Is Athiesm The Answer?

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

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".

But we aren’t talking about the thing being new but the fact that the knowledge of the thing is new to us because we didn’t know it before the discovery.

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

So now you know what is meant by knowledge do you now understand that when you discover something for the first time then it is new knowledge for you?

I would advise you to look at Knife's post since your ignorance blinds you from seeing.

Knife’s post is almost as confused as yours. I’m content to continue to teach you English if you will remain courteous.

Your apology has been accepted, my friend. Good day.

Please don’t be so childish, even with the smiley.

Kat

 

[§outh§tar]

SouthStar,

But we aren’t talking about the thing being new but the fact that the knowledge of the thing is new to us because we didn’t know it before the discovery.

That is not what you said in your post. How convenient.

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

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

Oh come on you can't be so dense, are you?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

That is not what you said in your post. How convenient.

What do you think I said that you have misunderstood?

Kat

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

Why not when my belief is based on evidence – i.e. rational belief as opposed to irrational religious belief.

Please show your evidence.

There are some things that are so obvious like this that it is a waste of time to describe the obvious for someone who can’t see it.

I'm not the only one in the world reading these posts, maybe there is someone out there who can see it.
So please do the world a favour and produce this OBVIOUS and OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. Thank you.
Failure to produce is like admitting there is no evidence.

Show anything else that can generate ideas other than humans.

I can't.
But that does not mean only humans can.

The dice analogy is widely used to describe possibilities and probabilities in the general sense.

In this context it is a little too general.

It appears you simply cannot understand the concepts.

I understand them perfectly, you simply have no idea of the context.

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.

How is having faith an acknowledgment of no evidence?
What do you regard as evidence?

Just now when you claimed there was evidence for it.

I insisted that there was evidence for Gods existence, not that He exists.
I believe He exists.
*sigh*
Seems like you got it wrong.......again.

Do you have a scenario in mind where our use of pleasure could be irrational?

Taking drugs, watching people suffer, eating shit, drinking piss, need i go on.

What? Weird statements. The inverse would be to praise illogic as commendable. And do you really think that that is somehow worthwhile?

Hmm...another dodging of the question.
Not to worry, the question is rather personal, and as such you do not have to answer.

Science is the search for knowledge anywhere – there is no sphere where science cannot operate.

I agree, the primary meaning of science is knowledge. But the modern scientific method is only concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

Can you give an example?

We cannot gain insight to the meaning of life through the modern scientific method.

I think you are confusing the learning process where we learn about already discovered and established knowledge as opposed to the formalized scientific method used for the discovery of entirely new knowledge which was what I had in mind.

Before we go any further i think you need to show what "entirely" new knowledge is. Perhaps you can give an example of how the modern scientific method has produced brand new knowledge from scratch.

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.

The information maybe new to us, but knowledge is not new.

Surely only an idiot would make such assumptions. Why are you stating something so obvious?

Because sometimes it needs to brought to the attention of such idiots.

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

If we can, then i see no reason why not.

Jan Ardena.

 

[Knife]

SouthStar,

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

lets be fair. a blanket statement implying that all christians believe on blind faith alone is out of line. they have evidence, and some of it is believed by muslims and should be believed by jews.

let us take very simple example. all heavenly religions believe in the meaning of "do unto others as you would have done unto you". that in itself is evidence that it was said by a righteous person.

in my humble opinion, faith does not neccesarily mean the absence of evidence. evidence may also increase ones faith, can it not?

 

[fadeaway humper]

all heavenly religions believe in the meaning of "do unto others as you would have done unto you". that in itself is evidence that it was said by a righteous person.

Hi again, Knife. Don't you think it would have been infinitely better for mankind at large if that little sentence you quote would have been left alone as the only and full extent of religion?

I can garantee you that no atheist would object to that, the whole issue of god/s or no god/s be dammned.

 

[Knife]

SouthStar,

But we aren’t talking about the thing being new but the fact that the knowledge of the thing is new to us because we didn’t know it before the discovery.

So now you know what is meant by knowledge do you now understand that when you discover something for the first time then it is new knowledge for you?

Knife’s post is almost as confused as yours. I’m content to continue to teach you English if you will remain courteous.

Please don’t be so childish, even with the smiley.

