Atheism

[AfterEight]

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[annoyedwithskating]

geoff...

you don't have to take a stance. why assert something that you can't prove? agnosticism is saying, "i don't know" which is the correct answer when considering what can be proven or known to be true.

i lean more towards diesm and follow the basic assumption that if their is a diety that is anything like what is found in most religions then leading a moral life is worth while. fortunately, i already feel that leading a moral life is worth while and so it's not really work to take that stance.

Expand Quote

To claim knowledge about the existence of God one way or another is completely fucking asinine. Going with the more strict definition, if you're an atheist who claims to know there is no God, you're just as stupid and ignorant as the bible thumper claiming Jesus helped him get a bigger tax return this year.

I don't have any clue if there is a God or not. Science seems to be getting along very well without invoking the divine or having to resort to "God did it", but that doesn't mean there isn't something more to the world which we have not yet been able to discover through science. That being said, no human conception of God seems to me to be anywhere near adequate to explain both the facts of the world, that is scientifically verifiable facts, and deal with the more philosophical issues of life such as morality, and death.

I think agnostic is really the only reasonable stance on this issue of God. I'm quite convinced that all religions human beings have come up with are complete bullshit, but does that mean the concept it's self is false? I don't know and neither do any of you assholes, and you probably never will, so stop worrying about it and just accept that you will die one day, possibly very soon, and that there is no answer to the question of "what happens next?".?  

[close]

thank you

as i argued before, if you give someone a definition of something, it is possible to either prove or disprove it. to say "there is no god" is non sequitur if that god is not defined. if someone defines it, e.g., they say that god is perfect, you can prove that perfection is only a subjective attribute with no quantitative qualities, therefore, that god has been disproven. in fact, you can only believe or not believe in a thing once you are given the information. if someone says, "there is a god who loves when we molest children" of course you can say that you are not sure if he exists, but in all probability, this being does not exist and it is not unreasonable to say, "i believe this being does not exist."

also, considering the concept of god most common to us is the judeo christian concept, we have some idea of what we are arguing against and a stance should be taken in my opinion as many in this country make political/ethical decisions based on this view.

[Sleazy]

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[annoyedwithskating]

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[grimcity]

as i argued before, if you give someone a definition of something, it is possible to either prove or disprove it. to say "there is no god" is non sequitur if that god is not defined. if someone defines it, e.g., they say that god is perfect, you can prove that perfection is only a subjective attribute with no quantitative qualities, therefore, that god has been disproven. in fact, you can only believe or not believe in a thing once you are given the information. if someone says, "there is a god who loves when we molest children" of course you can say that you are not sure if he exists, but in all probability, this being does not exist and it is not unreasonable to say, "i believe this being does not exist."

I agree with the first statement in bold, but disagree with the second... in the same way it's logically impossible to prove a negative, I don't understand how a person could believe in one.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[close]

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

Expand Quote

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

[close]

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

Hume took skepticism to the next level. he argued that it is impossible to prove anything basically. that is why he would say that it is impossible to disprove something. with that, it is reasonable to maintain the non existence of something. he would argue that you can not disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but he would also have not believe it either.

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

as i argued before, if you give someone a definition of something, it is possible to either prove or disprove it. to say "there is no god" is non sequitur if that god is not defined. if someone defines it, e.g., they say that god is perfect, you can prove that perfection is only a subjective attribute with no quantitative qualities, therefore, that god has been disproven. in fact, you can only believe or not believe in a thing once you are given the information. if someone says, "there is a god who loves when we molest children" of course you can say that you are not sure if he exists, but in all probability, this being does not exist and it is not unreasonable to say, "i believe this being does not exist."

[close]

I agree with the first statement in bold, but disagree with the second... in the same way it's logically impossible to prove a negative, I don't understand how a person could believe in one.

i understand your point, but i wasnt postulating a negative. the statement was a reaction to a positive proposition, hence the nature of disbelief as you illustrated earlier.

[grimcity]

D'oh, sorry for my misinterpretation!

