The origins of atheism

[Ana the Ist]

go right ahead

I'm not going to go into the dictionary definition...that's something clearly available to you and it hasn't helped much so far.

During an argument, one person creates a strawman when he cannot argue against the point his opponent has made. Instead, he creates a point that his opponent hasn't made...and then he argues against that. Let's look at an example where you and I are arguing about evolution and you create a strawman...

Me: Evolution is true!
You: Evolution is Satan's lie!
Me: I can show you literally hundreds of pieces of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines supporting the theory of evolution!
You: You just want to reduce mankind to a bunch of animals so you can engage in premarital sex guilt-free! (Strawman)


In this purely hypothetical example, your second statement is a strawman. It has nothing to do with any of the points I made (I made two points, that evolution is true and there's lots of evidence for it) and instead of addressing the points I made...it's an attempt to attack the perceived motives I have for defending evolution. It is a strawman created for the purpose of attacking.

Now let's look at the teapot analogy that you thought was a strawman. Keep in mind, I'll just be paraphrasing here...

You: God exists and no one has ever proven otherwise!
Atheist: That's silly. The burden of proof for god's existence is on you to demonstrate...not the other way around.
You: You're just saying that since you can't handle the truth! If you could prove god doesn't exist...you would!
Atheist: Imagine that I claimed a teapot was floating out in space somewhere between the earth and the sun...would it be true if you couldn't prove it wasn't true? (Burden of proof analogy, aka Russel's teapot)
You: Strawman!
Atheist: *facepalm*


Do you see the difference between the two examples now? In the first example, you're attacking a position I don't actually hold. That's a strawman. In the second example, the atheist just wants you to consider the analogy so you can better understand the concept of "burden of proof". That's an analogy...not a strawman.

I know the term strawman gets used incorrectly a lot, so don't feel bad about this. The important thing is that now you understand the difference and can use the term correctly.

No need to thank me...virtue is it's own reward.

 

[As I was saying]

@As I was saying, the data for Drouin is available on the ABS website. It shows that 25.6% of people in Drouin fall into the "No religion" category.

It may interest you to know that, according to the World Values Survey, the proportion of Australians who consider religion "Not at all important" has risen.

Religion is totally unimportant to me. What I major on is my faith in God. I don't need religion for that as it is a one to one relationship which I can enjoy anywhere, anytime and without interruption.

The scriptures say to pray without ceasing. That is me. I am talking to God all the time and he is talking to me all the time. If I want to know anything I just ask God and he gives me the answer. That way I don't have to ask myself "shall I do this" or "shall I do that" or shall I do the other." And you know what, when I do what he tells me to do, bingo, the desired outcome happens.

That is the trouble with atheists. They have this strange notion that religion is where God is at. That could not be further from the truth. God did away with religion at the cross. When Jesus rose from the dead, the curtain that separated the holy of holies which only the high priest was allowed to go into once a year by tearing it from top to bottom which was an indication that God was now available to everyone.

No man could tear it because it was very heavy and thickly woven almost like a door and if man tore it he would do it from bottom to top which didn't happen. It was top to bottom.

See what a difference it makes when you know what you are talking about. it stops you looking an idiot when you proof text which usually mean you take things totally out of context and use a verse to support your pet peeves.

 

[AV1611VET]

Semantics aside, if there are two different religions claiming that the universe started out with their particular god, those truth claims cancel out for me.

How convenient.

Especially since you "know" that Christianity consists of some 38,000 different sects, you're pretty safe in your cocoon of "seeker," aren't you?

 

[As I was saying]

I'm not going to go into the dictionary definition...that's something clearly available to you and it hasn't helped much so far.

During an argument, one person creates a strawman when he cannot argue against the point his opponent has made. Instead, he creates a point that his opponent hasn't made...and then he argues against that. Let's look at an example where you and I are arguing about evolution and you create a strawman...

Me: Evolution is true!
You: Evolution is Satan's lie!
Me: I can show you literally hundreds of pieces of evidence from multiple scientific disciplines supporting the theory of evolution!
You: You just want to reduce mankind to a bunch of animals so you can engage in premarital sex guilt-free! (Strawman)


In this purely hypothetical example, your second statement is a strawman. It has nothing to do with any of the points I made (I made two points, that evolution is true and there's lots of evidence for it) and instead of addressing the points I made...it's an attempt to attack the perceived motives I have for defending evolution. It is a strawman created for the purpose of attacking.

