| Christian. |
 |
Baman said: Afra-chan said: Oh dear. Isn't it obvious?I wanna ask.. Why don't you believe in God? Tachii said: Though I wouldn't really call that belief. If it is empirically proven, it is real, and one does not need to believe in reality. Because a portion of people in the population only "believe" in empirical observation. Anything that requires belief isn't purely real. Quine in Two Dogmas of Empiricism said: But in point of epistemological footing the physical objects and the gods differ only in degree and not in kind. Both sorts of entities enter our conception only as cultural posits. The myth of physical objects is epistemologically superior to most in that it has proved more efficacious than other myths as a device for working a manageable structure into the flux of experience...Moreover, the abstract entities which are the substance of mathematics--ultimately classes and classes of classes and so on up--are another posit in the same spirit. Epistemologically, these are myths on the same footing with physical objects and gods, neither better nor worse except for differences in the degree to which they expedite our dealings with sense experience Epistemological observation is no proof of "existence"; subjective perception of phenomena can never be known to correlate accurately with objective noumena. Truth, that is, assumptions about objective noumena (e.g., the sun rises every day, or we revolve around our axis every day), are only "true" insofar as they correlate with our phenomenal experience--if someone's god-truth correlates with their phenomenal experience, they are validated in believing it. Furthermore, "existence", as a term, when divorced from phenomenal experience, is ontologically meaningless. If I said that there existed an entity in your room that did not interact in any way, shape or form with reality at any time for any reason, and that it could not be detected ever by anyone, nor vice-versa, what meaning would the statement "it exists" imply? You would be reducing "existence" to a term that, essentially, means nothing other than "I can conceive". And if we're reducing existence down to conception anyway, one could prove god using the ontological argument. tl;dr either way you look at it, theism can be validated--at least on the subjective level. This does not work if you're trying to convert *someone else*. |
rTzNov 22, 2009 1:52 AM
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
| Catholic. Despite the fact that I don't believe in 'Him'. |
Nia9001 said: Catholic. Despite the fact that I don't believe in 'Him'. Santayana-style aesthetic Catholic? |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
| an atheist.. I believe in science ^^ |
Nia9001 said: Catholic. Despite the fact that I don't believe in 'Him'. So, are you a "cultural Christian" (I am, even though I'm an atheist) or do you still believe in a "higher force/power" in a pantheistic kinda way? |
 "Sanity is overrated." |
rTz said: But real objective truths are objective, and don't need to be validated on a subjective level in order for them to stay true.tl;dr either way you look at it, theism can be validated--at least on the subjective level. This does not work if you're trying to convert *someone else*. It makes no sense to say that reality might not be objective. If we had not evolved to be able to perceive reality, our species would likely have died out long ago, killed by predators that we could not perceive. And anything that can not be empirically proven and does not appear in our objective reality is in the end merely fantasy. If we do not assert the existence of a objective reality, everything would collapse into chaos. Luckily, with the rise of empirical science, we have been able to combat many beliefs that was seen as real before, and force them out of the objective reality. Only by casting away as many subjective beliefs and ideas that do not correlate with objective reality will we be able to reach the true objective reality. |
rTz said: Santayana-style aesthetic Catholic? Wait,I don't know him.What is this 'Santayana-style'? Azamat said: So, are you a "cultural Christian" (I am, even though I'm an atheist) or do you still believe in a "higher force/power" in a pantheistic kinda way? Cultural Christian maybe. My family really IS devoted to God. But they don't force me to believe in 'him' since they know I'm more on the Sci part. |
rTz said: if someone's god-truth correlates with their phenomenal experience, they are validated in believing it. Wouldn't this only apply to people who have spoken to god, been possessed by a demon or something like that? What other phenomenal experiences can justifiably be tied to the existence of a particular god though? If someone thinks the sun rises every day because a god is pulling it across, a conclusion he came to from the experience of seeing the sun rise daily, would that belief still be valid if he personally saw the earth rotating around the sun from space? Or lets say he's the only human in the world who hasn't seen the earth revolve around the sun. You could justify his faith with ignorance, but I can't see how that makes his belief valid. The quote you put up mentions that physical objects can be considered a myth that is simply more efficacious at explaining the world around us, but what about when the physical objects and real world observations butt heads with religious myth? they can't both be valid then. I'm not saying there's no validity in religion, but it has its limits. Believing the world is 7000 years old for instance. Baman said: Though I wouldn't really call that belief. If it is empirically proven, it is real, and one does not need to believe in reality. Anything that requires belief isn't purely real. But so much of the universe has never been empirically proven. The origin of the universe for instance. Atheism is a faith, one I hold for no reason i can really explain, much like believing a god positively exists. If you only acknowledge the empirical, wouldn't agnosticism be more in line with your beliefs? |
