going totally atheist

Post Reply New Topic

I just converted to total atheism.

I tried to go atheist years ago. I realized that no matter what, I just couldn't do it. There's this very fundamental belief of 'something' within me that I couldn't override. I thought long and hard on this, and have come to the conclusion that I really don't want to change it.

I may not know one way or another exactly what this 'something' is, but I'm done fighting with myself over it.

How does one convert to a negative position?

ruveyn

I tried to skim - some of the back posts I could not handle full reading - trying to find out what is meant here "total atheist". Atheist says No god. None. Zero. You can't possibly be a partial atheist.

Though I will give you I was a part time atheist. Fact is, as a charter member of the Undaunted Indubitable Didymists of the Inperfectly Known Universe, I reexamined my position regularly and some parts of my atheist years were agnostic years - thought a principled benign atheism predominated.

ruveyn, learn Anglic. Convert = change. A MixoLydian may convert to Non-Mixolydian. No law says you gotta change from a positive to a positive or a negative ti a negative,

I have been an atheist since may of 2010. I have regularly gone back and forth on atheism since I was 19. finally settled.

"God was invented to explain mystery."
Richard Feynman

Corrected.

The Ennea-1 has no sense of style.

Doesn't even see that the issue is "mystery"

By taking 2 steps down from a positive position.

the quote I read was from a passage was correct. That was what he said.

"God was invented to explain mystery."
-Richard Feynman

I have not found anything that has "pretend to" in there.

Here is Feynman on religion (it doesn't have the quote in there);

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YltEym9H0x4[/youtube]

The alteration of the quote is not to correct you on Feynman, but rather a statement that the quote itself was wrong. At least if I interpreted the author of the correction correctly. These kinds of alterations are often engaged in. It's just that you were actually QUOTING someone that makes it abnormal.

I suppose that makes sense, sort of clarifying what he meant. I can see how others might reinterpret that quote to mean "God does explain away mystery". Which is not at all what he was trying to say.

why is grammar so important to you?

I don't view it as clarification of what you meant. I view it as an ideological alteration of the statement. If you said it, it would be harmless. In this instance it seems bizarre, unless you actually did misquote Feynman which I didn't think you had.

I am not sure that question is valuable. Long story short: there are people who really care, and people who really don't. The object is to avoid getting each side too pissed off at each other, as usually the grammar people have a hard time understanding the looseness of the non-grammar people.

A. grammar is surely important to any of us desirous of communicating.

B. I do not see that ruveyn's question is grammar based.