The origins of atheism

[quatona]

It verifies a lot more reality than you're willing to admit to.

As long as you have to invent concepts like "embedded age" to avoid at least the worst clashes between the bible and reality, I remain unimpressed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Depends if we can remain rational in our conversation. How many people do you see claiming that an eternal and infinite super leprechaun exists, other than yourself? Should I be inclined to believe this super leprechaun exists just because you've made it up?

Or should I be more inclined to believe an eternal and infinite God exists because millions of people claim to have personal evidence of this God?

lol @ the blatant argumentum ad populum.

Which is more rational to believe based on the presented evidence?

the fallacy argumentum ad populum is not "evidence". it's a fallacy.

If you don't view millions of testimonies as evidence then you're clearly being irrational

No, it's quite rational to not be impressed by a logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Sure millions of testimonies doesn't mean its true

Exactly.

, but it at least means it's worth looking into as objectively as possible

Now if only there was something to objectively look into... But there isn't.

. If you have preconceived notions about God, then you can't be objective when discussing God.

Everybody has preconceived notions about god. Ask 1000 theists for defining their god and you'll get 1000 different answers.

Go ahead: define your god in a testable and falsifiable manner.
If you can't, then there is nothing to "objectively" look into.

Then all you are left with is that fallacious argument ad populum.

 

[quatona]

That is right Scott. I have asked numerous atheists to tell me how life began and to date, zilch, zero, nothing. In other words they don't know.

Yep. And this lends credence to your non-explanatory ideas exactly how?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"I haven't heard any claim to know."" You are not a very good atheist. First atheists reckon they know everything so why don't you know? You are a typical atheist though. I haven't heard so it can't have been said. One example is John MacArthur. Now you go and do your homework or you will fail the course.

John MacArthur the preacher?

He's the only one I found...couldn't find a John MacArthur the atheist. So, do I still need to answer your question? If he's the wrong John MacArthur...will you link the right one?

Try to drop the attitude too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let me give you a hypothetical:

If it came to the attention of GM that Chevrolet was acting like they were the actual parent company and that GM was just a figment of certain stockholders imagination...how would you advise them to deal with it, to set them straight?

The problem wit this analogy is that GM demonstrably exists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is right Scott. I have asked numerous atheists to tell me how life began and to date, zilch, zero, nothing. In other words they don't know.

It's called honesty.

 

[Colter]

That is right Scott. I have asked numerous atheists to tell me how life began and to date, zilch, zero, nothing. In other words they don't know.

Atheist concede that they don't know the answer to many questions, but they are sure the origins and destiny if the universe have nothing to do with a God. For now they have to settle for Atheist faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."

 

[David Colin Gould]

And here is me thinking that atheists didn't get into the realm of fantasy. As one who considers himself to be logical, I would have expected a more logical example rather than a fantasy picked out of the sky.

Miracles are not logical, by definition.

Okay. Here's another one that is often claimed as miraculous by those of a religious persuasion:

Someone is diagnosed with incurable cancer.
They (or others) pray to [insert name here] to heal them.
At some later time, it is determined that they no longer have the cancer.

The problem here is that many different religious people of many different religions discuss the same kinds of miracles. What conclusion can we draw from that?

Some possible conclusions are:
1.) there are many different deities, each of which sometimes cures cancer for some unknown reason;
2.) there is one deity, but that deity is willing to answer the prayers of those who do not pray to them for some unknown reason;
3.) there are no deities, and sometimes cancer goes into remission and, given that a lot of people believe in deities, many times there are people involved who prayed.

Now, I think option 3 is the most reasonable conclusion to draw from these three options. You may have another option that is more reasonable.

 

[David Colin Gould]

Atheist concede that they don't know the answer to many questions, but they are sure the origins and destiny if the universe have nothing to do with a God. For now they have to settle for Atheist faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."

I for one am not sure, although the origins and destiny of the universe obviously had/have nothing to with logically contradictory deities. The simple fact is that I do not know the origins or destiny of the universe. Still an atheist, because I do not believe in a deity.

 

[David Colin Gould]

Yes. I believe he spends a lot of time on here with his atheist friends.

Yes I was because you claimed you know everything but evidence would suggest otherwise.

Umm, there was a monster sarcasm rally, dude. You must have missed it.

 

[quatona]

Atheist concede that they don't know the answer to many questions, but they are sure the origins and destiny if the universe have nothing to do with a God.

Inaccurate.

For now they have to settle for Atheist faith. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for."

And what, pray tell, is thing that my "atheist faith" has me hope for?

 

[Colter]

Inaccurate.

And what, pray tell, is thing that my "atheist faith" has me hope for?

Validation of your hoped for Godless universe in justification of your dedication to the work of undermining peoples faith in God.

 

[Chriliman]

lol @ the blatant argumentum ad populum.



the fallacy argumentum ad populum is not "evidence". it's a fallacy.



No, it's quite rational to not be impressed by a logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.



Exactly.



Now if only there was something to objectively look into... But there isn't.



Everybody has preconceived notions about god. Ask 1000 theists for defining their god and you'll get 1000 different answers.

Go ahead: define your god in a testable and falsifiable manner.
If you can't, then there is nothing to "objectively" look into.

Then all you are left with is that fallacious argument ad populum.

Ask Christians to define God and you'll get consistent answers like God is love, goodness, truth, peace, grace, righteousness and the highest authority. But you don't except this because we can't prove it and you can't prove us wrong.

We can't both be right.

Besides even if we all did have our own inconsistent definitions of God, would that have any affect on the reality of God existing?

 

[quatona]

Validation of your hoped for Godless universe in justification of your dedication to the work of undermining peoples faith in God.

Nice combination of poor attempts at mind reading and insinuation of inferiour motives.
Not worth a serious discussion.

 

[Colter]

Nice combination of poor attempts at mind reading and insinuation of inferiour motives.
Not worth a serious discussion.

Or, is it possible that you just do a poor job of making yourself clear as to what your motives are? Do you even know what your motives are? Perhaps a professional antagonist hired by CF to test everyone? Sometimes the devils advocate really is the devils advocate.

 

[quatona]

Or, is it possible that you just do a poor job of making yourself clear as to what your motives are?

We have been there, Coulter. Long time ago. You remained dedicated to the results of your psychic powers, no matter what I told you.

Do you even know what your motives are?

I do know for sure that they are not what you have been rambling about ("validation of hope for a Godless universe" and "undermining people´s faith").

Perhaps a professional antagonist hired by CF to test everyone?

I think that there´s no need to tell other people what their motives are as part of a discussion, to begin with. You disqualify yourself that way.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Depends if we can remain rational in our conversation. How many people do you see claiming that an eternal and infinite super leprechaun exists, other than yourself? Should I be inclined to believe this super leprechaun exists just because you've made it up?

Or should I be more inclined to believe an eternal and infinite God exists because millions of people claim to have personal evidence of this God?

Which is more rational to believe based on the presented evidence?

If you don't view millions of testimonies as evidence then you're clearly being irrational. Sure millions of testimonies doesn't mean its true, but it at least means it's worth looking into as objectively as possible. If you have preconceived notions about God, then you can't be objective when discussing God.

I'll take your lack of reply that you cannot disprove the super leprechaun via logic.

 

[Chriliman]

I'll take your lack of reply that you cannot disprove the super leprechaun via logic.

I don't see a need to disprove something that's irrational to begin with.

When you come up with something that makes more sense than God then we'll talk.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't see a need to disprove something that's irrational to begin with.

Like God.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

The existence of religion across all cultures is proof of faith, of the existence of faith.

So? What's your point?