The origins of atheism

[Chris B]

So you were taught science then?

And later you learned that the "whole story" includes a universe teeming with another race of beings called angels?

Actually, in order, I got "angels" before I got "science"
I got "Father Christmas " in the mix too. That was probably where my wake-up started.
Learning that things you are told are true, even by your parents and teachers (later ministers), aren't necessarily true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Where I differ from you, strongly, is in your thought that you have the truth, and that no other perspective can possibly be true, be the truth.

Truth is unattainable in atheistic thinking, isn't it?

Let me ask you this:

If you agree that he doesn't have truth, will you agree that truth* has him?

* More appropriately, "Truth."

 

[Chris B]

Should I assume then that atheists do believe in body, soul, and spirit?

(That's a YES or NO, by the way.)

Not it's not. I wouldn't consider it a particularly wise or safe assumption.
Given the open opportunity, why not ditch the need for (unproven and uncertain) assumptions and actually ask some atheists what they believe?

Me, body, yes (though I know a few atheists who don't believe in that, even.) Soul, Spirit, no, on most usages of the terms, but some senses of "human spirit" (for example) I could sign up to.

Chris.

 

[Colter]

By the same standard, couldn't your own motivations be called into question? How many times does the word "Urantia" appear in your posts?

My motives are in plain sight, I'm not on an Atheist forum faining outrage that someone would accuse me of promoting a faith or beliefs or ideals or concepts. In my post I quote a variety of books and quotes concerning faith.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm quite happy to say that I have faith that truth exists, though I think access to truth is not that easy, edging into near impossible in some cases.

Where I differ from you, strongly, is in your thought that you have the truth, and that no other perspective can possibly be true, be the truth.
I'd be happy to match my epistemology against yours, to see how our divergent world-views have emerged.

Chris

As long as you have faith in truth, meaning you believe there is a truth that will show how every other way of thinking and believing is false, then I see no need to match our epistemologies against each other because I have hope that you will find that truth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And if what you say is true, then why do we put so much value on truth if the truth about existence can never be known? It seems you think truth is meaningless.

It seems you simply refuse to comprehend what I'm saying.

I'm saying that we don't know at this time if we are able to comprehend the true nature of the universe.

It could be and it could not be. We don't know.
Which is why we are trying to find out, instead of making stuff up (like you do).

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, in order, I got "angels" before I got "science"

Then which one is myopic in your estimation?

The scientific realm, or the spiritual realm?

 

[Colter]

Do blood transfusions and preventative medicine violate the principle of spiritual dominance?

No why?

 

[Jacobs]

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.

Your answer is the first person after creation that didn’t want to be accountable to a higher authority. Sadly, sticking your head in the sand doesn’t change anything. Likewise, ignoring your governments laws doesn’t exclude you from the consequences regardless of your motives.

 

[jonalogy]

From a social construction point of view, Atheism may have derived from 2 sources:

1. Idolatry: Over time, people lose hope that the idols they Worship is nothing more than a fairy tale and they get disillusioned from believing the unseen

2. Sight: The ability to see physically and intuitively, many times physical sight seems much more credible and that is how we learn to survive, is a double edge sword. This just means our believes and imagination is greatly bounded to what has been registered in our minds.

 

[Chriliman]

It seems you simply refuse to comprehend what I'm saying.

I'm saying that we don't know at this time if we are able to comprehend the true nature of the universe.

It could be and it could not be. We don't know.
Which is why we are trying to find out, instead of making stuff up (like you do).

Logically, could we ever find out if the truth is unknowable? Nope, which is why in order to remain rational in believing the truth is knowable we must have faith in it, meaning we must trust that there is truth. If we don't have faith in truth then we've determined it must be meaningless.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your answer is the first person after creation that didn’t want to be accountable to a higher authority.

Another one with that nonsense....

