The origins of atheism

[SteveB28]

That's still delusional.

What nonsense is this!?

You tell me that you own the Sydney Harbour Bridge and that I should buy it from you. I reject your claims, so I am the one that is delusional!?

 

[Job8]

What nonsense is this!?

You tell me that you own the Sydney Harbour Bridge and that I should buy it from you. I reject your claims, so I am the one that is delusional!?

If hypothetically I did own Sydney Harbour Bridge but you rejected my claim, who would be delusional? At the very least you would need to ask for a copy of the title before rejecting the claim.

So it is with the existence of God. The UNIVERSE exists in all its ordered splendor, and God owns title to it. So unless you can prove that ANYTHING can exist without a creator, your only option would be to believe that the Creator exists because His universe exists.

 

[SteveB28]

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.

And if you'd traced back the series of communications between us, you would have found that the dishonesty that I refer to has nothing to do with the attitude towards science. It was the blatant denial of relying upon the 'numbers' argument that she had proffered earlier.

Furthermore, allow me to put the two questions to you that have been posed to others:

When you speak of the "major change" that God causes in a person, how can you be sure that it is God and not Satan ( who you people describe as the Great Deceiver) that is influencing you?

How are you able to determine the difference between a genuine experience of God and a psychological delusion, given that you all claim these experiences to have occurred 'in the mind'?

 

[ScottA]

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?

A claim cannot be considered valid if based on hearsay, while sharing is simply the passing on of information [believed] to be valid. Example:

Knowledge claim: 9/11 was an inside job. I witnessed the perpetrators in action.

Shared knowledge: I heard 9/11 was an inside job.

...If represented correctly, a knowledge claim would be "knowing" the information, and sharing would be "believing" the information. But "known" information can be both "known" as well as "shared."

 

[SteveB28]

If hypothetically I did own Sydney Harbour Bridge but you rejected my claim, who would be delusional? At the very least you would need to ask for a copy of the title before rejecting the claim.

Your claim to own the Bridge would be extraordinary, so the level of evidence to substantiate your claim would likewise have to be extraordinary. Simply making the claim, with no evidence to support it, would make my rejection entirely rational. Once you had provided the level of evidence which would justify such an outlandish claim, it would be much more likely to be accepted..

So it is with the existence of God. The UNIVERSE exists in all its ordered splendor, and God owns title to it. So unless you can prove that ANYTHING can exist without a creator, your only option would be to believe that the Creator exists because His universe exists.

That's a 'Bridge' claim! You have not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that "God owns title to it". That is an unsupported, personal, opinionated wish. And I don't have to prove anything - because you are the one making the outlandish claims!

 

[ScottA]

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." NDT

Much like a ship in a bottle, there is no question about where it's been.

 

[ScottA]

True in essence. However, it is also true that God (being God) can pass His truths effectively from person to person as well. Or else Jesus and the Apostles would not have needed to teach and persuade. God works through His people to spread the gospel. But I agree, without God's internal work on the person's spirit, no one would be "born again."

A good example is Jesus' comment that flesh and blood did not tell Peter that He was the Christ.

 

[Job8]

And I don't have to prove anything - because you are the one making the outlandish claims!

Steve,
You are correct in that you don't have to prove anything to anyone else. But as a "scientific experiment" you owe it to yourself to DISPROVE that anything can create itself.

Let's take a very simple example. If you take a stack of paper on which you have written an account, place it on your desk, and want to see it in the form of a book, can you just speak to the stack to make itself into a proper book with a cover and a binding? Try it and and nothing will happen. This will DISPROVE that anything can create itself. At the same time it will prove that unless there was a Creator this Creation which you see all around you could not have come into existence. Q.E.D.

 

[AV1611VET]

A good example is Jesus' comment that flesh and blood did not tell Peter that He was the Christ.

Excellent point!

Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[toLiJC]

Your lack of punctuation and incoherent writing makes it hard to respond, but I'll give it a shot.
.
. time passes as ecco attempts to understand
.
This is harder than I thought.
.
. more time passes as ecco attempts to understand
.
Do you mean: Adam and Eve were disbelievers from the beginning even though god put them in an idyllic setting?

Do you mean: Since Adam and Eve had no religious obligations, they committed infidelity and because they committed infidelity, people today are infidels?

Do you mean: Atheism started because some atheists were pressured by theists to became atheists?

Do you mean: Atheism evolved as a satanic tradition led by theists who don't like god?

I won't respond further until you can clarify your questions.

and even if some atheists had been innocent, what of it if they have begun and continued to be impudent sinners/violators?!, so let's not become impudent, especially when the discussed explanation is plain enough and the truth is easy to be understood

i can only say that the (modern) atheism begins increasingly to resemble satanism

Blessings

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

And if you'd traced back the series of communications between us, you would have found that the dishonesty that I refer to has nothing to do with the attitude towards science. It was the blatant denial of relying upon the 'numbers' argument that she had proffered earlier.

