Why atheism cannot escape absolute truth

[Mystic]

Yet I heard many times from different Atheists here that God must be falsifiable as opposed to being impossible to disprove to be the truth.

Not from this atheist, you won't.

Good, your stance is more reasonable.

[Mystic]

"Atheism cannot escape absolute truth" nor can anything else OP, nor can anything else.

Atheists tend to act as if there is objective praise, objective value, perpetual identity, and that there are levels and stages. Yet at the same time many of them want to say all of it is subjective (not all) but to believe in any of these things (to have a subjective view of them) you have to believe in it at least to some degree that they are objective in some way some form.  And free-will. Let's not forget our faith in free-will.  Yet if naturalism is true,  we have no way to affirm any of these being true instead of simply delusional experiences and magical thinking we developed. In fact, I would argue further, if we can be certain of naturalism, then we can be certain of these things being delusions and magical thinking. 

Yet not only do humans know these things are not magical thinking or delusions,  they live according to it as a foundation to their lives.

[abaris]

Yet if naturalism is true,  we have no way to affirm any of these being true instead of simply delusional experiences and magical thinking we developed. In fact, I would argue further, if we can be certain of naturalism, then we can be certain of these things being delusions and magical thinking. 

Yet not only do humans know these things are not magical thinking or delusions,  they live according to it as a foundation to their lives.

What? I certainly hope you're not pointing to science. As opposed to belief, science uses tests to establish very strong peer reviewed probabilities. What's naturalism meant to be anyway? Science tests what it comes up with. It's certainly not magical thinking. It's based on what we know presently and checks their findings against that. Which, ultimately is all we can expect, since we can't know what we will know in the future.

[Mystic]

Yet if naturalism is true,  we have no way to affirm any of these being true instead of simply delusional experiences and magical thinking we developed. In fact, I would argue further, if we can be certain of naturalism, then we can be certain of these things being delusions and magical thinking. 

Yet not only do humans know these things are not magical thinking or delusions,  they live according to it as a foundation to their lives.

What? I certainly hope you're not pointing to science. As opposed to belief, science uses tests to establish very strong peer reviewed probabilities. What's naturalism meant to be anyway? Science tests what it comes up with. It's certainly not magical thinking. It's based on what we know presently and checks their findings against that. Which, ultimately is all we can expect, since we can't know what we will know in the future.

Naturalism is a view that the aside from the material world, nothing else exists. No spirit, no soul, no god, just material things.

[abaris]

Naturalism is a view that the aside from the material world, nothing else exists. No spirit, no soul, no god, just material things.

That remains to be proven. As long as there is no evidence, scientific evidence, I go with probabilities and with what I said before. You can't prove something not being there. It's absent, so how would you prove it to exist, if it can't be checked?

[Silver]

In a different thread, an atheist indicated that absolute truth is a difficult view to give up. He's right. 

I am quite certain that the atheist whom you are quoting is referring to the delusion the theist clings to that absolute truth is real.

[Mystic]

That remains to be proven. As long as there is no evidence, scientific evidence, I go with probabilities and with what I said before. You can't prove something not being there. It's absent, so how would you prove it to exist, if it can't be checked?

Naturalism remains to be proven (And I think it has been conclusively proven wrong to me) , but it's a stance a lot of people have.

How you can know God I've been making threads and posting posts about this all the time. I'm not going to be doing it here. 

How you can know he sent Prophets, I've already had threads about this. And discussed many times.

How you can know you are a soul if you are a soul, is very easy though: Just observe yourself and recognize what you are through that sight, it's an obvious truth to most of humanity through out time. No need to argue, no need to define it with a definition, just look.

[abaris]

See, Knight, what you suppose to be proof is only your opinion. Riddle me this, since all your posts point to you being some kind of muslim. Why is it Allah and not Odin or Zeus? Only because you're subscribing to the Quran? That's actually what every religious person is saying. They all claim to have proof of their believes being the only truth.

Why? Why is your opinion any more convincing than others? Why is it more probable than nothing being there? Why can't it be Zeus or Odin? Why don't you believe in Djins or fairies to be equally probable?

[Mystic]

We can make a thread about this topic. I've done threads about some reasons for accepting Islam and we have had discussions in those threads. Still, my experience with Quran some of it can be explained some of it cannot. If you recall, I was non-Muslim for five years. Most of my posts here have been done while a non-Muslim.

I was even an Atheist for brief few days here.

I've showed my reasoning. And to be honest, I did it not to convince anyone, but to see how my reasoning stands the test of criticism, and to see counter and counter to counter arguments.

[Angrboda]

"Atheism cannot escape absolute truth" nor can anything else OP, nor can anything else.

Atheists tend to act as if there is objective praise, objective value, perpetual identity, and that there are levels and stages. Yet at the same time many of them want to say all of it is subjective (not all) but to believe in any of these things (to have a subjective view of them) you have to believe in it at least to some degree that they are objective in some way some form.  And free-will. Let's not forget our faith in free-will.  Yet if naturalism is true,  we have no way to affirm any of these being true instead of simply delusional experiences and magical thinking we developed. In fact, I would argue further, if we can be certain of naturalism, then we can be certain of these things being delusions and magical thinking. 

Yet not only do humans know these things are not magical thinking or delusions,  they live according to it as a foundation to their lives.

If it's nothing more than an illusion, how would you know?

We act as if these things are objective - that's what a healthy mind does. But the fact that we act "as if" these things were objective is not evidence in and of itself that they indeed are objective. You mistake the appearance for the reality.