Some questions to the "atheists/non-believers"
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
Actually 'coherentist' theories of epistemology doesn't have this as a central idea at all.phildwyer said:
One major reason this kind of thinking has become far more prevalent over the 20th century is that it corresponds much more closely with bodies of scientific thinking and theory and especially the way science develops and changes over time.
A good "for example" is to ask what the "foundational axiom" is in physics - or other sciences. The answer is that this isn't the way things are looked at any more, and that coherent and internally consistent theories, where are large number of parts are in equilibrium or at least as close to as possible, is the preferred way of looking at things.
You are simply wrong to try and argue that this automatically claims that "signs are all there are" or that "nothing has meaning". These are actually quite separate issues.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
maya said:
That was Thomas Jefferson. He compiled only the words directly attributed to Jesus (the words in red in a standard bible) and published them.
As an aside, I had a discussion with a Muslim the other day (an adult man) who was telling me that mohammed "sliced the moon in two with a sword, and then put it back together again".
I asked him if this was commonly interpreted as an analogy for something, and he said that it was not- and, moreover, that it was literal truth.
I think that a good case could be made for "mental insufficiency" there, don't you?
I asked him if this was commonly interpreted as an analogy for something, and he said that it was not- and, moreover, that it was literal truth.
I think that a good case could be made for "mental insufficiency" there, don't you?
@How did religious mystics get a bitter insight into God?
If you think that, then, I'm sorry to say, I reckon you've missed, and missed badly.
A rational understanding is a starting point for understanding God, and believing in God, but, it's an infinitessimally small part of knowledge of God.
I'm slightly baffled. I kind of assumed you must have had some experience of God yourself, to bother to write at the length you do, and I reckon, intellectually you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the nature of reality. But myself, I'd never have bothered trying to convince anyone of my views if they were only formed by reading and thinking, and didn't have any personal experience to back them up.
phildwyer said:
If you think that, then, I'm sorry to say, I reckon you've missed, and missed badly.
A rational understanding is a starting point for understanding God, and believing in God, but, it's an infinitessimally small part of knowledge of God.
I'm slightly baffled. I kind of assumed you must have had some experience of God yourself, to bother to write at the length you do, and I reckon, intellectually you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the nature of reality. But myself, I'd never have bothered trying to convince anyone of my views if they were only formed by reading and thinking, and didn't have any personal experience to back them up.
soulman said:
Some do. Adorno presented perhaps the most coherent and ınfluentıal crıtıque of capıtalısm's effect on subjectıvıty of the twentıeth century. He argues that ıt was above all a system of *objectıfıcatıon,* dedıcated to the destructıon of the authentıc subject and ıts replacement by an artıfıcıal parody of subjectıvıty.
maya said:
I don't see what you find so utterly strange about this.
Seems to me you are not familiar with what aMessenger of God is called to do.
I am completely stunned. You know ALL people on this globe who believe in God and not only that, you heard them ALL be "scornful" of those who don't?
If this amazing story is true, that makes me and uncountable others aliens, since I don't know you and you clearly don't know us... So I must conclude that it only lives in your vivid fantasy.
Correction: The thread-reader to whom I write a reply right now should think about learning to read English, fro which all the rest needed to correct your clear nonsense follows automatically.
is THAT "tolerance"? no.
Of course you do.. I can read it in your reply to my OP.
By the way: I comitted myself to write the commands for the religion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Any suggestions? It should be as fun and witty as the Monster itself.
Why do you write this? You should addres such a comment to those who bother you with proselytizing. (Hint 1: A Christian invention and practice. Hint 2: I am Muslim) What others do can hardly be my concern.
salaam.
kyser_soze said:
I have no view on that, so I can't comment.
I am ? Saying that I am Muslim and Islamic scholar is in your world the same as being "PR boy" for Islam? and hence for Allah, in you language named "God"?
So in your world God needs "PR boys". Amazing.
Sorry that I miss the connection between myself and people who do what you describe here. I have only one functioning braincell and it is a bit overworked right now.
