Atheists can't explain existence.

[Zingerific]

About the only reason I can think of to encourage the eskimos to contemplate the existence of France is some sort of epistemological completeness fetish that human beings have.

LOL! I've heard of some odd fetishes before, but never one dealing with epistomology (except maybe my undergraduate advisor).

 

[gotdimples77]

LOL! I've heard of some odd fetishes before, but never one dealing with epistomology (except maybe my undergraduate advisor).

how else can you explain fisting? j/k

 

[mike_n_herrin]

The foundation of atheism is that scientific principles and observable phenomena can come into existence with out any cause .

Either that matters existence needs no explanation (Why?) or that because God can't be explained then atheists don't have to explain the first cause either (Why?)

Atheism is dishonest?

I am returning to agnosticism.

i agree sorta. it's a first cause problem. on either side you have to have faith that at some point something existed without any help. you can't prove it one way or another and you can't disprove it either way. if one can simply exist then why not the other. it doesn't make sense to debate it, because neither side can get anywhere. you either believe in a god/higher power/etc or you don't. you either believe that matter simply exists or you don't. i don't believe either and i don't know what really happened so i'm agnostic.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

/\ i would say you are essentially correct. neither side can reasonably "prove" their case nor can they disprove the other.

 

[_AJ_]

The foundation of atheism is that scientific principles and observable phenomena can come into existence with out any cause .

Either that matters existence needs no explanation (Why?) or that because God can't be explained then atheists don't have to explain the first cause either (Why?)

Atheism is dishonest?

I am returning to agnosticism.

[removed by moderator]

ok now that i have that out of the way your wrong the fundamentals of atheism is that there is no god or creator

Atheism is nothing more than that

And we dont have an explanation for everything so what
we dont know exactly how life arose although there are some experiments which replicate early earth and have been promising they are far from fact

we dont know specifics of the big bang what was the universe like before that? I dont know

the question is this if you do not know would you rather believe a story or try and find the answer

that is the differance between me and you I am looking for answers you are looking for questions with no answers and running from the answers

Why are you so afraid?

 

[gsdx]

In one of his books, Harry Kemelman (author of the Rabbi Small series) said something to the effect of: "Ask a Jew if he believes in God and he will tell you 'no'. He simply knows that God exists." 'Belief', Harry explained, implies 'to have faith' and 'to have faith' means there is the possibility that He doesn't exist.

I don't know what this has to do with anything, but it's something I remember reading once upon a time.

 

[belamy]

In one of his books, Harry Kemelman (author of the Rabbi Small series) said something to the effect of: "Ask a Jew if he believes in God and he will tell you 'no'. He simply knows that God exists." 'Belief', Harry explained, implies 'to have faith' and 'to have faith' means there is the possibility that He doesn't exist.

Not exactly. What it means is that, since there's no way you can give a rational account of that vague conception, that you have not rational proof for or against, you are considering both the possibility of Existence and that of non-existence without being able to decide for one or the other, which either way means nothing because whether you "know" or "belief" you can't really give an account of what you "know" or "believe" to exist, so both positions, as far as God is concerned, amount logically to the same.
Choosing "know" instead of "faith" doesn't affirm the existence of God but that of YOUR belief, in a desperate impossible intent to show a greater devotion, impossible since any way you try to address God appropriately is rationally futile.
In the Western world "faith" means something going beyond reason, that is, something may be, may exist but you can't expose it rationally. While "knowing" is something acquired through rationality. So the Jewish subterfuge is just that typical slipshod way the East, from Canaan to Japan, to flaunt their "knowing" about everything without actually being able to explain what they know and how they got there: what they call "wisdom". In the West they can use "faith" or "intuition" for that.
I've studied Eastern "philosophy", particularly Chinese, and even though not all "Western philosophy" is "philosophy" according to its own standards, what the Chinese have is in fact a partial account of a philosophical discourse which they cut down to a few mottos and occasionally embellish with poetical images that they make pass for the Revelation of the Great Wise Kings and Sages of the past. So their "philosophy" is just the scholastic commentary of the Truth revealed by men of an ancient time. The ideas contained may be more lucid and clever than most in the Western tradition, but their sense lies in the "philosophizing" on them, that is, going outside them for a while, consider them even in their negation, not the believing in them and superstitiously venerating them as an absolute and incomprehensible truth.

But if they decide "know" is more pious, hey, who am I to give a rabbi lessons in rationality.

 

[dj415]

Could someone, anyone, explain AndrewD? Please.

Or more specifically why anyone replies to its posts?

 

[gsdx]

Not exactly.

Harry was Jewish. I just figured he knew what he was talking about.

 

[seven_sins]

Atheism is not a religion. Therefore, it does not need to explain existence.

 

[belamy]

Harry was Jewish. I just figured he knew what he was talking about.

Read my post again. I don't have any doubts concerning the knowledge that individual has of the Jewish doctrine, I can even admit a separate status of the concept the doctrine tries to convey... in another language, but when they use the English language to convey that concept the rules are the same for the "knowing" and the "faithful". That concept may make sense in another language, or in the English if that specific use is acknowledged, but if they appeal to the common way of reasoning in the English language they have no case.
All your "faith" or "knowledge" can't make language say what it doesn't say because it suits better your religious doctrine.

In any case, I repeat, the only rational sense their position has is that of choosing a concept asserting THEIR OWN belief in the existence, that is, existence as derived from THEIR belief, which is mere stubborness under the name of God. Knowledge only has sense as referred to a subject, and individual. So "knowing" can only refer to the "knowing", the "believer", the "faithful", whatever... but not to God Godself.

