The origins of atheism

[SteveB28]

Wouldn't Atheism be Satans greatest Acheivment ?

Wouldn't having people believe that Jesus was speaking to them, when it was really the Great Deceiver, be an even greater one.............!?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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.

I happen to believe that truth itself is absolute. I can then say that either God exists or God does not exist. However, in our human fallibility and limitations, we cannot know this truth absolutely. I can also easily claim that God does not exist just because anyone believes He exists or that He is nonexistent just because anyone disbelieves in Him (that is relativism which can be logically proven to be false). God either exists or God doesn’t. If God exists, then He obviously does not want to force everyone to believe in Him or He would have done so by now. He must be a different kind of God than a coercive God. So it would be then logical to assume that He has given us the free choice to believe or not to believe.

It so happens that the JudeoChristian God says (through the Bible) that there are great rewards eternally for those who believe and obey but not for those who do not. Why would not such a God make His existence abundantly clear to everyone?
The Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal provided the answer: “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.”

Or as John R.W. Stott put it: “Just as it is the nature of light to shine, so it is the nature of God to reveal Himself. True, he hides himself from many of the wise and clever, but only because they are proud and do not want to know Him; He reveals himself to 'babes', that is, to those humble enough to receive His self-disclosure ... The chief reason why people do not know God is not because He hides from them, but because they hide from him.”

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Wouldn't Atheism be Satans greatest Acheivment ?

Well i've heard Christians say Satan is the greatest deceiver. If he does exist, what if he is deceiving you into believing a God exists? That would be a M. Night Shyamalan type twist.

 

[Chad Farwell]

how does one verify Jesus or The Great Deceiver has spoken to them ?

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

In other words, dumb it down?

Ain't gonna happen.

Science is too myopic to detect the spiritual realm.

When science can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... then perhaps you can comment.

 

[Davian]

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.

How can someone be convinced by something that they don't believe to exist?

 

[muichimotsu]

I said "superintended," not "inspired."

First the blueprint, then the product.Ridicule wrapped in a compliment.

So the KJV is not inspired, but is more directed or managed by God? The former was stimulated, while the latter was managed like a publisher?

Trying to qualify the difference seems like you're trying to get around the basics facts surrounding the writing of the book, which weren't necessarily purely religious in nature, to my knowledge.

You want to take it as ridicule, be my guest. I'm insulting your ideas, not you.

 

[Davian]

In other words, dumb it down?

Ain't gonna happen.

Science is too myopic to detect the spiritual realm.

When science can build a machine that can do this:

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

... then perhaps you can comment.

But you are not saying that science is myopic, you are saying that it is wrong. Amirite?

 

[Chad Farwell]

There is much concern if God speaks at all, not speaking has many consquences...belief in another silent one.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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.

Obviously, I would not be here debating if I had a problem with having my faith challenged. I believe and I know that others do not. I don't know that I can convince anyone of anything but I enjoy trying. I guess that is true for you as well.

 

[SteveB28]

how does one verify Jesus or The Great Deceiver has spoken to them ?

Thankfully, that isn't a problem with which I have to grapple.

 

[jenny1972]

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

how many of those judging the experience of another person having a religious experience and calling it a delusional episode are athiests ? if the psychiatrist is an athiest and observes someone having a religious experience their perception would obviously be that the person is not really having a genuine religious experience but is simply suffering from a delusion . a psychiatrist who is a christian would observe the situation and come to a different conclusion and determine that the person is not delusional and in fact is having a religious experience . just because an athiest psychiatrist has determined that a person in his opinion is suffering from religious delusion doesnt make it a fact and doesnt mean that religious psychiatrists would agree with him .

 

[Job8]

Before even our distant ancestors had evolved the imagination to create all of the various religions, there was atheism.

Quite the opposite. Almost all human beings believe in dieties, and have believed in dieties since the various civilizations began. The proof of this is in the mythologies of every nation and tribe. Even Animists believe in deities to whom they make sacrifices and offerings.

Atheism is probably the result Skepticism which began to influence men from the 16th-18th centuries, and is generally a western phenomenon. It begins with the rejection of the supernatural and ends with the rejection of God and His existence. Theological liberalism is an expression of this skepticism.

A truly rational person must logically conclude that since nothing creates itself, and creation does exist in all its splendor, THERE MUST OF NECESSITY BE A CREATOR. So to choose to reject the existence of the Creator is actually one of the most irrational beliefs in existence, hence we read in Scripture "The FOOL has said in his heart, there is no God".

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

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

You are not a seeker. You have told us that you have dispensed with faith and are happy that you did so. So why would you ever believe such apologetic books? You have already made up your mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

So the KJV is not inspired, but is more directed or managed by God? The former was stimulated, while the latter was managed like a publisher?

Hey! I actually like your word choices!

I would say YES to both questions.

HOWEVER, being as I am somewhat of a follower of Peter S. Ruckman, I'm up in the air about the KJB being a product of what he calls "double inspiration."

But for now, I'll stick with the KJB being superintended -- not inspired.

Trying to qualify the difference seems like you're trying to get around the basics facts surrounding the writing of the book, which weren't necessarily purely religious in nature, to my knowledge.

If I remember my basic doctrine on this -- (it's been some time since I studied it) -- but as I recall, the word of God came to us in three steps:

1. Inspiration
2. Preservation
3. Translation

God inspired the Autographs, written in the handwriting of His amanuenses.

Then God preserved His words by superintending them when they were copied.

Then God at times -- (seven, to be exact) -- edited His words to conform to a specific audience.

What you think is I trying to "get around the basic facts surrounding the writing of the book [sic]," I call "basic doctrine."

You want to take it as ridicule, be my guest. I'm insulting your ideas, not you.

Insult them then, if you feel you have to.

But you're insulting basic doctrine, and that just makes you look ... well ... uninformed.

 

[jenny1972]

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.

you and your fellow athiests all suffer from the delusion that God doesnt exist so yes thats true mass belief does not make something true , fortunately mass belief isnt what convinces me that God exists , God has convinced me that God exists .

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

the irony. You have no idea if I have read the books or not.

True, I do not know. But i have a very good idea that you have not. Are you saying that you have? Surely you would have refuted my assumption if it were wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you are not saying that science is myopic, you are saying that it is wrong. Amirite?

Depends on what's being said.

I actually agree with 95% of the conclusions of science.

I may not agree with how they reached those conclusions, but I agree with the conclusions just the same.

When science tells me macroevolution is how it went down, I say science is wrong.

When science tells me that the spiritual realm is "pending discovery," I say it's because science is myopic.

 

[Chad Farwell]

we all allow our freewill to choose of grappeling partners

 

[jenny1972]

How can someone be convinced by something that they don't believe to exist?

good point the person has to at least be openminded to the possibility that God could exist if they are completely absolutely closeminded to the idea there could be a God then their mind will constantly fight any efforts that God makes.