How do athiests know if something is true or not?

[Gus Bovona]

If you are truly an atheist? I would have to be seen as delusional .. and maybe psychotic in a benevolent sort of way.

Can you recommend any medications I might look into?

 

[GeneZ]

OK, now you're just messing with me, right? I say I'm talking about God being silent, and you talk about Satan being silent. And then, just for good measure, witches.

I think I get the picture.

Its invisible.... what picture? Try to focus. Have you ever met a real witch? Maybe someone in your family? Lets deal with reality.

Witches exist. Are demons unreal?

They have evidence. That's why they're witches. But, not everyone else are witches.

Interesting how it works when free will is at work.

 

[GeneZ]

Agreed. Knowing God means you have to think like a baby.

But not remain a baby.... There is much to learn. For a lifetime, if one desires to keep growing.

 

[Gus Bovona]

But not remain a baby.... There is much to learn. For a lifetime, if one desires to keep growing.

I"m finding it difficult to carry on a conversation with you and stay on topic. Maybe that's just me, but, in any event, I'm not going to respond here to you any more. No hard feelings, see you next time.

 

[GeneZ]

I"m finding it difficult to carry on a conversation with you and stay on topic. Maybe that's just me, but, in any event, I'm not going to respond here to you any more. No hard feelings, see you next time.

No hard feelings... no soft feelings either...

grace and peace .....

 

[Komodo]

If you want to make the case that the presence of knowledge that makes something impossible comes into play, that's fine, but that's not what I'm saying. If you look at the lack of knowledge that interstellar spaceships exist, that lack of background knowledge is an obstacle that must be overcome in order to accept the idea that Bob has one. That's all I'm saying.

My argument is that a lack of knowledge that X exists is not, in itself, necessarily an obstacle to accepting the idea "I just perceived X." There was a time when there was a lack of knowledge that black swans existed. If I were the first person to see one, though, I wouldn't regard that lack as an obstacle to accepting the evidence of my eyes; I'd just say "what do you know, black swans do exist." It would be quite different if I thought I saw a dragon.

We're talking about what's possible in principle. If you actually do have a car, you can, in principle, give anyone the same evidence you have that makes you 100% sure that you have a car, so if it's logical for you to come to that conclusion, it's logical for anyone to come to that conclusion.

But that isn't so with all experience. I can be sure that I had a toothache this morning without being able to give anyone any evidence at all for that fact.

It's unreasonable because John doesn't have anyway to check to see if his conclusion is correct or not, especially when, it appears in the real world for such cases, that we never hear of any process or method religious believers use to do such a check. All we get is stuff like, "I know because I know," or "I'm just sure of it," and similar things, all of which indicate no process or method was done to critically examine first impressions.

The ability to check one's conclusions with others is certainly a very useful and important thing in very many situations; that doesn't mean that no conclusion can be reasonable without going through that process.

 

[York]

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, which isn't a problem in and of itself, I love sarcasm, but now I'm not sure exactly what you mean without the sarcasm. Can you re-state your position without sarcasm?

There was no sarcasm?? You (correctly) said that someone's conclusion as to what encompasses reality doesn't mean that's what reality is. I gave the exams from The Matrix by way of amen s'all.


All this means is that both you and I face the prospect that our conclusions about reality are globally incorrect. Just as Neo's conclusion was incorrect, until he took the red pill.

I don't see a way to escape that dilemma but it doesn't particularly bother me. The alternative appears to be solipsism,but that's a pretty useless dead end so I opt for holding my conclusion correct. Which you presumably do too..

All of which leads to stalemate when.it comes to one 'side trying to elevate their conclusion above the other.

Sure, you'll convince yourself that you are correct: all these religions, no empirical evidence etc.

And I'll convince myself: you clearly blind to what is obviously there, the most elegant explanation being God, the fact of many religions fitting perfectly, etc.

There is no resolution mate, there's only stalemate

 

[Bob1]

You keep demanding God to give evidence on your terms, or nothing.

There is a reason why people become Christian. I was Jew. No indoctrination. Its a spiritual reality which requires the seventh sense that died in man when Adam fell.

You have no way on knowing, other than you know something to do not understand is taking place.

As I said, that is what it would take to convince ME... so why wouldn't it be my terms???

No evidence of 6th or 7th senses.

 

[Gus Bovona]

My argument is that a lack of knowledge that X exists is not, in itself, necessarily an obstacle to accepting the idea "I just perceived X." There was a time when there was a lack of knowledge that black swans existed. If I were the first person to see one, though, I wouldn't regard that lack as an obstacle to accepting the evidence of my eyes; I'd just say "what do you know, black swans do exist." It would be quite different if I thought I saw a dragon.

You're not stating it specifically enough. It's not just a lack of knowledge, but a lack of background knowledge. So, if we have background knowledge that black swans exist, and you see a black swan, let's say your confidence in the idea that black swans actually exist is X/100. Could could well be 99.9. But if you don't have the background knowledge that black swans exist, and you see a black swan, your confidence in the idea that black swans exist should, rationally and logically, be less than X-100. That's all I'm saying.

