-->
@zedvictor4
Be skeptical of atheism.
Posts
Total:
220
-->
@Mopac
Excellent.
I hope there isn't a schism between us though.
Regards.
-->
@Mopac
DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.Admitting that God exists is not atheism.
Believing in a god does not in any way suggest any sort of "rule book" and without a "rule book" then DEISM IS FUNCTIONALLY IDENTICAL TO ATHEISM.
-->
@zedvictor4
Scientifically expounded realism and constructive truisms easily negate fickle humanism.
Please explain.
-->
@3RU7AL
Well I was actually indulging in a bit of word play with Mopac.
Nonetheless the sentiment behind that statement was sincere enough.
I was suggesting, with the help of a few isms, that scientific understanding is probably more reliable than unverifiable theistic dogma.
What do you think?
-->
@zedvictor4
I was suggesting, with the help of a few isms, that scientific understanding is probably more reliable than unverifiable theistic dogma.
Generally, that would seem to be true.
However, my question was more specifically about the "negate fickle humanism" part of your statement.
-->
@3RU7AL
Once again this was more about word play.
But I was suggesting, that scientific fact is more reliable than theoretical assumption. Given both the changeability and variability of theory.
-->
@zedvictor4
A theory is the closest thing to a fact that science will allow.
-->
@zedvictor4
Once again this was more about word play.But I was suggesting, that scientific fact is more reliable than theoretical assumption. Given both the changeability and variability of theory.
You're not going to get much disagreement out of me on that point, other than a polite request to not conflate hypothesis and theory.
-->
@3RU7AL
Give me a clear explanation of the difference between hypothesis and theory and I will promise not to conflate in future.
-->
@zedvictor4
Give me a clear explanation of the difference between hypothesis and theory and I will promise not to conflate in future.
A hypothesis attempts to answer questions by putting forth a plausible explanation that has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory, on the other hand, has already undergone extensive testing by various scientists and is generally accepted as being an accurate explanation of an observation. This doesn’t mean the theory is correct; only that current testing has not yet been able to disprove it, and the evidence as it is understood, appears to support it.
A theory will often start out as a hypothesis -- an educated guess to explain observable phenomenon. The scientist will attempt to poke holes in his or her hypothesis. If it survives the applied methodologies of science, it begins to take on the significance of a theory to the scientist. The next step is to present the findings to the scientific community for further, independent testing. The more a hypothesis is tested and holds up, the better accepted it becomes as a theory. [LINK]
In other words, a hypothesis is just an idea, any idea, no matter how insane.
A theory is something that has been battle tested.
-->
@3RU7AL
So deism/theism.
Hypothesis or theory?
Insane or battle tested?
Look forward to reading your response in the morning.
Bedtime here in the U.K. so goodnight.
-->
@zedvictor4
So deism/theism.Hypothesis or theory?Insane or battle tested?
Deism and Theism are both unfalsifiable, untestable hypotheses.
Many people try to side-step this by declaring them Axioms, which by definition do not require any justification.
A proper theory must not only be falsifiable and testable, it must actually be tested and shown to be efficacious and have some demonstrable explanatory and predictive power.
Neither Deism nor Theism have any of these integral components.
15 days later
Atheism is the denial of the existence of God. It isn't necessarily saying there is no God. There is a subset of atheism where they do believe that. So being skeptical of atheism sense futile.
-->
@WyseGui
So being skeptical of atheism sense futile.
Ask 100 people for their definition of God and we will get at least 50 differrent answers.
0} " U "niverse / " G " od = The Cosmic Outline/List/Hierarchy is most generalized, wholistic set;
1} spirit-1 { spirit-of-intent } metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts ex concepts of God, Universe, Space, Time, Concepts, Toyotas,
-------------conceptual-line-of-demarcation-------------------------
2} eternally existent, macro-infinite non-occupied space, that embraces/surrounds the following,
3} spirit-2, eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe/God aka Uni-V-erse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied space is the first subset of the above Cosmic Trinity involving a 2D or 3D Space and not a )D concept-of-space.
...2a} physical/energy aka reality or Observed Time is fermions, bosons and any aggregate thereof ex atoms, molecules, planets etc,
...since there may be a third item in addition to fermions, bosons ergo 2a may be its own trinity subset,
....3a} Spirit-3,Gravity ( ), ultra-micro ergo metaphysical-3, positive shaped ( ) geodesic Space,
......ergo gravitonic quantity.....
....4a} Spirit-4, Dark Energy )(, ultra-micro ergo metaphyscial-4, negative shaped )( geodesic Space.
