The religious perspective. Wanna have this discussion?

Discussion in 'Politics and Debate' started by mcpon14, Jan 19, 2018.

  1. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    This is incorrect though, because there is an outer world. Reality is reality and no individual can change that. Sure you can live by storybook fantasies all you want but it doesnt make the stories real.

    My religion used to say don't get involved in sports or tabletop games, because they will become your religion. This is a control method by people who want to strictly control my minds narrative. This is what religion does, it manipulates people into thinking things that are not true.

    You can ramble all day about perspective and axioms and shit like that, but what matters is what is true and what isn't, and God himself has not proven himself to be TRUE. We are just tiny beings on a tiny planet trying as best we can to understand, and religion impedes that progress.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    We already know your perspective. :) Tool's perspective is different than either of ours. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    But how do you know that there is an outer world? That is a belief based on faith, backed by no evidence. All you can verify for yourself is what you perceive with your senses. :)
     
  4. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    That's a completely fallacious argument and I won't even entertain it. Sorry
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    This is a thread about epistemology, not how Christianity was presented to you or your personal experiences with it. :)
     
  6. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    • Like Like x 1
  7. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    No problem, you just carry on then.
     
  8. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    This is the kind of B.S. most "debates" on theism tend to fall towards. It is the flailing of the cornered theist, and like you, I won't entertain it either. :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. MarkFL

    MarkFL Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Perhaps my last post came off a bit harshly, but I have been debating theists since 1979, and inevitably, there are attempts to shift the burden of proof, to say I have "faith" in science (to bring me down to their level, when clearly science is the opposite of faith) or even worse, that reality is simply a delusion.

    I see all of this as desperate tactics, a desperation born of being unable to meet the burden of proof. A reasoning person will concede that theism is unreasonable. If I believed something, and then discovered I could not meet the burden of proof for that belief, I would concede that my belief is irrational, and dump it immediately. I actually care whether what I believe is true or not, and faith is easily shown to be a bad path to truth, because faith can get you to two contradicting claims.

    So, we need something better than faith, and this was the necessity that gave rise to science. :)
     
  10. mcpon14

    mcpon14 Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Spoken like a true Lockean, lol. :)
    A clear example that divine reasoning is far removed from scientific reasoning is in the central doctrine of most churches -- that Jesus is both fully-divine and fully human, lol, a contradiction. :)
    I read that a lot of modern science came about as a reaction to Galen, Avicenna, Ptolemy and especially Aristotle. :) It is not their fault though but rather the fault of those that presented their ideas as dogma. :)
     
  11. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    Oh, that's very true. I actually reject all three of you.

    I reject Theism.
    I reject Rationalism.
    I also reject Gandu's claim that reality is independent from the observer.

    I am a hardcore Empiricist in that you can never know the truth nor knowing the truth is relevant. I'm a utilitarian through and through in that if a theory approximately describe and predict reality then it is the truth for all practical purposes even though it has holes in it or even might be wrong entirely.

    But we're venturing deep into philosophy if you want to debate this.
     
  12. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Yeah junk philosophy. Sorry dude but I don't want to waste anyone's time arguing about semantics or about how each of our viewpoints clashes when talking about the facts or truths or reality. Ugh not cool some stripes of philosophy are honestly such a waste of fucking time and brainpower, nothing more than simple posturing and vocabularic jousting.
     
  13. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Some people go to University, pay their money, and then have their ears tickled with specific kinds of words that will do them and their thought processes no good save for to stroke their ego, I swear.
     
  14. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    Oh, I'm not talking about semantic. Are you a skeptic? If you are, then let me ask you this;

    How do you know that reality is independent of the observer? If you know a bit about science then you should also know that the observer actually affect how reality unfold. Remember Quantum Mechanic.
     
  15. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    We can't affect everything. We might affect some things(whatever can realistically be affected by us and our actions), but if a jumbo jet was rolling away and I tried to stop it with no mechanical aid then I wouldn't be able to affect it! We can only affect what we can affect, it's not that hard to understand. It's all about Plausibility.

    Humans are tiny specks on a tiny speck, you really think we influence REALITY??? You're getting into the supernatural and metaphysical now and these are not confirmed sciences.
     
  16. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    Yeah, you're half a century outdated, scientifically speaking.

    Just so you know, the moon is still there because it's always observed otherwise it doesn't exist.
     
  17. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    Or maybe some jagoffs have spent a half a century talking in circles about nothing because they liked the sound of their own voices, hrmm?
     
  18. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    Oh, so Quantum Mechanic is wrong?
    My my, we have a science denier here.
     
  19. sharkbait.

    sharkbait. Guest

    Blogs:
    0
    I don't know enough about Quantum Mechanics to comment but I stand by what I said, some schools of thought are straight up a waste of time.

    Way to try and label me as being some kind of devil lol, typical tactic of the insecure to try and villify what they think threatens them.
     
  20. tool

    tool Addict

    Blogs:
    0
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Posts:
    2,511
    Likes Received:
    437
    My Cosmology is not a waste of time nor it is running in circle because I do not care about the truth. But your believe is a religion because you are convinced that reality is independent of the observer even though you can't prove that your claim is true.

    You use your perceptions to conclude that there exist an independent reality outside of your mind but we all know that perceptions are unreliable.
     

Share This Page