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.
As I pointed out earlier (hence the phrase "as I pointed out earlier" ), the belief that you are not just a body in the Matrix/that what you experience is veridical would be an example of a belief held without evidence. You can't appeal to the experience to prove the veridicality of the experience because that would be arguing in a circle. Nor do I suspect you guys would say the experience is evidence because that would arm the theists something fierce!
Would that your clarity of intellect was more predominant here in the forum!
Would that your clarity of intellect was more predominant here in the forum!
its that simple.
like I answered in other threads. The only thing that sheds light on why they answer the way do is anti-religion and my-religion-only is defining everything they think about in their day to day lives.
Oh, well in that case there isn't one. I just misunderstood you.
O.K.
[/quote]
Well then, we are all guilty of "blind faith" on a regular basis (constantly, in fact) as I pointed out earlier.
[/quote]
No. Unless they are believing without good evidence (on hearsay, on imagination/hypnotism, or on contradicted experience) and in with high hopes.
No one cares about the Matrix movies being a possible documentary or otherwise, therefore no "high hopes."
Also, there is plenty of evidence that this world is real, and it's not just experienced but it is also independent confirmation, double-blind prediction, etc. Otherwise, we might as well question everything under the use of such hard solipsism and say that you or the forum might not even exist right now and thus one shouldn't care to discuss the issue of "evidence" with you or in here.
Quote:
Oh? What would that be? Because you can't use your experience to justify belief that your experience is veridical, that would be arguing in a circle. And the point was simply that this wouldn't count as "evidence", unless you're granting that experience = evidence which is a move I wouldn't expect someone arguing against theism to make...
Also, note that the idea isn't just "There is a non-Matrix world" but that the world you're perceiving is a non-Matrix world. A subtle but important distinction.
Hard and positively predictive evidence. Even if religions and any other "ultimate" beliefs rely on circular arguements and thus hard solipsism is true, I don't care because I was simply pointing out to you that there is a difference between faith and blind faith and unreasonableness that you don't seem to want to get, and it involves the difference between reasons and evidence.
Quote:
Because it's not tying "favor and protection" in with blind faith? And of course "favor" in this context doesn't mean god is picking a favorite (when compared to other people) and treating others in some inferior way.
Yes, it is tying them. "Blessed are the meek, I will favor them with inheriting the worthless material earth that they were also desirous and jealous of others for, and I will protect that right for them against the proud who might want it for themselves."
I have never met anyone other than you who thinks that "blessed are the meek" means "the meek and the proud are equal and will be treated equally. In fact, my blessing is nothing more than my smile, and yet my smile is not tied to anything that would change, thus my blessings are worthless."
Quote:
This one seems even easier. Merely a prophecy. Not saying that they'll inherit the earth as a reward for being weak, just that they will be the ones who will be blessed in that way.
So a worthless matter of fact prediction? Interesting interpretation. God in the Christian Bible is just a Cassandra to you? With no power over the course of history as it progresses?
Quote:
No, I think that because it specifies how they will be blessed, we can say that the meek will be the ones to inherit the earth. But again, I don't think it makes sense to say it's "for having been proud/meek". Nor does it suggest the proud will have no reward, or even an inferior reward.
Indeed, now that I think on it, this could simply be a consolation for the meek, so as to say "You will have your blessing also. Even though you are meek, you will inherit the earth. That will be your blessing."
A mere second ago you said that a blessing was not a gift or a reward. Now you are saying that a blessing is merely an inactive prophecy of what people will get for acting certain ways. What you are saying with your wild mental gymnastics is that there is no point to be good or meak, since being evil and proud and loving Jesus for it could be just as equivalent if not secretly better for you in "the afterlife" that Christians make up.
You are equating a blessing with LUCK. Most Christians wouldn't, vehemently and violently so.
Seriously, were you EVER a Christian believer who cared at all to find out what the general dogma currently and historically was?
Quote:
I still don't think Christians (generally) promote having blind faith, or think that god rewards it. But that's because I define "blind faith" as "believing with no good reason", not as "believing without evidence".
Every single time they read the story of Thomas relating to "blessed are the ones with blind faith" to kids, it is to specifically promote blind faith, while at the same time saying that their faith is or was evidenced anyway. But if you "don't see" the evidence, believe anyway! It's good for you and saves your soul anyway, so why care about evidence at all? Were the people that didn't require evidence saved by Jesus? The idea is that YES and not just saved but BLESSED, unlike the Skeptic/Doubter Christians who Thomas represents.
