The gods have let me down.

[CuteCoot]

The reality is that you only have a belief- a faith- and are not in possession of any kind of knowledge whatsoever.

And you "know" that do you? You "know" it for sure...

I know what I know and I express the truth as I know it. You're welcome to reject it but do you really "know" that I don't know the truth?

[Fathom]

The reality is that you only have a belief- a faith- and are not in possession of any kind of knowledge whatsoever.

And you "know" that do you? You "know" it for sure...

Yes.

... do you really "know" that I don't know the truth?

Yes, because knowledge is based upon what is observable via one means or another. Since you have not demonstrated any observable evidence to qualify your claim, I can therefore positively claim to know that you do not have any such knowledge that can confirm the existence of whatever garden variety god you believe in.

[Equestrian]

Yes, because knowledge is based upon what is observable via one means or another.

There Fathom goes again, making up sh*t to fit his world view.

[CuteCoot]

Yes, because knowledge is based upon what is observable via one means or another.

Yeah, and you get to define what "observable" means and what human experiences can legitimately fall under that definition. That way you think you have some power over what is or is not acceptable as "knowing".

Maybe that power is real for some people but it isn't for me. For me, it's just hot air.

And I just keep on knowing what I know.

[IoshkaFutz]

Do atheist kill in the name of atheism? Really?
What holy book are atheist using that commands them to kill?

Or is it not really atheism but the cult of personality?
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and various other tyrants used not atheism but cult of personality as absolute rulers over life and death. Mostly death.

The religious simply hide behind a god to justify their mass murder. Conveniently, gods cannot be held to account.

Here is an estimate for Islam, which piled up 270 million corpses in it's wake since 622 AD, and still going strong.

And who did they persecute with special glee to put an end to that terrible impediment towards that luminous advancement for all? Anyone who believed in God, that is to say in a culture of distributed power. Especially family, neighborhood, province, region, country. Is there anything in Atheism prohibiting personality cults? Or making a fetish out of progress (aka "luminous advancement for all")?

What did Gramsci and Lukacs and the Frankfurt School target to make the revolution possible? Christian religious values.

Atheists kill and oppress on a whopping scale in the name of a luminous advancement for all. In the West they have killed the pre-born and the pre-dead. The problem is not what's written in the atheist prayer book, but the lack of anything sacred. No sacred, no sacrosanct.

Multi-culturalism is an atheist invention, Baby-poor Europe is the result of atheism's culture of death. The break down of families - the real cause of London riots and Angry Negro flashmobs is the atomization of man resulting from a blinkered vision of rights as opposed to a fuller view. Christianity works, it is atheism which has proved itself to be a superstition. Read no more than "luminous advancement for all"...

[Sten]

I am not asking you to believe or accept or be persuaded by what I am saying. I am just saying the truth, that's all. And if you don't like it, then just go away.

Likewise, all I am saying is the truth - if you claim to have knowledge but clam up and sulk when queried about it, you are most likely talking through your hat. You are one of millions of people who claim to "know" the secrets of the universe through unfalsifiable personal emotional experiences. You can't all have access to this mystical knowledge, because your stories are too inconsistent. It's more likely that you are all wrong. If you don't like that unflattering reality, then just go away.

For me, it's just hot air.

And I just keep on knowing what I know.

For most others, hot air is claiming to know something but refusing to substantiate that claim. For some reason god appears to be the only area in which people think they can make unfounded claims yet still be taken seriously - to claim to "know" things without having to back their statements up. If I claimed to be able to reconcile the gap between quantum theory and gravitational theory, people would understandably want to know about this amazing knowledge. If I became surly and claimed that I just knew ok, and for everyone to just stop being mean to me with their skepticism and go away, I would be dismissed as a crackpot. Why is it that you think you should be given special treatment?

[Fathom]

Yes, because knowledge is based upon what is observable via one means or another.

There Fathom goes again, making up sh*t to fit his world view.

Nothing was "made up." It is a standard procedure used by all of us to ascertain the truth about things, and it is even used by yourself. If someone came up to you and said, "I know for a fact that there is a Mystical Flying Teapot monitoring the earth from outer space," what would you think about that person? Would it be unreasonable for you to expect that person to validate their positive statement with some kind of evidence?

Of course it would not be unreasonable.

