The origins of atheism

[muichimotsu]

Hey! I actually like your word choices!

I would say YES to both questions.

HOWEVER, being as I am somewhat of a follower of Peter S. Ruckman, I'm up in the air about the KJB being a product of what he calls "double inspiration."

But for now, I'll stick with the KJB being superintended -- not inspired.If I remember my basic doctrine on this -- (it's been some time since I studied it) -- but as I recall, the word of God came to us in three steps:

1. Inspiration
2. Preservation
3. Translation

God inspired the Autographs, written in the handwriting of His amanuenses.

Then God preserved His words by superintending them when they were copied.

Then God at times -- (seven, to be exact) -- edited His words to conform to a specific audience.

What you think is I trying to "get around the basic facts surrounding the writing of the book [sic]," I call "basic doctrine."Insult them then, if you feel you have to.

But you're insulting basic doctrine, and that just makes you look ... well ... uninformed.

Pretty sure the bible was edited more than 7 times, not to mention general doctrinal debates were a thing barely 100 years after Jesus allegedly resurrected

I'm talking about the historical facts about why it was created by the King of England at that time, not doctrinal quibbles which aren't what I was debating in the slightest.

I'm insulting a belief I find to be unfounded in regards to how reality works. You can insist there's a god and refer to your book, that isn't proof, that's the claim being made

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That is a really specious argument. The logic would be "How can a creation exist without a Creator?" Look all around you and ask yourself the same question:
1. How can a house be built without an architect or designer?
2. How can a car exist without a designer and manufacturer?
3. How can a city exist without city planners and developers?

Since NOTHING CREATES ITSELF, simple rational logic demands that a Creator be behind His creation.

Ahhh, going with the watchmaker argument huh? You do realize this argument has been demolished over and over, right?

It's wrong for many reasons. Instead of putting a wall of text in this post, I will redirect you to a couple of links.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

 

[SteveB28]

you and your fellow athiests all suffer from the delusion that God doesnt exist so yes thats true mass belief does not make something true ,

And that isn't atheism. Atheists do not believe that gods don't exist. We simply don't accept your claims that they do.

fortunately mass belief isnt what convinces me that God exists ,

Then why did you use it as your argument? You said that you couldn't be deluded in your thinking because so many other people think as you do!

God has convinced me that God exists .

I could not think of a better example of circular reasoning!

 

[ScottA]

No, only at those members in violation of the rules. Have you read them?

"The CF Philosophy forum is not intended for general apologetics of Christianity, ...Nor is this forum intended as a means for Christian evangelism (persuasion) of unbelievers."

God is a character in a book. Beyond that, all is up for discussion.

"I am not convinced of your claims" requires no defence.

Nope. I am only here to observe religionists in action. I make no claims here.

Your assertions are not facts. Is your dictionary still broken?

Again, for what am I to be judged, according to your theology? Be specific. Or are you unsure?

1. You quoted just the "what"...and omitted the "why" of the forum philosophy. Nice of you to claim a half-truth.
2. The door is open for discussion, assuming their is a God.
3. God does not need defending.
4. I think you better pull out that dictionary you keep waving around. Mute is not Dumb. Arguing against God's people, is a claim in and of itself.
5. Actually, you should toss that dictionary, it's not helping you understand reality. Your definition of facts falls below the topic of discussion.

 

[jenny1972]

Then why did you use it as your argument? You said that you couldn't be deluded in your thinking because so many other people think as you do!

no sorry i never said that

 

[ecco]

the reason why i believe is not because of indoctrination i was raised by athiests God was a non issue and as an adult i did not go to church so i was not indoctrinated as a child or as an adult to believe in God later in life as an adult God proved His existence to me and that is the only reason why i believe without such proof i would not believe .

I certainly wasn't implying "everyone". But ...
Most protestants have protestant parents.
Most catholics have catholic parents.
Most sunnis have sunni parents.
Most shia have shia parents.

 

[Chad Farwell]

Things are built by necessity or comfort, if comfort is the necessity we are in for a world of hurt.

 

[jenny1972]

I could not think of a better example of circular reasoning!

how is that circular reasoning one thing and one thing only convinced me and that was God . whats circular about that? 1 thing convinced me

 

[SteveB28]

good point the person has to at least be openminded to the possibility that God could exist if they are completely absolutely closeminded to the idea there could be a God then their mind will constantly fight any efforts that God makes.

Why do you assume that people who don't accept your claims about gods are "completely absolutely closeminded"?

 

[Cearbhall]

East of Eden.

Isn't that a book?

