“Why do atheists/others Deny God, Scriptures,

[joer]

Last week I came across something in reflection. Spirituality grows and develops as we do. There are three stages.

1. The first stage is discovering that God Exists. This usually takes place between 0-20 years of age.

2. The second stage is being led to God. You begin and develop learning about God’s purpose in your life. This happens about 20-40 years of age.

T3. he third stage is Living a Spirit led, God led Life. Now you know why you’re here and your ready for your fruits to be lived and seen. God is alive within you. Now you see yourself as Spirit within a body. This happens about 40 to forever.

So when I noticed this I thought about all my atheists friends here and I thought I may have found a cause of atheism.

Now on a normal world (The Vatican admitted last week aliens are our brothers and sisters in God) this would be our normal spiritual development. But on our world with so much error within it due to a messed up start with the negative influence of the Lucifer rebellion and the failure of Adam and Eve, our spiritual development can become jeopardized. So if we have a problem at any level of our spiritual development we can become spiritually stunted, become damaged, atrophy spiritually and suffer the consequences of our Spiritual malformation.

I further conceptualized that the level we were at when the spiritual trauma occurred might have specific symptoms or traits that are common to other atheists or non-believers

So my questions to atheists and/or non-believers are these:

1. At what age did your non-belief or denial of the existence of God begin.

2. Do you remember any specific incident or causes that precipitated that non-belief? Just use generalized descriptions if the authentic trauma to your loss of faith (if there was one) is too graphic or insidious to share here.

3. What was the course of development of your atheism?

I also think the participation in this discussion will help other Christians and believers better understand our atheist and non-believer brothers and sisters.

Peace and knowledge to all.

[joer]

Homicidal_Cherry53, thanks for your honest and candid response to my questions. It has been very helpful in helping me understand why and how atheists come to acquire and maintain the world view they hold. I especially impressed that you have such an intelligent approach at such a young age. I don’t know if you’ve reviewed any of the other answers to these questions but I found them quite informative and educational in terms increasing and expanding my understanding of the atheist position.

It has appeared to me that certain natural stages of formative development of our world view takes place in both the atheistic and God believing points of view. What does for me is help me understand that the development of these views are quite natural even though they may seem diametrically opposed, they appear to be derived from the natural urge to understand the world, phenomenon and systems functioning in the existence surrounding us.

I’ve found that life’s influences as related to our personal experiences seem to influence the outcome of that world view. Now that science is advancing further I’m finding that there seems to be a tendency among many scientists to be inclined to return to God Belief after the recent period of Scientific development has exposed the teachings of the Bible and organized Religion to be in error if taken literally which many fundamentalists have done and continue to try to do against he rising tide of evidence.

BUT there is new evidence that science continues to reveal and discover that is beginning to reveal the REAL BIBLICAL history in scientific terms and not archetypical biblical terms as have come down to us from the distant past.

I find that very exciting because atheists and new thinking religionists who BOTH base their different views and outlooks on life on SCIENCE, Now have a basis in SCIENCE for together discovering the Truth of their World Views.

Of course because of the disparity between traditional or conservation scientific views as opposed to the new emerging scientific views, there is a constant scientific growth and development process in which New Scientific conceptual frames of references are adopted and old ones are discarded as their usefulness declines.

So anyway Homicidal_Cherry53, I really appreciate your post and I look forward to your perceptive and intelligent discourse.

Good Will to you Cherry53.

[Beto]

I'm sorry Byofrcs. I'm afraid it's you're response I find lacking here rather then those of the qualified scientists. How can you denigrate the scientist's work and opinion's and then as an atheist proclaim a basis for your world view based on their work? I don't get it Byofrcs?

It's not a simple matter. Many scientists are recognized among their peers in a specific scientific field and then attempt to use that credibility in fields where they aren't qualified, and where they repeatedly fail the peer-review test. Trusting science is one thing, trusting scientists isn't quite so cut and dry, and there are many notorious examples showing why a scientist's opinion can't be taken at face value, regardless of Nobel's and Ph.D's.

At issue here is the statistical proof of Calibresse. Why don't you quit trying to evade the issue and address it?

Is Calibresse's Proof valid or not? What Scientific evidence do you have to support your response?

Why can't I find anything? Is it spelled right?

EDIT: Found a couple of things, but no peer-reviewed publication on the issue. Do you know if he has any?

[Beto]

But I’d love to hear others summations of what’s been shared in this thread. Especially any atheist who’s willing to share a summary of the combined atheist position with me because it has become plain to me that my view is terribly slanted on the believer’s side and an atheist’s perspective in summation most likely would be much more enlightening to me.

You only have to believe in one god. We have to evaluate the merits of every god concept people fabricate. There can only be a "combined atheist position" when there is a "combined theist position", and you know the latter doesn't exist.

Perhaps a "non-theist combined position" is applicable, since I personally regard this position as the end result of evaluating the individual merits of every god concept I came across with, finding none of them have the objective evidence required to warrant belief, and being an atheist to all of them.

