Cozmodius

What??? Leprechauns don't exist???!!!

All my years of rainbow chasin' wasted!!!


Actually, though I'm not sure of Mick's overall position, I quite agree with his statement here.

You never have a true knowledge of something until it has been demonstrated to your satisfaction. Until then, it is not much more than a belief grounded in faith. Therefore it is quite possible that he has a knowledge of something that you may choose to disbelieve...and will continue to disbelieve until it passes whatever tests that you require in order for you to accept it as fact...a test no doubt much more strident than his.

Case in point: Suppose Leprechauns were in your kitchen and did make you coffee every morning. Perhaps this would be enough to pass YOUR test of fact...YOU KNOW that leprechauns exist. Good luck trying to convince somebody else though.
Let's say you break out the polaroid and take some snaps...you may pass some's test and convince them of leprechaunical fact...but not many. Camcorder? Few more but still not many. Talk show circuit? Yeah, you'll get alot of converts there, considering the audience...but still a long way to go.
In fact, even with scientific evidence of the existence of leprechauns, some people would NEVER believe in them.

A much simpler analogy...as a child you BELIEVE that the stove is hot. You believe it because your parents tell you so, and you have the faith that they will never lie to you, and that they know everything. However, it is only when you observe someone (average children) or yourself (stubborn children) getting burned that you KNOW that the stove is hot.

I, like Mick, personally KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists. I won't go into how this was demonstrated to me here, as I am NOT presenting the existence of God as a fact, and I am NOT trying to convince anybody of anything. I am merely trying to share ideas along the line of this thread.

The problem with bible thumping positions such as Magus' is that instead of seeking to corraborate faith with fact, it instead seeks to set them at lager heads. This is why it is totally frustrating to see some of the completely logical points raised in the article he quoted in his opening post in this thread (much of which I agree with) get dashed to the rocks by his (and the article's) subsequent positions.

Let me just say this...Magus, it cuts both ways! The very arguments that the article seeks to use as an indictment against Atheism are even STRONGER arguments against the type of religion that you practice!

Even if we ignore the history of the oral development, writing, rewriting, translating, editing, cannonization, etc. of the bible...even if we gloss over the mistakes, contradictions and manipulations contained whithin it...
Even if we accept completely your position of it's sacredness and infallabillity...
To take the position that the entire essence and knowledge of God...infinite...universal...all encompassing...all knowing...all understanding...can be completely contained in 2 rather small volumes of rather small archaic books, and only in those volumes...is just plain insulting...and blasphemous!!!

No open-minded Atheist would take the position that the universe could be summed up in this matter, yet you would limit God and the very idea of God to it.

Allow your mind to open, allow your locks to be broken. God doesn't need you to put Him in your little box...He doesn't need your help!

Celsus

Surely this thread should be in GRD?

diana

To set faith equal to knowledge is to either conveniently redefine one or both of the terms or to violate scripture. Faith is something you have despite lack of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. Knowledge is something you can back up with evidence. Faith is about belief; knowledge is about proof. No similarity.

I don't think it is possible to believe something simply by choosing to, nor is it possible to disbelieve something by choosing to do so.

If one is determined to believe something when one knows there exists no supporting evidence for it, the best one can hope for is an ongoing effort to try to believe. This effort produces cognitive dissonance, because he knows that, were the thing really real, he'd have no need to convince himself of its reality. He doesn't go through life convincing himself there's really a wall in front of him, nor does he "choose" to believe this. Should he "choose" to believe it isn't there and attempt to walk through it, there are immediate consequences for his actions.

It follows that belief is based upon knowledge you assume to be true but have not tested or questioned. For example, a child believes in Santa Claus because he has been told Santa exists. He trusts Mom and Dad and Gran who told him so. He doesn't think about how impossible the story is. The child has not chosen to believe.

Another point: why would I "choose" to disbelieve something? (Were it possible to do so, I mean.) How is this in any way in my best interest?

Exactly. Disbelief is the default. This is why you categorically deny the existence of of the coffee-making leprauchans in my kitchen.

No doubt.

How do I know? IOWs, what are you assuming is my test of fact? I warn you, I have fairly stringent conditions for what I establish as fact, as opposed to opinion.

Speak to me of little green men. Speak to me of coffee-making kitchen-dwelling leprauchans.

Cozmodius stands at center field, relaxed and alert. His body stiffens with anticipation. He sprints forward and dives, his glove outstretched and open, and...he misses the point.

Facts, pertaining to what "exists," are demonstrable. I differentiate because while there is only one truth concerning, say, something that happened, we can only make a reasonable assessment concerning what really happened in any given situation. We can examine artifacts and personal letters and books and journals and study the politics of the period and make a reasoned guess concerning any past event.

