The origins of atheism

[HitchSlap]

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

Almond butter may play a small role, too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your willing to say you don't know, that is clear, but the question is are you willing to objectively think about possible truths?

If there is a rational reason to do so, yes.

For example, there is no rational reason to "objectively think" about last-thursday-ism.

In order to objectively think about a possible truth we must assume the truth is possible, otherwise, we're not being truly objective. The fact that we are assuming it's possible does not mean we accept it as true, we're just assuming it's possibly true, which again, is a reasonable thing to do.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand we're back to conflating "possible" with "plausible".

Yawn....

This is so tiring. I feel like I deserve a medal for my patience.

Its seems your willing to just claim you don't know, without assuming possible truths in order to change the fact that you don't know. Are you willing to claim you don't know, forever, if no reason or evidence is ever provided that shows you what the truth is? If so then you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known, which you claim is not the case, but in fact it is if you really think about what your claiming by saying you don't know.

The primary thing that I'm not willing to do (anymore) at this point, is continuing with this exercise in futility of trying to make you comprehend simple concepts.

Bye.

 

[Chriliman]

And I'm trying to honestly figure out the exact question you're asking. If you're asking why the universe exists, that's essentially the same as "why is there something rather than nothing?".

And my answer to that question is that I'm not even sure that's an intelligible question. It might be like asking what's north of the north pole. At best you might get me to say "I don't know."

Now what?

There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?

Reasonably the truth will make all other possibilities false.

Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.

So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.

So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.

Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.

Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.

I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?

Reasonably the truth will make all other possibilities false.

Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.

So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.

So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.

Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.

Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.

I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.

Your posts make little sense.

 

[Davian]

There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?

Reasonably the truth will make all other possibilities false.

Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.

So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.

So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.

Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.

Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.

I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.

Not at all.

 

[jenny1972]

Pardon me?

right i never said in my comment that that was the reason why i believed in God because of the fact that so many other people also believed i only suggested that when more than one person experiences the same phenominon it rules out the idea that its just a result of the perception of just 1 individual science also uses this logic as well . but since your arguing against the possibility of God your willing to dismiss the scientific method of discovery since it doesnt support your position.

 

[DZoolander]

Is there a better "bet"?

Good point

 

[Chriliman]

If there is a rational reason to do so, yes.

The rational reason to do so is to find(and know) the truth. This shows that in order to remain rational we must assume the truth is knowable.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Your posts make little sense.

Amen brother.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There's an infinite amount of posibilities north of the North Pole. Does this answer get us any closer to the truth?

Nooooo, the question is nonsensical because the concept of cardinal north ends at the North Pole. There is no answer.

Reasonably the truth can't possibly be nothing because if it is then we'd never know it.

Unquestionably false. Our ability to know something has no bearing on whether there is something to know or not.

So the answer that there's nothing north of the North Pole is an illogical answer because we can't know that nothing is true.

It's a nonsense question.

So logically the truth will both be a single truth as well as infinite eternal truth.

Nothing false can exist where there's only truth.

Truth by its own nature separates what is false from itself and we have no control over that fact, we can only accept it as true.

I hope you can begin to see how God can be viewed as truth itself.

I, and apparently everyone else, have no idea what you're talking about.

Statements that are true correspond to reality. Statements that are not true do not correspond to reality. That's all that "truth" is. Redefining words to fit your worldview are helpful when talking to other people.

 

[ScottA]

Every religionist says that. You can't all be right.

Only one is true.

The idea that there is a "God" that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every objective measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? I have tried, but I cannot fathom that.

Why do you look down to see what is up?

I would like a testable, falsifiable scientific explanation, if you have it. Got anything?

Use your imagination...or your brain. Would you expect to find a tasty meal in the garbage, or peace in the midst of chaos, or the right anything in the wrong location? There are no answers of the type you would like, where you are looking...and when we point you in the right direction...you criticize.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good point

For the record, I think I agree with what you were trying to get across in that first statement I replied to. Science isn't a method for certainty.

It was just funny the way you said it.

 

[ScottA]

And that is simply false.

Seeing is how one comes to know that things are not what they initially appear to be. It was only through seeing that we know just how much of the volume of an atom isn't protons, neutrons, and electrons, which isn't obvious from some perspectives. It is only because of seeing that we are even aware of the issue.