Now let's look at the teapot analogy that you thought was a strawman. Keep in mind, I'll just be paraphrasing here...

You: God exists and no one has ever proven otherwise!
Atheist: That's silly. The burden of proof for god's existence is on you to demonstrate...not the other way around.
You: You're just saying that since you can't handle the truth! If you could prove god doesn't exist...you would!
Atheist: Imagine that I claimed a teapot was floating out in space somewhere between the earth and the sun...would it be true if you couldn't prove it wasn't true? (Burden of proof analogy, aka Russel's teapot)
You: Strawman!
Atheist: *facepalm*


Do you see the difference between the two examples now? In the first example, you're attacking a position I don't actually hold. That's a strawman. In the second example, the atheist just wants you to consider the analogy so you can better understand the concept of "burden of proof". That's an analogy...not a strawman.

I know the term strawman gets used incorrectly a lot, so don't feel bad about this. The important thing is that now you understand the difference and can use the term correctly.

No need to thank me...virtue is it's own reward.

Sorry to disappoint you but creating an argument that the other person hasn't made is known as framing the issue. I was taught that at university.

 

[As I was saying]

Certain soft atheists, perhaps, at least from your perspective. I don't see how a person could be a hard atheist, by definition, if he or she were ignorant of the concept of deities.

That is a new one. "Soft atheists." I guess that will go into your little red book of answers to questions you can't answer.

 

[Cearbhall]

Groan! Not the teapot again. If you only knew how silly you sound bringing that up ad infinitum. You have no idea what is the weakest and strongest part of my faith so stop trying to make out you know everything because you don't. In comparison to God you know very little.

That's perfectly fine, but why should we agree with you? Would you give the time of day to whatever sort of claim I might make?

 

[AV1611VET]

My guess would be that later they realized they imagined all those "benefits".

That's some imagination.

What do you think of those who think we should be imagining them as well; else we're homeschooled?

(Note: I'm using "homeschooled" as a collective perjorative term for all the insults and ridicule thrown our way.)

 

[Cearbhall]

That's some imagination.

Not really. Just basic psychology. Believing that something is true can be a benefit in and of itself.

 

[As I was saying]

How convenient.

Especially since you "know" that Christianity consists of some 38,000 different sects, you're pretty safe in your cocoon of "seeker," aren't you?

And he hasn't yet worked out that one could be right and one could be wrong so they don't cancel each other out.

 

[Colter]

I see someone already beat me to this question...

Are you even able to give specific examples of "godless ideals" or "doctrines of doubt"? Or are these just made up phrases for knowledge that you claim exists...but really doesn't (that's becoming a pattern on this thread)?

You just said a few pages ago that atheists on here get upset when you confront us about our "doctrines of doubt"...but no one knows what you're referring to and, increasingly, it looks like you don't know what you're referring to either.

Any philosophy of life which excludes God.

I understand what you think they are (although according to what you've said here...they should be called doctrines of belief) but I can't think of any examples because I don't have any "godless ideals".

Can you give a specific example of a "doctrine of doubt"? Lacking that, could you give a specific example of a "godless ideal"?

It would be best if you could give multiple specific examples, but I'll settle for one of each at this point.

Any philosophy of life which excludes God can be said to contain Godless idealism.

 

[Cearbhall]

That is a new one. "Soft atheists."

Erm, no it's not. Perhaps you should look up the terms I used if you aren't familiar with them. I suppose I made the mistake of assuming that since you're passing judgment on atheists, you must be fairly educated on the subject.

I guess that will go into your little red book of answers to questions you can't answer.

Are you actually asking me for a passive aggressive LMGTFY link?

 

[AV1611VET]

And he hasn't yet worked out that one could be right and one could be wrong so they don;t cancel each other out.

Every single one of them believe IN THE BEGINNING, GOD.

But guess what?

It means nothing to them.

But let two people disagree on something and look out.

The whole "religion" is flawed!

 

[Chriliman]

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...

I agree. An atheist should always admit they don't know whether God exists or not. This honesty is crucial to their rational thinking skills.

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.

Every time I use the term "God", I'm referring to a being that is eternally and infinitely all goodness. By all goodness, I'm including love, grace, mercy, justice, forgiveness, perfection, peace, life, joy and many more good qualities. The point is all these good qualities are eternal and infinite qualities, having no beginning or end. This is a lot of meaning to pack into one word "God", which is why God is so important.

