The origins of atheism

[SteveB28]

Mr quatona expressed it best.

Some people make claims. Others either accept or reject those claims, usually on the basis of accompanying evidence.

Atheists simply don't accept the unsupported claims that the religious make.

 

[Davian]

Didn't you imply that? If you didn't then you implied that the garden existed.

Not at all. That I am not convinced that the "Bigfoot" creature exists is not a claim that it doesn't.

Maybe you should try without using mocking words.

And you could try dropping the condescending tone

I will.

That may be an error.

So where is it in error? A literal Adam and Eve, or not? Global flood, or not? A 13 billion-year-old cosmos and the process of life emerging billions of years ago, or thousands? Perhaps a checklist would be in order to help sort out the religionists on these subjects.

I am an Orthodox christian (nothing of what you met before), not a "Bible alone" christian, because for me truth is not gathered in the Bible only, but on the Church, the Church has supreme authority and only the Church is infallible, so you shouldn't talk to me like to one of those literallist creationists that call themselves christians because the True, Church of Christ is nothing alike.

Form where I am standing, you are all on the same team.

If you are asking me in which way my theology differs from theirs then in your head a huge mess takes place, since when theology is arguing about the age of the earth?

Seriously, are you new to these forums?

Since when theology is speculative philosohpy?

Indeed. Why did you not post this in the Exploring Christianity forum?

This is what I referred about in my post when I talked about the causes of atheism.

"I am not convinced" does not need a cause.

 

[quatona]

I did not say that the humans are naturally christians (even if I don't know that), but I just showed you that the human is naturally religious.

By the same argument, humans naturally pee their pants.

 

[Davian]

Any one knows more than you it would seem if this is all you have learned .

Are you calling me a liar?

Time for a real education outside the confines of your locality .

A "real" education, that shows that gods are real? Not this forum, you don't. That attempt would be off-topic, and have this thread locked.

 

[Wryetui]

By the same argument, humans naturally pee their pants.

They naturally do. What should we do in that case? We have to teach them what is right and why it is right, why should he contain himself and why does he have to restrain his impulses.

The same happens with the idolatry he developed in the supposed jungle, we have to teach him why it isn't right and how to make use of that religious sense he has in order for it to become actually useful and productive for himself.

 

[Foxhole87]

They naturally do. What should we do in that case? We have to teach them what is right and why it is right, why should he contain himself and why does he have to restrain his impulses.

The same happens with the idolatry he developed in the supposed jungle, we have to teach him why it isn't right and how to make use of that religious sense he has in order for it to become actually useful and productive for himself.

If he needs to "develop" even idolatry, then he was still born without gods. Therefore he was born an atheist, just like everyone else.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Isn't 'that' having faith in your belief that it MUST BE SO ?

To me, not really. I could be right, wrong or something in between. For me, "I don't know" is a suitable answer to the mysteries of life, death, purpose, and the universe. So very few things are in the "must be so" bucket.
But I suppose from your frame of reference it is a belief of disbelief. I'm fine with that if it helps you to understand my position.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

This is a bit gritty, but the message, if you listen, is pretty awesome; there's a very powerful point at the end:

 

[SteveB28]

It shouldn't have taken seven pages to arrive at this conclusion.

It didn't. Mr quatona made the comment in the first page.

 

[ScottA]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

The flesh lives according to the flesh, and does not know of God unless he is drawn by the Spirit.

A spiritual man may as well debate the matter with a pet: even if he loves the pet and considers him family, the pet will never understand. But unlike the pet...all natural men [of the flesh] are created equal in their ability to seek and find God. Some just don't.

 

[Messy2]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

Because some people need proof. Jesus said to that man who asked Him to heal his son: if you people don't see signs and wonders you will by no means believe.
I don't think there would be many atheists if the church was doing the same works as Jesus. It's easy to be an atheist if the dead never get raised and such. The church doesn't believe that we can do the same miracles Jesus did - if we really did we would do it - and we wonder why others don't believe at all.

 

[Davian]

I think we will see fanciful comeback, like PZ Myers Courtier's Reply where the atheist (Dawkins, in this example) is compared to the boy at the end of the fable The Emperor's New Clothes, who is the only reasonable voice that recognizes the Emperor is naked. Myers satirized the aforementioned critics as follows:[1]

"I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity."

The flesh lives according to the flesh, and does not know of God unless he is drawn by the Spirit.

A spiritual man may as well debate the matter with a pet: even if he loves the pet and considers him family, the pet will never understand. But unlike the pet...all natural men [of the flesh] are created equal in their ability to seek and find God. Some just don't.

Just like that little boy that could not see the Emperor's new clothes.

 

[quatona]

They naturally do. What should we do in that case? We have to teach them what is right and why it is right, why should he contain himself and why does he have to restrain his impulses.

The same happens with the idolatry he developed in the supposed jungle, we have to teach him why it isn't right and how to make use of that religious sense he has in order for it to become actually useful and productive for himself.

So when you point out that humans are naturally religious, we could also conclude that it´s something we have to teach them out of.

 

[Dante116]

By the same argument, humans naturally pee their pants.

Best teach them not to pee at all.

 

[quatona]

Yeah, funny and all.
However, what to teach kids wasn´t the subject at all (until Wry decided to derail his own thread).

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Atheism posits non-belief in a valid explanation for the universe.

No it doesn't. Atheism is nonbelief in gods.

The reason it's a valid explanation is because it's rational to believe in the possibility of an eternal infinite God who created the universe (this has nothing to do with statues on Saturn) This means it's rational to assume God exists and expect confirmation from this God.

You are once again conflating possibility with actual reality.

Millions of people claim to have received confirmation, yet many atheists continue to refuse to assume God exists even though it's rational to do so. The position that it's irrational to assume God exists does not change the truth that it is reasonable to assume God exists at any point in time.

Why is it rational to assume theism? You've asserted this repeatedly, but you haven't justified it in any way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I did not say that the humans are naturally christians (even if I don't know that), but I just showed you that the human is naturally religious.

And apparently naturally polytheistic.

 

[Wryetui]

You have all got it wrong, you did not understand what I said. I said that human beings naturally have a religious sense, that is, that they naturally feel a connection with the divine and they need to worship, that's what I meant. Nobody is naturally anything.

 

[Dave RP]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

I can only speak for myself. I see no logic in how a god could exist. If he/ she/ them were as all powerful as each religion states, we would surely have one dominant religion where god was so obvious that it would be impossible to avoid him/ her/ them. but we don't, we see hundreds of religions, and we see conflict within religions. Even Christians can't agree what the bible says, Islam is split in several factions. For me if there was a god or gods this would have be sorted out.

Then, personally I get stuck with where did god come from? Who made god?

Whilst I can't answer all questions about where the universe came from, I just can't get around where god might have come from.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even Christians can't agree what the bible says,

It wouldn't matter though ... would it?

You would still be an atheist ... wouldn't you?

Case in point:

Every single Christian on the face of the earth [past, present and future] believes:

IN THE BEGINNING, GOD

So if you're an atheist because you don't think we agree on "what the bible says," what do you call yourself on the things we do agree on?

I could be wrong, but I don't think you're an atheist because of what we don't agree on.

That's just a lame excuse to justify your stance and make it look like it's our fault.

Rather I think you're an atheist because you worship the scientific method.

And again, I could be wrong.

But I don't think so.