The origins of atheism

[muichimotsu]

If you re-read my post, you will note that I separated religious faith from general faith, so my example was not ludicrous. And I mentioned how many, many experiences develop a different kind of faith than the initial "stepping out into the unknown."
Your problem is that you can never accept as verifiable any personal testimony. If you had walked through my life with me and seen (yes with your senses) all that I have seen, you would admit that much is verifiable. But you don't know me and thus will not trust my testimony. When I tell the truth about my father's miraculous cure from cancer, you won't believe it because you don't want to. The cancer was metasticized into his bones, it was everywhere and the doctors gave him not long to live. His family, friends, and church members all prayed for him, and then he stood up in church one Sunday and (by faith) announced his own healing. He then went to his scheduled medical exam at the cancer hospital in Texas a month later and the doctors could not find any cancer. It was gone. These are verifiable events ... but only one of thousands, some very small and frequent, others big and "blow you away" type events.
But no, I cannot verify my experiences to YOU. You would not want to hear it anyway because you have already made up your mind. My faith will remain wishful thinking to you because you are not ready to take that step, to make that level of commitment.

Personal testimony is not absolutely precluded from verification, but it cannot merely be a sentimental experience or the like that would constitute something that is debatable as to whether it reflects reality.

Cancer going into remission is not a miracle, it's something that can still be studied scientifically and doesn't mean it's gone forever, it just means it's gone for a while until it potentially comes back.

I don't need to make that commitment, because that's an impractical avenue to begin with. If I want to make a commitment, it ought to be to something that has demonstrable import, not just something to make me feel good about myself and how special I am.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I can only tell you what I know, and of my experience.

As for what I got: I've got the kind of proof that is available to anyone who wants to get it from God (and not from another person). That proof can be in many forms, but it can only pass from God to a person, not from person to person.

Well let's hear it! No need to beat around the bush.

 

[Davian]

Atheism exists because human beings hate "submitting" to anything or anyone more powerful than themselves.

Can you read minds?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

We all want to be our own little gods.

Be careful of projecting your thoughts onto others.

If I tell you how you think, and I am wrong, am I still wrong?

Theologians say that this is a result of "original sin"-- or an inherited tendency that goes back to the original humans who rebelled against God.

The real question is why billions actually DO believe. This is a much more complex and controversial issue. Was it God who caused the belief or was it totally a human choice or was it learned from others? Or some combination of these?

Or it may be just how our brains have evolved to work. No actual gods required. Religions - particularly the more successful ones - are tailored to take advantage of this.

"...we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

I have always been a logical, practical guy. Even if God had not revealed Himself to me beyond any doubt (which He did), I would tend toward belief in the triune God of the Bible and therefore follow Jesus. Why? Two reasons: 1) Because of the obvious superior morality of Jesus’ teachings, and 2), because of the logic inherent in Pascal’s hypothetical “wager.” Here is the way I put Pascal’s classic argument:

Given that death is coming to us all, what would be the advantages or disadvantages of believing in God ... if it turned out that there actually was no God? The consequences for believers and nonbelievers would be equal. No advantage either way. Everyone would be equally dead. No winners.

But what would be the advantages (or disadvantages) of believing (or disbelieving) in God if it turned out that there actually WAS a God, and there actually was a heaven and hell as the Bible teaches? In that case, there would be a huge difference in consequences for believers vs. unbelievers. Heaven vs. hell! Eternally! One cannot imagine a more weighty outcome. In this situation, you can’t really lose by believing. But you might lose BIG if you refuse to believe.

Belief is not a conscious choice. Does your theology hold me accountable for things beyond my control?

As a practical, logical, self-protective guy, I think I would at least try to believe, even without clear proof either way.

What do you mean, "either way"? Are you asking for someone to prove a negative? Is that not intellectually bankrupt?

It seems to me that when it comes to ultimate concerns, atheists are just not very smart.

Do you always insult those that disagree with you?

Those with more intelligence might risk a little humility and ask the God they do not believe in to give them that saving faith. Who knows, God may just do that.

Do you send letters to Santa? Why not? Do you not want free stuff?

P.S. - Even while living in this world, believers have some advantages over nonbelievers. The scientific research consistently shows that (on average) people of Christian faith are less fearful,

Religion as a comfort blanket? How sad.

more satisfied with life,

"Reality can take a hike!"

and more humanitarian than nonbelievers.

The religious organizations bring in billions of dollars that are just not accessible by secular means.

General Motors has an outreach program, but they are still on the hook to produce cars. Religion gets a pass on that. Why is that?

The results of my own doctoral dissertation research (published in the International Journal of the Psychology of Religion) revealed much less anxiety and depression in spiritually-oriented Christians than in others. (Of course there are exceptions. I have known some miserable Christians and some relatively happy atheists.)

The placebo effect is already well documented.

 

[Davian]

That would be fine if you were just looking for opinion, and if the topic were within the physical world...but that is not the circumstances.

Right. We are talking about your opinions here.

What is not appropriate for these circumstances, is to expect that the higher component (God or His people) should bow to the lower component (you),

Nicely veiled insult there. Do you find that insults lend weight to your assertions?

in the access of [His] greater knowledge.