The criteria is different, however, for determining a fact of existence. I don't have to make reasoned guesses about whether a leprauchan exists any more than I have to make reasoned guesses about whether this is a dagger I see before me. There are methods to test existence.

Interesting that you choose the word "converts." What you've described is an ever-widening group of people that are exposed to my "evidence." Any salesman will assure you that, provided you have a decent sales pitch, a given percentage of the people who hear it will buy the product, no matter what it is.

(I know it's a digression, but your analogy between converting people to leprauchanism and converting people to theism was too strong to pass up. Thanks for the testimony of human gullibility.)

You're right. Scientific evidence of evolution notwithstanding, some people insist upon wallowing in their ignorance, refusing to expose themselves to the facts so they won't be forced to acknowledge the truth.

Remember what I said about how people protect their pet beliefs and deal with their cognitive dissonance?

Yes. You believe what you're told only until you are mature enough to test it or question it. The "stubborn children" in your example are skeptics. Perhaps they touched the stove because they just learned that Santa isn't real.

Knowledge is composed of facts, which are demonstrable and subject to proof.

You use the word "know" very loosely. We don't. If this conversation is to be fruitful for either of us, we must agree on the definitions of our terms.

With that in mind, in your opinion, what's the difference between belief and knowledge?

Fair enough. It won't do us much good to go into what constitutes "demonstration" of "facts" until we agree on what you mean by these terms, anyway.

You seem to have a different definition of "logic" than we do, too, FWIW.

d

Mageth

Welcome, Sur-reality.

wow that's great. So far you so called atheists have disproved the so called christians theory but you still haven't reinforced your own views.

I'm a "so called" atheist because I am an atheist. My "views" concerning the matter consist of lacking belief in god(s) due to the paucity of evidence, nothing more. To me, there is no atheist "theory."

Now I may be mistaken and I'm sure you will readily correct me if I'm wrong but isn't an atheist one who does not believe in god(s).

Correct.

If that is the proper definition then please enlighten me where is your proof that god(s) do not exist.

I can't offer you one because I don't have such a "proof." Nor do I need one. Without evidence in support of the existence of god(s), I lack belief in god(s). That's my position.

Mageth

Weclome, Cozmodius.

I, like Mick, personally KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists.

Speculating, I'd say your knowledge is based on one or more of the following: you accept as factual the accounts of the leprechauns and their interactions with some humans written 2000 years or so ago, personally know many others that also believe in leprechauns, claim there are things in nature that can only be explained by leprechaun magic, claim personal, internal interaction with leprechauns, and/or claim to have seen some of the magic tricks leprechauns sometimes perform if you believe in them, give them a few coins, and ask them real nice.

HomoSapien

Well, philosophically you really can't say..."There is no God." This is an absolute statement, and imples absolute knowledge about all reality.

You can say the cookie jar is empty after looking into it. But you can't say there is no God, unless you had access to all known reality.

By the same token, There is a God, cleary implies that you have proof of such a being.

There is a cookie in the jar, means that you can produce one.

and thus the game of reason, faith and message boards like this one are born for open debate and hopefully reasonable discussion.

Can God be proved or disproved...conclusively?

Is God even knowable?

Do ants know of our existence...not unless we step on them,eh?

questions, questions...wheels within wheels...oh well, whats on TV tonight?

diana

True, in the same sense that you cannot (philosophically) say, "There are no fire-breathing purple bunny rabbits."

I (for one) pretty consistently take the tack that my stance is disbelief in God (the pure definition of "atheist"), just because I suffer under the delusion that it'll keep me from having to deal with the exact semantic issue you've outlined above. I end up addressing it constantly, anyway.

However, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Koy that it's as utterly ridiculous to quibble about the "philosophical implications of the statement "There is no God" as it is to take someone to task for making the assertion that there are no fire-breathing purple bunny rabbits.

Some concepts are just ridiculous. When I encounter one, I don't see a problem with calling it ridiculous. To say "There is no god" is a simple way of saying the "god" concept is utterly and completely without merit.

Do I have to therefore prove no god exists?

Wait.

Let's say I claim to own a fire-breathing purple bunny rabbit. I appear to be serious.

Your response, when it finally occurs to you that I am serious, is to say, "There are no fire-breathing purple bunny rabbits!"

I look offended, then indignant, then smugly say, "Really? Prove it!"

Again, you can tell I'm being completely serious, and am even arrogant enough about my claims to challenge you to disprove them.

