Why athesits laugh at religion

[Fathom]

Anything that can be detected by our sensory abilities exists.

This is both evasive and unsatisfactory.

a) Many people claim to have seen ghosts, UFOs,big foot....So I assume you allow that all these exist?If not, why would trust your own eyes if other people can make mistakes? Are you infallible?

We are speaking of existence in terms of what can be verifiable. If enough people claim to have seen the exact same UFO at the exact same time, then it exists. This does not mean, however, that the UFO they all seen is from some other planet. All it means is that, say, 165 people seen an unidentified flaying object.

Since the observance of the object has been successfully repeated 165 times, it therefore exists. What it is, is an entirely different matter.

b) So how can you trust such a random set of "feelers" to detect reality?

It's the best we've got. Our sense of reality is therefore determined according to our abilities. It is gauged according to what we, as humans, are capable of.

How do you know there is no "reality" beyond that what these senses can detect?

What we have no knowledge of does not yet exist to us. Again, this does not mean it does not exist at all, but only that it does not exist to us.

c) How do you know that what our senses detect is not only reality, but ALL the reality there is?

You are asking a speculative question that requires evidence for substantiation. However, if what we have already detected is all there is to reality, then no new discoveries would be forthcoming.

Do you think there is nothing yet unknown to us?

Ultraviolet light exists,I hope you will agree. You cannot see it, but it can burn your skin.

Yes, but we detect ultraviolet light.

You seem to have a very low standard for what constitutes a proof,but only when it suits you.

You appear to be hostile. Does that suit you?

If people can see things that are not there, then how do you know you are not imagining that I typed anything at all? How do you know that it was me who typed it? If I created an account here under the name "Jesus",and posted a topic "I have returned", would you believe that? It could have been someone else,or a computer generated text, even a figment of your imagination. I asked for PROOF, not a mere reason to believe something to be true.

Again, more speculative questions. Do you have evidence to support anything about me personally only imagining what you typed? Is there any reason at all for me to give credence to your speculation?

Things not yet discovered do not yet exist to us.

So a tree in the wilderness of Canada,never seen by any man, does not exist? Or it does not exits "to us"? Well, that tree produces some of the oxigen we breathe, so it clearly exists to us.

Yes, oxygen is a detectable byproduct of the tree, and since we possess that knowledge, the tree exists.

What a small world you live in...

But ... at least I live in it, and understand it's real.

[peterpin]

What we have no knowledge of does not yet exist to us.

So existence depends on knowledge? That is just plain silly. It would mean that dinosaurs started to exist when they were discovered, and will cease to exist when people die out. An an unseen tree becomes real because of our ability to detect oxigen? Can we detect oxigen from a particular tree? So, this tree,maybe hundreds of years old, did not exist nonetheless before humans learnt about oxigen? A trifle arrogant, perhaps?

Again, more speculative questions. Do you have evidence to support anything about me personally only imagining what you typed? Is there any reason at all for me to give credence to your speculation?

Do you have any such evidence about yourself? Do you actually KNOW that all of your life is not simply a dream? Why do I need to provide evidence for something I don't need to prove? All I need to say that it is POSSIBLE. If it is possible, then there is an alternative to your view of "reality".

If enough people claim to have seen the exact same UFO at the exact same time, then it exists.

Really? Mass-hypnosis is not reality, then? What about hoaxes, they can fool loads of people at the same time...

As you cannot rule out the alternative explanations, you do opt to BELIEVE ("credence" was the word you use, from credere, to believe) in a particular version of events. That is your reality, and everyone else's. Things you BELIEVE to be true. You simply weigh up and opt for the to you most likely explanation. Senses may provide clues and evidence, but "reality" is based on the believes, the judgements made from these clues, and, in cases, additional information.

In fact, there is virtually nothing we can claim to be ""reality" with absolute certainty. We simply cannot KNOW, but we can form a view.

Perhaps the first thing an atheist needs to realise is that the very thing they ridicule, beliefs, is in fact essential to their own lives. What they mock in others, they use on a daily basis.

"Reality" is in the end a matter of judgement.

To say that all we can sense is "real" is naive.

But ... at least I live in it, and understand it's real.

