The origins of atheism

[anonymous person]

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.

Then everyone here who has used sarcasm, which includes you, is guilty of deception.

You have any other points you wish to make?

 

[anonymous person]

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.

I actually could care less what the census classifies me as so long as I respond to the questions the way God wants me to. I am more concerned about what God says about me, not what a men say.

 

[Chriliman]

I´m wondering: Can words make you drunk?

Your wisdom is inebriated if you think its ok to change the meanings of words, only to fit your irrational view of the world. So yes.

Note: I have clearly defined each term I'm using in the most rational way possible. If you don't understand, it's because you're drunk with false wisdom.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then everyone here who has used sarcasm, which includes you, is guilty of deception.

You have any other points you wish to make?

Nothing indicates that you were being sarcastic when you claimed to be "open to be convinced." Only now, when confronted with your duplicity, do you raise the banner of sarcasm as a defence.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I actually could care less what the census classifies me as so long as I respond to the questions the way God wants me to. I am more concerned about what God says about me, not what a men say.

Then shouldn't you respond by ticking the "No religion" box, since you apparently don't have a religion to report?

 

[Freodin]

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.

Hm... I think we might have to go back a step in order to sort this mess. I apologize: some of this confusion is very likely to have come from my imprecise usage of terms.

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.

The problem I see here is our usage of the terms "rational" and "irrational". Based on our previous conversations, I assumed that you use them interchangable with "reasonable"... and I use that in about the same meaning as "logical" or "following logic".

Now "rational / irrational" can (and formally does) also mean "(not) understandable by our reason". That usually implies "following the rules of logic", but is a little different.

So here now you are starting to talk about "minds" and something that "exists in minds". I'm quite certain that this is not something that I ever mentioned, so it must be a connection that you make with "(ir)rational".

And there's the problem: I am not talking about something that exists in "minds"... finite or infinite. As the idea of "nothing", which I started off from, definitly excludes something as complex as "mind", it is not possible to include in this model.

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.

Sorry, I fear all that is based on your own worldview again, and isn't compatible with my worldview at all. "Minds" that "create" us... that is theistic stuff. I am not invoking any minds, rational or irrational, nor any kind of creation.

Though I have to state that I disagree with your conclusion: Even an irrational mind could create "order"... order is just a subset of chaos.

And that is just what is the case here, as describe by my worldview. The "universe" (by which I mean the rational / logical / ordered part, discovered or not) is not created. It is just the / an ordered subset of the greater irrational set that I call "Primal 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.

Just drop the minds. We are not talking about minds. Nor about evil.

"This statement is false". Ever heard that? It is called a "paradoxon". It is not rational. But here it is. Not evil. And made by perfectly rational minds.

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.

False. Even withot the irrelevant "mind". Irrationality is an extention of rationality. It is not an exclusion of rationality. Order can be observed in even complete randomness.
If we assume that it is exactly our existence within this order-in-the-chaos that enables us to observe this order, it should be no surprise what we "clearly observe".
We are within the closed box the keeps us from drowning in the ocean. Of course we observe the box, and not the ocean.

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.

If an eternal and infinite rational mind exists... why would there be an absence of understanding that an eternal and infinite mind exists?

This can explain why we observe order in our universe, but we also observe disorder. Intentional order came before disorder.

As I have explained above, your assertion that order cannot come from disorder is false. So your argumentation fails here already.
But is your assertion that order produces order better? I say no.
If an eternal and infinite "order" were to "create" a different order, this would be a disruption of the original order. It would be disorder. Disorder would not be the result of "the absence of understanding"... after all, it would be possible and rational to create an "order" without any "minds" or "understanding" at all! Disorder would be the inevitable result of the act of creation.

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

I fear I have just proven you wrong. Sorry for that.

 

[Freodin]

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.

"Look, we are slaves to righteousness! We are loving and compassionate and kind. Not like those hating, reprobate fools! ... So why should we act righteous and loving and compassionate and kind? No, we'd rather act like the people we accuse of being evil!"

Without that fake quote, introduced to keep with the cliche of being a cynical sarcastical skeptic: if you have identified "what Jesus desires"... and this is the most important thing in your life... why don't you do it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"Look, we are slaves to righteousness! We are loving and compassionate and kind. Not like those hating, reprobate fools! ... So why should we act righteous and loving and compassionate and kind? No, we'd rather act like the people we accuse of being evil!"