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out??  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[close]

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

Expand Quote

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

[close]

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

[close]

Hume took skepticism to the next level. he argued that it is impossible to prove anything basically. that is why he would say that it is impossible to disprove something. with that, it is reasonable to maintain the non existence of something. he would argue that you can not disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but he would also have not believe it either.

right but if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster then what's the point in disproving them? who cares if they think that.

you indicated earlier that you were concerned about the christian influence but you are assuming that somehow people who are too lazy to think for themselves would somehow become enlightened and not just find another way of justifying their beliefs?

but i'll bite, prove the christian god doesn't exist...

[weedpop]

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out� http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

All this is irrelevant to the logic of what Russel was saying. He's not comparing a teapot, or our purely physical conception of a teapot, with that massive philosophical abstraction that is belief in "god". The societal and historical context surrounding this concept has absolutely no bearing on its plausibility in a purely logical sense, if you accept that human beings do not have innate access to perfect spiritual knowledge (or perhaps any spiritual "knowledge" at all, given that we tend to define knowledge as a tenuous conclusion based on empirical observations and probabilities, not divine inspiration). The point is, you can't make unfalsifiable ontological statements about a thing (either guaranteeing its existence or defining the qualities of its existence) and expect rational people to accept them based solely on the grandeur of your ideas or their widespread acceptance within society (both qualities being often misinterpreted as providing plausibility or even positive proof to said concepts by less stringent thinkers). Of course, you're never going to convince the millions of people who have been weened on some sort of religious belief since birth that their entire system of moral values and spiritual convictions is based on an illusion simply with recourse to logic, because humans are highly irrational when it comes time to evaluate beliefs that we consider integral to our identity or fundamental being. I think the problem lies in letting the debate be dominated  (as it was in Russel's day) by people who hold the 'celestial teapot' of 'flying spaghetti monster' outlook that postulates the existence of God as an a priori truth.

[annoyedwithskating]

D'oh, sorry for my misinterpretation!

no problem  

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out??  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[close]

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

Expand Quote

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

[close]

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

[close]

Hume took skepticism to the next level. he argued that it is impossible to prove anything basically. that is why he would say that it is impossible to disprove something. with that, it is reasonable to maintain the non existence of something. he would argue that you can not disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but he would also have not believe it either.

[close]

right but if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster then what's the point in disproving them? who cares if they think that.

you indicated earlier that you were concerned about the christian influence but you are assuming that somehow people who are too lazy to think for themselves would somehow become enlightened and not just find another way of justifying their beliefs?

but i'll bite, prove the christian god doesn't exist...

haha, its already been done. the god of the bible is said to be "all powerful" or omnipotent.  that is a self contradicting proposition. i dont understand your second sentence. i dont know how i am assuming that people would somehow become enlightened.

[Sleazy]

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

All this is irrelevant to the logic of what Russel was saying. He's not comparing a teapot, or our purely physical conception of a teapot, with that massive philosophical abstraction that is belief in "god". The societal and historical context surrounding this concept has absolutely no bearing on its plausibility in a purely logical sense, if you accept that human beings do not have innate access to perfect spiritual knowledge (or perhaps any spiritual "knowledge" at all, given that we tend to define knowledge as a tenuous conclusion based on empirical observations and probabilities, not divine inspiration). The point is, you can't make unfalsifiable ontological statements about a thing (either guaranteeing its existence or defining the qualities of its existence) and expect rational people to accept them based solely on the grandeur of your ideas or their widespread acceptance within society (both qualities being often misinterpreted as providing plausibility or even positive proof to said concepts by less stringent thinkers). Of course, you're never going to convince the millions of people who have been weened on some sort of religious belief since birth that their entire system of moral values and spiritual convictions is based on an illusion simply with recourse to logic, because humans are highly irrational when it comes time to evaluate beliefs that we consider integral to our identity or fundamental being. I think the problem lies in letting the debate be dominated?  (as it was in Russel's day) by people who hold the 'celestial teapot' of 'flying spaghetti monster' outlook that postulates the existence of God as an a priori truth.

so in that case aliens don't exist... no need for further discussion

Expand Quote

D'oh, sorry for my misinterpretation!

