The origins of atheism

[Eudaimonist]

Nonsense, is that you believe what you see, while even science will tell you it is all an illusion. Truth then, comes not by seeing.

Science does not say that truth comes not by seeing. Science is an empirical discipline.

If you can wrap you mind around that, then you just might have a shot at getting out of here alive.

And right into the insane asylum.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

" Science is only satisfied with first causes, religion with supreme personality, and philosophy with unity. Revelation affirms that these three are one, and that all are good. The eternal real is the good of the universe and not the time illusions of space evil. In the spiritual experience of all personalities, always is it true that the real is the good and the good is the real.....

"The false science of materialism would sentence mortal man to become an outcast in the universe. Such partial knowledge is potentially evil; it is knowledge composed of both good and evil. Truth is beautiful because it is both replete and symmetrical. When man searches for truth, he pursues the divinely real.

" Philosophers commit their gravest error when they are misled into the fallacy of abstraction, the practice of focusing the attention upon one aspect of reality and then of pronouncing such an isolated aspect to be the whole truth. The wise philosopher will always look for the creative design which is behind, and pre-existent to, all universe phenomena. The creator thought invariably precedes creative action." UB 1955​

 

[dazed]

If you're claiming Eric the God Killer Penguin exists, please provide you're reasoning and I'll consider it objectively.

It is interesting that you think it reasonable to assume an eternal infinite God can be killed.

Oh the irony!

Eric, the God Killer Penguin, exists in "unknowable" part of your knowledge. Therefore, it's irrational for you to assume that Eric doesn't exist.

 

[Chriliman]

The "believe" = to accept as true.

It's exactly what you said.
Even if you wish to nuance a difference, it's the same nonsense.

If we can't know, then we can't know. And if we can't know, it's irrational to believe one way or the other.

If you don't know, then you don't know.



It makes no sense.



It still makes no sense.



It still doesn't make sense.

I'll simplify.

You admit you don't know the truth about existence. This leads you to assume the truth is not knowable, correct? You could just as easily assume the truth is knowable, since you admit you actually don't know the truth. You've said before that you hope we find the truth and I agree with that. However, when you start assuming the truth is unknowable, then all hope is lost.

So which is it? Do you hopelessly assume the truth is unknowable or do you hope the truth is knowable?

 

[Chriliman]

Oh the irony!

Eric, the God Killer Penguin, exists in "unknowable" part of your knowledge. Therefore, it's irrational for you to assume that Eric doesn't exist.

So that's the difference between this thing you've imagined and the real God. The real God is knowable because he makes himself known. He has made himself known to you, but you've rejected him as true. He'll keep trying, but only if your willing

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'll simplify.
You admit you don't know the truth about existence.

"admit"? Strange choice of word.

You make it sound as if acknowledging ignorance is something to be ashamed of...
And then you wonder that I ask you why you seem allergic to the words "I don't know".

This leads you to assume the truth is not knowable, correct?

No. Do you even read what I write?
When I say that I don't know, I mean that I don't know. Which means I'm not making any assumptions either way.

You could just as easily assume the truth is knowable, since you admit you actually don't know the truth.

That makes no sense.
"Not knowing the truth" is an entirely different beast from "the truth being knowable".
These are different statements that aren't implied by one another.

If I say "i don't know the truth about x", I'm not making any claims or assumptions or implications concerning wheter or not I think the truth about x is actually knowable.

These are different answers to different questions.
One does not, in any way, follow from the other.

So once again, you are making zero sense.

You've said before that you hope we find the truth and I agree with that. However, when you start assuming the truth is unknowable, then all hope is lost.

It's a good thing then, that I'm not making any assumptions either way. As I have told you countless times by now. Which makes me wonder, why you keep repeating this nonsense, pretending I never told you that I'm not making any assumptions.

Again: do you even read the posts you reply to?

So which is it?

None of the above.

Do you hopelessly assume the truth is unknowable or do you hope the truth is knowable?

I assume nothing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So that's the difference between this thing you've imagined and the real God. The real God is knowable because he makes himself known. He has made himself known to you, but you've rejected him as true. He'll keep trying, but only if your willing

Stop presenting your religious opinions as facts.

 

[dazed]

So that's the difference between this thing you've imagined and the real God. The real God is knowable because he makes himself known. He has made himself known to you, but you've rejected him as true. He'll keep trying, but only if your willing

Now, Eric made himself known to you. So, why are you rejecting him? Many former Christians became atheists when they know Eric.

So, how did you determine that Eric is not real when you don't know everything about the universe? Wasn't that your argument that your god exists. We have not seen, touch or hear Him is irrelevant because He exists outside our physical and knowledge boundary. You have not see, touch or hear Eric because He is too busy hunting down gods. It's part of His plan so don't be so arrogant to dismiss Eric when you don't know everything about the universe.

 

[Goonie]

 

[ecco]

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.

What is a real christian?

There are very many christian denominations. Too many to list here but see...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

Additionally, within these denominations...
There are some christians who believe every word of the bible is absolute truth; god created the earth 6000 years ago and destroyed almost all humans shortly thereafter, etc.
There are some christians who believe that parts of the bible are allegory.
There are some christians who disregard the OT entirely.

