The origins of atheism

[Archaeopteryx]

I read the humanist statement of belief a couple times, some of it applies to my approach to the world.

Then you would have noticed that it isn't defined by a "belief that there are no gods."

 

[Freodin]

Sounds like a good thing to add to a book figuring people would eventually not buy into it anymore. Just another way to control a congregation. Just as hope & fear are ways to control populations.

An even better explanation: this isn't really a prophecy about days to come, something far far in the future. That would be quite irrelevant for someone to write in a letter adressed to a fledgling community.

Rather, it is talking about actual problems. People right there and then were "falling away". They were asking "when is this return of Jesus going to happen that you promised?" They were talking revolt against the Roman government.

That's why all these things are in the text. Not because some divine guiding spirit knew it would happen some thousand years later.

 

[Colter]

Then you would have noticed that it isn't defined by a "belief that there are no gods."

As I said, if there is a God in the Humanist worldview, the humanist doctrine just ignores him. Humanist operate as if there is no God because basically humanist think it's not rational.

 

[Colter]

disbelieves does not mean believes. You can't get more basic than that.

And how life and the universe came into being has nothing to do with it.

You are here on the forum promoting unbelief. That is basic.

 

[bhsmte]

As I said, if there is a God in the Humanist worldview, the humanist doctrine just ignores him. Humanist operate as if there is no God because basically humanist think it's not rational.

A group of people, do not conclude that the Christian God is a rational conclusion, when trying to reconcile this God, with reality.

So, why is this a bad thing?

 

[Colter]

What "doctrines of doubt"?

The doctrine that the universe is self existent, not a creation of God. The Atheist belief in a godless universe and their promotion of godless ideals constitutes their doctrine of doubt.

 

[Colter]

A group of people, do not conclude that the Christian God is a rational conclusion, when trying to reconcile this God, with reality.

So, why is this a bad thing?

Because you don't have a monopoly on reality, the totality of reality. To say "we don't know" would be far more sincere than "we have concluded"

 

[bhsmte]

Because you don't have a monopoly on reality, the totality of reality. To say "we don't know" would be far more sincere than "we have concluded"

Most atheists don't say; there is no God, they say, they don't see any rational reason to believe a God exists.

Why is this such a threat to you, when others disagree with you? Does it somehow keep you from believing what you want to believe?

 

[AirPo]

You are here on the forum promoting unbelief. That is basic.

I'll take that as an agreement that it is not a belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only the ones who are still alive.

So someone who lived in the past came up how to survive?

How is it then that their discovery hasn't survived?

 

[bhsmte]

Its when you promote Atheism and mock faith here, but then play this innocent garbage.

If you can't handle pointed questions on how you justify your beliefs, maybe this isn't the right place for you.

People are allowed to reach their own conclusions and people here who disagree with you, explain why they have reached a different conclusion. It would appear, you don't believe anyone should ever ask difficult questions and you are threatened by those who disagree.

 

[Chriliman]

That must be the reason why you keep stating that I say something when I say the direct opposite: because you understand me just fine!


God cannot be made sense of. You - limited, not eternal, not infinite - cannot understand (that is what "make sense of" means) God... at least this is what you claim. If you could, you could demonstrate this understanding.

The only difference here is that you keep asserting that whatever you say is "rational"... even if it isn't... while I admit it when it isn't.


That said: the idea of Primal Chaos isn't irrational at all... Primal Chaos itself is. The concept of why it is - must be! - is completely rational.

God can be made sense of. He's eternally and infinitely all goodness and he created everything. There I just made sense of God, but this does not mean I am God and that I can demonstrate God in the same way God can demonstrate himself because I'm not eternal and infinite. I can demonstrate the love or reason or patience of God because he gives me these qualities.

If primal chaos is irrational and you accept it as true, then you accept something irrational as true. Is this a rational thing to do? No. It's really that simple.

God is rational because he can be made sense of and I accept God as true. How does this make me irrational?

 

[Freodin]

So you are finite, but primal chaos is eternal and infinite and you're claiming it did not cause you to exist meaning you can describe yourself as eternal and infinite, not having a cause?

That is... complete nonsense. How can you, who claim to be so rational, make up such a string of unrelated and inconclusive nonsense?

My bold. Apparently, even if I believe this nonsense of yours, it'll never be demonstrated to me from primal chaos itself. So why believe it?

Contrary to what you claimed - that you understand me perfectly - you constantly manage to misunderstand me: what you bolded is quite clear. Nothing that you can do will get you this demonstration. That does not mean that you can never get it. It only means that you didn't get it by your own actions.

That is what Christians claim, what you claimed, isn't it? That only God can demonstrate his existence.

There is literally no reason to believe what you're saying because you've just claimed that primal chaos does not care about what I want. So the only reason to believe it would be to deny an eternal infinite God that does care about what I want.

Oh, literally there is a reason: literally reason. The only reason why you don't believe it is because you want to have an eternal infinite God who cares about what you want.

