jorndoe
1k
You get to the bus stop in the morning, wondering if you're late, so you ask someone already there.
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? Punshhh?) — jorndoe
↪Frank Apisa, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread. — jorndoe
Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in? — Hippyhead
That's not a useful comparison because it compares two scenarios, one of which is known to be encountered frequently in our world with one known to never happen in our world. However when it comes to details of our origins there is no way to determine if a proposed scenario is known to be the case, or known not to be the case. Such a determination may well be possible, but I can't see how we are in a position to determine it, philosophically, at this time.So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference?
I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging. — EricH
Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief? — EricH
And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer. — EricH
Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion — jorndoe
Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter — jorndoe
1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....
2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...
3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...
4) Still is interested in god topics... — Hippyhead
I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'? — EricH
If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests. — EricH
from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’ — define atheism
Agreed, but so what? — Hippyhead
As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. — Hippyhead
The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. — EricH
EricH
179
As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm.
— Hippyhead
The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).
Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.
I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.
But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism
- - - - - - - - - -
BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East. — EricH
Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth. — Frank Apisa
But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence. — EricH
Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).
We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.
Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile: — EricH
Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29
Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." — Frank Apisa
Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble.Very jaded view there — Frank Apisa
EricH
181
Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29
Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."
— Frank Apisa
Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).
You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.
And you have explicitly rejected this notion. — EricH
Very jaded view there
— Frank Apisa
Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble. — EricH
The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically. — Frank Apisa
You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric. — Frank Apisa
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.