The origins of atheism

[Colter]

As we've discussed previously, there are many reasons nonbelievers are interested in discussing religion (1, 2, 3).

Sure, someone with the name "DogmaHunter" may be here for he most innocent of reasons. Golly-gee Colter, why cast aspersions????

 

[Chris B]

Autistic people which I am do not know how to be rude, condescending and offensive. .

We vary, drastically, so it's even more unlikely than ever that an "all X are Y" statement will hold true.
From the perspective of those not on the autistic spectrum, a fair number on it do manage to be rude, condescending and offensive. You don't have to know how do do it. You just have to fail to spot, or fail to acknowledge, local social conventions broadly recognised and accepted by your surrounding community.

Some on the autistic spectrum can tackle this difficult subject of "social interaction" with an academic approach, to substitute for the instinctive social learning that most people can employ. You just have to sit down and learn the rules, once you can find someone to put "the unwritten rules" down in black and white. But try not to laugh at how ridiculous some of them are.

Chris. (solidly on various places of the autistic spectrum.)

 

[Chriliman]

I consider "faith" in general to be irrational. Since "faith" is what people use to believe something on bad (or no) evidence.

You don't require "faith" when you have actual rational reasons to believe something.

Yet it's rational to accept the statement that the truth about existence can be known. This is a rational statement to accept as true. The reason we must have faith in truth is because we don't know the entire truth yet.

I'm asking you to have faith that a truth can be known about why you exist. Do you have some evidence that shows there is no truth to be known about your existence, therefore rendering faith in this truth irrational?

Or do you consider lack of knowing the truth as evidence that there is no truth to be known?

I'm just pointing out the fact that you have faith, whether you admit it or not.

 

[Chris B]

Sorry that the truth hurts and you can't handle it. What is rude, condescending and offensive is your remark about me being rude, condescending and offensive. Autistic people which I am do not know how to be rude, condescending and offensive. I should take time to read up about autism then that will help prevent you from being rude, condescending and offensive.

I'm sorry you can't appreciate that there might possibly (however small the possibility) be a gap between "what I believe to be true" and "what is true."

For any human being aware of the nature of human beings it might be considered a thought worth having, but many seem to make a leap right over that scenario/

Chris

 

[Chris B]

Do atheists believe in the Resurrection, angels, or spirits?

Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:

Not this one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And some Atheist, apparently discontented with life, join religious forums so they can barf their discontent and anger all over anyone religious person who happens along so they can show them how stupid they are for having faith in whatever.....

Again...................

Atheism isn't defined by behaviour, attitude, social activism,.....

But rather by the position of disbelief concerning very specific claims about supernatural shenannigans.

What "some atheists" do and what their motivations are, is about as irrelevant to this point as it gets.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure, someone with the name "DogmaHunter" may be here for he most innocent of reasons. Golly-gee Colter, why cast aspersions????

My motivation for posting here is irrelevant to my atheism.

My atheism isn't defined by me posting on this forum under this name for whatever reasons I have.

 

[Chris B]

The origins of my atheism cam from serious committed theism (Christianity to be specific) plus extensive amounts of study and discussion over a number of years.
(If I was going to be teaching the Christian message then I wanted to be as close as possible to teaching it correctly. Yes, James 3:1)

The results of my studies were not what I had anticipated, and eventually I found that the only position I could hold with a clear conscience was that of atheism. Even agnosticism was too neutral, too equivocal.

I discovered that what I had been taught, had literally been led to believe, had accepted, believed and tried to live was nothing like the whole story. I had to re-evaluate.
"When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes.


Chris.

 

[Chriliman]

An atheist argument/defense comes down to the fact that they actually don't know the truth about existence. They ask me to think about what they say so that I will agree that no one knows the truth and may never know the truth because it may never be knowable.

How can I rationally agree to believe something that is unknown or unknowable?

If they say they don't expect me to agree with them then why say anything in the first place?

My argument simply states that the truth about existence can be known and I'm simply asking atheists to have faith in truth.

If you refuse to have faith in truth, just because you don't like the word "faith", then I don't expect you to have faith in truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet it's rational to accept the statement that the truth about existence can be known.

That's not at all clear to me.
It could very well be that it isn't. That the actual true nature of the universe can't be known because it is not accessible from within the universe.

This is a rational statement to accept as true.

I don't see how it is.
At best, I would agree to "there is a true nature of the universe".
It is however not clear to me if that true nature can really be known to us.
It could be. But it also could not be.

The reason we must have faith in truth is because we don't know the entire truth yet.

