The origins of atheism

[Ana the Ist]

The question (if I can remember back that far) is the ability to demo the existence of God.

The answer is yes but no. Yes, I got my answer, I was taken outside the universe/world and shown. But No, I cannot demo it for you...as I am not God. However, except for the criteria we have been talking about, it is not exclusive information. You can receive it as well (providing you meet the criteria).

I gotta ask...you were taken "outside the universe"? What's that like?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm confident he'll soon realize the untenable nature of such a position.

Maybe?

I doubt it.

 

[Davian]

Freodin has claimed he has knowledge of non-existence. (to add "something" here like "deities" is nonsensical because something can't non-exist. Something must exist in order to be considered something.)

Not at all. Something must only be described or defined in order for its existence to be considered. Playing with semantics won't poof your deity into existence.

Now, if we interchange the term "non-existence" with the term "nothing", which you agreed are interchangeable, then what we have is Freodin claiming he has knowledge of nothing. I'm certain Freodin did not intentionally make this claim, but when he decided to contradict atheism this is inevitably where it leads.

Only when you misrepresent his position.

If Freodin would have stayed true to the meaning of his atheism then we could have avoided this. The meaning of atheism to the acknowledgement that one does not know if God exists or does not exist, it makes no claims about the truth of God existing or not existing.

But as an individual he can take a position on a particular god, as presented to him here in these forums. That does not affect how atheism is defined.

Simple.

And wrong.

Speaking of taking a position on a particular god, you skipped over this post, directed at you.

 

[Chriliman]

Not at all. Something must only be described or defined in order for its existence to be considered. Playing with semantics won't poof your deity into existence.

So you've considered the existence of a God that's described as eternal and infinite and have determined which of the following:

A: You don't know if it exists

B: You don't know if it does not exist

C: You know it exists

D: You know it does not exist

E: Both A and B (you simply don't know either way)

F: Some nonsensical answer fabricated from your irrational brain

Only when you misrepresent his position.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I'm simply making things clear.

But as an individual he can take a position on a particular god, as presented to him here in these forums. That does not affect how atheism is defined.

It seems only an atheist can define atheism how they want it defined.

 

[Chriliman]

So what's your point?

My point is. Do you acknowledge that you make no truth claims about the existence of God? IOW, can you admit that you simply do not know if God exists or not?

Or

Is atheism actually a truth claim in disguise? Meaning, atheists actually believe God does not exist, but fail to recognize that this belief is actually irrational because to accept the truth that God does not exist, would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and we all know this proof does not exist because God is believed to be eternal and infinite and humans are finite, therefore, can't possibly disprove(or prove) God.

Just pointing out the inconsistencies of atheism for all to objectively consider.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My point is. Do you acknowledge that you make no truth claims about the existence of God? IOW, can you admit that you simply do not know if God exists or not?

Or

Is atheism actually a truth claim in disguise? Meaning, atheists actually believe God does not exist, but fail to recognize that this belief is actually irrational because to accept the truth that God does not exist, would mean you were presented with proof that proved God does not exist and we all know this proof does not exist because God is believed to be eternal and infinite and humans are finite, therefore, can't possibly disprove(or prove) God.

Just pointing out the inconsistencies of atheism for all to objectively consider.

I don't believe god exists.

The lack of evidence for the existence of a god is a good reason to believe god doesn't exist.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't believe god exists.

So you admit that your belief is irrational because to accept the nonexistence of God as true would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist. Were you presented with this evidence? Yes or No?

The lack of evidence for the existence of a god is a good reason to believe god doesn't exist.

Does the lack of evidence in a murder case prove that a murder did not occur? Or does it mean the truth can't be known unless the murderer admits to it? Think reasonably here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you admit that your belief is irrational because to accept the nonexistence of God as true would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist. Were you presented with this evidence? Yes or No?



Does the lack of evidence in a murder case prove that a murder did not occur? Or does it mean the truth can't be known unless the murderer admits to it? Think reasonably here.

No...my belief isn't irrational. I gave you a good reason to not believe god exists.

A lack of evidence of murder would not prove that a murder did not occur...but it would be a great reason to believe a murder didn't occur.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you admit that your belief is irrational because to accept the nonexistence of God as true would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist. Were you presented with this evidence? Yes or No?



Does the lack of evidence in a murder case prove that a murder did not occur? Or does it mean the truth can't be known unless the murderer admits to it? Think reasonably here.

If you were at the scene of someone's death...and you decided that it wasn't a murder....what would lead you to that conclusion?

Would it be a lack of evidence for murder?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

So you admit that your belief is irrational because to accept the nonexistence of God as true would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist. Were you presented with this evidence? Yes or No?

It is not irrational. The lack of evidence is a good reason not to believe a God exists. The positive claim is "God exists" I do not believe this claim. The one making the positive claim owns the burden of proof. If the burden of proof cannot be met, to me it is irrational to believe the claim is true.

Does the lack of evidence in a murder case prove that a murder did not occur? Or does it mean the truth can't be known unless the murderer admits to it? Think reasonably here.

