Religious texts

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Welcome to sciforums, mindtrick. That's a good assumption. I never quite thought of it like that, but you make a very good point. Those who claim god exists also claim their holy books are inspired by god. But, you're right = no god, no holy books! They are all man made and so are their books! What lies. What lies!

actually its a highly illogical argument


And here's why:

to know for certain that a God does not exist would requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience). Acquiring this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all parts of the phenomenal world (omnipresence). Therefore, for an atheist to be certain of their claims, they would have to possess godlike characteristics. So it is quite obvious that humanity's limited nature precludes these special characteristics. To maintain the assertive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore untenable. As logician Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the atheist's endeavor to establish a universal negative is a self-defeating program.

Seems like you are just being inimical to god

 

[Oniw17]

LG strikes!

 

[Medicine Woman]

LG;1282550]actually its a highly illogical argument And here's why:

to know for certain that a God does not exist would requires perfect knowledge of everything (omniscience).

*************
M*W: Not so. Anyone of any degree of intelligence can fully know and understand that no god exists.

Acquiring this knowledge requires simultaneous access to all parts of the phenomenal world (omnipresence).

*************
M*W: Again, not so.

Therefore, for an atheist to be certain of their claims, they would have to possess godlike characteristics.

*************
M*W: To know one, it is not necessary to be one. If that were the case, every christian would also have to be godlike, and they're not. They're not even halfway intelligent to believe in the existence of a god. In fact, they're delusional.

So it is quite obvious that humanity's limited nature precludes these special characteristics. To maintain the assertive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore untenable. As logician Mortimer Adler has demonstrated, the atheist's endeavor to establish a universal negative is a self-defeating program.

*************
M*W: The atheist does not "endeavor to establish a universal negative...". The atheist simply doesn't believe.

Seems like you are just being inimical to god

*************
M*W: I have no personal feelings of animosity toward a god, just as I have no personal feelings or animosity toward the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny.

 

[Oniw17]

*************
M*W: Not so. Anyone of any degree of intelligence can fully know and understand that no god exists.

That's not true. You can only know that certain gods belonging to certain religions don't exist. You can't say that there isn't any being out there pulling the strings of destiny. Or even that we don't live in a universe created by a scientist in another dimension, or that we don't only exist in someone's imagination for sure, without complete knowledge of everything.

*************
M*W: Again, not so.

Elaborate.

*************
M*W: To know one, it is not necessary to be one. If that were the case, every christian would also have to be godlike, and they're not. They're not even halfway intelligent to believe in the existence of a god. In fact, they're delusional.

However, to know for sure that there is no god(s), you would indeed have to have god-like qualities.

*************
M*W: The atheist does not "endeavor to establish a universal negative...". The atheist simply doesn't believe.

I agree with you here, but why does it make a difference either way, since you said that you don't need infinite knowledge to know that there definitely is not a god(s).

 

[Medicine Woman]

That's not true. You can only know that certain gods belonging to certain religions don't exist. You can't say that there isn't any being out there pulling the strings of destiny. Or even that we don't live in a universe created by a scientist in another dimension, or that we don't only exist in someone's imagination for sure, without complete knowledge of everything.
Elaborate.

However, to know for sure that there is no god(s), you would indeed have to have god-like qualities.

I agree with you here, but why does it make a difference either way, since you said that you don't need infinite knowledge to know that there definitely is not a god(s).

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be. God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god. Atheism is nothing new. In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe. To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all. For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

 

[Oniw17]

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be. God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god. Atheism is nothing new. In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe. To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all. For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

Yes, but you still can't say that there's not even an infinitely small possibility that god(s) exist(s).

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: Well, if you study human nature all the way back to when human beings first attempted to think, you would know and understand how the concept of god came to be.

and how do you propose to study this era when "human beings first decided to think" - it certainly doesn't seem possible to examine it empirically, since thinking about what one is thinking with seems a difficult proposition

God is a man made concept that developed into all the religions known to mankind. There was never a god.

your conclusion (in italics) is built on your premise (bold).
Now all you have to do is show that your premise is actually factual and not a mere tentative claim (good luck - after all, who are those persons in the world who claim to have direct perception of how all the religions in the world are socially developed phenomena?
- or even to make it a degree easier for you, but still nonetheless impossible to elaborate on, what is the process or methodology one can apply that would enable one direct perception of this apparent truth?)

Atheism is nothing new.

I would agree there

In fact, it's the oldest of all beliefs. It existed before ancient man created the idea of the sun being the creator god of the universe.

once again, since its the nature of empiricism to make the pursuit of history more nebulous the further you travel down the time line, its not clear on what authority you make these statements

To not believe in a god is the most ancient of all.

at the moment this is just a tentative claim
I can make a tentative claim too
"Belief in god is the most ancient of all"

For those who believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

without premises for your claims you simply provide sound bites that can be slightly altered to present an opposite view point, eg :

For those who don't believe in a god, do so because they have a need to believe in something, even if it isn't real.

in otherwords you can say "belief in god is a sign of human fallibility" and I can also say "disbelief in god is a sign of human fallibility"

 

[Medicine Woman]

Yes, but you still can't say that there's not even an infinitely small possibility that god(s) exist(s).

*************
M*W: Not as I understand it. If others do, that's fine, but I cannot conceive of it at all, even though I thought I did at one time. It makes no sense to me.