Alright, i got a good question.

[Kenny]

I am reminded of a wise saying; “Trust those who seek the truth, but beware of those who have found it.”

You may want to reconsider that «wise saying» as it reeks and drips of New Ageism.

Huh? It reeks and drips of skepticism. That's not New Age at all. It's actually the opposite.

What I see when I read that saying is that the truth is in each of us.

I don't see it as a claim that each of us have a separate truth, I see it as advise to be careful of those who claim to have all the answers, not those who admit they don't but do their best to find them.

So if I say I have found the truth then really its only finding my own truth. So if I say to someone 'Hey! I got the truth' then they should not trust.

History is full of men who claimed to have had all the answers, and were unwilling to admit when proven wrong.

Ken

I wasnt really refering to truths like solid facts e.g 2+2=4 but more about the other sorts of truth e.g truth on religion.

Our seperate truths may line up with several other truths that other people have.

We either have our own 'truth' or God's truth. Thats what I believe anyway.

The idea of more than one truth doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps there is more than one perception of truth. As a theist I can understand your position of God having the truth, and all others who differ having various perceptions of truth. Is this a fair assumption?

Ken

[Nessa]

You may want to reconsider that «wise saying» as it reeks and drips of New Ageism.

Huh? It reeks and drips of skepticism. That's not New Age at all. It's actually the opposite.

What I see when I read that saying is that the truth is in each of us.

I don't see it as a claim that each of us have a separate truth, I see it as advise to be careful of those who claim to have all the answers, not those who admit they don't but do their best to find them.

So if I say I have found the truth then really its only finding my own truth. So if I say to someone 'Hey! I got the truth' then they should not trust.

History is full of men who claimed to have had all the answers, and were unwilling to admit when proven wrong.

Ken

I wasnt really refering to truths like solid facts e.g 2+2=4 but more about the other sorts of truth e.g truth on religion.

Our seperate truths may line up with several other truths that other people have.

We either have our own 'truth' or God's truth. Thats what I believe anyway.

The idea of more than one truth doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps there is more than one perception of truth. As a theist I can understand your position of God having the truth, and all others who differ having various perceptions of truth. Is this a fair assumption?

Ken

Yes, thats basically what I mean

[abelcainsbrother]

not all scientists agree with Stephen Hawking and there are competing ideas too.

Oh, dear! You think I'm 10 years old or something?! Or 12? You think I don't know that? You think I believe every scientist agrees with mr. Hawking? Me, who keep showing you that every belief has someone else who doesn't believe in it? You think that is who I am? Huh?

You are going by non-peer reviewed scientific ideas out there,I hope you know.

Yes, I "know" it (not really, because I don't "know", I believe OR think). But those perspectives come from intelligent people, which is enough for me to consider their perspectives. Not believe; consider.

No,I don't know how old you are I was just trying to let you know that there are scientific ideas out there that might sound good to you,or even believable and yet it is not peer reviewed science.

It seems you are putting your faith in man instead of God but don't want to admit it.

[PaulSacramento]

The modern atheist is someone that believes this is all there is and there is nothing else.
That only what is observable or verifiable by science is "real".

That type of atheist didn't exist till about the 19th century,perhaps 17th.
Before that they were agnostic or simply the atheist type that believed that only what we can see with our 5 senses was real.

What's the difference between the modern atheist who believes only that which is observable and verifiable by science is real, vs the pre 17th century atheist who believes only that which can be experienced via our 5 seances are real? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc..

The modern atheist places great stock in the authority of science.

[Philip]

Paul: The modern atheist places great stock in the authority of science.

EXCEPT their problem is that ALL that physically exists previously did NOT exist, DID NOT COME FROM ANYTHING ELSE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED, and that NO proven or examinable science can explain a universe suddenly beginning by itself, with precisely just the the right elements, attributes, all, within moments of the Big Bang's beginning, operating according to laws of immense comprehensive interactions, astonishing power, and controlled design (There was NOTHING random about this), on an astonishing scale. A universe doesn't create and organize itself - NO science can explain that. And, at the very least, an unbeliever must admit that whatever (Whomever!) existed before all physical things and the universe suddenly sprang into existence had to be unfathomably intelligent and powerful! So, their faith must be in something BEYOND what science can explain, because science doesn't deal in metaphysics - although pseudoscience claims to.