Furthermore, allow me to put the two questions to you that have been posed to others:

When you speak of the "major change" that God causes in a person, how can you be sure that it is God and not Satan ( who you people describe as the Great Deceiver) that is influencing you?

How are you able to determine the difference between a genuine experience of God and a psychological delusion, given that you all claim these experiences to have occurred 'in the mind'?

It is easy to answer your question to me regarding the "major change." The 'proof is in the pudding' (or as Jesus put it, "you will know the tree by its fruits"). If the change in my life led to behavior always associated with Satan, then you would have a point. If the change led to behavior and "fruits" consistent with the morality, love, joy, and inner peace espoused by Jesus and the Apostles, then you must concede it is highly unlikely to be caused by Satan (or any other source except God).

Christians are a people who trust the revealed information in the Bible as inspired by God. So when I have an experience that fits with what has been experienced by other people of God as described in the Bible (and by millions of Christians throughout history), then I can trust it is not a psychological delusion. Also, such experiences have been confirmed over and over in my everyday life. If such experiences are 'delusions,' they are accomplishing a great deal of good-- which confirms that they most certainly are not associated with Satan!

 

[AV1611VET]

i can only say that the (modern) atheism begins increasingly to resemble satanism

+1

 

[muichimotsu]

But notice the "and/or" I included there. It might simply be a case of misunderstanding. I frequently encounter atheists who aren't misotheists, but who think there can be more than one God, or that theistic belief is akin to belief in fairies or celestial teapots, or that God could possibly be evil, etc.

Misunderstanding relative to your position doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong. Your position could just as easily be mistaken in various manners, so the point is trying to be objective and not lean purely towards what you want to be true, but what is true in itself.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

A good example is Jesus' comment that flesh and blood did not tell Peter that He was the Christ.

That's a good example. God can work any way He so desires, directly or through people or through natural events.

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

Faith is not a virtue, and is nothing more than wish-thinking.

Ah, the wishful thinking argument. Fair enough. Thank you for the opportunity. Of course you are talking about religious faith, not other kinds of faith… like faith in science or faith in your best friend, right?

Faith in general is something everyone has. We would not take a step unless we had the faith that we would not step into a deep hole or off a cliff. We would not turn the key in our car but for the faith that it would start. This general faith is not wishful thinking but based on experience. After many decades of life (experience) of interacting with God and daily seeing answered prayer, my present religious faith is very much like this everyday faith.

However, when I first came to Christian faith, it was a risky step into the unknown. “When we come to the end of all the light that we know and we are about to step off into the darkness, ‘faith” is knowing one of two things will happen: there will be something solid in the darkness for you to stand on or you will be taught how to fly.” (Edward Teller) This step of faith was much closer to wishful thinking, true, but it was also an issue of personal trust--- more like when my mother told me as a child to not run out into the street and to wash my hands before eating. After being exposed to the New Testament scriptures, I had come to trust their Author. As Jesus (the Good Shepherd) said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow..."

Faith in something that is not real is indeed wishful thinking. In this I agree with you. And like the placebo effect, such faith can have a short term positive outcome (like sugar pills). But faith in something that is real will be proven out over time. I cannot speak for every person of faith, but I can certainly speak as an old Vietnam Vet and scientist … that I get constant evidences of God’s love and leading … and have for most of my longish life. It is not wishful thinking when it works over many decades. The ground has been quite solid.

 

[muichimotsu]

Ah, the wishful thinking argument. Fair enough. Thank you for the opportunity. Of course you are talking about religious faith, not other kinds of faith… like faith in science or faith in your best friend, right?

Faith in general is something everyone has. We would not take a step unless we had the faith that we would not step into a deep hole or off a cliff. We would not turn the key in our car but for the faith that it would start. This general faith is not wishful thinking but based on experience. After many decades of life (experience) of interacting with God and daily seeing answered prayer, my present religious faith is very much like this everyday faith.

However, when I first came to Christian faith, it was a risky step into the unknown. “When we come to the end of all the light that we know and we are about to step off into the darkness, ‘faith” is knowing one of two things will happen: there will be something solid in the darkness for you to stand on or you will be taught how to fly.” (Edward Teller) This step of faith was much closer to wishful thinking, true, but it was also an issue of personal trust--- more like when my mother told me as a child to not run out into the street and to wash my hands before eating. After being exposed to the New Testament scriptures, I had come to trust their Author. As Jesus (the Good Shepherd) said, "My sheep hear my voice and follow..."

Faith in something that is not real is indeed wishful thinking. In this I agree with you. And like the placebo effect, such faith can have a short term positive outcome (like sugar pills). But faith in something that is real will be proven out over time. I cannot speak for every person of faith, but I can certainly speak as an old Vietnam Vet and scientist … that I get constant evidences of God’s love and leading … and have for most of my longish life. It is not wishful thinking when it works over many decades. The ground has been quite solid.