So why do you think that it is unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to be justified in expecting some kind of evidence in regards to your- and other religionists- fantastic claims regarding having factual knowledge of the existence of one of your gods?

How is it any different than a Mystical Flying Teapot?

[Fathom]

Yes, because knowledge is based upon what is observable via one means or another.

Yeah, and you get to define what "observable" means and what human experiences can legitimately fall under that definition. That way you think you have some power over what is or is not acceptable as "knowing".

Maybe that power is real for some people but it isn't for me. For me, it's just hot air.

And I just keep on knowing what I know.

Yet, there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to view you as being any different than the fire & brimstone hippie standing on a soapbox proclaiming that the end is near.

That is precisely how you are viewed.

Sad, really.

[Fathom]

Do atheist kill in the name of atheism? Really?
What holy book are atheist using that commands them to kill?

Or is it not really atheism but the cult of personality?
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Il and various other tyrants used not atheism but cult of personality as absolute rulers over life and death. Mostly death.

The religious simply hide behind a god to justify their mass murder. Conveniently, gods cannot be held to account.

Here is an estimate for Islam, which piled up 270 million corpses in it's wake since 622 AD, and still going strong.

And who did they persecute with special glee to put an end to that terrible impediment towards that luminous advancement for all? Anyone who believed in God, that is to say in a culture of distributed power.

But was it because of "atheism," or was it because of their political views? Look at the old Soviet Union, for example. Did they outlaw religions and burn bible because they were atheists, or because they held Marxist views?

There is a difference between doing things in the name of atheism, and doing them in the name of some political agenda.

[pr126]

The Marxist, [communist] secular, - atheist, if you will -, who reject religion, but note that they have no problem with Islam, because they think they can use Islam to de-construct, eliminate western (Judeo-Christian) civilization for their own nefarious purposes.

They refuse to acknowledge that Islam will eliminate or enslave them too, along with the rest of us, should Islam manage to get into power with their help, and by stealth or demographics.

It is a dangerous game, which they cannot win.

China is a different game.

They are not infected with the PC / MC virus (courtesy of decades of Marxist / leftist education), which is like mental AIDS, removes all defense mechanism from the west, and open us to the invasion of Islamic supremacy.

[sum]

Back to the main theme of this thread. Why does "god", who I presume is all knowing and all wise, make it so difficult for some of us to believe in his/her existance? He/She knows that some of us will find it difficult to believe with what is claimed to be evidence. I have to ask why He/She does this and then condemns the unbelievers to a dreadful doom for not believing the scanty evidence? Is there a reason for creating doubt in so many minds?

Can any theist clarify this puzzle for me?

sum

[Equestrian]

Nothing was "made up." It is a standard procedure used by all of us to ascertain the truth about things, and it is even used by yourself. If someone came up to you and said, "I know for a fact that there is a Mystical Flying Teapot monitoring the earth from outer space," what would you think about that person? Would it be unreasonable for you to expect that person to validate their positive statement with some kind of evidence?

Of course it would not be unreasonable.

So why do you think that it is unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to be justified in expecting some kind of evidence in regards to your- and other religionists- fantastic claims regarding having factual knowledge of the existence of one of your gods?

How is it any different than a Mystical Flying Teapot?

You are conflating non-belief in (X) with belief in (not-X) and evidence with empiricism.

If someone were to claim that a teapot is monitoring earth from space and provides no evidence, then you are certainly justifed in non-belief. However, you are not justified in believing that there is no teapot in space. The lack of evidence for a teapot in space is perfectly compatible with the existence of a teapot in space. It could be the case that a teapot is in outerspace and we would never know.

In your senerio you are attempting to affirm that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but the lack of evidence for (T) is not evidence for (not-T). For example, we have no evidence that there is silver ore on the the planet Pluto, but it does not follow from the lack of evidence that there is no silver ore on Pluto.

Propostion 1: There is silver ore on Pluto (P)
Propostion 2: There is no silver ore on Pluto (not-P)

We have not yet adequately surveyed Pluto to find out whether P or not-P is true. Therefore, both propositions lack evidence no matter which is true. If we follow your line of reasoning, the absence of evidence for P and not-P means that both thier negations become simultaneously likely and unlikely to be true, which is logically absurd.

Furthermore, you are equating evidence with what we can apprehend with our five senses. Now this a viable approach when it comes to the scientific method, but science is not the only informer of truth. If I'm not mistaken, Cutecoot says that she knows God. She is appealing to a knowledge that is intuitionally found or properly basic.

