EPTPhilosophy of Knowledge - Page 7
| Blogs > Oreo7 |
|
bre1010
71 Posts
| ||
|
LolitsPing
United States285 Posts
Of course, everybody wants to die happy, which means living your lives in delusion, not seeing the horrors that actually goes on the real world.. I'm not gonna touch anymore... I've gotten so sick of the topic... | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I wake up in the morning and eat some breakfast, all the murders, tortures, rapes and injustice doesn't really strike me the moment I'm conscious again. There is no reason to be sick, that's just life. The only way one would be sick about such things would be by being deeply irrealistic. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 28 2011 11:36 bre1010 wrote: @ceaRshaf does it not seem conceited to you to take what you currently do not understand and just say "oh well it was probably God." That's basically saying "there exists something that I and no human currently understands and because of that, not only will I never understand it, but it is totally impossible for any human EVER to understand it." Even though there have been infinite points in human history where something was not understood, and then became understood. You think it is more concieted to say there are things we will never comprehend than it is to say that because we have managed to understand some things, humanity will someday be able to understand and comprehend all of everything that exists in the universe? Your position seems more concieted to me. | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
On June 28 2011 04:40 jacen wrote: Can someone please present the axioms and the reasoning that leads to this? The Universe is BIG, i am small. Nothing I do matters. /wrist All meaning is subjective, but the cool kids want objective meaning. Pick random tautologically impossible adjective to describe meaning and bemoan the lack of it. | ||
|
TheGiz
Canada708 Posts
Do you hear that Mr. Anderson? That is the sound... of inevitability. The conclusion is that everyone who views the world rationally should understand that the preservation of the self is meaningless. As such everyone who views the universe logically and rationally should kill themselves, since all thought devoted to it is inherently pointless and therefore unnecessary. The pursuit of individual satisfaction and happiness is worthless because the individual as a standalone entity is so small that it in and of itself is worthless. Since death is the inevitable end result it cancels all life pursuits, goals, joy, and accomplishments. Ergo, an expedient death is the most efficient way of fulfilling the inevitability of one's existence. Enjoy | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On June 27 2011 16:03 Oreo7 wrote: So I was wondering what you guys thought about the philosophy of knowledge. I've kind of come to an awkward conclusion that isn't really a conclusion like so many conclusions in philosophy are*, but is just another question. Basically, I think that if you view the world perfectly rationally** and logically the only logical conclusions are thus: A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning. Furthermore, I think that this conclusion is sad. Now, all that said, this got me thinking: So why did I want to view the world rationally? Pascal's Wager is basically the argument that you have nothing to lose by sacrificing knowledge for the bliss of ignorance. More and more I think this might be true, but at the same time I don't think I can unlearn what I've discovered, which is what I think the tragedy of "Oedipus" was. That basically we want to know the truth until it turns out the truth is shit. So what do you guys think? Is it best to view the world rationally and be depressed? Or take a leap of faith and be happy? I'm stuck. *to me, after reading philosophy, I'm left with more questions than answers. **I'll define rationally as basically believing in only what we can observe with our senses. I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest. Huzzah! | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:10 deathly rat wrote: If this is a troll it's a brilliant peice of writing. Not only is it hypocritical, illogical and haughty, it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue. As a peice of nonsense rhetoric, i cannot fault it in the slightest. Huzzah! What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary. " it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue" It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue. The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities. | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote: What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary. " it leaves the reader with absolutely no new information or way of thinking about the issue" It does. It points out the fundamental flaws (mainly jumping to conclusions and this is an understatement) in the approach to the issue presented in OP, explains why they are flaws and provides the general outline of a correct approach to the issue. The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities. "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa. B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise. C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise. Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats. It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:33 UFO wrote: What exactly is hipocritical about it and why ? What exactly is illogical and why ? It might seem haughty to some but this is arbitrary. