The origins of atheism

[Archaeopteryx]

If I joined a pro vampire forum and argued against their faith in vampires then you would have a point.

Instead you joined a Christian forum and continually post quotes from the Urantia Book.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Was it "factually wrong" in 2003 that we only had eight planets?

(Please answer this.)

You first.

 

[Colter]

Instead you joined a Christian forum and continually post quotes from the Urantia Book.

The Urantia Book is related to Christianity. Atheism is related to the devil. It seems it's you who are in the wrong place.

 

[Chriliman]

I never claimed to accept that the truth is unknowable or knowable.

I never said you did. I'm saying you're willing to accept that the truth is unknowable. The reason I'm saying this is because you've said it yourself. Do you deny it now?

In fact, I have been pointing out post after post after post that I do not know and will not commit/assume/believe one way or the other because I do not know.

I know that you don't know because you've told me you don't know. This has nothing to do with the desire for truth.

That doesn't mean that we can't ask the question and try to answer it.

This is only logical if we assume there is an answer to be known, thus proving me right.

However, it does mean that there is a possibility that some questions will never be answered - if it turns out those things are unknowable.

This is illogical because we could never know that some things are unknowable. We already went over this, thus proving me right again.

We won't know unless we try.

Right, we'll never know the truth, if there is no truth to be known, but we will know the truth if there is a truth to be known, therefore it's reasonable to ask questions in order to get to the truth, assuming the truth is knowable. Proving me right again.

None of this requires assumptions, beliefs or commitments based on ignorance.

It requires honest questions and rational assumptions. It also requires us to actually think deeply, which you seem unwilling to do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The Urantia Book is related to Christianity. Atheism is related to the devil. It seems it's you who are in the wrong place.

It seems to me that you are the last person to be questioning whether others are in the "wrong" place.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

The Urantia Book is related to Christianity. Atheism is related to the devil. It seems it's you who are in the wrong place.

We don't believe in him either.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Proving me right again.

You're pretty much the only one that thinks this...

 

[ecco]

Excerpts...

These flood stories predate the book of genesis by hundreds of years. Gilgamesh is almost identical to the story of Noah and was written much earlier.

Even the story of Jesus was borrowed from much older stories.
For example:
1. Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead and was known as the savior and redeemer.
5. Osiris' son Horus was known as "light of the world, the good shepherd, the lamb" and was referred to as "The way, the truth and the life" His symbol was a cross. Sound familiar?
7. Krishna had a miraculous conception and wise men were able to come visit as they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to find him and have him killed. Sound familiar?
All of these stories predate Christianity.

It seems there was a lotta cuttin and pastin going on long before we had keyboards.

 

[DZoolander]

Well the "how many planets" argument is kinda odd to me.

The truth of the matter is - if you were to define "planet" as "some celestial body orbiting our sun" - who on God's earth knows just how many planets there are? Millions upon millions, most likely.

The only reason the issue of Pluto's "planethood" has come up as an issue or up for debate is because we've arbitrarily decided to have a cutoff point in size in order to be considered as a planet. Previously, we thought Pluto met that criteria. Then, we decided we were wrong (so it went from 9/8). Then, I guess, we're taking new evidence and figuring "Maybe we were right beforehand" and bumping it back up to 9.

The number of "planets" (as in the true state of the solar system) has remained unchanged. The only difference is in how we've decided to define things arbitrarily. So, to me, that's a bizarre argument. If it turns out that 8 was "wrong" - that's simply saying "We were incorrect in our observations, and have since corrected ourselves" - which is entirely within the SM. lol

 

[Chriliman]

You're pretty much the only one that thinks this...

Are you willing to accept that the truth about existence is unknowable?

Remember, what you think has no bearing on what is true.

 

[DZoolander]

So if you're looking for certainty - the SM isn't your best bet. However, it doesn't claim certainty. It claims "Based upon our best observations and hypothesis at the moment, this is what we think is going on".

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Are you willing to accept that the truth about existence is unknowable?

Remember, what you think has no bearing on what is true.

Define "truth about existence". Are you talking about how the observable universe began?

 

[Chriliman]

Define "truth about existence".

The fact that we exist is either meaningless because we're willing to accept that there is no truth behind our existence or there's a reason we exist because there is a truth to be known about why we exist.

Are you talking about how the observable universe began?

Not necessarily how it began, but just the fact that it exists. Are you willing to accept that the truth is unknowable for why the universe exists?

 

[Job8]

Of course this depends on the unsupported assertion that the universe was "created."

Since nothing creates itself (as already pointed out) that is A LOGICAL DEDUCTION, not an unsupported assertion.

 

[Job8]

And that isn't atheism. Atheists do not believe that gods don't exist. We simply don't accept your claims that they do.

That's still delusional.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Since nothing creates itself (as already pointed out) that is A LOGICAL DEDUCTION, not an unsupported assertion.

In what sense are you claiming that the universe was "created"?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said you did. I'm saying you're willing to accept that the truth is unknowable.

Which I have denied post after post after post after...........

I have literally stated that I will not commit/assume/believe either way and instead say that I don't know.

If I say that will not commit/assume/believe either way it means that I am not willing to commit/assume/believe either way.

It seems I was bang-on when I said that you still didn't get.
Will you get it now?

The reason I'm saying this is because you've said it yourself. Do you deny it now?

No, I did not say it. Distorting. Once again.

I'm not even gonna read the rest of your post.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Not necessarily how it began, but just the fact that it exists.

Are you asking "Why is there something rather than nothing"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Instead you joined a Christian forum and continually post quotes from the Urantia Book.

Boom goes the dynamite.

 

[Colter]

We don't believe in him either.

Which is fine, but you believe in his ideals and are a part of his rebellion, you are just to clueless to realize it.