ace52387Nov 22, 2009 8:04 AM
| I believe in pandas. |
ace52387 said: But even if something has not been proven, it still carries more credibility if it's a well formulated theory that is in line with everything else that has been proven. Religion on the other hand, is not even a theory.But so much of the universe has never been empirically proven. The origin of the universe for instance. Atheism is a faith, one I hold for no reason i can really explain, much like believing a god positively exists. If you only acknowledge the empirical, wouldn't agnosticism be more in line with your beliefs? And I'm not really a atheist myself, nihilism is more my thing. I don't believe that gods do not exist, I just do not believe that they do, and keep myself highly skeptical to any such claims. |
| I don't believe in anything that I don't see with my own eyes.Also even if I don't understand something it doesn't mean it was made by "god" |
 |
| Maybe there is sb like God. I'm not an atheist, but in fact I had never been religious person.If sb ask me about it, I answer that I haven't got a religion. |
Nia9001 said: rTz said: Santayana-style aesthetic Catholic? Wait,I don't know him.What is this 'Santayana-style'? From wikipedia: George Santayana (December 16, 1863, Madrid, Spain – September 26, 1952, Rome, Italy), was a philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. A lifelong Spanish citizen, Santayana was raised and educated in the United States, wrote in English and is generally considered an American man of letters. Of his nearly 89 years, he spent 39 in the U.S. Santayana is perhaps best known as an aphorist, most famously for his oft-misquoted remark "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,"[1] (sometimes called Santayana's Law of Repetitive Consequences). Similarly, a quote of Santayana's: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."[2] is often falsely attributed to Plato. ... Although an agnostic, he held a fairly benign view of religion in contrast to thinkers like Bertrand Russell who held that religion was harmful in addition to being false. His views on religion are outlined in his books Reason in Religion, The Idea of Christ in the Gospels, and Interpretations of Poetry and Religion. Santayana described himself as an "aesthetic Catholic", and spent the last decade of his life at the Convent of the Blue Nuns of the Little Company of Mary on the Celian (Caelius) Hill at 6 Via Santo Stefano Rotondo in Rome, cared for by the Irish sisters there. |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
ace52387 said: If someone thinks the sun rises every day because a god is pulling it across, a conclusion he came to from the experience of seeing the sun rise daily, would that belief still be valid if he personally saw the earth rotating around the sun from space? Or lets say he's the only human in the world who hasn't seen the earth revolve around the sun. You could justify his faith with ignorance, but I can't see how that makes his belief valid. The belief would be valid, but upon seeing the earth rotate from space, that idea (god pulling it across) would no longer correlate with phenomenal experience, and thus it is no longer justified in that way. Certainly they can continue believing it, but given their experience it might make more sense to construct a new truth based around this phenomena. An analogy is this: Until the discovery of quarks, leptons (etc), electrons, neutrons, and protons were thought to be the smallest particles that exist. Thus, people had truth-constructs whereby they assumed everything was ultimately only reducible to those things. However, with new phenomenal experience (i.e., scientific inquiry), they constructed new truths to correlate with new data. However, before this experience, the previous theory correlated perfectly with the existing data and thus was, for all intents and purposes, "true". Baman said: But real objective truths are objective, and don't need to be validated on a subjective level in order for them to stay true. How do you, from a subjective point of view, capable of ONLY experiencing the phenomenal, make definitive statements regarding objective noumena? Any statement you make regarding noumena must have, by necessity, originated in phenomenal experience. Furthermore, the truths that we construct to explain objective noumena are only "true" insofar as they correlate with that phenomenal experience. Is a banana "yellow" in objective noumena, or is that a truth-construct formed from phenomenal experience? The statement "the banana is yellow" is false, objectively, because "yellow" is an abstraction of the human mind. Similarly, even the most dense material is actually mostly empty space--yet we say: "this desk is hard", "this sponge is soft", etc. It makes no sense to say that reality might not be objective. If we had not evolved to be able to perceive reality, our species would likely have died out long ago, killed by predators that we could not perceive. And anything that can not be empirically proven and does not appear in our objective reality is in the end merely fantasy. But