Is Athiesm The Answer?

[Katazia]

Southstar,

Since their Tutor is perfect, the "blame" lies elsewhere.

If the tutor was perfect then it would be impossible for them not to learn. Your statement is therefore clearly false. And that leads us to the inevitable conclusion that your deity was either a failure or simply didn't exist, which seems far more likely, wouldn't you agree?

Kat

 

[Nasor]

That is erroneously assuming the 'default' position is off. We are all created with a 'default on' position. Atheism is rejection and consequently insubordination.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that by default you believe anything that someone proposes to you, even with no evidence?

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

Not even religionists accept such claims since they still insist on faith and hence acknowledging that there is no evidence and which in turn reduces your claim to a simple fallacy.

You are a liar and I do hope you will retract that statement as it is fully incorrect.

How so? If you had evidence for your deity you would never need to appeal to faith since you would know for sure. Faith is only invoked when evidence is absent.

If you disagree then please explain why Christians insist on faith rather than display evidence?

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

Once we didn’t know about Pluto and now we do – that is new knowledge. I do not see how you could not understand this.

Such is a baseless and erroneous statement. It is not new knowledge but a discovery, as he was trying to point out to you.

Discovery:
to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time

Since the thing being discovered has been, we can correctly conclude that it cannot possibly be new knowledge.

Why not simply accept it for what it is from the beginning?

Therefore it cannot be new knowledge, for it is already known. New knowledge cannot be already known, that would contradict it being 'new knowledge'. For someone who professes to be logical, you certainly have made quite the blunder. But this shouldn't be 'new knowledge' to any of us.

- Defender of the Faith

 

[§outh§tar]

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that by default you believe anything that someone proposes to you, even with no evidence?

I was referring to the knowledge of Deity, that is One who is higher.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

How so? If you had evidence for your deity you would never need to appeal to faith since you would know for sure. Faith is only invoked when evidence is absent.

If you disagree then please explain why Christians insist on faith rather than display evidence?

Kat

What do you mean by "display evidence"? I have not heard such a term being used.

 

[Nasor]

I was referring to the knowledge of Deity, that is One who is higher.

I honestly don't think that it would ever have occurred to me to believe that there was some sort of supernatural diety if people hadn't told me to.

 

[Neildo]

And what if your 'first cause' turns out to be some sort of non-deterministic quantum vacuum fluctuation, or something equally impersonal and random?

Read the rest of my responses.

I suppose you could still define it as god, but then the term seems to start to lose all meaning.

Well it sure as heck wouldn't be my fault that the meaning of god has been lost because of the truth of creation being unveiled to us. I'm not the one assuming who and what God is and what he/she/it does. I am not the one defining the characteristics of something which I do not know. I have no expectations towards God so I will not be disappointed with the outcome of who and what God is, if a God does exist. So if any meaning of God is lost, it is nobody's fault except those that spoke out of their asses with all the assumptions of something they have no knowledge of.

I'm not afraid of the truth. Anything I say here, I do not claim as fact (which is the biggest difference between myself and most other people that believe in a god) but is merely my opinion because everything talked about is unknowable. I am not close-minded because of that so I am freely able to change my outlook on everything as more evidence comes to be, but I doubt that will ever happen within my lifetime. But for now, I am one side of the fence in believing that there is an almighty god creator for the simple fact that everything has a creator except for the first thing to have created (otherwise the act of creation would not exist). Go ahead and prove the non-existance of an almighty creator of all, I encourage you. Good luck though.

- N

 

[§outh§tar]

I honestly don't think that it would ever have occurred to me to believe that there was some sort of supernatural diety if people hadn't told me to.

Therefore insinuating that people made it all up..

Well, you might want to get out of your seat and view all of nature, to see God's creation. Either that or get HDTV. Your pick.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That is erroneously assuming the 'default' position is off. We are all created with a 'default on' position. Atheism is rejection and consequently insubordination.

No we are not created with an default 'on' position. I never believed in any deity since I was born. And there are many people like me out there.

This would imply that the default it off.

 

[Katazia]

Neildo,

I am content with the mere fact that everything comes from something except for the first thing to have created.

But it isn't a fact. I think you are still insisting that there must be a first event; my point is that that isn’t necessarily true if we simply accept that the universe could simply be, as Stephen Hawkins suggested. Instead of thinking of things being created by something else think in terms of things changing into other things and back again in a universe of continuous change. A starting event is then simply never needed.

Kat

 

[Knife]

Such is a baseless and erroneous statement. It is not new knowledge but a discovery, as he was trying to point out to you.