...ergo darkionic quantity......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPACE(>*<)' i ' (>*<)SPACE = short texticonic expression of all of the above, as the minimal, primary and fundamental dfinning set of Universe/God that includes access to ' i ' aka intellect { metaphysical-1 } meta ergo beyond 2D and 3D Space is 0D space concept of 2D and 3D Space.
* * = consciousness { awarness } via occupied space in bilateral configurations we associate with some animals { nervous system }.
-->
@Fallaneze
That's defined by the word atheism, not your views.
In that case I'm not an atheist because I know gods don't exist.
-->
@3RU7AL
The Ultimate Reality is not a theory, it is absolutely necessary, and the fact that denying the ultimate reality's existence is patently self defeating should be enough proof that God must exist to all but the most stubborn of fools.
-->
@mustardness
I suppose they could all be plausible. IMO, atheism is the best way to view them all objectively. Like I said, be skeptical of everything.
-->
@Mopac
Your god was created by the Canaanites.
-->
@WyseGui
I suppose they could all be plausible. IMO, atheism is the best way to view them all objectively. Like I said, be skeptical of everything.
Please share whey you want to stop supposing and begin using some rational, logical common sense in search of truth.
Why do so many humans believe so much irrational, illogical lack of common sense? The reasons var, however, there may exist a few underlying reasons that are fairly common. Ex religion and if the repeat to others what some relegion says the fit into the group.
I understand that, and have done so myself.
-->
@mustardness
First of all, I can barely make out what you are trying to say. Second, why are you so combative? Chill tf out. It was a caviler response meant to convey my general opinion on the options you presented. If you intention was for me to pick the most logical choice of those you provided, you should have said so. You didn't and they are all plausible. Me saying "I suppose" does not mean none of what you just said. They are all plausible. There is no sufficient evidence to support either in practical terms. How much common sense and logic can be applied in this matter.
There is no sufficient evidence to support either in practical terms. How much common sense and logic can be applied in this matter.
.."Please share whey you want to stop supposing and begin using some rational, logical common sense in search of truth."..
Yeah that is tough sentence to grasp. Maybe you need a dictionary. The comment still stands as presented.
-->
@mustardness
Why jump straight to insults? What is going on? That wasn't the part that didn't make sense. I think you know what you are doing here. This part doesnt make sense.
The reasons var, however, there may exist a few underlying reasons that are fairly common. Ex religion and if the repeat to others what some relegion says the fit into the group.
Maybe you just need to chill. If you just going to keep saying the same thing i will to.
"They are all plausible. There is no sufficient evidence to support either in practical terms. How much common sense and logic can be applied in this matter."
14 days later
-->
@Fallaneze
Atheism = Skepticism.Be skeptical of theism AND atheism. Too many atheists are skeptical of one only side, theism, and not the other, atheism.
You might as well be saying, "be skeptical of skepticism".
-->
@3RU7AL
See post #13 on page 1. Great minds think alike.
-->
@TwoMan
I'm not sure how I missed this the first time around!To say that one should be skeptical of atheism is tantamount to saying one should be skeptical of skepticism.
-->
@TwoMan
@3RU7AL
It is certainly rational to be skeptical of extreme skepticism.
After all, when you ever sink into that epistemological black hole of nihilism, what other way out is there than to swallow one's pride and shift from saying "I know better" to "I really don't know".
These are certainly two different mindsets to be working under. They both can appear as if they are agnosticism to the untrained eye, but what distinguishes one from the other is pride.
-->
@Mopac
I'd much rather be in an "epistemological black hole" than blindly following some poorly written scraps of paper from the middle east.
The whole point of skepticism is that any belief you have must have demonstrable efficacy.
You don't have to "prove it to the entire world", but you should be able to at least justify it to yourself without leaning on the crutch of "faith".
-->
@TwoMan
@3RU7AL
It seems we've spent a lot of time on what theism and atheism meam but not enough on what scepticism is.
I'd say scepticism is a close brother of agnosticism. It's not a position of positive disbelief but of uncertainty. If I am sceptical of ESP I shouldn't say 'esp is nonsense'; I should say 'esp is unproven', with the implication I have very strong doubts about esp being real.
So I don't agree with atheism=scepticism. For me scepticism=agnosticism.
-->
@3RU7AL
My faith isn't blindly following scraps of paper from the middle east. We are a living faith with Holy Orders and active Monasticism.
Our faith is Truth worship. Something you don't understand because in your mind it is "Oh no, anything but that."
And you certainly aren't judging rightly.
No, the epistemological black hole comes from pride and false humility. It isn't that one in that situation doesn't know, it is that they know better. They know better than to even receive instruction, because if they can't know, no one can know!
It is faith in one's own understanding, not faith in The Truth, which has long been scribbled away as some absurdity.