Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Why would there be no place for hope and love?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do Atheists mean about No Evidence for God
- Thread starter Man of Faith
- Start date
Why would there be no place for hope and love?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
The believer has the burden of proof, and the burden of proof to support both the deistic and theistic argument, the first relating to the notion that there was an initial divine creator, and the latter regarding his interest in his creation, answerer of prayers and intervention.
I think that has far from been delivered, by anyone who has attempted, however admirable the effort.
You suggest that such aspects of our world provide sufficient proof of a gods creating hand at work, namely ‘We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals.’
I ask you what would it be like if there were no creator? There is no reason to believe that it is not possible without such a divine intervention. Consult Occam ’s razor, advising not to jump to answers that make more than the necessary assumptions. Simple is best.
Secondly, one has to question the capacity and competence of a designer, allegedly all powerful and all knowing. If we look at the reality, annihilating stars, collapsing galaxies, darkness, inhospitable planets, and the one little planet capable of supporting life on some of its surface some of the time, with 99.9% of all life that existed becoming extinct, us almost included, natural disasters, disease, suffering and struggle all round.
Half of children dying in childbirth, life expectancy of 25 at best, and where is god in all of this? He idly looks by and lets this all happen, in the 100,000-200,000 years of human kinds existence as a species, doesn’t not involve himself, and then for the last 2000 years, feels it necessary to intervene. How? Well why not present himself to Bronze Age Palestine, and make a human sacrifice... (at least in Christianity).
To quote Richard Dawkins, who is on the money here, we are all atheist to most gods, no one worships or believes in Raa, or Loki, or Zeus, or any other of the thousands of dead’ gods, the only difference is that we take it one god further.
It is so clearly a man made concept, one that was our first attempt at explaining the world; our first attempts at philosophy, science, geography...a hopeless effort, although a necessary first step in our pursuit of knowledge. It unfortunately dominates minds still due to its originality, but we’ve moved on from these seriously outdated ideas, time to get real in my opinion.
Last edited:
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
With all due respect, could you expand on this statement? What do you mean by "All knowledge is handed down from above"? That certainly doesn't seem to be true, given the fact that much knowledge can be gained from personal examination and individual effort. There is a lot of knowledge that can be picked up on one's own.
For example, nobody taught me how to make a "Pickled Russian", which is a combination of vodka and pickle juice. Me and some drunk buddies just sort of stumbled upon it one night purely through personal experimentation.
But also, there is a great deal of artistic knowledge and skill that is intuitive or self-learned, rather than being handed down from anyone, above or otherwise. For example, nobody taught Walt Whitman how to compose his distinctive style of verse, which was originally thought to be too prosaic but eventually became heralded for its uniqueness and thoughtful experimentation that stood in stark contrast to more traditional poetry.
But perhaps I am misreading your meaning. Would you mind elaborating?
Alas, Tracey & I are not on speaking terms. It's not that there's any animosity, but rather we just have very separate lives.
She has a new series on Showtime (State Of The Union), but I haven't seen it yet. Hmmm......have to check it out on line.
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
Mysticism. As above, so below. As we have bootstrapped from the primordial ooze, we have essentially learned everything from mother earth and the environment.
Or, at least, that's what I think he means.
Or, at least, that's what I think he means.
bhaktajan
Active Member
You are not reading it wrong. You understand my point. I appreciate being put to the test.
The classic example to illustrate the maxim, ""All knowledge is handed down from above"
is:
How does one know who their real father is? Ask your mum!
The Telephone Yellow Pages list names & Numbers & Paid adverts ---the adverts are mini-billboards that herald SKILLS/CRAFTS/SERVICES/EMERGENCY ALERT NUMBERS/EXPERTS IN ALL FIELDS . . . all those real-life people are "Representative agents" that do "Bonefide/Authentic/Legally Certified" things of all sorts.
Each sort of costly enterprise declare themselves "experts-in-the-field" ---the RED-Lettered items in the above quote are also, predicated on prior experts in their field upon which "You stood on their shoulders to accomplish creative whims"
Childhood potty training is famous for forming latter-in-life work accumens, but alas, nowadays, our baggy-pants farcical street thugs seem to be crying out for attention as to their personal examination and individual effort
Are you & yr buddies part of a University Frat-house? Or were you chemists at the brewery on a break when you thought that no Polish nor Slavic Nor Siberian nor barrista had ever attempted to amend a Traditional "recipe" as you had done with your moter of invention inspired "Pickled Russian"?
