What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Meow Mix]

Awww that is cute, you don't like fairy tales?

CLEARLY, Eru, the One, gathered the Ainur in the beginning to play some music. It was all going gravy until Melkor wanted to do something other than Iluvatar's plan so he started playing discordant notes, but Iluvatar was the better musician so he directed everyone to play music that just absorbed Melkor's discordant notes. After the third theme, lo and behold, the music became the world that Is, but Melkor's discord brought much suffering into existence in the world.

But as Manwe pointed out to Ulmo in his despair, even the wretched designs of Melkor had beauty that he intended not -- the frosts of Melkor could fall from the sky as shining white jewels, the storms of his fury would bring rain to nourish the plants (the children of Yavannah).

Clearly Iluvatarism explains everything the best.

 

[Gloone]

CLEARLY, Eru, the One, gathered the Ainur in the beginning to play some music. It was all going gravy until Melkor wanted to do something other than Iluvatar's plan so he started playing discordant notes, but Iluvatar was the better musician so he directed everyone to play music that just absorbed Melkor's discordant notes. After the third theme, lo and behold, the music became the world that Is, but Melkor's discord brought much suffering into existence in the world.

But as Manwe pointed out to Ulmo in his despair, even the wretched designs of Melkor had beauty that he intended not -- the frosts of Melkor could fall from the sky as shining white jewels, the storms of his fury would bring rain to nourish the plants (the children of Yavannah).

Clearly Iluvatarism explains everything the best.

did you come up with that yourself or did you copy and paste it from somewhere...

 

[Meow Mix]

did you come up with that yourself or did you copy and paste it from somewhere...

Gasp! Don't tell me you're not familiar with Iluvatar? Eru, the One? Possessor of Ea, the flame of creation and master of Arda -- the world that Is?

Destroyer of Numenor, Akallabeth -- She That Has Fallen?

Or are you a follower of Melkor... the Morgoth Bauglir, black enemy of the world? Lord of balrogs, and Gothmog their master? Master of dragons, and Glaurung their father? Master even of Sauron, who would rise in later years as a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice... less evil only in that for long he served another than himself?

 

[Gloone]

Gasp! Don't tell me you're not familiar with Iluvatar? Eru, the One? Possessor of Ea, the flame of creation and master of Arda -- the world that Is?

Destroyer of Numenor, Akallabeth -- She That Has Fallen?

No I am not familiar with Iluvatar. Do tell more. Preferably the bold, I want to know more about Akallabeth and the Destroyer of Numenor.

 

[Meow Mix]

No I am not familiar with Iluvatar. Do tell more. Preferably the bold, I want to know more about Akallabeth and the Destroyer of Numenor.

Iluvatar is the destroyer of Numenor. Akallabeth is the name given to that land in Adunaic, the language of its people after its destruction: meaning "She that is/has fallen."

Numenor was an island in the West very near to Valinor, the Undying Lands where the Valar dwelt. It was a land gifted to men and women for their part in standing against Morgoth. After Morgoth's defeat, their power grew immensely but they were forbideen from going west because as mortals they weren't allowed to bring death to the Undying Lands.

So the only direction they could go was East, to Middle Earth. One of Morgoth's lieutenants was still alive and active in Middle Earth named Sauron. Numenor's army was so massive though that when they smote the gates of Barad-dur (Sauron's dark tower) he came forth and humbled himself to the king, Ar-Pharazon. In order to make sure Sauron kept his promise, he brought Sauron with him back to Numenor... which was a terrible mistake.

Over time Sauron used subtle arts to convince people that the Valar were only keeping them out of Valinor because they were jealous and afraid, and that it was man's destiny to claim the throne of the Undying Lands and become immortal himself. (But this was a lie, death was a gift to man from Iluvatar himself -- it was twisted and made to be thought of as a curse by the lies of Morgoth before)

Eventually Sauron convinces Ar-Pharazon to go to war with the Valar, a hopeless quest. Those still faithful to the Valar took ships to Middle Earth on the day of the attack, and the navy of the Numenoreans was the greatest navy ever to set sail. Seeing their approach, Manwe despaired -- not because of their military might but because they would betray him, and he asked Iluvatar for guidance. Iluvatar split the land asunder and the oceans swallowed Numenor and the Numenorean navy whole. Ar-Pharazon himself did set foot on the Undying shores, but he was swallowed by the earth, there to wait until the last day of the last battle when the Dark Lord is defeated at last.

The survivors of Numenor founded the kingdoms of Arnor and Gondor in Middle Earth. Aragorn, son of Arathorn, is a descendent of that line. So is Elrond half-elven (rather, shares descendents with that line).