For example, I experience pain in my back. The experience is properly basic as it depends on no belief other than the pain I am experiencing. No amount of empirical evidence can observe the pain I'm experiencing. It does not follow from the lack of empirical evidence that I am not experiencing pain.

So contrary to your claim, knowledge is not based only on what we empirically observe. You do not know that Cutecoot's knowledge of God is false. You can't get inside her experience and prove or disprove her experience of God. You don't have access to that kind of information.

The statement "I know that you have no knowledge of God, because knowledge is based upon what is observable" is self-defeating, and it should be obvious. That claim to knowledge is itself NOT based on anything observable.

So what you're left with is: "I just don't believe you, Cutecoot." Thats it.

[Fathom]

Nothing was "made up." It is a standard procedure used by all of us to ascertain the truth about things, and it is even used by yourself. If someone came up to you and said, "I know for a fact that there is a Mystical Flying Teapot monitoring the earth from outer space," what would you think about that person? Would it be unreasonable for you to expect that person to validate their positive statement with some kind of evidence?

Of course it would not be unreasonable.

So why do you think that it is unreasonable for me, or anyone else, to be justified in expecting some kind of evidence in regards to your- and other religionists- fantastic claims regarding having factual knowledge of the existence of one of your gods?

How is it any different than a Mystical Flying Teapot?

You are conflating non-belief in (X) with belief in (not-X) and evidence with empiricism.

If someone were to claim that a teapot is monitoring earth from space and provides no evidence, then you are certainly justifed in non-belief. However, you are not justified in believing that there is no teapot in space. The lack of evidence for a teapot in space is perfectly compatible with the existence of a teapot in space. It could be the case that a teapot is in outerspace and we would never know.

In your senerio you are attempting to affirm that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but the lack of evidence for (T) is not evidence for (not-T). For example, we have no evidence that there is silver ore on the the planet Pluto, but it does not follow from the lack of evidence that there is no silver ore on Pluto.

Propostion 1: There is silver ore on Pluto (P)
Propostion 2: There is no silver ore on Pluto (not-P)

We have not yet adequately surveyed Pluto to find out whether P or not-P is true. Therefore, both propositions lack evidence no matter which is true. If we follow your line of reasoning, the absence of evidence for P and not-P means that both thier negations become simultaneously likely and unlikely to be true, which is logically absurd.

Furthermore, you are equating evidence with what we can apprehend with our five senses. Now this a viable approach when it comes to the scientific method, but science is not the only informer of truth. If I'm not mistaken, Cutecoot says that she knows God. She is appealing to a knowledge that is intuitionally found or properly basic.

For example, I experience pain in my back. The experience is properly basic as it depends on no belief other than the pain I am experiencing. No amount of empirical evidence can observe the pain I'm experiencing. It does not follow from the lack of empirical evidence that I am not experiencing pain.

So contrary to your claim, knowledge is not based only on what we empirically observe. You do not know that Cutecoot's knowledge of God is false. You can't get inside her experience and prove or disprove her experience of God. You don't have access to that kind of information.

The statement "I know that you have no knowledge of God, because knowledge is based upon what is observable" is self-defeating, and it should be obvious. That claim to knowledge is itself NOT based on anything observable.

So what you're left with is: "I just don't believe you, Cutecoot." Thats it.

All of what you said is easily dismissed with the fact that the burden of proof lies with he/she whom makes the positive statement.

Your premise above is flawed for the simple reason that one cannot prove a negative; if something does not evidently exist, how can you prove it doesn't exist? It is not unlike someone saying, "The fruit dish is empty of fruit," when it so obviously is indeed empty, while his friend then says, "Can you prove it's empty?"

"Nothingness" is an observable trait of non-existence, and since nothing has been provided to prove the existence of any one of the number of gods you all believe in, then it is self evident that there are "no fruit in the dish."

[CuteCoot]

Furthermore, you are equating evidence with what we can apprehend with our five senses. Now this a viable approach when it comes to the scientific method, but science is not the only informer of truth. If I'm not mistaken, Cutecoot says that she knows God. She is appealing to a knowledge that is intuitionally found or properly basic.

That's correct.

