U kant penetrat mai fozfeeld!

1: "Everyone knows that God exists"
False. Everyone (or mostly everyone) know of the concept of God, but NO ONE, not even you, knows that it actually exists.

2: "Why do atheists look for 'loopholes' and 'contradictions' in the bible"
Because you consider it a holy text and we don't. By showing that it is false, we are proved right.

3: "atheists are atheists to get laid"
You're projecting.

4: "Atheists are atheists because they like wicked things"
This is just not right and I dare say that you're projecting again. There is no logic to it.

5: "lucifer was an atheists; played this hand already"
Are you arguing that lucifer, if he existed, would not believe in God? Are you that dense? Unlike humans he would have an intimate relationship with him and actually have been in his presence, so why in the world would he not believe? He would freaking KNOW. But this is like arguing why Ahab poured his hatred on the white whale; ultimately not important - it's a fiction.

6: "What he internally know is true"
There is no prior knowledge. Immanuel Kant tried that one and failed.

>> ^westy:
.lol what a retard he is now a christain lol so stupid moving from one thing bassed on no evidence to another thing thats bassed on no evidence what a fuckwit


And you have some epistemological view that is supported by pure logic and no assumption? Kant's Critique of Pure Reason pointed out the limitations of the empirical explanations of science, and Quine's Rejection of the analytic-synthetic distinction destroyed logical positivism.

So far any philosophic or religious understanding lacks exhaustive explanation of everything. Every mode of truth has been struck down as incomplete or lacking in the necessity for it to make the claim that it is objective in nature. Surely the person in the video isn't a fuckwit.

Edit: Removing what could be interpreted as a slam. Thanks bluecliff

I read the article this morning and it very much made my day.

COPZ KANT MESS WITH INTERTUBEZ

Crap this thread is dying! *promote and will sum1 plz summarize that big comment, i kant read that much at once....plz, i need to know what he said

Brilliant.

Not an elephant, but a fire ant, likes his Kant and runs around on a plant.
He loves his crown of much renown and wears it all around our town.
He's made of stars and he's all ours.
Congratulations and salutations are required, 'cause many a sifter he has inspired.

I tip my hat to our queen or king and if text could, this would sing. ♫

HadouKen24, why?

Because she sucked at philosophy. Her epistemology and metaphysics were not even close to sophistication and nuance of the works of the Vienna Circle, whose philosophical contributions were similar in aim and attitude, but far superior in quality. She did not come close to answering the challenges presented by the pragmatism of William James or the holism of W. V. O. Quine. (The Quine-Duhem thesis pounds the last nail in the coffin of Objectivism.)

Her ethical thought, while correct in its rejection of a hard fact-value distinction, nonetheless failed to account for or take into account important facts about human nature and psychology. As a result, it is abysmal--not only wrong, but horribly and dangerously wrong.

While Rand occasionally refers to previous philosophers like Kant and Aristotle, the way she made use of their works made it clear that her understanding of them was cursory at best.

the lyrics in the description are wrong:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume,
Schopenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey everyday.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René DesCartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am."

Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker
but a bugger when he's pissed.

>> ^EDD:
Surprising and sad. It's really short though, I wonder what the general context was and also what he followed that up with..?
Anyway, I hope the day arrives soon, well within my lifetime, when scientific method and resultant fact aren't feared and disputed as something contradicting the idea of a creator. It's just plain wrong to compare the two, because science doesn't claim to have an answer to this particular question (yet) as it's based on the set of laws that just didn't exist before the beginning of time (the Big Bang). The laws and rules of our existence are indisputably set and they're here whether we like them or not; by defying them (imagining the occasional 'miracles' and expecting divine interventions) and defying the need to study and understand these laws, one is hindering our progress as a civilization - usually because one is accustomed to and wants to maintain the current status quo (i.e. they're well off) and is afraid (or purposefully intimidated) of change.
All the ancient nonsense that was made up to "explain" the unknown should and probably will eventually be discarded just like the heliocentric model was accepted by (the majority of) the sane world, and all that would remain afterwards would be folks that have been made believe via indoctrination. And when we'll finally be rid of this final despicable abusive parenting malpractice (and I do believe there will come such a day), we will have freed ourselves from one of the most oppressive shackles in our species' history.
Now there's a day full of tears of joy I am so looking forward to!


