The origins of atheism

[Chriliman]

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?

Asserting that my statements do not make sense and explaining why they don't make sense are two completely different things. Try thinking about what I'm saying and then explain to me why you think it doesn't make sense. Or better yet, read what Freodin is saying and explain why it does make sense and is rational.

 

[HitchSlap]

Asserting that my statements do not make sense and explaining why they don't make sense are two completely different things. Try thinking about what I'm saying and then explain to me why you think it doesn't make sense. Or better yet, read what Freodin is saying and explain why it does make sense and is rational.

That's just it, we have thought about what you've stated, and your syllogisms are incoherent and based on false premises.

Several of us have attempted explain this to you, but you continue to deny and ignore this.

You completely ignored my post #2539. Why?

 

[Chriliman]

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."

I thought you said primal chaos is irrational, therefore, impossible to make sense of it? Again, get your story straight if you want me to consider you as a rational person.

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!

Accepting something irrational should never be considered rational. This would be like me saying to you "Since you think my God is irrational, you should accept Him as rational". Can you see the outright idiocy of that statement?

The difference is that you're admitting primal chaos is irrational and your admitting to accept it as rational. Mind boggling!

I'm claiming God is rational and I can show you why. You're claiming God is not rational because somehow you know a rational God does not exist, but you have no reason/evidence to back this assertion. This is a problem.

 

[Chriliman]

That's just it, we have thought about what you've stated, and your syllogisms are incoherent and based on false premises.

Several of us have attempted explain this to you, but you continue to deny and ignore this.

You completely ignored my post #2539. Why?

Explain how my syllogisms are incoherent? How do you determine what a false premise is?

 

[Chriliman]

Atheism: I don't accept your claim of god/s.

My claim is that God is eternal and infinite. So you don't accept that God is eternal and infinite or you don't accept that this eternal infinite God exists?

Agnosticism: I don't have knowledge that god/s exist.

The intellectually honest position.

I hope this is clear enough for you to understand. I hope you will discontinue your fallacious arguments (strawman / false dichotomy).

Only clear when you give a clear answer to my inquiries above.

 

[Freodin]

I thought you said primal chaos is irrational, therefore, impossible to make sense of it? Again, get your story straight if you want me to consider you as a rational person.

The irrationality of Primal Chaos makes perfect rational sense. You just have to understand the principle behind irrationality.

And in the same way that you wouldn't claim to understand / make sense every single little detail of God, I won't claim that you can do that with Primal Chaos. But you can make sense of the whole.

Accepting something irrational should never be considered rational.

That is not a rational explanation. That is only another claim. It should never... It isn't... Well, as you claim to be so rational... show it!

This would be like me saying to you "Since you think my God is irrational, you should accept Him as rational". Can you see the outright idiocy of that statement?

Yes, I can see the outright idiocy of that statement. But, as so often here... this is YOUR statement. It is not what I say, would say, or anything "that would be like me saying".
The irrationality of Primal Chaos, contrary to what your "like me saying" claims, does not provide a reason for you to accept it. What I would be saying is rather: "The irrationality of your God is no reason for you to not accept it as a rational concept."

Note the difference: I do not claim that A is the cause of B. You do. I don't. Claiming that one is "like" the other is indeed outright idiocy. So why do you, as a rational person, do it?

See... here I provided a rational explanation for my assertion. Now do the same!

The difference is that you're admitting primal chaos is irrational and your admitting to accept it as rational. Mind boggling!

The concept of irrationality is not in itself irrational.

I'm claiming God is rational and I can show you why. You're claiming God is not rational because somehow you know a rational God does not exist, but you have no reason/evidence to back this assertion. This is a problem.

No, you cannot show us why. That is the whole problem. You make claims, and add the claim that this shows that these claims are rational. But that isn't how rationality works!

The reason / evidence that I can provide is based on rationality.
If "rationality" has any form of existence, it is limited. It is limited by the form of its own existence... it cannot be irrational itself.
So if something exists beyond the limits of rationality, it has to be irrational, by definition.
Such a potential irrational existence cannot have limits, as it's irrational state would negate these limitations.
On the other hand, if there isn't any state of existence beyond rationality, there would be no limitless, no infinite existence. Rational existence cannot be without limits.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I don't hold a view regarding how the universe came to exist. If this is what you meant all this time when you said "doctrines of doubt"...then none of it applies to me.

 

[HitchSlap]

My claim is that God is eternal and infinite. So you don't accept that God is eternal and infinite or you don't accept that this eternal infinite God exists?

I've yet to see evidence for your claims.

The intellectually honest position.

For both of us.

Only clear when you give a clear answer to my inquiries above.

Clear enough?

BTW, why did you ignore the null hypothesis?

 

[Chriliman]

I've yet to see evidence for your claims.

The evidence would be that I'm making the claim. Now explain why you don't accept the claims.

For both of us.

Not for you apparently or else you'd claim to be agnostic. Not necessarily for me either. I've honestly received evidence that God exists, why would I deny that I know God exists? Whether you believe me or not has no affect on the existence of God.

Clear enough?

BTW, why did you ignore the null hypothesis?

Because I don't base my reasoning on a hypothesis, I base my reasoning on what is true.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I've honestly received evidence that God exists, why would I deny that I know God exists? Whether you believe me or not has no affect on the existence of God.

Would you care to share this evidence?

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence would be that I'm making the claim. Now explain why you don't accept the claims.

