Ask an atheist

[Ziggy Stardust]

So why is a belief system, which is subjective, used to define knowledge that is objective?

Easy answer: because it's not. That's why they invented different terms for that (belief: theism/atheism, knowledge: agnosticism/gnosticism).

I am sure we're all agnostic with regard to the existence of God, no matter what some may claim. What they believe is another thing entirely.

 

[Leifmk]

There are situations where they said that they understood evolution,but when you speak to them,they use fallacies to justify their believes,like saying "So,you're saying that Hitler was right" or "Are you saying that monkeys are our relatives?"

About the last point there -- I cannot see how it is problematic, or indeed how anyone who's ever tried going to the grocery store (or anywhere) with a three-year-old kid could possibly doubt our close kinship with the smaller tree-dwelling primates. Truly this is the planet of the apes, and we are the apes.

 

[Leoreth]

Timtofly, most of the time I'm happy you're around, because you often provide a point of view that doesn't fall into the usual "camps", which I think is great. But at other times you're just terribly incoherent

Theist = someone who knows there is a God.

Christian = someones who knows there is a Jesus.

Agnostic = those who think either can be known, but has no knowledge.

Atheist = knows there is no God.

I don't know if you consider these rigorous definitions or only shorthand explanations, but they don't work as the former.

I'm not sure how to address the rest of your post, because frankly it contains a lot of sophistry. I think the important distinction we have to make is that between fact and belief. Beliefs don't require facts to be held. And both the agnostic/gnostic and atheist/theist terms don't deal with facts. They're used to describe persons, not the world.

Atheism/theism describes what position (you may call it belief) you hold on the question "does God exist?".

Agnosticism/gnosticism describes what position you hold on the question "can I know whether God exists?" It does not mean "can you know anything?" (so claiming an agnostic can't know anything is absurd).

Personally, I don't think you can know whether God exists. I also think God doesn't exist. One doesn't follow from the other, at least not directly.

Among the people who believe in God, there are both those that think they can achieve certainty about his existence (in the form of divine experience, for example) and those who think they can't (but still believe, I already cited Pascal's wager as an extreme example of this).

Long story short: both are different categories in which the positions are independent of each other.

I do have one question though: Is "knowing a fact" the same as "believing a theory"?

This reeks of polemic so I'm a little cautious here: what does "believing a theory" mean to you?

In a scientific context, a theory is predictive and falsifiable description of phenomena. "Belief" doesn't exist in science, but if you mean "regard as correct", it's easy, because the answer derives directly from the definition: I regard a theory as (partially) incorrect if only one observation contradicts its predictions and thus falsifies it. Not a big deal.

Facts are, well facts. They exist objectively and either I know them or not.

I'm not sure by which relation (excuse the mathematical term) you want to compare those two statements.

 

[warpus]

Isn't denial a positive belief system? I am not even saying that you deny God. I am saying that you deny that you know there is no God.

I don't know that God doesn't exist.. I just don't believe that he does.

 

[timtofly]

I don't know that God doesn't exist.. I just don't believe that he does.

I think* it all boils down to people just refusing to accept that God has and continues to reveal Himself; BUT that "knowledge" is not known almost to the point it is a fact. This has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Religion is faith and belief.

God is not religion. God is God. Knowing God is not faith in or belief in God.
Science is based on what can be falsified, but why? I mean I know why, because to base facts on something that can be changed is not knowledge. Knowledge is changing and God is not, or so we are told. The problem with that theory though is human knowledge cannot grasp the fact that there is a constant that will never change nor can one have the ability to even know it.

When God does not reveal Himself, men turn to religion. When religion fails, men turn to science. When science fails we turn to what? God is God. Religion is belief. Science is facts. Only God is knowledge and knowing Him is hard, because we are finite humans who love change because we refuse the "fact" (there are constants).

*this may all be just my opinion or observation over the years watching all sides of the issues.

 

[katipunero]

so what would you call someone who believes and knows himself to be God?

is he an atheist or an egotist?

 

[erez87]

I think* it all boils down to people just refusing to accept that God has and continues to reveal Himself; BUT that "knowledge" is not known almost to the point it is a fact. This has nothing to do with faith or belief.

Religion is faith and belief.

God is not religion. God is God. Knowing God is not faith in or belief in God.
Science is based on what can be falsified, but why? I mean I know why, because to base facts on something that can be changed is not knowledge. Knowledge is changing and God is not, or so we are told. The problem with that theory though is human knowledge cannot grasp the fact that there is a constant that will never change nor can one have the ability to even know it.

When God does not reveal Himself, men turn to religion. When religion fails, men turn to science. When science fails we turn to what? God is God. Religion is belief. Science is facts. Only God is knowledge and knowing Him is hard, because we are finite humans who love change because we refuse the "fact" (there are constants).