Kat

kat, arent we losing patience?

let us forget for a moment that we are in the age of technology. and that we now receive the news before it even happens.

let us take on the knowledge of fire. i am sure we all agree that fire existed before anyone found it. according to you kat, you agree to this, but are saying that when a person found it for the first time, it was new "knowledge". but it may not be. someone thousands of miles away may have found it first, without our first persons knowledge. now of course, to this far away guy, this is new "knowledge". but we could keep going around with this argument, and we end with a conclusion that everything is new all the time.

by definition of the word "new" and logic, this is not possible. therefore, knowledge is obtained. it has transferred from its source to the beholder and so on on to others.

"There are some things that are so obvious like this that it is a waste of time to describe the obvious for someone who can’t see it."
now, i would like to add one thing. remember sometimes people may not be able to see the obvious. it requires patience, and is not a waste of time because it spreads understanding and tolerence. also, some people really appreciate the obvious being pointed out. how many times have you looked for your keys only to find them right in your hand? one plus one is very clearly two, epsecially if you know what one is and what two is. but it took my son two weeks to grasp the concept, it was a trying time repeating the same thing over and over. boy, did i learn patience and gain a lot of sympathy for teachers.

peace.

 

[Katazia]

Jan Ardena,

People have ideas, the concept of gods is an idea, and people have created different ideas for thousands of different gods and continue to do so today. We know of nothing else that can produce and communicate ideas like humans. People generate ideas about a vast variety of things so why would the god concept be any different? Science fiction writers create ideas far more bizarre than mere gods. Are you suggesting that their ideas are supernaturally inspired? Like I said there is no credible reason to suppose that anything other than humans created the idea for gods. The overwhelming evidence is simply that humans have created countless billions of ideas and are very prolific in that regard – what credible reason is there to suppose that the gods idea is not just another human created idea?

How is having faith an acknowledgment of no evidence?

Faith becomes redundant if evidence is present. For example if I am holding a pen I wouldn’t say I have faith that I am holding a pen since I would know I am holding a pen.

What do you regard as evidence?

Anything not solely imaginary.

I insisted that there was evidence for Gods existence, not that He exists.
I believe He exists.
*sigh*
Seems like you got it wrong.......again.

So do you want to suggest that even though there is evidence for a god that doesn’t mean that he exists, right? What then is the point of your evidence if it isn’t used to support a claim that one exists?

But the modern scientific method is only concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.

But that is only because nothing other than the natural world has ever been detected. If the supernatural could be detected then science would have no problem studying it.

We cannot gain insight to the meaning of life through the modern scientific method.

Why not?

Before we go any further i think you need to show what "entirely" new knowledge is. Perhaps you can give an example of how the modern scientific method has produced brand new knowledge from scratch.

The first discovery of planets and stars represent the creation of new knowledge that we didn’t have before they were discovered.

The information maybe new to us, but knowledge is not new.

Knowledge is about knowing something. When we make the transition from not knowing something to knowing about it then that forms new knowledge for us. I don’t see that this is controversial and I don’t understand why you are making an issue of this.

I think that like SouthStar you are confusing the actual instance of something with the action of us knowing about it.

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Knife,

..but are saying that when a person found it for the first time, it was new "knowledge". but it may not be.

Yes it is to them if they didn’t know about it before their discovery.

someone thousands of miles away may have found it first,

Now you are talking about “new” to the world as opposed to relative to an individual. Both scenarios are applicable to the use of “new” depending on relative context.

.. we end with a conclusion that everything is new all the time.

You are mixing and confusing relative and absolute terms. When a person discovers something for the first time that will be knowledge that is new to them. A scientist discovering a star that wasn’t on the map before will be introducing new knowledge to humanity. When science makes a new discovery or breakthrough it will publish that new knowledge so that it can be shared by the rest of humanity. This was the context in which I was describing the establishment of new knowledge – i.e. the purpose of science.

When someone learns to drive a car that knowledge will be new to them although such knowledge is already possessed by millions of people.

Do you understand now?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

Knife,

lets be fair. a blanket statement implying that all christians believe on blind faith alone is out of line. they have evidence,

No, that is not correct – they only claim to have evidence. To date there is no claimed evidence that has resulted in a conclusion that a god of any type exists or even that one is possible. That Christians might convince themselves that there is evidence doesn’t mean that such evidence is real. Either way without any form of credible verification a belief in gods remains one of pure blind faith.

let us take very simple example. all heavenly religions believe in the meaning of "do unto others as you would have done unto you". that in itself is evidence that it was said by a righteous person.

