Atheism and the scientific skeptical attitude completely eradicated all of my former beliefs about God or the supernatural. I first picked up atheism from YouTube and the popular (at that time) new atheist movement. I later found out that their arguments weren't philosophically sound, but still clung onto atheism (perhaps out of habit).what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk
in talking to an eclectic mix of other people interested in philosophy on the forum, what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk
How about you? What changing thinking have you experienced? — Bitter Crank
Perhaps the next step is to separate these two completely. For the child, God just is the supernatural. For the adult he cannot be. Yet not natural either. In fact he cannot be, in any ordinary sense. The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason.God or the supernatural. — Wheatley
And perhaps this is on the way to learning exactly what those meanings are. If we can hear Paul without the religious substance and overtones, "...put away childish things." He did not say that was easy, nor that ease would be a sign it was donewithout many others around me interested in philosophy and more specifically, what is the meaning and purpose to life. — Risk
The skeptical part of my brain says “doubt this”, which is my natural inclination. I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt?Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant). — tim wood
I can’t even get to that point unfortunately. If I ask many people what god is, they will never give me a straightforward answer. What does Kant understand about conception of God? That’s something I would really want to know.Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is). — tim wood
If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God.But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever. — tim wood
Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.)I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt? — Wheatley
In my opinion you nail it here. God is everywhere claimed "to exist" and at the same time claimed to be unknowable - and unknowable for prosaic reason: to know is to know the limitations of, and God supposedly has none. For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason.conception of God — Wheatley
And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear.that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. — Wheatley
I am not sure if I am misusing doubt, and therein lies a deep problem for me. I use doubt to defend my doubting. If someone tells me that my doubting hurts me and is unhelpful, there's always the option to doubt even that. How does one get out of such a hole? I guess you can say, "you're playing a silly game. Snap out of it!"Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.) — tim wood
I tend to avoid all philosophical systems, anyhow. You might say it's a bad habit of mine.And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable. — tim wood
Not sure what to make of this. I'm sure Kant was considered a genius at the time, and it's imperative (pun intended), to take him quite seriously.For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason. — tim wood
Based on what you just said I think 'Diety' is an appropriate term for 'god'.But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade. — tim wood
Now I understand! I guess there is one less ignorant person on the planet now.And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear. — tim wood
And thats one of the problems I have with some religions. How do Christian's (just using them as an example) deal with those who do not act according to the ways of Christianity, yet call themselves Christians? (I am thinking of the Westboro Babtist Church). Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions?Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c. AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.
were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes? — tim wood
And in a free country! No small question at all. And history shows us hamstrung against those without those - or any - scruples.Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions? — Wheatley
I was thinking more along the lines with restricting the ability of those who wish to call themselves 'baptist', or better yet, 'Christian'. Of course anyone can call themselves anything, but it is up to the religion on who they accept.There's proactive justice and reactive justice. — tim wood
If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God. — Wheatley
No such things as deities.Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods? — Frank Apisa
Wheatley
1.1k
Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
— Frank Apisa
No such things as deities. — Wheatley
Wheatley
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa I know. — Wheatley
tim wood
4.6k
↪Frank Apisa Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you. — tim wood
I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.
What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities? — Frank Apisa
Wheatley
1.1k
You KNOW there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa
Prove that I don’t know. — Wheatley
There’s no obligation to prove anything.I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.
Prove that you do. — Frank Apisa
Wheatley
1.1k
I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.
What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa
Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out. — Wheatley
Wheatley
1.1k
I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.
Prove that you do.
— Frank Apisa
There’s no obligation to prove anything. — Wheatley
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.