Do you believe every claim made is evidence of the claim's existence?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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"

Atheists could say the same thing about believers. We could just as easily argue that believers should be saying "We don't know " as opposed to "we have concluded".

You might be thinking "We do know the answers though"...however, you should keep in mind that too many members of our crowd have come from the believer crowd for us to be fooled.

 

[Chriliman]

The irrationality of Primal Chaos makes perfect rational sense. You just have to understand the principle behind irrationality.

I understand the concept of irrationality is not irrational in of itself. But you are claiming primal chaos is irrational in of itself. The way I understand irrationality is to avoid believing things that are in themselves irrational, which you claim primal chaos is. So I've rationally decided to not believe in primal chaos, like you do.

I have, however, rationally decided to believe that your claim that primal chaos is irrational, is in fact a rational claim, but this doesn't change the fact that it's irrational to believe in something that is itself irrational. A rational claim is not necessarily irrational, but believing in something that is irrational, is an irrational belief. Which is why I'll never believe in primal chaos, like you do.

And in the same way that you wouldn't claim to understand / make sense every single little detail of God, I won't claim that you can do that with Primal Chaos. But you can make sense of the whole.

Logically it would take forever to understand every last detail of God's eternal goodness. This state of forever is what is called heaven.

Light bulbs!?

The concept of irrationality is not in itself irrational.

Agreed, but it's irrational to believe in something that is irrational. For example: You believe that primal chaos is true. This belief in something irrational is an irrational belief.

No, you cannot show us why. That is the whole problem. You make claims, and add the claim that this shows that these claims are rational. But that isn't how rationality works!

I've made claims and I've shown why my claims are rational and I've shown why your belief in primal chaos is irrational. What else do expect from me, other than a demonstration that I'm God? I'm not God! God is God, so ask Him to demonstrate Himself to you!

The reason / evidence that I can provide is based on rationality.

It may be based on a rational claim, but it leads to an irrational belief.

If "rationality" has any form of existence, it is limited. It is limited by the form of its own existence... it cannot be irrational itself.

This actually proves the primal chaos can't possibly be considered rational if it's eternally and infinitely irrational. Primal chaos is only rational if it's finite(has a beginning). Light bulbs!?

If something is eternally and infinitely rational, then it can be considered rational. And you can't prove that eternal infinite rationality does not exist.

So if something exists beyond the limits of rationality, it has to be irrational, by definition.

Your version of irrational eternal infinite primal chaos would exist outside the limits of rationality. Which is why it's irrational to believe in.

Such a potential irrational existence cannot have limits, as it's irrational state would negate these limitations.

Exactly, so why believe in something that's eternally and infinitely irrational? Like your version of primal chaos?

On the other hand, if there isn't any state of existence beyond rationality, there would be no limitless, no infinite existence.

Key word there is "if". You can't prove that there isn't a state of existence beyond what we humans perceive to be rationality. Therefore, a rational eternal infinite God is possible to exist.

Rational existence cannot be without limits.

So sayeth your finite mind that's confined to time and space. I'll continue believing what's rationally possible, like a rational eternal infinite God, rather than what your finite mind is telling me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The evidence would be that I'm making the claim. Now explain why you don't accept the claims.

I think he was asking for evidence of god's existence....not for evidence that you believe in god. I don't think anyone is doubting that you believe in god.

 

[Chriliman]

Do you believe every claim made is evidence of the claim's existence?

Yes. If a claim is made, I honestly consider it and figure out if it makes sense or not based on what is true. If it's inconsistent, then it can't be trusted.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes. If a claim is made, I honestly consider it and figure out if it makes sense or not based on what is true. If it's inconsistent, then it can't be trusted.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

 

[HitchSlap]

I think he was asking for evidence of god's existence....not for evidence that you believe in god. I don't think anyone is doubting that you believe in god.

That's his premise though; if he believes god is true, then god is true.

Unfortunatlely, to the consternation of reasonable people everywhere, he doesn't see why this is a faulty premise.

I wash my hands of this.

 

[Colter]

Atheists could say the same thing about believers. We could just as easily argue that believers should be saying "We don't know " as opposed to "we have concluded".

You might be thinking "We do know the answers though"...however, you should keep in mind that too many members of our crowd have come from the believer crowd for us to be fooled.

We do know the presence of God, we continue to get to know him better. Faith is the beginning of getting to know God.

I realize that Atheists have many in their ranks that were former believers. It's not surprising, Lucifer was a former believer, then he took himself too seriously and rebelled. A lot of former believers think their way right our of faith for various reasons. In nature not every member of the litter survives, not every acorn becomes a tree, not every child of God survives the trials of the first world. It really is entirely the choice of the individual.

 

[ScientArtist]

You said this:Of the 108,000,000,000 people purported to ever have lived, who discovered how to survive?

If someone has discovered how to survive, then why did you say atheism is [still] concerned with how to survive?

You are not understanding my line of thought. We have known how to survive since we were little amoebae making shells in the poisonous ocean. I mean how to survive day-to-day. And true atheism, not conscientious atheism, disbelief in a god with the knowledge of others' belief in a god, is the original state of the mind.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet another unreasoned assertion. At least Freodin as attempted to explain why he believe what he believes, even though it's turned out to only prove that is claims lead to irrational beliefs.

I suspect you know your claims would lead to the same place.

My "place" is one of sound logic and reason. Yours of metaphysical woo, baseless assertions and faulty syllogisms, as I've previous pointed out about a dozen times.

Adios muchacho.

Chrilli... see post #2539