Do you think I'm being rational? Or would you, perhaps, raise your eyebrows, say something about having to be somewhere, and slip out the door, rather than deal with my insanity?

No one thinks twice if I say, "There are no leprauchans!" Nor do they blink if I say, "Werewolves don't exist!"

The only reason they challenge me to prove the nonexistence of a being no one has ever seen is because so many people still believe in this being they've never seen.

But my statement that God doesn't exist is just as reasonable as your claim that fire-breathing purple bunny rabbits don't exist.

d

Cozmodius

For 1, I did not set faith equal to knowledge nor do I wish to do so. I am using the word faith in the sense that you would have faith that the information being presented to you is true. I never mentioned the word scripture. If you have faith in something despite lack of evidence is 1 thing, but to have faith in something in the face of evidence to the contrary to me borders on delusion. So yes, faith is about belief, knowledge is about proof...exactly the point I was driving at.

For the record, the term "scriptures" simply means "writings", and I attach no more significance to them than that.


Semantics. Please replace my use of the term "disbelieve" with "not believe". My fault. As for choice...considering a lack of proof the person is choosing to either believe or not believe...why does that not make sense to you?

Many people are far more gullible than you or I. They feel no need to convince themselves, because it is much easier for them to go through life with blind faith. They make a choice to believe this or that bill of goods and then close their minds to all reason. This same person might indeed attempt to walk through that wall over and over again.


Perhaps the child is too young to make that choice when 1st told, but he does indeed make a choice 1 way or the other when friends start to tell him what a crock of crap it is. He may choose to go with the logic of his friends' or his faith in the honesty and intelligence of his parents, but its a choice nonetheless.

How about this...regardless of the lack of evidence 1 way or the other...one may choose to believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, choose not to believe it, or choose to reserve judgement completely...choices all.


What do best interests have to do with any of this? Many people have chosen not to believe in something when it was against their best interests...and paid with their lives for it. Is this a semantics problem?


I am not assuming any test of fact for you personally, I don't even know you. This is a hypothetical after all, and I did say perhaps. If it would make you feel more comfortable please feel free to substitute some unknown person for yourself.


So, are you saying that something does not exist until it can be demonstrated to exist? Did the planet Pluto not exist until it was discovered and found to exist? Molecules? Atoms? Are you saying that we now know of everything that now exists, and upon any new discovery only then will this new thing exist?


Yes, that's exactly why I used it. I really don't feel like we are at different conclusions as much as we are at different arguments.


I absolutely agree...this is what my entire hypothetical is about. Everyone's perception of "Knowledge" is exclusive to themselves. Yours is different from everyone else's...whether Atheist, Theist, or not. I do not use the word know loosely, I use it with the utmost respect. Therefore I do not attempt to persuade you to agree with what for me is a knowledge...because it has passed MY test of fact...when I know that I lack the demonstratable evidence required to attempt a pass at yours.

Another simple hypothetical...your twin sons, Bobby and Darrin, are playing in the living room and break a lamp. Both claim the other did it. Now, Bobby KNOWS who did it, and Darrin KNOWS who did it...but you may never truly know. Now, for whatever reason, you may choose to believe 1 boy or the other, or neither...but the knowledge may be elusive to you forever.


This may well be, I haven't been here long enough to figure that out yet.

Cozmodius

Thanx for the welcome Mageth!

Yep, that would come closest!

BadBadBad

I was reading up on this thread today. This thread has covered a lot of ground, and I've thoroghly enjoyed how you guys have so easily swatted down many of the arguments I've faced in the past.

One of the flakes in the snow storm was Magus55 hyperlink argument about the number of existing manuscripts proving the legitimacy of the Bible. I thought he got off a little too easy on that one. Someone posted a link that I thought had a good rebuttal:

manuscript rebuttal

I'm a Bible layman, and I don't just like to read a one-sided argument. I'd sure like to see this seriously debated.

Short summary:

Out of the 5600 manuscripts only one complete manuscript through the ninth century. That's from the 4th century not 130 AD referenced in the link Magus55 sited. Only 59 complete manuscripts exist. The rest are fragments.

The New Testament is not just one book. Compare the 573 manuscripts of the Book of Acts to the 650 of the IIiad. Compare 5600 to 11000 manuscripts of the Quran.

Amongst the various 5600 manuscripts there are variants.
Percentage of verses with variants:

The Gospels: 45%
The Acts: 32%
Pauline Epistles: 24%
Catholic Epistles: 29%
Revelation: 47%
Total: 37.1%

It then goes on to rebut the 99.5% pure translation myth and the myth that these variations are insignificant.