The reason why atheists and believers will never agree of God.

[lewisnotmiller]

When we stop seeking ''agreement,'' things will be better. I think that theists and atheists often enter discussions feeling like it's a contest, or battle to be won. Maybe if we change our expectations, take in what the other person is saying, we will come away learning something. But, agreement doesn't need to be the goal, in my opinion.

I agree with this. Not even trying to be funny...!

 

[firedragon]

I agree you can find evidence to dispute it. This is why I brought up Jericho. Upon personally reviewing the evidence and findings of Jericho, (through internet and books, nothing fancy) I believe that the archeological findings strongly support the Biblical narrative. Others believe that the findings discredit it. Hence me saying what’s the point debating the topic.
There is independent evidence of historical events recorded by the Bible. For example, the Jewish king Hezekiah has been verified as historical and the narrative of his struggles to be historical as well. The Bible says that when Hezekiah was king, all of Judah was taken over by Assyria, save Jerusalem. Hezekiah was trapped in Jerusalem for his reign. Recently, an Assyrian battle monument has been found, listing Hezekiah king of Judah on the list of defeated kings. It even describes his predicament, him being “caged in Jerusalem like a bird”

With all due respect, this argument is not valid brother. Shakespeare might get historical people right, that does not mean its Gods word or/and even if its historically reliable.

 

[Meow Mix]

I’ve made a couple of threads about “proving God”, and have read through similar threads. I would like to state an observation. There is a fundamental reason why there will always be disagreement.
First, definitions. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. The theory of pramanas is ancient Hindu epistemology. Epistemology deals with discovering what are valid ways to attain true knowledge. Each pramana deals with a separate way true knowledge can be attained.
In total, the Hindus theorized six different pramanas, with the varying schools accepting different ones as valid. Three central pramanas which are almost universally accepted, which are perception (Sanskrit pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and "word", meaning the testimonyof past or present reliable experts (Śabda); and more contentious ones, which are comparison and analogy (upamāna), postulation, derivation from circumstances (arthāpatti), and non-perception, negative/cognitive proof (anupalabdhi).
For this thread, I will be focusing on the pramana of “word or testimony”.
The Hindus argued that receiving knowledge directly from God is a valid means to attain true knowledge. As God is the source of all knowledge, information gotten from God is reliable and true. For Hindus, this would apply to their Vedic literature. For a Christian, the Bible. Interestingly, Buddhism does not see this pramana as a valid means to attain knowledge.
Let’s use Christians as an example, now. I myself believe that the Bible is authentic because it says it is authentic. This is a valid way of verifying it, as I believe it to be directly from God. This isn’t just some cop out, trying to talk a way out of philosophically defending my position. That has been the assertion I’ve seen on this site. The notion that “word/testimony” is a valid means to attain true knowledge is a thoroughly developed epistemological concept. It is not a cop out.
So! The believer believes in this pramana. The atheist does not (I’m not atheist, but I assume). Because of this, no matter how much debating is done, no one will ever be moved, I think. It all depends on whether or not you believe testimony is a valid means to attain pure knowledge.
Well for my part, I’m done debating whether God is real. I suppose one could use Bible apologetics to try to prove the Bible in a “scientific” way, but will it ever be satisfactory? Like, the site of Jericho. The Christian will say, “It is archeologically dated to the Biblical date!” And the atheist will say “No, it’s a later date!” Each side can find evidence supporting their beliefs.

Testimony is OK as justification, but it's epistemologically a secondary source of justification: you must first have cause to believe the testimony is trustworthy. So it's not that atheists disbelieve testimony, it's that they doubt that religious testimony, passed down through time by such an inefficient method as cultural diffusion, is trustworthy.

For instance, for most scientific or philosophical matters, an atheist is fine with quoting an expert because if they wanted to, they could go to that expert or that expert's sources and verify what the expert is saying. With religious texts (that set a high bar for skepticism with extraordinary claims), that isn't the case.

So the argument here that atheists have a different epistemology is not true. If anything, atheists are more stringent with their epistemology.

 

[firedragon]

Testimony is OK as justification, but it's epistemologically a secondary source of justification: you must first have cause to believe the testimony is trustworthy.

Try this post in coordination to the OP.

#31

 

[firedragon]

If anything, atheists are more stringent with their epistemology.

Thats a bias statement.

 

[Meow Mix]

Try this post in coordination to the OP.

#31

When it comes to "atheists" that somehow believe in a god, I honestly don't care. Such people are beyond reason.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thats a bias statement.

It's true. Full disclosure, I've been drinking a lot tonight. I shouldn't say this because a lot of atheists are absolutely horrible at epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, etc.

Then there is the whole stupid argument (which I hate, with vehemence) about what "atheist" as a term even means.

So I will rephrase.

I, Erin, think as my own personal opinion, that people that are skeptical of theistic claims are at least doing a better job at epistemic responsibility than people that accept them.

There.

 

[firedragon]

When it comes to "atheists" that somehow believe in a god, I honestly don't care. Such people are beyond reason.

I think you misunderstood my point. Read the post that I had given which I doubt you did. Nevermind.

