The origins of atheism

[Colter]

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

I was referring to hiding the Bible under the rock instead of having the courage to face that it was written largely by men, preserving superstition and error.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was referring to hiding the Bible under the rock instead of having the courage to face that it was written largely by men, preserving superstition and error.

Anonymous and pseudonymous men, I might add.

 

[Colter]

I've never actually seen you write out one of these "doctrines of doubt". I've seen you bring them up a lot...but never seen you write one out.

Can you write out one of these so-called "doctrines of doubt" so that we all know what you're talking about?

Anytime you propose a godless ideal as a belief system then you are articulating the doctrines of doubt. But I do know Lucifer's manifesto.

 

[HitchSlap]

Anytime you propose a godless ideal as a belief system then you are articulating the doctrines of doubt. But I do know Lucifer's manifesto.

Doubt about what, exactly?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

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.

If a claim is unfalsifiable, is that claim weak or strong?

 

[Colter]

Doubt about what, exactly?

Denying your creator and his creation.

 

[HitchSlap]

Denying your creator and his creation.

But I have no doubt about that.

 

[Colter]

But I have no doubt about that.

Then it's devotion to godless ideals.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then it's devotion to godless ideals.

How would I know what a godless ideal is or isn't?

 

[quatona]

Then it's devotion to godless ideals.

:chuckle:

 

[Chriliman]

Did you know that the followers of Christ have an average IQ 5 points lower than atheists?

lol, what a cheap shot.

Anyway, I am not saying that, I am saying that people were not concerned with the existence of a god before we were a civilization.

Or is that God has always been concerned for us and we only kill each other because many of us don't know Him. Besides ever since humans could think, they wondered why and how they got to be on this earth. The natural thought for early humans was that something put them here. Is it any wonder that many humans today claim to know that God created us? You would think that if God were not true, modern science would have definitively figured that out by now and clearly demonstrated it to everyone.

And people like me would not be able to give sound reasons for their belief in God and even be able to show how an atheist's claims lead to irrational beliefs. Hmm...someone's not being honest here and I'm pointing to the atheists. If all atheists would claim to be agnostic and not make any truth claims about God until they either know for sure He exists or they know for sure he doesn't exist, then I wouldn't have an issue with them.

I don't care if an agnostic claims to not know if God exists, that's fine with me. Eventually, he will know God exists. He will never know God does not exist because one would have to be God in order to know this.

 

[Colter]

How would I know what a godless ideal is or isn't?

......like, what makes a flourless cake flourless?

 

[Chriliman]

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

I did see your post #2539 and I answered it, but you never answered this question:

You don't accept that God is eternal and infinite or you don't accept that this eternal infinite God exists?

 

[Freodin]

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.

As you clearly didn't understand the inevitable fact of an irrational state, you cannot have made a rational decision about believing it it. Plainly spoken: the way you understand irrationality is not rational.

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.

The "fact" that it is irrational to believe in something that is irrational simply isn't a fact. It is a false conclusion that you made. You just have to be aware where the irrationality applies... and where it doesn't.

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!?

Backing up your claim by adding another claim is... irrational. So why do you believe it would work? And logically: an asymptotical aquiration of understanding would never reach an infinite goal. You still have the same problem as without heaven. Further: this is rather irrelevant, considering that not even you thing that we are in heaven. You cannot use a potential and unverifiable understanding in the future to back up your claims right now.
And finally: a complete understanding of an infinite existence would require a state of infinite existence. That would mean, you would have to be God.

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.

Now that is irrational! You do nothing but repeating that to believe in something irrational is irrational. And in order to show that, you just repeat your claim.

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!

You haven't shown that my belief in primal chaos is irrational, other than repeatedly claiming that it is. I expect you to SHOW IT, especially after you repeatedly claimed that you did.

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

It is based on a rational conclusion. Contrary to what you offer: claims, I have presented my reasoning.

This actually proves the primal chaos can't possibly be considered rational if it's eternally and infinitely irrational.

No, that is nonsense. At the start of the quoted post, you said:"I understand the concept of irrationality is not irrational in of itself." Primal Chaos as a state of irrationality is just that: the expression of the concept of irrationality.
So first you said that this concept is not irrational... now you say that "it can't possibly be considered rational". Are you proposing a state of neither rationality nor irrationality... or are you simply contradicting yourself?

Primal chaos is only rational if it's finite(has a beginning). Light bulbs!?

More nonsense. A "beginning" is completely irrelevant here... it would imply a temporal expression which isn't part of the concept. And you show that you still didn't get the difference between the idea / concept of something and this something in itself. A (working, relevant) example: the concept of numerical infinity is limited... numerical infinity is not.

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.

But I can! You have already admitted that you accept the concept of irrationality. Rationality cannot be used to explain irrationality, because irrationality can contradict rationality. Thus rationality is limited... hence not infinite.

