The origins of atheism

[KCfromNC]

Arrogant Atheists just claim the religious are imagining things.

You're the one saying that religious activities happen in the minds of believers.

 

[Davian]

Indeed, he might get evidence in the form of personal evidence that makes the reality of God evident to him personally. Should he disregard this personal evidence that is within him every minute of every day, that he cannot deny? How can he disregard such personal evidence?

There is no need for him to disregard it, unless he wishes to assert it as truth to someone else, and is unable to express his beliefs coherently, or correlate his "evidence" with observations of reality.

Take yourself, for example.

 

[Davian]

What are you looking for? I sure hope the answer is truth. Otherwise, why are you on a Christian forum? You know we claim to have the truth, right? So you must be here to find the truth.

To date, your "truth" has only amounted to religious opinion. No, that is not what I was looking for.

 

[Davian]

I expected the response from Damian

Who?

to be "a truth that you can't demonstrate" but he leaves out a key part which is "but apparently God is capable of demonstrating the truth" and to that I would say, exactly!

How would you differentiate this "demonstration of truth" from self-deception on the part of the believer?

 

[HitchSlap]

Not if you can't explain why it's incoherent.

You've just made a baseless assertion.

True, but avoiding the assumption that reality is not real is key to remaining rational in our reasoning. Believe reality is real and never assume it's not real. If you do this, then you can safely assume reality either has a purpose or has no purpose.

This: "avoiding the assumption that reality is not real," is incoherent. Not one person here has claimed "that reality is not real."

 

[Chriliman]

I consider the UB more up to date in terms of what has been revealed and the authoritative organization of facts. I never did believe the Bible was written by God.

I first rely on the Holy Spirit to discern truth, this is my direct connection to the Trinity. I will not deny that the Bible is God breathed and he has a purpose for each word written in the Bible.

As for the UB, I can't say it's God breathed. It may be a reflection of what God has already breathed, but only a reflection, not the truth itself.

I'll continue going to the source of the truth, which lives in me, in order to avoid being sidetracked.

I respect your beliefs, but in this case, I can't agree.

 

[HitchSlap]

I consider the UB more up to date in terms of what has been revealed and the authoritative organization of facts. I never did believe the Bible was written by God.

I really don't have a dog in this race, but choosing one fictitious book over another based on the fact that it ostensibly resembles reality is folly, IMO.

 

[Chriliman]

This: "avoiding the assumption that reality is not real," is incoherent. Not one person here has claimed "that reality is not real."

By assuming reality is real, you've opened the possibility that it's not real.

When we all become self aware, we make no assumptions about reality, instead we immediately accept that it's real, even if we can't comprehend the realness or put it into words. It's only later that someone decided to base their reasoning on the assumption that reality is real, when in reality our reasoning cannot be based on the assumption that reality is real.

We've already discussed this in a different thread. I don't feel like rehashing it.

 

[Chriliman]

Who?

How would you differentiate this "demonstration of truth" from self-deception on the part of the believer?

Sorry I'm on my phone, I didn't double check the name

The demonstration of truth goes to the core of your being, it's undeniable.

 

[HitchSlap]

By assuming reality is real, you've opened the possibility that it's not real.

Wrong.

I'll let you try to figure out why.

 

[Chriliman]

The burden would be on you to show they are rational assumptions. Not only do you fail in this area, you ignore the answers people give, that go against your personal assumptions, that meet your personal religious beliefs.

Apparently you've never observed Davian's stock responses to the things I say.

 

[bhsmte]

Apparently you've never observed Davian's stock responses to the things I say.

Another unfounded assumption on your part.

 

[Chriliman]

Wrong.

I'll let you try to figure out why.

I've already figured it out, thanks.

 

[Freodin]

The demonstration of truth goes to the core of your being, it's undeniable.

That would mean atheism has been demonstrated to be truth... it goes to the core of my being, it is undeniable.

But that contradicts your position. How is that possible?

 

[Chriliman]

All world views necessarily require certain assumptions about reality.

I'm interested to see if bhsmte will respond to this.

 

[Chriliman]

That would mean atheism has been demonstrated to be truth... it goes to the core of my being, it is undeniable.

But that contradicts your position. How is that possible?

For one, you're contradicting atheism by claiming it's true.

Atheism makes no claims about God, it acknowledges that God is not known to exist or not exist.

Oops, do I understand atheism better than you do?

 

[HitchSlap]

I've already figured it out, thanks.

Obviously, not. Or you wouldn't continue to incessantly repeat this nonsense.

 

[Freodin]

For one, you're contradicting atheism by claiming it's true.

Atheism makes no claims about God, it acknowledges that God is not known to exist or not exist.

Oops, do I understand atheism better than you do?

Ok, if you want to be anal about it, I'll rephrase: the knowlegde of the nonexistence of deities, including "God" has thus been demonstrated to my, by going to the core of by being, undeniably.

There, better? It uses the same argument that you use, and it contradicts your position. How is that possible?

 

[bhsmte]

All world views necessarily require certain assumptions about reality.

I don't disagree. The difference is, is how one goes about making assumptions and how they justify the assumptions.

 

[Chriliman]

Ok, if you want to be anal about it, I'll rephrase: the knowlegde of the nonexistence of deities, including "God" has thus been demonstrated to my, by going to the core of by being, undeniably.

There, better? It uses the same argument that you use, and it contradicts your position. How is that possible?

It's impossible to have knowledge of the nonexistence of anything including God. Try again.