being killed and eaten is a phenomenal experience. If I said something exists, but that it is invisible, undetectable, and did not interact in any way, shape, or form at any time for any reason with any thing (or vice versa), what would the statement "it exists" really mean? If we do not assert the existence of a objective reality, everything would collapse into chaos. I'm not saying that objective reality does not exist. I'm saying that our knowledge of it originates in phenomenal experience (which is inherently subjective). And like Quine, that we construct myths to explain this phenomenal experience--some simply correlate better with phenomenal experience than others. Luckily, with the rise of empirical science, we have been able to combat many beliefs that was seen as real before, and force them out of the objective reality. Only by casting away as many subjective beliefs and ideas that do not correlate with objective reality will we be able to reach the true objective reality. Read the quote from Quine again, as it explains this. In a nutshell, empiricism only allows us to construct truths about objective noumena in that those truths are meant to correlate with phenomenal experience. Thus, knowledge gained through empiricism is actually contingent on subjective experience. The only difference between an "empirical scientific proof" and a "myth" is that the former takes into account more phenomenal experience, and explains it better than the latter. Thus, the former may be regarded as merely a better myth. They differ in degrees, not in nature. |
rTzNov 22, 2009 11:50 AM
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
| I believe in Ishbala. No, but seriously. Even though I was born and raised in a Catholic family, I'm an atheist. Must be because those Catholic schools Mom sent me to creeped me out. But I'm a very realistic person and don't believe in anything supernatural like ghosts and such. Maybe Aliens - I'm not sure yet. Some people may find people like me boring because "we don't believe in anything", though I don't really care. I have other things to mind than something I haven't even seen with my own eyes. |
rTz said: The belief would be valid, but upon seeing the earth rotate from space, that idea (god pulling it across) would no longer correlate with phenomenal experience, and thus it is no longer justified in that way. Certainly they can continue believing it, but given their experience it might make more sense to construct a new truth based around this phenomena. An analogy is this: Until the discovery of quarks, leptons (etc), electrons, neutrons, and protons were thought to be the smallest particles that exist. Thus, people had truth-constructs whereby they assumed everything was ultimately only reducible to those things. However, with new phenomenal experience (i.e., scientific inquiry), they constructed new truths to correlate with new data. However, before this experience, the previous theory correlated perfectly with the existing data and thus was, for all intents and purposes, "true". Which is to say we don't know enough to invalidate a belief in a higher power, but we can at the very least, dismiss certain elements of religious belief, like the sun isn't carried over the sky by a god in a chariot? Read the quote from Quine again, as it explains this. In a nutshell, empiricism only allows us to construct truths about objective noumena in that those truths are meant to correlate with phenomenal experience. Thus, knowledge gained through empiricism is actually contingent on subjective experience. The only difference between an "empirical scientific proof" and a "myth" is that the former takes into account more phenomenal experience, and explains it better than the latter. Thus, the former may be regarded as merely a better myth. They differ in degrees, not in nature. I get the feeling his quote only applies to theories like evolution and the big bang. Unrepeatable, indemonstrable ideas that are supported by evidence. On the other hand, there are much simpler and concrete elements of physics or chemistry that are infinitely repeatable and provable, like carbon dating, or magnetism, which is different in nature than myth. |
rTz said: Yes, I am aware of that, but this is all just over analyzing and philosophizing. Even if it's logically correct, we can't go around thinking like this all the time, or the terms "objective" and "reality" might as well be thrown away completely.The only difference between an "empirical scientific proof" and a "myth" is that the former takes into account more phenomenal experience, and explains it better than the latter. Thus, the former may be regarded as merely a better myth. They differ in degrees, not in nature. A subjective sensory experience that is shared by all of mankind, such as the colour of a banana, is way different from a subjective psychological experience that some may claim to have been voices of gods speaking in their heads or whatnot, and certainly different from the subjective interpretations of old religious propaganda texts. Science will always be closer to reality in this way, as it is all based on relatively basic things that is not entirely reliant on individual suspension of disbelief and states of mind. |