The Beatles & Led Zeppelin were influenced by american black Blues which evolved from slave spirituals [how did west african slaves learn to sing blues?] so that present day Rap-Music Moguls could have high-self-esteem and express their reknown sense of artistic knowledge and skill that is intuitive or self-learned,
School day's studies later resulted in National libraries full of "distinctive style of verse".
Which came first the Kama-sutra book are the kama-sutra-ing author?
Last edited:
bhaktajan
Active Member
I haven't seen it too.
Maybe you and me may pass eachother unknowingly when I visit my Uncle in Grand Rapids, MI.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It means they actually understand what evidence is.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So you say, but have not established. I know there is a red pen in the cup on my desk, and this knowledge was not handed down from above.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
It's true. I'm an atheist, and I haven't met ellenjanuary.It means that they haven't met me.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
So, this is supposed to be an example of a particular piece of knowledge that is handed to an individual from 'above'? Forgive me for saying so, but this doesn't make any sense.
First of all, depending on the exact details of any particular birth, some mothers can't be 100% sure if their so-called child is really theirs. Some mothers are drugged or passed out when a baby is delivered. Plus, all babies look alike, if you ask me. Who's to say that a crazy nurse or candy-striper didn't pull an old 'switcharoo' in the maternity ward and give a new mother some else's baby? In other words, sometimes we can't even take 'mum's' word for it.
This so-called 'maxim' proves nothing. Even if every mum on the planet throughout history could be absolutely sure that the child they took home from the hospital is really their son or daughter, that doesn't mean that ALL knowledge is handed down from above. Just because some knowledge comes to us from others, that certainly doesn't mean ALL knowlegdge is acquired that way.
Your maxim is incredibly misapplied. I could say, "Look, the leaves on the trees outside my dining room window are green, therefore all leaves on the planet throughout the history of foliage have been green." That is comparable to what you have stated and everbit as WRONG.
No, sir, with all due respect, your 'maxim' fails miserably, if it is intended to be the 'classic example' and prove that all knowledge is only acquired through one medium.
Again, I find your example to be woefully misplaced. Just because someone had to make the vodka and someone before me had to master the process of 'pickling', that doesn't mean the knowledge of a 'Pickled Russian' came from others. Sure, the ingrediants came from others. But the combination was not taught. Truth for truth, it was discovered by accident. But that is how a lot of knowledge is acquired.
No offense, but you seem to be stretching and failing to prove a conclusion that you have previously reached by assumption.
I don't see how this is meaningful at all to this particular debate or to my previous question. Are you saying because some people wear their pants a certain way, that means all knowledge is handed down from above? What in the world is this supposed to mean? Are you saying that some people don't wear their pants in a manner that suits you personally or that differs from your cultural expectations for personal grooming, so all knowledge must be handed down from above?
Again, even if a person's inclination to wear their pants a certain way was proof-positive that they had acquired the knowledge from others or conversely that they failed to acquire the proper knowledge, that still does not prove that ALL knowledge is handed down from above.
Again, you have shown how some knowledge can be acquired from others and then built upon. Fine, I'll certainly grant that. But it is by no means proof that absolutely all knowledge MUST be acquired that way.
I KNOW I am hungry right now for a strawberry tart. Nobody told me that. No one above or below me had to reveal to me how to determine when I am hungry or when I need to go potty or when I am sleepy. These are bits of knowledge that come to me without anyone else's help whatsoever.
No, sir, again with all due respect, I think you need to revisit your maxim and your espistemological theory on how mankind acquires knowledge. Because you are leaving out a bunch of possible mechanisms and mediums for acquiring and/or discovering knowledge.
bhaktajan
Active Member
Originally Posted by bhaktajan
You are not reading it wrong. You understand my point. I appreciate being put to the test.
The classic example to illustrate the maxim, ""All knowledge is handed down from above"
is:
How does one know who their real father is? Ask your mum!
So, this is supposed to be an example of a particular piece of knowledge that is handed to an individual from 'above'? Forgive me for saying so, but this doesn't make any sense.
How could it NOT make sense? [I am quoting Wise old Indian Swami(s) here.]
It is a maxim of life.
Everything I know was taught to me by a mentor.
Everything road I travel was paved by another.
Everything insurance company actuarial table was learnt by carefull record keeping of the sufferrings of other.
