I think his point is that those who disagree with his interpretation are wrong and unjustified. Which is, admittedly, a common approach to life. At least he's not trying to get a holy war together to convert or exterminate the heretics who disagree. Which is, sadly, another common approach.
It may well be that the only step between the former and the latter is time and the power to do so...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fond of paraphrasing an anonymous quote:
Live a compassionate life. If there are gods and they are just, they will not care whether you believed in them in life. If there are gods and they are unjust, they do not deserve your homage. If there are no gods, you will live on in the memories of others.
I know at least one dedicated atheist who believes in the supernatural (things such as shamanism IIRC). Not as a set of beliefs but as unexplained occurrencesThat's interesting. I've met agnostics who accept the existence of the supernatural, but never anyone who flatly denies the existence of a (or multiple) divine beings without also denying the supernatural. So then, is it a viewpoint that weird stuff happens, but it doesn't mean anything? Or is there more to it?
It may be a case of 'supernatural stuff is just physics that hasn't been discovered yet.'
Keep in mind that the bulk of Buddhism these days is supernatural junk that was never intended by the actual living Buddha himself, but added to it as the philosophy turned into a religion after being exported from it's native India, where it all but died out.I would never describe any varieties of Buddhism that way, but I did say "some variations". My understanding is that the earliest versions did include the "supernatural junk" I referred to, while some later ones added more active divine sorts of beings.
I'm no expert on Buddhism, but I did write a lengthy research paper on it a couple years back. -- Those mandated religion course were more fun than I expected! -- Theravada Buddhism is the one that arose directly from Siddhartha Gautama, and is very philosophical. No gods as I recall, and little if any supernatural stuff. In Theravada, the Buddha is just a sort of title that SG takes on after he attains enlightenment and thus figures out how to escape the endless cycle of reincarnation. (See: Hinduism) Mahayana Buddhism arose a bit later, and is definitely a religion. The Buddha is the deific title that SG takes on after attaining enlightenment and thus attaining godhood, and the Buddhas are the mortals he helped attain enlightenment and who are lesser gods.
Mahayana is more popular in the east, but don't tell my best friend, who practices Buddhism as a philosophy and vehemently rejects the idea that it's anything but.
Belief in people is not the same as belief in concepts.
I don't doubt that you find belief vague and complicated. You have said so and I believe you.
But you aren't stepping back and seeing how simple it is. Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person. You don't have to believe that a chair exists because it falls into that first category; direct observation. But if someone told you a green overstuffed chair could be found in the coatroom of a certain Saudi prince's palace, you would either have to decide whether to believe him or go to Saudi Arabia and check the coatroom for yourself. The vast majority of what you "know" is in the second category; belief. EVEN concepts like God or justice are told to you by a person, clearly you didn't believe the person telling you about God but did belief the person telling you about justice. Justice and God are equally "knowable" and since the definitions of each change from culture to culture equally dismissable. It all just boils down to whether you believed the person telling you about the concept.
And how do we know our senses are telling the truth? Our senses can be fooled and play tricks on us. You can't even be sure you're telling yourself the truth. Memory isn't reliable as it changes and shifts over time.
Nothing is true. Everything is bunk.
What a fun conversation.
Belief in people is not the same as belief in concepts.
I don't doubt that you find belief vague and complicated. You have said so and I believe you.
But you aren't stepping back and seeing how simple it is. Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person. You don't have to believe that a chair exists because it falls into that first category; direct observation. But if someone told you a green overstuffed chair could be found in the coatroom of a certain Saudi prince's palace, you would either have to decide whether to believe him or go to Saudi Arabia and check the coatroom for yourself. The vast majority of what you "know" is in the second category; belief. EVEN concepts like God or justice are told to you by a person, clearly you didn't believe the person telling you about God but did belief the person telling you about justice. Justice and God are equally "knowable" and since the definitions of each change from culture to culture equally dismissable. It all just boils down to whether you believed the person telling you about the concept.
And how do we know our senses are telling the truth? Our senses can be fooled and play tricks on us. You can't even be sure you're telling yourself the truth. Memory isn't reliable as it changes and shifts over time.
