What is the best argument for an atheist?

[Orias]

What exactly is "knowledge of the unknown"? If something is unknown, how can a person have knowledge of it?

It depends on the subjective term of knowledge. You knew nothing at birth, as you developed, you learned what others taught you. "Knowledge", is already of the unknown, simply because knowledge is just that, a solid foundation for perception. A slight crack in this foundation opens many doors.

You may be unknowing to the stories or poems I have written, but you have knowledge of their existence, though you know nothing about them.

Just to say, it is safe to assume that there is any God, simply because of our knowledge of the unknown. As well as it is safe to assume that there is no God, because of our knowledge of the unknown.

Ignorance is universal. All we truly know is Life.

Yes... it started when you made the suggestion that wisdom was obtainable through faith.

If it is agreeable to assume that faith is obtainable through wisdom, then the same should be for the Opposite.

Of course, it is logical to define faith as "sitting on your butt and doing nothing about your situation". However ill witted faith is, wisdom is obtainable through any concept of divine and carnal, because it exists, you can learn from it.

 

[Copernicus]

...You knew nothing at birth, as you developed, you learned what others taught you. "Knowledge", is already of the unknown, simply because knowledge is just that, a solid foundation for perception. A slight crack in this foundation opens many doors.

Actually, we know quite a bit at birth. We know all of our bodily sensations directly, and we remember experiences. As the brain matures, we ground further knowledge in associations with those sensations (hence the name "embodied mind"). We learn far, far more than we are taught by others. Our brains are pre-programmed to explore every aspect of our environment. Babies are always feeling, moving, grabbing, smelling, tasting, looking around. There is a reason why they put all sorts of things into their mouths besides what should go in there. All of that is the foundational knowledge structure that will later grow into very abstract thought.

 

[Gloone]

Actually, we know quite a bit at birth. We know all of our bodily sensations directly, and we remember experiences. As the brain matures, we ground further knowledge in associations with those sensations (hence the name "embodied mind"). We learn far, far more than we are taught by others. Our brains are pre-programmed to explore every aspect of our environment. Babies are always feeling, moving, grabbing, smelling, tasting, looking around. There is a reason why they put all sorts of things into their mouths besides what should go in there. All of that is the foundational knowledge structure that will later grow into very abstract thought.

Kids don't know anything when they are born. They learn how to start breathing then they are K.O. for a few months before they come to their senses.

 

[Copernicus]

Kids don't know anything when they are born. They learn how to start breathing then they are K.O. for a few months before they come to their senses.

Hmmm. Your experience seems more limited than mine, and I don't even have children.

 

[Orias]

Actually, we know quite a bit at birth. We know all of our bodily sensations directly, and we remember experiences. As the brain matures, we ground further knowledge in associations with those sensations (hence the name "embodied mind"). We learn far, far more than we are taught by others. Our brains are pre-programmed to explore every aspect of our environment. Babies are always feeling, moving, grabbing, smelling, tasting, looking around. There is a reason why they put all sorts of things into their mouths besides what should go in there. All of that is the foundational knowledge structure that will later grow into very abstract thought.

No matter how much you reassure yourself, birth is just that, without the experience of others, it would be evident enough to say, that knowledge can be reformed into instinct, for it has brought us here.

At birth, one does not know of their origin, one does not comprehend their own existence, one does not know emotion, one does not know what it means to be. Of course, these are all experiences that are learned (either taught by someone or learned by the self), like you had said. The concrete foundation for the abstract.

This is the "subjective" part of knowledge.

I agree that we are "pre-programmed" to "explore", however, the later dictates that we were not. We were also "pre-programmed" to deny what others have explored and experienced.

Yes babies also feel and touch and put things in there mouths, gathering "knowledge" of the conducive and harmful. Yet this knowledge is just as easly gained by one teaching another.

I understand what you are saying, babies are instincively curious, not thinking of what they are doing, just doing. But again, this is not knowledge, what you gain from it is, however.

This concludes my previous statement, all knowledge is of the unknown, because new borns do not know, what we know. Through instinct, they gain, yet they are still unknowing. The same goes for you and I.

Perception is a deviant thing isn't it...

 

[Copernicus]

At birth, one does not know of their origin, one does not comprehend their own existence, one does not know emotion, one does not know what it means to be. Of course, these are all experiences that are learned (either taught by someone or learned by the self), like you had said. The concrete foundation for the abstract.

I do not think that emotions are learned, and I do think that infants at birth know what it means "to be". But the basis for human cognition is associative memory. That is why metaphor is so important to language. BTW, I would recommend the short, readable seminal work on this subject by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson: Metaphors We Live By. Very interesting book about the role of metaphor in language.