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// The post underlines the importance of continous self-honesty and self-reliance in one`s approach to the truth and provides an attitude which represents these qualities. Use your self reliance and self-honesty to work it out. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:56 Sotamursu wrote: A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa. B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise. C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise. Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats. It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them. There is nothing in my post that suggests that God exists or doesn`t exist. So it is with the other two statements. If anyone find himself willing to accuse me of hipocrisy, please take that into account. Absence of evidence means you have no evidence means you don`t know. One should not treat assumptions/ hipothesis as reality. | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 09:21 UFO wrote: There is nothing in my post that suggests that God exists or doesn`t exist. So it is with the other two statements. If anyone find himself willing to accuse me of hipocrisy, please take that into account. Absence of evidence means you have no evidence means you don`t know. One should not treat assumptions/ hipothesis as reality. Absence for evidence for the claim being made is what I meant. In other words theist claims that god exists. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so there is no reason to believe god exists -> god does not exist. Like I said you don't know for sure that he does not exist, but you can't be completely sure anything is true. You do know that there is nothing that supports the claim that god exists. Do you understand what I mean? You have to make assumptions in real life, because you can't do anything in life otherwise. It doesn't always have to be the absolute truth. If you know a likely outcome, you should act accordingly. Can you explain what you mean by assumption? Just to make sure we have the same understanding of the word. Because what I just explained is not blindly claiming that there is no god/man is mortal/no inherent meaning with no reason to back it up with. I explained the reasons in my earlier post. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On June 29 2011 09:04 deathly rat wrote: Use your self reliance and self-honesty to work it out. Sir, how about you use your spectacular trolling-detection capabilities ? You seem to be able to detect trolling when there is no trolling so maybe you are able to detect trolling when you yourself seem to be doing it. I don`t know why you think my post represented trolling and why do you think it was hipocritical and illogical. Your replies contain unexplained accusations and little more. Please explain what exactly do you find illogical/hipocritical and why, preferably let that be a transparent and complete explantation, without sarcasm, otherwise the discussion might not be constructive and I`m not particularly interested in flaming or arguing. If you can do this, then at least one of us will learn from it. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
On June 29 2011 09:34 Sotamursu wrote: Absence for evidence for the claim being made is what I meant. In other words theist claims that god exists. There is no evidence for the existence of god, so there is no reason to believe god exists -> god does not exist. Like I said you don't know for sure that he does not exist, but you can't be completely sure anything is true. You do know that there is nothing that supports the claim that god exists. Do you understand what I mean? You have to make assumptions in real life, because you can't do anything in life otherwise. It doesn't always have to be the absolute truth. If you know a likely outcome, you should act accordingly. Can you explain what you mean by assumption? Just to make sure we have the same understanding of the word. Because what I just explained is not blindly claiming that there is no god/man is mortal/no inherent meaning with no reason to back it up with. I explained the reasons in my earlier post. First, language is quite arbitrary and so are definitions of words, lets not make a war of terminology out of this. Assumption represents an act of establishing that something is true without evidence to back it up, at least thats what I meant by assumption. I didn`t say that one should never make assumptions. Its all right as long as one remains open, remembers that it is not a fact but an assumption and treats it for what it is: an assumption, not a fact proven by irrefutable evidence. Treating assumptions as facts breeds ignorance. The moment one begins perceiving assumption as a fact, one`s worldview is at great risk of being built upon or influenced by a false assumption. There is no certainty about the truthfulness of an assumption and to treat it as a fact is to claim that there is such certainty, which is dishonest. Assumption should remain an assumption, it can help in decision making but it is to be tested and verified. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On June 29 2011 08:56 Sotamursu wrote: A. There is nothing to suggest god exists. So we say he does not exist, just as you'd say when talking about ghosts, fairies or santa. B. Last time I checked there's nothing to suggest man is immortal so we can conclude man is mortal until it is proven otherwise. C. Again there is no proof that life has inherent meaning so everything points to life not having an inherent meaning. If you think otherwise, prove it otherwise. Why do people always start whining when someone states that god doesn't exist and discuss it for 10 pages? Of course it's not objectively 100% sure. Nothing in reality is. We could be brains in vats. It all comes down to absence of evidence being evidence of absence. You don't have to disprove anything, you have to prove them. There's nothing wrong with the B point. A: You're committing the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason Santa does not exist is the empirical observation that reindeer cannot fly and that no one lives on the Northpole in a toy sweatshop. The concept of God is also far less concrete than those such as Santa or other mythical creatures. Mythical creatures are definitionally physical creatures, God is not, which is why lack of physical observance of sufficient to disprove the existence of those, but not of God. C: "There is no proof that life has inherent meaning" - This is such a terrible claim. It absolutely begs the question of what it means to have "inherent meaning." Other possible rephrasings of this statement are "Why am I here?" or "What is the point of life?" These questions rest on nonsensical assumptions. For instance, why must you justify our process of living beyond life? As reasoning creatures, "meaning" is unique to our processes of understanding, and as such, our "meaning" is borne out of that very process of living and intellectually existing/progressing. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: I would suggest to apply rational approach and reason to your definition of "rationally" and "rationality" because your definition has little to do with rationality. Rationality is not clearly defined as a term, but the OP kindly defined his method of rationality, it being that we can only use the information that we observe to form our judgements. This is a rational way of thinking. You have accused him of falsley using a term which I find to be accurate without providing any kind if definition your self or explaining why his definition is wrong. Very poor and unclear argumentation. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning." What is the line of reasoning and evidence that led you to such conclusions ? If you think you have evidence then it probably proves something about the current level of your imagination rather anything else. Using his method of rationale, the OP has come to these conclusions. By his own definitions these are entirely logical. You can argue that they are false conclusions, but only by attacking his first statement that we can only use information that we observe. You don't and indeed must not use imagination to deduce these things from the initial statement of rational. If there is a flaw in the actual logic, please do point it out. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: Having more questions than answers after reading philosophy is quite normal. You realize how little you know, the depth of ignorance. The essence of philosophy, or at least what should be the essence of philosophy, is understanding of the truth. The only conclusion from these statements is the "the truth" is unknowable. This concept of "the truth" is the fundamental lynch pin of your position, which appear to be a semi-spiritual unreachable nirvana. It seems like a highly irrational concept, especially considering the definitions of rationality laid down by the OP. However I am willing to bet that you can't write down any kind of sensible definition of what "the truth" is all about, because it is a concept that is kept indistinct and unknowable in order for you to maintain that there can never be any conclusions drawn from this discussion. Explain "the truth" On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: Conclusion that the conclusions "A. God does not exist. B. Man is mortal. C. Life has no inherent meaning" are the result of a perfectly rational view of the world only prove the depth of your ignorance about your own ignorance. This is not to criticise or judge but you have rushed to conclusions and omitted layers of knowledge, possibilities, variables and factors that are nearly infinite. This is what I find most hypocritical. That you assume that the OP has rushed to conclusions. You have no idea who this person is or how long they have considered their position. There is nothing in the OP that tells us how much thought has gone into it. You are the one who has rushed to a conclusion here. Then you state that he hasn't fully taken into account possibilities and factors which are inifinately numerous. How can any ever analyse an infinate amount of information? It is common practice, when a census of all information is impossible, to use a sample or measure all the information to hand and draw conclusions from these. Have you got a problem with this principle? Can't we all be accused of being ignorant of our ignorances? How many things that you are unaware of are you currently unaware of? This a stupid argument. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: For human ego, it is seductive to omit or disregard a number of variables and factors and prematurely derive conclusions because ego desires to feel knowledgeable or informed. Its not easy, it requires patience, it requires preservation and it takes time to be absolutely honest and sincere with oneself in one`s approach to truth and human ego is more than willing to take a shortcut. All assumptions that you have no evidence for, which you are fond of accusing the OP of doing. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: However, you will not find shortcuts there. There are no quick and easy pathways to truth. In fact, there is no pathway to truth and truth is not aligned with knowledge in any substantial way. Truth is aligned with understanding and this is a substantial distinction. How do you know there is no easy way to "the truth". Have you found out the truth and know the meaning of life the universe and everything? Unless you know what the truth is and how you find the truth, don't assume that it isn't easy to acquire. Understanding anything is knowledge. Please give me an example of something you understand, and tell me how that isn't a peice of knowledge. This whole paragraph is full of "truth" BS which you really need to define so we can have a laugh at it. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: The aquisition of knowledge and information is not what approaching truth is about. In fact, this is more likely to create illusions of knowing and conceal the truth, rather than to reveal it. This is a challenge few are willing to recognize, let alone undertake because you cannot stand behind the back of a master or teacher, or book, or philosophy, or religion, or spiritual path, or ideology, or esoteric teachings, or psychological knowledge systems, or even science, yes even science, and truly approach the truth in unconditional self-honesty. You cannot go around and repeat what you read in books or heard from wisemen and educators like an automaton, no more. No longer can you be satisfied with pretensions and use unverified "knowledge". To human ego, this is nothing short of a sacrifice, which not rarely contains one`s very hold on existence. More truth nonsense On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: Virtually all humans believe what they are fed via the knowledge and information systems. Even those who think they are non-conformists or "outside the box" are well within the perimeter of this description (the irony is that this happens to be a majority). It is clear you think you are the real non-conformist, which puts you right in with the rest of the people you are descibing. You seem to claim it is stupid to believe things that you see and hear, and you assume that people are stupid and have no filter to the media. You haven't considered that we are all infinately different in some ways, but the same in others. You write like you don't include yourself with the rest of humanity, which is either comical, or disturbing. On June 29 2011 07:12 UFO wrote: Approaching the truth is all about continous, persistent self-honesty, about sober, direct, truthful, deep self-assessment with all its textures and subtleties. It is about understanding of oneself. It is most closely connected with an attitude of neutrality towards everything. You treat every and any assumptions for what they are - assumptions. Every generalization remains what it is - a generalization. No presumption, assumption or generalization is seen treated as anything more than what they are. No assumption or generalization is mistaken for a fact. You can see in this very thread and nearly everywhere else that this is an extremely rare quality. This is what is really sad. What I most note in your essay of drivel is that there is a distinct lack of rational thinking, or logical deduction. There is no clear progression in your ideas, it is only a series of judgements on the rest of humanity together with many many assumptions about the state of the human condition and the world. You give no evidence or reasoning for your opinions and then accuse others of the same. This is why I cannot take any of this seriously, and you are a troll. Good day sir. | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 10:09 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: There's nothing wrong with the B point. A: You're committing the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The reason Santa does not exist is the empirical observation that reindeer cannot fly and that no one lives on the Northpole in a toy sweatshop. The concept of God is also far less concrete than those such as Santa or other mythical creatures. Mythical creatures are definitionally physical creatures, God is not, which is why lack of physical observance of sufficient to disprove the existence of those, but not of God. C: "There is no proof that life has inherent meaning" - This is such a terrible claim. It absolutely begs the question of what it means to have "inherent meaning." Other possible rephrasings of this statement are "Why am I here?" or "What is the point of life?" These questions rest on nonsensical assumptions. For instance, why must you justify our process of living beyond life? As reasoning creatures, "meaning" is unique to our processes of understanding, and as such, our "meaning" is borne out of that very process of living and intellectually existing/progressing. A. You missed my point completely. There are non-physical mythical creatures. What about all ancient gods like Zeus and the egyptian ones? What does the concreteness of god have to do with anything? Do you believe your god has ever affected anything inside our universe? If yes, it would leave evidence. If no, there still is no evidence and nothing justifies believing in one. If you're arguement for the existance of god is such that you can replace god with any other non-physical being, it doesn't prove anything. You might as well say pink interdimensional monkey fairies did it. I could say that everything santa has is invisible and can not be detected by any means and oh he doesn't leave any evidence anywhere, but still he exists. The default position in everything is that it does not exist until proven otherwise, now I hope you know what burden of proof means. Basically without evidence to support god, the answer to the question his existance still remains no. It is not an arguement from ignorance, because you 1. You can not say or know something exists, if it hasn't been proven. 