The origins of atheism

[Davian]

I and God are not in question here, not really.

Yes, really. We are in a forum where your god is hypothetical, unless it is your intent to breach the rules about prothetizing your religion.

You perceive it that way, but that is incorrect.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Soooo...what I say, is just a heads up meant for your benefit. Take it or leave it (I have done my part).

All you have done is make some assertions. Many of them were not even coherent.

You are on trial. And God is Judge...who just happens to be using your own verdict of the circumstances to judge you.

For what am I to be judged, according to your theology?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I´m wondering if "I have mountains of evidence but I won´t even start sharing it because you won´t believe me, anyway." sounds like a reliable statement anyone (including you).

Two or three books of evidence are hardly anything I can start sharing. If you are interested, check out the books.

 

[ScottA]

You realize this is a debate thread correct?

That's debatable.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you do not have any spiritual problems at all, why would you come on to a website and thread like this one to vociferously argue against faith? Sounds like you are compensating for something... and going nuts trying to rationalize your newfound lack of faith. Good luck with that.

I enjoy a healthy debate. Is there a problem you have with having your faith challenged?
New found lack of of faith? 7-8 years...I guess it depends on your definition of "new". Keep making baseless assumptions though.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Two or three books of evidence are hardly anything I can start sharing. If you are interested, check out the books.

You mean books of apologetics are evidence!? Because I have read a few and all I saw was circular reasoning among other logical fallacies.

 

[Davian]

1. You are HERE. Read.

I do read. Still nothing about you providing substantiation of your assertions. I don't care if you have written twelve books.

2. I am not here to substantiate what I already know to be true.

You can't substantiate what you beleive to be true, can you?

I am just sharing the good news of life beyond the grave.

What is this alleged "good news"?

3. The ticket was a gift. It just appeared from the sky.

Did you get it from a grey-haired old man sitting on a cloud?

I guess you didn't get one.

It's never been offered.

 

[muichimotsu]

The proof is not given to God, but is demanded by God, from all who are born into the world. On the contrary, it is God who gives all things, death and life. What one does with the gift, is of their own doing, whether it be organic only, or first organic and then spiritual.

So now it's just a guilt trip? At least you're somewhat upfront with how despotic your deity is.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

1. Somehow you almost make it sound like this weren´t the same with full commitment to believe.
2. Are you presupposing I am fully committed to disbelieve?

Depends on how you define choice.

...but for some reason you are sure it can´t be you?

So you are presupposing I am one of those persons whom you have described above? How convenient for you.

Dear Sir, this entire post of yours reeks like a pile of projections (psychologically speaking ).

No one strongly believes or disbelieves anything if they think they might be wrong. But anyone might be wrong. Religious belief (and disbelief) is mostly a choice which comes from deep motivations ... so we believe what we want to believe. If you don't want there to be a God, then you won't believe in one. There is enough evidence for those who want to believe but not enough to force others to believe who don't want to. That is how the spiritual universe is set up by God. He is allowing us to be who we really are. And of course, there are consequences to our choices. Perhaps eternal consequences.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

No one strongly believes or disbelieves anything if they think they might be wrong. But anyone might be wrong. Religious belief (and disbelief) is mostly a choice which comes from deep motivations ... so we believe what we want to believe. If you don't want there to be a God, then you won't believe in one. There is enough evidence for those who want to believe but not enough to force others to believe who don't want to. That is how the spiritual universe is set up by God. He is allowing us to be who we really are. And of course, there are consequences to our choices.

 

[ScottA]

Yes, really. We are in a forum where your god is hypothetical, unless it is your intent to breach the rules about prothetizing your religion.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

All you have done is make some assertions. Many of them were not even coherent.

For what am I to be judged, according to your theology?

1. No, you keep trying to throw that rule book at everyone, but it is actually the other way around: The existence of God on this forum is unquestionable, and therefore indefensible.
2. I am not here to demonstrate. You are.
3. I'm sorry, I meant to make no assertions, only give facts. Perhaps you just didn't understand.
4. You are being weighed and measured for spirit content.