No, you BELIEVE it real.

We are speaking of existence in terms of what can be verifiable.

Is that a royal we? I certainly do not restrict existence to anything I can verify. Verification itself is a process of judgement entailing an element of belief. It is possible for things to exist no human has ever imagined. What we "verified" is a small subset of all that COULD exist. Just because we have no way of "verifying"something does not sudddenly make it impossible to exist. There is no a priori reason at all to suppose that of all possible things only those we can somehow perceive or measure really exist. In fact, as our ability to measure and validate changes over time, it make absolutely no sense to use such an arbitrary criterium.

Finally, following your line, as nothing is ABSOLUTELY verifiable, we must conclude that we cannot be certain that ANYTHING exists.
The arguable exception to that are our own personal thought processes.

[Fathom]

What we have no knowledge of does not yet exist to us.

So existence depends on knowledge? That is just plain silly. It would mean that dinosaurs started to exist when they were discovered, and will cease to exist when people die out. An an unseen tree becomes real because of our ability to detect oxigen? Can we detect oxigen from a particular tree? So, this tree,maybe hundreds of years old, did not exist nonetheless before humans learnt about oxigen? A trifle arrogant, perhaps?

Again, more speculative questions. Do you have evidence to support anything about me personally only imagining what you typed? Is there any reason at all for me to give credence to your speculation?

Do you have any such evidence about yourself? Do you actually KNOW that all of your life is not simply a dream? Why do I need to provide evidence for something I don't need to prove? All I need to say that it is POSSIBLE. If it is possible, then there is an alternative to your view of "reality".

If enough people claim to have seen the exact same UFO at the exact same time, then it exists.

Really? Mass-hypnosis is not reality, then? What about hoaxes, they can fool loads of people at the same time...

As you cannot rule out the alternative explanations, you do opt to BELIEVE ("credence" was the word you use, from credere, to believe) in a particular version of events. That is your reality, and everyone else's. Things you BELIEVE to be true. You simply weigh up and opt for the to you most likely explanation. Senses may provide clues and evidence, but "reality" is based on the believes, the judgements made from these clues, and, in cases, additional information.

In fact, there is virtually nothing we can claim to be ""reality" with absolute certainty. We simply cannot KNOW, but we can form a view.

Perhaps the first thing an atheist needs to realise is that the very thing they ridicule, beliefs, is in fact essential to their own lives. What they mock in others, they use on a daily basis.

"Reality" is in the end a matter of judgement.

To say that all we can sense is "real" is naive.

But ... at least I live in it, and understand it's real.

No, you BELIEVE it real.

We are speaking of existence in terms of what can be verifiable.

Is that a royal we? I certainly do not restrict existence to anything I can verify. Verification itself is a process of judgement entailing an element of belief. It is possible for things to exist no human has ever imagined. What we "verified" is a small subset of all that COULD exist. Just because we have no way of "verifying"something does not sudddenly make it impossible to exist. There is no a priori reason at all to suppose that of all possible things only those we can somehow perceive or measure really exist. In fact, as our ability to measure and validate changes over time, it make absolutely no sense to use such an arbitrary criterium.

Finally, following your line, as nothing is ABSOLUTELY verifiable, we must conclude that we cannot be certain that ANYTHING exists.
The arguable exception to that are our own personal thought processes.

You are arguing from a speculative and philosophical point of view. Using your premise, we could say anything exists, or nothing exists. We could claim there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting the earth, or the 9/11 terrorists attacks did not occur, using your reasoning.

The fact remains that existence is determined by observing a state of being. Consciousness is what allows us to observe via our sensory perceptions. Our consciousness is what allows us to detect the existence of anything, and without it, nothing can possibly exist to us.

Without the consciousness of a being, nothing can be claimed to exist. If consciousnesses did not exist, how would anyone know of any reality?

Existence is determined by what is consciously observable.

Are you really that hard up for an argument on this forum?

[peterpin]

You are arguing from a speculative and philosophical point of view. Using your premise, we could say anything exists, or nothing exists. We could claim there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster orbiting the earth, or the 9/11 terrorists attacks did not occur, using your reasoning.

