The origins of atheism

[Colter]

What "doctrines of death"? You realise that none of the terms you use have any meaning to any atheists here?

I know that you guys are just deliberately pig headed. The atheist doctrine of death is their belief that death is the final end of life, that there is nothing beyond, no resurrection. Also known as the doctrine of pessimistic despair.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I know that you guys are just deliberately pig headed. The atheist doctrine of death is their belief that death is the final end of life, that there is nothing beyond, no resurrection. Also known as the doctrine of pessimistic despair.

Errr... that's not a doctrine. You do understand what a "doctrine" is, right?

 

[Colter]

That's not a doctrine. Atheism is the outcome of my assessment of religious claims, not a doctrine I must unquestioningly uphold.

The outcome of your assessment, of my assessments, constitutes our working philosophy of life. We don't have to defend that in a dissertation in order to call it a philosophy. Every person of conscious mind has a basic philosophy of life weather they articulate that openly or not. We all have conceptual framework that we operate on. The details may ebb and flow but the big items are paramount. Going from faith in God to decided atheism or visa versa represents a seismic shift in our basic working philosophy. If you disagree with that then fine.

I can't help but to conclude that you think of yourself as somewhat special and can't just acknowledge you now have a philosophy of life that excludes God.

 

[quatona]

You did realize I was joking right?

Sure. Ever since you came up with them "godless ideals".

 

[Colter]

Errr... that's not a doctrine. You do understand what a "doctrine" is, right?

Yes, I use the term lightly, you should take off the anal retentive school master hat and catch my drift.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The outcome of your assessment, of my assessments, constitutes our working philosophy of life. We don't have to defend that in a dissertation in order to call it a philosophy. Every person of conscious mind has a basic philosophy of life weather they articulate that openly or not. We all have conceptual framework that we operate on. The details may ebb and flow but the big items are paramount. Going from faith in God to decided atheism or visa versa represents a seismic shift in our basic working philosophy. If you disagree with that then fine.

I can't help but to conclude that you think of yourself as somewhat special and can't just acknowledge you now have a philosophy of life that excludes God.

We have discussed this previously. (1) Yes, I have a "philosophy of life." You have decided to define my "worldview" by something I don't believe in.

 

[Colter]

Sure. Ever since you came up with them "godless ideals".

The term is not original to me, I got it from the UB.

89:10.2"Sin must be redefined as deliberate disloyalty to Deity. There are degrees of disloyalty: the partial loyalty of indecision; the divided loyalty of confliction; the dying loyalty of indifference; and the death of loyalty exhibited in devotion to godless ideals." UB 1955

The so called new atheism hopes to eliminate religion from society, that is devotion to Godless ideals.

Gautama Siddhartha's original religion, which became Buddhism, was a Godless religion. Today it still remains predominantly a Godless religion.

 

[quatona]

The term is not original to me, I got it from the UB.

 

[Freodin]

It bothers Atheist that you really aren't that unique.

Does it? Because I can use maths without invoking God? Because I can listen to a weather forecase that doesn't mention Zeus? Because I can go on my business without having to consider if I just now offend Odin, Vishnu or Huitzilopochtli?

Say, as much as you are barking about those evil atheists who do not acknowledge "the creator"... have you ever considered how much it would gall Leonardo da Vinci if all the world said the Mona Lisa was painted by Vincent van Gogh?

 

[Freodin]

I choose to be a slave of righteousness as opposed to choosing to be a slave to sin.

Either way, we are all slaves to whatever we obey and are led by.

I could choose to be hateful and cynical towards you right now but I choose not to. I choose to be understanding, compassionate, and kind.

Let's see...

People who are sceptical of your intention when you hint at hidden motives beyond a reasonable doubt of theistic / christians claims, and urge them to be "completely transparent" about it; now these people...
"... are full of hate and incapable of love or despise love and know that they will be viewed as reprobate for it and want to hide the fact by attempting to clothe themselves in the garb of skepticism, or the garb of rational thought or clinical examination."

Yes, definitly not hateful and cynical but understanding, compassionate and kind.

Feel the Christian Love, folks... even if you despise love and are incapable of love and are full of hate and just want to hide the fact that you are reprobate!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Somewhat off-topic: Is it just me or did this thread suddenly go from 141 pages to 140 pages?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is more the assumptive position of pretending to be knowledgeable about anything after building every supposition on a complete unknown. If you/they/whomever don't know from the word go, they don't know (much).

I still have no idea who or what you are talking about.

 

[Chriliman]

As you clearly didn't understand the inevitable fact of an irrational state, you cannot have made a rational decision about believing it it. Plainly spoken: the way you understand irrationality is not rational.


The "fact" that it is irrational to believe in something that is irrational simply isn't a fact. It is a false conclusion that you made. You just have to be aware where the irrationality applies... and where it doesn't.


Backing up your claim by adding another claim is... irrational. So why do you believe it would work? And logically: an asymptotical aquiration of understanding would never reach an infinite goal. You still have the same problem as without heaven. Further: this is rather irrelevant, considering that not even you thing that we are in heaven. You cannot use a potential and unverifiable understanding in the future to back up your claims right now.
And finally: a complete understanding of an infinite existence would require a state of infinite existence. That would mean, you would have to be God.



