Good, I wonder if atheists can begin learning the err of their ways here.
Probably not, but it’ll be interesting whatever they say next anyway.
Honestly I’d rather see atheists get better arguments and become stronger atheists then to see them become doubting agnostics with no convictions one way or the other. Atheist argument quality has been in steep decline the past decade. Consider this sobering thought- if you haven’t been at this since at least the turn of the century, then there’s a high probability that if atheism seems like a weak position to you, it’s merely because you’ve never been exposed to a competent defender of it.
I can ignore an occasional insult thrown at me if the person comprehends or at least TRIES to comprehend my position and provide arguments against it.
I consider it far more impolite to be dishonest and misrepresent the position you’re trying to criticize than to say “moron”.
A single “moron” or “idiot” here and there can be ignored, misrepresenting the position inhibits or even completely prevents any serious and honest discussion.
Atheists don’t need to present arguments for the non existence of God, it’s sufficient that they demonstrate theistic arguments to be invalid.
And insofar as I know every theistic argument has been proven to be fallacious on some grounds, whether it’s a logical error or conflict with reliable scientific discoveries.
Peter Kropotkin: OK, let us try this again. “existence beyond your knowledge” I ask you, how would we know about existence beyond our knowledge? In other words, How is knowledge knowable beyond our senses?
U: I seem to know that 5x25 = 125. Is this a product of vision or smell somehow?
K: were you born with that knowledge? No, you were taught it using math tables however
you can take sticks or knives and do this,
5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 + 5 = 125
You can literally count this out.
K: and how would we know about things that exist beyond our knowledge of them?
U: Do you know everything, PK? If so, how many fingers am I holding up? If not, then you are admitting that you know there are things beyond your knowledge of them.
K: I have no way of knowing how many fingers you are holding up, however with that said,
I could find out if I have a camera or satellites something like that on you right now. I could get that knowledge if I work hard enough at it. Which is the point, how does one get metaphysical knowledge?
How would one get knowledge that is beyond the physical, beyond the senses? How does one get knowledge
of that which leaves no physical record. Before you say atoms or evolution or black holes or whatever,
we have some type of physical record for each of these things and if we don’t have solid physical evidence,
then its called a theory and those are subject to change depending on what any new evidence brings us.
We have an idea about there being multiple dimensions, but there is not physical evidence as of now
so we don’t say that multiple dimensions are a physical facts, they are just theories which may be
discarded when the evidence comes in. We just don’t know and we say, we don’t know.
So tell me, how do we get knowledge of something that is beyond the physical, knowledge of the metaphysical?
Kropotkin
Peter Kropotkin"]K: OK, let us try this again. “existence beyond your knowledge” I ask you, how would we know about existence beyond our knowledge? In other words, How is knowledge knowable beyond our senses?
[/quote]
J: … a good thread starter.
How does one know that the inside of the box is smaller than the outside? How does one know the Moon has a back side? How does one know that there are unknown to him parts working in the engine of his working car? How does one know that there is a 45th decimal in the number Pi? How does one know that infinity doesn’t stop at any particular number?
K: each thing you mention can be worked out in some fashion, via math, via or spaceship beyond the moon
or buying a book which details out how to work on a car. Everything you mention can be worked out in
some physical fashion. So people claim there is a god and angels and heaven and hell.
So in what physical fashion would one work out to gain knowledge of these metaphysical things?
Kropotkin
Why not? I can! And I do it without changing any linguistic form, neither of the Ancient Greek nor of the English language. So it is correct to do that. One merely has to arrange with one or more of the others about the meanings of the language forms (i.e.: the Ancient Greek language has disappeared but not its meanings and forms). And if that is the case, then referring to another language, especially to a “dead” language like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit … and others, is no problem at all.
I prefer the original meaning of both the prefix “a” and the prefix “anti”, so that I can correctly say: most modern atheists are antitheists. I know that the Western modernity changed the meaning of the Ancient Greek prefix “a” because of rhetorical reasons. But all this rhetorical reasons don’t matter for those who know what is meant by the original morphemes “a” and “anti” and what is meant by the rhetorical morphemes “a” and “anti”.
