The origins of atheism

[Colter]

At a fundamental level, they are.

Only atheistic science or atheistic scientist; science with an atheistic agenda. True science and true religion have no lasting quarrel.

 

[AirPo]

The fact that you have a difference of opinion proves the point....but that may still allude you.

No it doesn't !

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't you prefer this because it would make sense that the truth can actually be known?

No. I just prefer it because I think it would be cooler to know then not to know.

But the cosmos doesn't care about my preferences.

If not then why would you personally like it better if the truth can be known?

Because I think knowing is nicer then not knowing.

If you would like it better if the truth can be known because it would make sense for it to be knowable

Why do you always insist on assuming my answers to your questions????
Please stop that.

, why not assume/believe it is knowable?

Because I wouldn't be justified in that assumption / belief.

Again: I......don't........know.......
And when I don't know, then I don't know and then won't make assumptions one way or the other.

And saying: "because I don't know" is not a valid answer, it's a cop out.

How is saying "I don't know" a cop out when one doesn't know????????
What else do you expect me to do? Just make something up instead??

Sorry, I can't help but feel like you're calling me irrational for believing the truth can be known

You feel correctly.
Indeed, it is irrational to believe one or the other when one in reality does not know.
The rational answer when one does not know is "I don't know".

, yet you can't explain why it's irrational

I explained it a gazillion times already, but you insist on ignoring it.
Eventhough I wonder why it needs any explaining that the idea of "I don't know but still believe it" is not a rational idea.

and instead your own words imply it is in fact rational to believe the truth is knowable.

No. Your strawman of my words implies that.

Myself, I have NEVER said that. Feel free to quote me saying such a thing.
I have said the exact opposite.

Again I must ask you if you actually read my posts....

I can explain why it is rational

No. You DECLARED it. You never explained it.

, which I just did, based on your own words

You mean, by dishonestly misrepresenting my words .

If you claim I'm wrong, it's because you're changing your own words. Why do that?

Wauw.

I wonder why I continue this conversation.
Your intellectual dishonesty is infuriating.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Only atheistic science or atheistic scientist; science with an atheistic agenda. True science and true religion have no lasting quarrel.

Adding the word "true" doesn't change the situation.

 

[AV1611VET]

None of those testifies to the existence of your God.

Perhaps you're in the wrong courtroom then?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is saying "I don't know" a cop out when one doesn't know????????
What else do you expect me to do? Just make something up instead??

You can always emulate Chrilliman and claim to know anyway?

 

[AirPo]

Perhaps you're in the wrong courtroom then?

Nope.

 

[Chriliman]

No. I just prefer it because I think it would be cooler to know then not to know.

But the cosmos doesn't care about my preferences.



Because I think knowing is nicer then not knowing.



Why do you always insist on assuming my answers to your questions????
Please stop that.

Based on your reluctance to accept that it would make sense that the truth be knowable, you must be saying you don't think it would makes sense for the truth to be knowable, which is a completely nonsensical thing to think, thus proving my point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Based on your reluctance to accept that it would make sense that the truth be knowable

You haven't given me a rational reason to accept that, so why would I??

you must be saying you don't think it would makes sense for the truth to be knowable

No, you black-and-white thinker.

When you flip a coin and ask me if I accept that it is heads and I answer "no", then I'm not implying that I will accept it is tails instead.

And you try to lecture us on rational thinking.......

Perhaps first try to understand that saying "I don't believe X" is NOT THE SAME THING as saying "I believe X is false".

, which is a completely nonsensical thing to think, thus proving my point.

The only thing being proven here is how you are unable to grasp these simple concepts.

To repeat, because it seems that this is the very root of your problem.....

The statement "I don't believe X" is not, in any way, the equivalent of "I believe X is false", nore does it imply that.

 

[Chriliman]

Perhaps first try to understand that saying "I don't believe X" is NOT THE SAME THING as saying "I believe X is false".

Lets try it:

I don't believe the truth about existence can be known.

vs.

I believe the truth about existence is false.

In order to make either claim, you're automatically implying you already know the truth about existence , therefore, both claims are nonsensical because if you already know the truth about existence you shouldn't make these claims if you want to remain rational.

You have the correct claim which is: I don't know the truth about existence, but I'm willing to find it, which means I must ask unique questions and avoid assuming the truth is unknowable because if I assume the truth is unknowable then I cease to be willing to find it.

 

[AirPo]

Bzzzzt! Try again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Based on your reluctance to accept that it would make sense that the truth be knowable, you must be saying you don't think it would makes sense for the truth to be knowable, which is a completely nonsensical thing to think, thus proving my point.

Errr.... You do realise other people are reading along, right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Lets try it:

I don't believe the truth about existence can be known.

vs.

I believe the truth about existence is false.

These statements both address different questions and are in no way equivalent to the point I was making. Frankly I don't understand how you understood this from what I wrote.

The first is a potential answer to the question "is the truth about existence knowable?"
The second is a potential answer to the question ... well I don't know. I can't make sense of the sentence upon reading it again. How can truth be false???

Try again.

Here is my point again, just to remind you (and before you try to misrepresent and warp it again)...

These statements are not identical:
"I don't believe X is true".
"I believe X is false"

Nore does the first statement imply the second.

You have the correct claim which is: I don't know the truth about existence, but I'm willing to find it, which means I must ask unique questions and avoid assuming the truth is unknowable because if I assume the truth is unknowable then I cease to be willing to find it.

I. Am. Not. Making. Any. Assumptions. Either. Way.

Get. It. In. Your. Head.

When asked "is the true nature of the universe knowable?"
Then my answer is "I don't know".

I don't assume that it is and I don't assume that it isn't.
I DON'T KNOW

In science, we try to find out. Without assuming one way or the other.
Yes, this means that the "ultimate quest" to answer that question might be in vain.

We hope it is not in vain and that it is knowable.
That is not the same as assuming that it is.

If it is unknowable, that's fine. We'll still pick up plenty of knowledge in our quest to answer those questions. We just won't be able to cross the ultimate finish line.

I don't have a problem with that, eventhough I would prefer a race that is finishable.
But the universe, reality, doesn't care about what we prefer.

And I don't make assumptions based on my preference.



I don't think I can explain it any clearer then this.
If you still don't get it by now, then .... well I don't know what then.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I. Am. Not. Making. Any. Assumptions. Either. Way.

Get. It. In. Your. Head.

When asked "is the true nature of the universe knowable?"
Then my answer is "I don't know".

I don't assume that it is and I don't assume that it isn't.
I DON'T KNOW

In science, we try to find out. Without assuming one way or the other.
Yes, this means that the "ultimate quest" to answer that question might be in vain.

We hope it is not in vain and that it is knowable.
That is not the same as assuming that it is.

If it is unknowable, that's fine. We'll still pick up plenty of knowledge in our quest to answer those questions. We just won't be able to cross the ultimate finish line.

I don't have a problem with that, eventhough I would prefer a race that is finishable.
But the universe, reality, doesn't care about what we prefer.

And I don't make assumptions based on my preference.



I don't think I can explain it any clearer then this.
If you still don't get it by now, then .... well I don't know what then.

I don't think you could be any clearer either. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care to.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I don't think you could be any clearer either. He either doesn't understand or doesn't care to.

The fact that we're all saying the same things to him should really be a clue.

As an experiment, I explained this to my son last night. He got it right away. He's 8.

 

[Chriliman]

But the universe, reality, doesn't care about what we prefer.

You just made an assumption about the universe and reality right there. What if reality is eternal and it does care about your preferences? Is it rational to assume this isn't a possibility when you've just claimed you don't make any assumptions? I think it's becoming clear that your claim that you make no assumptions is simply not true.

We should just ask honest questions and try not to assume, but assuming is inevitable until the truth is known.

And I don't make assumptions based on my preference.

But you just made an assumption based on your preference that reality isn't eternal and that it doesn't care about you.

My definition of God is that He's all goodness eternally. This means eternal reality is God, along with eternal love, peace, joy, happiness and whatever else non-physical good things you can think of. IOW, there is nothing bad in God.

I don't think I can explain it any clearer then this.
If you still don't get it by now, then .... well I don't know what then.

Well, when you claim to not make assumptions based on personal preference and then go ahead and make assumptions based on personal preference, it makes it difficult to pin down what you really think/believe/want. It's all just confusing to me. It's reasonable to think the truth should be clear, not confusing.

Let's agree to disagree for now.

 

[ecco]

Only atheistic science or atheistic scientist; science with an atheistic agenda. True science and true religion have no lasting quarrel.

The Dictionary of Phrases per Colter

True Science

Any science that does not disagree with Colter's interpretation of the bible​

Atheistic science

Any science that disagrees with Colter's interpretation of the bible​

True Scientist

Any scientist that pursues True Science (see above)​

Atheistic scientist

Any scientist that pursues Atheistic Science (see above)​

​

Glad we cleared that up.

 

[HitchSlap]

Atheism is a spiritual problem, not an intellectual one.

In other words, it stems from the heart, not the brain.

Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

I think I'll let anatomy & physiology texts inform me of what the heart is capable of. As for atheism, it's exactly an intellectual position.

 

[AV1611VET]

As for atheism, it's exactly an intellectual position.

It might be an intellectual position, but it is a spiritual problem.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It might be an intellectual position, but it is a spiritual problem

Well I became a happier, more caring person after I dropped my faith so I don't see any spiritual problems at all.