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

Why has it that ever since time immemorial that so many theologian's view of what they know about the world, they are happy to concede “naturedidit” and what and what they don't know they preach, “goddidit”?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Without knowledge, you cannot have wisdom.
Without proper justification for your beliefs, you cannot have knowledge.
Without evidence, you cannot have proper justification for your beliefs.
Therefore, faith cannot lead to wisdom.

First, yes.
Second...no. Knowledge is gained whether your beliefs are justified or not. If you are wrong, you learn how to be wrong. If you are right, you learn how to be right. You need justification to be either right or wrong, but you can choose one way or the other without such justification. If I want to say that 2+2=22, I can. I would be wrong, and I would learn that 2+2 does not = 22. I could then guess again if I wish, but any number other than 22. If I was smart in guessing, I would start to eliminate possible groups of numbers. But if I were that smart, I would probably be able to figure it out arithmetically.

Because your second premise is defeated, the proceeding arguments and your conclusion are logically incorrect.

Faith is not about being right, just because you somehow magically guess the right answer every time. Faith is knowing you will be told either way, but usually not in the way you expect.

 

[Gloone]

Why has it that ever since time immemorial that so many theologian's view of what they know about the world, they are happy to concede “naturedidit” and what and what they don't know they preach, “goddidit”?

You seemed to have mixed views on theology and preaching. Are you saying theologians should be the ones preaching and not someone that doesn't know waht they are talking about?

 

[Meow Mix]

First, yes.
Second...no. Knowledge is gained whether your beliefs are justified or not. If you are wrong, you learn how to be wrong. If you are right, you learn how to be right. You need justification to be either right or wrong, but you can choose one way or the other without such justification. If I want to say that 2+2=22, I can. I would be wrong, and I would learn that 2+2 does not = 22. I could then guess again if I wish, but any number other than 22. If I was smart in guessing, I would start to eliminate possible groups of numbers. But if I were that smart, I would probably be able to figure it out arithmetically.

Because your second premise is defeated, the proceeding arguments and your conclusion are logically incorrect.

Faith is not about being right, just because you somehow magically guess the right answer every time. Faith is knowing you will be told either way, but usually not in the way you expect.

Actually his second premise is correct. Knowledge is defined as JUSTIFIED true belief -- all knowledge is justified, no knowledge is not-justified.

You can arrive to true beliefs by chance, but that isn't knowledge because you can't even know whether or not your knowledge is true.

Say I have a coin and I flip it, I declare that if the coin lands heads up then the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City but if it lands tails up it's actually Paris (and we'll assume that I truly don't know which is true, or whether EITHER is true).

The coin lands heads up, so I form the belief that the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City based solely on coin-flipping.

Is my belief true? Yes. Do I know that it's true? Nope! Is it knowledge? Nope!

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Actually his second premise is correct. Knowledge is defined as JUSTIFIED true belief -- all knowledge is justified, no knowledge is not-justified.

He said 'justification of beliefs', not simple justification. And as I said justification is needed to determine if you are right are wrong. It is not needed to believe something is right or wrong.

You can arrive to true beliefs by chance, but that isn't knowledge because you can't even know whether or not your knowledge is true.

This is true. I have said as much.

Say I have a coin and I flip it, I declare that if the coin lands heads up then the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City but if it lands tails up it's actually Paris (and we'll assume that I truly don't know which is true, or whether EITHER is true).

The coin lands heads up, so I form the belief that the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City based solely on coin-flipping.

Is my belief true? Yes. Do I know that it's true? Nope! Is it knowledge? Nope!

Agreed. Again, he said 'justification of belief' not justification. So my point still stands. If it is simple justification that is needed (which you have solidly proven) then faith can lead to wisdom.

 

[Orias]

Actually his second premise is correct. Knowledge is defined as JUSTIFIED true belief -- all knowledge is justified, no knowledge is not-justified.

You can arrive to true beliefs by chance, but that isn't knowledge because you can't even know whether or not your knowledge is true.

Say I have a coin and I flip it, I declare that if the coin lands heads up then the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City but if it lands tails up it's actually Paris (and we'll assume that I truly don't know which is true, or whether EITHER is true).

The coin lands heads up, so I form the belief that the capitol of Missouri is Jefferson City based solely on coin-flipping.

Is my belief true? Yes. Do I know that it's true? Nope! Is it knowledge? Nope!

If knowledge is justified, then how does knowledge define justified?

This is a common misconception. What you believe to be knowledge, is evident as perception.

