Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu
"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu
Your delusions of grandeu — Harry Hindu
How can you speak for Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are. — Hanover
Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur. Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence. You cannot. When you can I am willing to change my mind. I have in the past, as I said I was a believer, but now I am not - based on observable evidence and logic. I am the one here that has made a complete 180 on my beliefs based on the evidence. I am the one with an open-mind and having an open mind means that you are willing to accept that you are wrong and willing to listen to others, but also having the right to ask questions when what is being said isn't clear or reasonable.It's you having the delusion of grandeur. You can't stand it not being able to explain me. The thought of being able to explain me is exactly your illusion of grandeur! The gods laugh about you! :lol: — Haglund
When you can I am willing to change my mind — Harry Hindu
I can point to observations and reason as evidence for our existence — Harry Hindu
Asking questions are not the symptoms of delusions of grandeur — Harry Hindu
My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.
I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth. — Harry Hindu
Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu
Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)).Reality (i.e. ineluctable limits, facts-of-the-matter, facticity) is independent of faith.
Truth (i.e. truth-bearer plus truth-maker) is independent of feelings.
A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), at minimum, consists in striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive judgment (e.g. faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions)) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives / decision-making (vices)).
:roll: First, prove the universe exists ...I consider the existence of the universe as proof of the gods. — Haglund
Reality (i.e. ineluctable limits, facts-of-the-matter, facticity) is independent of faith.
Truth (i.e. truth-bearer plus truth-maker) is independent of feelings.
A "meaningful life" (i.e. optimal agency), at minimum, consists in striving daily to overcome habits of maladaptive judgment (e.g. faith-dependent expectations of reality (biases, superstitions, delusions)) and maladaptive conduct (e.g. feelings-dependent motives / decision-making (vices))
Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)). — 180 Proof
If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs? — Hanover
If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound.I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. — Hanover
If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound. — 180 Proof
Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof
Knowing that it's also worth knowing there are 2 kinds of Atheism existing today:
1. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist and it doesn't care about God, something not worth discussing any further by such people (true atheism)
2. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist but with firm belief it's so and desire to spread the word about God nonexistence. (this is a form of religion, strong belief there is no God and desire to get followers) — SpaceDweller
This is a good point, and there seems (to me) to be tension around whether the definition of athiesm is a denial of the existence of gods or an assertion that God/gods do not exist.Firstly there is no 'true atheism' - this is as erroneous as claiming there is one true Christianity, or one true American.
and (perhap the antitheist claim)Atheism is simply any view that holds that god claims are worthless
seem contradictory to me. Maybe you can assert that atheism is the view that god claims are meaningless (in a similar way to how moral non-cognitivists assert that ethical claims have no truth value). But if you assert that religions cause harm, then religious claims (and thus claims about God or gods) has the capacity to hold (in this case) negative worth.Some atheists think that religions cause harm
In a sense, the evangelical nature of the new athiests (which to me are more antitheists than atheists) are a very interesting parallel to evangelical religions. — Paulm12
seem contradictory to me. Maybe you can assert that atheism is the view that god claims are meaningless (in a similar way to how moral non-cognitivists assert that ethical claims have no truth value). But if you assert that religions cause harm, then religious claims (and thus claims about God or gods) has the capacity to hold (in this case) negative worth. — Paulm12
In this case, would you also hold that religious fundamentalists who believe that those they are preaching to could spend eternity in hell are also activists in a similar sense? Perhaps "after-life activists"? Furthermore, what about any activism based on such beliefs (i.e. pro-life stances)?But for me their work is better understood as activism. Which could be about race or poverty, or in their case theisms
Yeah that's the way I see it too. Unfortunately, I think they take it too far and become alienating. This has been especially apparent in recent years as we see their work as a knee-jerk response to 9/11. Especially because Dawkins is like Trump on twitter “All the world’s Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge.” To the point that I don't even know if they're intentionally trying to imitate fundamentalist claims or have merged with the far right themselves. And I apologize that this article reads (and basically is) a tabloid.I generally see the work of Dawkins and co as fundamentalist busting - be they Christian or Islamic fundie views.
I think I understand the point that you're trying to make. With that being said, the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s). But I don't think the particular issue is the fact that the claims are unsubstantiated. The issue is that the behaviors themselves are harmful (and like you point out, both plenty of other religious people and nonreligious people speak out about this).Religions founded on meaningless claims (which cannot be substantiated) hold views and influence social policy in a manner which many consider to be harmful
In this case, would you also hold that religious fundamentalists who believe that those they are preaching to could spend eternity in hell are also activists in a similar sense? — Paulm12
I think I understand the point that you're trying to make. With that being said, the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s). But I don't think the particular issue is the fact that the claims are unsubstantiated. The issue is that the behaviors themselves are harmful (and like you point out, both plenty of other religious people and nonreligious people speak out about this).
I say this because I tend to fall onto the side of having difficulty substantiating any (objective) moral claims. Yes I do believe they exist, but I don't think I'd really be able to provide evidence as to why they exist or why someone should adopt them. — Paulm12
the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s) — Paulm12
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.