Kokesh on Atheism + Libertarians

[Elfshadow]

Well, you could say that we are born seeking knowledge. If your premise was the case, and in every human culture always existed the belief in a deity, then at best your argument would be for non-specific deism.. but if every deity is different, i'm not sure this argument stands.

Remeber Im an agnostic. A pretty hardcore one at that I'm getting the impression. I really don't have a horse in the whole god/no god debate.

I think the default position is seeking knowlege and thus if we can't figure it out we invent the knowlege. Hard for me to put thoughts into words some times.

 

[Athena]

Do you know for sure that we can never know anything for sure?

No.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Could not have said it better myself.

+rep

I can tell you what I do know for sure:

The new 3 billion dollar Ministry Of Truth that is being built in Utah, that will put every single person on planet earth under surveillance.

That's for sure.

Unmanned drones are still raining destruction down on people in our name in far away places.

That's for sure.

The standing army is becoming more aggressive and militarized and hostile every day.

That's for sure.

I don't mind Adam Kokesh trying to make a case for atheistic libertarianism (whatever gets him through the night), but I tend to view people who proselytize for any organized and dogmatic system of belief with some suspicion. We all have our beliefs, but at the end of the day, I only know as much *for sure* about God and the nature of reality as each of the 7 billion people on this crazy blue rock.

Faith is wonderful...spirituality is wonderful. But religion has taken what should be a very individualized and personal thing (a person's relationship with his or her creator and/or the universe), and made it political and hierarchical through collectivist thinking. This has also had the unfortunate effect of stultifying the growth of true seeking and inquiry. After all, a hive-mind tends to become self-satisfied, and rarely asks the same questions of itself on which individual minds are flexed every day.

But I think I digressed a bit...What I really meant to say was that, since nobody here knows anything *for sure* about God's existence, or the nature of the universe, why don't we all just chill out and quit arguing about it so much? It's a pointless and silly thing to argue about, since ultimately, neither you nor the person you're arguing with can *prove* his own case or disprove the other. Let's declare an ecumenical cease-fire for a few hundred years until we have more data.

 

[TheLibertarianNationalist]

How different do you think western civ would be without the catholic church?

It simply wouldn't have existed. After Rome fell, the barbarian Germanics and Celtic tribes converted to Christianity and were able to learn of ancient Greco-Roman civilization through monasteries. A book I would recommend on this topic is How the Irish saved civilization:

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

By spreading Christianity, literacy came next. That's why pagan Norse never recorded their mythology but the Monk Snorri Sturlson did.

 

[BrittanySligar]

How do you know what happened in 1AD? Did you sense it or experience it? Did you perform an experiment on it which asserted the consequent?

What is 1? How did you come to know what "1" was? Did you sense the number 1 itself? Or dud you sense the concept of "1"?

I mean...we've got to explore how you think you can have any knowledge at all. You have an entire system tgst you have just taken for granted here. We've got to dig in to your worldview to see if you can even non-fallacious argue for anything.

Mathematics is truth. If you deny this, then you fail to acknowledge the basic laws which govern this universe. Human beings exist in this universe, and are subject to these laws. You cannot deny this.

If you do not accept the use logic / deductive reasoning, then please say so, and I will bid you a good day.

If you're going to try to argue about the nature of knowledge itself, and what is knowable, then you don't prove anything, but rather, hold a position of agnosticism. Questioning what is knowable does not help your argument, but rather dismantles it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

No.

Well then, the statement "we can never know anything for sure" is a self-refutating statement.

 

[Athena]

Mathematics is truth. If you deny this, then you fail to acknowledge the basic laws which govern this universe. Human beings exist in this universe, and are subject to these laws. You cannot deny this.

If you're going to try to argue about the nature of knowledge itself, and what is knowable, then you don't prove anything, but rather, hold a position of agnosticism.



We are talking about the physical world, and what we can observe with our senses and using tools.


If you do not accept mathematics as truth, you lack the basic ability to reason.

I would say math is probably truth, and I operate on the assumption that it might as well be an absolute truth.

 

[otherone]

Mathematics is truth. If you deny this, then you fail to acknowledge the basic laws which govern this universe.

nnnnoooooooooooooooooooooooo........you've awakened the Kraken!

 

[Athena]

Well then, the statement "we can never know anything for sure" is a self-refutating statement.

