Atheists check out this Article found on yhooo news

[cwcrenshaw]

Well, because all reality is one and everything in reality affects everything else in reality, then those things that are unknowable to us do impact us on some level--perhaps on unknowable level (i.e. the soul?).

yes, I addressed the existence of the soul in my first post. To summarize, there is no evidence of for the existence of a soul...therefore it is highly unlikely (im not saying impossible) that one in fact does exist.

[Copper Scroll]

Well, because all reality is one and everything in reality affects everything else in reality, then those things that are unknowable to us do impact us on some level--perhaps on unknowable level (i.e. the soul?).

yes, I addressed the existence of the soul in my first post. To summarize, there is no evidence of for the existence of a soul...therefore it is highly unlikely (im not saying impossible) that one in fact does exist.

To clarify, I was trying to answer your question about why humans would care about the unknowable. It is because, according to the world's religions at least, the unknowable can affect our lives, perhaps on a non-perceptible level but perhaps also on the level of personal, perceptible experience (including but not limited to what is usually called a "religious experience").

Now, granted, we know that there was a time when we didn't know about the causes of disease, the causes of atmospheric and geological events, etc. and people attributed these things to gods and demons--the realm of the unknowable. We now know that the causes of these things are more knowable than once thought, but the thrust of Kant's argument is that not everything is knowable. That is not what you atheists would call an "extraordinary claim", is it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that.

[edit] It might be that the word "unknowable" is the wrong word to use in this context. I mean unknowable to individual beings with finite consciousness--us. All things would be knowable to an omniscient being with infinite consciousness--God--so the only things that are truly unknowable don't really exist.

[cwcrenshaw]

To clarify, I was trying to answer your question about why humans would care about the unknowable. It is because, according to the world's religions at least, the unknowable can affect our lives, perhaps on a non-perceptible level but perhaps also on the level of personal, perceptible experience (including but not limited to what is usually called a "religious experience").

Understood. But I would say that a "religious experience" and the like are phenomena that occur on the psychological level. It is merely a human attribute which can be shown by observing this phenomena outside the realm of religion. There are psychological terms for these phenomena but I will avoid getting too deep into that debate because it's outside my expertise.

Now, granted, we know that there was a time when we didn't know about the causes of disease, the causes of atmospheric and geological events, etc. and people attributed these things to gods and demons--the realm of the unknowable. We now know that the causes of these things are more knowable than once thought, but the thrust of Kant's argument is that not everything is knowable. That is not what you atheists would call an "extraordinary claim", is it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that.

I agree that the "gap" that we humans feel the need to explain through the supernatural continues to shrink...and that there may come a point when we have learned all that we possibly can about our own existence. I would want to point out that if something does exist that is not "knowable", then obviously we would not "know" about it, which is precisely what the religious claim to "know". You're right, it is an extraordinary claim that by definition does not have extraordinary evidence...it is a matter of pure faith which is the antithesis of scientific knowledge. Some people are happy to leave it to faith, others cannot.

[cwcrenshaw]

really? or it could be that gravitation itself is more complicated than Newton or Einsteins equations. There may be one or more missing variable(s) in the equations which are not noticed over small distances, but which add up over inter-stellar or intergalactic distances. To propose a new form of matter or energy every time something doesn't quite add up has become standard in science, but it is not necessarily the correct solution to the problem.

I was using dark matter as an example. Lets not get off on a tangent of newtonian physics or reinventing the wheel of general relativity. Let's stick to the more existential topic of this thread if possible.

This may or may not be true, but whatever the case, it does not even agree with secular scientific "theorys" that are being proposed by mainstream even now. For example, in string theory, it is possible for strings to "exist" and yet have absolutely no interaction on the rest of the universe, because they can close on themselves forming closed loops. In the theory, they continue to "exist", but have no effect on the universe/multiverse system. This is just one example of how your reasoning is flawed.

First of all, its not "my reasoning", its basic scientific principal. Secondly, I think you misunderstand String Theory...but again, lets stay on topic here.

Not true. There is not necessarily a method of measuring forces beyond our perception, even if changes are observed. The reason for this is because there could be an unknown number of forces or dimensions beyond our perception, which means you could not differentiate which, if any, are causing the observed phenomenon.

Correct, but this goes back to my previous point that is something is not measurable and does not affect other things in a measurable way, it does not meet the definition of existence.

[Copper Scroll]

To clarify, I was trying to answer your question about why humans would care about the unknowable. It is because, according to the world's religions at least, the unknowable can affect our lives, perhaps on a non-perceptible level but perhaps also on the level of personal, perceptible experience (including but not limited to what is usually called a "religious experience").

Understood. But I would say that a "religious experience" and the like are phenomena that occur on the psychological level. It is merely a human attribute which can be shown by observing this phenomena outside the realm of religion. There are psychological terms for these phenomena but I will avoid getting too deep into that debate because it's outside my expertise.

But Kant's argument suggests that there may be factors acting on this and perhaps all phenomena which are unobservable.

Now, granted, we know that there was a time when we didn't know about the causes of disease, the causes of atmospheric and geological events, etc. and people attributed these things to gods and demons--the realm of the unknowable. We now know that the causes of these things are more knowable than once thought, but the thrust of Kant's argument is that not everything is knowable. That is not what you atheists would call an "extraordinary claim", is it? I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that.

