It was only advice.YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley. — Frank Apisa
That’s not true because I didn’t agree to any of this. You asked me a question and I answered it.You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it. — Frank Apisa
I don’t know what to believe.Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods? — Frank Apisa
What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities? — Frank Apisa
Wheatley
1.1k
YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley.
— Frank Apisa
It was only advice. — Wheatley
Wheatley
1.1k
You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it.
— Frank Apisa
That’s not true because I didn’t agree to any of this. You asked me a question and I answered it. — Wheatley
Wheatley
1.1k
Let’s get back to the beginning.
Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
— Frank Apisa
I don’t know what to believe. — Wheatley
tim wood
4.6k
What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa
Two possibilities: 1) He knows. And this is the entrance to a rabbit-hole. I, for example, would point out that by most definitions of "deity," he/they/it cannot in principle be known, nor any aspect of them. And where there is not the possibility of knowledge of a something, it's fair to say that something cannot in any ordinary sense exist, or "be." It may have a qualified "existence," but existence in that case would have to be defined.
2) Within the limitations of possible knowledge he may know. This allows for a being outside of all possible knowledge, but what sort of being would that be?
So it seems to devolve to two outcomes: 1) an agreement that a definition of terms is necessary, and the effort to define them, Or 2) Nyah-nyah yer momma wears combat boots.
And oddly enough, while one is what most folks want, two is what usually happens. — tim wood
I lied.YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. The assertion was that you KNOW there are no deities. — Frank Apisa
Because I'm insane. I don't know.Then why say you KNOW there are no deities? — Frank Apisa
You have no moral high ground to be preaching ethics, nor do you have the respect to lecture me about honor. I see you even created a whole thread just to bash people who call themselves "atheists." Let's not have any pretense here; you never really wanted a better understanding of my philosophical position. Your sole intention was to put me down with your condescending posts and score points for yourself. If your goal is to engage in civilized debate, I suggest you work on your manners first. For starters, I wouldn't attack someone's personal beliefs in a thread that was designed by @Risk to be peaceful! I was having an amicable conversation with @tim wood before you decided to butt in! *talk about honor*If you can prove the assertion...do so. If you cannot (and considering this is a philosophical forum) you should withdraw it. That was not an order, it was a suggestion. It would be the honorable, ethical thing to do. — Frank Apisa
key to salvaging my philosophical views from abject nihilism, — Pfhorrest
I'm still feeling a bit like this: :rage: But your suggestion is probably the best thing to do. Peace! :cheer:I have no idea of what your problem is, but I suggest we simply refrain from discussing this further.
Okay? — Frank Apisa
I would be really interested in understanding how, coming out of a nihilistic viewpoint, you didn't land on post modernist thinking? Nihilism to me is where one lands when they realise nothing can be concretely justified and that everything requires some level of belief. Post Modernism takes that and accepts it. Recognising it cannot be an end point in itself, but that it is most likely just that. — Risk
Opposingly I don't find science profound at all. Science by its very nature is methodic and determinate. — Risk
but like a pick can unearth gold — Kenosha Kid
Gold has never seemed profound to me either! — Risk
A blend between Pascals wager but for knowledge and Newtons Flaming laser sword (I would apologise about the classification but to classify seems to fit with your structure). Explains why PM doesn't float your boat. Appreciate you explaining. — Risk
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. — tim wood
what key ideas have you been exposed to that have completely changed your viewpoint on a belief you previously held? — Risk
Don't be depressed. What those people lose is a failed understanding of religion, or if you will misunderstanding or non-understanding. Generally they invent a God in their own personal image - and that just plain does not work. It's a little like ending a relationship with an addict, having finally understood that what you thought or hoped it was, it never was and never could be. And in the case of an exploded personal faith, the addict is not another person, but rather a part of themselves. A time perhaps of pain, but also the possibility of growth. In any case a necessary step for that growth to happen.So many people citing losing religion as a profound defining moment. — Kenosha Kid
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.