00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Kekiiro just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Atheism

5,051 Views | 84 Replies

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 02:18:24


At 9/18/12 11:24 PM, Winrar1337 wrote:
At 9/18/12 10:16 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist. Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction. Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief. Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition). People should stop referring to themselves as Atheists if they have doubts or believe in something that is called something else.
You are implying that belief and knowledge are the same thing. They are not.

"Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief." Nope. That's simply acknowledging one's own lack of knowledge. It deals with knowledge, not belief.

You further confuse definitions in saying that people should not be called atheists if they have doubts, but atheism itself is little more than doubt. You yourself defined it as "the lack of belief," which is pretty much the same as doubt. I assume you probably meant that atheists who aren't gnostic 'doubt their lack of belief,' which is just plain silly.

No. When I meant "claming to not know for a fact is a belief" is within the idea that you have "knowledge" of the possibility of a God. Not that you lacked the "knowledge."

Everything is set on a principle of beliefs. There are no absolutes might I remind you, well there might be, if there's a God, and if there is, I highly HIGHLY doubt a human has them figured out. Someone who does not have knowledge of Gods or something of that likelyness would probably still question where they came from. That is a belief. All "knowledge" does is expand on the idea of beliefs. Nothing more.

All knowledge is, is the human understanding.

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 02:32:51


At 9/18/12 05:38 PM, Scarface wrote:
At 9/18/12 05:34 PM, Yert wrote: oh cool a religion thread
Oh cool a sarcastic post contributing nothing.

oh cool a sarcastic post contributing nothing in response to a sarcastic post contributing nothing

I would never do something like that

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 03:44:52


It's really hard to believe in god if you use common sense.


BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 03:57:25


Atheists want to disprove it, and I suppose try to make others realize. I dunno how everyone functions, that's just my assumption.


I HДVЗИ'T ЭДTЗЙ SLICЭD ЬЯЗДD SIИCЭ I ШДS TЩЗLVЭ

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 08:21:03


At 9/19/12 01:34 AM, killerjeff wrote: Atheism; A fad that's popular among the socially inept teenagers and college students.

So you have to either be spiritual or just not make up your mind or else you're just following a trend. brilliant. To your sig, I raise my hand.


sig by JaY11

Letterboxd

one of the four horsemen of the Metal Hell

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 09:40:42


At 9/18/12 10:16 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist.

No, it wouldn't. It would be refusing to believe an extraordinary claim solely on faith. If you tell me you have a 2 pound diamond in your pocket and I say "I don't believe you unless you show me", it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm calling you a liar. It's completely possible to reserve judgment about a claim until further evidence is provided, which would mean that you don't have belief one way or the other but you would have a lack of belief in the validity of said claim.

Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction.

No, it isn't. Lack of belief and belief are a contradiction, claiming to know and not claiming to know are a contradiction. However, it's completely possible to lack belief or believe while not claiming to know or claiming to know.

Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief.

It's an admission of ignorance which doesn't deal with belief in the validity of any claim.

Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition).

You would be right if you understood what lack of belief means. However, you think lack of belief must be accompanied by claims of knowledge to the contrary of a particular claim and that is simply wrong.


.

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 10:10:40


At 9/19/12 10:05 AM, MrPercie wrote: If every opinion you disagree with you have to make some disorder remark you can understand why no one likes these fucking religious arguements you imbecile.

Oh its a game now? fucking hell as if you would have anything better to do in your pathetic life than to get into arguements on the net and make a game out of it. Get a life you Sad loser.

I think it's time to walk away from the thread, Mr. Percie, before you get embroiled in a flame war.


BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 10:25:36


No because it's not logically to say that if there is no proof of either Gods existence or non-existence that it would logical to still be open to idea of God. It's like saying there is no proof of an event but it's could have happened because you can't say for sure it didn't, and you are still kind of open to idea that it did.

I'm not saying now that all the world religions are wrong, just that you can't prove God or anything like it with evidence or logic thinking. Because it is God, and the only thing you can do is to believe in God, no matter if doesn't make sense or seem very logical.