If I understand this correctly, you think that no matter what can go wrong inside societies - eventually affecting other societies too - can be prevented if only societies would have no individuals with a belief in God and hence no religion(s)?
Can you draw a picture of the roots of laws and ideas concerning commonly accepted views on "morality", "humans rights" etc... , all qualities you see as only being able to surface and survive in "godless" societies?
The outcome depends completely on how your society reacts on your "personal belief system" = on how well it is adapted to and accepted by the society you live in.
From an Islamic perspective you have an incorrect view on "God" to begin with.
I detect a certain Christian influence in the reasoning that you somehow "should" find worldly profit in a belief in God and since you don't need that, you - coming from your position legitimately - conclude you "don't need" God.
salaam.
kropotkin said:
No. For the simple reason that if I would start calling every ignorance I encounter "mental insufficiency" then that would keep me buzy in a way that there was no time left for anything else.
You "could" tell him that such things are not "commonly believed" but in his own world and that there is more behind such stories then he can imagine. (Christian and in this case in my idea even basic biblical influence. Read Exodus to find the obvious analogy)
salaam.
Fruitloop said:
Wıth respect, Fruıtloop, the fact that would even ask thıs questıon suggests that you have not been payıng suffıcıent attentıon to my teachıngs. For surely the answer should be obvıous by now: because vıolence ıs *unreasonable.* Logos, remember, ıs both Reason and God.
Aldebaran said:
You do, and you may wish to incorporporate him into your belief system, but that is of no consequence to Buddhists. Fact is, religions exist that do not operate on a montheistic basis, do not need a godhead and provide for their follower's spritual needs very well.
kropotkin said:
That's what I always say, and a remarkable head it must be, to hold so much in it.
As for objective reality. I'm not even certain there is such a thing. But if there is, I've never met anyone who lived in it.
Maybe you meant consensual reality. i.e. I'm delusional. But the truth is, if my delusions had never worked their way into consensual reality, and been returned to me, to utterly amaze me, then I would never have believed most of them.
Aldebaran said:
No Aldebaran, straight-up belief in utterly obvious falsehoods that fly in the face of all available evidence is something different to ignorance.
And I wasn't referring to "every ignorance" as "mental insufficency", I was specifically discussing one particular mentalist I met a few weeks ago. You seem to be attempting to conflate his clearly insane ramblings with "ignorance"- perhaps things like a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, or not knowing the correct whereabouts of Sunderland.
Being a gullible fool is different to being ignorant, would you not say?
Jo/Joe said:
Islam recognises many people as prophets and hence as messengers of Allah, chosen to bring a Message to humanity. Not all Muslims - and most certainly not all scholars either - see the Buddha as a prophet. For many aspects of Islam and related I am known as not quite following the expected, commonly accepted reasonings. I have some wildly indepedent, excentric features.
I didn't say that is a condition.
In my view and to my knowledge Buddhism is not a religion. (ZAMB can give correct information on this subject since she is a Buddhist.)
salaam.
kropotkin said:
Can you clarify which " utterly obvious falsehoods" you refer to and which "available evidence" makes them such "utterly obvious falsehoods"?
No, I say that I don't see anything "insane" about being misinformed. That he believes such a thing gives already proof he has not such a good education in Islam. Every Muslim knows that Muhammed did not perform "miracles". Many Muslims however will claim that Al Qur'an is Muhammed's miracle. (I don't share nor shall I support that view for a variety of reasons.)
I would maybe declare this person somewhat insane would I have the occasion to speak with him and afterwards he still wants to walk around with this belief.
By the way: I have no clue about quantum mechanics and no clue who on earth "Sunderland" might be.
Not always. (see above) Furthermore it largely depends on where the information comes from, how it is told etc.. = how they get indoctrinated with it and what means they have to examine and come to an independent conclusion about it.
salaam.
Err...the "utterly obvious falsehood" to which I refer is the only thing I have spoken about so far: namely that Mohammed (or indeed any entity, fictional or real) sliced the moon in two, and then put it back together again (conspicuously failing to leave any stress fracture marks indicating this wondrous feat that could be picked up with any of our instruments).
Similar threads