[bernee51]

But I’d love to hear others summations of what’s been shared in this thread. Especially any atheist who’s willing to share a summary of the combined atheist position with me because it has become plain to me that my view is terribly slanted on the believer’s side and an atheist’s perspective in summation most likely would be much more enlightening to me.

You only have to believe in one god. We have to evaluate the merits of every god concept people fabricate. There can only be a "combined atheist position" when there is a "combined theist position", and you know the latter doesn't exist.

Perhaps a "non-theist combined position" is applicable, since I personally regard this position as the end result of evaluating the individual merits of every god concept I came across with, finding none of them have the objective evidence required to warrant belief, and being an atheist to all of them.

All Joer has to do is ask himself why he doesn't believe in Zeus, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. He then has the 'atheist position'.

[byofrcs]

....
Byofrcs wrote:

I think you'll find that is the fallacy of appealing to an authority. In "science" you go to the source data to double-check the claims. It is essential that you must repeat them yourselves.

I think your exactly right Byofrcs on that point. I did do that and found it to be even more convincing than Calabresse’s simple analysis suggests.

Did you follow your own advise and “double-check the claims�. Or since you claim it “is essential that you must repeat them yourselves.� Did you do that? If you didn’t than you fail to follow your own advise and your condemning the source without a valid elevation of it according to your own parameters. How’s that work?

I can also show you three more Ph.D.’s and a Nobel Prize winner who see it as a valid source. I don’t know. I think their Ph.D.’s must stand for some sort of validity. Don’t You?

......

Read what I said instead of poisoning the well (a fallacy),

"The source in this case is the Urantia book not the Philip Calabrese stuff. That is the data I base my judgement on as I don't know Calabrese from a hole in the ground. "

And again you use Ph.D.’s and a Nobel Prize winner like some magic pixie dust of verisimilitude. That is the fallacy of authority.

I know from previous debate that you hold the Urantia in a reasonable regard so be assured that (given it's available on the 'net) I have read enough to reply. I always try to verify what I say is a true understanding and verifiable.

You have a lot of fanciful words but not much substance. "Poisoning the well", "magic pixie dust", pooh poohing PhD’s and Nobel Prize winners as if their scientific expertise was nothing.

Again you are poisoning the well. Please read up on it. Like "many questions" it is a tactic of debate and my best response is to highlight this tactic to the audience.

Moving on, since when does the Nobel prize for literature give someone the ability to comment on biology ?

Stop prevaricating;
WHAT PhDs
WHAT Nobel Prize winner ?

Which papers are we looking at ? Where were they published ?

I'm sorry Byofrcs. I'm afraid it's you're response I find lacking here rather then those of the qualified scientists. How can you denigrate the scientist's work and opinion's and then as an atheist proclaim a basis for your world view based on their work? I don't get it Byofrcs?

At issue here is the statistical proof of Calibresse. Why don't you quit trying to evade the issue and address it?

Is Calibresse's Proof valid or not? What Scientific evidence do you have to support your response?

Thank you brother for your kind attention. Good Will to you.

Of course Calibresse's Proof is invalid because the underlying document he is studying is not yet proven to be non-fictional so Calibresse proof is fatally flawed.

A study of Tolkein would show Sauron to have certain characteristics. A proof using the books of Tolkein would confirm this and the proof would be verifiable, from the books of Tolkein.

Don't you understand though that the books of Tolkein are fictional !?

There is no Sauron in the real world AFAIK. No Hobbits, elves or orcs. Why don't you believe this ?

A consistent proof of 'x' is a separate issue from the reality of 'x'. Eventually you'll realise that no matter how many proofs or papers from how many people, their words can never turn fiction into reality.

The reality of the Urantia is a issue that you are avoiding by trying to confound the issue with spurious papers from people you see as authorities.

Can we please put aside the lists of PhDs and Nobel prizes and address the fundamental issue that Urantia is fictional. Like Hobbits only I've seen Hobbiton and loads of examples in movies.

[bernee51]

But I’d love to hear others summations of what’s been shared in this thread. Especially any atheist who’s willing to share a summary of the combined atheist position with me because it has become plain to me that my view is terribly slanted on the believer’s side and an atheist’s perspective in summation most likely would be much more enlightening to me.

The atheist position is quite simply put...a lack of belief in the existence of god(s).

Surely you can get your head around that.

[Zzyzx]

.

But I’d love to hear others summations of what’s been shared in this thread. Especially any atheist who’s willing to share a summary of the combined atheist position with me because it has become plain to me that my view is terribly slanted on the believer’s side and an atheist’s perspective in summation most likely would be much more enlightening to me.

The atheist position is quite simply put...a lack of belief in the existence of god(s).

Surely you can get your head around that.

That must be a very difficult concept for some or most supernaturalists to grasp. It has been presented very clearly many times – and still those who worship gods seem unable to understand that others simply do not value their theories or their favorite invisible, undetectable super beings.

There seems to be a stunned disbelief – as though everyone must believe in gods. Many INSIST that non-belief must be a grand conspiracy or a dogma – perhaps resembling their organized religions.