Another example:
Are antifeminists called “afeminists”? What do antifeminists do? They refer to the feminists and their ideology, the feminism, so they are just another feminists when they merely oppose the to feminists. Demanding the same advantages for antifeminists (i.e. “masculinists”) that feminists demand for themselves is just another feminism with the same ways and means and the only distinction which we can call “opposition” or “fighting against”. Feminism, militarism, theism, … and so on (there is just no end …) - they are all part of Hegel’s Dialektik, so they develop according to Hegel’s dialectic process: thesis => antithesis => synthesis.
That is true but only partially. The problem with the west is that their definition of religions is consisted of Abrahamic religions only, especially Christianity. They either ignore or anaware of there are many other religions also exist in this world, which do not support this premise.
Secondly, if you go in the details on the Abrahamic religions, you will find that Christianity is not a complete religion by itself. The same is true for Judism and Islam too. These there complement each other and are parts of a single ontology. They tend to lose their meaning if read seprately.
I agree with you. But, i will answer this in detail when i post my theory in another thread.
imb, Here you committing a mistake, or rather should call it blunder. Most of the modern intellectuals are guilty of that.
I am well aware of all that you mentioned. That is my area of interest and i have looked far beyond wiki pages and doing this for years.
imb, the theory of Big-band is nothing but merely a naive deduction of EMB (electromagnetic microwave background). And, it is so illogical that even an amateur can realize it. One needs not to be a scientist for that, because there is no science involved in it whatsoever. All is merely guesswork, or a naive theory at best, but certainly not more than that.
They take the start in the same way - first of all, the Big-Bang happened, just like, first of all, the God created the universe. There is absolutely no difference in the details and in the eyes of the logic.
The problem is that people do not want to look what is written in those wiki pages and assume that - as it is related to the science, thus it must be true, because science cannot say lies. The very mindset of religious persons.
imb, You need not to believe me for that. Go in the details that and judge what is right and what is wrong. And, you will find that all these concepts of Big-Bang, Quantum physics, Anti matter, Warm hole, Multiple universe are not less on imagination than the Christian God, as far as the philosophy is concerned.
It is not about what works for me. I have no option but to treat those two at par, in the terms of philosophy. Logic negates all other alternatives. That is why i asked you to look into the matter and evaluate yourself. I am sure that you will reach at the same conclusion. Try it honestly and see what comes out. In this regard, you must read A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking, who is considered a prominent physicist. That will give you a fair idea.
As i told you above and asked to look into the matter, there is no evidence of Big-Bang whatsoever. There is not even perfectly deduced theory either in the terms of philosophy.
On the other hand, there is no presentable evidence in the case of God either. All are mere theories. Having said that, the evidence is available in the case of personal experience, if one is interested and wants to investigate in person.
Though, one can ask why should he investigate? The answer is very simple that one should not do unless he is not interested. Just keep the God as a theory, a premise, a possible explanation, like we do in the philosophy. No need to have faith in it.
Truth does not and should consider anybody’s comfort or discomfort. It is what it is, no matter what it is.
Those are fools who get disturbed by the investigation of the science. On the contrary, they should welcome that. If science would able to do that one day what you are suggesting, theists should concede to that and accept that they were wrong. There is no problem in that and they will have to that too, whether they like it or not.
But, the same is applicable in the case of science too. What if one day we will get the evidence of metaphysical entities like mind, soul and consciousness?
Religions also say that all is matter but they claim that there are two different types of matter; Physical and Metaphysical. While science says that there is no metaphysical matter but only physical one. The same applies to free will too.
I am not asking that one should not criticize religions. That is fine but there is some difference is criticizing philosophically and insulting/ demeaning using cheap language.
Philosophers are supposed to criticize each other too but that should not lead to insult.
That does not seem to be true. Again, if you look at ILP, you would not find hate-mongering against atheists. I think that OP of this thread is one exception. But, on the other hand, the opposite examples are quite easy to find. There are some members who are very honestly devoted to this noble job. At least, my experience of two years tells me that.
