Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Circular Arguments?
Collapse
X
-
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostMy conscious understanding is tantamount to my brain state, which is a process of information.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut your conscious understanding is causally impotent, and therefore without meaning. How can you call that true knowledge?
If you want me to believe in substance dualism/interactionism and that the mental can cause the physical, you would have to point to something the brain does that is in apparent conflict with the Standard Model or general relativity. (Bending spoons across large distances would qualify, for example.) Or, if you have no evidence, just admit your position is not based on evidence, but rather based on faith.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
As far as I can understand, Sea of Red, JimL, The Thinker, et al., think that it is possible to predict what Sea of Red, JimL, et al., will do at any given moment, at least in a theoretical sense.
Scientism is self-contradicting (the doctrine that only sentences that have been empirically verified are acceptable as assertions of truth--logical positivism).The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu
[T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
590 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment