The origins of atheism

[Belk]

Greetings Oafman,
a breech of forum rules? really? we can't discuss? What is the point of having a forum?
Seems really odd.

Homosexuality may only be discussed in certain sections and under certain restrictions. Too much of a hot topic at the moment and it resulted in a lot of moderation being needed.

 

[jenny1972]

I am open to the possibility of a God if compelling evidence presents itself. There is no evidence, therefore I do not think I have a good reason to believe any of it it to be true. I am open to the possibility of being wrong. Are you?

yes im open to the possibility that i am wrong if compelling evidence presents itself do you have such evidence that God does not exist?

 

[jenny1972]

How did you that it was God doing the proving?

you can go to my profile and read the very first post i made here on Christian Forums and it will explain in detail the experience i had and how i became aware that it was God and how i became convinced , a person recognizes their own thoughts what is familiar to them you keep company with your thoughts every day when inspiration comes that is not from you then you are aware of it .

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

yes im open to the possibility that i am wrong if compelling evidence presents itself do you have such evidence that God does not exist?

You are the one making the positive claim that a God exists. The burden of proof is on you. You can't prove a negative.

Example again: There is a teapot orbiting around the moon right now so small it cannot be seen by telescopes. Can you prove it doesn't exist? And if you can't prove it doesn't, does that make my claim true?
Your fallacy is an appeal to ignorance

 

[jenny1972]

You are the one making the positive claim that a God exists. The burden of proof is on you. You can't prove a negative.

Example again: There is a teapot orbiting around the moon right now so small it cannot be seen by telescopes. Can you prove it doesn't exist? And if you can't prove it doesn't, does that make my claim true?
Your fallacy is an appeal to ignorance

you asked me if i was open to the possibility that i was wrong ... i said that i am open to the possibility that im wrong so prove that im wrong if you have proof that God does not exist . i cant convince you of my positition ive already explained that ive said that only God Himself can convince you and nothing else can . i already replied to this i have no evidence that i think will convince you only God is convincing not words.

 

[AV1611VET]

you can go to my profile and read the very first post i made here on Christian Forums and it will explain in detail the experience i had and how i became aware that it was God and how i became convinced , a person recognizes their own thoughts what is familiar to them you keep company with your thoughts every day when inspiration comes that is not from you then you are aware of it .

Hi, Jenny!

Three times in the book of Acts (9, 22, and 26), Paul gives his testimony as to how he got saved on the road to Damascus.

He was able to use his testimony effectively for the LORD!

Keep up the good work!

 

[Davian]

you can go to my profile and read the very first post i made here on Christian Forums and it will explain in detail the experience i had and how i became aware that it was God and how i became convinced , a person recognizes their own thoughts what is familiar to them you keep company with your thoughts every day when inspiration comes that is not from you then you are aware of it .

How am I to know that you simply didn't imagine it?

 

[SteveB28]

No, not to your satisfaction. But thank you for the opportunity to explain why not. Although God has demonstrated His existence and love to my satisfaction, I cannot convince you, who do not even know me.

So why does God keep Himself so hidden and mysterious? Why has God not made Himself clearly known to all? I would submit that, for very good reasons, God has made it such that neither believers nor atheists can prove with overwhelming evidence their beliefs to other people. Here is why (quote by Pascal): “God has not appeared in a manner manifestly divine and absolutely capable of convincing everyone, but neither has His divinity been so hidden that He could not be recognized by those who sincerely sought Him. He wished to make Himself perfectly recognizable to these. His sheep will always hear his voice, and be attracted thereto.
“Thus wishing to appear openly to all those who ‘seek Him with all their heart’ and remain hidden from those who shun Him, He has qualified our knowledge of Him by giving signs which can be seen by those who truly want to find and know Him and not by those who do not. There is enough light for those who desire to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.”

That statement of Pascal's is entirely self-serving. If one comes to 'find god', then 'glory be to God!' If one is unable to find him, then it is the fault of the seeker. Heads I win, etc.

 

[Crandaddy]

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.

Atheism isn't a monolithic, one-size-fits-all worldview that has a single cause in each an every case. In Western society (and yes, I include Eastern “Orthodox” Europe as a part of Western society), I think it largely results either from antipathy toward God (or whatever is understood by the term “God”), and/or misunderstanding of God -- either of which could arise from a variety of different circumstances.

And speaking of misunderstanding, having read your posts #28 and #36, it's become apparent to me that your own misunderstanding of Scholasticism, and of Western philosophical theology in general, is so jaw-droppingly profound that I'm not even going to attempt to address the myriad errors you commit...

Let me offer you a bit of advice: Stop listening to the vitriolic anti-Western drivel that, as I am by now very well aware, certain Eastern “Orthodox” propagandists are wont to spew forth, and go actually learn something about Scholasticism and Western theology. This would be a good place to start. Dr. Feser also has a blog (and a rather fine one, IMHO), which you can find here.