 

[belamy]

Atheism is not a religion. Therefore, it does not need to explain existence.

It's a BELIEF. Like religion is. It's not an intellectual stance as the may want it to appear. They are as freaking dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist freak, because they don't speak in the name of reason, but in the name of their truth agaisnt the non-enlightened, like any other sort of proselyte.

 

[Zingerific]

Theism asserts the existence of something; ergo, the burden of proof is on the theist.

My position is: the theist is not justified in such an assertion. I make no positive assertion of my own as to the question of first causes and the like; I do question whether any such assertion is justified. Whether that qualifies as atheist or agnostic is a linguistic tempest in a teapot: a definitional game I'm not interested in playing.

 

[_AJ_]

What?

I have posed a relevant pertinent question to our exisistence. What exactly is your problem?

Are you only interested in science that defends an atheistic position?

I am interested in explanations for matter, time, infinity and consciousness.

i am not hiding behind any religious dogma. merely philosiphising.

there was more in my post than that mate alot more and you ignore it typical mate ignore the answers run run away mate

your doing it right now you just proved exactly what i said in one post well done

 

[gsdx]

Read my post again.

Sorry. I clicked this:

Guess I didn't click hard enough.

 

[bankside]

First of all, pretending to explain existence does not constitute explaining existence..

Exeunt faith.

And now, to this quote:

It's a BELIEF. Like religion is. It's not an intellectual stance as the may want it to appear. They are as freaking dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist freak, because they don't speak in the name of reason, but in the name of their truth agaisnt the non-enlightened, like any other sort of proselyte.

I challenge you to find me any quote by any atheist thinker ever, who said that atheists should continue to disbelieve in any god (you select) when faced with substantial evidence supporting the existence of that god.

 

[_AJ_]

It's a BELIEF. Like religion is. It's not an intellectual stance as the may want it to appear. They are as freaking dogmatic as any religious fundamentalist freak, because they don't speak in the name of reason, but in the name of their truth agaisnt the non-enlightened, like any other sort of proselyte.

am i really

No but that does not prove your point does it

 

[Pushover]

All I can say is 'lol'....

We've only landed on our moon only a few decades ago. We have a lot to discover.

Let's weigh the theory:

Creationists think that an all-powerful and omniscient celestial being created the universe. You know, coming from those people that believe the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle and a pantheon of deities resides on a mountain in Eastern Europe. Sooooo much easier to believe by people thousands of years ago than anything else. Just because it's easier to believe doesn't mean it's true.

Atheists believe in a number of theories, each one based on a a certain field of science (ie big bang theory, alien genetics experiment theory, etc). I myself believe that we don't know yet, as it's yet to be discovered.

And the evidence:

Creationists have their bible. A book written thousands of years ago, by people who say they got their material directly/indirectly from this omniscient being. It's changed hands so many times (even by two religions) and is so open to interpretation that I'd hardly call it proof of any kind. Oh, they also have blind faith...yeah.

Atheists have a number of theories and evidences, each one 'explained' one way or another by some science. In the end, it's a jumble of theories, each one that could be right, but we've yet to discover the truth.



When it comes down to it, I'd believe in science, which is based on absolute fact, before I'd believe in a super-being, which will be impossible to base on fact. The God theory just sounds so 'out there' that I can't see why people believe it.

Now, I know you fundamentalists just want to go a crash everything I just said, but don't bother waiting for my reply, because I've heard it all before.

 

[belamy]

First of all, pretending to explain existence does not constitute explaining existence..

Exeunt faith.

And now, to this quote:



I challenge you to find me any quote by any atheist thinker ever, who said that atheists should continue to disbelieve in any god (you select) when faced with substantial evidence supporting the existence of that god.

Then Mr. Atheist X is just a kind of intellectual nomad and dishonest disputant: atheism AFFIRMS the NONEXISTENCE of God; it doesn't express doubts, or is skeptic, NO... it outright PROFESSES the rational ground for not believing in something that doesn't exist. If they are willing to accept their belief is wrong why be such a die hard combattant believer? Why don't the adhere the position I exposed in my earlier post as closer to my own, namely, be open to argumentation for or against, but don't adhere to either of them as if you were convinced there is no way you can't be wrong.

Atheism is only a form of BELIEF based on sham reasoning: it states that if you can prove something that something doesn't exists, which amounts to say that there's no world, no further knowledge, no mental evolution beyond their set of truths, which make of atheists fundamentalist religious people without a God, like the communist are Christian without Jesus.

 

[belamy]

am i really

No but that does not prove your point does it

I'm talking about the intellectual postion, I don't care if you are a person who doesn't know what means what you say you are: it's like someone were proud of being a soldier but stated that being a soldier has nothing to do with killing people.
If you BELIEVE in the nonexistence of God or of Unicorns then be aware of the black-and-white position that supposes.
Maybe you, and now I am addressing to YOU, you should make up your mind on whether you really disbelieve or not disbelieve in God

Originally Posted by bankside View Post
First of all, pretending to explain existence does not constitute explaining existence..

Exactly like not being able to account for the existence of something doesn't exclude the possibility of its actual existence.
Like the Jewish guy gsdx said: you pretend to give a rational account of something exterior to yourselves while in fact you are only talking about yourselves: you believe in God and you believe in not believing in God.