how do you know that?

A good question to ask when assessing beliefs is: "how do you know that"?
This is perhaps one of the first things a student of philosophy learns, It is applicable to the atheist-theist debate because we can ask people who assert the existence of god "how do you know of gods existence"? They will only be able to reply that someonelse told them, they read it in the holy book, it must be true else ... blah blah blah
The atheist retorts to the evidence of the senses and to logic.
Proof cannot be valid unless it is verifiable, and since religious leaders do not open themselves up to questioning by atheists as to the exact proofs the church or whatever organisation has gathered over the last 2500 years on the existence of god, then it stands to reason that the prime sources are no longer available,

for an insight into the value of the question "how do you know that"? there is a very interesting story here which shows how the media in the face of christian sentiment fails to ask it enough
http://www.americanatheist.org/columns/ontar4.html

 

columbo i see exactly what your trying to say......

its strange that the absence of evidence isnt enough to disprove something so rediculous sounding but its more than enough to condemn a man to life in prison/let him go....

but they have an explination for this..........THING......we call reality......
and i hardly think a concept like disambiguation is creative enough to compare

atheism logic is flawed in the exact same way theist logic is.....but that doesnt make anyone right or wrong....

look up the threat ieROVE TO ME GOD DOESNT EXIST....just skip the bible quotes.....theirs alot of em in their....

 

I have and I just posted two rather long replies

That site is quite good the American Atheist one - thanks for showing us that !
However your logic is slightly flawed. Its not like Atheists are saying theres no explanation other than the theory of creation as told in the bible. Atheists may rest at saying, "the creationist theory is wrong and if you want to assert its truth then prove it true".
That is all atheists are saying. Now if someone wants to provide another theory to compete with the creationist theory then by all means creationists can say "prove its true".
So the position between atheism and theist is that an atheist need make no assertion of an alternative positive theory, whilst maintaining the denial that god exists.
If someone stands up in a room and talks about "god" it is meaningless drivel unless there is a god that we are talking about.
If the person who stood up says "hey - there is a god"
I can say "prove it or shut up".
If the person cannot prove it then it is not rational to keep speaking of a god. The only way a creationist can convince me that what they say is not drivel is to prove beyond doubt the existence of a god or I have the claim that they cannot prove it and are therefore talking nonesense
If I keep mentioning "the brass lion that keeps eating my sandwiches"
You would call me insane after a while when you realised it wasnt a joke
If you wanted to call me to reason - you dont have to assert a theory that infact it is a plastic monkey eating the sandwiches, or perhaps a stone tiger
you just have to say, show me the brass lion
I must have a reason for saying it is a brass lion, and if I cannot show you a brass lion then you will look for evidence that my sandwiches are being eaten in some other way
surely your first question would be ..... how do you know that?

The point about "how do you know that", is a point about the validity of what constitutes proof. It is a valuable question in the search for truth and proof

 

at some point, like euclid, we have to begin with basic assumptions, because we can find nothing apriori to build upon. accepting and living with, as that requires, that at some point down the line, our basic assumptions could very well prove to have been either utterly unworkably or entirely wrong headed.

how do we know that we know what we know? this was the question of another thread a couple of years ago more or less.

my answer then as it is now, is that we don't. period.

we observe what we observe, attempt to do so accurately, and from that extract what is more or less probable. that is as close to "knowing" as there is anything that exists.

=^^=
.../\...

 

If I were you I would take a look here,
http://www.iidb.org/
However, if I were you I wouldnt post there, theyll eat you alive unless you have anything valuable to say, and can say it well.