Labreya said: An aetheist. And none of this "I believe in science!! It's proof!! The religious are idiots!!" bull. I use aetheist purely because I have no better word. I merely don't believe in any one select thing because I feel all religion, to a certain extent, is real and justifiable. All religion needs to exist is the most fundemental building block of all religions. Beliefe. You're not an atheist if you think religion is real. For example that means you believe that Jesus is the son of God. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Labreya said: An aetheist. And none of this "I believe in science!! It's proof!! The religious are idiots!!" bull. I use aetheist purely because I have no better word. I merely don't believe in any one select thing because I feel all religion, to a certain extent, is real and justifiable. All religion needs to exist is the most fundemental building block of all religions. Beliefe. You're not an atheist if you think religion is real. For example that means you believe that Jesus is the son of God. I think you took what he said out of context. You can still be an atheist (not having a belief in god) and still find principles and qualities from a religion to be true. Religion is real (as in its existence), whether you believe in it or not is something else entirely different. |
Drunk_Samurai said: Labreya said: An aetheist. And none of this "I believe in science!! It's proof!! The religious are idiots!!" bull. I use aetheist purely because I have no better word. I merely don't believe in any one select thing because I feel all religion, to a certain extent, is real and justifiable. All religion needs to exist is the most fundemental building block of all religions. Beliefe. You're not an atheist if you think religion is real. For example that means you believe that Jesus is the son of God. There are plenty of atheist religions--everything from certain types of Buddhism to Raelianism to LaVeyan Satanism. |
| "When he will, the weary world Of the senses closely curled Like a serpent round his heart Shakes herself and stands apart." - A.C., Equinox I/I |
| This thread is like a broken record |
| All the mods fucking blow on this website except Kaiserpingvin, Cloudy-Sky, Baman and aero. PM me if you're actually good and I left you out. Oh, rule 8... (￣ー￣) |
| This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? |
 and don't forget |
Afra-chan said: This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? myself, the only person who is in control of my own life. i'm an atheist, don't need to lean on any 'higher being' in my head. |
 |
| I don't consider myself religious; I think I'm more spiritual, but I really couldn't explain the difference. |
| We are made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself. - Carl Sagan |
leopardskin said: Afra-chan said: This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? myself, the only person who is in control of my own life. i'm an atheist, don't need to lean on any 'higher being' in my head. You, yourself can't be the only person who is in control of your life, you can control yourself but not necessarily your life. People like your parents, friends random people who you don't know can control your life. That aside im an atheist. I think people only have religions because they are either forced into it, or are scared of something and need something to cling to, or wanted to become better as a human being (lol)... Reason for being an atheist would be because i don't believe in a god or many gods or the path of nirvana or the alien dude from scientoloy. But religion is good because they can teach good ethics (except scientology) but i don't need no shit like that so atheist is the way to go ^^. |
| あらあら。。。＾＾ |
Afra-chan said: This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? I find myself praying to no one in particular, expecting no answer, that is, if this thing i'm wishing for is entirely dependent on chance. Otherwise i'd go ask whoever it is i needed the favor from. I don't understand why I do it. My question for you is this: No one can ever tell you that they know for sure a god doesn't exist, but there are elements of all religions that with current knowledge, we know just isn't true. Do you separate the two, and read creation as literature; a story that needs to be interpreted, or do you continue to take the whole bible as the simple, literal truth? |
Afra-chan said: This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? Someone who can potentially help with the particular issue in one way or another? Someone like, you know, REAL. |
 |
rTz said: How do you, from a subjective point of view, capable of ONLY experiencing the phenomenal, make definitive statements regarding objective noumena? Easy, take the sentence "If object A exists, then object A exists". That's a necessary truth about object A, which is known by virtually everyone who studies analytic philosophy. Me thinks you need to look into what you say a bit more. |
| All the mods fucking blow on this website except Kaiserpingvin, Cloudy-Sky, Baman and aero. PM me if you're actually good and I left you out. Oh, rule 8... (￣ー￣) |
| I don't believe in any religion and I'm not a atheist or pagan, because those are still considered religions... |
 I think I forgot something...oh nvm here's my deadly laser. |
| Roman Catholic since birth. |
Narumichanto said: I don't believe in any religion and I'm not a atheist or pagan, because those are still considered religions... Only an idiot would call atheism an religion *facepalm* |
Drunk_Samurai said: Narumichanto said: I don't believe in any religion and I'm not a atheist or pagan, because those are still considered religions... Only an idiot would call atheism an religion *facepalm* Regardless, it's still a belief. But defintely not a religion. However, for the sake of consistency (when counting demographics), it is convenient to class people "atheist" in comparison to numbers among the religions. |
| Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it. |
| im christian but topics about religion always turn out bad |
| I'll take a potatoe chip... AND EAT IT!!!!! |
1a2a3a4a said: im christian but topics about religion always turn out bad Your profile is just wow. |
Drunk_Samurai said: 1a2a3a4a said: im christian but topics about religion always turn out bad Your profile is just wow. I didn't know Sean Hannity had a MAL account either. |
| All the mods fucking blow on this website except Kaiserpingvin, Cloudy-Sky, Baman and aero. PM me if you're actually good and I left you out. Oh, rule 8... (￣ー￣) |
| I'm agnostic. So I'm neutral while religion flamewars inevitibly show up. Sitiing on the fence and laughing at them both. :P |
gopobox said: leopardskin said: Afra-chan said: This questions for the atheist So,If u are in need for a favor or something, to whom u wish ? myself, the only person who is in control of my own life. i'm an atheist, don't need to lean on any 'higher being' in my head. You, yourself can't be the only person who is in control of your life, you can control yourself but not necessarily your life. People like your parents, friends random people who you don't know can control your life. i don't know about you buddy, but i don't let anyone control my life. perhaps i will comply to some requests for my own benefit later on, however i don't let anyone control my life. i make my own decisions, not anyone else. |
|
Sin said: Drunk_Samurai said: 1a2a3a4a said: im christian but topics about religion always turn out bad Your profile is just wow. I didn't know Sean Hannity had a MAL account either. I was thinking Kirk Cameron. |
| currently looking into Wicca... |
 |
KyuuA4 said: Regardless, it's (Atheism is) still a belief. Labreya said: Also, for your information, atheism is a beliefe in the total and utter absence of any deiety or "higher being", not that religion doesn't exist. Not necessarily true. Atheists would say "I do not believe in Gods." Which is not the same as saying "I believe there are no Gods." They are logically different statements. It's the difference between strong and weak atheism. |
naikou said: KyuuA4 said: Regardless, it's (Atheism is) still a belief. Labreya said: Also, for your information, atheism is a beliefe in the total and utter absence of any deiety or "higher being", not that religion doesn't exist. Not necessarily true. Atheists would say "I do not believe in Gods." Which is not the same as saying "I believe there are no Gods." They are logically different statements. It's the difference between strong and weak atheism. How do you definitively know what an atheist would say? What you just said may sound all nice and shiny in philosophy 101 but practically speaking I don't understand what you just said. I must be an idiot but from my standpoint there is little difference between saying saying I do not believe in Gods and there are no gods. The only difference that I can clearly see is that one is said with a much more affirmative tone and a less open mind than the other. If an atheist says he doesn't believe in Gods, what is stopping him from discrediting their existence altogether? |
HellOtaku said: How do you definitively know what an atheist would say? What you just said may sound all nice and shiny in philosophy 101 but practically speaking I don't understand what you just said. I must be an idiot but from my standpoint there is little difference between saying saying I do not believe in Gods and there are no gods. The only difference that I can clearly see is that one is said with a much more affirmative tone and a less open mind than the other. If an atheist says he doesn't believe in God, what is stopping him from discrediting their existence altogether? Logic. |
|
corbenic said: HellOtaku said: How do you definitively know what an atheist would say? What you just said may sound all nice and shiny in philosophy 101 but practically speaking I don't understand what you just said. I must be an idiot but from my standpoint there is little difference between saying saying I do not believe in Gods and there are no gods. The only difference that I can clearly see is that one is said with a much more affirmative tone and a less open mind than the other. If an atheist says he doesn't believe in God, what is stopping him from discrediting their existence altogether? Logic. Wait I'm confused here if an atheist says he doesn't believe in God yet he doesn't draw the conclusion that there is no God due to "logic" wouldn't that make him more agnostic than atheist? |
dead-otaku said: IM A MUSLIM ME TOO!!! |
 |
More topics from this board
» Rate how good you can do the thing aboveIpreferEcchi - Yesterday |
25 |
by MitsukiHimeka
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» Say something lovely about the user above ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )L0Ll - Nov 30, 2020 |
488 |
by IpreferEcchi
»»
2 minutes ago |
|
» First Thing That Comes To Mind v21 ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kunii - Mar 27 |
7921 |
by Luchipher-Zen
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Say Something You Have In Common With The Person Above v5 ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Kunii - Jun 25, 2021 |
7034 |
by Deyuko
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» What anime do you wanna watch the most in the Completed List of the user above you? v.3 ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )julyan - Oct 27, 2014 |
6135 |
by Luchipher-Zen
»»
7 minutes ago |