The origins of atheism

[asherahSamaria]

I completely identify as an atheist - but I don't even find the question "Does a god exist" to be the biggest unanswered question. It's just unfortunate the the term has to exist in the first place, after all, no one feels the need to announce they are an aSanta or an aLeprechaun etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually I would find a system where such a serial killer who "repents" with their last breath and enjoys a happy hereafter while a basically good person who doesn't do the "faith" thing gets eternal punishment - to be morally repugnant.

LOL!

Right.... But off course, I meant a system that actually enforces unescapable justice.
I agree that the average christian theology of being "saved" is not such a system ;-)

 

[Chriliman]

I don't know. I guess that would depend on what the truth is and what is technologically possible and what isn't.

I guess I could get on board with a tentative "we don't know until we know", which indeed would result logically in "if the truth is unknowable, we'll never find out that it is unknowable".

But again, that's not clear to me at all.
Which is why I feel compelled to take the intellectually honest stance of "I don't know".

For some reason, you insist on me going with "yes" or with "no".
I don't feel the need to do that and don't see what good it would do.



See? Insisting on taking sides. In quite arbitrary ways, based on a priori beliefs based on faith - of all things.

Tell me, why are you so allergic to the words "I don't know"?.

I'm not allergic to those words. I agree that you don't know. I'm just pointing out logical thinking, for example:

When it comes to the truth about existence, it's logically impossible for us to know the truth is unknowable, therefore it's rational to believe the truth about existence is knowable and irrational to believe the truth is unknowable.

So let me ask again, do you believe the truth about existence is knowable, since I just showed you its rational to believe this?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not allergic to those words. I agree that you don't know.

I was talking about YOU, o brilliant one.

Why are YOU allergic to simply admitting ignorance when it comes to things that YOU don't know?

Why must you INSIST in putting YOUR "faith" in one or the other?

I'm just pointing out logical thinking, for example:

You and I seem to have very different ideas about what "logical" is.

When it comes to the truth about existence, it's logically impossible for us to know the truth is unknowable, therefore it's rational to believe the truth about existence is knowable and irrational to believe the truth is unknowable.

That makes no sense to me. Doesn't follow at all.
If it is impossible to know, then believing one way or the other is always irrational.

If one does not know, the only rational answer is "i don't know". Not "i'm gonna put my faith in this or that".

So let me ask again, do you believe the truth about existence is knowable

I don't accept that statement as a true-ism, no.

, since I just showed you its rational to believe this?

You showed nothing. You declared it. For no reason at all, other then you wanting it to be so (apparantly).

 

[Chriliman]

I was talking about YOU, o brilliant one.

Why are YOU allergic to simply admitting ignorance when it comes to things that YOU don't know?

Why must you INSIST in putting YOUR "faith" in one or the other?



You and I seem to have very different ideas about what "logical" is.



That makes no sense to me. Doesn't follow at all.
If it is impossible to know, then believing one way or the other is always irrational.

If one does not know, the only rational answer is "i don't know". Not "i'm gonna put my faith in this or that".



I don't accept that statement as a true-ism, no.



You showed nothing. You declared it. For no reason at all, other then you wanting it to be so (apparantly).

I'm going to leave you with the following true statement and let you ponder:

It's a logical impossibility for us to know that the truth about existence is unknowable. We can't know that something is unknowable. It's simply impossible. This means it's rational to accept the truth that the truth about existence is knowable. This also means that it's irrational to accept the truth that the truth about existence is unknowable.

The very definition of irrational thinking is to accept something as true that can't possibly be true.

 

[AirPo]

Not for all. Autism is generally described under having communication difficulties or delays in development but not everyone with Autism has specific difficulties.

I'm sure you will be glad to know that I am pushing (in my country) for early intervention schemes to be better funded to enable those with the condition to maximize their potential.

That is encouraging. We wound up sending our kids to a different school that was better for them. Not sure if would have made a difference had it been a year or two earlier, but they turned out alright.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

When it comes to the truth about existence, it's logically impossible for us to know the truth is unknowable, therefore it's rational to believe the truth about existence is knowable and irrational to believe the truth is unknowable.

So let me ask again, do you believe the truth about existence is knowable, since I just showed you its rational to believe this?

You're once again employing a false dichotomy. Please look this up to familiarize yourself with this phrase. It will really help you.

Anyway, there are three, not two, responses:

1. I believe X is knowable
2. I believe X is not knowable
3. I do not believe X is knowable

It's not rational to believe either 1 or 2 if there's no good evidence that X can be knowable or not.

 

[AirPo]

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?

That's not atheism, that agnostism. Knowing and believing are two different spectrums.

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

Out of respect for you and your belifs and a desire for the same from you.

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.

Faith and truth don't go together. Faith is believing, truth is knowing. Like I said they are two different spectrums.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism is a form of witchcraft?

Without any of the cool witchy powers.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's a logical impossibility for us to know that the truth about existence is unknowable. We can't know that something is unknowable. It's simply impossible.

With you so far. Sort of. Whatever, I'll play along.

This means it's rational to accept the truth that the truth about existence is knowable.

This is in direct contradiction with the previous quote.
It doesn't follow in any way.

"We can't know its unknowable, therefor it's knowable" ==> utter nonsense.