So my point, no atheists are not illogical when they deny all forms of religious thinking. Because religious thinking (even the form of agnostic thinking) is not the same as logical think.


This is where I wrote something funny

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 10:50:07


At 9/18/12 05:34 PM, Yert wrote: oh cool a religion thread

They will never end. I'm convinced that in 100 plus years, if there even is a newgrounds by then, will have nothing but religion threads


Apple is a communist dynasty that is trying to take the world down in flames under its oppressive boot. Samsung will surge the universe into glory #androidnation

Sig by Decky

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 11:01:07


At 9/19/12 10:25 AM, Mismo wrote: No because it's not logically to say that if there is no proof of either Gods existence or non-existence that it would logical to still be open to idea of God. It's like saying there is no proof of an event but it's could have happened because you can't say for sure it didn't, and you are still kind of open to idea that it did.

I'm not saying now that all the world religions are wrong, just that you can't prove God or anything like it with evidence or logic thinking. Because it is God, and the only thing you can do is to believe in God, no matter if doesn't make sense or seem very logical.

So my point, no atheists are not illogical when they deny all forms of religious thinking. Because religious thinking (even the form of agnostic thinking) is not the same as logical think.

I can always picture a mindless souless alien when people talk about what is not logical. I hear it so much it just makes me kind of giggle or I get bored. What is so great about thinking that way? Human beings are not logical and it is not normal to think everything has to be. I don't see how it is logical the way we supposedly came into existance. That we were not formed by something more than we could understand. In my mind its no less logical than believing alien life must exist somewhere. The universe will always be a mystery and we can't figure it out through our logic.


"you hate gays, believe in god, and dislike my posts, I still think you're cool"-FurryFox

"TarahlovesJBKscawk"-Tarah, "Those (under)pants are just adorable"-Gagsy

Last.fm

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 11:15:05


At 9/19/12 11:01 AM, JBK wrote:
At 9/19/12 10:25 AM, Mismo wrote: No because it's not logically to say that if there is no proof of either Gods existence or non-existence that it would logical to still be open to idea of God. It's like saying there is no proof of an event but it's could have happened because you can't say for sure it didn't, and you are still kind of open to idea that it did.

I'm not saying now that all the world religions are wrong, just that you can't prove God or anything like it with evidence or logic thinking. Because it is God, and the only thing you can do is to believe in God, no matter if doesn't make sense or seem very logical.

So my point, no atheists are not illogical when they deny all forms of religious thinking. Because religious thinking (even the form of agnostic thinking) is not the same as logical think.
I can always picture a mindless souless alien when people talk about what is not logical. I hear it so much it just makes me kind of giggle or I get bored. What is so great about thinking that way? Human beings are not logical and it is not normal to think everything has to be. I don't see how it is logical the way we supposedly came into existance. That we were not formed by something more than we could understand. In my mind its no less logical than believing alien life must exist somewhere. The universe will always be a mystery and we can't figure it out through our logic.

I was more trying to explain why I don't think it is illogical for an atheist to not be open minded to that there might be some greater being or thing out there. Not how we always should think logically.

On the topic of 'logic', I once wrote a poem on the subject of logic, and how people sometimes mistake logic thinking for actually knowledge.


This is where I wrote something funny

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 12:01:33


At 9/19/12 11:01 AM, JBK wrote: I can always picture a mindless souless alien when people talk about what is not logical. I hear it so much it just makes me kind of giggle or I get bored. What is so great about thinking that way?

it's the only way for us to come to correct, factual conclusions on things

Human beings are not logical and it is not normal to think everything has to be. I don't see how it is logical the way we supposedly came into existance. That we were not formed by something more than we could understand. In my mind its no less logical than believing alien life must exist somewhere. The universe will always be a mystery and we can't figure it out through our logic.

it's logical to think that way because we have evidence that points in that direction, you might see it as illogical because you don't understand it yourself, so you go for the easy and definitely not logical route of "god did it" because it's easy to comprehend

that kind of "it's too hard for me to understand, therefore god" thinking will get us nowhere in finding out the truth

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 13:06:15


At 9/19/12 12:01 PM, JaY11 wrote:
it's logical to think that way because we have evidence that points in that direction, you might see it as illogical because you don't understand it yourself, so you go for the easy and definitely not logical route of "god did it" because it's easy to comprehend

Thats not the reason I said that at all. I still say it is not logical.

that kind of "it's too hard for me to understand, therefore god" thinking will get us nowhere in finding out the truth

You will not find "the truth" through your logic is what I said. Making assumptions about me didn't lead you to understanding what my post meant. This was pretty much a useless response.