Now that is irrational! You do nothing but repeating that to believe in something irrational is irrational. And in order to show that, you just repeat your claim.


You haven't shown that my belief in primal chaos is irrational, other than repeatedly claiming that it is. I expect you to SHOW IT, especially after you repeatedly claimed that you did.


It is based on a rational conclusion. Contrary to what you offer: claims, I have presented my reasoning.


No, that is nonsense. At the start of the quoted post, you said:"I understand the concept of irrationality is not irrational in of itself." Primal Chaos as a state of irrationality is just that: the expression of the concept of irrationality.
So first you said that this concept is not irrational... now you say that "it can't possibly be considered rational". Are you proposing a state of neither rationality nor irrationality... or are you simply contradicting yourself?

More nonsense. A "beginning" is completely irrelevant here... it would imply a temporal expression which isn't part of the concept. And you show that you still didn't get the difference between the idea / concept of something and this something in itself. A (working, relevant) example: the concept of numerical infinity is limited... numerical infinity is not.


But I can! You have already admitted that you accept the concept of irrationality. Rationality cannot be used to explain irrationality, because irrationality can contradict rationality. Thus rationality is limited... hence not infinite.


Only because you still don't understand it. If it exist "outside of the limits of rationality", it is by definition irrational.
If you think that there is "nothing" outside of the limits of rationality, you have contradicted your previous claim: "there can never be "nothing" or "non-existence" (from your post #2564)


Because it's true!


You cannot prove that a rational eternal infinite God exist. Therefore, a irrational eternal infinite state is possible to exist.


Your constant and repeated claims that an eternal infinite God is rational are just that... claims. You keep chasing your tail by stating that it is possible, therefore it is rational to believe in it, and it is rational to believe in it because it is possible.

What you miss here - just don't want to admit - even if I cannot "prove" a state of existence beyond what we humans perceive to be rational... you cannot show that it is not possible or rational. Thus your claims of "my view is better than yours" is just empty rhetoric... I am on the same level as you are.

Last attempt to simplify this and show you why I think your missing the big picture here.

We agreed on the following:

nothing is the absence of everything

nonexistence is the absence of existence

now lets add:

irrationality is the absence of rationality

I agreed that the concept of irrationality is rational. In addition, the concepts of nothing and nonexistence as I've lined out above are also rational.

Here's is the difference I see:

The concepts of nothing, nonexistence and irrationality can all exist in a finite mind. But here is the difference, only irrationality itself(not the concept of it) can exist in a finite mind. IOW, an irrational finite mind can exist.

This means "nothing" and "nonexistence" themselves cannot exist in a finite mind, this is why it's impossible to have knowledge of them. You can have knowledge of the concepts of them.

IOW, a nothing finite mind or a nonexistent finite mind cannot exist. An irrational finite mind can exist. Do you understand this so far?

Now lets assume an eternal and infinite mind does exist. Lets assume this eternal and infinite mind created us and our universe. If this eternal and infinite mind were irrational, then we would not experience any order in our universe at all. In fact we would probably not even exist because the laws of nature would be in a state of chaos.

Lets assume this eternal and infinite mind is rational and it created us and our universe in a rational way. We would exist and we would be able to understand the difference between a finite rational mind and a finite irrational mind because a finite irrational mind can only exist because an eternal and infinite rational mind existed first. The finite irrational mind exists because of the absence of understanding that an eternal and infinite rational mind exists. This can explain why there is irrational evil in the world.

In short:

If an eternal and infinite irrationality mind exists, then there can't be any order to our universe. The laws of nature would be complete chaos. Yet we clearly observe order.

If an eternal and infinite rational mind exists, then there can be order to our universe because it was created by this mind. A finite irrational mind can also exist because of the absence of understanding that an eternal and infinite rational mind exists. This can explain why we observe order in our universe, but we also observe disorder. Intentional order came before disorder.

This can explain everything and can't be proven wrong, which is only one of many reasons I believe in a rational God.

 

[Cearbhall]

Not in the least.

"Sorry?" means "What?"

I am not interpreting them at all.

Then I think you should know that the quotes you've presented don't support your arguments.

 

[anonymous person]

No, that's what you like to tell yourself. They are skeptical of your call for transparency because you have previously been less than transparent in these discussions. As an example, you challenged us to convince you, knowing the entire time that you would never be convinced, no matter what we presented.

And I already told you that I was being sarcastic when I said that. I also apologized for being sarcastic.

But you keep bringing it up. So let me say this...

It seems that it's ok to be cynical and sarcastic as long as you are not a Christian, as if introducing and using humor and levity in a conversation is the exclusive right of the godless. I have not seen you so taken aback and doubtful of the sincerity and transparency of the godless when they say something sarcastic.

The truth of the matter is that being transparent and honest and compassionate and loving is something you should be regardless of whether or not anyone else is, at least that is what Jesus desires.

The cynic, the keyboard comedian and skeptic have no such obligation. They are content to just be cynical and humorous and remain willfully ignorant all the while attempting to portray themselves as wise. It is these that, professing to be wise, have become fools.