 

So are you saying you don't believe love is real, but just something people want to be real? I agree it is an emotional thing, and it occasionally appears to defy logic, though I believe that that is just appearance and that at the deepest level love is pure logic. I am very content with 'I don't know.' I have no choice, considering how often I come to that conclusion. But I believe love is as real as it gets, and that logic without love is potentially devastating. Hitler was a master logician, with a genius level IQ. If only he had a heart. The image of the heart representing love is no fluke. All the cliches, like, heartbroken, heartless, with all your heart, from the bottom of your heart, his heart wasn't in it, etc., exist for a good reason. Any mom knows that the sensation she feels for her kids is more than just instinct, logic, or thought. Bono Vox, of U2 put it very well, 'A feeling is so much stronger than a thought.'
There are many things I don't understand, and maybe never will. But, I came to a point in my life when I felt the need to make a decision on issues similar to 'is love real?' etc., and I decided that for me, it certainly is.
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
As for the thread title, 'how do you know that?', that is hard to answer succinctly. I know there's lots I don't know. I know that I don't know what is true for anyone else but me. I know that no matter how sure I may be about something, I could be wrong. I know that only I can decide what I believe is true, and know that others cannot decide for me.
I know that facts are rare, and illusions are plentiful. I know I can be fooled. But, most importantly for me, I know that I am allowed to take a stand and say, 'This is what's true for me.', and no matter what anyone else says, that is always the case. No matter if every single person on earth doesn't see it like I do, I know that their truth is not mine. I am here, they are there, so I feel that it is up to me alone to decide what is true for me.
How do I know? The few things I feel I do know, it would take a long time to explain all the years of reasons that added up to the conclusion of how I know. I just do.

 

Surely the meaning of the question "how do you know that?" really only applies to things which the asker of the question could expect an answer to.
If you tell me you love someone, I am hardly going to ask the question, how do you know that? because as a human it is normally the case that we all have some experience of feeling love, and since we cannot adequetly explain that because its too personal - the question is then irellevent.
If, however you tell me that I should go to an air-raid shelter pretty soon because a war has started, the question I would want to ask is ......

Also if a scientist tells me something which defies common sense but stands up to analysis, for example the theory of relativity. I am bound to ask ....
that question

With love and feelings we just know these things they are internal, its when people assert the knowledge of what is outside of their body and mind that the question is bound to have more use

 

It is simply made by people that have nothing to do.... They must understand that proving to already not smart enoguh peopel their stupidness is useless.

 

Yes, like the muslims who bomb trains and aeroplanes, kill innocent people who didnt even know what islam is. Like the IRA who bombed people in the name of catholisism, or the UDA in the name of protestantism. Like the hindu's killing Muslims and visa versa. Well, that is the whole point of atheism, is to spread the word that those people who believe in god stretch credibility from the point of being unreasonable and beyond the limits of sanity. HA HA HA, if I believed there was no god I should act like there is no god. In other words I should not even mention the word "god", however, since the lunatics that run most of the worlds religions are intent on not only killing each other but people who want nothing to do with it, it seems reasonable to at least attempt to call people to reason through their arguments.

You miss the point of atheism at its political level. Atheism is a systematic disbelief (ipso facto "a belief system") but one which is founded on a methodology unlike the blind faith of religions. Religion is a belieef system, one founded on heresay evidence and repeated mantras.
Like I keep saying, if the facts fit the theory, the theory has substance, and if people do not hear or read at least some atheism, it may mean they fall prey to these maniacs who call people to arms in the name of a god they can neither prove the existence of, or provide an answer against any competing theory. Reason will win - if the planet survives the insanity of these religions long enough, atheism will form the basis of proper politics, of that I am 100% certain, as people will not put up with religion and its bloodshed for many more centuries longer.

BTW, if you think that forum I mentioned is lightweight and full of idiots, why dont you show us what a genius you are and register there, it will be funny reading your post and their answer I bet some wit wouldd come of it. I doubt you have anything to teach them. The majority of them teach either philosophy or theology and some even teach in the top 5 universities in the world. I really would love it if you registered there in the name you use here - please do it - please !! I think they use that place as a light form of entertainment.
Oh I want to be rolling on the floor laughing, please I beg you to register there and show us what you learned before you got bored with atheism

 

(sp!) existentialist.