Discovery:
to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time

Since the thing being discovered has been, we can correctly conclude that it cannot possibly be new knowledge.



Therefore it cannot be new knowledge, for it is already known. New knowledge cannot be already known, that would contradict it being 'new knowledge'. For someone who professes to be logical, you certainly have made quite the blunder. But this shouldn't be 'new knowledge' to any of us.

- Defender of the Faith

I beg to differ. there is no such thing as "new" knowledge. there is only knowledge. knowledge is not discovered, it is only obtained.

it is obvious you are a man of strong faith. therefore, all knowledge is known to someone or something. dogs pickup scents and are able to track them, this is knowledge imbedded in its' brain. it was not until we "obtained" the knowledge how this works, were we able to obtain the knowledge of creating scent sensors (they do exist).

the tree in the forest? did it really make a noise? does knowledge only exist if someone finds/observes/obtains it?

take this further, God knows all. therefore, nothing is new.

peace.

 

[§outh§tar]

I beg to differ. there is no such thing as "new" knowledge. there is only knowledge. knowledge is not discovered, it is only obtained.

it is obvious you are a man of strong faith. therefore, all knowledge is known to someone or something. dogs pickup scents and are able to track them, this is knowledge imbedded in its' brain. it was not until we "obtained" the knowledge how this works, were we able to obtain the knowledge of creating scent sensors (they do exist).

the tree in the forest? did it really make a noise? does knowledge only exist if someone finds/observes/obtains it?

take this further, God knows all. therefore, nothing is new.

peace.

Do you not understand that this is the same point I was trying to get across??? That no knowledge is new? You used the word obtained, I used the word discovered. The end justifies the means. We got to the same point.

 

[§outh§tar]

No we are not created with an default 'on' position. I never believed in any deity since I was born. And there are many people like me out there.

This would imply that the default it off.

I am not talking about a belief. I am talking about a knowledge, such as you knowing that you exist.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

Once we didn’t know about Pluto and now we do – that is new knowledge. I do not see how you could not understand this.

Such is a baseless and erroneous statement. It is not new knowledge but a discovery, as he was trying to point out to you.

And the discovery allowed us to possess the new knowledge that we didn’t have before the discovery, right? Think about this more carefully – discovery is the process that I do not doubt, and new knowledge is the result.

I see you are practicing being more assertive but perhaps you should practice also making statements that make sense as well.

Discovery:
to obtain sight or knowledge of for the first time

Excellent, well done. You know how to use a dictionary.

Since the thing being discovered has been, we can correctly conclude that it cannot possibly be new knowledge.

Oh dear, when we talk about knowledge that means it is something we “know”. Before we establish or discover this knowledge then we wouldn’t “know” about this thing. So when we discover something for the first time it becomes something that we do “know” i.e. it is new knowledge.

Why don’t you use your newly discovered dictionary and look up the word “knowledge”?

Therefore it cannot be new knowledge, for it is already known.

How did we know about something before we discovered it for the first time?

New knowledge cannot be already known, that would contradict it being 'new knowledge'.

Yes well done. So when you discover something for the first time it becomes new knowledge, right?

For someone who professes to be logical, you certainly have made quite the blunder. But this shouldn't be 'new knowledge' to any of us.

Try again kiddo. And feel free to apologize when you are ready.

Kat

 

[Knife]

Do you not understand that this is the same point I was trying to get across??? That no knowledge is new? You used the word obtained, I used the word discovered. The end justifies the means. We got to the same point.

you are right. we did come to the same conclusion. i thought you used discover in the sense of discovering something "new" when it was just sitting there. my bad.

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,


I see you are practicing being more assertive but perhaps you should practice also making statements that make sense as well.

No need of a diviner, you delude yourself.

Oh dear, when we talk about knowledge that means it is something we “know”. Before we establish or discover this knowledge then we wouldn’t “know” about this thing. So when we discover something for the first time it becomes something that we do “know” i.e. it is new knowledge.

Well since the thing that is "newly known", as you say, exists, we must not say that it is new for "there is nothing new under the sun".

Why don’t you use your newly discovered dictionary and look up the word “knowledge”?

the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

I would advise you to look at Knife's post since your ignorance blinds you from seeing. Your apology has been accepted, my friend. Good day.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

What do you mean by "display evidence"? I have not heard such a term being used.

Of course not since Christians never talk of evidence since there isn't any that's why they stress faith.

Faith simply means belief in the absense of evidence.

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes, but you must explain what you meant by that term for me to understand.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

here is some terminology explained that is apparently confusing to you:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/Iterminology.shtml