Nothing is true. Everything is bunk.
What a fun conversation.
Ok now you're worrying me. When you start disbelieving your own senses, that way lay madness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did someone call? o wo Although there's definitely a reason to not rely too much on memory...
The world doesn't actually look the way you think it looks. The overall construction of the human eye would be more efficient underwater. Of course it has methods of compensation, but the fact is that because it is compensating, it can be tricked and fooled. Present it with certain types of sustained stimulus long enough and it'll rearrange your vision to remove that stimulus. The mere fact that our eye's are filled with liquid means our brain can be tricked into all sorts of things.
To the true skeptic the only thing that can be certain is one's own existence. Everything else could be an illusion.
As for what I believe: I am a credo Catholic.
I would be lying if I said that I never struggle/d with faith.
A couple philosophical arguments have helped me hold onto my faith.
The most important among them is "the uncaused cause". Everything has a cause going back like a chain. There are two possibilities. Either there was a beginning, and a cause that was uncaused or the universe stretches back forever in time.
If the universe stretches back infinitely then it should have reached a point of entropy by now.
If it had a beginning, then what caused it to come to be?
I view our lack of an entropic state as an indication of a creator. This creator being able to cause without having been caused. This seems to be God.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Problem is that having a creator doesn't solve the problem of the universe not being in total entropy (or not having anything to make it exist) -- it just moves the problem to the creator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans create things. We've sculpted things from wood, metal and stone. We've harnessed fire. We see this bountiful world that provides us with so much, and being creators ourselves, we ask "Who made all this?"
The problem isn't the question, it's the premise of the question. We assume that because a thing exists it therefore must have a sentient creator, because that is what we are; what we understand.
The question is "How was all this made?" If in solving that, you find a creator standing at the source, then yes, there's a creator. But don't ask the question assuming what form the answer will take. Ask the question assuming nothing.
But you aren't stepping back and seeing how simple it is. Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person.
Nah. I would say that you are omitting a very important source of knowledge - deduction and reasoning. People reach conclusions (true or false ones, but nevertheless) and base what they know on that, and not only on what they've been told or seen. Yes, few of us discover any new knowledge through this process (however, people that move our society forward sure do). But I'm sure many have had the thought train, especially when growing up, that "if A is 1, then doesn't it make sense that B is 2? Hmm... I now think B is 2".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you aren't stepping back and seeing how simple it is. Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person.Nah. I would say that you are omitting a very important source of knowledge - deduction and reasoning. People reach conclusions (true or false ones, but nevertheless) and base what they know on that, and not only on what they've been told or seen. Yes, few of us discover any new knowledge through this process (however, people that move our society forward sure do). But I'm sure many have had the thought train, especially when growing up, that "if A is 1, then doesn't it make sense that B is 2? Hmm... I now think B is 2".
I love the way you think. But is deductive reasoning really a source if it starts from either direct observation and/or belief? And it does. I think of deductive reasoning as an expression of the human thought process. If you "know" a certain set of things then you will deduce from those more information. Look at some inventions. I think you will agree that invention is a very pure form of deductive reasoning. They were created by multiple people at the same time with sometimes a very small increment of time naming only one the inventor. Why did multiple people in different areas suddenly deduce something new? Because it isn't a source but rather a set of prerequisites to greater understanding. If I am told or observe some number of things then the light will switch on and I will say "Oh wow... that means I can make a radio!" So is it a source? I don't think so, even though it reveals a new "knowledge" it is more a product of knowing a certain number of other things.
Sometimes this delusion has positive effects in the meantime.
I believe that as long as you're not hurting anyone else, whatever makes you happy is hunky-dory. I used to apply this to organized religion as well. And I used an argument that many believers do, that the organized believers help people that are in a weak position, and that that is a point in their favor.
However, it has been proven, by the World Value Study, University of California, and others, that in general, religious people are more racist, hold more prejudices against others, are more homophobic, more accepting of violence as a way to solve problems, and are less accepting of women's' rights and equality.