[close]

no problem 

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out??  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[close]

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

Expand Quote

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

[close]

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

[close]

Hume took skepticism to the next level. he argued that it is impossible to prove anything basically. that is why he would say that it is impossible to disprove something. with that, it is reasonable to maintain the non existence of something. he would argue that you can not disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but he would also have not believe it either.

[close]

right but if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster then what's the point in disproving them? who cares if they think that.

you indicated earlier that you were concerned about the christian influence but you are assuming that somehow people who are too lazy to think for themselves would somehow become enlightened and not just find another way of justifying their beliefs?

but i'll bite, prove the christian god doesn't exist...

[close]

haha, its already been done. the god of the bible is said to be "all powerful" or omnipotent.  that is a self contradicting proposition. i dont understand your second sentence. i dont know how i am assuming that people would somehow become enlightened.

for that paradox to work you have to assume that the task is illogical (create a sqaure circle, create something that can't be destroyed, etc...). i'm pretty sure that's taking the word out of context.

[weedpop]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

All this is irrelevant to the logic of what Russel was saying. He's not comparing a teapot, or our purely physical conception of a teapot, with that massive philosophical abstraction that is belief in "god". The societal and historical context surrounding this concept has absolutely no bearing on its plausibility in a purely logical sense, if you accept that human beings do not have innate access to perfect spiritual knowledge (or perhaps any spiritual "knowledge" at all, given that we tend to define knowledge as a tenuous conclusion based on empirical observations and probabilities, not divine inspiration). The point is, you can't make unfalsifiable ontological statements about a thing (either guaranteeing its existence or defining the qualities of its existence) and expect rational people to accept them based solely on the grandeur of your ideas or their widespread acceptance within society (both qualities being often misinterpreted as providing plausibility or even positive proof to said concepts by less stringent thinkers). Of course, you're never going to convince the millions of people who have been weened on some sort of religious belief since birth that their entire system of moral values and spiritual convictions is based on an illusion simply with recourse to logic, because humans are highly irrational when it comes time to evaluate beliefs that we consider integral to our identity or fundamental being. I think the problem lies in letting the debate be dominated?� (as it was in Russel's day) by people who hold the 'celestial teapot' of 'flying spaghetti monster' outlook that postulates the existence of God as an a priori truth.

[close]

so in that case aliens don't exist... no need for further discussion

No...the probability of alien lifeforms of some sort existing is rather large considering the number of potential earth like planets in the universe, so there is need for further discussion and, more importantly, RESEARCH, on that matter. Again, I'm not trying to unequivocally prove that there isn't a god or that there is no possibility that one exists as we've already established that it's logically impossible. The alien thing is an entirely different matter because we can observe that biological life does exist in some form (i.e. us and every other animal on earth) whereas we cannot make the same observation regarding divine beings.

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

agnostic was coined by t.h. huxley to mean, without knowledge of things unknowable. to say you are an agnostic is the same as saying you are an atheist. either way, you are saying that you can not know that there is a god. now, there are different forms of this belief. some say they are agnostic in the sense that they are not sure, now, they might want to believe that they are not atheists, but they are de facto atheists. the reason, they do not believe in a god. if you do believe there is a god, you can not be an agnostic, because by definition, to be agnostic is to claim that you can not know if there is a god. with that, claiming that you know there are things such as god, or a spirit, or a spiritual world, is dumb.

[close]

There's a difference between "believing" and "knowing", bubba.

[close]

can you explain that difference

[close]

be?lieve   
[bih-leev]  Show IPA
verb, -lieved, -liev?ing.
?verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:




Badda bing, badda boom.

[close]

you didnt define what it means to know, and you didnt show a difference.

[close]

Take away what I made bold in the initial definition and there ya go.


I figured you'd have enough common sense to figure at least that much out, but I suppose I gave you too much credit. Now I'm embarrassed.