Speaking of truth and false, is bear to narrow minded inconsistancies. Knowledge is nothing but our interpretation of existence. Aesthetics plays a sound role in developing our own indigenous habits. Declaring dominance among a community is no different than the dominant figure in a small community being inferior to everything else in life.

The basis of this is...if 2+2=4, then 2+2 must also equal 22. Otherwise, I am right, you are wrong, while at the same time you are right and I am wrong.

Justice is subjective to our own values, saying knowledge is justified is like saying God exists in different dimensions. Since you don't really know anything, just what you see, hear, taste, smell, and feel.

Perception.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

First, yes.
Second...no. Knowledge is gained whether your beliefs are justified or not.

That's not true. Justification is a necessary part of knowledge, according to the most common definition of knowledge.

If you are wrong, you learn how to be wrong. If you are right, you learn how to be right. You need justification to be either right or wrong, but you can choose one way or the other without such justification. If I want to say that 2+2=22, I can. I would be wrong, and I would learn that 2+2 does not = 22. I could then guess again if I wish, but any number other than 22. If I was smart in guessing, I would start to eliminate possible groups of numbers. But if I were that smart, I would probably be able to figure it out arithmetically.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that saying "2+2=22" could ever be considered wise?

Because your second premise is defeated, the proceeding arguments and your conclusion are logically incorrect.

It's not actually defeated.

Faith is not about being right, just because you somehow magically guess the right answer every time. Faith is knowing you will be told either way, but usually not in the way you expect.

... and this relates to wisdom how, exactly?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That's not true. Justification is a necessary part of knowledge, according to the most common definition of knowledge.

Which is this:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

(where S is a person and P is a proposition)

I'd shorten that definition to the first line. That's all you need. Faith is knowing that regardless of lines two and three, line one will win out. It has to. If something is true, then no amount of thinking its not true will change it.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you implying that saying "2+2=22" could ever be considered wise?

'sigh'. Never mind.

 

[Meow Mix]

Which is this:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

(where S is a person and P is a proposition)

I'd shorten that definition to the first line. That's all you need. Faith is knowing that regardless of lines two and three, line one will win out. It has to. If something is true, then no amount of thinking its not true will change it.

Then you don't have knowledge... you're saying that "faith is knowing that regardless of lines two and three," but KNOWLEDGE INCLUDES lines two and three, so faith doesn't "know" line one.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Then you don't have knowledge... you're saying that "faith is knowing that regardless of lines two and three," but KNOWLEDGE INCLUDES lines two and three, so faith doesn't "know" line one.

No, you don't. You don't have to know. All you have to know is what the world tells you. And the world will tell you if P is true, or if P is false.

 

[Meow Mix]

No, you don't. You don't have to know. All you have to know is what the world tells you. And the world will tell you if P is true, or if P is false.

But you'd only know that through justification.

 

[waitasec]

Faith is not about being right, just because you somehow magically guess the right answer every time.

well that's not a good argument for faith...

Faith is knowing you will be told either way, but usually not in the way you expect.

that's not faith, that's humility

 

[strikeviperMKII]

But you'd only know that through justification.

Which comes after you fire...not before.

 

[Meow Mix]

Which comes after you fire...not before.

Then all you're suggesting is rolling a roulette wheel in the sense of "What belief do I want to examine today" and then examining it through reason.

That's not faith.

That's the same thing as someone walking up to you and saying "leprechauns" and then you examining leprechauns.

Except instead of someone walking up to you and saying "leprechauns" you just rolled a roulette wheel and it landed on "leprechauns."

Still not faith, it's just examining random things with reason.

 

[Masourga]

Not that it matters on page 40+, but here's why I believe that many theistic descriptions and accounts of how the world/universe work fall short of reality:

Based on the observable interactions and reactions of our universe, there is simply nothing to support the idea that there is an over-riding, cosmic industry presiding over the care of human energies or "souls". For one, the physical law that the amount of matter and energy in the universe is fixed presents a problem for even just the basic belief that there is some amount of human energy sustained in the universe after what we call "death".

All of you with determined "faith" point to the unknowable as not being impossible, and that is true. However, if we cannot define ourselves by the things we see, feel, and generally experience during our lives in this universe (when this is most certainly all we can definitively know) then how would you suggest we define ourselves? By some arbitrary guess as to the clock-work behind it all? Does that really make any sense whatsoever? And I understand that people tend to experience things that make them feel that something more is behind it all - but not everyone experiences those same things. In fact, differences in theistic experience are as abundant as there are people on the planet. So, as far as an argument for faith as it is presented by most, I tend to find most ideas in the arena severely lacking.