Nimos
Well-Known Member
Why would I have to do that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How can anyone be an atheist?
- Thread starter Nimos
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You have read enough philosophy to have solved the problem of the evil demon in skepticism, right? I mean you don't have google the evil demon and I don't need to tell you that it is the radical skepticism of Rene Descartes. You already knew this and you know the connection between objective reality and the evil demon.
So why don't you answer it without googling it? Just explain how solipsism, the evil demon and objective reality is related and how you have solved, because you know what skepticism is, right? And you know the differences between all the different forms of skepticism and you know what kind/methodology of skepticism you come from or use, right?
PureX
Veteran Member
I'm an artist. When people assemble otherwise disparate concepts and images into some new, imaginary scenario, I take particular notice. Because I know that the particular choices and arrangements involved can illuminate "the truth of them" better than any set of facts about them ever could. You keep trying to imply that imagination is somehow 'false', or 'unreal', and it's neither. It's basically an intellectual sorting mechanism that we use all the time, to generate our presumed conception of reality moment to moment.
You have to try and understand that everything you think you know to be true about yourself and the world that you exist in, is imaginary. It's based on physically experienced interactions, but the sensations those interaction convey to our brains get arranged in our minds into an overall "picture" (that we call "reality") by our imaginations. Our imaginations are a crucial mechanism of our cognition. Together with the "facts" of our interactive experience, they create our reality.
Theism is neither a math problem nor a scientific question. It's a philosophical proposition. And philosophy is not about belief (or proof, or evidence). It's it's about logical reasoning.
The theist proposition is not required to "prove itself true", to be valid. The theist proposition is not required to "make you believe in it" to be a viable philosophical position, to you or to anyone. All that is required of it is that the course of reasoning that leads to it holds up, logically. Until you understand and accept this, you will ever be able to reasonably or effectively discuss or debate theism. And you will never be able to defend atheism.
And evidence is for science. This discussion is in neither of those categories of human endeavor. Until you understand this you aren't even in the "ballpark", let alone the "game".
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, you are a rationalist. I won't bother you anymore and reference you. You do it differently than me. I am a radical skeptic. I don't believe in reasoning like you.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Solipsism to me, is absolutely rubbish and meaningless. And couldn't care less.
Since you do not care to explain what you personally mean, I have to google some of the things trying to figure it out. Don't worry I don't mind doing that. So had a quick look at it, and seems to follow along the lines of Solipsism. That the world could just be an illusion. Honestly don't care about that either.
So now you explain why I should leave out objectivity, unless I have solved Solipsism?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
And that answer is with evidence, verified and true. And has nothing to do with the mental and subjective. Oh no, because you don't do that.
PureX
Veteran Member
What we "believe in" is our own business. (If it's any business at all.) It's not the substance of the proposition under discussion/debate.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Explain to me why solipsism make sense to you?And that answer is with evidence, verified and true. And has nothing to do with the mental and subjective. Oh no, because you don't do that.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I can't, because you subjectively and mentally don't accept the subjective and mental.
You seem unaware for some cases, when you are subjective and mental. I can't solve that for you.
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Thought so
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Thought so
Could you post the whole answer. Now you are apparently it seems just dishonest, How subjective and mental of you. What happen to evidence, verification and truth. And what is that with the smiley. That is subjective and mental. Nobody will understand you now!
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The Atheism position/no-position has not gone under the mill of Science. Has it, please?
Regards
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Not sure what you mean? Do you mean that it haven't been scientifically verified or what?
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Sure, np
Me:
Explain to me why solipsism make sense to you?
You:
I can't, because you subjectively and mentally don't accept the subjective and mental.
You seem unaware for some cases, when you are subjective and mental. I can't solve that for you.
Me:
Thought so
You:
Could you post the whole answer. Now you are apparently it seems just dishonest, How subjective and mental of you. What happen to evidence, verification and truth. And what is that with the smiley. That is subjective and mental. Nobody will understand you now!
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes, please.
Regards
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Ok thanks,
So how would you do that? or what do you think is required in form of scientific verification for making it true?
I might still misunderstand what you mean, because its not really something that can be verified as I see it, it is a "position". Like if you said "I don't think there are sufficient evidences for me to believe in unicorns" and to that I told you "You haven't scientifically verified that position yet, have you?", how would you do that? or even see a reason for doing so?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
How then that makes their (the Atheism people's) position/no-position make any stronger, please? Science does not support them? Does it, please?
Regards
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Atheism have nothing to do with science. Atheists in general rely or prefer science to give us explanations, whereas theists in certain cases, might prefer a divine explanation. But science in it self, have nothing to do with atheism.
(A)theist is the opposite of a Theist
Atheist
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
Theist
a person who believes in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe.
So just to make it completely clear, it would be like me scientifically having to determine whether a person is a theist or not. A theist is also just a position a person take, which is that they believe in a God.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So, one agrees if we conclude that Atheism is unscientific and unreasonable.
Right, please?
Regards
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Its unscientific yes.
But not unreasonable. Do you think a person is unreasonable if they don't believe in unicorns, ghosts or dragons like you see in fantasy?