Edit: Grrrr... I put in an Amazon link for the book, and it gives me that. The name of the book is Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction, by Edward Feser. I guess you'll have to look it up yourself.

2nd Edit: And now the correct link is back. I don't know what's going on, but you have the book name and author, so whatever...

 

[SteveB28]

True. And as a psychologist (not talking about religion at the moment), I can tell you that it is virtually impossible to convince someone (regardless of proofs) of something that they are fully committed to disbelieve. Everything we believe is a choice. I have seen many people deny the reality which is right before their eyes. Others have minds far to open and gullible, believing patently untrue ideas. So of course I cannot prove anything to you because absolutely nothing will convince you. The only reason I am interacting with you is because perhaps there are others with reasonably open minds who are reading this.

Belief can never be a choice. I submit that it is not possible for one to form a belief entirely upon choice. I could stand on a ten storey building, but no matter how hard I choose to believe that it is only ten inches tall, the evidence of my surroundings will cause me to fail in that choice and to resist stepping off.

Unless, of course, I am the object of a convincing delusion...........

Beliefs are formed within us as a result of us being convinced by evidence, or what we perceive as evidence.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

you asked me if i was open to the possibility that i was wrong ... i said that i am open to the possibility that im wrong so prove that im wrong if you have proof that God does not exist . i cant convince you of my positition ive already explained that ive said that only God Himself can convince you and nothing else can . i already replied to this i have no evidence that i think will convince you only God is convincing not words.

An omniscient being would know what evidence I would accept for their existence. I was raised Christian and was very sincere in my efforts but....no evidence. Three possibilities here: God is unable to provide evidence of his existence, he does not care to, or he doesn't exist. You also have stated that you are unable to provide evidence. Would you agree that I am justified in not believing your claims to be true?

 

[SteveB28]

Unfortunately, many people can call themselves Christians but not really be Christians. It is called nominal faith (Christians in name only, or CINOs). And of course it depends on one's definition of what it means to be a Christian. The Nazi leaders proved that they were not real Christians. Jesus said "You shall know the tree by its fruit."

And to complete the trifecta of errors I have just exposed in your arguments, we can include the well-worn 'No True Scotsman' logical fallacy! You are no more equipped to define what is a 'Christian' than those who would tell you that you are wrong.

 

[SteveB28]

yes im open to the possibility that i am wrong if compelling evidence presents itself do you have such evidence that God does not exist?

Ah, the arrogant assuredness of the religiously committed; it's quite formidable, is it not!?

"It is not for me to support my claims, it is up to you to prove them wrong!"

 

[ScottA]

Argumentum ad populum noted. Got anything else?

That sums up the nothing world. Are you saying you are willing to leave it behind?

 

[SteveB28]

you can go to my profile and read the very first post i made here on Christian Forums and it will explain in detail the experience i had and how i became aware that it was God and how i became convinced , a person recognizes their own thoughts what is familiar to them you keep company with your thoughts every day when inspiration comes that is not from you then you are aware of it .

John Nash was a genius of some magnificence, possibly one of the most gifted thinkers of the 20th Century, and certainly not one wanting of "inspiration".

It took him the best part of his adult lifetime to realise that the "familiar thoughts" which kept him "company" were all part of a convincing delusion.

How can you be sure that yours are otherwise?

 

[ScottA]

This is an appeal to populous fallacy. There are over a billion Hindus in the world, over a billion Muslims who have had personal experiences similar to yours. What makes yours any more true than theirs?



Personal experience is not evidence in the courts. If you were on trial for murder, should you be convicted because I said I have a strong feeling that you did it?

Why are you mixing the "feelings" experiences with the "knowing" experiences?

Personal experience may not be evidence in the courts, but eyewitness testimony is. Why are you mixing these two also?

 

[ScottA]

Why doesn't this God appear to everyone then? Surely an omniscient God would know what type of proof I require.

God is not on trial...you are. It is you who need to show Him proof. Surely a Christian-raised person, should know that. Were you not paying attention?

 

[Davian]

That sums up the nothing world. Are you saying you are willing to leave it behind?

I will consider anything for which you have compelling evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

God is not on trial...you are. It is you who need to show Him proof. Surely a Christian-raise person, should know that. Were you not paying attention?

His existence is very much "on trial". And no evidence has ever been produced for a 'conviction'.

 

[Davian]

Why are you mixing the "feelings" experiences with the "knowing" experiences?

Personal experience may not be evidence in the courts, but eyewitness testimony is. Why are you mixing these two also?

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, and is quickly tossed when it is not corroborated by physical evidence. You don't have any corroborating evidence, do you?