The fact remains that existence is determined by observing a state of being. Consciousness is what allows us to observe via our sensory perceptions. Our consciousness is what allows us to detect the existence of anything, and without it, nothing can possibly exist to us.

Without the consciousness of a being, nothing can be claimed to exist. If consciousnesses did not exist, how would anyone know of any reality?

Existence is determined by what is consciously observable.

Are you really that hard up for an argument on this forum?

Using your premise, we could say anything exists, or nothing exists.

Your misrepresenting what I say. I did not make any specific claims about anything existing or not existing at all. I said that ruling out some POSSIBLE realities is done by judgement, by accepting a particular belief. Whatever is possible, COULD exist, and it is only by judgement that some possibilities get rules out, and others accepted. Such beliefs and judgements vary from person to person. On the existence of God, while I am quite happy to accept that people can reach the BELIEF that there is no such being, as that is their judgement, I find arrogance annoying.Ridiculing those who reach a different conclusion on that question is unacceptable to me, particualrly because the basis of such ridicule is very shaky indeed.

Existence is determined by what is consciously observable.

Baseless claim. It is silly to suggest that existence is determined by an accidentally developed sensory system.

The fact remains that existence is determined by observing a state of being.

The fact remains that this is complete nonsense. Observation does not create anything at all. Repeating the same nonsense several times doesnot make it true. In fact, there are some who suggest that mere observation changes reality, and therefore observation itself is impossible. I suppose,as you keep referring to yourself as "learned", there is a possibility you have heard of the uncertainty principle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Something either exists or it does not; nothing at all exists "to us". Existence cannot be proven, it is accepted as a belief, sometimes, but not always based on observation, generally on the basis of reflexion.

If consciousnesses did not exist, how would anyone know of any reality?

Reality is not dependent on someone knowing it. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can really "know".
You cannot prove that conscienceness causes reality, or even pervceives reality. Nor can you prove that senses perceive reality. Your certainty is a sand-castle.

And an atheist who cannot spell atheist telling us that everybody else is really stupid, is a bit much.

[skynightblaze]

Reality is not dependent on someone knowing it.

I agree with this statement. Just because I do not know something, it does not mean that it is non existent however I will prove rationally that there exist no God. I do not know what kind of beliefs I have but I am sure that God does not exist.

There are atleast 2 possibilities which I see emerging from this discussion (I am ignoring others for the sake of this discussion but you can bring them into equation if you want): These 2 possibilities are:

1) Either God does not exist as atheists claim using their sensory abilities
2) God exist but we cannot determine him by our sensory abilities.

Now the probability is 0.5 and 0.5 for statements 1 and 2 respectively.

I will prove using logic that we can safely discard the possibility 2. My sensory abilities cannot detect God nor does my limited knowledge help me in reaching a conclusion about his existence but at the same time a rational human cannot trust something if there is no 100% evidence. SO I am stuck! Now is it my fault that I am unable to make a decision here? Ofcourse not! It is human nature and we have limitations and we are fashioned or created that way.

Now God certainly must know this if at all those books are right in claiming that he is all wise and that he created us. Now how can God expect me to believe in him and punish me if I do not believe in him especially when I am handicapped to make a decision about his existence? I mean I have 2 possibilities in front of me as explained above and I am unable to make a decision and therefore I cannot be punished for my limitations because they are beyond my control.

So ,an intelligent God must either make me capable of determining truth or provide proofs that my sensory abilities can grasp but God does neither of them so he is illogical if he expects me to believe in him.

Now ask yourself.. Can God be illogical according to religion? If no then certainly God of religions is false and does not exist and therefore we are left with the possibility that he does not exist..

[peterpin]

an intelligent God must either make me capable of determining truth or provide proofs

Why must God do anything?
Also...
It is entirely possible to suppose that God does not want to provide inescabable proof of his existence. For one, in doing this, free will would be abolished. In any case, we do not have inescabable proof of anything...

It is also not a sensible idea to say that disbelief would be something "punishable", no matter what is said in what text. Disbelief in God is a choice. If God wants free will, he has to respect this choice. An honest choice cannot be morally culpable. More importantly, believers also have to accept such a choice in others.

Similarly, believing is a choice that does not deserve ridicule by those who choose not to.