[close]

you never defined what it is to know, only a vague definition of what it is to believe. you should be embarrassed because you think it is easy.

[close]

You're right, I do think knowing the definitions of elementary words is easy. That's because I'm not fucking regular.



And besides, you're missing the point completely.

[close]

if you believe that those are elementary terms, you have  a very unsophisticated way of looking at the world.

"Knowing" and "believing" aren't complicated terms. You're just really stupid.

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

agnostic was coined by t.h. huxley to mean, without knowledge of things unknowable. to say you are an agnostic is the same as saying you are an atheist. either way, you are saying that you can not know that there is a god. now, there are different forms of this belief. some say they are agnostic in the sense that they are not sure, now, they might want to believe that they are not atheists, but they are de facto atheists. the reason, they do not believe in a god. if you do believe there is a god, you can not be an agnostic, because by definition, to be agnostic is to claim that you can not know if there is a god. with that, claiming that you know there are things such as god, or a spirit, or a spiritual world, is dumb.

[close]

There's a difference between "believing" and "knowing", bubba.

[close]

can you explain that difference

[close]

be?lieve   
[bih-leev]  Show IPA
verb, -lieved, -liev?ing.
?verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:




Badda bing, badda boom.

[close]

you didnt define what it means to know, and you didnt show a difference.

[close]

Take away what I made bold in the initial definition and there ya go.


I figured you'd have enough common sense to figure at least that much out, but I suppose I gave you too much credit. Now I'm embarrassed.

[close]

you never defined what it is to know, only a vague definition of what it is to believe. you should be embarrassed because you think it is easy.

[close]

You're right, I do think knowing the definitions of elementary words is easy. That's because I'm not fucking regular.



And besides, you're missing the point completely.

[close]

if you believe that those are elementary terms, you have  a very unsophisticated way of looking at the world.

[close]

"Knowing" and "believing" aren't complicated terms. You're just really stupid.

ok, im stupid.
here is what i posted earlier illustrating the complexities of defining the terms. but youre smart, you wont have any problem with it.

knowledge is most often taken as something empirical. but as the history of ideas has shown us, empiricism = reificaction. the deification of concepts. to KNOW something is to BELIEVE something is true. to believe something rests upon our impulses and perceptions. we define our perceptions using a finite resource, our mind. the language that we use in order to understand the world that we live in is beyond limited. the very act of communicating is a negation of the substance of things. the idea that things are of a substance is logical, but removed from the substance themselves.
this leaves us with a conundrum. shall we acknowledge the void and continue to speak using objective terms, or do we communicate on a more vague, disconnected level. i personally believe it is a combination of the two. a true dialogue can only occur when the problem of interpretation is agreed on and the terms are settled. e.g., if one believes that it is possible to know not only that things ARE, but WHAT they are, they will be unable to come to a consensus concerning a matter with one who believes that at best we can describe what it APPEARS that things are.
in my opinion, certain words serve no real good, e.g., to know. the word implies more than we are capable of. The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural. this has been done for quite some time now and honestly gets under my skin.
so we are stuck with limited language and an impossible situation. in the end we can only be responsible for our own beliefs and this is where many are frustrated and seek a more objective language.

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

All this is irrelevant to the logic of what Russel was saying. He's not comparing a teapot, or our purely physical conception of a teapot, with that massive philosophical abstraction that is belief in "god". The societal and historical context surrounding this concept has absolutely no bearing on its plausibility in a purely logical sense, if you accept that human beings do not have innate access to perfect spiritual knowledge (or perhaps any spiritual "knowledge" at all, given that we tend to define knowledge as a tenuous conclusion based on empirical observations and probabilities, not divine inspiration). The point is, you can't make unfalsifiable ontological statements about a thing (either guaranteeing its existence or defining the qualities of its existence) and expect rational people to accept them based solely on the grandeur of your ideas or their widespread acceptance within society (both qualities being often misinterpreted as providing plausibility or even positive proof to said concepts by less stringent thinkers). Of course, you're never going to convince the millions of people who have been weened on some sort of religious belief since birth that their entire system of moral values and spiritual convictions is based on an illusion simply with recourse to logic, because humans are highly irrational when it comes time to evaluate beliefs that we consider integral to our identity or fundamental being. I think the problem lies in letting the debate be dominated?  (as it was in Russel's day) by people who hold the 'celestial teapot' of 'flying spaghetti monster' outlook that postulates the existence of God as an a priori truth.

