My thoughts on athiesm

[Polymirize]

Not all faith is blind. Some faith is justified as its built into the system of knowledge.

Think about deductive truths, which are basically all tautologies such as 2=2. They're all knowable a priori. Are they really held to falsifiability though?

1+1=2. How could conceivably prove that wrong? Bearing in mind that if you would have to do so in a way that didn't demonstrate misunderstanding about the qualities of 1, 2, addition, or identity, because you'd simply be talking about something else.

Scientific zealots often think that the entire paradigm of thought needs to be rehashed scientifically, but in thinking to do so they ignore certain foundational assumptions that science operates by, the inner workings of science which are invisible to the process itself. Science is a powerful tool for progress but its application isn't total. Theories can be extended beyond their context with disasterous consequences (think social darwinism if you like). Science all too often fails to understand itself as metaphorically representative of reality.

And I fail to understand how some people think their particular representative mythologies are better than other peoples.

[delusionsofNORMALity]

damn, i lost it again. i start a reply and then lose the freakin thing.

i'll make this one short

it's not a matter of facts or a system of knowledge or even deductive reasoning that determines reality. it is our perception.

1+1=2 may be false depending on your perception of the elements of the equation.

as perception changes reality changes, as reality changes the "facts" change, what was true then is false now.

this way lies madness and we embrace it with all our hearts

[delusionsofNORMALity]

as for religious elitism:

tis the nature of the beast. when groups divide themselves, it seems there must be the superiors and the inferiors. god shines down his radiance upon those with superior qualities therefore adherents to the true belief must be superior and all others damned in one form or another.

[harris7]

Not all faith is blind. Some faith is justified as its built into the system of knowledge.

Think about deductive truths, which are basically all tautologies such as 2=2. They're all knowable a priori. Are they really held to falsifiability though?

1+1=2. How could conceivably prove that wrong? Bearing in mind that if you would have to do so in a way that didn't demonstrate misunderstanding about the qualities of 1, 2, addition, or identity, because you'd simply be talking about something else.

Scientific zealots often think that the entire paradigm of thought needs to be rehashed scientifically, but in thinking to do so they ignore certain foundational assumptions that science operates by, the inner workings of science which are invisible to the process itself. Science is a powerful tool for progress but its application isn't total. Theories can be extended beyond their context with disasterous consequences (think social darwinism if you like). Science all too often fails to understand itself as metaphorically representative of reality.

science is nothing more than a good system of observation.


The only thing someone can really know is that they exist.
"i think, therefore i am"

everything else is uncertain. But since that uncertainty will never affect us. It is only a philosophical exercise, and dosn't really matter imo

[Polymirize]

The only thing someone can really know is that they exist.
"i think, therefore i am"

everything else is uncertain.

If you cared to look into the subject, you'd find that philosophy (much like science) has advanced since the 17th century. Descartes? Please...

[Polymirize]

it's not a matter of facts or a system of knowledge or even deductive reasoning that determines reality. it is our perception.

1+1=2 may be false depending on your perception of the elements of the equation.

as perception changes reality changes, as reality changes the "facts" change, what was true then is false now.

I would dispute that, I think it gets to the core even if I'd pose it differently semantically.

But all I wanted to really pose was whether or not falsifibility should be held objectively against every belief we hold. As a means of critiquing most of harris' posts concerning a scientific rejection of certain possibilities. I don't think it holds up to scrutiny is all.

He's building sandcastles...

[delusionsofNORMALity]

If you cared to look into the subject, you'd find that philosophy (much like science) has advanced since the 17th century. Descartes? Please...

getting a little testy, are we?

__________________________________________________ _
excuse me for being dense,but.......

please define "falsibility". i'm not as smart as i used to be and, though i could extrapolate a meaning from the roots, i'd rather know exactly what you mean.

[PlantBoxer]

From birth to about 16 years old, I went to church twice on Sunday, and every Wenesday evening, the standard Southern Bapitist type of religion.

I stayed very confused for next few decades, torn between what my logical reasoning mind believed...and all the *miracles,supernatural beings,supernatural events* that defy reason and basic physics.

Then I found the the word *Deism*. Our founding forefathers, well our first 3 presidents were Diests, they believed in God, as a creator, a builder of sorts, but we believe like a clock maker would make a clock set the pendulem in motion, and let it tick away. Never needing to interfer in any way.

I dont believe in miracles, nor spirits, nor magical beings from virginal women, nor do I believe the Bible as word of God. The Bible is a wonderful book full of poems, stories, some damn fine suggestions (Ten Commandments).

I know nothing has ever killed more life forms than organized religion and governments....usually for power,control,wealth.

If anything asks you to give up your reasoning mind....run from it, it's coercion.

[JunkYard]

From birth to about 16 years old, I went to church twice on Sunday, and every Wenesday evening, the standard Southern Bapitist type of religion.

I stayed very confused for next few decades, torn between what my logical reasoning mind believed...and all the *miracles,supernatural beings,supernatural events* that defy reason and basic physics.

Then I found the the word *Deism*. Our founding forefathers, well our first 3 presidents were Diests, they believed in God, as a creator, a builder of sorts, but we believe like a clock maker would make a clock set the pendulem in motion, and let it tick away. Never needing to interfer in any way.

I once called myself a Deist, lol! I still hold on to the clock maker anaolgy, though. They don't believe in divine interference, which I agree with. God set the machine in motion, and left us to take care of our own. :thumbsup:

Also, Deism isn't at all organized as far as I know. There are no strictly Deist churches, or dogma to follow, right ? Good stuff!


Love,

[MrMeNaCe]

I Feel As Though There IS Some High Force Not As In God That Every Religion Trys to Explain... ITs More Like MOTHER NATURE or the SUN that if anything should be GOD to man it gives life and takes life. but in general i agree with evolution its the only EXPLAINABLE answer for LIFE.