Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you always check the chair before you sit in it? Appearances can be deceiving.
Of course we make mistakes, and of course humans can be deceived. That is why we need locic and science to test our assumption to find out whether they are valid or a mistake. The obvious sight of the sun rising once side of the flat earth and going down the other, or at least going around the earth to give that impression, turned out to be mistaken, thanks to science. If we don't test a chair before we sit on it, there are people out there who will.
I only know that asking god to tell you whether it will collapse or not, is NOT a reliable way of finding out.
Quote:
Another one of my life's experiences is expectation of one outcome and getting another totally different one. I've been dropped on my butt more times than I wish to count.
Ah The 'principle of unexpectedness'. That is the reason why I regard the argument we sometimes hear 'How do you know it's not all in your imagination?' as a less valid one than it is real, not what I imagine, nor anyone else. If it was, there could be no surprises.
Quote:
Religion (if we must label, btw I consider that a four letter word, because of its misuse) is a belief system. Some people have incorporated faith into their belief system.
That faith came from that experience they had, that is unexplainable to others, but very much real to them, so real and yet so unexplainable that it becomes, their secret. God doesn't wish to remain a secret, so a conundrum of sorts arise.
That brings about conversations like this one that is outside the comfort zone; with some their very life depends on their faith and their belief in that faith.
Have you ever believed in something so strong, your willing to die for it? Many do and many have.
So, is this an advertisement for religious faith? I don't think that anyone would deny the strength of feeling that believers have. That does not make it true, or even good. We see the damage done by those who believe their religion requires them to stamp on the rights of others. This can obtain in many different creeds but they can't all be true. The strength of faith and 'experience' rather disproves religion.
As indeed, does science, since the more it looks (despite attempts to misuse science to 'prove' religion) the less evidence for religion it finds.
It seems this is about concepts rather than labels, but labels (words) are an agreed code to identify various concepts. I mention this because it is so easy to use the labels loosely and cause confusion - which you want to avoid.
It looks like we are at -rather than how do we know what we know' , it is 'what do we know?' Let's start with no assumptions. The evidence is that matter is pretty much energy 'frozen energy' as one poster put it. I rather prefer 'Nothingness that holds position'. Whether it then buzzes around doing stuff as an energy particle or sits there doing impressions of solidity is another matter.
We get understood interations. The happen in viable ways, unviable ways do not persist. Thus we get physical laws. They are inherent in what we call 'matter'. These laws lead to formation of objects and in time life which evolved and consciousness along with it.
These life -forms interact in various ways, a prey and predator, as mate and offspring, as a social and hunting pack. In a problem solving ape like us, we get a complex society, thanks to the invention of farming and herding rather than foraging and hunting.
Thus the need for complex interaction codes.
There is no need whatsoever in any of this for a god, satan or any of the man -made myths that we conjure up rather than accept that we don't know something.
We do know it. But others would like for us to prove what we know and they don't understand how we can know something without proof. That's what all the fuss is about.
Then the idea hit. Some one has to clean them. (what that involves I have not a clue, I knew that and so did the first foreman)
I thought, well, I have paper stock, I can print business cards and if all goes well, I can obtain an official business name from the county.
I didn't go out and buy materials, not until I bid the first job. Did I have enough? Only after getting the job did I worry about the materials. I went into the whole thing blind as a bat.
)
Ahem. You thought, followed through and did.
This is just another case of god getting the credit when things work out rather than crediting your own actions.
Bet you didn't blame him when you lost your job in the first place.
We do know it. But others would like for us to prove what we know and they don't understand how we can know something without proof. That's what all the fuss is about.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. As I have said before, I don't bother to have a list with Christians poster names on one side and goddless bastards on the other. I can only go by what I read - a lot of the time: Eusebius is no problem I know which side he's on.
Anyway I have touched on the 'how do w know what we know' package (incorporating "Occam's razor is based on reality") as well as what do we know that we know?
My line is that, starting from no assumptions (of course in history that couldn't and didn't happen, it is a mind experiment of rationality for today) we can build up various things we can prove and a method of proving them and a system of logic based not on human convenience (as some theist apologists like to argue) but on the reality of things as they are.
You build up a pile of data, a method and a reasoning system. and we really don't find a god. At best we are left with gaps where a god might possibly be lurking, or possibly not. Until we can be shown there is one there, there is no logical or evidential reason to believe there is one one there. This is the called atheism and it is a logically sound position based on agnosticism (not knowing - I cannot understand why so many seem to get confused about this)
Believing is God is, I think based either on misunderstanding, which we can address or Faith, which we can't and, provided that just faith) is accepted as no valid proof of anything, we atheists don't even need to.
Of course we make mistakes, and of course humans can be deceived. That is why we need locic and science to test our assumption to find out whether they are valid or a mistake. The obvious sight of the sun rising once side of the flat earth and going down the other, or at least going around the earth to give that impression, turned out to be mistaken, thanks to science. If we don't test a chair before we sit on it, there are people out there who will.
I only know that asking god to tell you whether it will collapse or not, is NOT a reliable way of finding out.