Singularly, "faith" is not "believing without evidence." Faith is "believing for whatever reasons, and in a hopeful way." When a Christian stumbles upon evidence or logic or reasons, they don't "lose faith" automatically.
Quote:
But even here, that doesn't mean blind faith is being promoted. One could hold that, while blind faith is sufficient to save your soul, it's not preferred (if nothing else, it'd be easier for you to lose said faith when confronted with some seemingly good anti-theistic arguments!)
The bible says both things on many subjects, for example Zackaria or some other ancient Jewish priest taunts the rival religion's priests because they believe on faith and self-castigation into submission to faith, while his God only required cooking meat for his priests in order to quickly and easily do fire magic from the sky in a demonstration of his evidence.
Of course, being that Christians think their Bible version/edition is the ultimate evidence of evidences they don't think/feel that blind faith is as strong as their indoctrinated rationalizations. Still, when doubt creeps in, they will tell their children or doubting adults to rely on faith alone, i.e. blind faith. That is also how to try to convert newcomers, by lying to them and telling them that the religion is easy and simple.
I'm not sure under what rock or highly sheltered Christian lifestyle you have been. Most Christians can realize that their religion is an emotionally useful crockpot, and that thus they must simply "believe in order to believe" but that it would weaken their causes to make it so obvious.
Blind faith is a foundation for "reading the Bible with the correct [although many different and contradicting] Holy Spirit interpretation." They then think that the social system and their chosen constitution [Bible edition] are great pillars to hand the hats of the other things they want or "need" to be true.
Quote:
I would say that anyone interpreting that verse that way is just wrong.
O.K.
What stops them from saying that about you?
You seem to be contradicting every Christian and Christian dogma I've ever been made aware of by saying that actually "we don't have faith since we have the reason of our Bible." While the very book itself often tells them to merely believe by holding the belief as tightly as possible.
This discussion is just going more and more down a repetitive and awkward rabbit hole of your biasedly strained interpretations and pretensions. You simply don't know the Christian Bibles that well, and you don't know the Christianities that well either.
Would that your clarity of intellect was more predominant here in the forum!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
its that simple.
like I answered in other threads. The only thing that sheds light on why they answer the way do is anti-religion and my-religion-only is defining everything they think about in their day to day lives.
What the hell exactly about Hard Solipsism leads anywhere close to your desires for immortality or cosmic power-allegiance or whatever else you think the Atheists are lacking?
What the hell exactly about Hard Solipsism leads anywhere close to your desires for immortality or cosmic power-allegiance or whatever else you think the Atheists are lacking?
to me, he said experience is the final say in evidence is not evidence
i agree with that.
that's the alliance..
"personal experience" being the end all is as good as blind faith.
What the hell exactly about Hard Solipsism leads anywhere close to your desires for immortality or cosmic power-allegiance or whatever else you think the Atheists are lacking?
Solipsism is NOT the only issue. The fact that 95+% of our reality is beyond the reach of our direct measurement should give pause to anyone who thinks they know what does or does not comprise our reality.
Solipsism is NOT the only issue. The fact that 95+% of our reality is beyond the reach of our direct measurement should give pause to anyone who thinks they know what does or does not comprise our reality.
That doesn’t seem to stop you from making declarations about reality though. Why are you exempt?
I am not aware of a good way to address hard solipsism. Practically speaking, we need (maybe I should say I need) to to proceed as if what I perceive is congruent with reality. What other choice do I have until and unless my perception of reality changes? In any case, even if everything is simply a product of my brain, it seems to be pretty consistent, so I might as well conduct myself as if reality is external to me.
Once I have skipped around solipsism for practical reasons, addressing your 95+% issue falls similarly. You are correct, most of the universe is not known to us. However, the small portion that we do know something about seems to be pretty consistent, with no indication of gods. Why shouldn’t we conduct ourselves as if there are no gods when we see no evidence of one? Should that stateof knowledge change one day, if and when we uncover some evidence, then it will be reasonable to believe. Until that time, why bother?
That doesn’t seem to stop you from making declarations about reality though. Why are you exempt?
I am not aware of a good way to address hard solipsism. Practically speaking, we need (maybe I should say I need) to to proceed as if what I perceive is congruent with reality. What other choice do I have until and unless my perception of reality changes? In any case, even if everything is simply a product of my brain, it seems to be pretty consistent, so I might as well conduct myself as if reality is external to me.