That makes no sense to me.
To me, that's a completely meaningless statement.

I'm asking you to have faith that a truth can be known about why you exist.

I know why I exist. My mom and dad had sex.
I don't require faith for that.

Do you have some evidence that shows there is no truth to be known about your existence, therefore rendering faith in this truth irrational?

Do you have evidence that it CAN be known?
I don't require evidence for claims that I am not making.

YOU however, are making such claims.

Or do you consider lack of knowing the truth as evidence that there is no truth to be known?

Lack of knowledge is evidence of ignorance.
I'm content with "I don't know" when I don't know. You, however, seem to be allergic to those words.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you have faith, whether you admit it or not.

You failed.

 

[Chris B]

Do they or don't they, Mark?


What do you mean by, "I suppose it is possible to believe in spirits and magical resurrections and still be an atheist"?

What's that supposed to mean?

That would fit with some forms of Buddhism very well. No deity, but a non-material spiritual world.

Chris

 

[AV1611VET]

I discovered that what I had been taught, had literally been led to believe, had accepted, believed and tried to live was nothing like the whole story.

So you were taught science then?

And later you learned that the "whole story" includes a universe teeming with another race of beings called angels?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure, someone with the name "DogmaHunter" may be here for he most innocent of reasons. Golly-gee Colter, why cast aspersions????

By the same standard, couldn't your own motivations be called into question? How many times does the word "Urantia" appear in your posts?

 

[Chris B]

But in order to be an atheist, I'm assuming one has to consciously ignore ⅔ of their makeup (soul and spirit) by either denying their existence on principle, or redefining them.

Assume away. You are entitled to your perspective, but do note that to do that without reference to any actual atheists, or discussion with them, is set fair to build impressively distorted "straw men".

 

[AV1611VET]

That would fit with some forms of Buddhism very well. No deity, but a non-material spiritual world.

Let a Buddhist claim that Buddhism isn't a religion, and nary a word from educatees here.

But let a Christian claim Christianity isn't a religion, and the Devil says, "Sic'em!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

An atheist argument/defense comes down to the fact that they actually don't know the truth about existence.

No. It comes down to "your theistic claims aren't supported by evidence".

They ask me to think about what they say so that I will agree that no one knows the truth and may never know the truth because it may never be knowable.

I don't recall ever saying such a thing.

At best, I might have said something that one must make a distinction between what one believes and what one knows.

Your religious beliefs are not the same as knowledge.
And yes, even knowledge can turn out to be wrong.
And how do we find out when we are wrong? Not through more "beliefs". Rather: through evidence.

How can I rationally agree to believe something that is unknown or unknowable?

What's with this obsession of yours and this need to "believe" things?
Why can't you simply tentatively say "we don't know yet"?

If they say they don't expect me to agree with them then why say anything in the first place?

It's called a discussion. Sharing views. Exchanging ideas.

My argument simply states that the truth about existence can be known and I'm simply asking atheists to have faith in truth.

And I'm saying that you can't support the statement that this truth can be known.
And also that the words "have faith in truth (that isn't yet known)" is completely meaningless.

If you refuse to have faith in truth, just because you don't like the word "faith", then I don't expect you to have faith in truth.

Just as meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assume away. You are entitled to your perspective, but do note that to do that without reference to any actual atheists, or discussion with them, is set fair to build impressively distorted "straw men".

Should I assume then that atheists do believe in body, soul, and spirit?

(That's a YES or NO, by the way.)

 

[Chris B]

And some Atheist, apparently discontented with life, join religious forums so they can barf their discontent and anger all over anyone religious person who happens along so they can show them how stupid they are for having faith in whatever.....

I wouldn't rule it out. Every side, cause or movement has some counterproductive loose cannons that the other members wish *wasn't* nominally on their side.
Chris.

 

[Chriliman]

That's not at all clear to me.
It could very well be that it isn't. That the actual true nature of the universe can't be known because it is not accessible from within the universe.

And if what you say is true, then why do we put so much value on truth if the truth about existence can never be known? It seems you think truth is meaningless.

 

[Chris B]

My argument simply states that the truth about existence can be known and I'm simply asking atheists to have faith in truth.

If you refuse to have faith in truth, just because you don't like the word "faith", then I don't expect you to have faith in truth.

I'm quite happy to say that I have faith that truth exists, though I think access to truth is not that easy, edging into near impossible in some cases.

Where I differ from you, strongly, is in your thought that you have the truth, and that no other perspective can possibly be true, be the truth.
I'd be happy to match my epistemology against yours, to see how our divergent world-views have emerged.

Chris