Religious countries are also more corrupt and their populations trust other people less. So the argument that many believers people put forward - that religion is good for society, because religious people are humanitarians - is not true. Religious people and societies are in general less humanitarian than ones that are not, and a society doesn't get a "better morale" or "higher ethics" if people practice more religion.
While it has been proven that in a society where a majority is religious, like the USA, while religious people do give more to charity than non-believers (four times as much), the religious countries themselves do not take care of the unfortunate of their society, nor of the world, any better than the non-religious. In fact it's often the opposite. A non-religious country like Sweden does more for their poor and unfortunate fellow humans than a religious country like Poland does.
Which is of course strange, as the big four religions preach humanitarian values - the golden/silver rule, for example (even though it is not always updated to be inclusive). Maybe it is because of the tribalism and conservatism which are mainstays among many religions - we are a special, chosen, and enlightened group (and others are not), and what was before is the way it should stay. To quote Mahatma Gandhi, “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”
Did someone call? o wo Although there's definitely a reason to not rely too much on memory...
Since we are on the side topic I thought I would leave this right here.
It may not exactly be what was being discussed but it is related in a fun way.
I love the way you think. But is deductive reasoning really a source if it starts from either direct observation and/or belief? And it does. I think of deductive reasoning as an expression of the human thought process. If you "know" a certain set of things then you will deduce from those more information. Look at some inventions. I think you will agree that invention is a very pure form of deductive reasoning. They were created by multiple people at the same time with sometimes a very small increment of time naming only one the inventor. Why did multiple people in different areas suddenly deduce something new? Because it isn't a source but rather a set of prerequisites to greater understanding. If I am told or observe some number of things then the light will switch on and I will say "Oh wow... that means I can make a radio!" So is it a source? I don't think so, even though it reveals a new "knowledge" it is more a product of knowing a certain number of other things.
I guess that goes back to our core religious beliefs. If I have a promethean outlook, that knowledge was given to us by (or stolen from, as it were) a higher power, then I could reason that everything comes from something else. But I don't think that, and instead think that primitive man knew absolutely jack s+~!. Well, the knowledge of an animal (but clearly not the cognitive ability of one). But through generations of occasional new ideas, and documenting, reasoning, and evolution of these ideas, battered by endless setbacks and immense amounts of lost achievements, here we are. With penicillin and computers. Heureka! :)
And I believe that situation comes from the fact that (some. All right, very few) people have original ideas. Cognitive mutations. New thinking. Of course - especially nowadays - you need other knowledges to advance your own, and you need input. If you are brought up enclosed in dark room, without any stimuli or human contact whatsoever, you're not likely to sit in there and cure cancer. But the saying "nothing is new under the sun" is a religious concept, in my view, because it assumes a divine instigator. New stuff happens all the time. There's never been a person with my genome typing these exact words while drinking coffee out of a striped mug. Not much of a breakthrough to further humanity, I admit, but nevertheless...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok now you're worrying me. When you start disbelieving your own senses, that way lay madness.
I'd argue exactly the other way -- only when you start disbelieving your own senses do you approach wisdom.
I mean, I've seen a man pull doves out of an empty hat, a woman sawed in half, and (on the cinema screen) a man cut in half by a blade of light.
One of these days in your travels, a guy is going to show you a brand-new deck of cards on which the seal is not yet broken. Then this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the jack of spades jump out of this brand-new deck of cards and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not accept this bet, because as sure as you stand there, you're going to wind up with an ear full of cider.
But Orfamay we have learned about things like slight of hand and other parlor tricks in modern times. So even if it looks impossible we can safely guess that it was just a trick.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Orfamay we have learned about things like slight of hand and other parlor tricks in modern times. So even if it looks impossible we can safely guess that it was just a trick.
We've also learned about the laws of physics in modern times. Is that reason to "safely guess" that tales of the supernatural are not real?