Once I have skipped around solipsism for practical reasons, addressing your 95+% issue falls similarly. You are correct, most of the universe is not known to us. However, the small portion that we do know something about seems to be pretty consistent, with no indication of gods. Why shouldn’t we conduct ourselves as if there are no gods when we see no evidence of one? Should that stateof knowledge change one day, if and when we uncover some evidence, then it will be reasonable to believe. Until that time, why bother?
what type of god are you talking about?
because there may be good reason for some to understand their place in a system of life. Understanding that system can help us better maintain it. and some people will gain that higher awareness they so desperately seek? That system is just not understood by many or misrepresented as a god thing?
No. Unless they are believing without good evidence (on hearsay, on imagination/hypnotism, or on contradicted experience) and in with high hopes.
We believe without any evidence, and would certainly prefer to, in the veridicality of the external world. Or, I should say, you do. I'm just part of the program, as is everything else you experience
Quote:
Also, there is plenty of evidence that this world is real, and it's not just experienced but it is also independent confirmation, double-blind prediction, etc.
Meaning, you're appealing to things you experience (e.g., other people) to try and prove the veridicality of your experiences... Arguing in a circle, as I said.
Quote:
Otherwise, we might as well question everything under the use of such hard solipsism and say that you or the forum might not even exist right now and thus one shouldn't care to discuss the issue of "evidence" with you or in here.
Indeed that was my point. We are rational in believing we are not brains in vats despite not having any evidence to confirm it.
Quote:
I was simply pointing out to you that there is a difference between faith and blind faith and unreasonableness that you don't seem to want to get
More like, I don't agree with your personal definition of "blind faith". I think it refers to belief without good reason, particularly since I understand that we all believe things without evidence.
Quote:
I have never met anyone other than you who thinks that "blessed are the meek" means "the meek and the proud are equal and will be treated equally.
That's not quite what I said. I just said that it isn't saying "I'm rewarding them for being meek". Indeed, that wouldn't make much sense, as people pretty much never choose to be meek...
Quote:
A mere second ago you said that a blessing was not a gift or a reward.
Not necessarily a gift or a reward. And what could be less controversial?
Quote:
What you are saying with your wild mental gymnastics is that there is no point to be good or meak, since being evil and proud and loving Jesus for it could be just as equivalent if not secretly better for you in "the afterlife"
I never even touched on the subject of being good/evil! We were talking about people who believe without "seeing" and people who are meek. And yes, I think the bible leaves it open that the proud could be blessed as well, and that the verse is simply saying the meek shouldn't despair because they will be blessed.
Quote:
Every single time they read the story of Thomas relating to "blessed are the ones with blind faith" to kids, it is to specifically promote blind faith,
I disagree. In fact, they typically encourage each other (and their kids) to "seek god" so that he might "make himself known" to them just as they claim to have experienced. And basing a belief on experience is hardly the same as "blind faith", which IMO is believing for no good reason (e.g., the bible says it).
Quote:
Singularly, "faith" is not "believing without evidence."
Anti-theists seem to disagree on how best to define "faith". But as a working definition, I'm willing to interact with however you define it here.
Quote:
Faith is "believing for whatever reasons, and in a hopeful way." When a Christian stumbles upon evidence or logic or reasons, they don't "lose faith" automatically.
Well, holding onto faith in light of new evidence (either for or against your belief) wouldn't preclude faith itself being belief without evidence. One could simply believe without evidence and then add evidence as what William Lane Craig refers to as a "double warrant" for that belief, or maintain that their other reasons are more powerful than whatever "evidence" you might present against it. So far as I know, evidence against theism is hypothetical though.
Quote:
O.K.
What stops them from saying that about you?
Anyone is free to think I'm wrong. And if they'd like, we can discuss it too.
to me, he said experience is the final say in evidence is not evidence
i agree with that.
that's the alliance..
"personal experience" being the end all is as good as blind faith.
its more true than not.
I'm not understanding what you are even trying to Enligsh there.
But let me ask you this:
Is the scientific method just "personal experience" to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Solipsism is NOT the only issue. The fact that 95+% of our reality is beyond the reach of our direct measurement should give pause to anyone who thinks they know what does or does not comprise our reality.
That there are two or more issues to YOUR's, their's, and mine doesn't do any of us any favors. However, it's good that you point it out, it's important for people to confess their agnosticism and thus be closer to the true Enlightenment of their conscience.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 01-20-2019 at 11:06 PM..
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 belief that you are not just a body in the Matrix/that what you experience is veridical would be an example of a belief held without evidence. You can't appeal to the experience to prove the veridicality of the experience because that would be arguing in a circle. Nor do I suspect you guys would say the experience is evidence because that would arm the theists something fierce!
Would that your clarity of intellect was more predominant here in the forum!