Ah The 'principle of unexpectedness'. That is the reason why I regard the argument we sometimes hear 'How do you know it's not all in your imagination?' as a less valid one than it is real, not what I imagine, nor anyone else. If it was, there could be no surprises.
So, is this an advertisement for religious faith? I don't think that anyone would deny the strength of feeling that believers have. That does not make it true, or even good. We see the damage done by those who believe their religion requires them to stamp on the rights of others. This can obtain in many different creeds but they can't all be true. The strength of faith and 'experience' rather disproves religion.
As indeed, does science, since the more it looks (despite attempts to misuse science to 'prove' religion) the less evidence for religion it finds.
Not an advertisement for religious faith, however, it was advertisement (reread it) but for the military.
And I've seen the damage of those stamping out the rights of the believers.
I'm going to change the word religion to the two words, belief system and repeat the words you have in parenthesis....
Despite attempts to misuse science to 'prove' [a] belief system, the less evidence for [a] belief system it finds.
Even science began with a some one believing in something and then having the courage to take that belief to the next level. If they hadn't the earth would still be flat and no one would be any wiser to the contrary.
Not an advertisement for religious faith, however, it was advertisement (reread it) but for the military.
And I've seen the damage of those stamping out the rights of the believers.
I'm going to change the word religion to the two words, belief system and repeat the words you have in parenthesis....
Despite attempts to misuse science to 'prove' [a] belief system, the less evidence for [a] belief system it finds.
Even science began with a some one believing in something and then having the courage to take that belief to the next level. If they hadn't the earth would still be flat and no one would be any wiser to the contrary.
However, they usually had a supposition for that based on reasoning and the curiousity and determination to find out whether it was true or not.
That is essentially what science is.
This is just another case of god getting the credit when things work out rather than crediting your own actions.
Bet you didn't blame him when you lost your job in the first place.
We have choices and I made mine. So no, God was not the blame for me being stupid.
In a post I said that I have questions and I have found that sometimes it is within my best interest not to ask those questions. I always felt that I was management material. The opportunity for me to test that theory would not have arisen if I hadn't got stupid.
I was forced into a situation as it was the only door that opened for me. I'm not a risk taker. That does not define me, then or now. But for 5 years I was management, 'know thyself, strengths and weaknesses'. I learned all that God needed for me to learn in that exercise and then another path was set before me. (if I keep going with this I will have my memoir ready for publication is just a few weeks. )
btw, I'm not an orthodox Christian as I don't believe in a brick and mortar church. That may make a difference here. Not sure at this point.
However, they usually had a supposition for that based on reasoning and the curiousity and determination to find out whether it was true or not.
That is essentially what science is.
Then some one came and told them yes, that hey guess what...the earth is round...Now how many skeptics were in the crowd? They would have to see if for themselves or they would never believe it and that...is where you are now. No one though is going to solve this problem for you, you will have to learn it on your own, just as all the others have had to.
Ellis, you and I are operating on separate frequencies and I've done enough of that here to not be interested in it too often anymore so will leave you to others with seemingly inexhaustible patience.
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood you. As I have said before, I don't bother to have a list with Christians poster names on one side and goddless bastards on the other. I can only go by what I read - a lot of the time: Eusebius is no problem I know which side he's on.
Anyway I have touched on the 'how do w know what we know' package (incorporating "Occam's razor is based on reality") as well as what do we know that we know?
My line is that, starting from no assumptions (of course in history that couldn't and didn't happen, it is a mind experiment of rationality for today) we can build up various things we can prove and a method of proving them and a system of logic based not on human convenience (as some theist apologists like to argue) but on the reality of things as they are.
You build up a pile of data, a method and a reasoning system. and we really don't find a god. At best we are left with gaps where a god might possibly be lurking, or possibly not. Until we can be shown there is one there, there is no logical or evidential reason to believe there is one one there. This is the called atheism and it is a logically sound position based on agnosticism (not knowing - I cannot understand why so many seem to get confused about this)
Believing is God is, I think based either on misunderstanding, which we can address or Faith, which we can't and, provided that just faith) is accepted as no valid proof of anything, we atheists don't even need to.
I don't think you misunderstood me at all. As for as Occam's razor is concerned I'm sure that is all well and good, however one person's reality will differ from another's. It doesn't mean they are wrong, just that they are different. You never got passed the idea that a 'desk' can be anything you want it to be. That type of reasoning is beyond all logic.
I have seen people define atheism in so many different terms as well as agnostic (as you brought to my attention) different ideas that I can not keep up with the flavor of the day. Both deal with physical ideals and neither will touch on the reality of a spiritual concept. The seeming nothingness that even in math man had to add a variable into it, in order for the reasoning applied, the outcome would then make sense.
In India the cow is a sacred animal. are they wrong?
Quote:
Since the faith first evolved near Asia's Indus River more than 3,000 years ago, respect for animal life has been a central theme in Hindu life.
Faith, it's what for dinner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 'principle of unexpectedness'. That is the reason why I regard the argument we sometimes hear 'How do you know it's not all in your imagination?' as a less valid one than it is real, not what I imagine, nor anyone else. If it was, there could be no surprises.
