Rationality gone mad!

[Diogenes' Dog]

"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass; he is actually ill."
H.L. Mencken

Quote from Wiki on Faith
"Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy.... In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another."

Faith is about trust - you can disbelieve that your significant other is faithful to you until proven otherwise, but is is no basis for a good relationship!

"Due to the fact that there is no evidence to support the validity of Xianity/islam, and that there is such a huge amount of evidence directly conflicting with Xianity/islam, the word "delusion" is more appropriately applied where the word "faith" is much more commonly used. Having a delusion is believing something is true even though there is no affirmative evidence to support a contention of belief, and/or the existence of significant evidence to the contrary of the professed belief. xians/muslim have no "faith in God", they have a delusion of God. They are, quite factually, mentally ill. the preacher.

This is crap! What is all this "huge amount of evidence" directly conflicting with Xianity/Islam? His belief that all theists are mentally ill is clearly a powerful (probably paranoid) delusion as "there is no affirmative evidence to support a contention of belief" and "there is such a huge amount of evidence directly conflicting with". Otherwise Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Newton, Decartes, Shakespeare etc. were all mentally ill it seems.

There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as deeply held blind faith in organized religions and holy dogmas. The Christian dominated society of this country has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. Beneath the Xian whitewash is the plain hard truth. If a person treated his children half as cruelly as the supposedly divine and omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian blood god has treated his children, the Christians would be out to give him the death penalty. Does belief in cruel gods create cruel people, or do cruel people simply make their gods in their own likeness?
mis t highs http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....5&page=1&pp=20

I agree with you in part. People can be cruel, be they religious or atheists. The problematic divide is not with theism/atheism, but with moderation/fanaticism. There are plenty of examples of benign & moderate theists (see above list), as there are some very unpleasant fanatical atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot etc.).

The common factor that is "vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress" I would suggest is the degree of fanaticism with which people pursue their chosen dogma, be it religious, political or something other.

[Sarkus]

Quote from Wiki on Faith
"Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy.... In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another."

Faith is about trust - you can disbelieve that your significant other is faithful to you until proven otherwise, but is is no basis for a good relationship!

DD, you need to differentiate between the two versions of "Faith" - as they are very different....

When people talk about religious faith (e.g. faith in God), it is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

When people talk about "faith" or "trust" that someone does something - this is actually nothing more than a person trusting their own judgement of someone's character based on a plethora of information and evidence built up to that date.
You don't trust the other person - you trust yourself to make the correct judgement of that person.

You trust / have faith in your significant other because you have known them for so long, that you think you know their character, and thus you make a subconscious judgement that they won't be unfaithful.

You trust (or don't) what a friend tells you, because of your relationship and knowledge of that person built up over time.

You also trust strangers to a lesser extent to behave in keeping with the general norms of society - because based on the evidence to date, most people do.

But having faith in God is different - as there is no evidence.

[geeser]

Quote from Wiki on Faith
"Faith can also be defined as accepting as true something which one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy.... In its proper sense faith means trusting the word of another."

Faith is about trust - you can disbelieve that your significant other is faithful to you until proven otherwise, but is is no basis for a good relationship!

sarkus covered this part extremely well.

This is crap! What is all this "huge amount of evidence" directly conflicting with Xianity/Islam?

the fact that there is'nt and has never been any evidence, for a god or a jesus, is quite huge dont you think, unless of course you have irrafutable evidence.

His belief that all theists are mentally ill is clearly a powerful (probably paranoid) delusion as "there is no affirmative evidence to support a contention of belief" and "there is such a huge amount of evidence directly conflicting with". Otherwise Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Newton, Decartes, Shakespeare etc. were all mentally ill it seems.

lets add a few more names first Constantine, Tocamada, the Borgia's, Hitler, etc. for someone to have blind faith in a non existent entity is quite clearly insane, we might see a child with an imaginary friend, but hopefully they grow out of it, we put people in lunatic asylums for having hallucinations, but not the religious, who talk to themselves and see things that are not there, etc etc, go figure.
people can appear normal in ever other aspect of their lives, but when it comes to religion, ?. (this is when fantasy takes over, think about it.) the mentally ill will always justify their madness.

