The origins of atheism

[ScottA]

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

Wow. I did not connect science and that statement in that way at all.

My point was...that since [even] science concludes that time (and matter) are not what they appear...then...truth cannot come by "seeing."

 

[AV1611VET]

If "spiritual" is, by every objective measure, indistinguishable from "imaginary", it follows that the "problem" you allude to is also imaginary.

You deny the spiritual realm then, I take it?

 

[AV1611VET]

not all scientists agree on everything even more puzzling , people have different opinions

Only they call it "peer review," while they call our disagreements "imaginations."

 

[Davian]

1. No, I'm sure. The confusion is with those who believe it has age.

"Age" would be a commonly used word to designate a dimension of something, specifically its duration. As I have no idea of how you define the word in this context, try this: How many times do you think that the Earth has orbited the Sun since the formation of the Solar System?

2. Not buying the free will thing? Tell me then, what is your non-choice destiny for all eternity?

I have no issue with free will, as defined by philosophers such as Dan Dennett.

"Dennett's stance on free will is compatibilism with an evolutionary twist – the view that, although in the strict physical sense our actions might be pre-determined, we can still be free in all the ways that matter, because of the abilities we evolved. Free will, seen this way, is about freedom to make decisions without duress (and so is a version of Kantian positive practical free will, i.e., Kantian autonomy), as opposed to an impossible and unnecessary freedom from causality itself. To clarify this distinction, he coins the term 'evitability' as the opposite of 'inevitability', defining it as the ability of an agent to anticipate likely consequences and act to avoid undesirable ones."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Evolves#Free_will_and_altruism

3. No, I am not God, any more than a tire is a car, fin is a fish, a hand is not a man, etc.. God and I are One.

You can assert that you and your toaster oven are "One". If you cannot explain what that means, or demonstrate it as true, I see no reason to believe you.

4. Perhaps you should not limit your vocabulary to the such a crude media.

Of course - dictionaries are crude, useless devices. Imagine the confusion if we were all to use a common vernacular, with each of us using words in the same manner as the others. Mayhem.

Did you really write a book? Was it in English?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

no i was wanting a link to the poll or source that showed that ALL cosmologists agreed that that noise was a result of the big bang

That's just it... if they disagree that it came from the Big Bang, then they need to provide an adequate explanation as to where the CMB actually came from. If they have no explanation for it, then the idea that it came from the BB remains the best explanation we have for the CMB. To disagree just because you don't like the implication of the answer, is not how science is conducted.

 

[jenny1972]

That's just it... if they disagree that it came from the Big Bang, then they need to provide an adequate explanation as to where the CMB actually came from. If they have no explanation for it, then the idea that it came from the BB remains the best explanation we have for the CMB. To disagree just because you don't like the implication of the answer, is not how science is conducted.

they dont NEED to do anything , anyone can agree or disagree with any scientific theory and choose not to provide an adequate explanation for it. regardless of if they can prove that it came from somewhere else noone has to collectively believe in any theory and science does not require or force every scientist to agree with anything.

 

[muichimotsu]

No, not at all.

You don't understand what I said.

Here it is again:

Where the King James Bible differs with the originals, the originals are wrong.

The Hebrew & Greek writings that were inspired by God would not have been wrong.

So to tell if a Hebrew or Greek writing is authentic, compare it to the KJB.

And given that we no longer have the original Hebrew & Greek writings ...

So in short, the KJB will never differ with the originals because:

1. We don't have the originals.
2. Both Writings were superintended by God.

A good example is a dollar bill.

Where a dollar bill differs from a mint dollar bill, the mint dollar bill is wrong.

So if someone shows you a mint dollar bill, and it differs from the dollar bill in your wallet, then you know the mint dollar bill that someone is showing you is not really a mint dollar bill.

It is a counterfeit.

So now we're just assuming the KJV is divinely inspired even though the motivations are a bit more suspect, historically speaking? At least you're honest in the absurdity you're spouting. *shrugs* Comparison of a mint dollar bill to original writings of a sacred text seems a bit insulting, if you ask me.

 

[Davian]

You deny the spiritual realm then, I take it?

No. To deny something, one would have to know what it is first. Define "spiritual" in some testable, coherent, falsifiable manner, in the context you are using it, and then perhaps I can comment.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

So our beliefs are a choice, but our dispositions to believe are determined? Maybe I read that wrong, but if that's your belief, it kind of creates a contradiction

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I hope you ddn't pay any money for them.