Not if we qualify it with the possibility that maybe things can be known for sure.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Mathematics is truth. If you deny this, then you fail to acknowledge the basic laws which govern this universe. Human beings exist in this universe, and are subject to these laws. You cannot deny this.

If you do not accept logic as a means of reason, then please say so, and I will bid you a good day.

If you're going to try to argue about the nature of knowledge itself, and what is knowable, then you don't prove anything, but rather, hold a position of agnosticism.

How do you know what is knowable?

 

[Elfshadow]

It simply wouldn't have existed. After Rome fell, the barbarian Germanics and Celtic tribes converted to Christianity and were able to learn of ancient Greco-Roman civilization through monasteries. A book I would recommend on this topic is How the Irish saved civilization:

http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493

By spreading Christianity, literacy came next. That's why pagan Norse never recorded their mythology but the Monk Snorri Sturlson did.

We had civilizations spreading literacy before Christianity. The idea that western civilization is dependent on Christianity might be true, but if that's the case then it is also dependent on Egyption, greek, and roman cultures. Christianity folded many of their teachings together. If none of these had existed, then neither would have modern christianity.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Not if we qualify it with the possibility that maybe things can be known for sure.

How does "maybe" inserted into the equation tell us anything?

"A is A and A is not non-A, but maybe A is non-A.". That's just completely irrational.

 

[bluesc]

You will never be this fabulous:

 

[BuddyRey]

Just wondering which side of fundamentalist you think I fall on?

I didn't have you in mind with that characterization. Sorry if it came off that way.

Religion just seems like such a silly thing to argue about to me. It's all based on subjective belief and opinion (theism and atheism alike). You might as well argue over which ice cream flavor is the best.

 

[Qdog]

Not to be insulting, but then your not an atheist if you admit that it can't be proven either way. Here is a thought. Maybe the entire atheist movement does not understand what atheism entails. The believe that there is no creator of the universe, because at this time we can't find proof of one. What your descibing sounds like agnosticism, which you mention. I'm actually agnostic myself, which is probably why I think logic supports my posistion. You can not logicaly disprove a creator, but we don't have evidence of a creator, so the logical answer is simply I don't know.

The problem with your position is you are giving the same weight to a theory that has no proof to support it, as a theory that has at least substantial evidence to support it.

Mathematically, there is the same probability of A judeo Christian God having created the universe, as pretty much any other random idea that could be thrown out there. Like for instance, that there are invisible unicorns, or that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe. The notion that something that cannot be disproven holds any sort of credibility is backwards thinking, and is negative logic.

My personal beliefs, are that the chances of there being deities is approximately the same as any other completely random assumption that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. the probability is so close to 0, it for almost all intents and purposes IS zero.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You will never be this fabulous:

LMAO!! WTF??

 

[bluesc]

LMAO!! WTF??

It deserved RPFs attention! This seemed like the appropriate thread.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

It deserved RPFs attention! This seemed like the appropriate thread.

I think one of Roy L's threads would've been better.

 

[Elfshadow]

The problem with your position is you are giving the same weight to a theory that has no proof to support it, as a theory that has at least substantial evidence to support it.

Mathematically, there is the same probability of A judeo Christian God having created the universe, as pretty much any other random idea that could be thrown out there. Like for instance, that there are invisible unicorns, or that a flying spaghetti monster created the universe. The notion that something that cannot be disproven holds any sort of credibility is backwards thinking, and is negative logic.

My personal beliefs, are that the chances of there being deities is approximately the same as any other completely random assumption that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. the probability is so close to 0, it for almost all intents and purposes IS zero.

What evidence is their of either theory? I would be interested in seeing any evidence what so ever, because I have not seen any at all. By the way. I'm in no way shape or form a christian. I'm really wondering what proof you have of either posistion.

 

[BrittanySligar]

How do you know what is knowable?

You continue to try to justify your position by questioning the nature of knowledge.

Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.

Idiot: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything, including material phenomena. (my own definition).

Yes, observation is subject to human sensory input. If you argue that sensory input does not provide insight into our universe, then your position is that nothing is knowable. I happen to believe that sensory input does provide insight into our universe. I believe this because natural phenomena observed via sensory input also holds true when measured via instruments, often at atomic, molecular, and macro levels alike. You keep repeating yourself as though you are saying something profound and/or justifies your religious beliefs.