I agree with you in part. People can be cruel, be they religious or atheists. The problematic divide is not with theism/atheism, but with moderation/fanaticism. There are plenty of examples of benign & moderate theists (see above list), as there are some very unpleasant fanatical atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot etc.).

those two examples where catholic, does make you wonder, what the priest's teach them. you clearly dont know what atheism and atheist are.

The common factor that is "vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress" I would suggest is the degree of fanaticism with which people pursue their chosen dogma, be it religious, political or something other.

it's religious, read the whole post. from mis t highs

Faith.There has never existed in the world anything more intensely vile, contemptuous, and dangerous to freedom, peace and progress as deeply held blind faith in organized religions and holy dogmas. The Christian dominated society of this country has painted a lovely picture of the faithful flock and how deserving faithful people are of praise and respect. Beneath the Xian whitewash is the plain hard truth. If a person treated his children half as cruelly as the supposedly divine and omnibenevolent Judeo-Christian blood god has treated his children, the Christians would be out to give him the death penalty. Does belief in cruel gods create cruel people, or do cruel people simply make their gods in their own likeness?

Faith is the nemesis of logic. Where there is religious faith, there can not be logic. The two are quite completely mutually exclusive. In every endeavor other than religion, if a person accepts things as being true with no quality evidence to support such beliefs, then the person is considered foolish and even contemptible by society. When acting exactly the same way regarding religion, the person is considered as perfectly normal. There is in faith an immunity to reality.

Faith is the destroyer of science and progress. Faith in gods creates a horrible aversion to change. The status quo is the rule of thumb and the "faithful" conservative Xian's morals are the worn out morals of liberals from forty or so years before him. Yet along he goes dragging his feet. "Why free the slaves? It's in the bible." The faithful Xians were enraged when Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod. "It's a sin" they screamed. "God surely controls the lightning and who are you to interfere?" There was Galileo who was tried by the Catholic Church for sacrilege because he claimed the world was round and that the earth orbited the sun, and not the other way around as the bible says. The Fundies are this very minute all across the country attempting to remove evolution from the science books, even though it is established as fact. The list is endless. Religion and science are mutually exclusive. Christian Science is nothing but an oxymoron.

Faith is the slaughterer of freedom. If there is a concept more hateful to the hearts of the faithful flock than freedom, then it is unimaginable what it would be. Truly the flock pays due lip service to freedom, but their every endeavor is to control and outlaw it. To pass laws to prohibit sexual preferences in the bedroom of two adults is nothing but pure tyranny. Why do these people care who you're sleeping with? What business is it of there's? The faithful claim that they simply want to live life according to the rules of their god, but they want nothing short of making everyone live by those exact rules. Everywhere you find these faithful people you will see them attempting to control the other people around them. They even have the audacity to claim they are persecuted, simply because people resist them and rail against their bids for totalitarian control. The faithful claim they are patriots, but they resemble old Russian Communism much more closely than capitalism.

Faith is the destructor of individuality. Everywhere the faithful are trying to enact their version of God's word into law and force the rest of society to be just like them. The faithful proudly claim the title of "Sheep". What more needs be said?

Faith is the fountainhead of ignorance. The faithful everywhere cast off logic and science as the temptations of Satan. Any science, theory, or fact which contradicts their religion is perceived to be purely evil. This inevitably leads to the embracing of myths and ignorance and the shunning of rational thinking.

Faith is the procreator of intolerance. Faith like nothing else strengthens intolerance and helps it breed and spread. What else would come about from people who claim as divinely inspired a book which espouses slavery, homophobia, murder, infanticide, genocide, racism, rape and kidnapping in the name of a loving god?

[Diogenes' Dog]

The fact that there is'nt and has never been any evidence, for a god or a jesus, is quite huge dont you think, unless of course you have irrafutable evidence.

There is plenty of evidence, but it is experiential evidence. The catch22 is you need to take Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" to start to discover it for yourself. No-one else can do it for you.

lets add a few more names first Constantine, Tocamada, the Borgia's, Hitler, etc.

there are some very unpleasant fanatical atheists (Stalin, Pol Pot etc.)

those two examples where catholic, does make you wonder, what the priest's teach them. you clearly dont know what atheism and atheist are.