[close]

so in that case aliens don't exist... no need for further discussion

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

D'oh, sorry for my misinterpretation!

[close]

no problem 

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

it's not proving that a single diety doesn't exist, as grim pointed out, it's proving that none exist. it's like taking a firm stance on aliens, at this point we just don't know if they exist.

Expand Quote

I hadn't seen this mentioned yet - If you're not familiar I recommend you check it out??  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

The 'God' debate is stupid, we should stop it here at 4 pages before it gets out of control. The truth is people believe what they want to beleive, debating is not going to change anyones mind regardless of what side your on.

Seriously tho, check the above link. This one's good too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

[close]

we could prove\disprove the teapot thing now...

it's a disanalogous over simplification to compare a teapot floating in space to a diety. no one has ever suspected the teapot exists and diety has been debated throughout the history of mankind.

your also not going to find any kind of science explaining phenomian related to space teapots: http://www.npr.org/series/104257486/the-science-of-spirituality

[close]

im not talking about a single deity in general, im saying that we have to have some sort of definition of what it is we are talking about. e.g., if we can define deity, we can argue whether they exist or not. the problem is that we often discuss the existence of non things, in that we are not actually talking about anything definitive.
when asked if you believe in god, we must first understand what the person is asking. i personally have no idea of what a god actually is, so i cant even discuss it. if someone says they believe in the god of the bible, i feel more than comfortable saying that i believe that that god does not exist.

[close]

i don't believe in the christian interpretation of god but i damn sure wouldn't try to prove that it couldn't be true. david hume didn't even assert that god didn't exist, only that it can't be proven.

Expand Quote

It is likely that Hume was skeptical both about religious belief (at least as demanded by the religious organisations of his time) and of the complete atheism promoted by such contemporaries as Baron d'Holbach. Russell (2008) suggests that perhaps Hume's position is best characterised by the term "irreligion". O'Connor (2001, p19) writes that Hume "did not believe in the God of standard theism. ... but he did not rule out all concepts of deity". Also, "ambiguity suited his purposes, and this creates difficulty in definitively pinning down his final position on religion".

[close]

pretty sure no one in this thread is going to one up hume.

but i would assert that the bible and christianity seems comically unlikely to be the correct answer to the diety question. but i'd assert that about all religions that i've been exposed to. they all seem very silly and are extremely hard to believe. but at the same time it's hard to deny that religion has always been a part of mankind and even harder to imagine what life would be like if no one believed. would it really be better or would we all just be a bunch of assholes (ala southpark "go god go").

[close]

Hume took skepticism to the next level. he argued that it is impossible to prove anything basically. that is why he would say that it is impossible to disprove something. with that, it is reasonable to maintain the non existence of something. he would argue that you can not disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster, but he would also have not believe it either.

[close]

right but if someone tells you there is a flying spaghetti monster then what's the point in disproving them? who cares if they think that.

you indicated earlier that you were concerned about the christian influence but you are assuming that somehow people who are too lazy to think for themselves would somehow become enlightened and not just find another way of justifying their beliefs?

but i'll bite, prove the christian god doesn't exist...

[close]

haha, its already been done. the god of the bible is said to be "all powerful" or omnipotent.  that is a self contradicting proposition. i dont understand your second sentence. i dont know how i am assuming that people would somehow become enlightened.

[close]

for that paradox to work you have to assume that the task is illogical (create a sqaure circle, create something that can't be destroyed, etc...). i'm pretty sure that's taking the word out of context.

the bible says that with god "all things are possible." so, what is it that i am taking out of context? the whole idea of being all powerful is that you can do the "impossible" things that are illogical fit into that rubric.

