3 ms·

> Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god. That's not choice though. I can't become a believer in

by boxed 1y ago

> Most atheists are atheists by choice, not because they wouldn't have access to information about god. That's not choice though. I can't become a believer in god anymore than I can sprout wings. I can't just start believing something false. No one can make a decision to believe something on will alone. That's not how brains work.

1718627440 1y ago
> That's not choice though. Plain disagree. True, you can not come to believe in god on your own. Neither can god make you believe on his own. You can still pray for it. Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist. > No one can make a decision to believe Yes, you can't. You can make the decision to search however.
- boxed 1y ago
  You, I mean you singular, can't decide to believe that 1+1=4. You know that it's not to the core of your being. There is literally no choice possible when the facts are in. This is what it's like to be a strong atheist. > Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist. She did become a turturer of the most vulnerable people though. So... yea, I guess that's another type of argument against faith.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    Yes of course. (Other than that math expression is a language and I could redefine symbols, but yes I see how it's not about symbols here.) You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist). You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice. > She did become a turturer What? Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
    - boxed 1y ago
      > You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist). > You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice. You either missed the point entirely or are trying to obfuscate the issue. The cause of reason has no bearing at all. Reason and understanding are real things. Actually knowing something means you can't choose to believe the opposite. I can't choose to believe something I know is false. I can't choose to believe the sky is pink, or that rocks are soft, etc. That's nonsense. > Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mother_Teresa_in_Theory_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe... She was a horrible horrible person.
      - 1718627440 1y ago
        > The cause of reason has no bearing at all. The cause of reason is what we call God. What you think that is, is very disputed, like I wrote in my previous comment. When you think your God exists in the same way that the sky has a color, then I can assure you, that God doesn't exist. Atheists often take pride in rejecting "Gods" that a Christian also rejects and thinks they don't exist. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mother_Teresa_in_Theory_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe... That article presents multiple positions of that subject, I would probably side more with Leys there. Richness and poverty are not a goal in itself, but all means to an end. The poorest of the poor can have a richer life than a very rich. Mother Teresa was not a medical doctor and never claimed to be. She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies. The church doesn't think salvation means to be rich. Actually quite the opposite.
        boxed 1y ago
        > She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies. She was prolonging suffering in others because she thought suffering was beautiful. But when she got sick herself she immediately and at great expense stopped her own suffering.

by boxed 1y ago

1718627440 1y ago

> That's not choice though. Plain disagree. True, you can not come to believe in god on your own. Neither can god make you believe on his own. You can still pray for it. Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist. > No one can make a decision to believe Yes, you can't. You can make the decision to search however.

boxed 1y ago
You, I mean you singular, can't decide to believe that 1+1=4. You know that it's not to the core of your being. There is literally no choice possible when the facts are in. This is what it's like to be a strong atheist. > Mother Teresa famously didn't believed in God's existence for decades. She still didn't became an atheist. She did become a turturer of the most vulnerable people though. So... yea, I guess that's another type of argument against faith.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  Yes of course. (Other than that math expression is a language and I could redefine symbols, but yes I see how it's not about symbols here.) You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist). You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice. > She did become a turturer What? Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true?
  - boxed 1y ago
    > You just can't reason about the cause of reasoning, and the origin of the concept of cause and effect. You can dispute if that origin is more like a person that doesn't care about anything, a person that wants a relationship with you (Christianity/Judaism), a fundamental core concept (pantheism) or randomness (evolutionist). > You simply can't just know that. That's why it is a choice. You either missed the point entirely or are trying to obfuscate the issue. The cause of reason has no bearing at all. Reason and understanding are real things. Actually knowing something means you can't choose to believe the opposite. I can't choose to believe something I know is false. I can't choose to believe the sky is pink, or that rocks are soft, etc. That's nonsense. > Ok, I've found a single article by the Guardian about a claim being filed is there any source about whether that is true? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mother_Teresa_in_Theory_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe... She was a horrible horrible person.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      > The cause of reason has no bearing at all. The cause of reason is what we call God. What you think that is, is very disputed, like I wrote in my previous comment. When you think your God exists in the same way that the sky has a color, then I can assure you, that God doesn't exist. Atheists often take pride in rejecting "Gods" that a Christian also rejects and thinks they don't exist. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mother_Teresa_in_Theory_and_Practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe... That article presents multiple positions of that subject, I would probably side more with Leys there. Richness and poverty are not a goal in itself, but all means to an end. The poorest of the poor can have a richer life than a very rich. Mother Teresa was not a medical doctor and never claimed to be. She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies. The church doesn't think salvation means to be rich. Actually quite the opposite.
      - boxed 1y ago
        > She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies. She was prolonging suffering in others because she thought suffering was beautiful. But when she got sick herself she immediately and at great expense stopped her own suffering.