As to our ability to determine truth, well, we have the ability to make our own judgements on things; nobody can ever say with absolute certainty that any such judgementis right...

Suppose you are eating a chicken pie. Can be be SURE it's chicken? Well,it looks right, it tastes right, but can you be SURE? Certainty is an illusion. There is always an alternative possiblity, and it is not ALWAYS the most likely explanation that is the right one. Often, yes, but even if there is only one exception in a billion situations, then there is no certainty.

[Fathom]

Using your premise, we could say anything exists, or nothing exists.

Your misrepresenting what I say. I did not make any specific claims about anything existing or not existing at all.

On the contrary, you implied it with the following statement:

Perhaps ALL you perceive as "reality" is no more than a dream inside your head?

You are making suggestions to imply that what we perceive is nothing more than a dream inside our heads, which in turn implies the nothing could actually be real, and only a "dream inside our heads." Your other statements imply that because we have not detected things, they still exist, hence, everything exists.

I do not misrepresent what you say, but instead, you contradict your own statements.

Existence is determined by what is consciously observable.

Baseless claim. It is silly to suggest that existence is determined by an accidentally developed sensory system.

We are humans, and if we did not exist, isn't it obvious that nothing could exist to us? Existence, according to humans, is determined by what we consciously observe. If we did not exist, how could anything else exist to us?

You are arguing from the point of "Existence and reality still exists whether we know it or not, whether we exist or not." Perhaps that's true, but unless WE exist, we could never verify that claim.

Our determination of what exists depends on our own existence.

The fact remains that existence is determined by observing a state of being.

The fact remains that this is complete nonsense. Observation does not create anything at all. Repeating the same nonsense several times doesnot make it true. In fact, there are some who suggest that mere observation changes reality, and therefore observation itself is impossible.

Where are you getting this idea that I am saying that by simply observing something that it is then created? Are you having a problem with comprehension here?

I did not say, nor imply, that by merely observing something that it then comes into existence. I am saying that it does not exist to us until it has been detected by us.

Do you really need to intentionally misinterpret what I say in some vain attempt to win an argument?

I suppose,as you keep referring to yourself as "learned", there is a possibility you have heard of the uncertainty principle?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Clearly you found yourself in need of investigating my posts on other subjects not relevant to this one in an effort to learn who you are dealing with, as you are attempting to merge statements made in two entirely different subjects.

You are guilty of making non sequitur statements, as my post on the Jesus Myth thread regarding my education of what I have learned in respect to ancient Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

And of course I know of the uncertainty principle, but you must take that to quite a stretch to implement it into this discussion, as we are discussing how existence is determined, and not "the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa."

How have we gone from humans determining what reality is, to a particle physics philosophy that measures the position and momentum of particles?

Another non sequitur?

Be careful what you say, as we do indeed have physicists as long standing members on this forum.

Something either exists or it does not; nothing at all exists "to us". Existence cannot be proven, it is accepted as a belief, sometimes, but not always based on observation, generally on the basis of reflexion.

You appear to be asking for "conclusive proof" of the existence of anything, as opposed to what is reasonable.

Although it may be true that we must "believe" that something exists, it really does come down to a matter of mathematical probabilities based upon what evidence is available. For example, if 10 people stood in a room around a chair and claimed that the chair exists because they can see it, touch it, etc, is it not highly probably that the chair exists? Now, in contrast to that, if the same 10 people stood in the very same room claiming that God was standing in the middle of the room, yet this god could not be seen, heard, or detected in any way, do you think that probabilities of the god existing are the same as the probabilities that the chair exists?

What is reasonable here?

If consciousnesses did not exist, how would anyone know of any reality?

Reality is not dependent on someone knowing it. In fact, there is virtually nothing we can really "know".

Again, you are miserably failing to understand my point. I clearly said that if WE, as humans, were not conscious beings that WE, as humans, would have no ability to determine what is, or what is not, real.

Explain how you can even argue with that simple point?

You cannot prove that conscienceness causes reality, or even pervceives reality. Nor can you prove that senses perceive reality. Your certainty is a sand-castle.