An atheist is a person that doesn't believe such an authority exists.
"not wanting accountability" has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I'ld say that plenty of atheists would actually prefer a system where there is an unescapable accountability. I don't think anyone likes the idea of a serial killer never getting caught and living a long a comfortable life without ever being brought to justice. I'm one of them.

But my emotional needs do no outweigh my rational convictions.
I'm not convinced a god exists and that's why I'm an atheist. And that is the only reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not it's not.

Yes it is, chief.

But I'm not going to try and decipher what you're saying.

You're like most of the others I deal with.

Ask a simple question, get an "answer" that could mean six different things.

 

[Chris B]

Truth is unattainable in atheistic thinking, isn't it?

Too binary. Truth can be approximate, and I'd hold that a grasp on truth can be improved without arriving at absolute truth, and that absolute truth (or knowledge of reality) can be approached asymptotically.

Whether it can be perfectly arrived at, that I have severe doubts about.
An epistemology thing, not a theology thing.

Let me ask you this:

If you agree that he doesn't have truth, will you agree that truth* has him?

* More appropriately, "Truth."

If you are saying, "whatever a person believes, what is actually true or real outranks the belief and that may well show up a mistaken or false belief, where the two come into conflict".

Yes. Or no-one would ever have had to say, horrified "But I was sure it wasn't loaded."
The military would love the alternative: convince soldiers to believe that their guns would never run out of ammunition, and they wouldn't!

I'd say "belief makes reality" has a very limited and circumscribed validity, mainly in the area of psychology.
(Other beliefs exist.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Too binary.

-- I stopped right here, Chris.

Have a nice day.

Don't let me spoil it with simple questions.

We're done.

 

[Belk]

That's not at all clear to me.
It could very well be that it isn't. That the actual true nature of the universe can't be known because it is not accessible from within the universe.



I don't see how it is.
At best, I would agree to "there is a true nature of the universe".
It is however not clear to me if that true nature can really be known to us.
It could be. But it also could not be.

You beat me to it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Logically, could we ever find out if the truth is unknowable?

I don't know. I guess that would depend on what the truth is and what is technologically possible and what isn't.

I guess I could get on board with a tentative "we don't know until we know", which indeed would result logically in "if the truth is unknowable, we'll never find out that it is unknowable".

But again, that's not clear to me at all.
Which is why I feel compelled to take the intellectually honest stance of "I don't know".

For some reason, you insist on me going with "yes" or with "no".
I don't feel the need to do that and don't see what good it would do.

Nope, which is why in order to remain rational in believing the truth is knowable we must have faith in it, meaning we must trust that there is truth. If we don't have faith in truth then we've determined it must be meaningless.

See? Insisting on taking sides. In quite arbitrary ways, based on a priori beliefs based on faith - of all things.

Tell me, why are you so allergic to the words "I don't know"?.

 

[asherahSamaria]

Another one with that nonsense....

An atheist is a person that doesn't believe such an authority exists.
"not wanting accountability" has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I'ld say that plenty of atheists would actually prefer a system where there is an unescapable accountability. I don't think anyone likes the idea of a serial killer never getting caught and living a long a comfortable life without ever being brought to justice. I'm one of them.

But my emotional needs do no outweigh my rational convictions.
I'm not convinced a god exists and that's why I'm an atheist. And that is the only reason.

Actually I would find a system where such a serial killer who "repents" with their last breath and enjoys a happy hereafter while a basically good person who doesn't do the "faith" thing gets eternal punishment - to be morally repugnant.

 

[Chris B]

Yes it is, chief.

Oh, no it's not.
It's a false framing, not a million miles away from "have you stopped beating your wife: answer yes or no."

A more theological one would be "who created the universe?"
That is not in a format that can accept that the answer might not be a "who".

Ask a simple question, get an "answer" that could mean six different things.

It's not a question as simple as you propose. And I think my answer is pretty clear.

 

[BeStill&Know]

Why do you think atheism exists and its cause.

satan and satan.