(May 13, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Maybe he's got a point. I know for a fact that I don't exist.

Ah an Astimboist eh. I would like to see you prove that you don't exist.

(May 14, 2015 at 3:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(May 13, 2015 at 3:28 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: It's just the same apologist "try harder" BS.

"God exists!  Evidence for his existence is everywhere!  You just need to know how to see it!  And even atheists know this!  They're just trying to deceive themselves and you for ill-defined, but assuredly evil, reasons!"
"Um... I've looked.  I've listened.  I tried praying.  But, I don't really see any evidence for god.  Not just your god, but any god."
"You're not doing it right.  You didn't do it honestly.  Try again, with an open mind this time."
"Wait, what?  Why are you claiming I wasn't honest in my search for god?"
"Because you didn't find him.  And by 'him', I mean my god, specifically.  Not those false gods."
"Whoa, wait, wait wait.... If I find your god, that means I was honest in trying to find him, it, whatever.  But if I don't, despite years of seeking and asking, I'm not being honest in my search?  Even if that search leads me to a different god?"
"That's right."
"..."
"So, as you can see, you're obviously doing it wrong.  You're doing it dishonestly.  Try again.  Try harder."

It would be laughable if it wasn't such an embarrassing way to think.

It is true that the conclusions we draw are filtered through our worldview.  That being said, if our worldview is flawed or even self-refuting, we wouldn't be able to trust any conclusions that we make.    

Well, since belief in the Christian god is flawed, for a multitude of reasons....

(May 18, 2015 at 10:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Generally, yes. If you can't test something, you can't learn anything about it. It may be you can measure it directly, or else you can assess it in some way that is fairly objective.

To clarify, and please answer yes or no, is empiricism the sole means by which knowledge can be obtained?

(May 18, 2015 at 10:53 am)robvalue Wrote: Can you give me an example of something apart from religion that is untestable/unfalsifiable that you can learn about?

The statement: "rocks are hard."  Given that statement, observation, and inductive deduction we can conclude that all rocks are hard.  Yet, the conclusion all rocks are hard is unfalsifiable.  So if a person believes that all rocks are hard, he/she does so non-empirically.  And if a person's belief is that empiricism is the sole means by which knowledge can be obtained, he/she believes that "all rocks are hard" without knowledge [a fabrication].  

(May 18, 2015 at 10:53 am)robvalue Wrote: It's a false dichotomy to say either you can measure something exactly or you can know nothing about it.

I agree.

(May 18, 2015 at 10:53 am)robvalue Wrote: People always go to emotions and stuff. We still have a lot of evidence regarding people's emotions, including being able to scan people's brains. Just because it isn't totally reliable, doesn't mean we can't learn about it. However with religion there is nothing to test, no falsifiable hypothesis.

Are you then assuming without a falsifiable hypothesis we cannot learn?  Are you saying that apart from empiricism we cannot learn anything?

(May 18, 2015 at 10:53 am)robvalue Wrote: No, we can't learn about everything because we don't even know what it is that we don't know. But that doesn't mean that we should make up stuff to fill any gaps that may or may not be there.

I agree.

---

(May 18, 2015 at 1:01 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(May 14, 2015 at 3:54 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: It is true that the conclusions we draw are filtered through our worldview.  That being said, if our worldview is flawed or even self-refuting, we wouldn't be able to trust any conclusions that we make.    

Well, since belief in the Christian god is flawed, for a multitude of reasons....

By what standard is the belief in the Christian god flawed?

If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable it's also unconfirmable...

(May 15, 2015 at 4:12 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: He would most likely demonstrate the atheist worldview cannot account for the entirety of our reality, and therefore anyone claiming to be an atheist is doing so from a position that is not consistent with reality (see Van Til's TAG).

I don't think he can actually demonstrate that.  He'd have to prove that reality requires a god.  The best attempts at that seem to be either a gaps argument or an argument from design, and neither of those is sufficient.

(May 18, 2015 at 3:43 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: If a hypothesis is unfalsifiable it's also unconfirmable...

I like this. Pithy, to the point and not too taxing for the fundie 'brain'.

Orange: "All rocks are hard" is a falsifiable claim. If you can find one rock that isn't hard, then it is falsified.

My belief is that empiricism of some form is needed to gain knowledge. But I don't claim that I know this absolutely to be true. If there is a counter example, I'd be interested to hear it. What exactly "knowledge" is must be carefully defined if it is to be discussed in detail. It's not a clear cut term.

This is an interesting video about "knowledge", while deconstructing presup arguments. I'd recommend watching it all, but he gets right into "knowledge" at about 11:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1f9G4Bk_c

I doubt very seriously that there is a way to define knowledge that both atheists and theists will agree on. If we just make it clear what we mean, the theist will be forced to come up with convoluted explanation and obfuscations for what he means and why his beliefs don't dovetail with reality. He will never acknowledge this, but he can't help revealing this. There's an African proverb that betrays the theist's attempt to explain himself: Where words fail, more will not prevail.

(June 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Where words fail, more will not prevail.

Makes note for future reference.

(June 9, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: I doubt very seriously that there is a way to define knowledge that both atheists and theists will agree on.   If we just make it clear what we mean, the theist will be forced to come up with convoluted explanation and obfuscations for what he means and why his beliefs don't dovetail with reality. He will never acknowledge this, but he can't help revealing this. There's an African proverb that betrays the theist's attempt to explain himself: Where words fail, more will not prevail.

The funny thing is that IF and this is a big if, you are in classroom discussing things that have no obvious religious impact, theists tend to define knowledge in about the same terms as atheists.  It's only when religious beliefs enter the mix that knowledge begins to change definition. . .

In fact it's definitional special pleading.