The origins of atheism

[Chriliman]

Sorry for the delay... different time zones, you know, and a guy has to sleep sometimes.

In cases of specific identity, yes.


No. That is a common understanding, but it is too limited and bound to our perception.
First of all, "nothing" would be the absence of "everything"... "something" isn't enough.

I will show you the reasoning behind this.


And here we see clearly why this common understanding of "nothing" is lacking.

You seem to think that only "something" exists, that every "something" exists, and that... well, I am still not sure what you think about "nothing" and "non-existence".

So let's talk about "something", as an experiment.
Let's talk about your last post, where you confessed in iambic pentameters that you are a pink and green striped squirrel, who is posting here to impress women.

Is this "something" or "nothing"?
The question of its existence or non-existence should (hah!) be easy to answer: there isn't anything in your last post written in iambic pentameters, mentioned pink-green squirrels or your need to impress women.

There is no evidence of such a confession. It doesn't exist. It is "nothing".

But this "nothing" has an identity. It can be described and distinguished from other "nothings" - like the part of your last post where you posted the image of an elephant entering the first spaceship to Jupiter. That also does "not exist"... is "nothing".

Or is it?

If that was "nothing"... just "the absence of something"... it would not exclude the presence of "something else". To be "nothing", we would have to exclude this "something else" as well... for every possible "something elses".

Which would leave us with "absence of everything".



Now we have established that "nothing" can be described as "the absence of everything".
The "absence of everything" is singular and unique. There is no distinction between one "absence of everything" and a different "absence of everything". There can be no different absence of everything.

That means that everything that we can distinguish from different instances of a similar kind is not "nothing". Your confession to being a squirrel is not "nothing", just as your picture of the space-elephant is not "nothing".

But both of these do not exist. They are examples of "something" that does not exist... and that we know does not exist.

Of course ...

... so if we are to "think reasonably here", the lack of evidence of your confession to be a squirrel who posts pictures of elephants and is out to impress women does not mean it didn't happen.

Or do you want to rethink that part again?



I will not even try to debate the "true nature of atheism" with you... but you have hit on a point here.

I do have knowledge of nothing.

You remember how I explained that "nothing" is the "absence of everything"? Well, this "everything" is really "everything": material, spiritual, ideal and conceptual. And that includes such pesky little concepts like "logic" and "rationality" and "causality"... or even "concepts".

I can hear it already: you are going to tell me "That is irrational!"

Yes, it is. The real "nothing" is irrational. What we usually call "nothing" just isn't the real thing. It is anapproximation based on the limited means that we, rational beings in a rational universe, have to approach the irrational.

That leaves me with but one conclusion: this "nothing" is the ground of all we call "being". Thus I prefer to drop the misleading term "nothing" and call it "primal chaos".

As this primal chaos is the ground of all being, and it cannot have the identity that is attributed to God, this God who is said to be the ground of all being cannot exist.

Phew that was tough, but I think I can simplify what you've said to help others understand the truth here.

First of all, I agree we can say:

Nothing is the absence of everything. (all somethings being included in everything)

this is equal to:

Nonexistence is the absence of existence.

The terms "nothing" and "nonexistence" are interchangeable and the terms "everything" and "existence" are also interchangeable.

Your conclusion was the following:

"Thus I prefer to drop the misleading term "nothing" and call it "primal chaos"

So you prefer to drop the rational way to think of "nothing" and instead call it(it being nothing) "primal chaos". Essentially what this means is that you think primal chaos is nonexistent. Yet you contradict this thought by claiming primal chaos is something, therefore it exists.

This is why I can't understand the mind of an atheist because they continually contradict themselves no matter how hard they try to explain themselves.

The simple truth is that you don't know if God exists or if God does not exist. That's it. No amount of explaining yourself will change that truth.

The sooner you admit this, the sooner you'll find clarity and break yourself free of the vicious cycle of contradictory thinking.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

No you are quite wrong. If you care to do your homework rather than just parrot what you have been told you will find that the historical churches are losing numbers because they are embracing all sorts of sins, and those churches that are not, mainly evangelical and pentecostal are growing at a rate of knots.But then I guess you are not interested in facts like this because they queer your pitch.

Once again do not assume that you know what I do or do not know.

Overall, Christianity is dying. Some certain sects of Christianity may be growing, but on the whole it is seemingly terminal decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-conversation-uk/christianity-britain_b_4348384.html

 

[Chriliman]

Once again do not assume that you know what I do or do not know.

Overall, Christianity is dying. Some certain sects of Christianity may be growing, but on the whole it is seemingly terminal decline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/the-conversation-uk/christianity-britain_b_4348384.html

Thanks, the Bible already predicted this.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

Are you surprised the Bible is right again? Of course you deny that it predicted this already because it surely can't be true even though the graph you've posted here clearly shows its true.

Hmm....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I suspect "population" translates to his house or street.

@As I was saying, the data for Drouin is available on the ABS website. It shows that 25.6% of people in Drouin fall into the "No religion" category.

Every encounter I have strengthens my faith because you very kindly show us that life without God is one long drawn out fight to sound and be relevant and you heap absurdity upon absurdity. The fact that only 2.1% of the population in my country are atheists is a clear indication that you are very irrelevant.

