Atheism isn't a belief?

RightAnd is it possible to "know" something to be true when in actual fact it isn't?For instance could I know that the sun is cold (absolute zero Kelvins) when in fact it isn't.Knowing something does not make it objectively true.

quote:

---

And is it possible to "know" something to be true when in actual fact it isn't?

---

Using the meaning of know as in to have knowledge, then no you could not have knowledge that the sun is cold, when it isn't.I think theist use the word in in the sense of to be aware of; have perceived or learned as in to know that one is loved.Sometimes I think we are working with a different set of word meanings. Makes it hard to discuss, don't you think?

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Bad example, as, unless you're telepathic, that's deduced. Once it's deduced, we can imbue our model of another person with love for us, and be aware that the model loves us; but that love isn't an input from them; it's internally-generated.

There have been many words written on this thread and given that it is not proof-read by experts, nor are positions presented the result of years of fine-tuned consideration, inappropriate words can slip in. By and large though, I think the over tenet of what I am saying is not simply that views are wrong but that they do not terminate in rationality.Take "God doesn't/likely doesn't exist due to lack of objective evidence" If I've said that view is 'wrong' what I have more frequently said is that it is not rational, not reasonable. This, given that it is not reasonable to think that objective evidence, in it's empirical, scientific sense, will be available (God would be supernatural). I have said that in requiring such evidence, one is looking for the evidence in the wrong place. "No evidence" is thus rewritten "I am not looking for the evidence where it may be found" Thus the rationale behind athiesm is shown not to be rational I was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter what person thinks constitutes a Christian. Christians don't make Christians, God does. That people who call themselves Christians argue about what a Christian is especially irrelevant - given that calling oneself a Christian doesn't make oneself a Christian either. You would expect disagreement between people who are Christians and people who aren't but think they are, as to what constitutes a Christian. Which is precisely what we find.In my comments on 'your Christian', I pointed out the attributes you mentioned were things that one might (but not necessarily) expect a Christian to do. This does not say however that doing these things makes them a Christian. One can do all the things expected of a person in love with another. But that doesn't mean they love them. There might (take a stunningly attractive 22 year old woman 'loving' an 85 year old billionaire lying on his sickbed for example) be other motivations behind the actions. I don't say the motivations are necessarily nefarious - but what they are is irrelevant if the person isn't a Christian.One doesn't have to refer to the bible to see that these things aren't a sure-fire sign of a person being a Christian. That was the main point.In commenting on the purpose of the law being to make people realise that they can't keep the law, I am referring to a theme which is all over the bible. I would find it strange, and somewhat wasteful of time to have to provide chapter and verse given that it is as obvious as the day is long that this is the case:"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ"
"By the deeds of the law shall no man be saved"
"It is by grace you are saved not be works (following the law) so that no man can boast"
"For no man shall be justified in his sight by observing the works of the law"
"For the law is to make man recognise sin" (which presumably means that without it man wouldn't)
"If it is the adherents of the Law who are to be made heirs then faith is made futile and the promise of God is made void"But of course you may differ in view in which case my apologies. I thought it was self-evident. In his mind. Is that not believism? What about knowing? Where does that come in? If one knew then one cannot unknow. Google 'know the living God' for scriptural backup that this is not ony possible but frequent.

My point was that there is no absolute right and wrong unless something that is absolute defines right and wrong. Man can't do that as you seem to agree. If you conclude no God, then you also conclude no absolute basis for right and wrong. Thus there is no right and wrong , only right and wrong as defined by whatever age, culture etc you live in. Thus slavery was right then and slavery is wrong now (in our part of the world). Slavery might be right again. But you can't say it is absolutely wrong - for all times because there is no such thing as absolute in your mind. Fair enough.Except to say there is no absolute right and wrong is an absolute statement - which puts you in a Catch-22 situation - because man is not in a positon to make absolute statements.

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Look at these two statements PY. It is "plain stupid to have no belief" and an athiest "has no belief" You might be on for a bit of a hiding there from some. Me, I don't for a second think that athiests are stupid thus according to your statement an athiest has belief. Not in God but in Nature-is-everything. Since Nature-is-Everything is not shown then belief that it is all (or will be eventually shown to be all) is just that: belief. And when a belief is held by unfounded faith (as opposed to knowing) then that is a Religion.Extrapolation may indicate a likelyhood but it is pure speculation. Folk loose their shirts on the stock market applying exactly the same reasoning. Objects travelling in a straight line will deviate if exposed to an exterior force. No one knows what will be discovered in the future so no one can comment on what forces will occurr to alter the line exptrapolated. Blind guessing is all it is.This message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 11:00 AM

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Have you got any reasoned thinking behind that statement. Given that for me to know something myself I only need to show myself.