 

[firedragon]

It's true. Full disclosure, I've been drinking a lot tonight. I shouldn't say this because a lot of atheists are absolutely horrible at epistemology, ontology, metaphysics, etc.

Then there is the whole stupid argument (which I hate, with vehemence) about what "atheist" as a term even means.

So I will rephrase.

I, Erin, think as my own personal opinion, that people that are skeptical of theistic claims are at least doing a better job at epistemic responsibility than people that accept them.

There.

hey. You just gave your real name I think. Nice name though. Just letting you know in case. All good.

 

[Meow Mix]

When it comes to "atheists" that somehow believe in a god, I honestly don't care. Such people are beyond reason.

I did. Your post said all this:

By the way, there could be some atheists who believe in the Christian God himself. Almost 1 out of 5 atheists in the U.S believe in a higher power. It could be, that out of them, some percentage of atheists do believe in the Christian God. So this is not so clear cut.

Nevertheless I must say that you brought in Hindu Philosophy. I do not agree that an atheist cannot have similar epistemological principles as the Pramanas, because they can. I think the Pramana was not given a proper translation. The problem with translating these things is that many people look for single words to translate another language into English. That approach has many flaws.

For example, you had given a translation of pratyaksa as perception. Thats not entirely correct.

Lets say Pramana. One has to understand what it means. You know when some one tells you that they have a load of sugar and they want you to buy it, you ask "how much of sugar do you have"? That means you want to know the weight of it. Without it, every discussion is useless. You have to know how much there is. This extends to how many, how vast, how small, how long, depth, width, height, you name it. This is Pramana. But the thing is, some Hindus seem to have made it a spiritual, God worshiping matter. I believe that approach of making this something supernatural loses its meaning, especially to an atheist. I also think it is not something supernatural and is simple for any human being.

Pratyaksa is to have a certain level of definition. What I mean is your epistemology carries a definite state. A kind of certitude, not absolute certainty, but an approach of it. So you perceive things through things or means that have a quality of certitude. This has been spiritualised and as a concept most Hindus believe its the perceptive ability one could have to gain knowledge from the supernatural which is not exactly what the word means, thus the philosophical value is lost, especially to an atheist.

Ill give you another example. You said Anumana. Anumana means to make an approximate estimation. Or how do I say this. Lets say you are driving down the road, its a straight road, and there is a fog, so you can't really see the road, but there is a yellow line on the side of the road that indicates "its this way". So you kind of know where you are heading to so you keep driving slowly with an "Anumana". So basically you as an intellectual person use other signs, indications, knowledge, and things you can use to understand how to get that knowledge you require about something. Basically using your intellect, your reasoning prowess. Not blind faith.

Any atheist can follow this easily.

Your main issue was Sabda. I am not an expert in Hinduism because it is way too vast, but Sabda is not a universally accepted part of the Pramana principle of epistemology. Sabda in its essence means sound. An utterance. Conceptually this means the utterance of someone who has already attained this knowledge of whatever you are seeking. If you want you can turn this into word of God, some spiritual matter etc. But it is necessarily not so. An atheist can easily follow this for his epistemology. In fact I think that the Hindu philosophy is a very good framework for any human being. I will not say "even to an atheist" but I would say "especially to an atheist". Just take it as philosophy.

That's all over the place. You said to "coordinate" with it, in lieu of any context. You're just going to have to be more specific about what you want me to take away from it.

What did you want me to "coordinate" with, and what do you mean by "coordinating" with it? Your request was vague. So as far as I could tell you're talking about two things I don't give a **** about, "atheists" that believe in gods and particular cultural concepts that are more defined by their culture than the concepts.

Help a girl out here.

Edit: My not caring about the content much (again, having cognized it, not just dismissed without cognizing it) doesn't reflect on you, a person I like. Just the subject didn't speak to me, and I was unsure of what I was supposed to be "coordinating" with.

 

[Meow Mix]

hey. You just gave your real name I think. Nice name though. Just letting you know in case. All good.

I have not been shy about my first name (appreciate the looking out though ^.^)

I think mods know my last name because they can see my email, but I trust them. I used to be a mod about 10 years ago.

Basically I’m fine with people knowing my name, I like being personable. It’s why I post pics as avatars. I actually like it when other people do, so I put a face to a name.

 

[Meow Mix]

Also again @firedragon , sorry if one of my posts was spicy sounding. Let me be ultra clear that I like you and I type aggressively when I’m being playful.

 

[an anarchist]

I think you are letting your keenness to believe overtake your reasoning.

Perhaps that’s intentional. I’m not sure, there’s the Bible proverb “Trust God with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding”. The author of proverbs, Solomon, I have faith in his divine wisdom. Taoism teaches learning by unlearning.
It really does take trusting God with all your heart to retain a belief, even when the world tells you it’s scientifically implausible. The current evidence available may show that, but through faith I believe it will not always be so. It is good not to trust my own reasoning when trying to understand the universe.

 

[firedragon]

I have not been shy about my first name (appreciate the looking out though ^.^)

I think mods know my last name because they can see my email, but I trust them. I used to be a mod about 10 years ago.