Ah, you've used your own version of "rational thinking" to demonstrate something irrational to yourself.

You resort to twisting what I said. Is that the way you demonstrate your rationality?

Got it.

Keep lying to yourself. You do a great job showing how rational you are.

I've already pointed out this "rational" is based on the contradiction that atheism is making a truth claim. Is atheism making a truth claim now? I'm still confused.

Yes, you "pointed that out". And you got it wrong. Different atheists can make different "truth claims" about different positions. If that confuses you, it only shows that you are incapable of understanding others.

Simple. It. Doesn't. Make. Sense. All that makes sense here is that you're being irrational.

You. Are. Not. The. Arbiter. Of. Sense. Especially not if you keep making these same claims for yourself, and deny them when others make them.

You claim that the existence of God has been rationally demonstrated to you, but you cannot explain this demonstration to others. I claim that the Primal Chaos has been demonstrated to me, rationally, but I cannot explain this demonstration to others.

And I keep showing your mistakes, using your very own version of rational thinking.

And you have to think yourself to be infinite and eternal in order to make sense of this. If something infinite and eternal exists, then something finite was cause by that infinite eternal existence, there's no way around that.

I would, partially, agree with the second statement: phrased using my concepts: something finite is based on something infinite.
Why I should have to think myself to be infinite and eternal in order to make sense of this is beyond me. This is not based on anything I ever said, or any of my ideas. It is grown on your dungheap exclusively: so explain yourself.

Oh you mean, irrationalism?

No, I mean peaches. Do you think that this pre-school behaviour of yours is adding to your reputation?

Common misunderstanding about God is that he created everything out of nothing.

A common misunderstanding among Christians. If you want to lecture your brothers in Christ about the "true understanding", you can begin right here: AV1611VET is one of those who likes to talk about this creation from nothing.

In actually if you really think about an eternal infinite God then you'd realize everything was created from Himself. He has no beginning and no end, so everything with a beginning came from that eternal infinite source, not "nothing". With this understanding you realize there can never be "nothing" or "non-existence", which would makes sense because we finite humans can never know "nothing" or "non-existence".

Ah, you start to understand. This "nothing" that you are talking about here is this common-understanding I was talking about earlier. And you are correct: with the right understanding, you realize that there can never be "nothing" of this kind, or "non-existence".
And this not-existing non-existence is the Primal Chaos. But it doesn't "create". It just is. And we - our world, our universe, our material and ideal existence, are a rational "subgroup" of this irrational existence.

Look at it as if these were numbers (might be a little confusing, because the terms here mean something different than in logic): irrational (and rational) numbers exist, as a subgroup of real numbers. Real numbers are the 'base' of irrational / rational numbers... but real numbers do not "create" these.

Not if you understand God correctly, as I explained above.

But if you understand Primal Chaos correctly, as I explained above.

So you don't believe God exists and you also don't believe God does not exist, this means you don't know. Glad we cleared that up. Just wish we didn't have to go through all of this to get to the truth that you don't know if God exists or not.

Identity, dear Chriliman, identity. I know that one version of God does not exist. I believe that a slightly different version of God does not exist. For all your claims to understand me perfectly... at least try to keep up..

 

[bhsmte]

God can be made sense of. He's eternally and infinitely all goodness and he created everything. There I just made sense of God, but this does not mean I am God and that I can demonstrate God in the same way God can demonstrate himself because I'm not eternal and infinite. I can demonstrate the love or reason or patience of God because he gives me these qualities.

If primal chaos is irrational and you accept it as true, then you accept something irrational as true. Is this a rational thing to do? No. It's really that simple.

God is rational because he can be made sense of and I accept God as true. How does this make me irrational?

I would quit while you are behind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, maybe you and the church are guilty of hiding your talents under a rock, waiting for the return of the Master whence you will say "here it is master, we made no changes, we accused science of witchcraft, we made sure no progress was made. Here wit sit with a 1st century brain.

You make a good point, but I'm going to disagree.

Born-again scientists have given us:

• Antiseptic Surgery
• Bacteriology
• Calculus
• Celestial Mechanics
• Chemistry
• Comparative Anatomy
• Computer Science
• Dimensional Analysis
• Dynamics
• Electrodynamics
• Electromagnetics
• Electronics
• Energetics
• Entomology of Living Insects
• Field Theory
• Fluid Mechanics
• Galactic Astronomy
• Gas Dynamics
• Genetics
• Glacial Geology
• Gynecology
• Hydraulics
• Hydrography
• Hydrostatics
• Ichthyology
• Isotopic Chemistry
• Model Analysis
• Natural History
• Non-Euclidean Geometry
• Oceanography
• Optical Mineralogy
• Paleontology
• Pathology
• Physical Astronomy
• Reversible Thermodynamics
• Statistical Thermodynamics
• Stratigraphy
• Systematic Biology
• Thermodynamics
• Thermokinetics
• Vertebrate Paleontology