Scientists are working on answering questions such as what time and matter are, and they are doing that through observations. They haven't just thrown their hands up in the air and declared that seeing won't accomplish anything. Science just doesn't take the epistemologically skeptical position that you would like, nor does it support your conclusion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Even at this point in the study of time and matter, it is understood (just as I said) that they are not what they appear: Time is an illusion, and matter is rather energy.

But all of that is extremely elementary to the topics discussed here, and referring back to those elementary principles is taking steps backward, when the answers are forward of our current position. Your approach is being retarded by your own inability to press on. Nobody is suggesting you throw your hands in the air and be foolish, but rather to take the next step...rather than taking steps backward.

What are you afraid of? Heaven forbid, there be monsters.

 

[ScottA]

No evidence around me supports the idea of cosmic beings that care about what we do while naked.



No, no...

At least 1 is wrong. And actually, there are a LOT of religions.
So, more accurately: at most 1 is correct, since all these religions are mutually exclusive.

And since they all make the same kind of claims, and since all of them depend on "testimony" and "dreams" and "visions" and NONE of them have actual proper supporting evidence... Most likely all are wrong.

Sounds like you have made your choice.

 

[Davian]

Only one is true.

No, you are not that far along. You could all be wrong.

Why do you look down to see what is up?

What has that do do with what I said?

Use your imagination...or your brain.

Which one are you using?

Would you expect to find a tasty meal in the garbage, or peace in the midst of chaos, or the right anything in the wrong location? There are no answers of the type you would like,

I do not believe what I "like" to believe. I do not presume that reality cares what we think.

where you are looking...and when we

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

point you in the right direction

..your particular interpretation of the bible...

...you criticize.

Do you consider your particular beliefs beyond reproach? Are you infallible?

 

[ScottA]

How do we determine which?

Seek, and ye shall find.

 

[ScottA]

No, you are not that far along. You could all be wring.

What has that do do with what I said?

Which one are you using?

I do not believe what I "like" to believe. I do not presume that reality cares what we think.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

..your particular interpretation of the bible...

Do you consider your particular beliefs beyond reproach? Are you infallible?

1. Wring = Wrong.
2. You are looking to the natural world (down) and expecting to use natural tools to answer a spiritual (up) question.
3. Neither. But you seem intent on the elementary senses, and yet you are not even being logical and looking in the wrong place.
4. "Like" was your word. You would "like" things on your own terms...or something like that. But your terms, do not allow for you to advance your position.
5. "We" are those who are One with God.
6. "Interpretation" is inaccurate, it's the wrong term for what you are proposing. "Conveyance" would be most correct. "We" convey the truth as it is given to us.
7. "Beliefs" is also wrong. The correct term would be "know." Yes, what I know, is beyond reproach. I, on the other hand, am not perfect in my humanity, but I am in my spirit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nobody is suggesting you throw your hands in the air and be foolish, but rather to take the next step....

I've heard multiple theories about the nature of time. The idea that it's "just an illusion" is certainly amongst those theories...but I don't think it's the forerunner...or even in the top 3. Would you have anything that backs that statement up? Or are you still sitting with the empty-claim crowd at that concert you keep talking about?

Also, positing an answer to anything without any evidence....and then dismissing all other possibilities....is basically a definitive example of "throwing your hands in the air and being foolish".

 

[Ana the Ist]

7. "Beliefs" is also wrong. The correct term would be "know." Yes, what I know, is beyond reproach. I, on the other hand, am not perfect in my humanity, but I am in my spirit.

You should stick with beliefs. When you claim to have knowledge (when you claim to "know") people tend to want you to explain what it is you know.

Since you're unable to do that...it appears as if you don't actually know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are no answers of the type you would like, where you are looking...and when we point you in the right direction...you criticize.

You haven't given any answers of any type. Again, if you claim to "know" something...but you cannot explain it...why would anyone believe you? What kind of "knowledge" cannot be explained? I'll tell you...

It would be useless knowledge. You cannot use it, because you cannot explain it to yourself. If you could, there's no reason you couldn't explain it to anyone else.

One can only conclude the reason you don't share this esoteric knowledge is that it doesn't really exist.