Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world. — EnPassant
But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. — Merkwurdichliebe
I would say, as far as theists hurts themselves with their zealotry, atheists, deep down and psychoactively desire a deep and meaningful subjective existence that transcends all understanding (e.g. eternity or infinitude), but that's just personal speculation. — Merkwurdichliebe
it's not about converting theists to become atheists, it's about questioning why to use that framework for the understanding of the world and universe. — Christoffer
I think both sides should be able to agree that the truth is the most important thing and work together towards that. — Devans99
The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. — Christoffer
This makes a fundamental difference; I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. A Theist, however, has a hard time accepting there even to be ideas that don't follow their personal belief, since that would be to accept questioning of their belief to be a valid perspective. — Christoffer
That is, it's very very likely that there are aspects of reality which we will NEVER understand, just as your dog will never understand the Internet no matter how hard or how long he might try to. — Jake
I can accept theists having their personal ideas of the universe but will question them if they put that conviction into the world as "truths" without any rational reasoning or evidence provided that survive the scrutiny all other truth claims in the world needs. — Christoffer
Humanity has been in existential crisis for maybe 4,000-15,000 years of recorded history, and we don't understand much more than we did when we began to record ourselves trying to understand ourselves and our environment. A territory is a human concept. A map is a human concept. It all seems sort of like painting a moustache on a painting of a unicorn and saying "I finally figured it out". — whollyrolling
The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument. — EnPassant
Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world. — EnPassant
You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model). — EnPassant
The bottom line is, if you're doing philosophy, then you can't get away with bare assertions. — S
but I am simply pointing out that no one knows if God(s) exists. — Maureen
Look, I made those statements simply by way of paraphrasing what theists say. Namely, that there is direct knowledge. The thread is not about trying to prove God's existence it is about how people discuss this issue and why discussion is problematic. That is what I'm discussing. You keep trying to draw me into secondary discussions about God's existence which is a distraction. You should also be aware that I was asked where I stand on the issue of God's existence* and I answered that so I was answering a question not making an assertion for discussion.
*Post 568 "By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?" — EnPassant
Bare assertions that truth comes from God are no such evidence. — S
Like I said I was answering a question that was put to me. It was an aside from the subject of the thread but people kept asking questions and I answered them but only because I was asked. I did not offer assertions as arguments for God's existence but as responses to questions. — EnPassant
There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim.
— S
Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant
And I hate vague religious-sounding talk with little or no clear meaning. The way I see it, it's your responsibility to be clear, not my responsibility to keep asking what the heck you're talking about.
— S
The intellect cannot discern spiritual truth. Truth must come to us from God. The world is filled with human patterns. These patterns are not ultimately real, they are ephemeral. The true pattern of the world is spiritual. Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.
Intellectual debates are an attempt to translate spiritual truth into the atheist's terms because that seems to be the only way atheists will see things. — EnPassant
And they strongly suggest that you think that you see the world as it really is, and that this vision includes God. — S
There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — EnPassant
Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant
Some of us, however, are so averse to acknowledging it...that pretences are invented to pretend that one CAN KNOW a god exists...by means other than KNOWING it. — Frank Apisa
Anyone pretending to KNOW a god exists (or that no gods exist) by KNOWLEDGE that is little more than vague "feelings that a god exists (does not exist)"...is playing a game with him/herself. — Frank Apisa
Attempting to pretend any of us knows by tortuously mangling the meaning of KNOW...is beneath anyone who wants to discuss things in a philosophy forum. — Frank Apisa
Well, I'm not putting up a pretence, honestly. I will answer your questions but I really don't feel like getting into another 'prove God' discussion. They become interminable.You can go far if you drop the pretense. — Frank Apisa
Yes, I know God exists. But I am 'deluded' right? But if the Dawkinsian accusation is made against me it must be backed up; ole Richard has to prove I have some screws loose. But how can it be that otherwise perfectly normal people are deluded? I'm afraid 'deluded' is not an argument.You either KNOW gods exist...or you do not. — Frank Apisa
Having those feelings (vague or not so vague) is NOT a substitute for KNOWING. — Frank Apisa
It is okay to acknowledge that you do not KNOW if any gods exist...on any plane or in any way. — Frank Apisa
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.