Except science doesn't deal with the main element of the question people pose with life. Science doesn't deal with truth, only observed trends which can't even be called facts as far as I would define a fact. A fact is a certainty, and I define certainty as perfect knowledge that is total security from error. This can never be achived with sceince as it deals with percived phenomina and not noumenon. Kant was the one who ended up saying that the limmits of reason open up the doorway to faith.

I am not an saying science is useless or anything, it got us to the moon, and other neato things. But it doesn't ever have a claim to truth, or as you would put it facts.

Moreover, the more we learn about the the "laws" that govern all that is around us, we find that it has no certainty in the quantum relm at all. Things do not play by any set of rules, and indeed, it seems random in nature. Thus overuling any model that could say with true certainty that it had discovered the facts of the univerce. The fact is, that science doesn't deal with facts and has no method of proving things true, only methods of proving them false.

Might I remind you that sciece doesn't even have a proper explanation for gravity or even more simple, mass and how it is created. Moreover, those are things that are the basis for all other things built on top of them and yet they go unanswered. Science is the new abuse in it scope of what it says it has answers to and the relm of life that it holds to have answers for.

once again I'm all for science, being a scientist myself (as my frequent mispellings should indicate ), but it will never replace the faith element by Kants own admissions. (I view Kant as the father of empirical thinking, but there are others like hegal and hidigar that point out some of the main problems with the limmits of reason)

edit, or ya, and on topic for this movie, his views on evolution shouldn't have anything to do with his revolutionary ideas on getting back to the small government topology. Completely irrelvant just as what his faith is or isn't. Unless now anyone accociated with faith is now automatically a moron; in which I find to be an very bigoted way of thinking and not conforming to the so called tolorance that I keep hearing people claim should be the order of the day.

intelligence migrates to the projects!

As Kant used to say -

it's an a priori faculty, motherfuckers

I'm not trying to forgive ignorance, I'm just saying that people don't all have the same knowledge set. Ask me about science all day long, but kindly don't ask me about contemporary poetry. I can tell you who Linus Pauling is or the charge of and code for each aminoacid, but all I know about Immanuel Kant is that he was "a real pissant and was very rarely stable." Sometimes you have to trust what experts tell you. Otherwise you'll wind up a Jack of all trades and a master of none. That, and not everyone is smart.

The fact that people should know most of these answers goes without saying, but understanding why those that don't don't is far more interesting to me than what they in fact know. How the heck can you NOT know that the center of the earth is hot?! Where is all that molten rock coming from, the sky?

I'd be interested in seeing a poll of our house and senate with the same questions.

ever since Kant's Schema?

he has so had this coming.

no-good scheming bastard.

Well, I think we all know that Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

the mention of ochams razor is a really old and problematic argument. I remember watching the Jodie Foster movie where its mentioned. It's a precept, and has more to do with common sense than science (the two being sometimes in opposition - quantum mechanics)

wikipedia
Kant felt a need to moderate the effects of Occam's razor and thus created his own counter-razor: "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."

"beings" here means , in philosophical terminology, an entity, a thing, anything that can be said to be (to exist)

well he does have a semblance of a point.
Hume's argument
- you cannot, ever, be sure that the sun will rise tomorrow. I.e. you have to believe it will (and you DO believe it will)
Kant came upon the same conclusion, that you can never know external objects, as they are in or by themselves, you must believe that they exist, or make a statement of beliefe. The reason for believing is
in either science or God is the problem. But, in essence, it is a matter of beliefe. Of course, the reasons for believing in science are perhaps more reasonable, rational and closer to experience but are still matters of beliefe.
For you all atheist go check out
the interesting lecture
"Why only an atheist can believe"
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh_KO4tSMeU]

disclaimer -
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intesity."
W. B. Yeats