[Kenny]

The modern atheist is someone that believes this is all there is and there is nothing else.
That only what is observable or verifiable by science is "real".

That type of atheist didn't exist till about the 19th century,perhaps 17th.
Before that they were agnostic or simply the atheist type that believed that only what we can see with our 5 senses was real.

What's the difference between the modern atheist who believes only that which is observable and verifiable by science is real, vs the pre 17th century atheist who believes only that which can be experienced via our 5 seances are real? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc...

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

[Kenny]

Paul: The modern atheist places great stock in the authority of science.

EXCEPT their problem is that ALL that physically exists previously did NOT exist, DID NOT COME FROM ANYTHING ELSE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED, and that NO proven or examinable science can explain a universe suddenly beginning by itself, with precisely just the the right elements, attributes, all, within moments of the Big Bang's beginning, operating according to laws of immense comprehensive interactions, astonishing power, and controlled design (There was NOTHING random about this), on an astonishing scale. A universe doesn't create and organize itself - NO science can explain that. And, at the very least, an unbeliever must admit that whatever (Whomever!) existed before all physical things and the universe suddenly sprang into existence had to be unfathomably intelligent and powerful! So, their faith must be in something BEYOND what science can explain, because science doesn't deal in metaphysics - although pseudoscience claims to.

You seem to be confusing the scientist position with an atheist position. And I suspect much of what you listed isn't even a scientific position.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

The modern atheist is someone that believes this is all there is and there is nothing else.
That only what is observable or verifiable by science is "real".

That type of atheist didn't exist till about the 19th century,perhaps 17th.
Before that they were agnostic or simply the atheist type that believed that only what we can see with our 5 senses was real.

What's the difference between the modern atheist who believes only that which is observable and verifiable by science is real, vs the pre 17th century atheist who believes only that which can be experienced via our 5 seances are real? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc...

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

[Kenny]

The modern atheist is someone that believes this is all there is and there is nothing else.
That only what is observable or verifiable by science is "real".

That type of atheist didn't exist till about the 19th century,perhaps 17th.
Before that they were agnostic or simply the atheist type that believed that only what we can see with our 5 senses was real.

What's the difference between the modern atheist who believes only that which is observable and verifiable by science is real, vs the pre 17th century atheist who believes only that which can be experienced via our 5 seances are real? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc...

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

What's the difference between the modern atheist who believes only that which is observable and verifiable by science is real, vs the pre 17th century atheist who believes only that which can be experienced via our 5 seances are real? Am I missing something here?

Ken

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc...

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

It is not demonstrable or verifiable and science does not do proof. Do you remember Audie making that point? So if you believe science for truth it is not provable,yet those same atheists demand proof for God. They give man a pass out of a bias but not God. They want God proven,when not even science does proof. many atheists especially the vocal ones on-line just replace God with science,yet deny they have faith in it,all the while preaching science like it somehow proves there is no God. You don't seem to be one of them kind of atheists but they are out there being "hoodwinked" by this new atheist movement and the four horseman who have absolutely no proof atheism is true,but even science.

[Kenny]

Considering that the modern atheist believes things that are NOT verified by the 5 SENSES, yes I guess you are missing something here.
EX: Modern Atheists believe in evolution and that is NOT verifiable by the 5 senses, same goes for existences of black holes, planets not visible by the human eye, etc, etc...

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

It is not demonstrable or verifiable and science does not do proof. Do you remember Audie making that point? So if you believe science for truth it is not provable,yet those same atheists demand proof for God. They give man a pass out of a bias but not God. They want God proven,when not even science does proof. many atheists especially the vocal ones on-line just replace God with science,yet deny they have faith in it,all the while preaching science like it somehow proves there is no God. You don't seem to be one of them kind of atheists but they are out there being "hoodwinked" by this new atheist movement and the four horseman who have absolutely no proof atheism is true,but even science.

I think he point Audie was making was that Science is never 100% certain because they always leave open the possibility that they could be wrong.

If there were as much empirical evidence for God as there is for what science brings to the table, I think there would be a lot less atheists. The problem is, God is usually defined as spiritual, or some way which omits him from being experienced empirically. Thus those who only accept the existence of the material world will doubt the existence of anything spiritual; even God.

Ken

[abelcainsbrother]

Actually those things are visible by the human eye aided by the tools scientists use; telescopes, microscopes, etc.

