Is the following statement true or false: — 3017amen
Im not trying to intimidate you, nor was any if that a personal attack. Im trying to help you, because if you keep on doing what your doing people will just start ignoring you. Id rather that people had interesting interactions instead of talking past or ignoring each other.
The reason you seem like you are trolling is because you are ignoring direct points and questions. You responded to that by just doing the exact same thing. Ignoring and restating your question. People are not confused why they are frustrated, you are confused as to why its frustrating.
And I already answered your question, remember? — DingoJones
Ok, I will answer again but this is your last chance for an actual discussion. From me at least.
God does not exist, true or false?
The answer is I do not know. No, that doesnt mean atheism is untenable because atheism isnt the position that god doesnt exist. Atheism is the position of not believing a god does exist.
Now your turn to answer a question, I think thats fair.
Do you understand the distinction between a position that god doesnt exist and the position of not believing a god exists? — DingoJones
Okay please don't get mad but I don't understand.
What is a lack of belief in something? — 3017amen
No I don't think so, — 3017amen
Hey great question! No I don't know. Can you tell me why I don't? — 3017amen
your atheism is supposed to know about consciousness, belief systems, so on and so forth right? — 3017amen
A king’s existence is demonstrated by way of subjection and submissiveness. Do you want to try and demonstrate that the king exists? Will you do so by offering a string of proofs, a series of arguments? No. If you are serious, you will demonstrate the king’s existence by your submission, by the way you live. And so it is with demonstrating God’s existence. It is accomplished not by proofs but by worship. Any other way is but a thinker’s pious bungling. — Soren Kierkegaard, from Charles E. Moore compilation.
And so it is with demonstrating God’s existence. It is accomplished not by proofs but by worship. — Soren Kierkegaard, from Charles E. Moore compilation.
1. God does not exist.
True or false or something else? — 3017amen
In any case, it doesn't seem like atheism has the answers...( to the deep questions of existence). — 3017amen
Does music theory confer biological survival value? — 3017amen
What is a lack of belief in something? In cognition, what does that really mean? — 3017amen
You're talking about a feeling, and I can relate to that. But no feeling entails the existence or reality of anything in particular (other than the one having the feeling I guess). — Janus
Liberal secularism is itself a violent regulator of ‘private’ belief. You can believe whatever you like, provided you do not believe that your personal beliefs are actually objectively true, or matter in any public way. You can have whatever personal loyalties you like, provided you give uncompromising public loyalty to the state in which you are born, to the liberal and secular laws it mandates, and . . . accept its total power . . . . in reality, we have a single public cultus, and private cultus pluralism. . . . Because the realm of objectivity is tightly conceptually tied to mere facticity and mere instrumental efficacy, technology has increasingly displaced humanity in the arena of public power. The technologies of public-opinion manipulation that the mass media uses, and that politicians seek to harness, and that large corporations use with their staggeringly large lobbying, advertising, legal and accounting budgets, makes the public square anything but a realm that reflects the religious or moral values, or even the actual workplace and economic interests, of the people that democratic government is meant to represent. So in reality, the cross-over from non-coerced personal beliefs into the public realm of civic debate and legal construction is powerfully shaped by the supposedly merely efficient and merely factual forces of what in fact highly interested and personally invasive political technologies. Our supposedly personal beliefs and values are relentlessly disciplined by advertising so as to promote an atomic self with our desires always directed toward personal satisfaction via must-have goods and services, and the financial means of attaining them. In fact, there are no hard boundaries between the personal and the public, but we are fed relentless solipsistic diet of myths and illusions such that our self is radically de-politicized and beliefs concerning all matters of final significance are radically interiorized and made passive in relation to the world we inhabit.”
Dennett of all people? He's an eliminative materialist. He doesn't even buy that there are minds in the conventional "folk" sense. He's certainly not going to claim that we have subconscious minds and that they cause accidents. — Terrapin Station
And so it is with demonstrating God’s existence. It is accomplished not by proofs but by worship. — Soren Kierkegaard, from Charles E. Moore compilation.
It sucks that it's almost impossible to actually have a conversation with someone with a different point of view here (and on boards like this in general). Everyone either has act like they have various mental problems. It almost seems like folks believe that's the way to approach "debates" on the Internet--as if it's a requirement to act like you have some mental problem rather than having a straightforward, good-faith conversation. It just becomes a long string of people acting like they don't or can't understand anything the other person says, a la Aspie reading comprehension issues, absurd "playing dumb" approaches, repetitive OCDish behavior (as 3017 seems to be sinking into), and a variety of other trollish crap in the same vein. — Terrapin Station
The vital perspective that has gone missing is that of degrees of reality. This is related to a worldview grounded in the idea of the chain of being - that reality emanates from or is originated by a transcendent intelligence, and cascades down through various levels of being, of which matter is the lowest level, i.e. most remote from the origin or source. And as our culture sees matter as being the only reality, then obviously understanding or coming to terms with that outlook is quite a difficult matter. — Wayfarer
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.