I agree that we are "pre-programmed" to "explore", however, the later dictates that we were not. We were also "pre-programmed" to deny what others have explored and experienced.

Absolutely true. That is why children are inherently more gullible than adults. They learn more quickly when they rely on the experience of elders to help them navigate life's difficulties. The rebellious nature of teenagers also makes sense in that individuals need to learn to distrust the very reliance on others that got them through childhood. In our dotage, we often even come to distrust the doctors who can extend our lives. Skepticism is part of the process of maturation.

Yes babies also feel and touch and put things in there mouths, gathering "knowledge" of the conducive and harmful. Yet this knowledge is just as easly gained by one teaching another.

Here is where we may disagree. I think that most of what we come to know is self-taught. Most of our knowledge of language, for example, was never taught to us. We acquired it by instinct, and the method by which we acquired it shuts down dramatically at puberty. After puberty, it is virtually impossible to learn to pronounce a new language without some perceptible accent. By the age of 20, it is virtually impossible to learn a new language without retaining some perceptible grammatical accent. Adults use very different strategies to acquire foreign languages, although Rosetta Stone would have you believe otherwise.

This concludes my previous statement, all knowledge is of the unknown, because new borns do not know, what we know. Through instinct, they gain, yet they are still unknowing. The same goes for you and I.

Nobody is a know-it-all, although some would certainly like to believe that God is.

 

[Orias]

I do not think that emotions are learned, and I do think that infants at birth know what it means "to be". But the basis for human cognition is associative memory. That is why metaphor is so important to language. BTW, I would recommend the short, readable seminal work on this subject by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson: Metaphors We Live By. Very interesting book about the role of metaphor in language.

Maybe that was a miscommunication.

Emotions are not learned, perhaps more acknowledged. An infant does not realize this.

Absolutely true. That is why children are inherently more gullible than adults. They learn more quickly when they rely on the experience of elders to help them navigate life's difficulties. The rebellious nature of teenagers also makes sense in that individuals need to learn to distrust the very reliance on others that got them through childhood. In our dotage, we often even come to distrust the doctors who can extend our lives. Skepticism is part of the process of maturation.

And the Adversary emerges

Opposition is a vital role in life.

One who seeks knowledge, must combat it.

Here is where we may disagree. I think that most of what we come to know is self-taught. Most of our knowledge of language, for example, was never taught to us. We acquired it by instinct, and the method by which we acquired it shuts down dramatically at puberty. After puberty, it is virtually impossible to learn to pronounce a new language without some perceptible accent. By the age of 20, it is virtually impossible to learn a new language without retaining some perceptible grammatical accent. Adults use very different strategies to acquire foreign languages, although Rosetta Stone would have you believe otherwise.

I could agree with you here as well.

Most of what we know is self taught. Yet, without the knowledge of ourselves we would not know how to teach ourselves.

What I am trying to get across is, you cannot teach yourself, if you do not know how to teach, hence the vitality of others teaching us. Like stepping stones.

Yes, perhaps instinct has played the greatest role, but instinct also insists on teaching others to teach themselves.

Its a kind of a paradox.

Nobody is a know-it-all, although some would certainly like to believe that God is.

One would assume.

Creators tend to have greater knowledge of their creations.

Of course, that is not always the case.

However, what I believe to be knowledge may differ from your view on it.

Since I view knowledge as created. Like playdough. It is ours to create, ours to manipulate, ours to keep.


Nature has a way of solving its own paradoxes.

Its denying God, without ever accepting the Opportunity that he may be you, he may be me, he may be within and about us.

All arguments are concluded from ignorance, since what we know, is man made, man taught, and man learned, for it is only human to make one understand in a humanly fashion.

If we could see, or even comprehend perception beyond our own, then our limits would be more inclined to accept "God" for all of it's definitons.

 

[Jeremiah]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Is that the only argument atheists have or is there something better? When I see this argument I see an argument that isn’t very well thought out or designed. Since an atheist has no grounds of belief to stand is it normal for them to criticize other people’s religion to buff up their own lack of philosophical views and beliefs?

Also if you can think of some other atheist arguments go ahead and add them to this thread. I would like to see some other out of the ordinary arguments made by atheist.

(Excuse me, but I did not read the whole thread, sorry for any redundancy)

Why would we need an argument? The believers do all the work for us. It is not the non-believers that are changing people's minds about religion. It is the believers, with their constant abuse of religion and "faith". Some atheist are more active but really we don't have to do anything all at. The believers will tear their own gods down and they will fade out their own religions. They've been doing it for a while now, it is just gonna take time.