And your point about dragons is also instructive. We know birds exist, so we don't have to reduce X as if we don't know birds exist. But we don't know that the dragon-genus exists (or whatever the parallel biological taxonomy category would be for dragons), so we'd have to reduce X for that.

But that isn't so with all experience. I can be sure that I had a toothache this morning without being able to give anyone any evidence at all for that fact.

We do have evidence of what things cause pain, though. Pain, however, is a tricky case, as there are times in which pain is all in one's head, times where it's clear what is causing the pain, and times where it's controversial whether someone is in pain.

You can be sure that you have the internal experience of being in pain, but that is all within your conscious experience. If you say you are experiencing pain because of X, we can objectively determine whether X exists and is the type of thing that can cause pain. So, you have a right to claim the reality of your internal experience, but any claim about something external that is related or is the cause of your internal experience is a separate matter and is subject to principles like background knowledge, etc.

If you want to say, "I heard in my head a voice that said it was God," that's one thing, and it is very different from "I heard the voice of God." the first sentence keeps everything within one's conscious experience, but the second one makes a claim about objective reality (that there is a God that can speak to people) so you'll need real, objective evidence for that, not just your internal experience.

The ability to check one's conclusions with others is certainly a very useful and important thing in very many situations; that doesn't mean that no conclusion can be reasonable without going through that process.

Only for things that have no necessary referent outside one's conscious experience, like pain.

ETA: To sum it up - if it's all in your head, it's all in your head.

 

[Gus Bovona]

There was no sarcasm??

I didn't imply that. I implied the opposite.

You (correctly) said that someone's conclusion as to what encompasses reality doesn't mean that's what reality is. I gave the exams from The Matrix by way of amen s'all.

That some may disagree about what reality is doesn't mean that they don't share a common reality.

All this means is that both you and I face the prospect that our conclusions about reality are globally incorrect. Just as Neo's conclusion was incorrect, until he took the red pill.

I don't see a way to escape that dilemma but it doesn't particularly bother me. The alternative appears to be solipsism,but that's a pretty useless dead end so I opt for holding my conclusion correct. Which you presumably do too..

Ironically, your position *is* solipsism. I'm arguing that we share a common reality, which is the exact opposite of solipsism, and you are not agreeing with me. So who is the solipsist?

All of which leads to stalemate when.it comes to one 'side trying to elevate their conclusion above the other.

That's solipsism, that there's no way to rationally adjudicate the two sides.

Sure, you'll convince yourself that you are correct: all these religions, no empirical evidence etc.

And I'll convince myself: you clearly blind to what is obviously there, the most elegant explanation being God, the fact of many religions fitting perfectly, etc.

There is no resolution mate, there's only stalemate

Otherwise known as solipsism.

 

[5wize]

And I'll convince myself: you clearly blind to what is obviously there, the most elegant explanation being God, the fact of many religions fitting perfectly, etc.

Expedience is not elegance, and even a cursory review of early church apologetics does not lend oneself to a conclusion that any of it was elegant. The entire Christian apologetic exercise is a result of the lack of elegance in its supernatural conclusions and conundrums.

 

[GeneZ]

As I said, that is what it would take to convince ME... so why wouldn't it be my terms???

No evidence of 6th or 7th senses.

Jesus said something in reference to the state you are in....

“Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

You are dead, sir. Spiritually dead. Dead to God.

Case closed. I will not keep responding to the effects of your spiritual rigor mortis.

You need God to give you the evidence. Not some man. Christians have received it. No excuse from you. Other than you keep proclaiming that you are dead.

Physically alive, but spiritually dead.

That is why Adam remained physically alive after eating the wrong fruit. And, God said he would die if he ate. God did not lie. Adam died 'spiritually.'

That is why we need the second birth. The 'spiritual' one.


grace and peace .......

 

[York]

I didn't imply that. I implied the opposite.

I meant 'there was no sarcasm'.

?? was there to represent my confusion at you thinking I was being

That some may disagree about what reality is doesn't mean that they don't share a common reality.

Reality is what it is. We share it. In that sense we share a common reality.

If God then you share a common reality: one in which God exists despite your view. Ditto for me if he does not.

Ironically, your position *is* solipsism. I'm arguing that we share a common reality, which is the exact opposite of solipsism, and you are not agreeing with me. So who is the solipsist?

See above on the commonality aspect. We share it but only by default: we cannot avoid sharing whatever the reality is, even if we are incorrect about what it actually is.

But that view: that you exist and share what I consider reality to be (thus common to us both) is a decision of mine. (Strictly speaking I can't know you exist (solipsism) but I reject that since it is a useless idea.)

That's solipsism, that there's no way to rationally adjudicate the two sides.

Otherwise known as solipsism.

There is no way to adjudicate. That's stalemate.

This, as an alternative to the usual atheist position which promotes empiricism as the adjudicator and sits in judgement of all else.

Now the flaw in that approach is obvious: namely, reality is to be assesses in the way yourself think best from your perspective.