As well as:

• Absolute Temperature Scale
• Actuarial Tables
• Barometer
• Biogenesis Law
• Calculating Machine
• Chloroform
• Classification System
• Double Stars
• Electric Generator
• Electric Motor
• Ephemeris Tables
• Fermentation Control
• Galvanometer
• Global Star Catalog
• Inert Gases
• Kaleidoscope
• Law of Gravity
• Mine Safety Lamp
• Pasteurization
• Reflecting Telescope
• Scientific Method
• Self-Induction
• Telegraph
• Thermionic Valve
• Trans-Atlantic Cable
• Vaccination and Immunization

 

[Ana the Ist]

The simple truth about atheists is that if their intellectually honest then they will admit they don't know if God exists or does not exist.

Any objection from an atheist to this simple truth means they are either claiming it's true that God does not exist(which without evidence is an irrational claim) or they're claiming God does exist (which without evidence is an irrational claim as well).

This leaves an atheist rationally admitting they don't know either way.

When an atheist receives personal evidence of God they can then rationally claim to know God exists and cease to be an atheist.

However, when a person who received personal evidence of God is presented with evidence that proves God does not exist, they would be irrational to continue to claim God exists. But, this proof that God does not exist has not been presented, therefore, a person who has received personal evidence of God is rational to continue claiming to know God exists.

This really makes the atheists mad because there's no amount of human thought/talk that can change this simple truth.

So unless God Himself comes out and says He does not exist, I will continue to know that He exists because He has given me personal evidence of His existence. And my reasoning is sound to back up my claims.

Pretty much every atheist I know admits they don't know whether a god exists or not. This fact doesn't make any of them mad either. I don't know where you're getting all this...

Now, when it comes to specific gods (gods defined by a set of characteristics) one can logically examine if it's possible a god (with that set of characteristics) exists. If they can logically show that such characteristics are impossible...then they can logically conclude that such a god doesn't exist. For example...

Do you remember on another thread where you claimed that god is "perfect"? I then went about showing you that a perfect god cannot logically exist. Therefore, it's entirely logical for me to conclude that a "perfect god " does not exist.

I'd also agree that it's rational for someone who has experienced god to believe he exists. Personal experience is horribly unreliable. Two people can have the exact same experience...yet end up with two different conclusions. People will add things to their experience without actually experiencing them. People will forget experiences which contradict their beliefs. Personal experience is a poor poor method for determining the truth.


Pretty much every atheist I know admits they don't know whether a god exists or not. This fact doesn't make any of them mad either. I don't know where you're getting all this...

Now, when it comes to specific gods (gods defined by a set of characteristics) one can logically examine if it's possible a god (with that set of characteristics) exists. If they can logically show that such characteristics are impossible...then they can logically conclude that such a god doesn't exist. For example...

Do you remember on another thread where you claimed that god is "p

 

[Freodin]

God can be made sense of. He's eternally and infinitely all goodness and he created everything.

To paraphrase a poster well-known to both of us: That. Simply. Doesn't. Make. Sense.
It is just a list of claims. I can do that as well.

"Primal Chaos can be made sense of. It is eternal and infinite. It is all that there is."

There I just made sense of God, but this does not mean I am God and that I can demonstrate God in the same way God can demonstrate himself because I'm not eternal and infinite. I can demonstrate the love or reason or patience of God because he gives me these qualities.

Given your constant habit of directly misrepresenting what I did said, or impose your own thoughts on my words (this "Ah, so you mean..."), I don't think the "reason" you show here is of a very divine standard. Considering this rather annoying habit, and the instances where you tried to slight me by comparing my worldview to satan worship, your demonstration of "love" is also a little lacking. Patience I might grant... you are still here... but you have have to admit that I show the same patience, and I don't claim to get it from God.

If primal chaos is irrational and you accept it as true, then you accept something irrational as true. Is this a rational thing to do? No. It's really that simple.

When accepting something irrational is the only possible rational conclusion, it is by definition rational. You can keep claiming that it is in itself irrational... but you still doesn't have shown it rationally. It's really that simple: if you want to show that something is irrational... SHOW IT!

God is rational because he can be made sense of and I accept God as true. How does this make me irrational?

The idea of God is rational, because it can be based on rational conclusions. God himself isn't. (Or, if he is, he isn't the base of all being.)
In the same way, the idea of Primal Chaos is rational... Primal Chaos itself isn't.

 

[Chriliman]

I would quit while you are behind.

Assertions is all I expect from you. Never offering explanation behind your assertions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed if you have been following me yet don't know what I believe.

I know you believe in the UB.

 

[bhsmte]

Assertions is all I expect from you. Never offering explanation behind your assertions.

Have you noticed how many people have reached the same conclusions about your statements; they make no sense what so ever?

Or, is this something, you must ignore, because it is too painful to contemplate, they may be right?