Yes I'm sure Stalin was a regular church goer, probably prayed together with Hitler when they met. Pol Pot was in the Kmer Rouge church choir you know!

I think you need to check your facts geeser!

Constantine did become a Christian, but on his deathbed.

I haven't a clue who Tocamada is or was - no reference to him exists on the internet. I begin to suspect he's a delusion!

Hitler and the Nazis persecuted any dissenters in the church, He himself had no religious belief: Quote from Wikipedia

Although far less hostile to Christianity than to Judaism, which the Nazis sought to exterminate in the Holocaust throughout the Third Reich and lands that came under Nazi rule, Nazi totalitarianism demanded that all religious activity conform to the desires of Nazi leadership. Christian churches were obliged to accept the racist doctrines of Nazism. The Gestapo monitored Christian clergy and congregations for any semblance of dissent with Nazi policies, and many Christian clergy and laymen ended up in concentration camps when they asserted opposition to the teachings and practices of Nazism or if they acted upon pacifist convictions (like many Jehovah's Witnesses and some Confessing Church members). During the early part of the Nazi rule, the "German Christians" were an important pseudo-Protestant tool of the regime to bring about the Gleichschaltung of the churches.

Stalin actively persecuted the Russian church until the war, when he subverted it by placing KGB agents in places of prominence.

Pol Pot actively persecuted anyone who was religious (especially Buddhists) and intellectuals.

Pol Pot's regime killed between 1.5 to 2.3 million people between 1975-1979, out of a population of approximately 8 million. The regime targeted Buddhist monks, Western educated intellectuals, people who appeared to be intelligent (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Laotians and Vietnamese....

...The Khmer Rouge also classified by religion and ethnic group. They abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs.

So you see geeser, I begin to doubt the truth of the "facts" you quote.

..people can appear normal in ever other aspect of their lives, but when it comes to religion, ?. (this is when fantasy takes over, think about it.) the mentally ill will always justify their madness.

Yes... exactly. Have you ever thought of seeking help?!

[geeser]

There is plenty of evidence, but it is experiential evidence. The catch22 is you need to take Kierkegaard's "leap of faith" to start to discover it for yourself. No-one else can do it for you.

so you want be to delve into fantasy, yes I can do that I've read many a fictious book, but I never accepted them as real, that would be lunacy.

Yes I'm sure Stalin was a regular church goer, probably prayed together with Hitler when they met. Pol Pot was in the Kmer Rouge church choir you know!

I never said they were church go'ers, I said the were catholic, how they were brought up has a lot of bearing as to how they act as people, hitler was a christian, http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler I was mistaken regarding stalins religion, he was Russian Orthodox.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSstalin.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin pol pot however did go to catholic school, but I believe was a Buddhist so it seems I was wrong on the religion, there all the same too me. http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pot.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Constantine did become a Christian, but on his deathbed.

no he was a christian most of his life he was baptisted on his deathbed.

I haven't a clue who Tocamada is or was - no reference to him exists on the internet. I begin to suspect he's a delusion!

just a bad spelling "Torquemada"

Hitler and the Nazis persecuted any dissenters in the church, He himself had no religious belief: Quote from Wikipedia

some more quotes from hitler. "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." - Adolf Hitler
”


“
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922
”


“
It will at any rate be my supreme task to see to it that in the newly awakened NSDAP, the adherents of both Confessions can live peacefully together side by side in order that they may take their stand in the common fight against the power which is the mortal foe of any true Christianity. -Adolf Hitler
”


“
Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church. - Adolf Hitler
”


“
I am absolutely convinced of the great power and the deep significance of the Christian religion, and consequently will not permit any other founders of religion (Religionsstifter). Therefore I have turned against Ludendoriff and separated myself from him; therefore I reject Rosenberg's book. That book is written by a Protestant. It is not a party book. It is not written by him as a member of the party. The Protestants can settle matters with him. - Adolf Hitler
”

[Diogenes' Dog]

Quoting from your own sources - Stalin may have had a Russian Orthodox background, however, he was not religious. Quote from yourWikipedia reference:

Although his mother wanted him to be a priest (even after he had become leader of the Soviet Union), he attended seminary not because of any religious vocation, but because of the lack of locally available university education. In addition to the small stipend from the scholarship Stalin was also paid for singing in the choir.