"you hate gays, believe in god, and dislike my posts, I still think you're cool"-FurryFox

"TarahlovesJBKscawk"-Tarah, "Those (under)pants are just adorable"-Gagsy

Last.fm

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 13:31:54


Whilst it is complete old hat that you cannot deny the existence of God, it is simply inhumane to live in a world where we would worship one with such a 'history'.

âEUoeLive a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.âEU


This is a song about cum on hotel walls.

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 16:11:35


At 9/19/12 10:05 AM, MrPercie wrote: Oh its a game now? fucking hell as if you would have anything better to do in your pathetic life than to get into arguements on the net and make a game out of it. Get a life you Sad loser.

i was hoping that would make him mad and it did hahahahaha also i have abstained from bbs arguments for about a year but every now and then i find it fun to participate :) i also am on debate team at my school so i clearly enjoy the act of arguing as do most people to some extent.

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 17:29:12


At 9/19/12 01:06 PM, JBK wrote:
Thats not the reason I said that at all. I still say it is not logical.

"I don't see how it is logical the way we supposedly came into existance. That we were not formed by something more than we could understand" implies that you think that you think our scientific theories on the beginning of the universe aren't logical, and that you think it is more logical that some kind of higher power beyond our comprehension did it

if that's not what you meant then your post is badly written

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 17:36:37


i dont care. believe whatever philosophical belief you want, but dont try and confuse philosophical idealism to physical law. they intertwine with eachother based on perspective, not on their relevance to eachother.

why cant a vision just be an interesting idea of what could be a course of our reality rather than what IS our reality?


HI HOW ARE YOU?

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 20:57:22


At 9/19/12 09:40 AM, chiefindomer wrote:
At 9/18/12 10:16 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: To reject a God would be to "know for a fact" that God doesn't exist.
No, it wouldn't. It would be refusing to believe an extraordinary claim solely on faith. If you tell me you have a 2 pound diamond in your pocket and I say "I don't believe you unless you show me", it doesn't necessarily mean that I'm calling you a liar. It's completely possible to reserve judgment about a claim until further evidence is provided, which would mean that you don't have belief one way or the other but you would have a lack of belief in the validity of said claim.

Can you prove to what is in your pocket is a diamond? Oh. You can show me a guy who has the knowledge? So up until then you only believed it was or just took someone's word for it. Wait. How does HE know it's a diamond? What exactly makes that rock a diamond? That isn't absolutely true it's a diamond, it's just your human understanding I.E BELIEF that what you have in your pocket is what makes a diamond a diamond.

Lack of belief and not claiming to know for a fact is a contridiction.
No, it isn't. Lack of belief and belief are a contradiction, claiming to know and not claiming to know are a contradiction. However, it's completely possible to lack belief or believe while not claiming to know or claiming to know.

That's called "believing something else is possible" It requires an amount of belief to say you don't know but it could be something different even if you can't see or hear what that is. That stems into people's own biased idea on what opinions are more valid then someone else's. In which none of them are.

Claiming to not know for a fact is a belief.
It's an admission of ignorance which doesn't deal with belief in the validity of any claim.

Claiming not to know but can expect that something could be is a belief. It isn't a lack of one. If you lacked a belief in nothing it would be knowing there is nothing. But if you think something else is there it is a belief.

Atheism is the lack of a belief (at least in the common definition).
You would be right if you understood what lack of belief means. However, you think lack of belief must be accompanied by claims of knowledge to the contrary of a particular claim and that is simply wrong.