That said, hate-mongering and demeaning should be condemned from any side. There may be some theists who do that. My interaction of the net is not much so cannot say anything with certainty.
But, what you are saying is not true in daily life. On the contrary, as a thumb rule, religious persons are somewhat considered immature and unintellectual.
I welcome that enquiry.
Giving public evidence is not possible, at least at present. But, my assumption is that it could be done one day, near future.
That is certainly one of the many possibilities.
That is possible too.
That is fine. For being convienced, there is only a theory, or an ontology, which is speculative too. All we can check its coherency with given premises and result with reality. Means, the theory answers all questions or not. That is the limit for now.
I see this issue slightly differently. To me, as far as the philosophy/evidence is concerned, the concept of God is something like N’s WTP. That begs a question. Is there any evidence of WTP? No. Can it be demonstrated phycially? No. Then why people believe that there is any such thing? WTP is a metaphysical premise and cannot be verified physically. So, does that mean that believing in WTP are fools? I think that the concept of the God should be given the equal treatment too. Philosophy allows that.
Having said that, it is not the case that evidence cannot be gathered. It certainly can but it cannot be demostrated because of its very nature. Those, who are not interested in the personal investigation, should treat God as a metaphysical premise.
By treating a metaphysical premise, i do not mean that they should accept it. They are open to criticize, but with dignity, in the same way of other philosophical premises.
That very question is certainly answerable.
Many issues involved here.
Let me first take in your head.
The fact of the matter is everything use to happen in the head. The reality is formed in the head, not outside from it. The images of reality depends on the lens of observation. There are many layers of reality too. Thus, reality depends upon the fact that the obsever corresponds to which layer.
Say, that there is a man. As a man, you will consider it also a man. But, if you start deducting a man in the crude physica terms, A man is nothing that some solid and lequid materials. After further deduction, it will come to some basic elemants like carbon and oxygen. Next step would be proton and electrons. Then, particles like Higgs-Boson would come into play and we do not know how many layeers are still remaining! The jury is still out, as far as the science is concerned.
So, the question is what is the reality? Or, which stage should be considered as a reality? And, why not others?
Either everything is illusion or nothing is illusion. One cannot pick and choose.
The second question is why one should believe in the God?
The first reason is that one should believe in the God because good, honest and sincere people like Jesus asked to do so. I am not asking believing in imagination (God) but in reality (Jesus). Forget about God and just remember Jesus. Was he real or not? Was he a good and kind person or not? I am not saying that he cannot make mistakes but history tells us that he was at least a good person by intent and sacrificed himself for the sake of others.
The second reason is that he offered a good value system by and large. Keeping one odd mistake of his aside as an exception, there is nothing wrong with his social premises and still very much applicable.
Thirdly, there may be a possibility that whatever he said about the God may be true? After all, there is at least a posibility of that or not? So, why one cannot give it a shot? Let us see what happens.
lastly, Keep Jusus just as moral preacher or philosopher, just like Socrates and Spinoza. At least, Jesus can find a place in the leage of those people, or even this demand is exaggerated too?
But remember, i am merely pleading for Jesus, neither any Church nor all that what it says in his name.
Yes, people do that but it is good if one finds some good reason.
with love,
sanjay
Answer me this question, yes, or no!
Have you stopped beating up your wife? Yes or NO?
Some questions do not deserve yes or no answers, so I’ll answer what you want without the loading.
Are there things in the Universe of which I am unaware, yes.
Do I think you are better situated to tell me about stuff I don’t know, absolutely not.
Do I think that these deficiencies mean that existence is “beyond my knowledge”, no.
But then you might as well say God is empirically verifiable because you can read about him in a book you see with your eyes. I’m assuming that you don’t think that just because something can be represented with visual symbols, it doesn’t become an empirical matter. What’s more, while I certainly can take 125 sticks and line them up in such a way as to show me what 5x25 is, the fact is that I did not do this and I still know 5x5=125. I believe your point was not that everything can be known through the senses, but that everything can only be known through the senses, yes?