He was also responsible for the persecution and near extinction of the Russian Orthodox Church, until they became useful to him (also from Wikipedia):

Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been levelled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted. During World War II, however, the Church was allowed a revival, as a patriotic organization: thousands of parishes were reactivated, until a further round of suppression in Khrushchev's time. The Russian Orthodox Church Synod's recognition of the Soviet government and of Stalin personally led to a schism with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia that remains not fully healed to the present day. Just days before Stalin's death, certain religious sects were outlawed and persecuted.

The same can be said for Hitler. The www.nobeliefs.com website is what you call a "biased source". It deliberately presents a very distorted picture of Hitler. I have read Mein Kampf and I can assure you it is not a religious work - however it invokes any possible argument to demonise the Jews, promote German Nationalism and portray Hitler himself as a hero/martyr fighting for the German people. The cynical use of religious language should not be confused with Hitler's own beliefs. The Nazis persecuted many church leaders who did not conform (as quoted previously). There was no priest in the Reichstag, nor was one present in the bunker in the days before his suicide. Don't you think he would have arranged for this if he had any genuine religious belief?

As for Pol Pot - again, if you read your own references about Pol Pot you would know he attempted to eliminate all religions - especially Buddhism. Wikipedia:

Pol Pot's regime killed between 1.5 to 2.3 million people between 1975-1979, out of a population of approximately 8 million. The regime targeted Buddhist monks, Western educated intellectuals, people who appeared to be intelligent (for example, individuals with glasses), the crippled and lame, and ethnic minorities like ethnic Laotians and Vietnamese.

This seems very odd behaviour for someone YOU say was a Buddhist - or perhaps he WAS a Catholic after all? Quote from www.moreorless.au.com:

Pol Pot declares 'Year Zero' and directs a ruthless program to "purify" Cambodian society of capitalism, Western culture, religion and all foreign influences in favour of an isolated and totally self-sufficient Maoist agrarian state. No opposition is tolerated.

Oh dear, perhaps not that either. Yet another quote from Wikipedia (Your reference):

They (Khmer Rouge) abolished all religion and dispersed minority groups, forbidding them to speak their languages or to practice their customs.

I think you need to read your own references again and apply some critical thinking. The sort of nonsense that tries to portray these ruthless secular tyrants as religious is simply 'anti-religious' propaganda, and does the cause of atheism no good at all. It seems atheists are not immune from distorting the truth in the name of dogma.

[geeser]

by supplying those sources, proves that I have no intention of distorting the truth, does it not. your the one the seems to be distorting the truth in the name of dogma.
I mearly pointed out that, if you supply good people, you must also supply bad, in regard to what the preacher said, and this

for someone to have blind faith in a non existent entity is quite clearly insane, we might see a child with an imaginary friend, but hopefully they grow out of it, we put people in lunatic asylums for having hallucinations, but not the religious, who talk to themselves and see things that are not there, etc etc, go figure.
people can appear normal in ever other aspect of their lives, but when it comes to religion, ?. (this is when fantasy takes over, think about it.) the mentally ill will always justify their madness.

which has been shown to be true, by your aggressive judgmental nature, you took it further, by stating hitler was'nt christian, in an effort to justify your position.
I admited I was wrong in regard to stalin and pol pot. but you ignored that.
no sir you are the one who has distorted the truth in the name of dogma.

[Diogenes' Dog]

by supplying those sources, proves that I have no intention of distorting the truth, does it not. your the one the seems to be distorting the truth in the name of dogma.
I mearly pointed out that, if you supply good people, you must also supply bad, in regard to what the preacher said, and this which has been shown to be true, by your aggressive judgmental nature, you took it further, by stating hitler was'nt christian, in an effort to justify your position.
I admited I was wrong in regard to stalin and pol pot. but you ignored that.
no sir you are the one who has distorted the truth in the name of dogma.

I'm sure it's not your intention to distort the truth geeser, but the facts you quote (certainly about Stalin & Pol Pot being theists - I would also say Hitler) are incorrect and you obviously hadn't read the sources you site. I find it galling to see such contentious stuff confidently presented as fact.