 

[Black Dog]

Hello there everyone. I am sure this has been discussed before but I would like to start a new discussion on this. I want to hear your opinions on why do you think atheism exists and its cause. I will tell mine only after I see yours.

I imagine the first atheist was born when the first "priests" claimed they were representing an invisible all powerful being, and said "Give us food and gold or our invisible friend will kill and torture you!"

 

[SteveB28]

how is that circular reasoning one thing and one thing only convinced me and that was God . whats circular about that? 1 think convinced me

Oh my.

Watch:

Q: How do you know that God exists?
A: Because God told me.
Q: How do you know that it was God that was speaking?
A: Because God exists!

 

[SteveB28]

Oh my.

Watch:

Q: How do you know that God exists?
A: Because God told me.
Q: How do you know that it was God that was speaking?
A: Because God exists!

Repeat the sequence until you become disoriented.

 

[jenny1972]

Why do you assume that people who don't accept your claims about gods are "completely absolutely closeminded"?

i dont again your not reading my comments

 

[SteveB28]

no sorry i never said that

Pardon me?

because i am not the only person that experiences this kind of inspiration its not just me if it was just me i would be open to the idea that i could just be delusional and the inspiration we both recieve has certain characteristics in common and too many things have happened concerning this common inspiration that random coincidence has long ago been ruled out .

 

[ecco]

Hi ecco,
...because yes, I feel that Muhammad was bringing back this practice ...
For the record I believe if Muhammad heard from anyone, and it was this allah... this was not God, but the enemy of God using Muhammad to lead people astray to bring us to the point we come to today.

I believe that Muhammad did what many others before and since have done, they codified their ideas and then began preaching them and accepting followers; Marcionites, Mormons, Scientologist and a whole host of others.
All claim/believe their "knowledge" came from a higher power. In reality the writings are just a reflection of their own thoughts, concepts and ideals.

That's not a logical conclusion since there is little doubt that Yshwe(known as Jesus by the Greeks) was definitely a trained Hebrew who drew His followers from among the followers of the Jewish/Hebrew faith... i.e., remember Paul? and the arguments that occurred because the Jews didn't want to accept the gentiles?
Yshwe regularly spoke from, and referred to, the Hebrew scriptures. Yshwe was a Jew/Hebrew/Israelite and so were the first 'Christians', i.e., followers of Christ. The gentiles were 'grafted in' later through the Jew/Hebrew/Israelite Paul, who took the Word of God, the Good News of Christ, to the gentiles... to Rome, Corinth, Phillipa, Ephesus... etc.

Gaining converts is vitally important for a new religion. In an attempt to gather more Hebrew converts, included the Tanakh which contained stories foretelling the birth of jesus.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)​

SEE, YOUR PROPHESY HAS COME TRUE - JOIN US

In the third century christianity also got pagens to convert by taking the winter solstice holiday and proclaiming Dec 25 to be Jesus' birthday.

 

[Cearbhall]

Because God not only creates human, but also creates animals. With all those examples around, atheists can't help to think that they are nothing but smarter, civilized animals.

Huh? Don't most Christians accept evolution? What does that have to do with religion? Everyone knows that we're animals.

And this doesn't answer the question of what causes atheism (if anything does).

 

[aus22]

EZoolander, I realise numbers do not prove anything, I used the term Millions to suggest a high number.
There is way of saying how many communicate with God. But most do pray.
In the USa 71,796,are Catholics,47,444,049 are Baptist.
In other country there are 2,039 million Christians There are only 10 religions of more than a million. Atheists are 150 Million of 4%o the total world population. Numbers prove little but you are in a minority

 

[AV1611VET]

Pretty sure the bible was edited more than 7 times,

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

As I said, Satan imitates God the best he can; thus we have versions that God didn't superintend.

not to mention general doctrinal debates were a thing barely 100 years after Jesus allegedly resurrected

Not to mention it either, but scientists do the same thing.

Only they call it "peer review."

I'm talking about the historical facts about why it was created by the King of England at that time,

Why God chose King James I of England, I don't know.

Someone had to do it.

not doctrinal quibbles which aren't what I was debating in the slightest.

Whatever.

I'm insulting a belief I find to be unfounded in regards to how reality works.

Is that standard procedure with you?

I don't know how old you are, but in 2004, would you have insulted the belief that we only have eight planets, especially if the person espousing that belief couldn't justify it empirically?

You can insist there's a god and refer to your book, that isn't proof, that's the claim being made

Proof is for alcohol.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

That's because He is invisible.

So is gravity but we know it's there based on observations, tests and predictions. Can't do that with a God.