2. God hasn't been proven so go figure. It seems like when it comes to god only an objective 100% true and infallible evidence satisfies people, which I find strange, because that is not possible to achieve and is not required for anything else either. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Really now? When you check your pockets for coins and don't find anything, do you think that there are coins in them you don't know of? In this scenario the pocket is the universe and the searching hand is the scientific method. So far there has been nothing to suggest there are any coins in here. C. I don't think life needs an inherent meaning. It's just that theists mostly think they are the chosen ones who have a universal plan for them made by the omnipotent skydaddy. What I meant was that no such plan exists. EDIT: On June 29 2011 09:53 UFO wrote: First, language is quite arbitrary and so are definitions of words, lets not make a war of terminology out of this. Assumption represents an act of establishing that something is true without evidence to back it up, at least thats what I meant by assumption. I didn`t say that one should never make assumptions. Its all right as long as one remains open, remembers that it is not a fact but an assumption and treats it for what it is: an assumption, not a fact proven by irrefutable evidence. Treating assumptions as facts breeds ignorance. The moment one begins perceiving assumption as a fact, one`s worldview is at great risk of being built upon or influenced by a false assumption. There is no certainty about the truthfulness of an assumption and to treat it as a fact is to claim that there is such certainty, which is dishonest. Assumption should remain an assumption, it can help in decision making but it is to be tested and verified. Let me see if I can give you an example. Does god exist? Yes - Why? Provide your evidence No - The default position when there is no evidence. Don't know, he might exist - if there is no evidence to support his existance HE DOES NOT EXIST. What I think you are going after is that everything that isn't based on infallible evidence is just an assumption. By that logic everything is an assumption. Is your nickname on TL UFO? Nope, you're just assuming that, it could be an illusion. It is tested and verified that there is no evidence for god, how hard is it to get this into your skulls. If you have absolutely no evidence about something, you can say it does not exist and it will not be an assumption. See burden of proof. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
I sometimes feel bad about being an atheist, when I see atheists like Sotamursu. I find it amazing that you STILL don't see the gigantic fallacy you're using in your posts. A GIANT ELEPHANT could EAT YOUR GRANDMA in front of you, you would probably not notice. Default state is "not knowing". It is not "it doesn't exist", "doesn't exist" is a BELIEF. Take the example of a newborn, he does not know the world. He is introduced to the concept of God. He can either believe it, or not - keeping in mind that here, God is UNDEFINED. He is introduced to the concept of Japan. He can either believe it, or not. Because he has not witnessed it. People running around chasing schoolgirls could seem like an unrealistic environment. It does not mean Japan doesn't exist until he travels to Tokyo. I really hate when atheists show that kind of burning faith. "Look at religious people, so blindly faithful about their false beliefs!". It just makes me want to smash their faces with a mirror. | ||
|
Sotamursu
Finland612 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 Kukaracha wrote: You're being an idiot, even though I agree with you. I sometimes feel bad about being an atheist, when I see atheists like Sotamursu. I find it amazing that you STILL don't see the gigantic fallacy you're using in your posts. A GIANT ELEPHANT could EAT YOUR GRANDMA in front of you, you would probably not notice. Default state is "not knowing". It is not "it doesn't exist", "doesn't exist" is a BELIEF. Take the example of a newborn, he does not know the world. He is introduced to the concept of God. He can either believe it, or not - keeping in mind that here, God is UNDEFINED. He is introduced to the concept of Japan. He can either believe it, or not. Because he has not witnessed it. People running around chasing schoolgirls could seem like an unrealistic environment. It does not mean Japan doesn't exist until he travels to Tokyo. I really hate when atheists show that kind of burning faith. "Look at religious people, so blindly faithful about their false beliefs!". It just makes me want to smash their faces with a mirror. Does shiva exist? EDIT: since you and many others don't seem to comprehend anything I'm saying, maybe reading other sources will make you understand. http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/GodScience.htm | ||
| ||