Again, I said nowhere that "consciousness causes reality," but only that without consciousness we could not determine what is real or what is not real.

And an atheist who cannot spell atheist telling us that everybody else is really stupid, is a bit much.

And someone who needs to intentionally misrepresent what I have said, commit numerous logical fallacies, and pick at a typo in some laughable effort to win an argument isn't desperate?

Hmmm?

[Fathom]

It is entirely possible to suppose that God does not want to provide inescabable proof of his existence. For one, in doing this, free will would be abolished. In any case, we do not have inescabable proof of anything...

Does free will exist?

You do understand the argument between determinism and randomness?

[peterpin]

It seems that even a simple point is too difficult foryou, so let me say it simpler...

1) There is no such thing, as an "existence to us". Something either exists or not. If it it exist it may or may not be known. That has no effect of its existence.

2) We cannot prove, beyond any doubt, that ANYTHING exists. We make JUDGEMENTS which say that one particular thing may exist,some other may not.These judgements vary. You mention probability. As long as there is even the slightest outside chance that a judgement is wrong, it is not a fact, it is a belief.

3) As we cannot have certainty, it is nonsense to say that consciousness determines reality, however many times you repeat it. I mentioned the uncertainty principle for that very reason: it shows that our senses and our consciousness are inadequate to deal with ALL reality,

4) I said neither that everything exists nor that nothing exists, as you try to put into my mouth... I said simply that we cannot determine WITH CERTAINTY what exists and what does not.

As to "winning" an argument, I simply set out to expose the arrogance of a certain brand of atheism, a point you have made very well for me.

[skynightblaze]

Why must God do anything?

Extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence and therefore if God is desperate to the extent that he punishes people in hell for not believing then he ought to give evidence or else he is simply a tyrannist who is worthy of condemn just like Muhammad .

God needs to differentiate himself from other charlatans who also claim to be God or their messengers. Remember we have dozens of people making the same claim so whom do we trust? For e.g Sathya Sai baba claimed that he was God. Now there is no evidence for this claim and he was found to be a fraud. Now if the God you claim also does not provide us any evidence then what is the guarantee he is not like Sathya Sai Baba? How does God differentiate himself from charlatans?

Also...
It is entirely possible to suppose that God does not want to provide inescabable proof of his existence. For one, in doing this, free will would be abolished. In any case, we do not have inescabable proof of anything...

I do not agree. As it is we do not have any free will because we always act in self interest i.e the choice of acting against one’s self interest is never executed. One might quote examples like sacrificing your own life for your friend’s but even there you have a self interest i.e friend’s life is more valuable than your own and thereby sacrificing your life is in reality acting in self interest. So the point is free will not be abolished if God provides us evidence because free will as such does not exist to start with in my opinion however if you provide evidence it surely reduces the doubts that people have about God and helps them to take an informed decision.

It is also not a sensible idea to say that disbelief would be something "punishable", no matter what is said in what text. Disbelief in God is a choice. If God wants free will, he has to respect this choice. An honest choice cannot be morally culpable. More importantly, believers also have to accept such a choice inothers.

Do you believe in a personal god? I do not think your thinking is in line with teachings of scriptures.

Similarly, believing is a choice that does not deserve ridicule by those who choose not to.

Ridiculing people who believe in absurdities of religion is not wrong for e.g if someone believes that I am inferior to him just because I am not a Christian or muslim then definitely such people deserve to be ridiculed.

As to our ability to determine truth, well, we have the ability to make our own judgements on things; nobody can ever say with absolute certainty that any such judgementis right...

Not always! There can be times we can pass a judgement with certainty. Both of us agree that islam is a toxic religion. What we have done is passed a judgement with absolute certainty because we can back up what we say.

Suppose you are eating a chicken pie. Can be be SURE it's chicken? Well,it looks right, it tastes right, but can you be SURE? Certainty is an illusion. There is always an alternative possiblity, and it is not ALWAYS the most likely explanation that is the right one. Often, yes, but even if there is only one exception in a billion situations, then there is no certainty.

