The origins of atheism

[ScottA]

Again, if you claim to "know" something...but you cannot explain it...why would anyone believe you? What kind of "knowledge" cannot be explained?

You are mistaking the "sharing" of knowledge as making "claims." Claiming would mean we/I have some intent to claim your confidence in the information...and that is not the case. In "sharing" you have a choice.

You also continue to assume that higher knowledge can be explained in lower circles. That is a mistake. The only way that high knowledge can be explained in lower circles, is IF the lower is willing to leave the lower circle. But you cling to the lower circle of worldly knowledge...and get nowhere. You limit yourself.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'd imagine that's how a genius feels. I'm not saying I'm a genius, but I do have access to one that's infinite and eternal and He has all the answers.

You might ask him how to avoid logical fallacies in your writing.

 

[ScottA]

Those are periods. Thanks for proving my point.

Now, see, you can't even follow directions (<----------).

 

[Chriliman]

Well ask him how a genius feels lol.

Teaching infinite intelligence to a finite human takes time, a lot of time if you're a finite human who's also an atheist.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case I actually did believe and did not choose to disbelieve.

You probably don’t understand the difference between temptation and sin. Everyone is tempted in various ways (even Jesus was tempted) and such temptations are not by our choice. For example, the temptation to doubt God. But in order to sin, you have to act on this temptation. In your case, your likely doubts (which you did not choose) eventually led to your choosing to turn away from God. Only God knows exactly the point at which you chose to turn away. But choose you did. I believe that it is impossible to NOT CHOOSE when it comes to a belief this important. Otherwise you would be just like a soulless robot left to the whims of fate. Nope. You are accountable for everything you think, say, and do… because you are a creature with the capacity to choose. Denial is most basic psychological defense, but the truth is, you are responsible for your disbelief. You can't get out of it this easily.

 

[ecco]

The real question is why billions actually DO believe.

Start a thread.

Atheism exists because human beings hate "submitting" to anything or anyone more powerful than themselves.

I daresay that most atheists do not hate, and have no problem, submitting to the secular laws of the land. Laws that have been developed over centuries of civilization. Laws that are far superior to the laws given in the bible:

• Edicts that permit people to own and beat slaves.
• Edicts that encourage raping young virgins after killing their mothers and young brothers.
• Edicts that encourage

Need I go on?

We all want to be our own little gods.

Interesting you used the pronoun "We". You are not an atheist, so when you say 'We all want to be our own little gods', you must be referring to theists like yourself.

In actuality, it is theists, especially conservative theists, that often point to their god to show their supposed superiority as if some of god has rubbed off on them.

Theologians say that this is a result of "original sin"-- or an inherited tendency that goes back to the original humans who rebelled against God.

Ah, "original sin". You are referring to Adam and Eve disobeying god's edict about the Tree of Knowledge. What theologians cannot reconcile is that an omniscient god knew A&E would partake of the apple long before He ever created them. He intentionally set them up to fail so that he would have a good reason later to brutally drown almost every living thing on earth.

 

[ScottA]

I've heard multiple theories about the nature of time. The idea that it's "just an illusion" is certainly amongst those theories...but I don't think it's the forerunner...or even in the top 3. Would you have anything that backs that statement up? Or are you still sitting with the empty-claim crowd at that concert you keep talking about?

I have it on the utmost Authority. It is written.

Also, positing an answer to anything without any evidence....and then dismissing all other possibilities....is basically a definitive example of "throwing your hands in the air and being foolish".

As I have said, while there may be no perceived evidence in your little worldly circle, there is plenty of evidence outside of it.

When you come to know the truth...that is exactly what you do...you dismiss all other possibilities. Obviously, you are not there yet, and you remain defiant, against your own ability to advance.

 

[ScottA]

What if you encounter a Christian that says the same thing you do (they can't be wrong), but holds a contradictory belief about some aspect of Christianity?

Good question. We are advised to let everyone be a liar, and to let God be true. Some are better at it than others. Such is humanity.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Good question. We are advised to let everyone be a liar, and to let God be true. Some are better at it than others. Such is humanity.

So if you're in that situation, and someone is taking your (rather unsociable) lead and insisting you're the liar, you would always believe you're correct?

How does a third person watching this play out navigate who is right and who is wrong?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

You are mistaking the "sharing" of knowledge as making "claims." Claiming would mean we/I have some intent to claim your confidence in the information...and that is not the case. In "sharing" you have a choice.

You also continue to assume that higher knowledge can be explained in lower circles. That is a mistake. The only way that high knowledge can be explained in lower circles, is IF the lower is willing to leave the lower circle. But you cling to the lower circle of worldly knowledge...and get nowhere. You limit yourself.

Faith and Epistemology

How do we know anything for certain? What you think you know— could it be wrong? Sure. Our brains and sensory equipment are not perfect. So why do we have so much faith in them? Human beings have a need to “see it to believe it”, a tendency to trust in their own senses. But our senses can be mistaken and our interpretations of what we see and hear can be way off the mark.