Everything native speaking European was NOT taught German because of what was learn by others ---that includes the very process required to break the "Enigma-Code".
All listings in the Yellow pages connect the SEEKER with an expert that MAKES A REAL LIVING from thier expertise.
All highfalutin fantasies of Physic revelation is a fallacy.
This is the maxim of learned mankind:
"If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants"
Sir Isaac Newton1643 -1727 the English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, alchemist, inventor and natural philosopher. He is often regarded as the most influential scientist in history and is best known for discovering the Laws of Gravity.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Suggested homework [I've yet to do it entoto]:
Compile an enumerated list of all the teachers you have ever had.
Do include the mundane ones too, not just the professionally accredited ones.
ie:
Kindergarten,
1st to 12th,
University,
extracurricular,
Adult-even classes,
Auto-driving school,
parachute instructor;
1st change of flat tire,
1st standing while *******,
1st successfull unclamping of a bra,
1st successfull oral sex to a woman; etc etc
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I once saw as a kid, a after school TV program, where the "delinquent adolescent" was told by the teacher:
"If you don't want to be a proper & estudious student, then how about Teaching something you know to the other students, like a teacher does?"
To which the "delinquent adolescent" replied, "But, I don't know anything."
To which the teacher replied, "Now you see my point."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
John Lennon did not invent Rock and Roll nor the Electric Guitar.
Architects and engineers do not invent Wood & Steel & the laws of physics.
The basic ingredients are available to make all the age-old recipes.
The Mother of invention is neccesity . . . and when their is no neccessity . . . someone devises a means to market a commodity.
Last edited:
outhouse
Atheistically
imagination at work. in my opinion.
it did, nature in action at its finest.
this is only evidence of nature my friend.
It is human nature to use our imagination for things in which we do not know.
ask any child a question about anything thats unknown to them and watch them fill in the blanks with imagination, They almost never say "i dont know" its human nature. the less knowledge on a subject, more imagination to fill in the blanks.
people are never givin a choice for which religion they prescribe to, they are born into this position which makes it hard to break free.
Generally No one ever says hey ill choose this religion because it makes sense. "generally"
bhaktajan
Active Member
From the Hospital????????????????????
Mid-wifes taught every Pediatrician since time-immemorial what to know.
Barbers were the dentists.
Industrial technology proliferates by Tycoons that replace man-power with steel power.
What has happened in the last 500 years is black-marketeering has become the norm.
Here's the newest innovations:
Cheap material/ low-overhead/ quick-turn around ---and if you intend on learning these trade secrets in England you should expect to pay triple the Traditional going rate.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
I don't think you're following me. And please, don't take that the wrong way, because I don't think I'm following you either. We are speaking the same language but obviously talking right past one another.
You are questioning points in my argument that have nothing to do with the central issue.
It doesn't matter whether a mother has her child in a hospital or whether midwives taught physicians how to deliver babes or any of these numerous other items you have brought up. My point was this, even mothers sometimes because of circumstances surrounding the birth of their children cannot be sure their child is really theirs. You are employing a maxim that doesn't work to prove anything, much less to prove that all knowledge is handed down to us from above.
Maxim's such as the one you have suggested are not proof of anything. They might be clever aphorisms, but they prove nothing.
And again, I certainly mean no offense, but the above seems to have absolutely nothing at all to do with our current debate. If you believe it does, then you should somehow connect this information to the topic at hand.
What does industrial knowledge of tycoons and cheap material, low overheads and quick turnarounds, not to mention English trade secrets, have to do with how knowledge is acquired by mankind.
Let me try one last time to be as absolutely clear as possible. Just because some knowledge is acquired from others, such as who are our fathers or how to go potty or how to wear our clothes or how to make vodka or how to pickle cucumbers, none of this is proof that absolutely ALL knowledge is derived from someone else. And it certainly isn't proof that ALL knowledge is handed down from above.
I have knowledge that my chair is blue because I can see it personally with my own eyes. I have knowledge knowledge that I am hungry and a little bit tired right now. Prove to me that these bits of knowledge were 'handed down' from above. That's what I'm asking--can you do that?
It seems to me these bits of knowledge are gained from personal experience and not acquired through some form of transmission, one person to another or from 'above' to below, as you originally put it.
But I am certainly willing to concede I might be wrong if you can prove your original statement to be true. Thus far, you have failed to do so.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
I'm pretty sure he forgot to take his meds.