*this may all be just my opinion or observation over the years watching all sides of the issues.

If you can't know god how can you say he must exist? You can't know that. Besides - something that you can't know, doesn't influence you in any physical way and never changes as a constant - is many words that can also be called - nothing.

God never revealed himself.

And science doesn't fail us. Science doesn't fail. It never claimed to succeed, so how can it fail?

 

[Whiskey_Lord]

The difference is that science actually works. It has predictive powers, unlike religion. It is also convergent rather than divergent, unlike religion.

 

[Leoreth]

Timtofly, when you say things like that:

I think* it all boils down to people just refusing to accept that God has and continues to reveal Himself;

Or like that:

Only God is knowledge and knowing Him is hard, because we are finite humans who love change because we refuse the "fact" (there are constants).

You already run on the assumption that God exists and start ascribing properties to him to argue against certain forms of atheism. Well yes, if atheists are wrong then they're wrong, duh. What kind of argument is that? Nothing of what you said has any relevance if we assume God doesn't exist.

But thanks for emphasizing the difference between God and religion, that's too rarely done in these debates.

But: the word "belief" doesn't only apply to religion. It can be used in general for situations where the known facts don't allow for a necessary conclusion, but we take position for one alternative anyway. "I believe that the Republicans are currently not genuinely interested in the USA's well-being" is a valid statement (please don't debate if it's true or not), that doesn't make it a religious belief.

 

[warpus]

I think* it all boils down to people just refusing to accept that God has and continues to reveal Himself

Eh, no. Try again

 

[timtofly]

Timtofly, when you say things like that:

Or like that:

You already run on the assumption that God exists and start ascribing properties to him to argue against certain forms of atheism. Well yes, if atheists are wrong then they're wrong, duh. What kind of argument is that? Nothing of what you said has any relevance if we assume God doesn't exist.

But thanks for emphasizing the difference between God and religion, that's too rarely done in these debates.

But: the word "belief" doesn't only apply to religion. It can be used in general for situations where the known facts don't allow for a necessary conclusion, but we take position for one alternative anyway. "I believe that the Republicans are currently not genuinely interested in the USA's well-being" is a valid statement (please don't debate if it's true or not), that doesn't make it a religious belief.

Is there a difference between my use of "I think" and your use of "I believe"? I could easily have said I believe also. In my statement I am trying to declare that I have put some thought into that and it is irrelitive of my "belief". So yes, I know and believe there is a difference in the way people use both terms. Now I may sound pompous when I say I know God exist and I say that other's know God does not exist. There is a lack of knowledge, thus a lack of knowing, and their "belief" system is effected by that knowledge. The problem arises is that only they themselves have knowledge of what they know and their willingness to declare it. The use of a belief system is that willingness to declare what they do know or do not know. There is nothing inherently wrong in being an athiest if one does not know, and they have trust in their belief system.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

There is nothing inherently wrong in being an athiest if one does not know, and they have trust in their belief system.

I have trust in my lack of belief system.

 

[timtofly]

I have trust in my lack of belief system.

Thou thinkest not? Not even on science? Believe it or not, science has the ability to answer "most" of all people's questions. Trust does not have to have all the answers, it just has to offer hope. Religion is not one's belief system. It may be incorporated into a belief system, and even dominate it. A belief system is just how one rationalizes what they know or "believe" to know.

The use of the word conscience does not mean to do something against one's knowledge. It means to do something with one's knowledge. Having a conscience is not done out of belief, but is done out of knowledge. When science threw off the chains that religion had it bound up in, it defined itself against religion and belief. Science though should have always been allowed to go hand in hand with any knowledge, even one of God. It is religion that causes the corruption of the original intent.

Living peacefully with others takes a conscience effort. People know what is right; it is doing it, that is the hard part. Normally people feel and believe the easiest path is the best path and avoid confrontation. A moral person has the ability to do what they know is right even if it is an inconvenience "at times". IMO people can have both knowledge and belief in their "belief" system, and neither have to do with anything relating to God or religion. Knowledge is what we have confirmed to know. The way we live is how we practice both what we believe and what we know. One can know and practice morals or living peacefully with or without religion and with or without the knowledge of God.

There are "doctors" (of all stripes) who know everything that can be known in their field. Putting it to use though, is done by both practice and knowledge.

It is true that religion asserts itself into the unknown and tells others how to live. It is true that science asserts itself into the unknown (through the known) and helps others live.