Perhaps there is a way to adjudicate without specially pleading a particular philosophy. But I don't know what it is.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Now the flaw in that approach is obvious: namely, reality is to be assesses in the way yourself think best from your perspective.

Perhaps there is a way to adjudicate without specially pleading a particular philosophy. But I don't know what it is.

You’re assuming that one must have a bias (I can’t figure out anything else that a “perspective“ would actually mean in this case). But bias is not inevitable; one only needs the goal of figuring out how the world works, and then just looking at the best ways that reveal how it works.

 

[Tetsugaku]

This, as an alternative to the usual atheist position which promotes empiricism as the adjudicator and sits in judgement of all else.

We don't all specifically promote empiricism. We just promote reason. If you have rationalist a priori grounds for religious belief, then we'll hear that out too just as we would consider empirical evidence. It's just the position of believing for no good reason at all that we find distasteful.

 

[GeneZ]

Everyone has a bias....

A good supreme court judge must have a strong bias in regards to aligning his thinking with the Constitution.

Its either a bias towards avoiding trouble and keeping things stable. Or, a bias leading one into self destructive behavior.

Once men enter into Eternity there will be no more need for any bias.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Everyone has a bias....

I have a strong bias in favour of evidence-based reality.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Everyone has a bias....

Having bias doesn’t necessarily mean that you fall prey to it. I have a strong bias towards eating nothing but potato chips, ice cream and pizza, but I rarely fall prey to that bias.

 

[GeneZ]

Having bias doesn’t necessarily mean that you fall prey to it. I have a strong bias towards eating nothing but potato chips, ice cream and pizza, but I rarely fall prey to that bias.

I see your bias got the best of you? That sure was a short fade away.....


You know how to bias KT88's?


.........

 

[Komodo]

You're not stating it specifically enough. It's not just a lack of knowledge, but a lack of background knowledge. So, if we have background knowledge that black swans exist, and you see a black swan, let's say your confidence in the idea that black swans actually exist is X/100. Could could well be 99.9. But if you don't have the background knowledge that black swans exist, and you see a black swan, your confidence in the idea that black swans exist should, rationally and logically, be less than X-100. That's all I'm saying.

I'm afraid I don't see the distinction between knowledge and background knowledge here. My quick look-up says "background knowledge" is "knowledge essential to understanding some situation." The only such knowledge I can picture being relevant to this situation is "I am not given to vivid, daytime hallucinations, or mistaking white for black." Even the knowledge I possess that "it is quite common for a bird genus to come in different species with different colors" doesn't strike me as strictly necessary. I saw a swan; I saw that it was black; therefore I saw a black swan, even if nobody has ever seen a black swan before. It's possible that there are far-fetched alternative explanations for what I saw (it's an unrelated bird which perfectly mimics the shape of the swan; it's an elaborate hoax using dye; etc.), but those would also be possibilities even if it were well established that black swans exist.

I'm also not clear what you mean by X-100. Assuming you mean something like "less than 99.9% sure," I disagree for the reasons I just gave. But even if I agreed, the point at issue was whether someone could reasonably believe they had experienced God's presence, or anything else for which background knowledge wasn't there; not whether they could believe it with total certainty or something near to that.

And your point about dragons is also instructive. We know birds exist, so we don't have to reduce X as if we don't know birds exist. But we don't know that the dragon-genus exists (or whatever the parallel biological taxonomy category would be for dragons), so we'd have to reduce X for that.

We reduce X to zero, because the relevant piece of knowledge in this case isn't "dragons would belong to as-yet-unknown clade," but "dragons are impossible beings; no animal can breathe fire, and no animal of that size can fly." So unless you think it's clear to all reasonable people that God is also an impossible being (and I don't think that's the case), I still don't see the basis for the claim that it's always unreasonable for somebody to believe he experienced God's presence.

We do have evidence of what things cause pain, though. Pain, however, is a tricky case, as there are times in which pain is all in one's head, times where it's clear what is causing the pain, and times where it's controversial whether someone is in pain.

You can be sure that you have the internal experience of being in pain, but that is all within your conscious experience. If you say you are experiencing pain because of X, we can objectively determine whether X exists and is the type of thing that can cause pain. So, you have a right to claim the reality of your internal experience, but any claim about something external that is related or is the cause of your internal experience is a separate matter and is subject to principles like background knowledge, etc.

Well, I can also say "I felt sad because my team lost," without being able to provide evidence to others. So, again, I don't think "any claim about the cause of your state of mind, which could not be supported by evidence available to others, can not be reasonably held by the person relating that claim and its supposed cause."

But maybe it would help to use an example closer to the issue. Barbara Grizzuti Harrison, who wrote mostly about politics, was a lapsed believer who said in her memoir that she'd had a terrible breakup with a longtime lover, and spent hour after hour in a state of bitter rage. One night she prayed that this rage be taken away, and when she woke up the next morning it was suddenly and completely gone. Stipulate that neither of us believe this was a case of answered prayer; why would it be unreasonable for Harrison to believe it was?