Why can I reject a person pulling a dove out of a hat because I know about tricks, but must provisionally accept the Virgin Birth despite knowing about gynecology?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Orfamay we have learned about things like slight of hand and other parlor tricks in modern times. So even if it looks impossible we can safely guess that it was just a trick.
Knowing about slight of hand wouldn't matter if your knowledge is derived from observation (You saw the result, not the trick) or belief (unless someone explained the trick). You've just hit upon why deduction and reasoning are an important third factor.
Ok now you're worrying me. When you start disbelieving your own senses, that way lay madness.
How do you know anything? When you think you hear people talking to you and the words seem to make sense, does that automatically mean it's all real? How do you know it's real and not some trick being played on you? Can you prove the past isn't a fiction designed to account for the discrepancy between your immediate physical sensations and your state of mind?
The answer is no. We can't prove reality exists, because all tests to do so would be contained within that reality and if it's fictional, the results would be fictional too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person.
There are no other possible sources? Really? Inductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive?
For example, I can be pretty sure the continents move, even if I can't see them do so, and even if no one tells me so, by looking at sea floor spreading, apparent polar wander, fossil asssemblages, global orogeny and trench situation, etc., etc. None of those are observations of what I'm concluding (and in many cases seem to have nothing to do with it), and further in most cases they are second- or third-hand observations from imaging methods, museum-going, etc. There's no way to start with one of them and follow a deductive chain all the way to the end. Yet all of them together can tell a pretty convincing story -- in fact, I'm more certain of that conclusion than I am of anything I'm told by a single person.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is true. Everything isbunkpermitted.What a fun conversation.
It is now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah-weep-Graaaaagnah wheep ni ni bong?Des graw esfredechez, nhooba des na. Eep badu.More evidence: About 85% of everything I hear or read sounds like Simlish these days... and that ratio is climbing steadily.Wouldn't give me much peace of mind to find out when I die that we're all characters in a overelaborate version of The Sims. :)You know... that would explain that time I was swimming and then the pool ladder disappeared and I couldn't get out and I had to swim around for hours until it reappeared in a totally different part of the pool...
BAH-WEEP-GRAAAAAGNAH WHEEP NI NI BONG!
It is now.
Nothing is true. Everything isbunkpermitted.What a fun conversation.
Here you go.It is now.
Nothing is true. Everything isbunkpermitted.What a fun conversation.
Seriously?
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!?
You can't be serious!!!!
Soooooo wrong!
Everything you know comes from only two sources direct observation or being told by some other person.There are no other possible sources? Really? Inductive reasoning, as opposed to deductive?
A lot of philosophers insist that inductive knowledge is not actually "knowledge" because it's not certain.
They are of course, wrong, but a lot of philosophers are that, too.
The problem is where one draws the ilne between "knowledge" and "belief." The traditional definition is that knowledge is a "justified" "true" "belief" (the famous JTB framework), but that's not much help, because you can't actually know that what you have is knowledge -- so what you have is a belief that you know, instead of actual knowledge.
And this particular sophistry is where lots of religious beliefs like to hide. For example, until relatively recently, "science" taught us that neutrinos were massive. We now "know" (meaning "believe," because nothing in science is certain) that neutrinos have mass. (Nobel prizes all around!)
Well, science also teaches us that the earth is (roughly) spherical, that it is billions of years old, that it revolves around the barycenter of the sun-earth system, and that mankind didn't appear in its present form on this world until it had evolved from a long string of ancestors. By the same argument as the previous paragraph, those are just "beliefs," too, and therefore everyone will eventually know better and abandon this Godless enterprise called "scholarship." (Templeton prizes all around! -- which actually, I think, pays better than a Nobel!}
Of course, this hinges on a false dichotomy ("knowledge" vs. "belief") a lot of equivocation, and an understanding of epistemology that would embarrass a grasshopper. But there are a lot of people on this thread willing to admit that they couldn't pass Epistemology for Grasshoppers.....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If reason was antithetical to belief, atheism would be the dominant view in our 21st century
That only works if reason is dominant in our 21st century.
Yeah, who says reason is dominant in the 21st Century? In case anyone was taking a vacation on another planet(*), that is not the case in most of the world, including the United States.