Spoiler :

There is a little known fact that religion is not really about knowing God, it is about "believing" in a god. Religion can never give one knowledge of GOD. The government is the "God" ordained institution of how we live and get along with each other seperate from one's own individual morals. The Church was supossed to be how we interact with God. Instead the church took over the role of the government and the government was forced to become the instrument of morals. God works individually from the inside and that is what produces morals. Not the church and not the government. BTW, one does not even have to know or believe in God, to live the morals that are inside of them. The knowlege is there or it is not. Morals do not have to be taught. As the brain developes and knowledge is gained, people soon learn what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If there is a society where everthing is acceptable then that is the "morals" that are practiced. Boundaries are set by example, not taught. The term do as I say and not as I do, is a reminder that people know what is right, but it is hard for them to do it.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thou thinkest not? Not even on science?

You still don't understand Science.

I have trust in Science but it's not a belief system. The only claim Science makes is trying to explain observations as well as it can. It doesn't claim it's the truth. It doesn't claim to know everything. It throws it's hands up and admits to not knowing when it doesn't. Science is a method. Not a belief system.

You can see how it differs from your point of view. You claim knowledge (There is nothing inherently wrong in being an atheist if one does not know). I call shenanigans on your claim. You know why? Because you have nothing to show for. Not a thing. Not a single shred of evidence. Nothing. No. Thing.

All you have is: "I know". Period. And you think it's odd when people ask, how? Then you go into one of your brand of vague analogy ridden non-posts in which you talk a lot, but you're not saying anything. Maybe you need such non-talk to convince yourself of the wisdom in them, but fact is: so far, you have presented absolutely nothing to support your boisterous claim you know something I don't, and that's why I'm an atheist. You make lots of claims, but precious little, no that's being too generous, you make lots of claims but still have yet to support any of them. You need the picture of science you created for one thing. To make it as irrational as belief systems. And you are failing to do that.

Science says: This is the best way we can come up with to explain the observations. It's incomplete and there are probably faults in the models, and we will work to improve it. The method of Science can't help but be honest about it's shortcoming, or else it wouldn't work. No progress would be made.

This is a reverse of many belief systems. They need to convince themselves they know. They know the Truth. They can't explain it, you have to take their word for it. The only way to understand it is to convince yourself first. No Tim. Science beats belief systems in credibility BY DEFINITION.


edit: By the way, I'd like to warn you that if you continue on this misrepresentation of people's position by your misrepresentation of the things they buy into, I will report you. It's not allowed in the Christian ask a-threads, I don't see how you would be allowed to. The things we're taking about have easy to understand definitions, have been explained to you over and over again. And you can always look up what Science is for yourself if you don't trust me.

What I won't put up with any more is you ignoring everything and repeat falsehoods without any regard for the explanations you have been given.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

so what would you call someone who believes and knows himself to be God?

is he an atheist or an egotist?

He's crazy (personal opinion).

But it's more likely that he suffers from some kind of mental illness or happens to be Valentine Michael Smith (people who have read Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein will understand that reference).

There is nothing inherently wrong in being an athiest if one does not know, and they have trust in their belief system.

There is nothing inherently wrong in being an atheist, period.

 

[katipunero]

He's crazy (personal opinion).

But it's more likely that he suffers from some kind of mental illness or happens to be Valentine Michael Smith (people who have read Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein will understand that reference).

delusional is what i would call myself too if i go around telling people that "you shall have no other gods before ME".

 

[BasketCase]

Actually, "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implies that there ARE other gods besides whichever one says that thing in quotes. A God who's running a monotheistic shindig should really put it "thou shalt have no other Gods, period".

 

[katipunero]

which incidentally brings me to conclude that the judeo-christian god is an atheist too in relation to those other gods he refers to in his gravely imposing decalogue. by timtofly's definitional analysis, he knows there exists a god and that god is him. and he is a jealous god.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Actually, "thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implies that there ARE other gods besides whichever one says that thing in quotes. A God who's running a monotheistic shindig should really put it "thou shalt have no other Gods, period".

There's more where that came from:

Exodus 12:12
And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment.

Exodus 15:11
Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?

Exodus 18:11
Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods.

Exodus 22:20
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods.

Exodus 23:13
Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.

...lots more

And maybe after that last one, the other Gods got the silent treatment.

Deuteronomy 4:35
Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.

Deuteronomy 4:39
The LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.

Deuteronomy 32:39
See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me.

1 Kings 18:39
The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

Isaiah 43:10
I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 44:8
I am the LORD, and there is none else ... There is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:5-6
I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me.

There is no God else beside me ... There is none beside me.
Isaiah 45:21/A>

Isaiah 46:9
I am God, and there is none else: I am God, and there is none like me.

Mark 12:29
The Lord our God is one Lord.

Mark 12:32
There is one God; and there is none other but he.

John 17:3
That they might know thee the only true God.

1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him.

 

[Leoreth]

[kind of unrelated] I always have to laugh when I read Bible quotes in English, because of all those "thou"s and "-th"s. I mean, "sacrificeth", seriously?