For example, I experience pain in my back. The experience is properly basic as it depends on no belief other than the pain I am experiencing. No amount of empirical evidence can observe the pain I'm experiencing. It does not follow from the lack of empirical evidence that I am not experiencing pain.

That's correct.

So contrary to your claim, knowledge is not based only on what we empirically observe. You do not know that Cutecoot's knowledge of God is false. You can't get inside her experience and prove or disprove her experience of God. You don't have access to that kind of information.

Quite so.

The statement "I know that you have no knowledge of God, because knowledge is based upon what is observable" is self-defeating, and it should be obvious. That claim to knowledge is itself NOT based on anything observable.

That knowledge of God cannot be determined empirically - either way - has been accepted by all serious philosophers since Kant. Amateur philosophers - especially more recently those of an atheist persuasion - cannot understand the Kantian arguments. You've expressed them fairly well yourself here and I've tried, ad nauseam, to express them simply and clearly. I've just given up because there appears to be a determined cloud of illogicality that stands firmly in the way of people like fathom & friends "getting" this simple Kantian point.

So what you're left with is: "I just don't believe you, Cutecoot." Thats it.

Quite so.

[CuteCoot]

Why is it that you think you should be given special treatment?

I am not asking for any special treatment. You can view me however you want.

And I will just keep on knowing what I know.

[CuteCoot]

Yet, there is absolutely no reason for anyone else to view you as being any different than the fire & brimstone hippie standing on a soapbox proclaiming that the end is near.

That is precisely how you are viewed.

Sad, really.

Go ahead, view me like that. View me however you like.

I don't care how you view me because I have no regard or respect for the faculty in you that is so foolishly viewing me like that. It's your problem, your delusion, not mine.

[CuteCoot]

Can any theist clarify this puzzle for me?

I'm not a theist myself. I don't "believe" in God. I'm a gnostic who "knows" God. Still, I can give an answer from the perspective of the gnostic tradition.

God may be "all-knowing" in a way but not in the sense of "knowing" that is human consciousness. We are a part of God, an aspect of God, so God is conscious to the extent that we become conscious. But we do need each other because God is the reservoir of all potential knowledge waiting to be "realised" in human consciousness.

Atheists looking for answers in empirical reality are just looking in the wrong places but theists looking for answers in sacred writings are also looking in the wrong places.

In a recent David Attenborough nature program he was following a herd of elephants that had to trek across an arid plain in search of water. The landscape was bare with little or no point of orientation. Just the old pathway that had been trodden by elephant herds before them. At one point a baby elephant becomes disconnected from the pack and cannot tell which way to go. Instead of continuing forward and hopefully catching up with the herd the poor beast heads backwards and away from the promised salvation of a water source. The camera follows this poor baby elephant for a few moments and we all know that it is fated to die alone and thirsty in the desert.

Why does "nature" allow that to happen to the poor creature? Would it be right - or wrong - for Attenborough's crew to give it a little helping hand by pointing it back in the right direction? They are sure that it would be wrong because it would be interfering in the "natural" order of things.

It sounds to me like you are the baby elephant roaming in the desert and puzzled because a divine helping hand is refusing to point the way to water.

And yet when I tried to show you the way, you didn't listen or see. As it is so often expressed, you had neither the eyes to see nor the ears to hear. Is that my fault or yours?

[Methinx]

I'm not a theist myself. I don't "believe" in God. I'm a gnostic who "knows" God. Still, I can give an answer from the perspective of the gnostic tradition.

I believe it was you, CuteCoot, who once wrote:

"I have no problem with people saying they BELIEVE in God, because that is an opinion, on equal standing with "cheese tastes good".
I only have a problem when they DECLARE that God exists, because that is a claim, and it requires evidence."

Wslms.

[CuteCoot]

I believe it was you, CuteCoot, who once wrote:

"I have no problem with people saying they BELIEVE in God, because that is an opinion, on equal standing with "cheese tastes good".
I only have a problem when they DECLARE that God exists, because that is a claim, and it requires evidence."

Where did I write that? It doesn't sound like anything I'd write. For one thing, I hardly ever use capitalising.

Edit: via google I found this page at shiachat ... but I am certainly not "Quisant" ... is that what you're suggesting?

[Methinx]

Where did I write that? It doesn't sound like anything I'd write. For one thing, I hardly ever use capitalising.

If it wasn't you I apologise.