There are plenty of eamples you could site of vile intolerance from theists e.g. the inquisition. However, atheism is not immune to intolerance, and as I said previously this centuary has seen some tyrannical atheists (or at least secularists).

What is good about atheism (especially when based on a scientific paradigm) is it's use of rational enquiry based on skepticism, which can powerfully release people from restictive (often religious) beliefs. I feel sad therefore when atheism becomes dogmatic and starts to resemble the worst of religion.

[daktaklakpak]

It's funny to see that quotes from Einstein support that he was spiritual, yet quotes from Hilter of the same context is anti-religion propaganda. If I say "oh my god, what happen here?" Does that make me spiritual/religious or just using English? The cartoon South Park makes many references to religions, both good and bad. Do you think the authors are religious or anti-religous?

[Cris]

‘dog,

Atheists seem to believe that religion has been proved wrong because it offends occum's razor, and there is no objective evidence for belief in God, which is therefore "irrational" or "unscientific".

False. A few might. However, that there is no objective evidence for a god is entirely accurate. To then claim something is true in the absence of such evidence is irrational according to its definition. Religion is irrational, of that there should be no doubt.

I think we are mad in believing that logical deduction based on objective empirical data is the ONLY source of truth, or that it will ever subsume this dialectic.

Then demonstrate and prove a superior form of reasoning. None have achieved that to date.

What both sides are forgetting is that religion is based on FAITH, not on rational deduction.

You are joking, right? Both sides are extremely aware that religion is based on faith. The issue of disagreement is that faith has no intrinsic value but the religionists say otherwise but are unable to validate their claim.

Belief in God is a plunge into the unknown

Nonsense. It is simple moronic stupidity; the conviction that a fantasy is real. The position is untenable.

and remains scientifically ungraspable because science builds only on knowns from the "ground up".

Fortunately there is no problem with that. Science bases its conclusion on the known rather than unfounded fantasy.

God is not a phenomenum in this universe

Something of a pretty wide dumb statement. Of the thousands of religions that exist and have been, gods of all types have been defined as; part of, within, outside of, are, and all various relationships with the universe. But note that some religions are not theistic. Is your subject religion or theism?

.. but is experienced subjectively through a leap of faith. Subjectivity is truth.

LOL. Gibberish. Prove it.

[Light Travelling]

This is rubbish.
What we expect our brain to do is to give us a view of reality that is useable within the contexts of our existence and that enables us to survive as a species.
.

Where does this ‘we’ come from. This may be all that you expect from your brain. But it is certainly not all that everyone on this planet expects.

No, we can not see in infra-red. But we do not need to to survive.
We can not see detail to the absolute smallest level - but we do not need to.

We put in 50% of reality - we get out 50% of reality.
But for us that is sufficient to survive.
.

To survive - fine, if that’s all you want to do. We are very well equipped to survive.

But if you want to answer the fundamental questions of life; who are we; what are we; why are we; what constitutes our reality. Then thats different, ideally we need access to 100% of information, failing that we need to recognise the limits of the external information we are dealing with, which will affect the possibilities we are willing to explore, both scientifically and introspectively.

Who mentioned "Objective experience"?
.

Well it was me that used this exact phrase, but the thread starter is rejecting the idea that “logical deduction based on objective empirical data is the ONLY source of truth”. …

People often believe that because a large part of their external subjective experience is shared, it becomes objective. This is false. Objectivity is not just a consensus of views.

The purpose of science is to minimise the subjectivity of the experience / output of the experiment.
.

I agree with the above statement - all you get from scientific gathering of empirical evidence is a reduction from individual subjectivity to group subjectivity.

Only then can we understand clearly and unambiguously what is going on.
.

But this statement does not automatically follow from your previous one, all this tells us is that we all approximately have the same sensory facilities. It will never answer the fundamental questions of who, what and why we are… because if there is one thing we can all agree we are it is subjective selfs.

Internal subjective experience must also be a valid human experience, which can never be quantified empirically or objectively.

[Sarkus]

But if you want to answer the fundamental questions of life; who are we; what are we; why are we; what constitutes our reality. Then thats different, ideally we need access to 100% of information, failing that we need to recognise the limits of the external information we are dealing with, which will affect the possibilities we are willing to explore, both scientifically and introspectively.