 

[Orias]

(Excuse me, but I did not read the whole thread, sorry for any redundancy)

Why would we need an argument? The believers do all the work for us. It is not the non-believers that are changing people's minds about religion. It is the believers, with their constant abuse of religion and "faith". Some atheist are more active but really we don't have to do anything all at. The believers will tear their own gods down and they will fade out their own religions. They've been doing it for a while now, it is just gonna take time.

It is a redundant statement, but I agree with you.

Honestly, I don't believe either side needs an argument. It's not relevant to any of their beliefs.

Arguing is for people who don't understand.

Most people try and argue a point, rather than try and make others understand.

Then it becomes fallacious and hypocritical, not only on the Christian side, but also on the Atheist side. Its rather stupid if you ask me.

Its an argument over nothing, God exists. Any competent being should be able to both defend and attack the existence of divinity, for its obviously within us if we are willing and able to comprehend such a phenomenon.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What is the best argument for an atheist?

Usually the first thing and only thing that comes to mind is prove it! Prove god exist!

Actually, that rarely, if ever, comes to my mind. Proof of god is irrelevant, seeing that an understanding of human psychology and sociology fully and sufficiently explains the propensity of human beings to believe in various vague concepts of a "higher power."

I neither ask, nor require, proof of their particular god, as I already understand why they need to hold their belief - and it has very little to do with the actual existence of some nebulous, supernatural entity.

 

[Gloone]

Actually, that rarely, if ever, comes to my mind. Proof of god is irrelevant, seeing that an understanding of human psychology and sociology fully and sufficiently explains the propensity of human beings to believe in various vague concepts of a "higher power."

I neither ask, nor require, proof of their particular god, as I already understand why they need to hold their belief - and it has very little to do with the actual existence of some nebulous, supernatural entity.

What kind of psychology and sociology classes did you take? I never got any of that out the ones I took.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What kind of psychology and sociology classes did you take? I never got any of that out the ones I took.

If you rely solely on what they teach you in classes, you're in for a confusing life indeed.

 

[Orias]

If you rely solely on what they teach you in classes, you're in for a confusing life indeed.

Text books teach you, experience teaches you more.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Actually, that rarely, if ever, comes to my mind. Proof of god is irrelevant, seeing that an understanding of human psychology and sociology fully and sufficiently explains the propensity of human beings to believe in various vague concepts of a "higher power."

I neither ask, nor require, proof of their particular god, as I already understand why they need to hold their belief - and it has very little to do with the actual existence of some nebulous, supernatural entity.

Very well said. Frubals to you.

I have been an atheist since i was about 10. But it wasn't until i started studying psychology that i understood why people need to invent gods.

I do love the sociological view on religion.

-Q

 

[Jeremiah]

Actually, that rarely, if ever, comes to my mind. Proof of god is irrelevant, seeing that an understanding of human psychology and sociology fully and sufficiently explains the propensity of human beings to believe in various vague concepts of a "higher power."

I neither ask, nor require, proof of their particular god, as I already understand why they need to hold their belief - and it has very little to do with the actual existence of some nebulous, supernatural entity.

I don't believe humans actually have a inborn drive to believe in a "higher power". In my opinion, that is just consequential of current human society. That perhaps without current influences that this disposition would not exist; that it is one of conditioning. Although, I do believe given the nature of humans, that such a tendency will eventually manifest, for a time, in a growing human society.

 

[Orias]

I don't believe humans actually have a inborn drive to believe in a "higher power". In my opinion, that is just consequential of current human society. That perhaps without current influences that this disposition would not exist; that it is one of conditioning. Although, I do believe given the nature of humans, that such a tendency will eventually manifest, for a time, in a growing human society.

But if its a nature isn't is an inborn drive?

If it exists within the mind, and emerges from the mind, isn't it natural intuition?

Things exist for reason, if there was no reason for an existence, then it would not exist.

 

[waitasec]

But if its a nature isn't is an inborn drive?

If it exists within the mind, and emerges from the mind, isn't it natural intuition?

Things exist for reason, if there was no reason for an existence, then it would not exist.

if i may,
i think the inborn drive is to seek comfort, it's a defense mechanism.

 

[Gloone]

if i may,
i think the inborn drive is to seek comfort, it's a defense mechanism.

You may, but I don't think everyone is born with a natural tendency to seek comfort. I think the tendency comes from parents who feel there is a need for it.

 

[Gloone]

Nature vs. Nurture

I didn't read the entire article but it seem to be fairly accurate with the information I read over in the first paragraph and the other bits I read.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

You may, but I don't think everyone is born with a natural tendency to seek comfort. I think the tendency comes from parents who feel there is a need for it.

I disagree.

Fear is a part of the human condition. It drives almost every single aspect of our life including our desire for safety and comfort.

Almost every single civilisation in history has come up with some form of religion, it is firmly imbedded into the human psyche.

-Q