Without that fake quote, introduced to keep with the cliche of being a cynical sarcastical skeptic: if you have identified "what Jesus desires"... and this is the most important thing in your life... why don't you do it?

He soured his own call for transparency and love.

 

[quatona]

Your wisdom is inebriated if you think its ok to change the meanings of words, only to fit your irrational view of the world. So yes.

Excellent summary for those who don´t want to work their way through the entire post!

Note: I have clearly defined each term I'm using in the most rational way possible.

We already knew that you consider yourself and your approach the most rationally possible.
Well, your arguments are there for everyone to see, and they do not support your self-perception and proclamation thereof.

 

[Chriliman]

Hm... I think we might have to go back a step in order to sort this mess. I apologize: some of this confusion is very likely to have come from my imprecise usage of terms.

Yes, your imprecise usage of terms and imprecise understanding of my clear outline of terms is exactly why you're confused. You can't prove that an eternal and infinite rational mind does not exist, as much as you wish you could, you can't.

Unless you yourself are an eternal and infinite rational mind...are you? <answer "no" to prove me right. Answer "yes" to prove you are being irrational in your thinking. Don't answer to prove you don't want to admit that I'm right and that you're being irrational in your thinking.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, your imprecise usage of terms and imprecise understanding of my clear outline of terms is exactly why you're confused. You can't prove that an eternal and infinite rational mind does not exist, as much as you wish you could, you can't.

Unless you yourself are an eternal and infinite rational mind...are you? <answer "no" to prove me right. Answer "yes" to prove you are being irrational in your thinking. Don't answer to prove you don't want to admit that I'm right and that you're being irrational in your thinking.

Shucks Chrilli, is no one willing to play your game with you?

See post#2539

 

[quatona]

Dunning Kruger, anyone?

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually could care less what the census classifies me as so long as I respond to the questions the way God wants me to. I am more concerned about what God says about me, not what a men say.

Indeed.

Hebrews 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

I refuse to consider myself a Homo sapiens (wise man).

Let the wizards (wise ones) handle their own philosophy.

 

[anonymous person]

Nothing indicates that you were being sarcastic when you claimed to be "open to be convinced." Only now, when confronted with your duplicity, do you raise the banner of sarcasm as a defence.

I am open to be convinced regarding certain issues. I told you this. I listed some issues. I didn't give you enough so you just dismiss it.

 

[anonymous person]

Then shouldn't you respond by ticking the "No religion" box, since you apparently don't have a religion to report?

I told you how I answer the question and why.

 

[quatona]

I refuse to consider myself a [...] wise man.

Well, I wasn´t exactly tempted to consider you one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am open to be convinced regarding certain issues. I told you this. I listed some issues. I didn't give you enough so you just dismiss it.

Despite repeated probing, you couldn't name more than one issue as an example. Further, as noted above, 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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I told you how I answer the question and why.

You told me you didn't have a religion. You then told me that how you would list your religion on the census.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, your imprecise usage of terms and imprecise understanding of my clear outline of terms is exactly why you're confused.

Suit yourself. Contrary to your "clear outline of terms", you never explained your concept of "rationality". I am extrapolating a little here, but based on what I have learned about your way of thinking and your character from your postings, I'd say it means: whatever makes sense to me.

You can't prove that an eternal and infinite rational mind does not exist, as much as you wish you could, you can't.

Resorting to that no-good one-line argument of "you cannot prove me wrong", just after I shot down your whole line of reasoning in my last post?

Yes, definitly, "rational" to you means "whatever makes sense to me... and LA LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Unless you yourself are an eternal and infinite rational mind...are you? <answer "no" to prove me right. Answer "yes" to prove you are being irrational in your thinking. Don't answer to prove you don't want to admit that I'm right and that you're being irrational in your thinking.

You cannot even keep within the correct frame of a logical argument... having to introduce concepts that aren't in any way relevant for the discussion. You ignore whatever arguments you don't like. You're own arguments are inconclusive at best... and empty repeated claims at worst, like here now.

Go and boast about your victory over an irrational atheist, if you like. Go and brag how you have shown by claiming that I am irrational that I am being irrational.

I'm out.

 

[anonymous person]

Despite repeated probing, you couldn't name more than one issue as an example. Further, as noted above, 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.

I'm not a science experiment. I am not a patient of yours. Your multiplied questions and probings are not going to accomplish what you want them to.

I honestly do not think it would do any good to give you an exhaustive list of views I hold tentatively. So I wont. Think of me what you will but hear this. I think of you often and love you.