[bakedRice]

Dude, when I was talking to the lawyer he was getting so psyched.  He was writing shit down as I just rambled on.  "I basically want to be shoved out on a pyre and torched.  We don't have to have my friends shoot flaming arrows at me as much as I want that.  I don't think I know any talented archers.  Basically find a way to have me set on fire in a lake and then I want there to be a 3 day party."

The dude was SO psyched and a week later he called me all bummed out, "I'm sorry sir, they said that the human body is made up of some things that could cause some serious problems with the ecosystem.  I am really sorry, is there anything else that could come close?" 
"No, but it's ok, just torch me and donate my shit to people who need it.  Can I still get the 3 day party?"
"Yes, that's not an issue."
"Ok, awesome.  We're good."

thank you for sharing that with us, i think hate gets this thread better than all of us

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Dude, when I was talking to the lawyer he was getting so psyched.  He was writing shit down as I just rambled on.  "I basically want to be shoved out on a pyre and torched.  We don't have to have my friends shoot flaming arrows at me as much as I want that.  I don't think I know any talented archers.  Basically find a way to have me set on fire in a lake and then I want there to be a 3 day party."

The dude was SO psyched and a week later he called me all bummed out, "I'm sorry sir, they said that the human body is made up of some things that could cause some serious problems with the ecosystem.  I am really sorry, is there anything else that could come close?" 
"No, but it's ok, just torch me and donate my shit to people who need it.  Can I still get the 3 day party?"
"Yes, that's not an issue."
"Ok, awesome.  We're good."

[close]

thank you for sharing that with us, i think hate gets this thread better than all of us

dont kid yourself brother, i am living the dream. but hate! knows whats up for sure.

[pizzafliptofakie]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

agnostic was coined by t.h. huxley to mean, without knowledge of things unknowable. to say you are an agnostic is the same as saying you are an atheist. either way, you are saying that you can not know that there is a god. now, there are different forms of this belief. some say they are agnostic in the sense that they are not sure, now, they might want to believe that they are not atheists, but they are de facto atheists. the reason, they do not believe in a god. if you do believe there is a god, you can not be an agnostic, because by definition, to be agnostic is to claim that you can not know if there is a god. with that, claiming that you know there are things such as god, or a spirit, or a spiritual world, is dumb.

[close]

There's a difference between "believing" and "knowing", bubba.

[close]

can you explain that difference

[close]

be?lieve   
[bih-leev]  Show IPA
verb, -lieved, -liev?ing.
?verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:




Badda bing, badda boom.

[close]

you didnt define what it means to know, and you didnt show a difference.

[close]

Take away what I made bold in the initial definition and there ya go.


I figured you'd have enough common sense to figure at least that much out, but I suppose I gave you too much credit. Now I'm embarrassed.

[close]

you never defined what it is to know, only a vague definition of what it is to believe. you should be embarrassed because you think it is easy.

[close]

You're right, I do think knowing the definitions of elementary words is easy. That's because I'm not fucking regular.



And besides, you're missing the point completely.

[close]

if you believe that those are elementary terms, you have  a very unsophisticated way of looking at the world.

[close]

"Knowing" and "believing" aren't complicated terms. You're just really stupid.

[close]

ok, im stupid.
here is what i posted earlier illustrating the complexities of defining the terms. but youre smart, you wont have any problem with it.

knowledge is most often taken as something empirical. but as the history of ideas has shown us, empiricism = reificaction. the deification of concepts. to KNOW something is to BELIEVE something is true. to believe something rests upon our impulses and perceptions. we define our perceptions using a finite resource, our mind. the language that we use in order to understand the world that we live in is beyond limited. the very act of communicating is a negation of the substance of things. the idea that things are of a substance is logical, but removed from the substance themselves.
this leaves us with a conundrum. shall we acknowledge the void and continue to speak using objective terms, or do we communicate on a more vague, disconnected level. i personally believe it is a combination of the two. a true dialogue can only occur when the problem of interpretation is agreed on and the terms are settled. e.g., if one believes that it is possible to know not only that things ARE, but WHAT they are, they will be unable to come to a consensus concerning a matter with one who believes that at best we can describe what it APPEARS that things are.
in my opinion, certain words serve no real good, e.g., to know. the word implies more than we are capable of. The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural. this has been done for quite some time now and honestly gets under my skin.
so we are stuck with limited language and an impossible situation. in the end we can only be responsible for our own beliefs and this is where many are frustrated and seek a more objective language.