It is a poor example and while most have variations on the that theme the actual details and meanings are quite diverse. I for one would not support that version of the golden rule, to me the Wiccan Rede is far more ethical – “an harm none do what thou will”.

But there are variations of the golden rule that have been devised by non-religions, e.g. the Libertarian code.

But what is your point? That man can devise useful codes for living happily? It is hardly any source of evidence for gods though.

in my humble opinion, faith does not neccesarily mean the absence of evidence. evidence may also increase ones faith, can it not?

You’ve missed my point I think. If you have evidence you simply never need to appeal to faith. Faith is a belief where evidence is absent. If evidence is present then faith becomes redundant.

The ONLY reason you will appeal to faith is because you have NO evidence.

Kat

 

[fadeaway humper]

. I for one would not support that version of the golden rule, to me the Wiccan Rede is far more ethical – “an harm none do what thou will”.

Huh, I have never heard of this Wiccan thingy, but I like it already. You are right, this formulation of the golden rule is more morally satisfying than the classical one, as it respects the others' idiosyncrasy.

Wait, now that I think of it, it's basically another version of the adage "live and let live". Yep. No objections from me.

 

[Knife]

Knife,

No, that is not correct – they only claim to have evidence. To date there is no claimed evidence that has resulted in a conclusion that a god of any type exists or even that one is possible. That Christians might convince themselves that there is evidence doesn’t mean that such evidence is real. Either way without any form of credible verification a belief in gods remains one of pure blind faith.

It is a poor example and while most have variations on the that theme the actual details and meanings are quite diverse. I for one would not support that version of the golden rule, to me the Wiccan Rede is far more ethical – “an harm none do what thou will”.

But there are variations of the golden rule that have been devised by non-religions, e.g. the Libertarian code.

But what is your point? That man can devise useful codes for living happily? It is hardly any source of evidence for gods though.

You’ve missed my point I think. If you have evidence you simply never need to appeal to faith. Faith is a belief where evidence is absent. If evidence is present then faith becomes redundant.

The ONLY reason you will appeal to faith is because you have NO evidence.

Kat

then we differ in opinions.

peace.

 

[Katazia]

Knife,

then we differ in opinions.

Well no. I wasn't expressing opinions, I was using reasoned arguments.

Kat

 

[Knife]

Knife,

Well no. I wasn't expressing opinions, I was using reasoned arguments.

Kat

what is evidence to some, may not be a reasonable argument to you. based on the reasonable arguments you have presented it seems to me that if someone presented something as evidence you would dismiss it as unreasonable.

you already start your discussions with the flat out statement that "there is no evidence". so what is the use of presenting any to you? no offense of course.

on the other hand, if you were open to reviewing such evidence then discussions would be more fruitfull, for both sides of the discussion (i am always interested in what others think).

what if someone could prove the existance of a Divine Being through a series of arguments? or the simple process of elimination? or just based on common sense?

but remember, assuming there is a god, belief in him would be up to you. the whole point is wether humans choose to believe or not.

a mathmetician (this emphasizes importance due to the reliance on logic) named Descartes went to great lengths to establish the existance of god ( i think in mook three or five of Meditations -- i can never remember these details). he even added somewhere (at least i think it was him), that if a god existed then worshiping him would be the right thing to do, if not, what do you have to lose, because you may be wrong?

but there is other evidence and proof.

peace.

 

[§outh§tar]

Knife,

Well no. I wasn't expressing opinions, I was using reasoned arguments.

Kat

You really have me lost here. Aren't reasoned arguments opinionated? I have never ever ever ever heard an argument that isn't opinionated, have you?

 

[Katazia]

Knife,

what is evidence to some, may not be a reasonable argument to you.

The test would be if the claimed evidence could withstand reasoned scrutiny.

based on the reasonable arguments you have presented it seems to me that if someone presented something as evidence you would dismiss it as unreasonable.

Then try presenting some reasonable evidence and test your speculation.

you already start your discussions with the flat out statement that "there is no evidence". so what is the use of presenting any to you?

People have been trying to present evidence for gods for thousands of years and nothing has withstood close scrutiny. Based on that I think I am on safe ground to state that there is no evidence. That does not exclude the potential for someone to actually succeed in the future.

on the other hand, if you were open to reviewing such evidence then discussions would be more fruitfull, for both sides of the discussion (i am always interested in what others think).