Epistemology is about how we know anything, and whether our knowledge is trustworthy and reliable as “truth.” It is the investigation of what it is that distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion. Where religious faith is concerned, we have an inherent problem. If our beliefs were so self-evident that virtually everyone would have to agree, then we would not call it “faith,” it would be universally accepted as certain knowledge (like our belief in gravity). Faith is about believing when the evidence to our senses is not overwhelming. It is more about personal trust (in a person, in a testimony) than about intellectual or scientific belief.

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
(Hebrews 10:39-11:1)

After the Resurrection, Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Some people insist upon proofs from God, or personal visions, or overwhelming experiences in order to develop and maintain their faith. That is why people are attracted to miracles and relics and the like. There does appear to be a fine line between receiving positive signs and visions that help the doubting Thomases and depending too much upon such signs.

While there are objective aspects to faith (more for some people than for others), religious belief and faith is so personal, subjective, and experiential that it is virtually impossible to transfer this knowledge to another person unless they trust your judgment and are truly openminded. So our testimony online has severe limitations… what we say we “know” will not be accepted as true knowledge by others unless perhaps they already agree to these kinds of claims.

On the primacy of faith: “It is not a case of proving first and then believing. We cannot believe theological truths for non-theological reasons. Rather, it is only when we encounter the living God in faith that we are in a position to grasp the truth of Christian faith. God then enables us to see with spiritual eyes what we could not previously see. The spirit is able to understand what the mind of the flesh is unable to conceive.” (Dr. Colin Brown, from "Philosophy and the Christian Faith”) And without spiritual help (from God of course) people will just not get it. How do you get such spiritual help? You ask for it, of course; you have to mean it, honestly praying for spiritual insight.

 

[SteveB28]

right i never said in my comment that that was the reason why i believed in God because of the fact that so many other people also believed i only suggested that when more than one person experiences the same phenominon it rules out the idea that its just a result of the perception of just 1 individual science also uses this logic as well . but since your arguing against the possibility of God your willing to dismiss the scientific method of discovery since it doesnt support your position.

I see. If you are not prepared to be honest in your responses, please take your disjointed sentences elsewhere.

 

[toLiJC]

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.

adam and eve were disbelievers(infidel) in the beginning, because God made them as users giving them to have a paradisiac(al) life free from religious obligations, and from this viewpoint the infidelity has existed since then, as for the atheism, it emerged as a response of some disbelievers under the pressure of the human religion, and then it evolved as a satanic tradition manifesting in places under the leadership of some spiritual workers with unclean intentions(wicked)

Blessings

 

[Ana the Ist]

That would be fine if you

That would be fine if you were just looking for opinion, and if the topic were within the physical world...but that is not the circumstances.

What is not appropriate for these circumstances, is to expect that the higher component (God or His people) should bow to the lower component (you), in the access of [His] greater knowledge. If you when before a king or a president, would you expect that? Never. But here you do expect it...and you get nowhere. Strange.

That would be a point to consider if I were asking god, a king, or a president for knowledge...but I'm not. Im asking you.

Let's hear what you got.

That would be a point to consider if I were asking god, a king, or a president for knowledge...but I'm not. Im asking you.

Let's hear what you got.

Edit- I don't know why it put my reply into a quote. Sorry for that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Teaching infinite intelligence to a finite human takes time, a lot of time if you're a finite human who's also an atheist.

Well then we've got no time to waste! Let's hear what he's taught you...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Now, see, you can't even follow directions (<----------).

Ummm...you put 5 periods followed by an arrow and the word "answers".

You're an author, right? Pretend you're writing something in english that makes sense. You've got answers? Let's hear them...

 

[ScottA]

So if you're in that situation, and someone is taking your (rather unsociable) lead and insisting you're the liar, you would always believe you're correct?

How does a third person watching this play out navigate who is right and who is wrong?

No, not exactly. Depending on the circumstances, I would be prepared to yield. But at the same time, I too would have to account for their possible overriding human input, and the possibility they haven't got a clue. I suspect that part of the human exchange of knowledge is consistent with us all. The difference is, SOME of us actually know there is REALLY a Source of ultimate truth among the other claims.

As for a third party looking on, the fulfillment of would be claims (fulfilled prophecy) is one way. The other is to not remain a bystander, and do your own research. Which many here have done, but to no avail, because they look to other peoples info, which is just a loop back to the pool of would be claims. No, the correct research would be direct from the Source. Ask, or even challenge. But in doing so, there is a common mistake that is made: You need to enter into it with the understanding of the circumstances. You need to have patience. For example: If you rang the doorbell on a little house and waited 2 minutes for someone to come to the door, you might expect that if someone were home, that is plenty of time for them to come to the door. But if it were a bigger house, you should expect to wait longer. Well, the time it takes a person to get across a big or little house is not the problem, in this case. The delay...is you. God is timeless. All matters of time are limited to us. So, if you ask God for an answer, you will be waiting until YOU are ready...not Him. Be patient.