Well I am a vegetarian so the above situation won’t arise. . Anyway on a serious note,you claim that there can be 1 exception in a billion situations or there is always an alternative possibility. Don’t you think that before claiming that there is a possibility we need to evaluate that whether it really is a possibility or not? How can mere claims make a good case for a possibility ???
If we are talking about religious gods then we can surely eliminate that possibility because there are plenty of good arguments disproving existence of God as prescribed by religions.

[Fathom]

It seems that even a simple point is too difficult foryou, so let me say it simpler...

Well then, by all means.

1) There is no such thing, as an "existence to us".

Please explain why there is "no such thing as an existence to us." How do you qualify such a statement in light of the fact that our sensory perceptions help us to determine- according to mathematical probabilities- what does, or does not, exist to us?

2) We cannot prove, beyond any doubt, that ANYTHING exists. We make JUDGEMENTS which say that one particular thing may exist,some other may not.These judgements vary. You mention probability. As long as there is even the slightest outside chance that a judgement is wrong, it is not a fact, it is a belief.

Using your very own words, then nothing can be factual. Do you understand that when you say that nothing can be factual, that you then contradict your own positive claim of fact of "it is a belief?"

If it is a fact that "it is a belief" as you positively claim, then you stand in logical contradiction.

On another note, the law of probabilities dictates that a reasonable conclusion regarding the existence of any random object can be attained through the use of our sensory perceptions. Physical/Materialistic evidence is what is required to reach a reasonable conclusion as to whether or not something exists.

It is not unlike a judge in a court of law attempting to determine- according to the evidence- whether or not the accused is guilty of a crime or not. Upon examining the evidence, the judge will reach a verdict by making a positive claim of "Guilty" or "Not guilty." Although it is possible the judge could be wrong, the law of probabilities may indicate that the judge would make an accurate assessment 997 times out of 1000 attempts.

3) As we cannot have certainty, it is nonsense to say that consciousness determines reality, however many times you repeat it. I mentioned the uncertainty principle for that very reason: it shows that our senses and our consciousness are inadequate to deal with ALL reality,

Sure, we may not be able to have 100% certainty, but do we actually need it? Like the judge in my scenario above, we reach a determination based upon the evidence, and then make a positive claim based upon what is reasonable and agreed upon.

Now, because the evidence to support that something exists is so overwhelming, if anyone were to say that "we cannot be certain that it actually exists," it would require that person to dispute the evidence with a reasonable argument and other evidence.

Hence, until the positive claim that something exists can be challenged with evidence to the contrary, then the positive claim remains unchallenged and generally regarded as true.

4) I said neither that everything exists nor that nothing exists, as you try to put into my mouth... I said simply that we cannot determine WITH CERTAINTY what exists and what does not.

On the contrary, your "premise" as shown below demonstrates that ALL that we see may only exist in our heads:

Perhaps ALL you perceive as "reality" is no more than a dream inside your head?

Do you understand that by me saying "premise" that it is in relation to you making "a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion?"

Hence, using YOUR premise of "Perhaps ALL you perceive as "reality" is no more than a dream inside your head," we could say that anything exists, or that nothing exists.

Do you understand it yet?

As to "winning" an argument, I simply set out to expose the arrogance of a certain brand of atheism, a point you have made very well for me.

Arrogance is irrelevant. You can find it any any "brand" of religion also.

[dodo]

Discovered this website / forum only today. I come from a Buddhist background and like to believe that the Buddha was enlightened to reality, i.e. the Four Noble Truths.
Would like to comment on this particular statement:

3) As we cannot have certainty, it is nonsense to say that consciousness determines reality, however many times you repeat it. I mentioned the uncertainty principle for that very reason: it shows that our senses and our consciousness are inadequate to deal with ALL reality,

I think that certainty can be achieved, this is when enlightenment is experienced and doubt totally eradicated. Wondering whether consciousness determines reality or it does not, points to the fact of "consciousness" itself being real and existing, does it not? Why do you believe that there is some reality beyond what can be experienced through the five senses and the mind about which there can never be full knowledge?

ps: I live in Thailand and this is time for me to sleep. I won't therefore be able to respond quickly.

