“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.

[daedalus 2.0]

wouldn't it suggest that as a person gets older and more unable to defend themsleves from the 20 year old warriors of society,

daedalus 2.0 what if it caused them to change society so that the new youth would see themselves as creators of their reality and they created a society of mutual respect where old and young didn’t fear each other but enjoyed each other’s contribution towards making our mutual life more fulfilling?

How about the change Tookie Williams made in society by writing the books for young gangsters like he did when he was on death row? He took a few lives but he saved many more, by doing the right thing as he got older and changed in a positive way. I only wish society had changed sufficiently before his death to allow him to be alive and continuing his work today. But now others can take up his cause. We are not always Bad. We are Good too. And that’s what we should embrace.

Peace and respect brother.

That's all good, but it doesn't require religion, and it certainly doesn't make any of the supernatural parts of religion true.

[Goat]

My current evidence is the statistical analysis about the Urantia Book by Dr. Philip Calabresse Ph.D. at UCLA that infers:

Exactly what gives Dr Philip Calabresse the expertise to make that determination? How does a computer jockey (although a PHD in computer sciences), have any expertise in religion, astronomy, or anything like that?

This sounds like a case of the logical fallacy of the "APPEAL TO AUTHORITY"

Is that your best scientific refutation of Calabresse's statistical argument?

It seems lacking to me.

When you show what Calabresse's analysis actually is, and show how the conclusion that is it 'from a higher being' isn't being totally flakey, then, well, you will have an arguement, and not an appeal to authority.

But, you haven't done that.

You just pointed at 'this person said'.. and left out all the reasoning (or lack there of).

However, you are making much of the fact he is a PHD but his PHD has nothing to do with the subject matter so that doesn't give him any special authority in my opinion.

The probablity claims your presented were already shown to have errors.

[byofrcs]

Byofrcs wrote:

My atheism is dependent upon theists. (unlike my methodical naturalism).

So when theists present some evidence that is presented as "scientific" then always willing to look at it even if it's to see what the current state of art is for apologetics.

Your current evidence is The Urantia book.

Well actually Byofrcs my current evidence isn’t the Urantia Book.

My current evidence is the statistical analysis about the Urantia Book by Dr. Philip Calabresse Ph.D. at UCLA that infers:

“Therefore on statistical grounds I infer that super-humans must have written the Urantia Book and none of these predictions were random or lucky guesses.�
I wrote:

Another Ph.D.in statistical analysis, Philip Calabrese, Ph.D. gives the odds of 4 SWAG�s as you call them hitting the mark as you say as 1 in 25 billion.

So while you were disparaging the wrong thing, you might try contacting McCulloch he may have a Ph.D in disparaging the Urantia Book and perhaps can give you pointers on avoiding scientific arguments by debunking sources.

.....

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.

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.

With the Philip Calabrese, Ph.D. stuff it looks like he's cherry picked the sections because the text is more or less gibberish. That's it really.

I'm quite happy to admit that many times I don't bother looking at the data but when the claims become extraordinary then I am forced to dig deeper. What Calabrese claims about Urantia is extraordinary thus I am forced to verify what he says.

Why do you deny me this right ?

[JoeyKnothead]

Would that religion could produce more moderate people like joer and some others I've known. Maybe its a prejudice on my part, but I see a lot of hate in the name of the Bible, and this is my biggest disagreement with it. When it produces people who by any measure are caring, understanding, and decent it is a great thing.

Ever hear the notion about how people only remember when you mess up, and not when you do good? Seems this is my take on religion, and I just can't seem to shake it.

Religion has produced benefits, many indeed, but they seem to be drowned out when it produces monsters. Of course these folks are spread throughout society, but it seems especially wrong when done in the name of religion or at least by an otherwise religious person.

So I think maybe I hold religion to a higher standard than maybe I should. Is this wrong? Doesn't it represent a higher standard? Is it unfair to expect more out of religion/religious people than others?

[joer]

daedalus 2.0 wrote:

That's all good, but it doesn't require religion, and it certainly doesn't make any of the supernatural parts of religion true.

I glad you see the positive aspect of the possibility we have of achieving. And you are exactly right you don’t need religion to do it. BUT it also means if your are religious and you do the right thing , it doesn’t negate your religion.

Goat wrote:

When you show what Calabresse's analysis actually is.

I’ve already done that. Haven’t you read it?

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?

Joey wrote:

Would that religion could produce more moderate people like joer and some

Well thanks Joey. I think there’s a lot of good people out there in the world. And the world needs them. Whether they are religious or atheist or whatever doesn’t matter when they are making positive choices that are improving the world we live in.

Unfortunately I’m familiar with the type of intolerant, callous and unforgiving religionists you refer to. I find them in the non-religious denomination as well.

