The origins of atheism

[Cearbhall]

You got it!

Right. So I technically acknowledge that there could be a monster in my closet, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to say this is possible in non-philosophical conversations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Depends who's saying it. Right?

Not right.

That's one of the first human follies that atheism tries to confront, the idea of truth being established by authority. It is one of the biases that causes religious beliefs to be passed down in cultures.

If science says its true that God is not needed, we'd better listen right? Because science holds the truth, science is the truth, right?

What we keep trying to get people to listen to is the evidence. The evidence is independent of what anyone says.

Certainly.

Then why did you say this?

"It's fine to be a skeptic, but if that's all you are you'll miss the truth because of your skepticism."

 

[ScottA]

I don't think even most Christians would believe that.

The apostle Paul had a similar experience. But you are right, no one believes it...even though they are willing to except it from him.

 

[Cearbhall]

It IS proof...to me personally...because it happened to me. But you were not there with me...so, prove it to you? No.

Actually, the fact that you think something happened isn't proof. I'd be hesitant to believe everything that you think you see/hear/feel.

 

[Loudmouth]

It IS proof...to me personally...because it happened to me. But you were not there with me...so, prove it to you? No.

In most conversations, proof and evidence mean that it has to be verifiable by someone else.

So how do I know that you are telling the truth? How do I know that you weren't delusional? What evidence can you present that is independent of yourself and can be verified by anyone who wants to?

 

[Chriliman]

Right. So I technically acknowledge that there could be a monster in my closet, but that doesn't mean I'm actually going to say this is possible in non-philosophical conversations.

Sure. My point is once the truth is evaluated by you personally, you then realize it was always the truth and will forever be the truth. You just haven't personally evaluated this earth shattering truth yet, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

The apostle Paul had a similar experience. But you are right, no one believes it...even though they are willing to except it from him.

Did Paul actually have that experience? All we have is a story in a book.

 

[Cearbhall]

Sure. My point is once the truth is evaluated by you personally, you then realize it was always the truth and will forever be the truth. You just haven't personally evaluated this earth shattering truth yet, correct?

Incorrect. I have evaluated the claims you are making for years and have reached my conclusion. You are erroneously suggesting that only those who are in agreement with you have sufficiently investigated the matter. That is a separate claim, and there are no grounds for it. I could just as easily say that those who are theistic simply haven't questioned their beliefs enough, but I know that there is no logic or credibility to such a claim. There is no such direct correlation between knowledge of theology and one's religious or theistic status.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure. My point is once the truth is evaluated by you personally, you then realize it was always the truth and will forever be the truth. You just haven't personally evaluated this earth shattering truth yet, correct?

What evidence can we evaluate?

 

[Chriliman]

Not right.

That's one of the first human follies that atheism tries to confront, the idea of truth being established by authority. It is one of the biases that causes religious beliefs to be passed down in cultures.

Logically the truth would have authority over human folly, unless you think human folly has authority over truth?

What we keep trying to get people to listen to is the evidence. The evidence is independent of what anyone says.

Is it the evidence that's independent of what anyone says, or is it the truth that's independent of what anyone says?

Evidence can easily be misinterpreted, but the truth should be clear.

 

[Chriliman]

What evidence can we evaluate?

Evidence can be misinterpreted, just rely on the fact that the truth will reveal itself.

 

[Chriliman]

Incorrect. I have evaluated the claims you are making for years and have reached my conclusion. You are erroneously suggesting that only those who are in agreement with you have sufficiently investigated the matter. That is a separate claim, and there are no grounds for it. I could just as easily say that those who are theistic simply haven't questioned their beliefs enough, but I know that there is no logic or credibility to such a claim. There is no such direct correlation between knowledge of theology and one's religious or theistic status.

The point is, you're still waiting for the truth to reveal itself, right?

 

[Cearbhall]

Evidence can be misinterpreted, just rely on the fact that the truth will reveal itself.

What reason do you have to believe that you're the one who's done that and not us?

The point is, you're still waiting for the truth to reveal itself, right?

Again, no. You're grasping at straws. Ask the question once and accept the answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

Logically the truth would have authority over human folly, unless you think human folly has authority over truth?

But how do you determine what is true and what is not? Simply because you want it to be true, or because someone says it is true?

Is it the evidence that's independent of what anyone says, or is it the truth that's independent of what anyone says?

I thought I was pretty clear.

"What we keep trying to get people to listen to is the evidence. The evidence is independent of what anyone says."

Evidence can easily be misinterpreted, but the truth should be clear.

The truth should be supported by evidence. Also, the very fact that you can determine when evidence has been misinterpreted is the reason it is useful.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is, you're still waiting for the truth to reveal itself, right?

We are still waiting for theists to back their claims with evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

But how do you determine what is true and what is not? Simply because you want it to be true, or because someone says it is true?



I thought I was pretty clear.

"What we keep trying to get people to listen to is the evidence. The evidence is independent of what anyone says."



The truth should be supported by evidence. Also, the very fact that you can determine when evidence has been misinterpreted is the reason it is useful.

Is evidence more important to you than truth?

 

[Chriliman]

We are still waiting for theists to back their claims with evidence.

We're still waiting on God to make Himself evident to all.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is evidence more important to you than truth?

How can you have truth without evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

We're still waiting on God to make Himself evident to all.

So you are saying that the universe we can observe right now is consistent with a universe where there is no God?

 

[Chriliman]

What reason do you have to believe that you're the one who's done that and not us?

Because I value truth.

Again, no. You're grasping at straws. Ask the question once and accept the answer.

You said truth will prove itself. I agree.