Well, right, but then you’d be addressing my analogy and not my point; I can just change the question to something harder…do you know what number I’m thinking of?
[/quote]
And yet, I am sure you have a firm conviction that you don’t know everything. I’m sure you believe there are planets we haven’t seen, and things on those planets that we haven’t thought of. I think it would be some sort of mental retardation for a person to literally believe that only what they perceived existed, right? The natural state of thought is that our perceptions define a sort of bubble in the midst of a much larger space.
So then, the answer to your question would be inference. When Carl Sagan was concluding that it was overwhelmingly likely that there was life elsewhere in the universe, I don’t have the impression he was concluding this on the basis of having seen UFOs and believing they are aliens. He inferred that if there’s one planet like Earth, there ought to be more, given the size of the universe. So why couldn’t a person infer metaphysical truths- even based on the things they perceive with their senses, if we take your line and limit knowledge to that? If a person sees some aspects of the world around him and concludes it was created by an all powerful being, or that there is an absolute right and wrong, or that there is such a thing as eternal recurrence or whatever, why does the physical/metaphysical distinction impact the strength of the inference?
Yes, only partially. Many will also want to cut your fucking head off if you disagree too!
I do not know in which world you live.
No one is coming to cut my head at least in this world but a wise one is calling that fucking for sure.
with love,
sanjay
No.
See, I’m not a coward unlike most others around here. I answer absolutely, clearly, distinctly, concretely. I don’t waver like a bitch. 100% yes or 100% no, all in, black and white only, no gray areas.
I knew you’d agree with me eventually. Now admit that god exists beyond your knowledge, on top of a few apologies to all theists.
Civil - polite or courteous + Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude
Wizard has been civil, you say?
Allow me to quote him from this thread:
Civil?
Calling all atheists weak, close minded, powerless, unimaginative, mentally stunted - Civil discourse?
This is before anyone else had even posted.
Generalizes all atheists as having an ego complex and the ideology of children.
Civil?
Wizard asserts all atheists lack empathy and understanding, and are close minded bigots. Also repeats previous generalizations.
Civil?
Here he claims all atheists lack humility and are not only ignorant of other people, but also of knowledge, intelligence and wisdom.
Civil?
==
He even goes ahead and admits he has been uncivil, and adds another insult in for good measure:
==
So James,
You approve making sweeping (clearly offensive) generalisations as a matter of civil discourse?
You commend Wizard’s civility in this thread?
But what if I’m right?
It’s besides the point.
It’s OK if we don’t agree, but why do we have to insult each other?
Can’t disagreements be expressed without resorting to blatant insult?
If someone’s overweight, do we have to resort to calling them a fat fuck to express our concern?
There’s plenty of people that disagree, yet still manage to be respectful and civilised towards each other.
I think you came into this thread with hostility / frustration, and it resulted in being offensive from the get go.
I don’t think much positive is going to come out of a discussion if the first step hits the other person in the shin and lands on their toes.
A bad start that’s likely going to go down hill from there.
Some people take being called a child as a compliment. So it’s only you who are insulted, not everybody else. Some people like remaining a child forever.
Chidish - foolish or petty; puerile
This is how I interpreted the remark regarding ‘child ideology’.
Also, you said quite a bit more than just associating atheists with the sophistication of children.
Would you characterize the remarks I quoted of yours as compliments?
That seems to be how you’re presenting it. - That any reasonable person wouldn’t be insulted.
Then, nothing.
Your belief is meaningless. ~If you are right that there is a god then we have the same world as we did yesterday; same suffering, same problems.
You theory does no work, because god does no work.
In “your world”, you have the privilege of living as a Muslim in a Westernised world. Where you are safe from having your fucking head cut off.
Were you to be a white person faced with Muslims you might think differently.
military.com/video/operation … 038454001/
youtube.com/watch?v=kNC_-IjDnek
There is a “competent defender of it”??? 
[size=85]… {{I’ll see it when I believe it}}[/size]