Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 18:43:55 GMT
See how easy it is to argue when you can invent things out of thin air and pretend that the other side believes them?  Nobody is really doing that, but... Okay. Nobody but you. And now me. Well, if you can't win the argument a temper tantrum is definitely the way to go. Good for you! Except for when he's not. Actually you are. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 7, 2017 19:45:41 GMT
Yeah... No sht. Whoever suggested that a general consensus of anything must be adhered to by 100% of its makeup. I'm not superstitious... I don't believe that I fit into that category. But, I'm not stupid enough to believe that what I believe represents all of humanity throughout all of history ..*cough* *cough* like you *cough*
I know you are, but what I am I?... INFINITY!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 7, 2017 19:49:29 GMT
You're aware that knowledge is belief, right? Now you want to talk about beliefs? Earlier you used the word fact to describe your... Belief.. You said, "You believe that P, you don't know that P." "Knowing that P" is a qualified form of believing that P. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 7, 2017 19:50:38 GMT
Yeah it is. Open your eyes. ;-) I have. What you call reality is materialism, and reality actually exists independently of that. Matter is energy in another form; kind of like a disguise. Just because you've doomed yourself to an eternity of darkness with your blasphemy doesn't ensure that others will be convinced to make the same mistake you did.  The idea of energy sans matter is incoherent. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 7, 2017 19:52:04 GMT
You're aware that knowledge is belief, right? If you tell me that you have a $1B in your bank account right now, I may not believe you....but I don't know for sure. So, one is a subset of the other but they're not the same. The nice thing about my example is that it's easily verified...unlike most god claims. I didn't say that they're coextensive, just that knowledge is belief. Not all belief is knowledge. But all (propositional) knowledge is belief. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2017 20:20:46 GMT
Whoever suggested that a general consensus of anything must be adhered to by 100% of its makeup. You did, when you described it as a human trait rather than a common human trait. Not my fault if you choose not to, or are not able to, say what you mean. And then throw a huge sulk over it. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 7, 2017 20:37:07 GMT
Whoever suggested that a general consensus of anything must be adhered to by 100% of its makeup. You did, when you described it as a human trait rather than a common human trait. Not my fault if you choose not to, or are not able to, say what you mean. And then throw a huge sulk over it. Sorry... Next time, I'll remember to write in MORON MODE when I speak of humanity in general... I don't want to confuse the easily offended and confused.  |
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Sept 7, 2017 20:47:19 GMT
If you tell me that you have a $1B in your bank account right now, I may not believe you....but I don't know for sure. So, one is a subset of the other but they're not the same. The nice thing about my example is that it's easily verified...unlike most god claims. I didn't say that they're coextensive, just that knowledge is belief. Not all belief is knowledge. But all (propositional) knowledge is belief. Perhaps we're saying the same thing in a different way. If you're saying that knowledge is a subset of belief...then I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 7, 2017 21:00:04 GMT
I didn't say that they're coextensive, just that knowledge is belief. Not all belief is knowledge. But all (propositional) knowledge is belief. Perhaps we're saying the same thing in a different way. If you're saying that knowledge is a subset of belief...then I agree. Yes. It's justified true belief. Not just belief. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 7, 2017 21:29:31 GMT
But Man IS a superstitious creature. I'm not the one denying 20,000 years of human history to make his point. If you define "superstitious" in the broadest sense possible, then you may be right. Wikipedia says that "Superstition is any belief or practice that is irrational - i.e., it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown."In that sense, every scientist who has ever proposed or endorsed a theory that turned out to be wrong is superstitious. But this thread is about atheism. This means: Not believing in deities. And you still have to prove that religion is "what makes us human". In former times (human history is at least 50.000 years old), when humans observed natural phenomena for which they had no explanation, they assumed supernatural explanations and created deities. Organized religion around these deities came around when societies became bigger and more difficult to control. The human nature to see patterns helped with the establishing of religion. Today (since enlightenment), there is no more need for a God of the gaps; and with the advent of modern state forms, religion is no longer needed to control humanity. So I'd say that religion is not part of "what makes us human". The desire to find explanations is part of what makes us human. It's then up to individual humans whether they prefer superstitious explanations to more rational ones. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 7, 2017 21:55:56 GMT
But Man IS a superstitious creature. I'm not the one denying 20,000 years of human history to make his point. If you define "superstitious" in the broadest sense possible, then you may be right. Wikipedia says that "Superstition is any belief or practice that is irrational - i.e., it arises from ignorance, a misunderstanding of science or causality, a positive belief in fate or magic, or fear of that which is unknown."In that sense, every scientist who has ever proposed or endorsed a theory that turned out to be wrong is superstitious. But this thread is about atheism. This means: Not believing in deities. And you still have to prove that religion is "what makes us human".