In fact, God is the most important concept for humanity to figure out why we exist. And this particular concept of God was first described in the Holy Bible. All the other gods that are not described in this way are simply false gods even if they came before the Bible was written. This is how the one true God distinguishes himself from all the other false gods.

So the question to you is: Can you use logic using your finite mind to show that this God of the Holy Bible does not exist? The answer is no, it's logically impossible for a finite being to show that an eternal infinite being is logically impossible. To even think you could logically show that an eternal infinite being does not exist would mean you yourself would have to be eternal and infinite. I know for a fact that you're not eternal and infinite. This, and many other things, gives me great strength in my faith in God that you can't possibly shake.

I'm not even concerned with proving God to you. I'm not even concerned about convincing you because I know God has a perfect plan and He'll see it through to completion.

I hope that at least you can understand my passion here and why I spend so much time explaining these things to you and others.

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.

When someone experiences a profound truth, they never forget it because it sticks with them for life and this is by design. The truth goes to the core of your being. When God has you, He never lets go.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry to disappoint you but creating an argument that the other person hasn't made is known as framing the issue. I was taught that at university.

Framing the issue means something different here in the U.S..

http://m.wisegeek.com/what-is-issue-framing.htm

Maybe it has a different context in Australia...then again, maybe it's been awhile since you've been in the classroom?

 

[As I was saying]

That's perfectly fine, but why should we agree with you? Would you give the time of day to whatever sort of claim I might make?

Wake up to yourself. You have come onto a Christian forum and spouted all sorts of rubbish about atheism and evolution which none of us believe except atheists and you think we are worried if you agree with us or not? What we say and what we believe is based on what God has said so the only person who we like to agree with is God. What you think is totally irrelevant to us and as I have said before, I have not come across one believer here who has ditched his faith because an atheist said something so it is obvious that you like wasting your time ad infinitum. On the other hand, we learn a lot from you being here as we hear all the silly arguments that you make for believing God does not exist so you give ammo for discussion or debate so in that respect you serve a useful purpose but beyond that you are toast as far as we are concerned. You have made your bed so I guess you have to lay on it.

 

[As I was saying]

Framing the issue means something different here in the U.S..

http://m.wisegeek.com/what-is-issue-framing.htm

Maybe it has a different context in Australia...then again, maybe it's been awhile since you've been in the classroom?

More silly and cynical comment.

 

[As I was saying]

I agree. An atheist should always admit they don't know whether God exists or not. This honesty is crucial to their rational thinking skills.

So the question to you is: Can you use logic using your finite mind to show that this God of the Holy Bible does not exist? The answer is no, it's logically impossible for a finite being to show that an eternal infinite being is logically impossible. To even think you could logically show that an eternal infinite being does not exist would mean you yourself would have to be eternal and infinite. I know for a fact that you're not eternal and infinite. This, and many other things, gives me great strength in my faith in God that you can't possibly shake.

Their argument is so fallacious it is laughable. They are finite and God is infinite and they claim to know God does not exist. To be able to do that you have to be infinite yourself so that makes you god as only God is infinite. So when they say they know God does not exist, they are saying they are god therefore god does exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I will believe you when you list the freedoms I have lost which I know you can't so you lose.

Keep in mind, this will all depend on how seriously you take your christianity. I'm sure there are some christians who simply believe in Jesus and their religion doesn't really affect their lives at all. You don't strike me as one of those though...

So to start, if you go to church regularly...you've lost your entire Sunday mornings. You lose all kinds of freedoms for roughly 1/21 of your waking hours every week. Added up over sixty years...and well, you've spent entire years doing what others have wanted you to do. Of course, if your beliefs are true...you'll probably view this as time well spent. If your beliefs are wrong though...then you've wasted entire years of your life...a large chunk of time that you'll never get back. Perhaps this is part of the reason you hate atheists? Deep down you feel like it's a waste of time...and you resent atheists for not fearing hell and judgement the way you do. Overall though, this is a small example of the freedom you've lost.

Would you like to hear more?

 

[Cearbhall]

Wake up to yourself.

I'm not going to respond to irrelevant personal attacks. It's a waste of my time, and I'm not interested.

Do you or do you not refute my claim that "Ignorance is bliss" could not apply to hard atheists? If you do, why? This claim is the reason why you addressed me. I'd be interested in hearing your response.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is a new one. "Soft atheists." I guess that will go into your little red book of answers to questions you can't answer.

Soft vs Hard atheism are actually old terms...so old I haven't heard them in years lol.

Are you sure you're 60+ years old?