'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (2001)

There is no book written without negative critics. So this article is virtually meaningless. What is interesting is that you trust this critic without judging for yourself about the books. That is called pre-judging (i.e., prejudice) without examining the evidence. McDowell’s long (and therefore somewhat boring) list of proofs can overwhelm a reader who is not that interested in the facts that might prove what they already don’t believe.

For those less motivated to examine this large amount of facts, I can also refer them to Lee Strobel’s books such as “The Case for Faith” and the “The Case for Christianity”. They are must shorter and easier to read.

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

Seems a bit simplistic to even say that a majority (51%) are atheists because of misotheism or the like. If anything, what you're characterizing would be antitheists specifically, not atheists in the nontheistic sense of general nonbelief

 

[muichimotsu]

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?

If you could show God proof, that would suggest God is not all knowing, so you're creating a catch-22 situation. Either God exists and you can show proof of it, in which case, it's not godlike enough to have faith in or God exists and you could show proof to God of something it didn't know, in which case it's not all knowing.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

So our beliefs are a choice, but our dispositions to believe are determined? Maybe I read that wrong, but if that's your belief, it kind of creates a contradiction

According to normal human logic, I can see where you are coming from. But paradoxes do exist. Both human choice and God's choice exist, but God's sovereign choices ultimately hold sway. So He allows us choice up to a point, but His plan from before the beginning of Creation still will be the destiny that happens. He knows what our choices will be before we make them, so He can work with them or around them according to His will. Otherwise He is not God.

 

[ScottA]

Done your part? All you have done is make some undefined, untestable, and unfalsifiable religious assertions, with a few failed scare tactics thrown in. I see nothing to be concerned about.

I and God are not in question here, not really. You perceive it that way, but that is incorrect.

Soooo...what I say, is just a heads up meant for your benefit. Take it or leave it (I have done my part). You are on trial. And God is Judge...who just happens to be using your own verdict of the circumstances to judge you.

 

[muichimotsu]

According to normal human logic, I can see where you are coming from. But paradoxes do exist. Both human choice and God's choice exist, but God's sovereign choices ultimately hold sway. So He allows us choice up to a point, but His plan from before the beginning of Creation still will be the destiny that happens. He knows what our choices will be before we make them, so He can work with them or around them according to His will. Otherwise He is not God.

This isn't even a paradox, it's an outright contradiction when we cannot choose such a thing as our standards of evidence, but can choose other things. Trying to insist on both is weakening your god's power and increasing ours to a point that becomes absurd to even think such an entity is remotely potent beyond a supercomputer's advanced capacity of thought and output.

So basically unconditional election? Certainly sounds like it. At least you're trying to prioritize God's omnipotence over any sense of consistent logic, we can see where your priorities lie, impractical as they are

 

[ScottA]

Where/when is "there?"

East of Eden.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

they dont NEED to do anything , anyone can agree or disagree with any scientific theory and choose not to provide an adequate explanation for it. regardless of if they can prove that it came from somewhere else noone has to collectively believe in any theory and science does not require or force every scientist to agree with anything.

Sure, you can agree or disagree on anything but scientists in certain fields depend on theories to do their job. Explain how a biologist in medical research can come up with a vaccine for a virus that has a high mutation rate (Influenza) without understanding the theory of evolution. Hint: They can't. If a scientist has a better explanation on something he or she disagrees with, they should bring it forward. People win Nobel prizes for things like this. Can you imagine if someone falsified the theory of evolution? They would be a hero to science and remembered forever.

 

[ScottA]

I certainly can say the same: "I was there, and I am here."

However, making fantastic claims is not the same as providing evidence for fantastic claims ...

My claims are true, and they are only fantastic to those who are far from knowing it. You may as well be the hick who exclaims, "Why, I never hearda such a thing!" ... and it is obvious that you cannot fathom the idea. But just like the hick, if you go demanding some backwater explanation that you can sink yer tooth into...you may as well stay on the porch.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I and God are not in question here, not really. You perceive it that way, but that is incorrect.

Soooo...what I say, is just a heads up meant for your benefit. Take it or leave it (I have done my part). You are on trial. And God is Judge...who just happens to be using your own verdict of the circumstances to judge you.

I'm not afraid of your scare tactics Scott. They may work on an impressionable child or the gullible but not on me.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

My claims are true, and they are only fantastic to those who are far from knowing it. You may as well be the hick who exclaims, "Why, I never hearda such a thing!" ... and it is obvious that you cannot fathom the idea. But just like the hick, if you go demanding some backwater explanation that you can sink yer tooth into...you may as well stay on the porch.

Is name calling necessary?