I agree that the "gap" that we humans feel the need to explain through the supernatural continues to shrink...and that there may come a point when we have learned all that we possibly can about our own existence. I would want to point out that if something does exist that is not "knowable", then obviously we would not "know" about it, which is precisely what the religious claim to "know". You're right, it is an extraordinary claim that by definition does not have extraordinary evidence...it is a matter of pure faith which is the antithesis of scientific knowledge. Some people are happy to leave it to faith, others cannot.

Perhaps, our disagreement boils down to whether we as humans can possibly know everything. I doubt this is possible. I know that my own awareness is finite, and we as humans can only account for reality according to all of our limited awarenesses combined. I think the word is "intersubjectivity". Science must accept "intersubjectivity" as the closest possible thing we could have to true "objectivity", but the two are not the same.

[cwcrenshaw]

But Kant's argument suggests that there may be factors acting on this and perhaps all phenomena which are unobservable.

I guess my contention with Kant then would be this: If factors existed outside of science that effected things within the observable realm, the effect would go against our known laws of nature..and any effect on entities in our known existence would have to be measurable by science...if not, there would be no effect.

Perhaps, our disagreement boils down to whether we as humans can possibly know everything. I doubt this is possible. I know that my own awareness is finite, and we as humans can only account for reality according to all of our limited awarenesses combined. I think the word is "intersubjectivity". Science must accept "intersubjectivity" as the closest possible thing we could have to true "objectivity", but the two are not the same.

It is quite a conundrum isnt it? You think you know all there is to know but cant possibly know if you know everything for sure because it is unknowable. I agree that we must rely on intersubjectivity, science is cumulative and no one human can hope to know everything that has ever been discovered by science. I know Richard Dawkins may not be the most popular person to reference here... but he has made some great points about how the average person could give the greatest thinkers of the past a lesson that would startle them to their core.

Edited October 18, 2007 by cwcrenshaw

[cwcrenshaw]

With no disrespect to our host of this topic precher Joe, this article is over blown and its author exaggerates the truth. Atheism in generel does not attack anything. We don't care of your choices. But certain out spoken people want to explain to you, not just to xtains but to all religions, that indeed religion isn't useful outside of Mankind's personal life. Religion has a way to cloud your judgement and makes you easily influenced to take in orders to do things normally you shouldn't do. Like blow yourself up, or fight for dirt which you claim to be holy. That's right, dirt. Even discriminate people with mental problems. All useless.

Truely, you can achieve the same eutopia state of mind outside of biblical matters as you would when you completely accept your faith. Hence, you can be a good person doing good things without god. You really can.

Careful, don't agitate the natives. I hate to see all atheist directed threads turn into massive flame wars.

[Grungekid]

"Theory" though is a term used only when an idea has mountains of evidence to back it up and has been scientifically tested over and over again. I think you mistake the word "theory" for "hypothesis". For example, gravity is a theory but i'm sure you would say that gravity exists without any doubt. Again I stress evidence...anything can be claimed without evidence, this does not make it so. Faith is the exact opposite; faith is the belief in something without the necessity of evidence...this means ANYTHING can be claimed through faith. Faith solves nothing my friend.

It still is just a theory. The fact that almost always, when we release an object from our grasp, it falls, is very good evidence, but it is still just a theory. I don't mistake words. Faith usually doesn't occur without some reason, though, and it was by faith that the vaccine was invented. Benjamin Jesty did not know for certain how the deadened virus would effect his daughter, but had he never taken that leap of faith, we may not have had the chance to see the discovery come to fruition. Faith does accomplish things - quite often we don't have enough evidence, because not all truth is as obvious as gravity, and thus, we have to act according to what we believe. It is decisions such as this that have had an impact on our race, both positive and negative.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Grungekid

[P_Joseph]

With no disrespect to our host of this topic precher Joe, this article is over blown and its author exaggerates the truth. Atheism in generel does not attack anything. We don't care of your choices. But certain out spoken people want to explain to you, not just to xtains but to all religions, that indeed religion isn't useful outside of Mankind's personal life. Religion has a way to cloud your judgement and makes you easily influenced to take in orders to do things normally you shouldn't do. Like blow yourself up, or fight for dirt which you claim to be holy. That's right, dirt. Even discriminate people with mental problems. All useless.

Truely, you can achieve the same eutopia state of mind outside of biblical matters as you would when you completely accept your faith. Hence, you can be a good person doing good things without god. You really can.

Frist I see no disrespect your opinion is your opinion. But your blanket statments you need to clarify

1) How is this article over blown?

2) How did the author exaggerate the truth?

3) How would my true faith (not religion) cloud my Judgement?

4) Why would my faith want me to "blow myself up" or "fight over land" or "discrimnate against people with mental problems"?

5) Where in the article did it say you needed God to do good things?

My God has never asked me to do any of the things you have mentioned i read the bible and Jesus said "to love your neighbor as yourself" no where did He ever tell me to do harm to others!!!!!!! Look forward to your reply. joe John3:30

[Observer of dreams]

Someone said, "why would it matter if there was something out there that had no bearing on our existence?"

Because we are human and we have to stick our noses into everything. There is plenty of garbage here on earth that we have to try and figure out what it is. The worlds deepest trench is an example. It has no bearing on our existence yet we have to try and figure out what it is. I already know what it is! its a stupid hole in water! Jeeze.