 

[anonymous person]

You're not religious? I suppose you tick the "No religion" box on the census form? Presumably your church doesn't have tax exempt status? After all, that's only for religious organisations, and you aren't a member of any.

No. I write in "follower of Jesus Christ".

My church having a tax exempt status has nothing to do with me being religious or not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And I already told you that I was being sarcastic when I said that. I also apologized for being sarcastic.

But you keep bringing it up. So let me say this...

It seems that it's ok to be cynical and sarcastic as long as you are not a Christian, as if introducing and using humor and levity in a conversation is the exclusive right of the godless. I have not seen you so taken aback and doubtful of the sincerity and transparency of the godless when they say something sarcastic.

The truth of the matter is that being transparent and honest and compassionate and loving is something you should be regardless of whether or not anyone else is, at least that is what Jesus desires.

The cynic, the keyboard comedian and skeptic have no such obligation. They are content to just be cynical and humorous and remain willfully ignorant all the while attempting to portray themselves as wise. It is these that, professing to be wise, have become fools.

As I said to you in our conversation regarding this, it appears that you were being deceptive when you claimed that you were "open to be convinced." (1) You challenged us to convince you, knowing the entire time that you would never be convinced, no matter what we presented. When your duplicity was identified, you first claimed that you were being sarcastic. When this excuse was exposed as unsatisfactory, you then insisted that you were open regarding some of your theological commitments, yet you couldn't name more than one as an example. Further, you indicated that you were not open to reconsidering the doctrine of Christ's divinity, despite earlier claiming that you were "open to be convinced" on that matter.

When asked whether you thought it was acceptable to deceive others if it furthered Christianity in some way, you failed to respond, leading me to suspect that you might regard deception as an acceptable practice in this discourse. Likewise, when asked whether you had joined this forum another username, you refused to respond, despite ongoing probing, leading me to suspect that you have something to hide.

Taken together, this information undermines confidence in your intellectual honesty when discussing these matters.

 

[asherahSamaria]

The simple truth about atheists is that if their intellectually honest then they will admit they don't know if God exists or does not exist.

Any objection from an atheist to this simple truth means they are either claiming it's true that God does not exist(which without evidence is an irrational claim) or they're claiming God does exist (which without evidence is an irrational claim as well).

This leaves an atheist rationally admitting they don't know either way.

When an atheist receives personal evidence of God they can then rationally claim to know God exists and cease to be an atheist.

However, when a person who received personal evidence of God is presented with evidence that proves God does not exist, they would be irrational to continue to claim God exists. But, this proof that God does not exist has not been presented, therefore, a person who has received personal evidence of God is rational to continue claiming to know God exists.

This really makes the atheists mad because there's no amount of human thought/talk that can change this simple truth.

So unless God Himself comes out and says He does not exist, I will continue to know that He exists because He has given me personal evidence of His existence. And my reasoning is sound to back up my claims.

"The simple truth about atheists is that if their intellectually honest then they will admit they don't know if God exists or does not exist" - almost correct. As an atheist I don't know if ANY god exists but have no reason to believe any of them do. You are confusing atheist with agnostic.

 

[quatona]

The concepts of nothing, nonexistence and irrationality can all exist in a finite mind. But here is the difference, only irrationality itself(not the concept of it) can exist in a finite mind. IOW, an irrational finite mind can exist.

This means "nothing" and "nonexistence" themselves cannot exist in a finite mind, this is why it's impossible to have knowledge of them. You can have knowledge of the concepts of them.

IOW, a nothing finite mind or a nonexistent finite mind cannot exist. An irrational finite mind can exist. Do you understand this so far?

Now lets assume an eternal and infinite mind does exist. Lets assume this eternal and infinite mind created us and our universe. If this eternal and infinite mind were irrational, then we would not experience any order in our universe at all. In fact we would probably not even exist because the laws of nature would be in a state of chaos.

Lets assume this eternal and infinite mind is rational and it created us and our universe in a rational way. We would exist and we would be able to understand the difference between a finite rational mind and a finite irrational mind because a finite irrational mind can only exist because an eternal and infinite rational mind existed first. The finite irrational mind exists because of the absence of understanding that an eternal and infinite rational mind exists. This can explain why there is irrational evil in the world.

In short:

If an eternal and infinite irrationality mind exists, then there can't be any order to our universe. The laws of nature would be complete chaos. Yet we clearly observe order.

If an eternal and infinite rational mind exists, then there can be order to our universe because it was created by this mind. A finite irrational mind can also exist because of the absence of understanding that an eternal and infinite rational mind exists. This can explain why we observe order in our universe, but we also observe disorder. Intentional order came before disorder.

This can explain everything and can't be proven wrong, which is only one of many reasons I believe in a rational God.

I´m wondering: Can words make you drunk?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. I write in "follower of Jesus Christ".

My church having a tax exempt status has nothing to do with me being religious or not.

That's right. You respond to the question regarding religious affiliation by writing "follower of Jesus Christ" (i.e., Christian). That's how the census classifies your religion.