The origins of atheism

[Archaeopteryx]

Of coarse not, but proofs aren't even enough. Jesus would perform some amazing act of healing and the "deniers" would propose that his power came from Satan not God. So even miracles were ineffective against the pigheaded.

So you concede that your original claim - that atheism is fallacious because we cannot disprove God - is wrong?

 

[Colter]

Couldn't an atheist play the exact same card on you?

Yes, they could, but when we speak about spiritual truth the appeal is to the heart, take it or leave it. We don't presuppose that living truth is a material fact that can be proven in the math lab.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, they could, but when we speak about spiritual truth the appeal is to the heart, take it or leave it. We don't presuppose that living truth is a material fact that can be proven in the math lab.

Would you accept this claim from an atheist? If not, why not?

 

[Colter]

So you concede that your original claim - that atheism is fallacious because we cannot disprove God - is wrong?

No, I pointed out that atheist approach the subject as if they can disprove God which you can't.

 

[Colter]

Would you accept this claim from an atheist? If not, why not?

I don't doubt the sincerity of Atheist, I do accept the doctrines of doubt as an unproven faith in a Godless universe in the same way that my faith in God is unprovable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I pointed out that atheist approach the subject as if they can disprove God which you can't.

Yet when asked whether we should believe everything that cannot be definitively disproven, you said "of course not." So it follows that you were wrong to claim that atheism is inherently fallacious because atheists cannot definitively disprove the existence of God.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't doubt the sincerity of Atheist, I do accept the doctrines of doubt as an unproven faith in a Godless universe in the same way that my faith in God is unprovable.

So you wouldn't accept such an argument as sufficient when posed to you by an atheist? Great. So why should an atheist accept such an argument when posed to him by a theist?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To one who knows God faith is entirely logical. What rules do you use to claim that those who know God in their hearts do not know God? How do you claim to know that they do not Know?

Because plenty of people of plenty of different, mutually exclusive, religions make such claims and they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.

Coupling that with everything we know about psychology and psychiatry - from full blown hallucinations to the common and less impactfull "imaginary friends" - and the knowledge of how people are easily fooled, easily make mistakes, easily misinterpret things that happened to them, how easily humans see patterns where there are none, how narcistic they are, etc.....

It becomes almost impossible to take people's word for it when they make such claims.

When we have such a myriad of not only possible, but plausible, explanations about their "experiences" and "beliefs" that they can't demonstrate in any possible way.....

It's a LOT more rational to assume they are delusional / mistaken then to assume that the most implausible, most illogical and most unsupportable option of "god" is actually correct.

And even IF we would assume that it the god bit is indeed correct, we are still left wondering "which god?". Because as I've said, they can't ALL be right (but they CAN all be wrong).

How can we go about deciding if the claim of the muslim is correct as opposed to the claim of the christian, the jew, the hindu,...?

We can't. So even IF we would go with the least likely and the most implausible, we still have no way of differentiating between all those thousands of different claims. And we will be left with having to arbitrarily choose one of them.

None of that makes sense. None of that is rational.

Going with the most plausible explanation is what is rational.
And that explanation is that all those theistic claims are mistaken.

 

[AV1611VET]

Outside of biblical myths, where are the accounts of this purported 'slaughter of the innocents'?

Gone back to the periodic table?

As I thought, you have nothing.

No, you have nothing.

I'm not the one wondering about the validity of the account of the killing of the infants.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

You, however, seem to think there should be accounts laying around that somehow escaped the decaying forces of nature.

God preserved His account by superintending its reproduction.

Man didn't do the same with his, and now you want us to give you the information ex Biblica?

Don't blame us for this -- blame the others.

Ice cubes are stored in the refrigerator, not in the sink.

 

[Colter]

Because plenty of people of plenty of different, mutually exclusive, religions make such claims and they can't all be right. But they can all be wrong.

Coupling that with everything we know about psychology and psychiatry - from full blown hallucinations to the common and less impactfull "imaginary friends" - and the knowledge of how people are easily fooled, easily make mistakes, easily misinterpret things that happened to them, how easily humans see patterns where there are none, how narcistic they are, etc.....