It may interest you to know that, according to the World Values Survey, the proportion of Australians who consider religion "Not at all important" has risen.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Thanks, the Bible already predicted this.

2 Thessalonians 2:3
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;"

Are you surprised the Bible is right again? Of course you deny that it predicted this already because it surely can't be true even though the graph you've posted here clearly shows its true.

Hmm....

No, I am not surprised that people can turn and twist the vague passages in the Bible to justify whatever they like.

Using the Bible as evidence of biblical claims is circular reasoning.

 

[Freodin]

Phew that was tough, but I think I can simplify what you've said to help others understand the truth here.

First of all, I agree we can say:

Nothing is the absence of everything. (all somethings being included in everything)

Yes. And I see that you didn't follow it to its only rational conclusion.

this is equal to:

Nonexistence is the absence of existence.

The terms "nothing" and "nonexistence" are interchangeable and the terms "everything" and "existence" are also interchangeable.

They are not, not quite. But they real interesting question you might want to ask yourself:

Does nothing / non-existence exist?

Your conclusion was the following:

"Thus I prefer to drop the misleading term "nothing" and call it "primal chaos"

So you prefer to drop the rational way to think of "nothing" and instead call it(it being nothing) "primal chaos". Essentially what this means is that you think primal chaos is nonexistent. Yet you contradict this thought by claiming primal chaos is something, therefore it exists.

Correct. Primal chaos escapes all attempt to define it, to give it an identity. It is irrational... because in it, rationality does not exist.
What you call "the rational way to think of 'nothing'" is simply false. It is not complete... but you fear to go this way because it would shatter your worldview.

This is why I can't understand the mind of an atheist because they continually contradict themselves no matter how hard they try to explain themselves.

Why you can't understand it... that has a different reason. Basically, I am not saying anything different than you or ScottA are saying. I am telling you of concepts that I know, that I know are true, that I cannot demonstrate, but that you won't accept.
Your inability to rationally analyse yourself and your worldview is based on your religion. Your need to be correct about something that you simply cannot be correct about makes it impossible to see when someone uses your own reasoning against you.

The simple truth is that you don't know if God exists or if God does not exist. That's it. No amount of explaining yourself will change that truth.

Keep telling yourself that, if you need it to sleep soundly. No foot-stomping on your part will change that truth.

The sooner you admit this, the sooner you'll find clarity and break yourself free of the vicious cycle of contradictory thinking.

I think you are talking into a mirror here... and thank you, but I am not the one trapped in any vicious cycle. You are.

You need to produce (and I mean it exactly in this way) a literal "deus ex machina" to keep that cycle intact. But it doesn't work: it is not rational - no more than my idea of primal chaos is.
I have no problems admitting that. I am not inside a cycle of contradictory thinking. If you start admitting that your position is no more reasonable than mine, for the same reasons, you will start to escape your vicious cycle.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

 

[Chriliman]

Correct. Primal chaos escapes all attempt to define it, to give it an identity. It is irrational... because in it, rationality does not exist.

All this tells me is that you believe primal chaos is real and that primal chaos is irrational. Therefore you believe in something irrational. Somehow you fail to see why I think believing in something irrational is in itself an irrational belief.

Again, the atheistic mind baffles me.

 

[AV1611VET]

The other religions that make the same claim.

How so?

 

[Chriliman]

We've been over this before. Why should your "personal evidence" obligate others to share your theological commitments?

I'm not obligating you to share my theological commitments because I know I can't control what you believe, but I can at least clearly explain what I believe in a rational way in order to help you make sense of it.

 

[Freodin]

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.

Keep telling yourself that your reasoning is sound: you might get to convince yourself.

But you keep evading that main problem.

First of all, you rant about the "intellectual honest atheists" is just that: an empty rant. You will notice that most atheist do indeed "admit" that they don't know if God exists or not... they just don't believe it. That is intellectual honesty.

Now you may claim that your "personal evidence" enables you to know, instead of believe. But here's the rub: any other claim of "personal evidence" that enables someone else to know something that contradicts your "knowledge" must also be considered "sound".

But this is something that you cannot accept. It would invalidate your worldview.

This isn't rationality. This isn't intellectual honesty. It is religion.

I'm not obligating you to share my theological commitments because I know I can't control what you believe, but I can at least clearly explain what I believe in a rational way in order to help you make sense of it.

But this is something that you cannot do. You cannot explain what you believe (dropping the 'know' already?) in a rational way.
You keep claiming that, but you never do it.

 

[Chriliman]

All this tells me is that you believe primal chaos is real and that primal chaos is irrational. Therefore you believe in something irrational. Somehow you fail to see why I think believing in something irrational is in itself an irrational belief.

Again, the atheistic mind baffles me.

I'd also suggest that what you're describing here with this notion of primal chaos is actually satan. But where there is satan, there is God to destroy satan. Truth destroys confusion (primal chaos)

 

[bhsmte]

They do. I have just read a book that investigated the nine houses of Islam. The author engaged at least 100 researchers to find out what is going on and the result was the same in every house. Muslims are converting to christianity at a rate of knots hitherto unknown.

