The origins of atheism

[Ana the Ist]

Lol...oh man...

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, but you have a very valid point and I'm not going to gloss that over or rationalize it like trying to make Noah's flood sound true. It is what it is. Within the Urantia book the revelstors tell us they had a mandate which forbid them from disclosing humanly undiscovered facts, but they could disclose things that we did know at some point in the past but have been lost in history. Just today some UB people were discussing this very thing. The 2.5 figure is even now being revised upward due to new measurements.

I appreciate the honest reply.

However, do you not see a problem with claiming things to be true which cannot be independently verified, then creating an "out" for those things that can be? (serious question)

 

[HitchSlap]

Lol...oh man...

 

[ScottA]

No sweat. How about you just tell us how you know the demonstration is real?

I was taken outside the demo and shown.

 

[HitchSlap]

I was taken outside the demo and shown.

"I'll never tell. I'll never tell. I'll never tell."

 

[bhsmte]

"I'll never tell. I'll never tell. I'll never tell."

He can't, too much exposure, he can't risk that.

 

[ScottA]

Let's hear the answer then! And the question while you're at it!

The question (if I can remember back that far) is the ability to demo the existence of God.

The answer is yes but no. Yes, I got my answer, I was taken outside the universe/world and shown. But No, I cannot demo it for you...as I am not God. However, except for the criteria we have been talking about, it is not exclusive information. You can receive it as well (providing you meet the criteria).

 

[HitchSlap]

He can't, too much exposure, he can't risk that.

I'm confident he'll soon realize the untenable nature of such a position.

Maybe?

 

[ScottA]

"I'll never tell. I'll never tell. I'll never tell."

I HAVE told...and you probably read it right here. I have openly told of my own experience, and I have explained how you too can access the information. Doing so, is on you.

 

[HitchSlap]

I HAVE told...and you probably read it right here. I have openly told of my own experience, and I have explained how you too can access the information. Doing so, is on you.

Do you suffer from a shizotypal psychosis?

 

[Colter]

Wait...what do you mean "revised"?

They just correct mistakes in the UB based on newer, more accurate information?

Wait...what do you mean "revised"?

They just correct mistakes in the UB based on newer, more accurate information?

No, not the UB, when I said "they" I meant scientist continue to recalculate the distance to M31. And I assume they mean the center, M31 is thought to be 220,000 LY across.

The UB: "In one group of variable stars the period of light fluctuation is directly dependent on luminosity, and knowledge of this fact enables astronomers to utilize such suns as universe lighthouses or accurate measuring points for the further exploration of distant star clusters. By this technique it is possible to measure stellar distances most precisely up to more than one million light-years. Better methods of space measurement and improved telescopic technique will sometime more fully disclose the ten grand divisions of the superuniverse of Orvonton; you will at least recognize eight of these immense sectors as enormous and fairly symmetrical star clusters."

 

[Chriliman]

I didn't say that. I made no specific mention of "love" or "truth"... and I didn't even hint at specific "spiritual" concepts not existing. Don't try to twist my words.
But it is possible to have knowledge of the non-existence of non-existing "spiritual" things as well as knowledge of the non-existence of non-existing material thing.


So you keep claiming... it is just that you are very bad at showing it.



It does. The identity of something is what something is, or is being said to be. If such an identity is internally or externally inconsistent, this thing does not exist.


That a given identity is not logically impossible, because of eternity or infinity is not demonstrated. If you make claims like that, you have to show your reasoning. Likewise, my limitations do not mean that I cannot show the logical impossibility of something eternal and infinite.


No, now you are channeling your own thoughts again. I didn't say that. I personally think it not only possible, but inevitable, that something eternal and infinite "exists" (though explaining that would be beyond this thread). I just say that I know that this eternal and infinite is not what you identity as "God".

Lets try something different to make this simpler.

non-existence is the absence of existence

and

nothing is the absence of something

Can we agree that the above is true and that the terms "non-existence" and "nothing" can be used interchangeably?

 

[HitchSlap]

Lets try something different to make this simpler.

non-existence is the absence of existence

and

nothing is the absence of something

Can we agree that the above is true and that the terms "non-existence" and "nothing" can be used interchangeably?

so far so good

 

[Colter]

I appreciate the honest reply.

However, do you not see a problem with claiming things to be true which cannot be independently verified, then creating an "out" for those things that can be? (serious question)

Yes, I do see the obvious credibility problem. But we are also compiling a list of statements that were out of step with the current science of the time that is now being verified. At the time of the writing of the UB plate tectonics or continental drift was out of favor in science, but the UB narrates the long history of the rise and fall of the early super continents and the terminal break up.

History and hostility towards continental drift theory: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

 

[Chriliman]

so far so good

Freodin has claimed he has knowledge of non-existence. (to add "something" here like "deities" is nonsensical because something can't non-exist. Something must exist in order to be considered something.)

Now, if we interchange the term "non-existence" with the term "nothing", which you agreed are interchangeable, then what we have is Freodin claiming he has knowledge of nothing. I'm certain Freodin did not intentionally make this claim, but when he decided to contradict atheism this is inevitably where it leads.

If Freodin would have stayed true to the meaning of his atheism then we could have avoided this. The meaning of atheism to the acknowledgement that one does not know if God exists or does not exist, it makes no claims about the truth of God existing or not existing.

Simple.

 

[Davian]

I was taken outside the demo and shown.

Were you brought back, or are you still "out there"?

 

[aus22]

There is Male and female in the Catholic church. Although Mary is not a God she is the most important saint.

 

[Davian]

The question (if I can remember back that far) is the ability to demo the existence of God.

The answer is yes but no. Yes, I got my answer, I was taken outside the universe/world and shown. But No, I cannot demo it for you...as I am not God. However, except for the criteria we have been talking about, it is not exclusive information. You can receive it as well (providing you meet the criteria).

The criteria being that you have to be a believer. If I were already a believer, I wouldn't need a demo, would I?

 

[Davian]

I'm confident he'll soon realize the untenable nature of such a position.

Maybe?

I dunno. I suspect that he will entrench, under some misconceived notion that his confidence in his beliefs is in some manner an indication of their veracity.

 

[HitchSlap]

Freodin has claimed he has knowledge of non-existence. (to add "something" here like "deities" is nonsensical because something can't non-exist. Something must exist in order to be considered something.)

Now, if we interchange the term "non-existence" with the term "nothing", which you agreed are interchangeable, then what we have is Freodin claiming he has knowledge of nothing. I'm certain Freodin did not intentionally make this claim, but when he decided to contradict atheism this is inevitably where it leads.

If Freodin would have stayed true to the meaning of his atheism then we could have avoided this. The meaning of atheism to the acknowledgement that one does not know if God exists or does not exist, it makes no claims about the truth of God existing or not existing.

Simple.

So what's your point?