Alpha Atheist Turns "Agnostic"!

[Sola_Fide]

Originally posted by otherone
Nothing has to be proven outside it's own context.

If things dont have to be "proved outside of their own context", why are you asking for an account of the Bible's truth outside of its context?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Originally Posted by otherone:
My experience of it. If you had asked me 'in utero', you may have gotten a different answer.

Great. Now I would like an answer to where experience is not a part of your argument for knowledge.

(Remember, you asked me to give an account of the Bible where the Bible is not a part of my argument for knowledge.)

 

[Jtorsella]

Meh. Dawkins was never really the alpha atheist. Christopher Hitchens was a boss. Totally miss him.

 

[MooCowzRock]

If you watch the video he says in his book he created a scale from 1-7, 1 saying I have no doubts of a supernatural power's existence, 7 saying there is absolutely no way such power exists. He said he was a 6.9/7 on that scale. He didn't change positions, he's always been that way.

This.

This story is going to be sensationalized as something that it isn't by those who have never actually read anything by him. He regards Rational Atheism as just Agnosticism on the extreme side away from Theism. Rational Atheists do not claim 100% that there is not and cannot be a god, and he has never done so, and has written about that in his writings, such as in The God Delusion. If any of these people had read the book, they wouldn't be talking about this as if it is news, or as if he has changed his position slightly away from where he was before, because he hasn't, and hasn't needed to.

 

[WilliamC]

How do you know the world exists?

The world is my oyster I will suck out its flesh
Spitting out shell to swallow what's best
Always keeping eyes open for pearls to ingest
But where to find wisdom is anyone's guess.

There, I just created a world. Enjoy.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Originally Posted by otherone: My experience of it. If you had asked me 'in utero', you may have gotten a different answer.

Great. Now I would like an answer to where experience is not a part of your argument for knowledge.

(Remember, you asked me to give an account of the Bible where the Bible is not a part of my argument for knowledge.)

^^^This is the key to this entire debate. Hope people read this thread's interaction and then read this last post.

 

[otherone]

^^^This is the key to this entire debate. Hope people read this thread's interaction and then read this last post.

Dude....I have NEVER claimed that anyone's worldview was SUPERIOR to anyone ELSE'S. I am not saying "I am right, you are wrong." What I have said is YOU do not have a monopoly on the Truth of others. Live and let live.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Dude....I have NEVER claimed that anyone's worldview was SUPERIOR to anyone ELSE'S. I am not saying "I am right, you are wrong." What I have said is YOU do not have a monopoly on the Truth of others. Live and let live.

Now hold on. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Remember back a few pages where you were criticizing my position for what you thought was circularity?

lol. You can't answer the question...that's ok. It stands to reason that one can only prove the bible by quoting the bible. I've never claimed the 'infallibility of the senses', by the way. I've only ever claimed that Bibliolators can't possess the objective truth.

Remember?

Now, you said that experience is how we know things. Okay, now I would like an argument that experience is the way we know things without using experience.

(Remember, you asked me to prove the the Bible without using the Bible. Now you prove experience without using experience).

 

[otherone]

Remember back a few pages where you were criticizing my position for what you thought was circularity?

Right...we're both using circular reasoning....you've proven my point.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Right...we're both using circular reasoning....you've proven my point.

So, you admit now that your position on the senses is a leap of faith?

Right?

 

[otherone]

So, you admit now that your position on the senses is a leap of faith?

Right?

"leap of faith?" I can only go with what I perceive.

 

[Sola_Fide]

"leap of faith?" I can only go with what I perceive.

What you "perceive"? But that is just another circular appeal to your experience!

I asked you for an argument that experience is the way we know things OTHER THAN your experience.

I can continue to lock you into your circularity for as long as you want until you admit it. There is no way out, I promise.

 

[otherone]

What you "perceive"? But that is just another circular appeal to your experience!

I asked you for an argument that experience is the way we know things OTHER THAN your experience.