If you were on a jury, would you convict a defendant of murder if there was no evidence?
If there is no evidence the defendant committed murder, what reason do you have to believe they did? Surely you don't come to the conclusion "There is no way of knowing...guilty"

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is not irrational. The lack of evidence is a good reason not to believe a God exists. The positive claim is "God exists" I do not believe this claim. The one making the positive claim owns the burden of proof. If the burden of proof cannot be met, to me it is irrational to believe the claim is true.



If you were on a jury, would you convict a defendant of murder if there was no evidence?
If there is no evidence the defendant committed murder, what reason do you have to believe they did? Surely you don't come to the conclusion "There is no way of knowing...guilty"

What's more is that without any evidence...there wouldn't even be a trial.

To plug that into the analogy, we shouldn't even be debating the existence of god without any evidence of him first.

 

[AV1611VET]

To plug that into the analogy, we shouldn't even be debating the existence of god without any evidence of him first.

You mean like churches, time divided into BC/AD, organizations, literature (including the Bible), iconography, songs, hymns, holidays, bumper stickers, slogans, decals, testimonies, and martyrs?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

You mean like churches, time divided into BC/AD, organizations, literature (including the Bible), iconography, songs, hymns, holidays, bumper stickers, slogans, decals, testimonies, and martyrs?

Why do you think this argument is evidence for the existence of God? It's a logical fallacy.

1. Churches- There are places of worship for God's you don't believe.
2. BC/AD-- Well the days of the week, months of the year, planets are named after Greek, Norse and Roman Gods.
3. Organizations- Minnesota Atheists is an organization.
4. Literature- Greek Mythology and many different holy books.
5. Songs/Hymns- Not all music is Christian music
6. Holidays- Christmas and Easter are originally pagan holidays, this is a fact.
7. Bumper Stickers, Slogans, etc- Many different bumper stickers...this is an absurd claim for evidence
8. Testimonies- Personal testimony is unreliable.
9. Martyrs- People have died for many different causes and faith.

Stop using this argument, it's nonsense and not evidence for anything.

 

[Davian]

So you've considered the existence of a God that's described as eternal and infinite and have determined which of the following:

A: You don't know if it exists

B: You don't know if it does not exist

C: You know it exists

D: You know it does not exist

E: Both A and B (you simply don't know either way)

F: Some nonsensical answer fabricated from your irrational brain

Are the personal insults really necessary?

With only "eternal and infinite" to go on, it would not appear that your god is of any significance.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I'm simply making things clear.

Not where you have misrepresented the positions of others.

It seems only an atheist can define atheism how they want it defined.

Words are defined by how we use them. Attempts to redefine atheism does nothing to establish the veracity of your religious claims.

Speaking of taking a position on a gods, you skipped over this post, directed at you. Are you so unsure of your theology?

 

[Davian]

My point is. Do you acknowledge that you make no truth claims about the existence of God? IOW, can you admit that you simply do not know if God exists or not?

Or

Is atheism actually a truth claim in disguise? Meaning, atheists actually believe God does not exist, but fail to recognize that this belief is actually irrational because to accept the truth that God does not exist, would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and we all know this proof does not exist because God is believed to be eternal and infinite and humans are finite, therefore, can't possibly disprove(or prove) God.

Just pointing out the inconsistencies of atheism for all to objectively consider.

Being unconvinced of religious claims in general and believing that a particular god is only a character in a book are not mutually exclusive positions. Your false dichotomy fails.

 

[Davian]

So you admit that your belief is irrational because to accept the nonexistence of God as true would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist. Were you presented with this evidence? Yes or No?

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt. Have I mentioned this recently?

Does the lack of evidence in a murder case prove that a murder did not occur? Or does it mean the truth can't be known unless the murderer admits to it? Think reasonably here.

In court of law, they only establish guilt, not innocence. Your analogy fails.

 

[Davian]

You mean like churches, time divided into BC/AD, organizations, literature (including the Bible), iconography, songs, hymns, holidays, bumper stickers, slogans, decals, testimonies, and martyrs?

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of religions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You mean like churches, time divided into BC/AD, organizations, literature (including the Bible), iconography, songs, hymns, holidays, bumper stickers, slogans, decals, testimonies, and martyrs?

Those would be evidences of religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think this argument is evidence for the existence of God?

Because it's evidence for the existence of God.

If there wasn't any evidence, everybody would be atheists.

It's a logical fallacy.

1. Churches- There are places of worship for God's you don't believe.
2. BC/AD-- Well the days of the week, months of the year, planets are named after Greek, Norse and Roman Gods.
3. Organizations- Minnesota Atheists is an organization.
4. Literature- Greek Mythology and many different holy books.
5. Songs/Hymns- Not all music is Christian music
6. Holidays- Christmas and Easter are originally pagan holidays, this is a fact.
7. Bumper Stickers, Slogans, etc- Many different bumper stickers...this is an absurd claim for evidence
8. Testimonies- Personal testimony is unreliable.
9. Martyrs- People have died for many different causes and faith.

Stop using this argument, it's nonsense and not evidence for anything.

Then you stop using your money.

After all, there are counterfeits out there.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of religions.

IN GOD WE TRUST!