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Probably, but it is not possible to know something when in fact it isn't. You wouldn't know it, you would believe it. If you knew it then it would be the case. We back to Ojectivity Rules (in the provable to everyone sense) again. What reason is there for thinking that this is the way it is. It may be a well established theory but a theory is not truth. That some folk have decided that a well-established theory can be for all intents and purposes considered true is only a philosophical position. It is not a true position.In other words PY you say that the only way to know is through objectivity. Reason (which doesn't rely on circular reasoning)?

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

I think the main problem here is that you haven't defined your God. Ok, so he's 'supernatural'. So's the Judeo-Christian God. Ain't gonna find that one sitting on a park bench, but that doesn't mean you can't use evidence to disprove it. It's defined as having done some very specific things to the natural world; such as creating Man directly from dirt, and flooding the entire Earth. There's tons of evidence against these things, so there's plenty of reasons to believe that that God doesn't exist.
As to your God, I haven't a clue as to what it's supposed to have done, if anything. Is it just a God of the Gaps? If so, belief can be dismissed as being premature and deleterious to the effort of finding what's actually in those gaps.

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

But if you can't show, then you don't know.

Have you got any reasoned thinking behind that statement. Given that for me to know something myself I only need to show myself.

---

Actually that is your statement from God or No God.So I only need to show myself that God does not exist.Excellent!

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

False. The theoretical maximum is objective. It doesn't matter what you think it is. Here's proof:Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution
Kevin Kelly -- Chapter 15: Artificial Evolution
(emphasis mine)
"Ackley is a bear of a guy with a side-of-the-mouth wisecracking delivery. He broke up 250 serious scientists at the 1990 Second Artificial Life Conference with a wickedly funny video of a rather important artificial life world he and colleague Michael Littman had made. His "creatures" were actually bits of code not too different from a classical GA, but he dressed them up with moronic smiley faces as they went about chomping each other or bumping into walls in his graphical world. The smart survived, the dumb died. As others had, Ackley found that his world was able to evolve amazingly fit organisms. Successful individuals would live Methuselahian lifetimes-25,000 day-steps in his world. These guys had the system all figured out. They knew how to get what they needed with minimum effort. And how to stay out of trouble. Not only would individuals live long, but the populations that shared their genes would survive eons as well.Noodling around with the genes of these streetwise creatures, Ackley uncovered a couple of resources they hadn't taken up. He saw that he could improve their chromosomes in a godlike way to exploit these resources, making them even better adapted to the environment he had set up for them. So in an early act of virtual genetic engineering, he modified their evolved code and set them back again into his world. As individuals, they were superbly fitted and flourished easily, scoring higher on the fitness scale than any creatures before them.But Ackley noticed that their population numbers were always lower than the naturally evolved guys. As a group they were anemic. Although they never died out, they were always endangered. Ackley felt their low numbers wouldn't permit the species to last more than 300 generations. So while handcrafted genes suited individuals to the max, they lacked the robustness of organically grown genes, which suited the species to the max. Here, in the home-brewed world of a midnight hacker, was the first bit of testable proof for hoary ecological wisdom: that what is best for an individual ain't necessarily best for the species."This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-26-2005 07:23 AM

Well, since there doesn't seem to be an absolute right or wrong, then perhaps nothing defines it?YOu have not demonstrated that there is an absolute right/wrong.

That's the dictionaries example.I know my parents love me without them telling me and vice versa for kids loving their parents.Of course in reality info is usually gained from interpreting the actions of the other person in lieu of words.I think that is why in the Book of James it emphasizes showing ones faith by actions.IMO, of course, that means that God should provide some sort of action to show his love for his people.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

That's the dictionaries example.

---

I know.

quote:

---

I know my parents love me without them telling me and vice versa for kids loving their parents.

---

Yes, but being convinced that something is true isn't the same as observing it. Two different definitions of 'know'.

quote:

---

Of course in reality info is usually gained from interpreting the actions of the other person in lieu of words.

---

And neither of those is a direct observation of what's going on in someone's head.

quote:

---

IMO, of course, that means that God should provide some sort of action to show his love for his people.

---

Yes, love without an observable action/effect is an unknowable love, for you have no indication of what they're feeling.

quote:

---

Yes, but being convinced that something is true isn't the same as observing it. Two different definitions of 'know'.

---

Exactly

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France