It becomes almost impossible to take people's word for it when they make such claims.

When we have such a myriad of not only possible, but plausible, explanations about their "experiences" and "beliefs" that they can't demonstrate in any possible way.....

It's a LOT more rational to assume they are delusional / mistaken then to assume that the most implausible, most illogical and most unsupportable option of "god" is actually correct.

And even IF we would assume that it the god bit is indeed correct, we are still left wondering "which god?". Because as I've said, they can't ALL be right (but they CAN all be wrong).

How can we go about deciding if the claim of the muslim is correct as opposed to the claim of the christian, the jew, the hindu,...?

We can't. So even IF we would go with the least likely and the most implausible, we still have no way of differentiating between all those thousands of different claims. And we will be left with having to arbitrarily choose one of them.

None of that makes sense. None of that is rational.

Going with the most plausible explanation is what is irational.
And that explanation is that all those theistic claims are mistaken.

Because there is one Infinite God and many finite minds left to conceptualize God on our evolutionary world. The spirit of worship drives mankind in the quest of our creator. The multiplicity of imperfect concepts and religions around the idea of God or Gods does not prevent you from seeking Gid on your own, rather it's just an excuse for avoiding the question.

 

[Colter]

So you wouldn't accept such an argument as sufficient when posed to you by an atheist? Great. So why should an atheist accept such an argument when posed to him by a theist?

When engaged by the promotion of the Atheist faith I will respond.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Okay.

Herod killed lots and lots of kids.

Now what?

Do you think he should have mandated abortion or something two years earlier?

That way, he could have jusitfied his actions both scientifically and politically.

He should have let crazy people be crazy. You dont kill people

 

[Hikarifuru]

When engaged by the promotion of the Atheist faith I will respond.

No such thing

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Both scientist and the religious are confined to their respective realms. Yes, the religious don't have the right to go into science and shut them down based on beliefs about creationism.

Thats also because they cannot shut them down with creationist beliefs..

 

[TheQuietRiot]

When engaged by the promotion of the Atheist faith I will respond.

How long before some theists will learn?

Atheism is not a faith
Not a religion

The only thing atheists unanimously share is that we don't believe in god(s). Nothing more.

And of course a taste for BBQ baby ribs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Atheist are carful to ask questions that can't be answered.

Every once in awhile though, they will ask a question that is clearly answered from the Scriptures.

Then, when someone answers it, it just gets worse from there as they try to "save face" by taking the conversation down a rabbit hole.

By the time the conversation is over, no one knows what started it in the first place.

If you peruse the OPs around here, some of them are good, legitimate Bible questions.

But they quickly go sour after being answered.

This is why I don't think most questions asked are sincere questions.

They are just doors into hallways of ridicule by those who have some pent-up anger towards God and His word.

Consider this:

Joe & Suzie are living it up. Shacking up, going to bars, drinking, whatever.

Then Suzie gets saved and doesn't want to do that stuff anymore.

She wants to get married, she stops drinking, and she may even move out until Joe makes up his mind about her.

Joes says "sayonara" to her.

Then, realizing that Christianity is more than just a myth, but a "powerful force" than can tear a relationship apart -- comes here with a vengence.

I've seen it happen in real life.

And God help the next person that gives Joe a Chick tract.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because there is one Infinite God and many finite minds left to conceptualize God on our evolutionary world.

This is just another unsupported claim. You don't support unsupported claims with more unsupported claims.

The spirit of worship drives mankind in the quest of our creator. The multiplicity of imperfect concepts and religions around the idea of God or Gods does not prevent you from seeking Gid on your own, rather it's just an excuse for avoiding the question.

I see no reason to ask the question in the first place.

 

[Colter]

This is just another unsupported claim. You don't support unsupported claims with more unsupported claims.



I see no reason to ask the question in the first place.

What was your reason for becoming a dogma hunter?

 

[Colter]

No such thing

When claiming faith in Gid is a fallacy we assume you have proof of a Godless universe, but when asked all you can provide is your faith in a Godless universe. You leave us with no choice but to observe your cause as a faith not a fact.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When engaged by the promotion of the Atheist faith I will respond.

No faith is required to reject unsupported claims.