...your interpretation of the Bible.

If you when before a king or a president, would you expect that?

Official kings and presidents have defined, recognized authority. You are just a guy on an internet forum.

Never. But here you do expect it...and you get nowhere. Strange.

Not really.

 

[Davian]

.
.
.
.
.
<-------- Answers.

Not answers.

 

[ecco]

BTW, I have no desire to start a thread on why some people have faith. I am content with the answer found in the scriptures.

Then why did you write "The real question is why billions actually DO believe." followed by about 300 words answering your own question?

 

[Davian]

I'd imagine that's how a genius feels. I'm not saying I'm a genius, but I do have access to one that's infinite and eternal and He has all the answers.

Cool. Do any of these answers rise above your own imagination? Could you ask for and receive a cure for the common cold? A unified theory of gravity? Who will win at the the next Academy awards?

 

[Davian]

You are mistaking the "sharing" of knowledge as making "claims." Claiming would mean we/I have some intent to claim your confidence in the information...and that is not the case. In "sharing" you have a choice.

You also continue to assume that higher knowledge can be explained in lower circles. That is a mistake. The only way that high knowledge can be explained in lower circles, is IF the lower is willing to leave the lower circle. But you cling to the lower circle of worldly knowledge...and get nowhere. You limit yourself.

So you claim.

 

[Davian]

I have it on the utmost Authority. It is written.

It is your interpretation of the Bible.

As I have said, while there may be no perceived evidence in your little worldly circle, there is plenty of evidence outside of it.

What is this evidence that you allude to? Anything that might demonstrate we are not just talking about charters on books? No?

When you come to know the truth...that is exactly what you do...you dismiss all other possibilities. Obviously, you are not there yet, and you remain defiant, against your own ability to advance.

Are you infallible?

 

[Davian]

No, not exactly. Depending on the circumstances, I would be prepared to yield. But at the same time, I too would have to account for their possible overriding human input, and the possibility they haven't got a clue. I suspect that part of the human exchange of knowledge is consistent with us all. The difference is, SOME of us actually know there is REALLY a Source of ultimate truth among the other claims.

As for a third party looking on, the fulfillment of would be claims (fulfilled prophecy) is one way. The other is to not remain a bystander, and do your own research. Which many here have done, but to no avail, because they look to other peoples info, which is just a loop back to the pool of would be claims. No, the correct research would be direct from the Source. Ask, or even challenge. But in doing so, there is a common mistake that is made: You need to enter into it with the understanding of the circumstances. You need to have patience. For example: If you rang the doorbell on a little house and waited 2 minutes for someone to come to the door, you might expect that if someone were home, that is plenty of time for them to come to the door. But if it were a bigger house, you should expect to wait longer. Well, the time it takes a person to get across a big or little house is not the problem, in this case. The delay...is you. God is timeless. All matters of time are limited to us. So, if you ask God for an answer, you will be waiting until YOU are ready...not Him. Be patient.

Do you send letters to Santa?

 

[Davian]

I can only tell you what I know, and of my experience.

As for what I got: I've got the kind of proof that is available to anyone who wants to get it from God (and not from another person). That proof can be in many forms, but it can only pass from God to a person, not from person to person.

Not really proof then.

 

[David Colin Gould]

So unless you can prove that ANYTHING can exist without a creator, your only option would be to believe that the Creator exists because His universe exists.

I think that I have more than one option.

1.) God did not have a creator. Thus, things can exist without creators. Thus, I can reasonably conclude that the universe exists without a creator.
2.) God did have a creator. But did this God Creator have a creator?

And so on.

 

[ecco]

ecco

I daresay that most atheists do not hate, and have no problem, submitting to the secular laws of the land. Laws that have been developed over centuries of civilization. Laws that are far superior to the laws given in the bible:

• Edicts that permit people to own and beat slaves.
• Edicts that encourage raping young virgins after killing their mothers and young brothers.
• Edicts that encourage

Need I go on?

Interesting you used the pronoun "We". You are not an atheist, so when you say 'We all want to be our own little gods', you must be referring to theists like yourself.
In actuality, it is theists, especially conservative theists, that often point to their god to show their supposed superiority as if some of god has rubbed off on them.

Ah, "original sin". You are referring to Adam and Eve disobeying god's edict about the Tree of Knowledge. What theologians cannot reconcile is that an omniscient god knew A&E would partake of the apple long before He ever created them. He intentionally set them up to fail so that he would have a good reason later to brutally drown almost every living thing on earth.
​

The Eden story is about all of us. Consider it a metaphor if you will. God set them up with a choice. They could have forever chosen to trust God's word about the danger and thus never disobeyed. But they chose otherwise and yes, God was totally prepared to deal with it and ultimately fix it .... all the way to the Cross and beyond. God does no evil, but He can handle it when humans do it; He has a perfect plan. But not all will be on board with His plan. Some are His children and some are not.

Well, you addressed one of my three points, I guess that's something.