[ygalg]

what is missed in the discussion, is that god is reasoned within the texts and not outside of it. texts which claimed to be inspired or dictated by god himself. thus, any logic implemented to god, that doesn't coherent with the texts, where god owes his existence, is futile.

the bible contains segments which can be trace to previous religious texts of older religions such as Hinduism for an example. religions which fain to 'multiply gods'. if archaeology able to prove "judiasm" is far older then these religions, that would place judiasm in better position in front of these religions. around 500 years gap between Hinduism and judiasm.

texts conflicting with science as well with history and archaeology. for instance "balaam", due to archaeological findings in Jordan able to strengthen the possibility of his existence. but only partly of what been written about this figure and ritual conducted by him were matched. other archaeological findings could not verified the great kingdom of david. also, no remnants of first temple. aside the second. probably the only one that existed.

and of course fantastic claims, which also similarly portrait by other system of faiths. which have no place in reality we're living. unless proven otherwise, it remains a myth, a fairy tale. in present reality after departure from medieval age its simply illogical to take these claims seriously.

[peterpin]

If it is a fact that "it is a belief" as you positively claim, then you stand in logical contradiction.

Again you place things into my mouth... and building strawmen...

IN MY JUDGEMENT there is no way that absolute certainty can be achieved. That statement, being a judgement, is obviously also based on an assessment, so could also be wrong. As could anything else anyone says. If you think you can be absolutely certain about something, anything at all, then you are deluding yourself.

It should not really be very hard to understand... as long as there is a possible, however unliekely, explanation to a construct called "reality" then reality is based on belief.

Now, this is not going anywhere, so I am going to leave it...

It is interesting that atheists protest vigorously if their own assumptions are questioned, but some reserve an (apparent God-given) right to ridicule those who think differently from them. Not really very different from Muslims...

While I am perfectly happy to accept the position of an atheist, I find the arrogance some display and the false sense of superiority quite nauseating, and I can take only so much of that...

[Fathom]

If it is a fact that "it is a belief" as you positively claim, then you stand in logical contradiction.

Again you place things into my mouth... and building strawmen...

It is not a strawman since I directly refuted your claim by demonstrating that you made a positive claim of fact by stating that "it is a belief" which contradicted your other positive claim that "it is not a fact."

If we cannot be certain, as you claim with "We cannot prove, beyond any doubt, that ANYTHING exists," then how can "it is a belief" be a fact?

And that is why you stand in contradiction. Whenever you make a positive claim, you are stating a fact. It would have been better for you to say, "In my opinion, it is a belief."

It is interesting that atheists protest vigorously if their own assumptions are questioned, but some reserve an (apparent God-given) right to ridicule those who think differently from them. Not really very different from Muslims...

Some are zealots, some are not. The same is true in religions. It is the nature of humanity, and it really doesn't matter if you are atheist or religious, or otherwise.

While I am perfectly happy to accept the position of an atheist, I find the arrogance some display and the false sense of superiority quite nauseating, and I can take only so much of that...

Again, it is the nature of the human beast, and it doesn't matter if it's an atheist, religious person, or otherwise. You yourself have clearly demonstrated a degree of arrogance as well when your assumptions came under scrutiny.

[peterpin]

t is not a strawman since I directly refuted your claim by demonstrating that you made a positive claim of fact by stating that "it is a belief" which contradicted your other positive claim that "it is not a fact."

No you didn't. you misrepresented what I said and "refuted" that. That is commonly known as a strawman

If we cannot be certain, as you claim with "We cannot prove, beyond any doubt, that ANYTHING exists," then how can "it is a belief" be a fact?

You are talking gibberish again... As we cannot prove anything beyond ALL doubt, it follows that any statement made about a so-called fact is no more than a judgement or a belief. I never said that belief and fact are the same.

And that is why you stand in contradiction. Whenever you make a positive claim, you are stating a fact. It would have been better for you to say, "In my opinion, it is a belief."

No, when anyone makes a positive claim he states a judgement, based on his or her evaluation. That includes me.I said so,loud and clear. Several times.

You yourself have clearly demonstrated a degree of arrogance as well when your assumptions came under scrutiny.

Pompous people bring out the worst in me... You confuse arrogance with anger. Being told I am stupid because of views I hold makes me angry, and I would not dream to ever suggest that to anybody else.

Talking about contradictions...

