The origins of atheism

[Colter]

I can and prove that love exists though and you would be a liar to say it doesn't... you have very VERY good reasons to consider my love to be existent. You know it is likely that I love my family and friends. You'd be a fool to say I couldn't love them.

Agreeing that I probably love someone is not agreeing that I the son of god if I claimed to be. duh

That insincerity is exactly what Mark Twain meant. Faith is not sincere... its effort to be what you aren't or to believe what you don't.

Your rage and bitterness prevent you from seeing the point, Love is not measurable in the math lab, Love is not scientific.

Your pessimism is transcendent while denying the transcendence of God.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Mental gymnastics aside, you still believe in a Godless universe.

Even if he does... that doesn't change the meaning of atheism... that's something else he does.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And yet it was clearly answered from the Scriptures.

If you were to question the doctrines of Islam, and a Muslim apologist responded by presenting passages from the Quran, would you be convinced? If not, why do you think that quoting Bible passages would convince anyone?

 

[Hikarifuru]

Your rage and bitterness prevent you from seeing the point, Love is not measurable in the math lab, Love is not scientific.

Your pessimism is transcendent while denying the transcendence of God.

That went right over your head... you'd be an idiot to claim I don't love and you know that... so don't compare my simple and obvious love to your faith is masters of the universe and spiritual realms.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Your rage and bitterness prevent you from seeing the point, Love is not measurable in the math lab, Love is not scientific.

Your pessimism is transcendent while denying the transcendence of God.

Well duh... Christianity says some really REALLY bad things... (no I don't care that you don't believe in much of the bible)

 

[AV1611VET]

If you were to question the doctrines of Islam, and a Muslim apologist responded by presenting passages from the Quran, would you be convinced?

I would be convinced the Quran teaches it.

But you would be hard-pressed to get an Internet scientist here to admit that the Bible teaches something contrary to what they believe.

Yet they won't think twice about telling you something the Bible teaches that is contrary to what they believe!

Sounds like a contradiction?

Let me give you an example:

DDiv tells PhD that the Bible teaches instant creation.

PhD disagrees and says Genesis 1 is just an allegory.

Later, PhD tells DDiv the Bible teaches a flat earth cosmology.

And he won't listen to any arguments to the contrary -- such as someone invoking the "point of the observer" or "general relativity" or "Occam's razor."

 

[Colter]

That's not making a point... it remains that you have no evidence... so no evidence is not required to dismiss you and so faith is not required either.

It just remains that you deliberately ask questions that cannot be answered as proof of your doctrines of doubt.

 

[KCfromNC]

Do you deny that religion exists?

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Mental gymnastics aside, you still believe in a Godless universe.

yeah, just as much as I believe in a unicornless, leprechaunless, merlin-less, pink graviton fairy-less, gooblydock-less........ universe.


You really require some lessons in the meaninglessness of negative claims and how the burden of proof works.

I don't require any "faith" to reject unevidenced, unsupported and unfalsifiable claims.

 

[Hikarifuru]

It just remains that you deliberately ask questions that cannot be answered as proof of your doctrines of doubt.

no... I am deliberately asking you for evidence... and your inability to answer IS PROOF that your belief is dismissible without faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

It just remains that you deliberately ask questions that cannot be answered as proof of your doctrines of doubt.

Over the years here, some people have tried that with me and, lo and behold, I gave them an answer.

It was clear to me they were expecting me to come back with a simple "God did it" or "I don't know" and got blindsided by a pet theory of mine that even you would probably find laughable.

One guy once asked me how all those species of animals could fit on the Ark, obviously expecting me to either back down from my belief; say "God did it;" or say, "I don't know;" but I told him I thought the Ark was a TARDIS booth.

That took the wind out of his sails and the rest was pure entertainment.

On another occasion, someone pressed me as to where the water went after the Flood, expecting the same triad of possible replies: GOD DID IT, DUNNO, or GOOD POINT, I'LL RECONSIDER -- and I told him I seriously thought God siphoned off the water and took it to Neptune.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Over the years here, some people have tried that with me and, lo and behold, I gave them an answer.

It was clear to me they were expecting me to come back with a simple "God did it" or "I don't know" and got blindsided by a pet theory of mine that even you would probably find laughable.