You entirety is built upon a system of beliefs. Everything you could ever believe is based on the knowledge you gain in life. I've already explained this before. You can't claim to know ANYTHING because we do not understand the truth nor would we ever be able to comprehend it (because people's opinion differ, therefore we would reject the truth anyway). So because we can't know anything, a lack of belief would suggest you know something which would therfore contridict the idea of absolutes and make that knowing a simple belief. Just because you think you know something doesn't mean you actually do.

You can't claim to know nothing without the knowledge of what nothing is. It's a working contridiction and set of beliefs.

It's rather simple.

Forgive me if the quotes don't come out properly. I hope they did.

Response to Atheism 2012-09-19 23:11:36


At 9/19/12 08:57 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Can you prove to what is in your pocket is a diamond? Oh. You can show me a guy who has the knowledge? So up until then you only believed it was or just took someone's word for it.

Umm no, you've got it completely backwards. You see, without any evidence of what is in your pocket, it means I'm not believing that it's a diamond or anything else for that matter. It's the exact opposite of taking your word for it.

Wait. How does HE know it's a diamond?

This is a moot point. It doesn't matter if you know it's a diamond or not, what matters is whether you can demonstrate that it's a diamond to me.

What exactly makes that rock a diamond? That isn't absolutely true it's a diamond, it's just your human understanding I.E BELIEF that what you have in your pocket is what makes a diamond a diamond.

You're just being silly now. People have an agreed upon criteria for what a diamond is and "diamond" is the agreed upon label for something that fits that criteria. It has nothing to do with belief as it's completely demonstrable.

That's called "believing something else is possible" It requires an amount of belief to say you don't know but it could be something different even if you can't see or hear what that is. That stems into people's own biased idea on what opinions are more valid then someone else's. In which none of them are.

No, an admission of ignorance requires no belief, it's merely the most logical and honest position to take about something which you don't know enough about. It's not a belief, it's a refusal to believe something with a complete lack of evidence. Also, we're talking about atheism, lack of belief in god claims, not a complete lack of belief in anything.

You can't claim to know ANYTHING

Yes, I can and I do. Just like everybody else, and I don't believe you're an exception.

because we do not understand the truth nor would we ever be able to comprehend it (because people's opinion differ, therefore we would reject the truth anyway).

Truth is demonstrable, if something true is demonstrated to me I don't reject it just because it contradicts an opinion I had. I simply accept the truth and cease having an opinion which contradicts said truth.

So because we can't know anything, a lack of belief would suggest you know something

No, it wouldn't. It would suggest that you refuse to believe something without evidence.

Just because you think you know something doesn't mean you actually do.

You're trying to turn this into some abstract philosophical discussion, but I'm talking about our demonstrable reality. I really don't give a fuck if maybe I'm just a brain in a vat or maybe we're in the matrix, man, we might just be living in a dream world, man. I think you know I'm not talking about anything like that and you're just bringing it up because you have nothing else to respond with. It's obvious that I'm completely disregarding something like a philosophical view on knowledge, I'm referring to the physical world, what is demonstrable, and a bit of logic.

If you run into a friend you haven't seen in a while and offer to give him your phone number to which he responds "I already know your number.", would you respond with "No, that's bullshit bro, you can't know anything, you just think you know but you can't truly know!"? That's basically what you're doing to me.


.

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 00:05:07


At 9/19/12 11:11 PM, chiefindomer wrote:
At 9/19/12 08:57 PM, Samuraikyo wrote: Can you prove to what is in your pocket is a diamond? Oh. You can show me a guy who has the knowledge? So up until then you only believed it was or just took someone's word for it.
Umm no, you've got it completely backwards. You see, without any evidence of what is in your pocket, it means I'm not believing that it's a diamond or anything else for that matter. It's the exact opposite of taking your word for it.

But you don't know if something is in my pockets or not. You would only assume or believe that I could or could not have something in my pockets. It's a belief.

Wait. How does HE know it's a diamond?
This is a moot point. It doesn't matter if you know it's a diamond or not, what matters is whether you can demonstrate that it's a diamond to me.

No it's not a moot point. I could make something completely up about the human idea ofwhat a diamond is and you'll never know the difference if you believe or not of what I say. And even if you spoke with a professional, you have no idea what a diamond is anyway. You can only understand your best possible solution given your capable knowledge.