2 major issues: comparing faith in God to faith in a car starting is ludicrous, because we have more generally agreed upon standards about a car starting, not to mention we can figure out why it doesn't while unanswered prayers or the like is kind of mystery that can only be solved by invoking faith, not trust.

But faith by a general definition is belief in something that you have no verifiable experience with, merely that you have subjectively experienced it. We trust that a plane flies or that a car starts or that a lightswitch turns on a light because we all have a general knowledge of how it works and can understand that there is the possibility it won't, while with God, it's up in the air and purely a matter of your own will and wishful thinking that things will go the "right" way versus the whims of a deity who may not even care about your pleas

 

[Dr Bruce Atkinson]

2 major issues: comparing faith in God to faith in a car starting is ludicrous, because we have more generally agreed upon standards about a car starting, not to mention we can figure out why it doesn't while unanswered prayers or the like is kind of mystery that can only be solved by invoking faith, not trust.

But faith by a general definition is belief in something that you have no verifiable experience with, merely that you have subjectively experienced it. We trust that a plane flies or that a car starts or that a lightswitch turns on a light because we all have a general knowledge of how it works and can understand that there is the possibility it won't, while with God, it's up in the air and purely a matter of your own will and wishful thinking that things will go the "right" way versus the whims of a deity who may not even care about your pleas

If you re-read my post, you will note that I separated religious faith from general faith, so my example was not ludicrous. And I mentioned how many, many experiences develop a different kind of faith than the initial "stepping out into the unknown."
Your problem is that you can never accept as verifiable any personal testimony. If you had walked through my life with me and seen (yes with your senses) all that I have seen, you would admit that much is verifiable. But you don't know me and thus will not trust my testimony. When I tell the truth about my father's miraculous cure from cancer, you won't believe it because you don't want to. The cancer was metasticized into his bones, it was everywhere and the doctors gave him not long to live. His family, friends, and church members all prayed for him, and then he stood up in church one Sunday and (by faith) announced his own healing. He then went to his scheduled medical exam at the cancer hospital in Texas a month later and the doctors could not find any cancer. It was gone. These are verifiable events ... but only one of thousands, some very small and frequent, others big and "blow you away" type events.
But no, I cannot verify my experiences to YOU. You would not want to hear it anyway because you have already made up your mind. My faith will remain wishful thinking to you because you are not ready to take that step, to make that level of commitment.

Bottom line: I prefer to place my trust in God's "whims" (as you call them) over random chance and over your own sad opinion. I have the evidence (both subjective and objective) of 60 plus years which has never ceased to confirm my trust.

 

[Davian]

1. Wring = Wrong.

So you can spell. Imagine my surprise.

2. You are looking to the natural world (down) and expecting to use natural tools to answer a spiritual (up) question.

What does "spiritual" mean? Define it in some testable manner.

3. Neither. But you seem intent on the elementary senses, and yet you are not even being logical and looking in the wrong place.

You are leading the way here.

4. "Like" was your word. You would "like" things on your own terms...or something like that. But your terms, do not allow for you to advance your position.

Or something like that?

No, you misrepresent what I am saying.

5. "We" are those who are One with God.

What does that mean, and how do we test for it? How am I to know if you are lying?

6. "Interpretation" is inaccurate, it's the wrong term for what you are proposing. "Conveyance" would be most correct. "We" convey the truth as it is given to us.

You convey your interpretation of the bible.

7. "Beliefs" is also wrong. The correct term would be "know."

You believe that you know. Got it.

Yes, what I know, is beyond reproach.

Then why to you hang your beliefs out here to be critiqued?

I, on the other hand, am not perfect in my humanity, but I am in my spirit.

Are you infallible?

 

[Davian]

1. I don't have any [religious] beliefs.

Are you not a Christian?

2. The rules of the forum were personally elaborated to me, and the "intent" of the document was explained just as I stated it to you.

Go read it again.

3. You do indeed interrupt your own ability (and that of others) to advance your knowledge of the topics regarding God and the truth.

...regarding your religious opinion. Too bad. Pretend that you are in a philosophy discussion forum.

4. Why would I pretend to speculate and offer conjecture in a forum dedicated to the truth?

I don't know. Why?

5. My position is supported with facts.

At this point, you are supposed to provide those facts.

It is your limited knowledge of the facts that suggest otherwise.

I am not the one making the unsubstantiated assertions here. You are the one supposedly with the facts.

And your definition of the term "fact" is limited to those things which are beneath the level of the subject matter.

What is your particular definition of the word "fact"?

6. I am not wrong, nor could I be, for it is not I who speaks, but speak He who is within me.

"He" who?

 

[DZoolander]

For the record, I think I agree with what you were trying to get across in that first statement I replied to. Science isn't a method for certainty.

It was just funny the way you said it.

Yeah, it came out a little differently than I intended...