Oxymoron

Ah yes, the Ancient Greeks. Now whatever happened to them?

Yes, I've noticed how children often debate these heady issues before learning things .

Independent of what?

That's not even an argument! Just an unjustified assertion followed by a vacant soundbite.

Hawkingfan

But a telescope or microscope does not interpret anything subjectively. They do not change the information one bit. No one disputes a reading made by in inanimate object.
And how is that subjective? If a thermometer says 3 degrees, then it says 3 degrees.
Are you saying it is just as valid to pray for the data through prayer?

theophilus

The real question is "how" do we know anything?

I do not argue that unbelievers do not/cannot know things. I argue that they cannot explain such knowledge by on their own atheistic/naturalistic presuppositions.

If matter is all there is, then there is not mind. If matter is all there is, then there can be no knowledge because rocks don't talk (this is a metaphor, please don't get stuck on this).

theophilus

I don't think so. Are you saying that a telescope communicates information directly to your understanding without you looking through it?

I know these are difficult issues and I'm trying to explain them as well as I can.

theophilus

Technically, there can't be "countless" scriptures unless there are an infinite number of scriptures.

The purpose of scripture is to communicate. God does this by "stooping" to our level, since it is impossible for us to rise to his.

As I stated in my previous post, although God is often spoken of anthropomorphically or metaphorically (do you also insist that God literally breathes smoke and flames - Psalm 18:8?), the scriptures which speak directly to his nature are clear that his is spirit.

We cannot conceive of an immaterial being, so God accommodates himself to our limitations to "get his point across."

Jobar

Well! This thread has become more interesting as it grows.

I want to address several points in this post. First-

See, I find the notion of the Christian God as unbelievable as you would find the notion of leprechauns. You can't know that leprechauns don't exist, but I bet you're pretty damn confident that they're just a myth made up by humans. You probably wouldn't ever go chasing a rainbow on the off chance that there might be a pot of gold at the end. Similarly, I'm pretty damn confident that Christianity is a myth made up by humans and as such I'm not going to bother following its tenets on the slim chance that they could be right. That kind of reasoning would open up a whole host of problems. For example, if you follow Christianity on the off chance it might be right, what about the slim chance that Judaism might be right? What about Hinduism? What about Islam? How do you even pick which one religion will be your safety-net "just in case" religion? I guess you could follow them all, but that might end up pissing off the very mystery God you're trying to appease.

Lobstrosity, when we write down the 'dogma' of atheism, remind me to get you in on it, OK?

Buck, we unbelievers do indeed seem to agree quite often; that's mainly because in these forums we are discussing things we largely *do* agree on. There are fine points which we argue about among ourselves, but a believer may see us all as part of some monolith of disbelief. If you want to see just how varied our opinions are on other subjects, try our Politics forum.

Doodad-
I guess my point is this. If god truly does not exist in the corporeal sense what is to be gained by speaking as if he did in order to point out the fallacy involved? Is it some sort of entertainment? If so, it's rather sadistic to me. Are atheists
needing to vent their frustration with the treatment they have received at the hands of bigoted believers? If so, I can understand that, but why such a massive effort from a relative small percent of the population. The home page speaks of the mission of the site, but I don't think you'll get there by employing such childish tactics.

Fair questions- though they have been asked before, the answers are spread out through many posts on many forums. I'll make an attempt to answer them all at once, and save it for later use.

Most (not all) of the believers who come here do testify that the God of their belief is corporeal in some way, shape, form or fashion. Most state that there are actions or affirmations which we, as human beings, *must* take, as consequences of their beliefs, which we atheists and skeptics are not taking. They require us to change our lives in various (wildly varying) ways. If they did not do this- in real life, as well as on these boards- I doubt that many of us would have more than a passing intellectual interest in their notions.

Some of us do have 'issues' with religion. We have people here whose lives have been twisted and damaged by the religions of their families, their neighbors, their societies. One of the functions of these boards is to help them deal with that damage- and to give them a safe place to vent their anger.

Consider that theists spend much more of their time and money in pursuit of their opinions than we do, both on average and in total.

When we have people lobbying to teach myths as science to our children, and attempting to legislate our social and sexual behaviours to satisfy their own beliefs, and warring and killing and torturing those who do not believe as they do- well, some of us find it worth our time and effort. Indeed, some of us would be willing to dedicate our lives, our fortunes, and our honor, to the cause of fighting such tyrannical and insane superstitions.

Some of us- me, for instance- put forth large amounts of our time and money attempting to demonstrate the awful cost of blind belief, to both individuals and to humanity as a whole. I don't consider that at all 'childish'- I think my effort and dedication here is the greatest contribution I can make to the welfare and growth of the whole human race.

And now, stepping down off my soapbox- Theophilus, the only presupposition I make, so far as I can tell, is that my senses report to me a fairly accurate and consistent portrait of the world as it really is. IOW, we don't live in a Matrix universe; we are not brains in bottles, being piped a totally fictitious experience. And as others have said, you make this same assumption.

Shadowy Man

Nice dodge, but you didn't answer the question.

theophilus

Perhaps you should have listened more carefully.

theophilus

I appreciate your candor. But do you not see that an assumption does not justify itself, i.e., empiricism cannot prove itself?

I freely acknowledge that I begin from the position of acknowledging God and his word as the foundation of all knowledge. The question is which of our presuppositions explains human experience; not just sensory experience, but the supra-sensory experiences?

You see, my presupposition can explain why you want to work for the betterment of mankind while yours cannot.

theophilus

I'm sorry you thought it was a dodge; it was actually an answer in the form of a question, ala Socrates. I guess I'm not as skillful as he was.

You asked "how" I knew something. The answer to your question is what my posts have been about; "how" we know things.

I "know" things because I begin with God and his word as authoritative and that makes knowledge not only possible but certain because it confirms and illucidates our experience.

So, in order to answer your question, you must explain how you, as a non-theist (atheist-naturalist) can claim to know anything.