 

[juvenissun]

We are animals, no matter how much you try to redefine what words mean.
Your arbitrary premises and religiously inspired definitions of certain life forms are irrelevant as well.

Sorry, if your comment is not to the point, I tend not to reply.

That's some amazing circular logic right there. Why bother denying reality? Why not just say that there's only one type of animal which can know God? We are one of them, so according to your belief system, obviously there's an exception to this rule.

And again, many, many Christians fully support the theory of evolution, so I don't see where you're getting the idea that it's just an atheist's excuse for not believing in God. I still fail to see what it has to do with religion. It's perfectly compatible.

I guess you forgot the question in the OP and are confused.
Origin of atheism?

Animals are atheistic.
We are animals.
So, we are (were) atheistic (from the origin).

There are millions of animal kinds. Why should we be special?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are mistaking the "sharing" of knowledge as making "claims." Claiming would mean we/I have some intent to claim your confidence in the information...and that is not the case. In "sharing" you have a choice.

You also continue to assume that higher knowledge can be explained in lower circles. That is a mistake. The only way that high knowledge can be explained in lower circles, is IF the lower is willing to leave the lower circle. But you cling to the lower circle of worldly knowledge...and get nowhere. You limit yourself.

Could you elaborate on the difference between sharing knowledge and making a claim of knowledge?

You said one involved my "confidence" though I'm not sure what context of the word you mean and I'm really not sure why you think that's a difference.

I mean, if I'm sharing knowledge...I'm still making a knowledge claim. Take a look at this example...

(This would be me "sharing knowledge")
Me: 9/11 was an inside job.
You: huh?

(This is me making a knowledge claim)
Me: 9/11 was an inside job.
You: what?

What exactly is the difference?

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

I see. If you are not prepared to be honest in your responses, please take your disjointed sentences elsewhere.

I understood him just fine and saw no dishonesty. Sure, he could write better. So what. Your dismissive attitude says more about you than about what he wrote.

Let me respond to his points.
Science does indeed require repetition of facts to support theories. Consensus is always important. One research study does not cause everyone to believe.

The billions of people with faith certainly involves some consensus and repeated testimonies as to their experiences and claims (not unlike science). But we must admit that many have opposing claims. This is why choice with regard to faith is so important.

If true faith does indeed change people so that they can now access spiritual truths in more depth and comprehension, then a person without such faith will simply not comprehend where the others are coming from. It is just not possible for them. Sort of like you and I trying to understand nuclear physicists talking about their theories. But faith is different in that God does a major change within a person when they truly come to believe. Now they can understand things that were impossible for them before.

 

[HitchSlap]

Faith and Epistemology

How do we know anything for certain? What you think you know— could it be wrong? Sure. Our brains and sensory equipment are not perfect. So why do we have so much faith in them? Human beings have a need to “see it to believe it”, a tendency to trust in their own senses. But our senses can be mistaken and our interpretations of what we see and hear can be way off the mark.

Epistemology is about how we know anything, and whether our knowledge is trustworthy and reliable as “truth.” It is the investigation of what it is that distinguishes justified belief from mere opinion. Where religious faith is concerned, we have an inherent problem. If our beliefs were so self-evident that virtually everyone would have to agree, then we would not call it “faith,” it would be universally accepted as certain knowledge (like our belief in gravity). Faith is about believing when the evidence to our senses is not overwhelming. It is more about personal trust (in a person, in a testimony) than about intellectual or scientific belief.

"Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
(Hebrews 10:39-11:1)

After the Resurrection, Jesus said to Thomas: "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). Some people insist upon proofs from God, or personal visions, or overwhelming experiences in order to develop and maintain their faith. That is why people are attracted to miracles and relics and the like. There does appear to be a fine line between receiving positive signs and visions that help the doubting Thomases and depending too much upon such signs.

While there are objective aspects to faith (more for some people than for others), religious belief and faith is so personal, subjective, and experiential that it is virtually impossible to transfer this knowledge to another person unless they trust your judgment and are truly openminded. So our testimony online has severe limitations… what we say we “know” will not be accepted as true knowledge by others unless perhaps they already agree to these kinds of claims.

On the primacy of faith: “It is not a case of proving first and then believing. We cannot believe theological truths for non-theological reasons. Rather, it is only when we encounter the living God in faith that we are in a position to grasp the truth of Christian faith. God then enables us to see with spiritual eyes what we could not previously see. The spirit is able to understand what the mind of the flesh is unable to conceive.” (Dr. Colin Brown, from "Philosophy and the Christian Faith”) And without spiritual help (from God of course) people will just not get it. How do you get such spiritual help? You ask for it, of course; you have to mean it, honestly praying for spiritual insight.

"Faith is believing in something you know ain't true." MT