It would seem relatively simple for people who disbelieve in "all other gods" except some chosen favorite to understand that Atheists do exactly the same – without the exception. BUT, religious worship must block that element of reasoning because it appears to not register.

[daedalus 2.0]

Yeah, I don't quite get the blockage.

Atheism: lack of a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

How much more simple can it get? And yet religionists and supernaturalists constantly get confused.

I wonder if they feel there is any confusing on our part?

Let's see:

Theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Is this wrong, theists? Should we say:

Theism: the belief that a god or gods absolutely exist without question and that holds the penalty of death (in this life or afterward) for those who oppose the idea, were never exposed to the idea or who have the wrong idea based on one book or another.

Or,

Theism: The belief in a kind of fairy or ghost (or both) but that is not "of this mortal plane" but another, mysterious and absolutely undefinable "realm of existence" which may be "existence itself" but is only verifiable through a complicated combination of funny phrases, self-important intonation, archaic words, and childish hand gestures.

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

Why would anyone apparently struggle so to understand the simple concept that atheism is nothing more than not believing in "gods" – or that disbelief does not require an "explanation"?

Even the most fervent god worshiper "does not believe" in something – often "other gods", or fairies, or spaghetti monsters. It would seem as though what someone is doing themselves would not be a mystery when others do similar things. Why do you not believe in spaghetti monsters? Is it because that is a silly idea for which there is no evidence? Touché.

Is the inability to accept a real-world condition and being mystified thereby perhaps related to theistic preference for "mystery explanations" promoted by religious dogma and literature?

Is it easier to propose complex "explanations" why people do not believe in your favorite "god" than it is to accept the fact that they simply do not believe what you believe? Millions or billions of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and various other Non-Christians obviously do not accept the Christian "gods". Does that require some deep philosophical "explanation"?

Isn't it rather presumptuous and elitist to demand an explanation for why someone does not believe in your favorite "god" or other favored theory? It is far more rational to seek an explanation for why one particular "god concept" or "god theory" among thousands available is fervently believed among certain groups – particularly since there is no evidence to support existence of any of the gods.

[joer]

But I’d love to hear others summations of what’s been shared in this thread. Especially any atheist who’s willing to share a summary of the combined atheist position with me because it has become plain to me that my view is terribly slanted on the believer’s side and an atheist’s perspective in summation most likely would be much more enlightening to me.

You only have to believe in one god. We have to evaluate the merits of every god concept people fabricate. There can only be a "combined atheist position" when there is a "combined theist position", and you know the latter doesn't exist.

Perhaps a "non-theist combined position" is applicable, since I personally regard this position as the end result of evaluating the individual merits of every god concept I came across with, finding none of them have the objective evidence required to warrant belief, and being an atheist to all of them.

That's not what I'm looking for Beto. Everything I'm asking for related to the atheist's development of their position, is contained in this thread and your ability to evaluate it. I'm not saying that's all there is to their position, I'm just saying that's the range of analysis for the purposes of this thread. Thanks tough partner for the reply. Good Will to you brother.

Same thing as with your other post. I'm not asking you to find someone else to evaluate Phil Calabrese's statistical analysis. I'm just asking if it is statistically valid, scientifically speaking, so any one with a substantial knowledge of statistical analysis should be able comment on it's analytical statistical validity regardless of the content being evaluated.

I'm not disagreeing with you that scientists can be wrong. I've used that argument many times when arguing with atheists about basing their confidence in science whose validity is questionable, while not admitting their own reliance on their own unsupported powers of knowledge attainment through personal experience and discernment.

So in this thread we come to this point in our discussion of why Atheists Deny God r the scriptures and/or How their view was developed and by a simple evaluation of JUST the DATA comprised of the responses to questions of development of their view we see that in general an atheist’s non-belief or perhaps more correctly stated non-recognition of the existence in God is based on the development f their world view through science and the scientific method.

So NOW when I propose something that is validated by that scientific method but that seems to be extraordinary. Those same atheists who espouse trust in the scientific method and science are denying the validity of the scientific basis of the analysis of the material that I'm trying to get atheists to acknowledge IS WHAT IT IS PURPORTED TO BE according to normal scientific analysis and methods.

So what's up with that Beto? Why the atheistic double standard? Science is good to support the ideas you want it to support but when it supports ideas contrary to those you like, NOW IT'S NO GOOD! Right? Well what is it? Is Calabrese's analysis valid or not.

I think we all ready abundantly stated that science can be wrong. But then that undermines all your claims of scientific validity when arguing with believers. Doesn’t it? Unless you have a way to determine which science is valid and which is not? Right? Regardless the truth is, Science can be wrong.

BUT the question is: Is Calabrese's scientific analysis right or wrong? How can that be determined? What would be a valid validation or refutation of his statistical analysis?

Saying it could be right or it could be wrong isn't getting us anywhere. I have yet to see an atheist's argument that scientifically refutes it's scientific validity. In the absence of that the rest is just hearsay wouldn't say?

Anyway Beto Good Will to you. Thanks for the reply.