Oh Sartrean existentialism?
I would say existentialism has a lot to do with politics
it formed the whole basis of french politics after WW2 and spread throughout the western world to inform the liberalist politics today

Are you really 19yo?
Hmm I didnt see that before - should have realised it straight away
And as a good existentialist you do realise the witty implication of associating yourself with the epithet "existentialist"? It is a joke my friend, even the existentialists did not call themselves existentialists - to do so puts you in the position of inauthenticity. The authentic situation is never adorned with a label. I think you really should go get a philosophy degree before you declare yourself an existentialist. Existentialism in the sense you mean it is merely an academic discussion on the nature of what it means to exist - IE a description of our existence - not a prescription as to how we should live but a description of how we do live. the writers who offer their expertise to that academic body of work are generally called existentialists. The idea that one is an existentialist is laughed at in the academic world as it would place the existentialist in the position of refuting his own work if he himself declares himself an existentialist
but thats another thread
If you had a good grasp of existentialism then you would realise that to say "I am an existentialist" is to declare that you are not an existentialist because of what existentialists believe is the process by which we make ourselves free.

 

How is Christianity illogical?

 

Aren't situations like Columbo gave just people living out their own belief systems? Some people feel they are justified committing acts like these. That is what they believe.

 

The main point guys is that There is No such thing as God. MOVE ON. PROGRESS. go beyond ur limits. think of the world as somethign very interesing, full of surprises and opportunities. Not somethign that was created by some thing.

 

Personaly I think they go beyond what they believe and into the realm of fantasy where they no longer attempt to justify what they believe. Their belief in god turns into the politics of deluded and misguided psychopaths. I think jester may be saying that as well, but has failed to write coherently enough so I keep thinking he is arguing the opposite point.

 

But the fact is that religious madmen are committing attrocities, then it is not imposing my will upon them to close down the avenues by which people become so misguided. I cannot sit here knowing my family may be killed by some arsehole who believes in god and and commits murder in gods name. I cant say "right well I cant do anything about it because to say or do anything against it is a form of fascism" damned right I wont say that. I will say what I do now - end the insanity pull religion to its knees and stamp out this insanity once and for all

 

Orthodox Christianity has not evolved.

But why should I care about coexisting with you?

 

And you think if everyone adopted Atheististic views of life(and I'm assuming this is what you mean by stamping out religion, as if this is possible), including our government, it would lead to a more peaceful, less viloent place to live?

 

generally there would be a lot less terrorism.
If you dispute that - just do an hour or two on the internet looking at the history of terrorism since the 1960's you will find 80% of terrorist organisations link their manifesto to religion. They are religious terrorists. And Puleezzee do not give me that sad little argument that terrorists are just using their religion as a excuse blah blah blah
because it doesnt matter what you think - its what they think that counts - it aint you calling the name of god and killing small children and other passers by its them and if they say they are doing it for religious reasons I have no doubt they believe that - since they also believe an invisible man controls everything in the universe
Oh and lets not forget, london has now been continuously threatened by religious groups who plant bombs since 1967, In that time there has not been more than two years when a bomb did not explode somewhere in britain, injuring and killing people. Me and my friends and other people in this country live with the reality of religion and its """ETHICS ? (JOKE)""" and dont know which group of insane psychopaths is gonna plant bombs next. We dont get political terrorism we are getting killed by religion

succinctly put ! That is exactly the manifesto of religious terrorism

 

Are you British?

First of all, it's not possible to get rid of religion. But for the sake of discussion, would taking away all thought of God make us more civil toward one another? If I'm in this universe all alone living a brief, ultimately pointless existence until the day I die, why should I care about living "ethically" and respecting your right to live and be happy and secure? Why should I respect you at all?

And no doubt, there is plenty of religious terrorism out there. But a non religious terrorist ultimately feels the same way. He feels he is under no obligation to respect your life.

 

So what? Why should I have to respect your life?