In China, thousands are coming to Christ every day. In India, there is a house church of over 100,000 members and so it goes on.

Sorry. 2/3 of the world's population are not Christians and Christianity has been slowly declining the world over for several decades.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

You said this:

Atheism is the natural state of the human mind, untainted by thoughts about the why or what and concerned with the how, i.e. How to survive. So atheism extends farther back than the first memory of the first human.

Of the 108,000,000,000 people purported to ever have lived, who discovered how to survive?

If someone has discovered how to survive, then why did you say atheism is [still] concerned with how to survive?

 

[Chriliman]

It is no more irrational that your proposed deity.

Err... no. I understand perfectly why you think believing in something irrational is in itself an irrational belief. The problem is: you are wrong.

I am sorry about that. But sadly I cannot do anything to make lesser minds see.

I'd also suggest that what you're describing here with this notion of primal chaos is actually satan. But where there is satan, there is God to destroy satan. Truth destroys confusion (primal chaos)

Do you agree that truth destroys confusion?

 

[Colter]

Denial of what? You're not making any sense.

The humanist doctrine makes no allowance for God, if God is there Humanist simply ignore him. Both Atheists and humanists maintain a godless philosophy of life, but for some reason you aren't comfortable with this obvious fact which most other atheist seem comfortable with. But it is true that Atheist don't like their belief to be a belief, but they can't escape that.

Humanist Doctrine:


http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/The_Humanist_Philosophy_in_Perspective

 

[Chriliman]

And so you start showing your irrationality: making up a narrative that fits your preconceived ideas, rather than try to understand it.

Satan is an identity... whether it exists or not. Primal chaos is not... even that term is just a soundbite to give a name to something that escapes description.

Had you understood that idea... and had you looked at it with open eyes and with an open mind... you could have countered my proposition with "what you're describing here is actually God". That would at least have made a fragment of sense.

But no... you have to put me into the "evil" corner and call it Satan.

So let's see: I propose something that is not bound by anything - not time, not space, nor any other limits - eternal and infinite. It can "do" anything, because there is nothing to stop it. It is the base, the ground of all that exists.

What does that sound like? Right: Satan!

You show your true colours, Chriliman.

Problem is, you being finite(having a beginning), can't possibly propose something that is not bound by anything - not time, not space, nor any other limits - eternal and infinite. It can "do" anything, because there is nothing to stop it. It is the base, the ground of all that exists.

You. are. not. God!

Satan, primal chaos, whatever you want to call it began when finite perfect free willed beings went against eternal infinite God.

Truth can be thought of as eternal and infinite. All lies/confusion come from an original eternal infinite truth.

You're the one who needs to open your mind to what you're actually saying.

 

[Freodin]

Problem is, you being finite(having a beginning), can't possibly propose something that is not bound by anything - not time, not space, nor any other limits - eternal and infinite. It can "do" anything, because there is nothing to stop it. It is the base, the ground of all that exists.

You. are. not. God!

Satan, primal chaos, whatever you want to call it began when finite perfect free willed beings went against eternal infinite God.

Truth can be thought of as eternal and infinite. All lies/confusion come from an original eternal infinite truth.

You're the one who needs to open your mind to what you're actually saying.

So I, being finite, cannot possibly propose something that is not bound by anything. No, I CANNOT POSSIBLY PROPOSE ANYTHING LIKE THAT!

Something like... truth, being thought of as eternal and infinite. No, I could not possible propose anything like that.

You, on the other hand, can, so it seems.

I am not God... are you?

Perhaps you should open your mind to what you're actually saying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I read the entire doctrine,

What doctrine? The essay begins by countering the misconception perpetuated by its detractors that humanism is "a doctrinaire collection of social goals justified by an arbitrary and dogmatic materialist-atheist worldview."

It is a Godless philosophy of Life, it is a philosophy of life that makes no allowance for the pursuit of supernatural values, and in turn living out those values. Why does this bother you so much already?

What bothers me is your continual misrepresentation of atheists.

 

[HitchSlap]

My point is. Do you acknowledge that you make no truth claims about the existence of God? IOW, can you admit that you simply do not know if God exists or not?

Or

Is atheism actually a truth claim in disguise? Meaning, atheists actually believe God does not exist, but fail to recognize that this belief is actually irrational because to accept the truth that God does not exist, would mean you were presented with evidence that proved God does not exist and we all know this proof does not exist because God is believed to be eternal and infinite and humans are finite, therefore, can't possibly disprove(or prove) God.

Just pointing out the inconsistencies of atheism for all to objectively consider.

I accept the null hypothesis. If you claim there's a god (however you choose to define it), then the burden of proof is on you. If I don't find your evidence persuasive, then I will will continue to accept the null hypothesis. Until such time as you can provide sufficient, objective evidence of your god (however you choose to define it), then I will continue to accept the null hypothesis.

Atheism: I don't accept your claim of god/s.
Agnosticism: I don't have knowledge that god/s exist.

I hope this is clear enough for you to understand. I hope you will discontinue your fallacious arguments (strawman / false dichotomy).