What exactly makes that rock a diamond? That isn't absolutely true it's a diamond, it's just your human understanding I.E BELIEF that what you have in your pocket is what makes a diamond a diamond.
You're just being silly now. People have an agreed upon criteria for what a diamond is and "diamond" is the agreed upon label for something that fits that criteria. It has nothing to do with belief as it's completely demonstrable.

The social understanding of something is the CLOSEST we can get to the truth, but it isn't the truth. What society thinks of something, and what something actually is is two completely ideas. Another race of intelligent beings would have a completely different system of understanding what it is. It's not being silly, that is exactly how it works. Again, you just defined the human understanding with an example. Society agreeing on anything is just a human understanding.

That's called "believing something else is possible" It requires an amount of belief to say you don't know but it could be something different even if you can't see or hear what that is. That stems into people's own biased idea on what opinions are more valid then someone else's. In which none of them are.
No, an admission of ignorance requires no belief, it's merely the most logical and honest position to take about something which you don't know enough about. It's not a belief, it's a refusal to believe something with a complete lack of evidence. Also, we're talking about atheism, lack of belief in god claims, not a complete lack of belief in anything.

An admission of ignorance is acknowledgment to an unknown. To say you'd wait for answers that may or may never come and disregard it as a belief only makes that an actual belief. Because believing in not knowing is a belief. No one just "doesn't know" they only think they don't know. Claiming ignorance just means you have belief in an answer.

The idea of Atheism stems into the idea of our origin. Atheism is a lack of belief in Gods but it's still a belief. If God doesn't exist and the universe started some other way (the absolute) you could only have a belief in that. Atheism is the belief there isn't any Gods simply because you believe in something else. Because you can't possibly know anything.

You can't claim to know ANYTHING
Yes, I can and I do. Just like everybody else, and I don't believe you're an exception.

You can't. You can only claim to know the human understanding. But any form of basic philosophy will tell you, that you can't claim to know anything but only understand something as a human. Socrates believed this.

because we do not understand the truth nor would we ever be able to comprehend it (because people's opinion differ, therefore we would reject the truth anyway).
Truth is demonstrable, if something true is demonstrated to me I don't reject it just because it contradicts an opinion I had. I simply accept the truth and cease having an opinion which contradicts said truth.

Give me one true statement. Just one.

So because we can't know anything, a lack of belief would suggest you know something
No, it wouldn't. It would suggest that you refuse to believe something without evidence.

What is evidence? Isn't that just the gathering of information to prove the human understanding?

Just because you think you know something doesn't mean you actually do.
You're trying to turn this into some abstract philosophical discussion, but I'm talking about our demonstrable reality. I really don't give a fuck if maybe I'm just a brain in a vat or maybe we're in the matrix, man, we might just be living in a dream world, man. I think you know I'm not talking about anything like that and you're just bringing it up because you have nothing else to respond with. It's obvious that I'm completely disregarding something like a philosophical view on knowledge, I'm referring to the physical world, what is demonstrable, and a bit of logic.

But we're debating about the idea of what beliefs and the truth is. Those are philisophical discussions. Reality is a perception, not a truth.

If you run into a friend you haven't seen in a while and offer to give him your phone number to which he responds "I already know your number.", would you respond with "No, that's bullshit bro, you can't know anything, you just think you know but you can't truly know!"? That's basically what you're doing to me.

I would ask him how he got my number. Because there is an explanation for how he got it. If he just knew my number, well that is humanly impossible unless he had a photographic memory and remember my name or address from the phone book. But the entire point would be he got my number through a method of humanity. Not bcause he knew the truth all laong.

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 00:25:51


Really, all atheism means, "I don't believe in god." Now, I don't think there is actually agnostics, it's just people not wanting to say yes or no to the question. I ask, "Do you believe in god?", you could say, "I don't know." Then I would say, "No one actually knows for sure, so do you or don't?" To me, agnosticism is a meaningless term and doesn't really say anything. I may be atheist, but I can't say that god doesn't exist, I just have the idea that he doesn't exist based on evidence or the lack of.


Nobody believes your excuses except you.