 

[muichimotsu]

A paradox to be sure. It is the essential paradox of the existence of human responsibility (and choice) and the sovereignty of God. I don't expect you to understand it.

And now you're bordering on being condescending. Your perspective is yours, don't belittle mine because it differs from yours.

A paradox is not something that is always meant to just be accepted, but resolved in a way that doesn't result in a contradiction. Just saying God controls all things, but not all things doesn't make technical sense, even if we're granting that God's omnipotence has to be limited for logical reasons anyway.

 

[Davian]

No one strongly believes or disbelieves anything if they think they might be wrong.

There is a psychological condition called compartmentalization that does allow for individuals to hold conflicting beliefs.

Compartmentalization is an unconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves.

Compartmentalization allows these conflicting ideas to co-exist by inhibiting direct or explicit acknowledgement and interaction between separate compartmentalized self states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

But anyone might be wrong. Religious belief (and disbelief) is mostly a choice which comes from deep motivations ... so we believe what we want to believe. If you don't want there to be a God, then you won't believe in one.

Why would I not want for there to be something more to human existence than this relatively brief biological stint here on Earth?

There is enough evidence for those who want to believe but not enough to force others to believe who don't want to. That is how the spiritual universe is set up by God. He is allowing us to be who we really are.

Do you feel that you can freely make this decision? Can you consciously decide to believe that gods are nothing more than characters in books for the next three days?

 

[David Colin Gould]

God has proof of your organic existence and of your funeral march. Good job with that. Is there more?

My kids are going to play a funeral march at my funeral? That is something to be concerned about. I'll have to have a word with them. Oh - unless it is the Monty Python march. I'd be happy with that. Can you check with God whether that's the case?

 

[David Colin Gould]

I have to say that this is one of the most surreal threads I have ever participated in.

 

[Davian]

1. No, you keep trying to throw that rule book at everyone,

No, only at those members in violation of the rules. Have you read them?

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, ...Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers."

but it is actually the other way around: The existence of God on this forum is unquestionable,

God is a character in a book. Beyond that, all is up for discussion.

and therefore indefensible.

"I am not convinced of your claims" requires no defence.

2. I am not here to demonstrate. You are.

Nope. I am only here to observe religionists in action. I make no claims here.

3. I'm sorry, I meant to make no assertions, only give facts. Perhaps you just didn't understand.

Your assertions are not facts. Is your dictionary still broken?

4. You are being weighed and measured for spirit content.

Again, for what am I to be judged, according to your theology? Be specific. Or are you unsure?

 

[Davian]

I have to say that this is one of the most surreal threads I have ever participated in.

Just a normal day here.

 

[Chad Farwell]

Wouldn't Atheism be Satans greatest Acheivment ?

 

[jenny1972]

Are you seriously telling God what to do?

if i was what do you care your an athiest remember? you dont even believe in God
and saying the burden of proof is on God isnt telling God what to do its acknowledging the fact that only God can convince an unbeliever.

 

[SteveB28]

because i am not the only person that experiences this kind of inspiration its not just me if it was just me i would be open to the idea that i could just be delusional and the inspiration we both recieve has certain characteristics in common and too many things have happened concerning this common inspiration that random coincidence has long ago been ruled out .

Are you aware that, of those who suffer delusional episodes, the delusions often take the form of one religious experience or another?

Are you also aware that almost all of mankind at one time suffered from the delusion that the entire cosmos orbited around our planet? It is very possible for extremely large numbers of people to share a belief........and be completely in error.

 

[AV1611VET]

So now we're just assuming the KJV is divinely inspired even though the motivations are a bit more suspect, historically speaking?

I said "superintended," not "inspired."

First the blueprint, then the product.

At least you're honest in the absurdity you're spouting.

Ridicule wrapped in a compliment.