I agree to most of that - but unless there is evidence, I have no belief that there is a "why", or "who" other than that we are here.

As to what constitutes our reality - that is where science comes in - to try and get as close to objectivity as possible.

And that is why we seek to gather ALL data - and create instruments that detect it.

Well it was me that used this exact phrase, but the thread starter is rejecting the idea that “logical deduction based on objective empirical data is the ONLY source of truth”. …

Ok - and I agree as being the ONLY soucrce of "objective truth".

People often believe that because a large part of their external subjective experience is shared, it becomes objective. This is false. Objectivity is not just a consensus of views.

I am fully aware of this - as belief in God is a view shared by many.

I agree with the above statement - all you get from scientific gathering of empirical evidence is a reduction from individual subjectivity to group subjectivity.

Maybe - but that "group subjectivity" is closer to objective reality.
Science doesn't claim anything to be 100% objective.
But we can get far closer than reliance purely on subjectivity.

Internal subjective experience must also be a valid human experience, which can never be quantified empirically or objectively.

I agree entirely that it is a valid human experience - but a valid human experience is not necessarily reliable objective evidence - or evidence that is close enough to the objective.

[Light Travelling]

Then demonstrate and prove a superior form of reasoning. None have achieved that to date.

Yes they have, surely you must have heard of Kant’s ‘critique of pure reason’ – not all our knowledge comes from empirical data. - 'a priori knowldege'

LOL.

LOL all you want. But can you prove its funny?

You cant prove its funny ! – then you must be delusional… or is it a real subjective experience?

[Diogenes' Dog]

LOL all you want. But can you prove its funny?

You cant prove its funny ! – then you must be delusional… or is it a real subjective experience?

LOL! Nice one LT

[KennyJC]

Sky fairies are funny. That has been proven beyond doubt

[geeser]

Yes they have, surely you must have heard of Kant’s ‘critique of pure reason’ – not all our knowledge comes from empirical data. - 'a priori knowldege'

kant was talking out of his arse. what does he compare it with. how are his findings tested. give us a break.
I wondered where they got the story for the matrix films.
they were'nt bad films though.

[Light Travelling]

kant was talking out of his arse. .

mmhh .. nice well logically reasoned argument..

So, I have Kant's well constructed (and respected BTW) critique of pure reason on one hand, and the oppossing arument is

kant was talking out of his arse.

Well sorry but your logically deduced argument has failed to convince me... I'm still siding with Kant.

[geeser]

well you would. would'nt you.

I ask again, what does he compare it with. how are his findings tested.

[Diogenes' Dog]

well you would. would'nt you. I ask again, what does he compare it with. how are his findings tested.

How would you test atheism?

All Philosophy, including the ideas in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" are only "testable" by their conformance to our experience.

Kant argued that there are synthetic a priori truths. He reasoned that statements such as those found in geometry and Newtonian physics are synthetic a priori knowledge and wanted to establish how this could be possible. This also led him to inquire whether it could be possible to ground synthetic a priori knowledge for a study of metaphysics, because most of the principles of metaphysics from Plato through Kant's immediate predecessors made assertions about the world or about God or about the soul that were not self-evident but which could not be derived from empirical observation. This led to his most influential contribution to metaphysics: the abandonment of the quest to try to know the world as it is "in itself" independent of our sense experience. He demonstrated this with a thought experiment, showing that we cannot meaningfully conceive of an object that exists outside of time and has no spatial components and isn't structured in accordance with the categories of the understanding, such as substance and causality. Although we cannot conceive of such an object, Kant argues, there is no way of showing that such an object does not exist. Therefore, Kant says, metaphysics must not try to talk about what exists, but instead about what is experienced and how it is experienced.

Critique of Pure Reason on Wikipedia

[geeser]

How would you test atheism?

would not need to, stupid question, We are all born atheists it is the natural way of things.

All Philosophy, including the ideas in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" are only "testable" by their conformance to our experience.

so they cannot be verified or proved or derived from observation or experiment.

kants philosophy, is the investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning, it is purely assumption.
atheism on the other hand assumes nothing, it's the natural way.