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 01:30:14


What's the difference between nature and God? They're both uncontrollable forces that govern our very existence from the day we are born to the day we die. I think the problem for both religious fundamentalists and atheists have is defining what God or a god is. If we think of god as a bearded creator living in a castle in the sky, then that's pretty hard to believe. However, if we believe in God as the forces that govern the multiverse, then the idea of God is much more likely.

What I'm saying is, we need to redefine what God is in a world where things can be explained rationally through science and observation.


I'd rather die a Wolf fighting against the Herder, than die a Sheep heading for the slaughter.

AVGN Fan Club. - The Culturally Diverse Crew - The Carnivorous Crew

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 07:33:12


At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote:
I don't know, just wondering. Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.

God isn't real. What else do I need to say?


Where's the pickle?

BBS Signature

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 07:39:04


At 9/20/12 07:33 AM, Jakehinojo wrote:
At 9/18/12 05:31 PM, Scarface wrote:
I don't know, just wondering. Tell me your beliefs and opinions, Newgrounds.
God isn't real. What else do I need to say?

if god isn't real then how do you know its title?


HI HOW ARE YOU?

Response to Atheism 2012-09-20 10:38:12


At 9/20/12 12:05 AM, Samuraikyo wrote: But you don't know if something is in my pockets or not. You would only assume or believe that I could or could not have something in my pockets. It's a belief.

No, I'm not assuming you do or don't, I'm asking for you to demonstrate your claim and until you can demonstrate it I have no reason to believe your claim.

No it's not a moot point. I could make something completely up about the human idea ofwhat a diamond is and you'll never know the difference if you believe or not of what I say. And even if you spoke with a professional, you have no idea what a diamond is anyway. You can only understand your best possible solution given your capable knowledge.

Like I said, we have an agreed upon criteria for what constitutes as a diamond. A diamond is demonstrable.

The social understanding of something is the CLOSEST we can get to the truth, but it isn't the truth. What society thinks of something, and what something actually is is two completely ideas. Another race of intelligent beings would have a completely different system of understanding what it is. It's not being silly, that is exactly how it works. Again, you just defined the human understanding with an example. Society agreeing on anything is just a human understanding.

Again, I'm talking about the physical world and what is demonstrable. If you want to go philosophical then don't bother responding because that's not what I'm talking about and you'll just be attacking a strawman.

An admission of ignorance is acknowledgment to an unknown.

Yes, because it's possible to not know things and very easy to understand that you don't know certain things.

Atheism is the belief there isn't any Gods simply because you believe in something else.

NO, you're wrong. Lack of belief does not equate to belief in the contrary, it's a lack of belief in god claims due to a lack of evidence to support said god claims.

You can't. You can only claim to know the human understanding.

Watch me, "I know this debate is going nowhere". <--- Look at that, I made a claim of knowledge.

But any form of basic philosophy will tell you, that you can't claim to know anything but only understand something as a human. Socrates believed this.

Didn't I already say I'm not discussing philosophy here? This is about taking a certain position on a claim based on the physical world and simple logic.

Give me one true statement. Just one.

I wouldn't waste my time given that you'll just give me the same philosophical shit like "Nothing can be known for sure because all of this could be fake and you just believe it's real". Even though I've stated countless times that that's not what I'm discussing here.

What is evidence? Isn't that just the gathering of information to prove the human understanding?

Something that is physically demonstrable which backs up a certain claim.

But we're debating about the idea of what beliefs and the truth is. Those are philisophical discussions. Reality is a perception, not a truth.

Beliefs and truth BASED ON THE PHYSICAL WORLD. For instance, people don't go through their lives doubting everything they see just because, philosophically speaking, maybe none of it is real. People do go through their lives with beliefs and knowledge of the physical world and we have something we call "truth" which, outside of philosophy, is something that is given that label because it's supported with demonstrable physical evidence and/or logic.

I would ask him how he got my number.

Way to miss the point. Wouldn't you jump all over him with a bunch of philosophical arguments because "How dare he say he KNOWS something"?

Because there is an explanation for how he got it.

You gave it to him before but you forgot about it.


.

BBS Signature