Today (since enlightenment), there is no more need for a God of the gaps; and with the advent of modern state forms Here's my OP: If you don't think that a baby left to grow on his own wouldn't create for himself a "and this why the sun goes away at night" mythology (or anything similar).. You're dumber than I think you are. It's in us. And it has very little to do with advances in science or understanding... Tonight, people will be wearing their "lucky" jerseys because they believe that it will have an affect on the outcome of tonight's game. I believe this to be a true sentiment.... although, I would point out that specific curiosity has a greater impact in The Western World than anywhere else. The Eastern World didn't strive for the explanations of the universe like his Western brothers... Their philosophy and religion taught them that the universe was unknowable, so there was very little purpose in trying to find those explanations. Their religious need trumped that curiosity. 
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Sept 7, 2017 22:04:51 GMT
Here's my OP: If you don't think that a baby left to grow on his own wouldn't create for himself a "and this why the sun goes away at night" mythology (or anything similar).. You're dumber than I think you are. My belief: A baby left to grow on its own would not survive for long. Not long enough to create a mythology. It's in us. And it has very little to do with advances in science or understanding... Tonight, people will be wearing their "lucky" jerseys because that believe that it will have an affect on the outcome of tonight's game. Some will, but not all. Graham is right about that. I'm not really familiar with Eastern mythology; but I know that some of the most powerful computers, used to gain scientific knowledge, are located in China. You don't try to gain scientific knowledge if you are not curious about how the world works. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 7, 2017 22:19:45 GMT
My belief: A baby left to grow on its own would not survive for long. Not long enough to create a mythology. Dammit! I almost threw in a "Well... actually, you'd have a dead baby" joke. But, I'm about done: To what specific degree Man has religion/superstition embedded into his makeup ... or to what degree Man will go to deny that fact  ... doesn't really hold my interest that much... nor, do I think that it's worth the effort to argue that difference. I gotta go burn a Brady jersey to ensure that they don't win tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 8, 2017 5:17:03 GMT
I have. What you call reality is materialism, and reality actually exists independently of that. Matter is energy in another form; kind of like a disguise. Just because you've doomed yourself to an eternity of darkness with your blasphemy doesn't ensure that others will be convinced to make the same mistake you did. The idea of energy sans matter is incoherent. It's incoherent to materialists, but not to normal people. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 8, 2017 10:34:14 GMT
The idea of energy sans matter is incoherent. It's incoherent to materialists, but not to normal people. What would you say that matterless energy is, exactly, ontologically? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2017 10:58:01 GMT
We are all born without a belief in any particular god. We were all born dependent on somebody and looking up to someone. We never lose that need and it extends beyond physical to spiritual. Unlike other wildlife. Humans are different. We reach out. What other beast has moved beyond the earths atmosphere to 'seek'? Some might say we are looking for new resources, and in some cases that's true. We can be greedy. But , at a deeper level , we seek beyond our self because on some level we are still dependent on something beyond ourselves and are still looking up to someone . |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Sept 8, 2017 11:04:45 GMT
We were all born dependent on somebody and looking up to someone. Indeed. Which is why I said we are hardwired to see patterns and commonly consider the transcendental, or magical as a likely explanation for things not known. But not to believe in one particular deity, or metaphysical scheme of things, over another before cultural impulsion. The search for exobiology is certainly one of the greatest drives of science and the discovery of a single confirmed microbe off world would be one of the greatest moments in human history (and, arguably a bad day for certain strands of religion). But it's fair to say that the search for any proof of exotheology is not conducted with the same great anticipation. Whether some of us are 'dependent on something beyond ourselves, still looking up to someone' in the sense you mean is debateable. Not all philosophers would have it so, certainly. The Existentialists for a start. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Sept 8, 2017 13:21:42 GMT
Burnt Brady jersey... Works every time!!  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 9, 2017 5:22:50 GMT
It's incoherent to materialists, but not to normal people. What would you say that matterless energy is, exactly, ontologically? I wouldn't know how to classify it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 9, 2017 11:14:19 GMT
What would you say that matterless energy is, exactly, ontologically? I wouldn't know how to classify it. I'm not asking for taxonomy. I'm challenging you to descriptively support what we'd even be talking about in terms of how it would obtain, just what it would be, etc. |
|
- "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT WHAT EVER I FEEL AND BELIEVE DOESN'T COMPLETELY REPRESNT ALL OF HUMANITY.... EVEN WHEN HISTORY PROVES THAT IT DOESN'T!"