(*)And if anyone was, I want to know how to get there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, who says reason is dominant in the 21st Century? In case anyone was taking a vacation on another planet(*), that is not the case in most of the world, including the United States.
(*)And if anyone was, I want to know how to get there.
1. Go into space
2. My god, it's full of stars3. ????
4. Vacation on Jupiter
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Go into space
2. My god, it's full of stars
3. ????
4. Vacation on Jupiter
Oh no, I'm not falling for that again. Monolith me once, shame on you, monolith me twice, shame on me...
A lot of philosophers insist that inductive knowledge is not actually "knowledge" because it's not certain.
They are of course, wrong, but a lot of philosophers are that, too.
No knowledge is ever totally certain. Some is just more certain.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
No knowledge is ever totally certain. Some is just more certain.A lot of philosophers insist that inductive knowledge is not actually "knowledge" because it's not certain.
They are of course, wrong, but a lot of philosophers are that, too.
Is "more certain" anything like being "more unique"?
Is "more certain" anything like being "more unique"?No knowledge is ever totally certain. Some is just more certain.A lot of philosophers insist that inductive knowledge is not actually "knowledge" because it's not certain.
They are of course, wrong, but a lot of philosophers are that, too.
No.
Is "more certain" anything like being "more unique"?
Not in any way.
"Unique" is an absolute (binary) term. "Certainty" is a spectrum from 0.0000...1 (almost totally uncertain) to 0.9999... (almost totally certain)."More certain" is therefore like being "less common."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
{pores salt magic circle around thread to ward out appearances by Stuffy Grammarians and Kelsey Grammerians}
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Usage smashes dictionary definitions! Fight Big Lexicon! Power to the people!
OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been similarly perplexed.
When buying a car, most people would insist on seeing the car, inspecting it, driving it, maybe even taking it to a mechanic to have it professionally inspected. You then get it insured and most likely put in some amount of effort to secure it from harm/theft (ie, you lock it when not using it).
When buying a house you go to even greater pains. You research the neighborhood, have an inspector search for any issues, find out about the home's history, inspect it yourself multiple times, insure it once purchased, etc.
Essentially with both life events, we insist on proof, evidence and insurance.
Yet when it comes to the immortal soul, no proof or evidence is required. People are willing to entrust it to others on faith, but if you asked them which was more important to them overall, most would say their soul is more important than their house.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See also: Religion/spirituality is the one kind of idea where the lack of hard evidence is not only accepted, but often held up as a virtue. "Evidence would cheapen my faith," "It's not faith if there's proof," etc..
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See also: Religion/spirituality is the one kind of idea where the lack of hard evidence is not only accepted, but often held up as a virtue. "Evidence would cheapen my faith," "It's not faith if there's proof," etc..
A trait worryingly held in common with conspiracy theorists.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I'm perplexed that Atheism+ faced such a backlash.On the other hand if this is the only life you have, than it should be that much more precious. It should give you that much more incentive to do it right.
OK so there is no evidence for an afterlife, thus it is irrational to behave in this life as if there were another beyond it.
I'm not. Many people approach Atheism from different points of view. What they all have in common is a rejection of control.. or a particular form of authority. That sort of rejection never comes without a reaction. if you come to a conclusion that there is no God, than his Priests have no hold over you, nor do appeals whose backing is based solely on a belief on such a supreme being...and the rewards used to bribe your behavior, or the punishments threathened to curb it.
Many people hold to the belief that without such coercion, a person can not be trusted.
I suspect my post wasn't clear, I apologize.
Atheism plus (written as Atheism+) was a movement that attempted to combine atheism with efforts to support freedoms and equal rights, ostensibly under the idea that without a heaven to wait for things to be better in it was up to the living to make this world a better place.
Unfortunately, there's a surprisingly prevalent strain of anti-feminists in online atheism, and they reacted about how you'd expect...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Atheism+ became an irrelevant movement once they tied it to leftist principles. Atheism itself has no political leanings and shouldn't.