You say god fixed it. Most human beings know it is better to prevent a problem than to have a problem arise and then try to fix it. But god not only let it happen, he caused it happen. And then came up with a "fix". Make all women suffer and put them under the thumb of their husbands:

"To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you,'"​

But that fix didn't work either (he knew it wouldn't). So a few short years later he "fixed it" again by killing almost every one and every thing.

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spiritof life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.​

All the children, all the infants, all the unborn.

That's real good preparation. That's not evil. That's a perfect plan.


​

 

[AV1611VET]

ecco

I daresay that most atheists do not hate, and have no problem, submitting to the secular laws of the land. Laws that have been developed over centuries of civilization. Laws that are far superior to the laws given in the bible:

• Edicts that permit people to own and beat slaves.
• Edicts that encourage raping young virgins after killing their mothers and young brothers.
• Edicts that encourage

Need I go on?

Interesting you used the pronoun "We". You are not an atheist, so when you say 'We all want to be our own little gods', you must be referring to theists like yourself.
In actuality, it is theists, especially conservative theists, that often point to their god to show their supposed superiority as if some of god has rubbed off on them.

Ah, "original sin". You are referring to Adam and Eve disobeying god's edict about the Tree of Knowledge. What theologians cannot reconcile is that an omniscient god knew A&E would partake of the apple long before He ever created them. He intentionally set them up to fail so that he would have a good reason later to brutally drown almost every living thing on earth.
​

Well, you addressed one of my three points, I guess that's something.

You say god fixed it. Most human beings know it is better to prevent a problem than to have a problem arise and then try to fix it. But god not only let it happen, he caused it happen. And then came up with a "fix". Make all women suffer and put them under the thumb of their husbands:

"To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you,'"​

But that fix didn't work either (he knew it wouldn't). So a few short years later he "fixed it" again by killing almost every one and every thing.

21 And all flesh died that moved on the earth: birds and cattle and beasts and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, and every man. 22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spiritof life, all that was on the dry land, died. 23 So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing and bird of the air. They were destroyed from the earth.​

All the children, all the infants, all the unborn.

That's real good preparation. That's not evil. That's a perfect plan.

​

Do you sincerely believe all of this?

If so, why are you an atheist?

If not, okay with you if we don't believe all of it either?

 

[SteveB28]

Steve,
You are correct in that you don't have to prove anything to anyone else. But as a "scientific experiment" you owe it to yourself to DISPROVE that anything can create itself.

No, I owe nothing. Because I am not making a claim!

Let's take a very simple example. If you take a stack of paper on which you have written an account, place it on your desk, and want to see it in the form of a book, can you just speak to the stack to make itself into a proper book with a cover and a binding? Try it and and nothing will happen. This will DISPROVE that anything can create itself. At the same time it will prove that unless there was a Creator this Creation which you see all around you could not have come into existence. Q.E.D.

That's the worst abuse of inductive reasoning that I've seen in quite a while.

 

[ecco]

Hitchslap

"Free will" is an illusion.
I read Sam Harris' book "Free Will," and now I'm more confused as ever on the subject.
"The illusion of free will is itself an illusion."
I've spoken nothing of abdicating personal responsibility, but rather our choices are neurological reactions formed before we're even aware of them. Much work has been done using fMRI technology, and Sam Harris' book, "Free Will" are his thoughts on the subject. It's an interesting read.​

I guess it depends on precisely what he means by 'free will' in this context. I tend towards the compatibilist view, but that's because I find the dualist libertarian view to be incoherent.

There is a sense in which - ironically - even if the universe was completely deterministic, we would have no choice but to act as if we have free will.

An acquaintance tried to get me interested in Sam Harris' concepts by way of a PBS video. They presented a segment designed to show that "our choices are neurological reactions formed before we're even aware of them". The idea behind that is (according to them):

• Only the conscious mind can make decisions (free will)
• Neurological reactions are not of the conscious mind (not representative of free will)
• Neurological reactions are formed before the concious mind's reactions

Therefore there is no free will.

They also tried to make an argument based on "if the universe was completely deterministic" then it would prove we didn't have free will. The operative word being IF. My acquaintance argued that since it was a philosophical argument one had to allow for an IF condition. My response was BS is BS.

 

[ecco]

Do you sincerely believe all of this?

Yes.

If so, why are you an atheist?

Try reading what I posted.

 

[Job8]

That's the worst abuse of inductive reasoning that I've seen in quite a while.

Because you did not actually try that experiment. You many not admit it but you are fearful that a simple experiment could blow your philosophy to smithereens. You have only two options:

1. I HAVE PROVED THAT THINGS CREATE THEMSELVES -- NO CREATOR NECESSARY.

2. I HAVE DISPROVED THAT THINGS CREATE THEMSELVES -- CREATOR NECESSARY.

 

[David Colin Gould]

Because you did not actually try that experiment. You many not admit it but you are fearful that a simple experiment could blow your philosophy to smithereens. You have only two options:

1. I HAVE PROVED THAT THINGS CREATE THEMSELVES -- NO CREATOR NECESSARY.

2. I HAVE DISPROVED THAT THINGS CREATE THEMSELVES -- CREATOR NECESSARY.

Did God create himself?

 

[AirPo]

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

One unsupported assertion does not support another unsupported assertion.