Joey also wrote:

So I think maybe I hold religion to a higher standard than maybe I should. Is this wrong? Doesn't it represent a higher standard? Is it unfair to expect more out of religion/religious people than others?

Those are good questions Joey. I’ve found that it seems the majority of people think like you. I have trouble with having double standards. I think we all should be held to higher standards.

For example, politically they removed the statute of limitations from priests and perhaps other religions figures on the same basis and we had the recent prosecution of those who perpetrated pedophile acts up to 25 years ago.

I think they should have raised the statue of limitations across the board and instead of making Religious figures the scapegoats while letting the rest of the population off the hook, I think they should have prosecuted ALL PEDOPHILES without regard to the statute of limitations.

With the amount of pedophilia that goes on in society, prosecuting just the priests in like curing 2% or 3 % of the disease. We should have hit it hard, across the board. IMHO.

Thanks for your openness Joey and thanks for standing up for what‘s right..

Good Will to you and all on this site.

[Flail]

I think I was very lucky to have not been indoctrinated prior to developing my God given ability to think and reason with common sense. Indoctrination was part of my childhood but it just didn't capture me. Now that I am mature and educated, I am thankful I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a member of any other such deluded sect.
My goal is to,one by one, provide any indoctrinated people I meet an ability to discover the error of religion.

Stop going to Church!!!

[joer]

I think I was very lucky to have not been indoctrinated prior to developing my God given ability to think and reason with common sense. Indoctrination was part of my childhood but it just didn't capture me. Now that I am mature and educated, I am thankful I am not a Christian or a Muslim or a member of any other such deluded sect.
My goal is to, one by one, provide any indoctrinated people I meet an ability to discover the error of religion.

Stop going to Church!!!

I can appreciate your frustration with organized Religion Flail and in the responses from my atheists friends in this thread it seems at least some of them , responded to the same negatively perceived influence of perceived indoctrination with their own search for Truth ending up with a basis of reality anchored in scientific knowledge and methodology. While finding NO scientific evidence of the God perceived by so many other indoctrinated believers and/or as in your case Flail a non-indoctrinated God Believer. My guess is that your belief in God has a basis of a personal experiential nature. Is that so Flail?

Is there as scientific basis that led to your belief in God?

In this exploration of why Atheists and Others deny God and Scriptures, It seems to me that in general, most when faced with the doubt of the existence of God they could find NO EXPERIENTIAL OR SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF A CREATOR. Quite simply. Furthermore I found the strongest basis for their understanding of their world view was based in scientific investigation and discovery. If my analysis or rephrasing in summarizing the atheist's view as presented in this thread is off, Please correct me. I realize there are many personal details left out but I’m basing my summary on a general compilation of those details and NOT the details themselves specifically.

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.

So any way Flail, I’m curious now since many atheists have expressed confidence in Science and Scientific method as an approach to establishing their world view, I'm wondering if it’s possible that while science CAN’T prove the existence of God, Can it POINT TO THE POSSIBILITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? And can it (science) philosophically and logically point to the fact THAT GOD CAN ONLY BE KNOWN EXPERIENTIALLY?

I realize this is a difficult task Flail. But If it wasn’t difficult everybody would do it. We’ll I put a lot on the table here to respond to. I want to go forward but without my atheist brothers and sisters joining me in the journey it’s not worth taking.

God Bless You Flail and Good Will to All at this site.

[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.

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

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

The first inklings appear at around 9 or 10, when I first decided that not every word of the Bible was truth. I actually became a full blown atheist around 13.

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.

No specific reason really, nor a specific date. I simply slowly but surely found belief in God to be less and less justifiable until I rejected the premise of a God entirely.

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

For the first few years of my life, I blindly followed Christianity because it was what I had been exposed to and it was what my parents believed (not that they shoved it down my throat. Outside of CCD and the occasional church sermon (well, not anymore), my parents were pretty passive on teaching religion, letting me make up my own mind). I first rejected the Bible in only specific parts. I can't really remember what the first part was. Only that I slowly but surely began to view the Bible as symbolic rather than literal. I soon viewed organized religion as a whole as a flawed premise because stating exactly how things such as the creation of the universe began seemed illogical. it was simply too complex to make assumptions about. I took that a step further and said it would be illogical to assume that God was real or fake. I still believe that to a point, but the idea of an omnipresent omniscient God is what really made me an atheist; the idea that I would have to spend eternity in a dictatorship after I was dead, that with the wave of his hand, God could stop me from doing anything, the idea of my decisions becoming meaningless. I much preferred the idea of a world without such an omniscient being. That combined with me believing that life could be created without intelligent guidance completed my transformation into an atheist.

[joer]

....
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.

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.