This also means that it's irrational to accept the truth that the truth about existence is unknowable.

Que?

The very definition of irrational thinking is to accept something as true that can't possibly be true.

No.

It's also irrational to believe things for no good reason.

 

[Chriliman]

You're once again employing a false dichotomy. Please look this up to familiarize yourself with this phrase. It will really help you.

Anyway, there are three, not two, responses:

1. I believe X is knowable
2. I believe X is not knowable
3. I do not believe X is knowable

It's not rational to believe either 1 or 2 if there's no good evidence that X can be knowable or not.

Except when asking about the truth about existence. Logically, the truth about existence would not come from something that physically/finitely exists, but rather something that eternally or infinitely exists. Like God or a multiverse or an eternal matrix or whatever else you want to think could possibly be eternal and infinite.

An eternal infinite God explains more about our personal and collective existence than any of those other things, thus is the most reasonable answer to where the truth about existence will come from.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do they or don't they, Mark?

If "the Resurrection" is defined as "the resurrection of the Son of God", or "angels" is defined as "servants/messengers of God", then they refer specifically to theistic concepts, and so no for such concepts.

If they are defined in a way that is in no way dependent on theistic concepts (which seems possible), then perhaps some atheists do believe in such things, though they may be exceedingly rare.

I cannot just answer with a plain "yes" or "no".

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?

It means that atheists simply don't believe in a God or gods. They can (in principle) still believe in disembodied spirits or magic. Some New Agers may count.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

"We can't know its unknowable, therefor it's knowable" ==> utter nonsense.

Not what I said. I said we can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to believe(accept the true statement) that it's knowable.

You don't have to believe it's knowable, but it is rational to believe it's knowable, since it would be impossible to know that its unknowable.

If you want you can swap out the word "believe" with "assume".

We can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to assume that it's knowable and irrational to assume that it's unknowable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

Define your terms.

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

Are you playing Sophist? It is far from a simple yes or no.

Truth is unattainable in atheistic thinking, isn't it?

The statement "I have typed this post in on my laptop computer" is a truth. Truth exists in that sense.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AirPo]

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

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

Never assume anything because it makes an ...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Except when asking about the truth about existence.

Special pleading fallacy. The three responses are as valid for existence as for anything else.

1. I believe "the truth about existence" is knowable
2. I believe "the truth about existence" is not knowable
3. I do not believe "the truth about existence" is knowable

Logically, the truth about existence would not come from something that physically/finitely exists, but rather something that eternally or infinitely exists.

Non sequitur. It doesn't follow that "the truth about existence" can't be known by something physical. There's nothing logical about your statement at all.

Like God or a multiverse or an eternal matrix or whatever else you want to think could possibly be eternal and infinite.

What good evidence do you have that any of those are actually possible? And what evidence do you have that "eternal" and "infinite" are necessary, or even coherent?

An eternal infinite God explains more about our personal and collective existence than any of those other things, thus is the most reasonable answer to where the truth about existence will come from.

How does a god explain things better than a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe?

And as always:

It's irrational to belive something without good evidence. What evidence do you have that a god exists?

 

[Chriliman]

1. I believe "the truth about existence" is knowable

If you value logic then you'll see that I just showed how this is a rational position to hold.

2. I believe "the truth about existence" is not knowable

If you value logic then you'll see that I just showed how this is an irrational position to hold.

3. I do not believe "the truth about existence" is knowable

If you value logic then you'll see that I also showed how this is an irrational position to hold.

I'll ignore the rest of what you said until you can show how my logic is illogical.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you value logic then you'll see that I just showed how this is a rational position to hold.

If you value logic then you'll see that I just showed how this is an irrational position to hold.

If you value logic then you'll see that I also showed how this is an irrational position to hold.

I'll ignore the rest of what you said until you can show how my logic is illogical.

You're not employing logic at all. Quite the opposite. And you didn't "show" anything.

Once again...

For ANY given proposition where there isn't good enough evidence to make a determination, the only rational response is disbelief. Neither asserting that it is true OR asserting that it's false are rational.

I know this. All the other atheists here know this. My eight year old knows this. I could probably teach my parrot to understand this. But somehow you're still not getting it.

And even though you keep dodging it, I'm going to keep asking it:

What good evidence to you have that any god exists?

 

[gord44]

Not what I said. I said we can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to believe(accept the true statement) that it's knowable.

You don't have to believe it's knowable, but it is rational to believe it's knowable, since it would be impossible to know that its unknowable.

If you want you can swap out the word "believe" with "assume".

We can't know it's unknowable, therefore, it's rational to assume that it's knowable and irrational to assume that it's unknowable.

It's irrational to assume either without direct evidence. The most rational thing to do is admit, as humans and limited by our nature, is that absolute truth is unknowable for us, but perhaps not so for other beings, like gods, etc.

 

[Chriliman]

It's irrational to assume either without direct evidence. The most rational thing to do is admit, as humans and limited by our nature, is that absolute truth is unknowable for us, but perhaps not so for other beings, like gods, etc.

Wouldn't you have to know it's unknowable in order to admit it's unknowable? The fact is we don't know if it's unknowable, therefore, it's reasonable to assume it's knowable.

It's unreasonable to assume it's unknowable because logically we could never know that it's unknowable so why assume it is?