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

Only because you still don't understand it. If it exist "outside of the limits of rationality", it is by definition irrational.
If you think that there is "nothing" outside of the limits of rationality, you have contradicted your previous claim: "there can never be "nothing" or "non-existence" (from your post #2564)

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

Because it's true!

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.

You cannot prove that a rational eternal infinite God exist. Therefore, a irrational eternal infinite state is possible to exist.

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.

Your constant and repeated claims that an eternal infinite God is rational are just that... claims. You keep chasing your tail by stating that it is possible, therefore it is rational to believe in it, and it is rational to believe in it because it is possible.

What you miss here - just don't want to admit - even if I cannot "prove" a state of existence beyond what we humans perceive to be rational... you cannot show that it is not possible or rational. Thus your claims of "my view is better than yours" is just empty rhetoric... I am on the same level as you are.

 

[HitchSlap]

I did see your post #2539 and I answered it, but you never answered this question:

You don't accept that God is eternal and infinite or you don't accept that this eternal infinite God exists?

Your question is a false dichotomy.

See post #2539

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

It wouldn't seem like he has much need for a god then...

Who would if they can create reality from mere belief?

 

[Chriliman]

If a claim is unfalsifiable, is that claim weak or strong?

Truth is unfalsifiable.

In this case my claim can be confirmed by what is understood to be true. If God were to explode out of the sky tomorrow then it would confirm my claims to be true. Although you'd probably explain it away as a natural phenomena.

If God gives you personal evidence of his existence tomorrow them my claims would be confirmed to be true to you personally.

If you were to die and realize God is real, then my claims would be confirmed to you personally.

So my claims are reasonable in that they're backed by sound reason and what I'm claiming is possible. And many people confirm my claims to be true, even though that's meaningless to you.

 

[Freodin]

Truth is unfalsifiable.

In this case my claim can be confirmed by what is understood to be true. If God were to explode out of the sky tomorrow then it would confirm my claims to be true.

But... he doesn't. So it doesn't confirm your claims to be true.

If God gives you personal evidence of his existence tomorrow them my claims would be confirmed to be true to you personally.

But... he doesn't. So it doesn't confirm your claims to be true.

If you were to die and realize God is real, then my claims would be confirmed to you personally.

But... he doesn't. So it doesn't confirm your claims to be true.

So my claims are reasonable in that they're backed by sound reason and what I'm claiming is possible. And many people confirm my claims to be true, even though that's meaningless to you.

So, your claims are reasonable, because IF they were confirmed, they would be confirmed.

And many people confirm your claims to be true... only the one person who you cited three times in this post as a potential confirmation for your claims... this person doesn't.

Sound reason, indeed!

 

[HitchSlap]

See post #2539

Truth is unfalsifiable.

In this case my claim can be confirmed by what is understood to be true. If God were to explode out of the sky tomorrow then it would confirm my claims to be true. Although you'd probably explain it away as a natural phenomena.

If God gives you personal evidence of his existence tomorrow them my claims would be confirmed to be true to you personally.

If you were to die and realize God is real, then my claims would be confirmed to you personally.

So my claims are reasonable in that they're backed by sound reason and what I'm claiming is possible. And many people confirm my claims to be true, even though that's meaningless to you.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

In this case my claim can be confirmed by what is understood to be true.

Confirmed how?

If God were to explode out of the sky tomorrow then it would confirm my claims to be true. Although you'd probably explain it away as a natural phenomena.

This sounds like a way God should confirm existence. Surely an omnipotent God has a way to confirm his or her's existence in a verifiable and undeniable way. Instead this alleged God seems to need to work through other people, which an omniscient being would know is not an acceptable way of confirming existence to some people. If the claims are true and this God is all powerful, then why does this God need people to defend him? Surely he can defend himself right? So why doesn't he do it? Either he can't or doesn't care to.

If God gives you personal evidence of his existence tomorrow them my claims would be confirmed to be true to you personally.

I'd have to ask myself and you should ask yourself this too "What is more likely? That the laws of nature have been suspended in my favor and in a way that I approve or have I made a mistake?"

There are people who believe in God's that you don't that claim a personal experience to confirm their beliefs. Which one of you has it right? You can't both me right.....you both could be wrong though.

If you were to die and realize God is real, then my claims would be confirmed to you personally.

First question i'd ask is "Which one are you?"

So my claims are reasonable in that they're backed by sound reason and what I'm claiming is possible.

It's possible that there is a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in my back yard. Is it reasonable for me to believe it exists? Would it be rational for me to dig in my back yard every day looking for it? This diamond gives my life so much meaning and I don't want to live in a world where there isn't a diamond buried in my back yard. Am I being reasonable because it's possible or am I delusional?

And many people confirm my claims to be true, even though that's meaningless to you.

Argument ad populous logical fallacy.