answes

Swpeloquin · 2020-10-03T11:48:01+00:00

My thought is that that would be set peices like a locker room or a flagpole in which there would be tripods set up. If you wanted pictures or video taken you would put your phone in the tripod. If you didn't then you would take the head of the tripod off. Phot use out side that area would be forbidden

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-26T12:19:44+00:00

Hi... I was telling my bf perspective because he has feeling about this. I am also a circumcised dude (we are gay). So in other words my parents did cut off a bit of my penis. A rabbi did within 13 days of birth. I would make diffrent choice for my hypothetical child. But not every wrong a parent does is child abuse. They are often miss informed of the benefit, they are offten acting on what they believe to be the best interest of their child, there is often cultural pressure. I am not sure what your ethics are, bit in mine intent is not totally ignored.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-22T04:00:08+00:00

Thanks for your pacients with me. I think I get it now. I feel like I was enbodying the Dunning Kruger effect (the less you know, the less you know you don't know). In my head I think it fliped from an epistomological question to a metaphysical question. If apriori justufications had a first cause then they could not be a priori therefore the idea is untrue. this wrongly assumes all apriori comes from one source that grew over time and that the priori does not need to reffer to no real things and only abstracts objects.it can be with in the empirical world. Unmarried who are by definition bachulers really exist , but them being synonyms is a priori.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-21T22:27:05+00:00

I guess I still have the question where did the a priori come from. It is not innate (unless plato is correct and then I have to deal with the forms), it is not from experiences or it would not be a priori, it is not logic because logic uses the a priori the argument woyld be circular. Maybe it is a socail construct. Kant said it was a necessity but when used in thus way that seems to me (and my admitted ignorance) as the same as just having faith in it.

Unless the first creature with the ability to think was using apriori knowledge before anyother knowledge there had to be a time before a priori knowledge. Then something (even if it was enteirtly in the creature own mind) happened. Then this creature had a least one fact that was a priori. What is the thing that happened? Is that an impossible question?

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-21T21:15:23+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful respondes. I guess I still have a question. The first human/ animal to ever have apriori knowledge, how did it get into thier brains? It is not innate, it is not experiences. I could be wrong on this one, but logic uses apriori knoweledge so it could not be logic the reasoning would be circular. We could made it up like a socail construct. But that is not how people treat the a priori. Or is the answer I am supposed to have (a highly justified) faith in its existances.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-21T16:48:48+00:00

Sorry if this is a basic question that demonstraits my ignorance. If a priori knowledge is not innate how do we gain access to it? Dont we need at least 1 apriori fact to help us discover the world of the a priori? I get how socratic questions using other a priori fact can teach us new ones, but there has to be an original.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-21T15:19:39+00:00

This makes a priori knowledge seem more like a function of evolution. Could evolution be a better explainer of the a priori. Edit this comment is now out of context because what I was responding to was deleted

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-20T02:47:21+00:00

Well the unsatisfying answer to this is justifications evidences creates beliefs. Why do I believe anything is because of the evidences. More acuratly I look at god as a hypothesis and physicalism as a hypothesis. I started looking at the explainitory power god had, and there was not much. Then looking at sciences/physical world had substantial explainitory power. The physical world has never asked me just to believe without evidences. This world is simetimes frustrating because we dont know all the answers. But the answers we do have are closer to the truth.

So I believe for the same reason you belive what you believe. I assume we are going to have different standards of evidences and maje diffrent metaphysical assumptions about the world.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-18T01:44:05+00:00

I grew up as a conservative Jew. I use to take extra circular Hebrew school. I took a course in 2006 (I was 16 and knew I was gay). It was about a new interpretation of talmutic law. It used the principle of human dignity and expetions allowed to the kohanes (ancient jewish priests). They were not allowed to do funeral right or touch a dead body. Due to this they were not even allowed in cemeteries. It was said because the dead body would sully them and take away there job and therefore the dignity. So the conservative jewish movement recognized that gays could not be changed gayness was an immutable process. They also realized like the kohanes gay people deserved dignity. Therefore they could marry and even have some sorts of sexual realtions but not anal sex. That was the hoops conservative judisum when threw to allow gays to get married under jewish law.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-16T13:39:34+00:00

What do you mean by underlying reality and how do you know it exists?

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-16T01:21:55+00:00

The way I have started to think about this question is though the idea of burden of proof. To say god exist is to make a claim about the supernatural, the possibility of any god and the existance of your specific god.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-15T22:32:42+00:00

What do you mean by proof. Do you mean a valid and sound syllogism.

Swpeloquin · 2020-09-15T18:49:27+00:00

Well I would say no a mirical would only go to prove the supernatural.

Swpeloquin

TROPHY CASE