*sigh*



Here's the point ----> .







Here's you ------->

[annoyedwithskating]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

agnostic was coined by t.h. huxley to mean, without knowledge of things unknowable. to say you are an agnostic is the same as saying you are an atheist. either way, you are saying that you can not know that there is a god. now, there are different forms of this belief. some say they are agnostic in the sense that they are not sure, now, they might want to believe that they are not atheists, but they are de facto atheists. the reason, they do not believe in a god. if you do believe there is a god, you can not be an agnostic, because by definition, to be agnostic is to claim that you can not know if there is a god. with that, claiming that you know there are things such as god, or a spirit, or a spiritual world, is dumb.

[close]

There's a difference between "believing" and "knowing", bubba.

[close]

can you explain that difference

[close]

be?lieve   
[bih-leev]  Show IPA
verb, -lieved, -liev?ing.
?verb (used without object)
1.
to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so:




Badda bing, badda boom.

[close]

you didnt define what it means to know, and you didnt show a difference.

[close]

Take away what I made bold in the initial definition and there ya go.


I figured you'd have enough common sense to figure at least that much out, but I suppose I gave you too much credit. Now I'm embarrassed.

[close]

you never defined what it is to know, only a vague definition of what it is to believe. you should be embarrassed because you think it is easy.

[close]

You're right, I do think knowing the definitions of elementary words is easy. That's because I'm not fucking regular.



And besides, you're missing the point completely.

[close]

if you believe that those are elementary terms, you have  a very unsophisticated way of looking at the world.

[close]

"Knowing" and "believing" aren't complicated terms. You're just really stupid.

[close]

ok, im stupid.
here is what i posted earlier illustrating the complexities of defining the terms. but youre smart, you wont have any problem with it.

knowledge is most often taken as something empirical. but as the history of ideas has shown us, empiricism = reificaction. the deification of concepts. to KNOW something is to BELIEVE something is true. to believe something rests upon our impulses and perceptions. we define our perceptions using a finite resource, our mind. the language that we use in order to understand the world that we live in is beyond limited. the very act of communicating is a negation of the substance of things. the idea that things are of a substance is logical, but removed from the substance themselves.
this leaves us with a conundrum. shall we acknowledge the void and continue to speak using objective terms, or do we communicate on a more vague, disconnected level. i personally believe it is a combination of the two. a true dialogue can only occur when the problem of interpretation is agreed on and the terms are settled. e.g., if one believes that it is possible to know not only that things ARE, but WHAT they are, they will be unable to come to a consensus concerning a matter with one who believes that at best we can describe what it APPEARS that things are.
in my opinion, certain words serve no real good, e.g., to know. the word implies more than we are capable of. The word believe is also shallow and leaves room for those who want to justify their belief in a god or anything super natural. this has been done for quite some time now and honestly gets under my skin.
so we are stuck with limited language and an impossible situation. in the end we can only be responsible for our own beliefs and this is where many are frustrated and seek a more objective language.

[close]

*sigh*



Here's the point ----> .







Here's you ------->

haha, youre too dumb to carry on an intelligent conversation and you resort to childish insults. i like it.

[David]

 Hold on. So, maybe with belief there's more of a chance that people will lack empirical evidence than with knowledge? Belief allows room for faith, while knowledge tends to reflect evidence of some kind with the potential to inform or instruct. Is this just semantics?

Didn't someone, I'm thinking Robert Anton Wilson, have an idea of excluding the use of the word 'know' from speech altogether? What I think you're getting at, Geoff, is a more philosophical question of language. I admire what you're trying to say. Modern philosophy at some point looks at the use of language as the ultimate problem to be tackled.