I’ve been doing that for some 50 years and haven’t seen anything worthwhile yet. Most are repeats of the same fallacies. Do you have anything new?

what if someone could prove the existance of a Divine Being through a series of arguments? or the simple process of elimination? or just based on common sense?

I’ve seen many try and none have yet succeeded. Did you have something you wanted to try or were you just hypothesizing?

but remember, assuming there is a god, belief in him would be up to you.

Why? Couldn’t a god make me believe if it wanted to?

the whole point is wether humans choose to believe or not.

And the gullible choose to believe based on irrational faith while I prefer to use evidence as a rational guide before I believe and I haven’t seen any.

… if a god existed then worshiping him would be the right thing to do, if not, what do you have to lose, because you may be wrong?

That’s Pascal’s Wager. Would you like me to post a link refuting that nonsense?

but there is other evidence and proof.

And that would be what?

Kat

 

[Katazia]

SouthStar,

You really have me lost here.

Apparently that is not difficult.

Kat

 

[wesmorris]

To me, atheism is a consequence agnosticism which itself is a consequence of the fair application of reason to what I think I percieve.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Katazia,

the concept of gods is an idea,

You keep saying this, but you have not come up with whom or when this idea was created. This is just your opinion.

and people have created different ideas for thousands of different gods and continue to do so today.

Okay, let's work with this.
Give some examples.

We know of nothing else that can produce and communicate ideas like humans.

Humans have not produced any ideas, either singularly or collective, that is on the scale of the revealed bona-fide scriptures.
Unless you care to enlighten me.

People generate ideas about a vast variety of things so why would the god concept be any different?

Because it is not a concept.

Science fiction writers create ideas far more bizarre than mere gods.

I don't think the gods are bizarre.

Are you suggesting that their ideas are supernaturally inspired?

Starwars, Star Trek, The Matrix, does these ring a bell with you.

Like I said there is no credible reason to suppose that anything other than humans created the idea for gods.

Then put it foreward as an opinion, not as fact. Otherwise you will be deemed a liar, by any sober person.

The overwhelming evidence is simply that humans have created countless billions of ideas and are very prolific in that regard – what credible reason is there to suppose that the gods idea is not just another human created idea?

Out of the billions of ideas that may have been created by humans, none come even close to the scriptures. They are infinately inferior. The best we can do, is use the scriptures as a basis for our ideas. The scriptures or the point of bona-fide religion does not change, human endeavors does.

Faith becomes redundant if evidence is present. For example if I am holding a pen I wouldn’t say I have faith that I am holding a pen since I would know I am holding a pen.

Why would you need to have faith in such a thing? I know that it is just a throw-away example you are using, but it shows you have not really thought about the true meaning of faith, but just latched on to a description that suits you.
Try talking with people instead of at them, you just may learn something.

Anything not solely imaginary.

I don't think it is possible to be solely imaginary, i would say even that has to be based on some truth.
But seriously though, what do you regard as evidence?
Based on your understanding of God, what would it take for you believe that He is a real Personality?

So do you want to suggest that even though there is evidence for a god that doesn’t mean that he exists, right?

I am discussing this subject matter with you, and am therefore putting it into a suitable context in the hope that you can understand. I believe there is a Supreme Being, my belief is made stronger by certain evidences, both subjective and objective.
There is no evidence whatsoever, that has been put foreward, which diminishes this belief.
Maybe you can change that?

What then is the point of your evidence if it isn’t used to support a claim that one exists?

Who said it doesn't support that claim?

But that is only because nothing other than the natural world has ever been detected. If the supernatural could be detected then science would have no problem studying it.

Then, when they can detect it, we will see, won't we.
Years ago they couldn't detect cancer but eventually, in time, and taking the sufferers complaint seriously, they were able to.

Why not?

You asked me the question remember. But in answer to your question, because they cannot. A meaning is not a physical phenomena, therefore it cannot be detected by a medium which only deals with physical phenomena.

The first discovery of planets and stars represent the creation of new knowledge that we didn’t have before they were discovered.

The knowledge was always there we just happened to become aware of it. There are probably still people living on the planet who are not aware of such information, but it doesn't mean the knowledge doesn't exist.

Knowledge is about knowing something. When we make the transition from not knowing something to knowing about it then that forms new knowledge for us. I don’t see that this is controversial and I don’t understand why you are making an issue of this.

Knowledge means "to know". Everything that is to be "known" already exists, we just haven't become aware of it.
I am not making an issue of this, i am merely putting you straight.

Jan Ardena.