One guy once asked me how all those species of animals could fit on the Ark, obviously expecting me to either back down from my belief; say "God did it;" or say, "I don't know;" but I told him I thought the Ark was a TARDIS booth.

That took the wind out of his sails and the rest was pure entertainment.

On another occasion, someone pressed me as to where the water went after the Flood, expecting the same triad of possible replies: GOD DID IT, DUNNO, or GOOD POINT, I'LL RECONSIDER -- and I told him I seriously thought God siphoned off the water and took it to Neptune.

Gosh, with answers like those, how could anyone be unsatisfied?

 

[AV1611VET]

Gosh, with answers like those, how could anyone be unsatisfied?

I love it when people throw Thor and Leprechauns and Zeus at me, expecting that they made some kind of counterpoint to our theology; only to find out I believe Thor, Leprechauns and Zeus are real.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I love it when people throw Thor and Leprechauns and Zeus at me, expecting that they made some kind of counterpoint to our theology; only to find out I believe Thor, Leprechauns and Zeus are real.

Oh don't worry, AV, your theology is beyond comparison, in a league of its own.

 

[Chriliman]

Even if he does... that doesn't change the meaning of atheism... that's something else he does.

Ah, the "meaning of atheism". When atheism is brought to its logical conclusion, it's simply an admission that one does not know the truth about existence or if there is even a truth to be known. Yet, by claiming "I don't know the truth about existence" you're implying there is a truth to be known, but you currently don't know it yet. If you're willing to accept this truth can be known then you can confidently say there is meaning to existence(you're hopeful) but if you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known, then you're willing to say existence is meaningless. (you're hopeless)

So are you admitting that you don't know the truth about existence, but you're hopeful a truth can be known or are you admitting that you don't know the truth and that the truth may never be known, making you hopeless?

Since many atheists are willing to accept that the truth about existence can never be known, the logical conclusion from this statement is that atheism doesn't have meaning behind it. In other words, it's meaningless to be an atheist. This type of atheist is hopeless and may not even accept the truth that God exists even if they were presented with evidence that showed that God does exist.

But if you're an atheist who accepts that the truth about existence can be known, then you're a hopeful atheist who would accept the truth that God exists if you were presented with convincing evidence.

So are you a hopeful atheist or a hopeless atheist?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh don't worry, AV, your theology is beyond comparison, in a league of its own.

It's typical to see people arc & spark that we don't "think outside the box;" then arc & spark when someone does.

That tells me they're just here to arc & spark.

 

[Colter]

yeah, just as much as I believe in a unicornless, leprechaunless, merlin-less, pink graviton fairy-less, gooblydock-less........ universe.


You really require some lessons in the meaninglessness of negative claims and how the burden of proof works.

I don't require any "faith" to reject unevidenced, unsupported and unfalsifiable claims.

You require lessons in intellectual honesty, because you also believe in a unicornless, leprechaunless, merlin-less, pink graviton fairy-less, gooblydock-less........ universe.

 

[Colter]

no... I am deliberately asking you for evidence... and your inability to answer IS PROOF that your belief is dismissible without faith.

Then by the same token your claim of Love is dismissible without faith. You may just be imagining things to compensate for fears and insecurities.

 

[Colter]

What does this have to do with anything?

The existence of religion across all cultures is proof of faith, of the existence of faith.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ah, the "meaning of atheism". When atheism is brought to its logical conclusion, it's simply an admission that one does not know the truth about existence or if there is even a truth to be known. Yet, by claiming "I don't know the truth about existence" you're implying there is a truth to be known, but you currently don't know it yet. If you're willing to accept this truth can be known then you can confidently say there is meaning to existence(you're hopeful) but if you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known, then you're willing to say existence is meaningless. (you're hopeless)

So are you admitting that you don't know the truth about existence, but you're hopeful a truth can be known or are you admitting that you don't know the truth and that the truth may never be known, making you hopeless?

Since many atheists are willing to accept that the truth about existence can never be known, the logical conclusion from this statement is that atheism doesn't have meaning behind it. In other words, it's meaningless to be an atheist. This type of atheist is hopeless and may not even accept the truth that God exists even they were presented with evidence that showed that God does exist.

But if you're an atheist who accepts that the truth about existence can be known, then you're a hopeful atheist who would accept the truth that God exists if you were presented with convincing evidence.

So are you a hopeful atheist or a hopeless atheist?