Martin Heidegger on Religion



Also, with all the talk of flying spaghetti monsters;

Yog-Sothoth

[Buddha]

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves."

-Hermetic Sage Bill Hicks.

[shitset3000]

"in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so"

An atheist can't refute claims of a god until the definition of that god is mutually agreed on. Once god has been defined, they mostly take the position that all of the evidence they have been presented with has shown this specific god does not need to and does not exist.

The point of Russell's tea pot is that just because you can't prove something doesn't exist does not mean it exists. If I told you pink unicorns exist you couldn't disprove me, but the majority of us don't believe they do. You could argue that you've never seen one or that there are no fossils or physical evidence to prove this, but unicorns are very mysterious and disappear when ever you try to look for them. Their fossils are also immediately destroyed when the unicorn dies.

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."

[Beeda Weeda]

i was hoping to make up my mind 1 or 2 seconds before i die

[Mouth]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad geoff has managed to sort this whole religion mess once and for all.

[David]

"in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so"

An atheist can't refute claims of a god until the definition of that god is mutually agreed on. Once god has been defined, they mostly take the position that all of the evidence they have been presented with has shown this specific god does not need to and does not exist.

The point of Russell's tea pot is that just because you can't prove something doesn't exist does not mean it exists. If I told you pink unicorns exist you couldn't disprove me, but the majority of us don't believe they do. You could argue that you've never seen one or that there are no fossils or physical evidence to prove this, but unicorns are very mysterious and disappear when ever you try to look for them. Their fossils are also immediately destroyed when the unicorn dies.

"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."

So knowledge is justified belief?

"Robert Anton Wilson claimed in Cosmic Trigger: Volume 1 "not to believe anything", since "belief is the death of intelligence". He described this approach as "Maybe Logic."

Believing in something invisible doesn't necessarily equate with believing in something nonexistent. Brainwaves, for example. Maybe a couple hundred years ago that would have seemed like a paranormal belief or maybe just fringe science.

[grimcity]

So knowledge is justified belief?

Knowledge and belief are two very broad words.

In science, knowledge could be considered a belief based on observation, collected data, the ability to falsify the position, and in some cases make predictions based on the data acquired. Having said that, people often "know" the wrong thing, so in the world of science theories are reworked with better data, as theories are self correcting.

From my understanding, supernatural faith is (loosely) knowledge without evidence.

Then there's belief... rational or irrational? I can't see my car, but I think it's rational to believe it's there since I parked in a secure garage like I've done for close to nine years. It would be irrational for me to believe that when I get out of the office and return to my car, it will instead be a pogo stick.

[David]

Expand Quote

So knowledge is justified belief?

[close]

Knowledge and belief are two very broad words.

In science, knowledge could be considered a belief based on observation, collected data, the ability to falsify the position, and in some cases make predictions based on the data acquired. Having said that, people often "know" the wrong thing, so in the world of science theories are reworked with better data, as theories are self correcting.

From my understanding, supernatural faith is (loosely) knowledge without evidence.

Then there's belief... rational or irrational? I can't see my car, but I think it's rational to believe it's there since I parked in a secure garage like I've done for close to nine years. It would be irrational for me to believe that when I get out of the office and return to my car, it will instead be a pogo stick.

People can "know" the wrong thing, I agree with you. Information can be misinterpreted and then reinterpreted in fields beyond science as well.

Can there even be such a thing as knowledge without evidence, or justification? To me faith is distinct from knowledge altogether. What about "knowledge" of UFO's? If you've never seen one would that be knowledge without evidence? Arent there plenty of instances where knowledge is purported without any physical evidence being available, maybe as in someone's testimony? Or maybe that's relying on the probability of whether or not someone is telling the truth.

Faith in mankind, now there's something many people would consider irrational.

how about irrational numbers?  

[grimcity]

I don't consider irrational faith to be knowledge in the same sense as I do compared to knowledge being acquired by direct or indirect observation.