The origins of atheism

[Crandaddy]

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.

Quite true! Regardless of what we believe (or don't believe), no one is immune from misunderstanding. Intellectual honesty and humility both demand that we approach every question with such an attitude. Still, I do very strongly believe that many people (including many Christians!) have a deep misunderstanding of the Christian God.

 

[AirPo]

Only one is true.

Incorrect. It is possible that none is true.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.

I don't believe you.

Especially since you said this:

But god not only let it happen, he caused it happen.

If I'm wrong, I'll ask a second time:

Why are you an atheist?

 

[Davian]

Quite true! Regardless of what we believe (or don't believe), no one is immune from misunderstanding. Intellectual honesty and humility both demand that we approach every question with such an attitude. Still, I do very strongly believe that many people (including many Christians!) have a deep misunderstanding of the Christian God.

That simply begs the question: by what mechanism do the religious decide who has the proper understanding of a god? Debates? Popular vote? Warfare?

 

[AirPo]

Those are periods. Thanks for proving my point.

There is more than one so that would be points.

 

[AirPo]

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.

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.

There is no such thing as "higher knowledge."

 

[AirPo]

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

The post you quoted is written as well. I guess there are now two utmost authorities.

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.

 

[AirPo]

Those animals which are not human cannot deal with the abstract world. How much science do you see among them? They also have less capacity for real choice; they are genetically programmed far more than we are. We have the capacity to learn far beyond the ability of chimps and dolphins. We can choose against our (rather limited) genetic programming. Other animals cannot believe in God and cannot disbelieve in God. Not an issue for them. So to assume they are atheistic is absurd. I can say that all animals are theistic just as well. You cannot prove it either way. Your logic fails because your original assumptions are in error.

Animals are more genetically programmed than humans and therefore cannot have or not have a belief in God?

That's it, I'm calling Poe!

 

[AirPo]

People may be mistaken in their beliefs, but no one chooses to believe in something that they know is not true. Not even delusional schizophrenics. People must be convinced in their own minds that something is true before they can believe it. You obviously do not understand the nature of belief.

People can and do choose to believe in something that they know is not true. That is the nature of humans.

 

[AirPo]

So you (who have no faith) can give me the short course on the nature of faith.

Yeah, why not?

 

[Dmitri Martila]

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.

The proof, what atheism is the old bad paganism, you see in the file attached. There is also important theological information and the physical and social one. You simply need to read this, if you want, dear theist. I am not writing for busy atheists. They are busy with satanic activities.

 

[AirPo]

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.

Equating God to a con man selling a bridge?

 

[As I was saying]

We've had this conversation once already. Your comments proved my point. And for the record, I have an autistic child. So your latest comment proves my point again.

Do they?

 

[As I was saying]

That's not the same thing.
This claim is about existing properties of both cars.
They aren't claims of existence.

You don't define things by stuff that is not present.
It's completely meaningless to do that.

We don't speak about "graviton-fairy-less gravity", so why would we speak about "godless anything"?

If one has to include in a definition everything that is not present or not known to be present, then every definition of anything would become an infinite sentence.



No, that's also not a negative claim.
That's again claims about existing properties of existing cars.

It's a justified and factual statement that your Opel Corsa will not be capable to chase a Ferarri.



That's also not a negative claim.



Again, no.

I reject the positive claims of theists. ie: "a god exists"
The negative version of that claim is "god does not exist".
I don't make that claim nore do I accept it as a true-ism.

Saying "I don't believe X is true" is not the same as saying "I believe X is false".
You get that, right?



With every sentence, it becomes clearer and clearer that you have no idea what negative claims are.

Your comment about "suicide" couldn't be more absurd if you tried.

If your child has committed suicide, there is nothing absurd about it. It is heartrending to have to go through it and it is so sad that atheists just treat is as nothing more than an exercise is semantics or word games or use it as an exercise to show how wonderful and intelligent they are.

No doubt that with every sentence it becomes clearer and clearer that you have no idea what real life is all about. Your insecurity is so obvious the fact that you cannot contemplate ever being wrong or anyone else being right.

 

[As I was saying]

None of the examples you used are "negative claims" in the same context that atheism is a negative claim.

It's odd too since you literally have an almost countless number of things that you don't believe in. One can only conclude that you avoided any correct examples because they don't fit the narrative you're pushing or you just don't have a clue about what a negative claim is...and therefore no real understanding of atheism.

Ditto.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am not writing for busy atheists. They are busy with satanic activities.

Yeah, my schedule is full.

 

[ScottA]

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

Spiritual, means to be "of" the spirit of God.

Only the spirit can test the spirit, and you do not have the spirit.

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

"We" are the children, "of" God.

You cannot test what you cannot comprehend. Why does it matter to you if we lie or tell the truth? Some here have lied, some told the truth. You do not believe either version, because you do not know the difference. If you were of God, you would know when you heard the truth, but you are not of Him.

You convey your interpretation of the bible.

Interpretations are for those who do not know the truth.

You believe that you know. Got it.
Then why to you hang your beliefs out here to be critiqued?

I share what I know. It is not a recital. I never said I believe.

Are you infallible?

Since you repeat yourself and I have already answered for whom I was, I will now answer for whom I am: I am.

 

[ScottA]

Are you not a Christian?

I am.

At this point, you are supposed to provide those facts.
I am not the one making the unsubstantiated assertions here. You are the one supposedly with the facts.

I have, but you do not see, nor hear, nor do you perceive what the spirit says.

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

A fact is that which is [actually] real, rather than just an image of what is real. On the contrary, nothing of the material world (your world) qualifies to be called a fact, but rather a fallacy.

"He" who?

You don't know Him.

 

[ScottA]

Well let's hear it! No need to beat around the bush.

I did already.

 

[ScottA]

Incorrect. It is possible that none is true.

Either way, you do not know the truth, because the truth is not in you. If the truth were in you, you would not speculate, nor would you deny the truth when it is presented to you.