Author Topic: The History of Atheism (Read 807 times)

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** August 26, 2006, 01:22:38 PM »

Thank you for your work in tracking this down -- this is a great addition to the message board.

It looks very interesting!

Matthew

Vincentius · « **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2006, 11:37:22 AM »

The greatest sin is still Pride, expressed by a being of superior intellect, in the declaratory sentence, "I will not serve!" (Non serviam!) Though Lucifer believed (in a Supreme Being), his pride negated his belief. Poor humans possessing inferior intelligence, what do they expect to know anything about the supernatural? Pride confounds the truth.

Busillis · « **Reply #3 on:** February 22, 2012, 04:35:00 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

History of atheism

David Hume

David Hume (1711-1776), a Scottish philosopher and historian, had definite panthenistic views. He also influenced philosophy, more precisely the movements of skepticism and empiricism.

In his book "Of Miracles", Hume says about accounts of miracles :

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened."

He elaborates on the same thesis in "An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding" :

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish. Our uniform experience of the laws of nature are a direct and full proof against the existence of any miracle. There is not to be found, in all history, any miracle attested by a sufficient number of men, of such unquestioned goodness, education, and learning as to secure us against all delusion in themselves; of such undoubted integrity as to place them beyond all suspicion of any design to decieve others; of such credit and reputation in the eyes of mankind as to have a great deal to lose in case of their being detected in any falsehood; and at the same time attesting facts, performed in such a public manner, and in so celebrated a part of the world, as to render the detection unavoidable: all which circuмstances are requisite to give us a full assurance in the testimony of men".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the United States, the Constitution is written. It includes the 6th Article which says that "no religious tests" are allowed to be used on candidates for public posts, and the 1st Amendment which states that :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the first bolded part, what about Fatima? That was witnessed by many men, not just Catholics. Reporters from Communist newspapers witnessed the event and it was in the papers. It doesn't require belief, it's a confirmed historical event.

To the second bolded part, then why did Kennedy stand before the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic Congress and say he wouldn't allow Catholicism to influence his decisions in the Oval Office? Sounds like a test to me.

Jitpring · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2012, 05:32:48 PM »

Also see Book X of Plato's Laws, wherein the Athenian Stranger takes on atheism:

Plato, Laws Book X