Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist? — Harry Hindu
I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion. — Hanover
The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations. — Hanover
The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago. — Hanover
I don't think so. In order to determine whether God exists or not, then we must first agree on a definition. If you go back as far as Socrates and Plato, you will find that before going any further, any philosophical discussion must agree on definitions (and that doesn't mean purely agreeing on the words of a definition, but more importantly on their meaning). For how can we answer the question of whether there is a God or there is not a God if we don't first agree what God refers to or means?This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. — Hanover
That's not true, but if you want to discuss transubstantiation or God, you must agree with the definitions of the person you seek to combat in this case, or otherwise make clear why you disagree. Without agreeing to the definitions you are actually discussing something different.What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority. — Hanover
Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout. — Hanover
No, that's not what is being said. You have to go to the propositional content of the words. When you call any item that exists as "elves", assuming that others adopt that usage of the word elves, that means that elves has taken on the propositional content of whatever item you have picked. So when used in those particular contexts, elves now refers to whatever that item refers to. Elves could also have other meanings (referents) in different contexts - in the context of Lord of the Rings, it refers to particular humanoid characters which have certain traits.You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:
1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".
Now elves exist. Impressive, huh? — Sapientia
The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. — Agustino
Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole. — Buxtebuddha
Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.
I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural. — Agustino
Where was that suggested?You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious. — Buxtebuddha
I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to. — Agustino
Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change. — Agustino
Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals. — Metaphysician Undercover
The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection. — Metaphysician Undercover
You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories?I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery? — Metaphysician Undercover
I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting. — Inter Alia
I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that. — Inter Alia
You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice. — Benkei
Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society. — Benkei
Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society. — Benkei
Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I went back and looked at what I wrote and I can't figure it out. — T Clark
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher. — T Clark
I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. — T Clark
That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. — Benkei
The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation. — Hanover
So what? — T Clark
Let's pick some astrological terms then:Depends what the terms are in question are
So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu
That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.. — Agustino
This is an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy (tell me how you are using reason to get at your truths again). At one point in history, most people believed the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make them right? This is just evidence of a mass delusion. Most humans fear death, including atheists. It's just atheists have rejected or haven't succumbed to the delusion the fear feeds. We accept our finite existence and get on with our lives as atheists understand better than any theist the value of life. An afterlife diminishes the value of this life, the only one we have. Imagine how much more precious this life is without an afterlife.And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu
Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.
And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination. — Agustino
Watch this video. This video was done in Brazil, which has the largest number of Catholics in the world.I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. — Agustino
You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise. — Harry Hindu
It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. — Sapientia
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.