Ken

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

It is not demonstrable or verifiable and science does not do proof. Do you remember Audie making that point? So if you believe science for truth it is not provable,yet those same atheists demand proof for God. They give man a pass out of a bias but not God. They want God proven,when not even science does proof. many atheists especially the vocal ones on-line just replace God with science,yet deny they have faith in it,all the while preaching science like it somehow proves there is no God. You don't seem to be one of them kind of atheists but they are out there being "hoodwinked" by this new atheist movement and the four horseman who have absolutely no proof atheism is true,but even science.

I know very well how atheists look at

I think he point Audie was making was that Science is never 100% certain because they always leave open the possibility that they could be wrong.

If there were as much empirical evidence for God as there is for what science brings to the table, I think there would be a lot less atheists. The problem is, God is usually defined as spiritual, or some way which omits him from being experienced empirically. Thus those who only accept the existence of the material world will doubt the existence of anything spiritual; even God.

Ken

Yes,any scientific theory could be failsified in the future.What good is emperical evidence that could be falsified in the future? Am I bashing science? No,not at all,however it either comes down to speculations from man or revelation from God. everybody knows there is no empirical evidence for God in science,so it is really a moot point and circular reasoning also.

The evidence for God is not embraced by science so you cannot look to science for validation of God,instead you must seek it out from other sources. However most theories in science point to God anyway and line up with the bible over any other holy book.It is the non-peer reviewed scientific ideas that atheists often believe that seems to explain the need for God away that they believe. But it comes down to faith either way a person goes though,you're either going to believe what man says is true or what God says is true with neither side having proof.

[PaulSacramento]

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.
The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).
The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

Science has given us an amazing view of things, proven that reality is every changing, even subjective.
The past atheist would have scoffed at such and, it can be argued, was a more "rational atheist" since his atheism was based on what can ONLY be experienced/observed by the 5 senses.
The modern atheist KNOWS there is FAR MORE to it than that.

[Kenny]

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/

Of course if you wanna be nit picky and say that I should have stated "naked eye" that is fine.

The point stands.

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

It is not demonstrable or verifiable and science does not do proof. Do you remember Audie making that point? So if you believe science for truth it is not provable,yet those same atheists demand proof for God. They give man a pass out of a bias but not God. They want God proven,when not even science does proof. many atheists especially the vocal ones on-line just replace God with science,yet deny they have faith in it,all the while preaching science like it somehow proves there is no God. You don't seem to be one of them kind of atheists but they are out there being "hoodwinked" by this new atheist movement and the four horseman who have absolutely no proof atheism is true,but even science.

I know very well how atheists look at

I think he point Audie was making was that Science is never 100% certain because they always leave open the possibility that they could be wrong.

If there were as much empirical evidence for God as there is for what science brings to the table, I think there would be a lot less atheists. The problem is, God is usually defined as spiritual, or some way which omits him from being experienced empirically. Thus those who only accept the existence of the material world will doubt the existence of anything spiritual; even God.

Ken

Yes,any scientific theory could be failsified in the future.What good is emperical evidence that could be falsified in the future?

Evidence is necessary to convince someone that a claim is true. The fact that a scenario exists that could discredit this evidence doesn't take away from it's importance

Ken

[Kenny]

So what’s your point? Is it that modern atheists use technology in a way ancient atheists could not, but they both believe what is demonstrable and verifiable via their 5 senses… if that is your point, then I concede your point stands.

Ken

The point ken was that the past atheist believed in only what was able to be verified by the 5 senses and nothing more.
They believed that what could not be seen, for example, didn't exist.

Where are you getting this stuff? You obviously haven’t spoken to any “ancient atheists” so what makes you think there is any merit to this claim?

The modern atheist knows that is not the case BUT still only believes in what can be proven by verifiable scientific methods BUT also accepts what is POSTULATED and THEORIZED but can NOT be proven by direct observation because science "tell him so" ( an example would be climate change and it's causes).

Oh so all Atheists believe in climate change now? Did you read this from a book or something, or are you just makin’ stuff up as you go along?

The modern atheist knows there is more than what can be proven by the 5 senses, that reality is ever changing ( even if they don't admit it to themselves at times).

No offence intended, but if you honestly believe this stuff you are saying, you need to speak to more atheists my friend, because you haven’t a clue as to what atheist believe.

Ken