Over the course of the last several months my views and knowledge and information has evolved and changed...I am now ready to be put under fire....again, lol...
I'm ready to be scrutinized, analyzed, degraded, taunted, laughed at, shamed, or whatever. I'm ready to be asked the hard questions and answer them against myself. I'm ready to find out that I'm wrong (again.) I'm ready to end up back where I started and realize that I was completely misguided. I'm ready for whatever happens as I put this out there. I'm ready for what I consider to be the ultimate test...
I am going to admit first and foremost that I may end up being wrong. I'm cool with that. But...I gotta test myself against myself and there is no better way for me to do that than to try it out here. This is after all a safe place for me...so...Here it goes...
I don't know if I am a "real" Atheist. I think that I DO believe in God. I say "I think" because I'm not entirely sure....but....
I have to say up front that I am not exactly excited about this. I don't really want to believe in God again. It shakes up everything I thought I knew. It challenges me to re-think everything AGAIN!!!
So this is a start. I didn't come to this conclusion easily.
So there you have it....
I think his behaviour is all about wanting to control you and wanting to have control over his life, where once it was out of his control in a difficult way.
If he can say the words then he most surely CAN breathe.
The more sounds he is making proves he is allright.
He is using his voice as one of his only weapons to fight back against you.
Now I am at about 18 or 19.
You're wiser for going through harder times than I ever was, especially at mid-30s.
I think it'd be funny if your son became a jesus freak. For a while, anyway. Then at least later an interesting story. :)
Just keep that skeptical attitude going, because nobody gets the whole big picture, not even most of the Gods that humans invented.
Even if gods do not exist believing in them is useful for people.
There are so many question we could ask about the universe that if we allowed them to fill up out thoughts we would stop functioning. Certainty is not a given, the best you can do is use the information you have access to, absorb it, question it and reason with it. Your reasoning is unique to you, only you have the knowledge you have, don't ever let someone else tell you that you are not being reasonable, they wouldn't know as they don't have access to your thoughts.
Belief, at a base level, helps us make decisions. If I believe the rock will open the coconut when I hit it, then I will hit it. If I didn't know then I'm less likely to hit it because I'm not sure what will happen. Humans prefer certainty to uncertainty, this is why proselytism is very popular among the religious and those who believe 'science' is an alternative, both are systems of belief, both are predicated on faith, but those who believe in them will argue bitterly that they are certain that they are right. This is more to do with their individual need than the reality of knowledge.
Being uncertain is a difficult but very enlightened state of mind.
That definition of insanity is so wrong. So often doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is rational. Therefore it is not the definition of insanity.
It depends what you mean by "rational".
It obviously depends on circumstances and previous experience.
I've been through it all myself.
I grew up in a religious family, was sent to a church school for my education but even at a young age I knew I didn't need a god.
I did my degree and masters at uni, for a while I believed 'science' was the answer to everything then I then discovered through reading modern philosophy that it was no different to any other system of belief.
I don't know the answers and I no longer feel I need to chase after something I can never have. When I first heard the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' I thought it was making reference to people who deliberately reject learning, but I now realise it means all of us. Happiness is letting go of the conflict and simply being.
Very few scientists believe science is the answer to everything. Thats the view of zealots and hyperactive students realising the power of reason and meticulous research/investigation. Its unfortunate that students take postmodern french philosophy and Kuhn classes and then fail to balance that with Popper and late 20th century analytical philosophy. They are left with this idea that science is a world view (and much worse when its the impossible claim that science is a world view like any other). It is not. It is a method for speculating theories, collecting data and confirming the validity of these theories (as objectively as possible) and correcting or refining them. Changes in paradigms were NOT massive earthquakes and they all helped refine scientific methods and access to more data (and the freedom to be scientists). This method (in the long run) is impervious to our emotions, irrationalities, whims and taboos. That is not a world view. No one is a pure scientist. They all have a broader world view (differing ones at that).
Humanism is a world view. We hold that the autonomy and dignity of a person comes before faith and radical economic/political structures. A person should be protected by the government from gross harm and be assisted when fallen. The church plays no role in greater society beyond cultural relics and occasional festivals/parades. Reason trumps insupportable creative speculation (spiritual mumbo jumbo). Exploring/participating in the arts/culture, conversations on morality and socioeconomic structures and a general empathy/compassion are essential to constructing a just society and a world with meaning.
That is a world view. Axioms are explained in part by reason but not all and they must be taken for granted. This is rather arbitrary and full of emotive/subjective/
Science is none of this (or if so...is related to this in a superficial way).
[... science is] no different to any other system of belief.
Skepticism and peer review play a much larger role in science than in religion. Religions do not peer review each other, or when they do, they don't have the power to merge scriptures.
Physicists and chemists have disagreed, but they still learn from each other, and re-write their respective text books in accordance with each other's findings. Perhaps what confounds scientifically illiterate people the most is that even as science progresses, new questions arise to distract from what was learned. This confounding occurs even when what was learned and documented was very profound. Like the "missing link" criticism, every time a new link is found, it doubles the number of links that the scientifically illiterate can say are missing.