When challenged by a "true believer" to say what i "believe in", since I reject their "One True God", I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof
Certum est, quia impossibile (It is certain because it is impossible). — Tertullian
In terms of teaching magick to anyone, this website is a great place to start. IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft
While I am an atheist, I am also a optimistic Gnostic-type of person. Whereas most Gnostics are rather pessimistic about this reality. Ultimately the use of tools such as magick and technologies are a matter of choice. If a person chooses to shut themselves off from their own potentials, so be it. It's when they attempt to limit others in their own individual pursuit(s) of actualization, that a line has clearly been crossed. — Bret Bernhoft
I recognize your freedom to say so, of course, but in my view 'magick' is in the same family of ways of thinking that the Enlightenment reacted against. Anything esoteric is suspect.
It'd be fine to teach about all religions in public schools, but I don't think it'd be wise or proper to teach it as binding or true. I suspect you wouldn't want bible-thumpers teaching biology, for similar reasons. — Pie
Can religions be working assumptions and is it prudent/wise to believe in God (re Pascal's wager)? — Agent Smith
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.
We are in 21th century already. Those pagans doctrine should not be allowed in schools. It is primitive and it goes against all the basic knowledge the world needs to find solutions to our problems. — javi2541997
I am the OP and for context I am agnostic. By definition, a belief in a lack of the possibility of there being god is still a belief. Grammatically, one can take "faith" that god does not exist.I also think the OP is contradictory. There is not "atheistic faith" because atheism is against this sacred and religious act. Putting "faith" and "atheist" in the same group has no sense — javi2541997
While logical positivism is based on proofs and scientific evidences, religion depends on your own belief. — javi2541997
Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing. — praxis
This is a common rhetorical device used by evangelical apologists all the time - 'You atheists have faith in reason/science.' Seems an inadequate approach and a gimmick. It's also an example of the tu quoquo fallacy, or an appeal to hypocrisy.
Most atheists I know do not have faith in science or anything else. Faith is the excuse you give for believing something when you have no good reason to believe it. An atheist who privileges science generally sees it as the most reliable method for determining what is true or not, developing tentative models, using the best available evidence at the time. Science therefore is fallibilistic and changes when new facts emerge - which is the opposite of how faith functions.
Atheists do not always subscribe to materialism. Some are into New Age ideas, reincarnation and idealism. Atheism generally holds that there is no good reason to believe in any gods. It does not say there are no gods (a positive claim). That's all there need be to it. There is no faith in 'no god' just as you or others do not have faith in 'no Loch Ness Monster'. As an atheist myself, I am simply unconvinced that there are god/s. — Tom Storm
I often just quote Isaac Asimov: "I believe in evidence." :fire:
I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be. — 180 Proof
Life is evidence of the divine. Nothing about the spark of life is reflected in atheism. It's just a dearth of rational thought masquerading as science. — neonspectraltoast
Actually the dearth of rational thought is faith. That's the very point of faith, isn't it? — Tom Storm
And the sociological-pedagogical evidence for the efficacy of these "practical tools" is what exactly? — 180 Proof
The less plausible a statement, the less likely it is a lie — Agent Smith
IMO, the best way to teach magick is to both embody said subject through metaphor. — Bret Bernhoft
It becomes grey because the first broadest sense of atheism is almost identical to agnosticism. I see atheism used more commonly in philosophical debates with the context of the narrower sense: of the rejection God/s and belief that no such God/s exists or can exist. If Atheism isn't the correct term for such a belief, I don't know what term is.
You write well and I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say, especially on my previous comments on epistemology/ontology. — intrapersona
One being that it brings you closer to the truth, the other being it brings you further from it. — intrapersona
FAITH: define
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2.strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. — intrapersona
When it comes to religious belief there can be no empirical evidence or inter-subjective confirmation. So faith is, in relations to these kinds of evidence, belief without evidence. But people may believe on the strength of experiences that in themselves seem to them to constitute good evidence for their faith; and if that is not wrongheadedly put out into the public arena as something that seeks to convince others, then it will draw no critique. — Janus
The nature of time or consciousness have no impact on this. In terms of epistemology and ontology - I leave such weighty subjects to the experts. I don't have a significant interest in the origin of life or the nature of the universe. I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sots of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. As you say in the video, most of the putative answers here are wild, speculative and imaginative.
Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. I am happy to be a partially reflective follower of the crumbling remnants of the post-enlightenment world, who holds no real answers to any of the portentous questions and isn't all that fussed. — Tom Storm
Your thinking is the kind that leads people toward hatred of others with a different religion, the kind wars are waged on. It is not healthy, nor open-minded. — intrapersona
It is interesting to see what happens when people relax their rigid rational conceptions of events, things, aspects, qualities. We see it under alterations to consciousness with some psychoactive drugs (cannabis, psilocybin, lsd, etc). Relationships between concepts become loose, free, flowing, imaginative, creative. The space that creates for metaphorical thought is enhanced and so to is the ability to form meaning. Looking at magick in terms of some of its attributes, we can immediately see value in its processes (as described in relation to the value within Altered States of Consciousness-ASC).
To look at magick in terms of a strict doctrine that is true absolutely in every aspect is just missing the point. The point i was making in my video was that the process of imaginative conceptualisation borrowed from new age religions (even from religions) can be utilised alongside scientific knowledge to attain exactly what einsten was getting at when he said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too! — intrapersona
The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. — intrapersona
Precisely, it is suspect and it should remain suspect because of the tendency humans fall victim to with sharp unjustified beliefs (centuries of war waged in their god/s name/s). Philosophy first, always. — intrapersona
I hold that no answer in that space will make any difference to how I live my quotidian life. I think these sorts of yearning questions are an inevitable by-product of human beings as meaning making creatures. — Tom Storm
Most questions of metaphysics are just people telling stories to each other to try to ground the 'mystery' of life in some kind of foundational meta-narrative. — Tom Storm
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.