Basically I’m fine with people knowing my name, I like being personable. It’s why I post pics as avatars. I actually like it when other people do, so I put a face to a name.

I thought 10 years ago you would been a teen. An early teen.

Mods know everything. But of course, these mods can be trusted with anything I think.

That's all over the place. You said to "coordinate" with it, in lieu of any context. You're just going to have to be more specific about what you want me to take away from it.

No problem. Your post I responded to was about this Hindu philosophy of epistemology of Pramana. In that you were referring to the last one, Sabdha. I explained that in a few words in that post. Thats what I wanted you to take away from that post.

Also again @firedragon , sorry if one of my posts was spicy sounding. Let me be ultra clear that I like you and I type aggressively when I’m being playful.

Ah. no problem at all. Its an honour to know you.

 

[Meow Mix]

I thought 10 years ago you would been a teen. An early teen.

I wish!!! I’m 37, I was in my mid-late 20’s back then. I will take any compliment that places me in my 20’s though, ha! ^.^

Mods know everything. But of course, these mods can be trusted with anything I think.

They are good folks. When I lived on these boards a lot longer and more often, I was honored to be a mod.

That was back when my voice injury was fresh. I think only really a couple people knew what I was going through back then. One is still one of my dear friends, in a world where I still have a voice; via text.

No problem. Your post I responded to was about this Hindu philosophy of epistemology of Pramana. In that you were referring to the last one, Sabdha. I explained that in a few words in that post. Thats what I wanted you to take away from that post.

I will re-read the post in the morning and see if I take away more.

Ah. no problem at all. Its an honour to know you.

Likewise! ^.^

 

[Meow Mix]

I thought 10 years ago you would been a teen. An early teen.

Speaking of this, I have found pictures I posted back then in the “Post your pic” threads; pictures that I probably only have on old phones sitting around somewhere anymore. That Erin looked like an absolute baby. It’s crazy to see what just a decade’s difference is. I was a lot more naïve and insecure, and it showed.

 

[firedragon]

I wish!!! I’m 37, I was in my mid-late 20’s back then. I will take any compliment that places me in my 20’s though, ha! ^.^

I thought you were in your twenties, and you look the part undeniably.

They are good folks. When I lived on these boards a lot longer and more often, I was honored to be a mod.

That was back when my voice injury was fresh. I think only really a couple people knew what I was going through back then. One is still one of my dear friends, in a world where I still have a voice; via text.

Im sorry. I hope that its much better. I can't imagine how it would be with a voice injury. Nope. I can't imagine.

Speaking of this, I have found pictures I posted back then in the “Post your pic” threads; pictures that I probably only have on old phones sitting around somewhere anymore. That Erin looked like an absolute baby. It’s crazy to see what just a decade’s difference is. I was a lot more naïve and insecure, and it showed.

What?? If you look any younger than your current pictures you will be mistaken for a teen. People will probably tell you to go to school. You will get copped for not going to high school. So be careful.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Perhaps that’s intentional. I’m not sure, there’s the Bible proverb “Trust God with all your heart and lean not unto your own understanding”. The author of proverbs, Solomon, I have faith in his divine wisdom. Taoism teaches learning by unlearning.
It really does take trusting God with all your heart to retain a belief, even when the world tells you it’s scientifically implausible. The current evidence available may show that, but through faith I believe it will not always be so. It is good not to trust my own reasoning when trying to understand the universe.

Well I can understand why many do take comfort from the Bible even if allowing for much that might not be true. For myself, my sceptic's hat tends to dictate how I might view such material, and the Bible of course is not out on its own in this regard.

 

[Meow Mix]

I thought you were in your twenties, and you look the part undeniably.

I will take it!! ^.^

Im sorry. I hope that its much better. I can't imagine how it would be with a voice injury. Nope. I can't imagine.

It’s been something like 12 or 13 years, one does get used to it. It used to be accompanied with difficulty swallowing and breathing (it’s a nerve injury) and that is completely gone now. It has been life altering but not life destroying.

What?? If you look any younger than your current pictures you will be mistaken for a teen. People will probably tell you to go to school. You will get copped for not going to high school. So be careful.

Oh I went and found one from the Post your Pic thread from 2011 or something. Here is tiny BABY Erin, I would absolutely tell me to go back to high school. But I was in my 20’s. I think as we get older anybody in their early-mid 20’s just looks like a child!

 

[firedragon]

I will take it!! ^.^



It’s been something like 12 or 13 years, one does get used to it. It used to be accompanied with difficulty swallowing and breathing (it’s a nerve injury) and that is completely gone now. It has been life altering but not life destroying.



Oh I went and found one from the Post your Pic thread from 2011 or something. Here is tiny BABY Erin, I would absolutely tell me to go back to high school. But I was in my 20’s. I think as we get older anybody in their early-mid 20’s just looks like a child!

You remind me of my niece. Haha. My sister is around 13 or 14 years older than me.

I think you look the same or almost.

Nevertheless, I am glad your throat issue is better now. I have been thinking about it and I cannot imagine it. I just can't picture it.