I can continue to lock you into your circularity for as long as you want until you admit it. There is no way out, I promise.

I've already admitted that. Pay attention!


message 69:

Right...we're both using circular reasoning....you've proven my point.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I've already admitted that. Pay attention!


message 69:

Alright. Alright.

So now we have come to the point where we both understand that we assume certain things in order to have knowledge in the first place. I assume that (by faith) Biblical truths are the axioms of knowledge, and you assume (by faith) that sensation (or experience) is the axiom of knowledge.

My severe challenge to you (like I said earlier in this thread) is that given your theory of knowledge, you can't prove anything at all.

Because you rely on experience, you incorporate induction into your argumentation. Induction is fallacious reasoning. It is never sound and because you use it, you can never bring down conclusions that follow from the premises. It is a fundamental error.

Scripturalism uses deductive reasoning, so it does not suffer from the flaws of empirical worldviews.

On this point alone, you have lost the debate against me.

Do I need to explain induction to you?

 

[otherone]

. I assume that (by faith) Biblical truths are the axioms of knowledge, and you assume (by faith) that sensation (or experience) is the axiom of knowledge.// given your theory of knowledge, you can't prove anything at all.

I'm sorry...why must I prove anything? The burden of proof was on YOU to explain why your FAITH based 'Truths' are valid while a Hindu's are NOT.

As you can't argue "off message", I'll leave you with some 'actual' brilliance:

[T]rue philosophy must at all costs be idealistic; indeed, it must be so merely to be honest. For nothing is more certain than that no one ever came out of himself in order to identify himself immediately with things different from him; but everything of which he has certain, sure, and therefore immediate knowledge, lies within his consciousness. Beyond this consciousness, therefore, there can be no immediate certainty ... There can never be an existence that is objective absolutely and in itself; such an existence, indeed, is positively inconceivable. For the objective, as such, always and essentially has its existence in the consciousness of a subject; it is therefore the subject's representation, and consequently is conditioned by the subject, and moreover by the subject's forms of representation, which belong to the subject and not to the object.
- Schopenhauer

 

[Sola_Fide]

I'm sorry...why must I prove anything? The burden of proof was on YOU to explain why your FAITH based 'Truths' are valid while a Hindu's are NOT.

As you can't argue "off message", I'll leave you with some 'actual' brilliance:

[T]rue philosophy must at all costs be idealistic; indeed, it must be so merely to be honest. For nothing is more certain than that no one ever came out of himself in order to identify himself immediately with things different from him; but everything of which he has certain, sure, and therefore immediate knowledge, lies within his consciousness. Beyond this consciousness, therefore, there can be no immediate certainty ... There can never be an existence that is objective absolutely and in itself; such an existence, indeed, is positively inconceivable. For the objective, as such, always and essentially has its existence in the consciousness of a subject; it is therefore the subject's representation, and consequently is conditioned by the subject, and moreover by the subject's forms of representation, which belong to the subject and not to the object.
- Schopenhauer

Why must you prove anything? Are you serious? You said knowledge comes by experience. Prove it now please.

If you aren't done being locked into your circularity. Fine. I'll ask more questions.

Otherone, you said that experience is the way we obtain knowledge. How do you prove this without using a circular appeal to experience?

 

[dmo069]

Scripturalism uses deductive reasoning, so it does not suffer from the flaws of empirical worldviews.

If scipturalism truly used deductive reasoning, followers of scipturalism would be required to reject their own theory.

 

[otherone]

You said knowledge comes by experience.
Otherone, you said that experience is the way we obtain knowledge. How do you prove this without using a circular appeal to experience?

Like I said, you can't argue off-message. Please find where I've actually written what you claim I've written. I would never make such audacious claims. I'm the champion of Subjectivity, remember? I can not know anything outside of my experience.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I can not know anything outside of my experience.

How do you know this?

 

[otherone]

How do you know this?

I finally realize why Calvinists were persecuted.