Consider...
There are the differences in beliefs as between Catholics and Protestants; salvation comes from “faith alone” or "faith plus meritorious works”.

One would be correct in saying most christians are CINOs to most other christians.

 

[Chriliman]

Now, Eric made himself known to you. So, why are you rejecting him? Many former Christians became atheists when they know Eric.

So, how did you determine that Eric is not real when you don't know everything about the universe? Wasn't that your argument that your god exists. We have not seen, touch or hear Him is irrelevant because He exists outside our physical and knowledge boundary. You have not see, touch or hear Eric because He is too busy hunting down gods. It's part of His plan so don't be so arrogant to dismiss Eric when you don't know everything about the universe.

I can honestly say I've never heard of Eric before, but if he wants to make himself known to me, he certainly can. I'm waiting...

I guarantee I'll never come across Eric again unless I meet you again, which is a pretty clear indication that Eric came from you.

You'll come across God when talking with many different people.

 

[AirPo]

" Science is only satisfied with first causes, religion with supreme personality, and philosophy with unity. Revelation affirms that these three are one, and that all are good. The eternal real is the good of the universe and not the time illusions of space evil. In the spiritual experience of all personalities, always is it true that the real is the good and the good is the real.....

"The false science of materialism would sentence mortal man to become an outcast in the universe. Such partial knowledge is potentially evil; it is knowledge composed of both good and evil. Truth is beautiful because it is both replete and symmetrical. When man searches for truth, he pursues the divinely real.

" Philosophers commit their gravest error when they are misled into the fallacy of abstraction, the practice of focusing the attention upon one aspect of reality and then of pronouncing such an isolated aspect to be the whole truth. The wise philosopher will always look for the creative design which is behind, and pre-existent to, all universe phenomena. The creator thought invariably precedes creative action." UB 1955​

Wow, there is nothing true in that post. Execpt maybe

Revelation affirms that these three are one, and that all are good.

But that only means Revelations is wrong as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can honestly say I've never heard of Eric before, but if he wants to make himself known to me, he certainly can. I'm waiting...

I can say the exact same thing about Jesus / Jawhe / Jehova / whatever-the-name-of-this-"one"-god-is

I guarantee I'll never come across Eric again unless I meet you again, which is a pretty clear indication that Eric came from you.

I can guarantee the same about Jesus / Jawhe / Jehova / whatever-the-name-of-this-"one"-god-is unless I meet christians again.

You'll come across God when talking with many different people.

Actually, I'll come across many different gods when talking to many different people. Most of those gods are mutually exclusive. There are a couple thousand of them.

I'll even say that if it comes to actual detailed definitions of these gods, I'll come across the same amount of gods as the number of theists I meet.

Just look at the endless list of christian denominations. There are more denominations of this "one" religion then there are sentences in the bible!

All these people have very different ideas about who or what the christian god is.

If you christians can't even agree on it - how can you ever expect us non-christians to play along?

 

[Chriliman]

"admit"? Strange choice of word.

You make it sound as if acknowledging ignorance is something to be ashamed of...
And then you wonder that I ask you why you seem allergic to the words "I don't know".




No. Do you even read what I write?
When I say that I don't know, I mean that I don't know. Which means I'm not making any assumptions either way.



That makes no sense.
"Not knowing the truth" is an entirely different beast from "the truth being knowable".
These are different statements that aren't implied by one another.

If I say "i don't know the truth about x", I'm not making any claims or assumptions or implications concerning wheter or not I think the truth about x is actually knowable.

These are different answers to different questions.
One does not, in any way, follow from the other.

So once again, you are making zero sense.



It's a good thing then, that I'm not making any assumptions either way. As I have told you countless times by now. Which makes me wonder, why you keep repeating this nonsense, pretending I never told you that I'm not making any assumptions.

Again: do you even read the posts you reply to?



None of the above.



I assume nothing.

Should I disregard your statements about having hope that you'll find the truth in your lifetime in this post?

I sure hope not because hope is a good thing

 

[DogmaHunter]

Should I disregard your statements about having hope that you'll find the truth in your lifetime in this post?

Do you understand the difference between the words "hope", "assumption" and "belief"?

It sounds like you don't.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you understand the difference between the words "hope", "assumption" and "belief"?

It sounds like you don't.

When our beliefs are uncertain that's when hope is the most powerful because it gives us a reason to continue making rational assumptions that can lead to the truth, which then allows us to be certain of our beliefs.

 

[ecco]

do you respect Albert Einstein see what he says about this just too perfect to be random universe

It continues to amaze me that theists still try to use Einstein to try to prove their version of god.


http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm (emphasis mine)

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954, The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press)
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of Nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
(Albert Einstein, 1936, The Human Side. Responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray.)

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930)​

I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. (Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)
​

You could have looked up Einstein's quotes for yourself rather than relying on Christian sites that take quotes out of context. Any reference Einstein makes to "god" or "religious" is a far cry from your own concept of these terms.

 

[Colter]

Wow, there is nothing true in that post. Execpt maybe



But that only means Revelations is wrong as well.

Revelations is wrong?

 

[AirPo]

Revelations is wrong?

The first sentence in the post I quoted is wrong. If Revelations affirms that first sentence, then Revelations is wrong. It's really that simple.

 

[Colter]

"The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world's greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned." UB1955​