"Existence/reality" ..."TO US" is rather cute... That means that everybody's "reality" is different from everybody else's. So, if that is the case, NO version of reality can be preferred or trusted over any other. So your claim that reality is somehow defined by consciousness debunks itself: whose consciousness? Your's? Or is it a majority decision, perhaps?

Now,I have things to do... so I am off, can't say it was pleasant talking to you,sorry...

[kaimana1]

Cmon guys, cant we all get along in here- we need some muslims to come on the forum badly-don't we??!!

[Fathom]

t is not a strawman since I directly refuted your claim by demonstrating that you made a positive claim of fact by stating that "it is a belief" which contradicted your other positive claim that "it is not a fact."

No you didn't. you misrepresented what I said and "refuted" that. That is commonly known as a strawman

If we cannot be certain, as you claim with "We cannot prove, beyond any doubt, that ANYTHING exists," then how can "it is a belief" be a fact?

You are talking gibberish again... As we cannot prove anything beyond ALL doubt, it follows that any statement made about a so-called fact is no more than a judgement or a belief. I never said that belief and fact are the same.

And that is why you stand in contradiction. Whenever you make a positive claim, you are stating a fact. It would have been better for you to say, "In my opinion, it is a belief."

No, when anyone makes a positive claim he states a judgement, based on his or her evaluation. That includes me.I said so,loud and clear. Several times.

Obviously you do not understand what a "positive claim" actually is. A positive claim falls under the category known as philosophic burden of proof which is "the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position," which in this case, that party is you.

When you claim "it is a belief" you are making a positive claim which requires evidence for substance. If, instead, you had said, "it is MY belief," the task of providing any reasoning or evidence would be substantially less since you would be providing a personal opinion.

But you made a general positive claim which is indicative of an agreement from a qualified and accredited collective of intelligence.

You yourself have clearly demonstrated a degree of arrogance as well when your assumptions came under scrutiny.

Pompous people bring out the worst in me... You confuse arrogance with anger. Being told I am stupid because of views I hold makes me angry, and I would not dream to ever suggest that to anybody else.

No one is "pompous" and nowhere do you see that I have said that you are "stupid."

Talking about contradictions...

"Existence/reality" ..."TO US" is rather cute... That means that everybody's "reality" is different from everybody else's.

What part of "TO US" has allowed you to think that I am speaking of individuals as opposed to the "US" which is clearly indicative of a collective of intelligence?

So, if that is the case, NO version of reality can be preferred or trusted over any other. So your claim that reality is somehow defined by consciousness debunks itself: whose consciousness? Your's? Or is it a majority decision, perhaps?

The collective consciousness of learned experts in the field.

Now,I have things to do... so I am off, can't say it was pleasant talking to you,sorry...

Try to have a pleasant day.

[peterpin]

I am tired of your pompous responses, this is the last time I reply...
I never mentioned any kind of "collective intelligence" nor did I make any kind of claim of absolute fact,for the third time. Stop twisting what I say.

Also the idea that reality is determined by some kind of panel of experts, and the rest of us have to accept whatever they say,it utter nonsense. We don't need any kind of thinking police...

It makes no sense whatever to suggest that existence or reality depends on ANYONE's knowledge.

[Fathom]

I am tired of your pompous responses, this is the last time I reply...

Please do not confuse "pompous" with "educated." I have been cordial and professional in my discussion with you, yet you have decided to resort to ad hominem attacks instead of directly addressing my points, or even investigating them for the sake of verification.

I never mentioned any kind of "collective intelligence" nor did I make any kind of claim of absolute fact,for the third time. Stop twisting what I say.

Then perhaps it would do you well to reconsider the wording you are using so that we do not conclude that you are making positive claims?

Also the idea that reality is determined by some kind of panel of experts, and the rest of us have to accept whatever they say,it utter nonsense. We don't need any kind of thinking police...

Yet people such as yourself will readily accept whatever the panel of "experts" in your religious denomination teach?

You have a mind of your own.

It makes no sense whatever to suggest that existence or reality depends on ANYONE's knowledge.

Not any one's as in relation to an individual, but according to the scientific method as ascertained by a collective of seasoned and accredited professionals.