Tell me why my personal belief is wrong

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't listen to @TagliatelliMonster either not a single word actually

That's demonstrably wrong since you have just made 5-ish replies to the posts you clearly did read.

But it's okay though. To tell you the truth, I don't care if you listen or not. My replies aren't "for you" exclusively anyway (and "you" here is generic, as it is the case to most everyone I reply to on this forum). I already know that it's like talking to a wall. If it was private messaging, I wouldn't bother.

I rather reply first for the sake of conversation and second, for the lurkers who aren't posting but are reading all of this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

From you, no.

From anyone who actually answers the question.

Because, as I already have told you, to show you that a belief is "wrong", one necessarily has to deal with evidence.

And you have made clear that you don't care about evidence.

So what's the point?

From others theists and atheists alike, yes i would accept many things they say.

It doesn't look like it, as you have dismissed out of hand answers from other people as well if their answers dealt with evidence. Which, I repeat, would be a requirement to actually answer the question.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That's demonstrably wrong since you have just made 5-ish replies to the posts you clearly did read.

But it's okay though. To tell you the truth, I don't care if you listen or not. My replies aren't "for you" exclusively anyway (and "you" here is generic, as it is the case to most everyone I reply to on this forum). I already know that it's like talking to a wall. If it was private messaging, I wouldn't bother.

I rather reply first for the sake of conversation and second, for the lurkers who aren't posting but are reading all of this.

I have one advice for you.
If you don't bother, then stop replying to my OP or thread answers, because you are not interested in listening to what is replied to you, you so nicely show this by saying

I already know that it's like talking to a wall. If it was private messaging, I wouldn't bother.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Seeker of White Light

The joke is that meaningless and meaningful is both non-physical according to what physical is.

Not so much a joke as it is a really pathetic semantic attempt at dismissing the fact that when the question is "why is X wrong", one has to necessarily deal with evidence to answer that question.

Otherwise, it's a meaningless question


Just like a challenge for a tennis match would be meaningless if one would then refuse to get out of the chair and unto the tenniscourt if the challenge is accepted by someone.

 

[Spirit of Light]

From anyone who actually answers the question.

Because, as I already have told you, to show you that a belief is "wrong", one necessarily has to deal with evidence.

And you have made clear that you don't care about evidence.

So what's the point?



It doesn't look like it, as you have dismissed out of hand answers from other people as well if their answers dealt with evidence. Which, I repeat, would be a requirement to actually answer the question.

If people are snarky, or rude or don't bother then no i don't listen or reply nicely either.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science in its current version as used by some people assumes that the universe is playing nice and can be explained in positive and coherent terms. That is not a given.

I do not think science takes universe as playing nice. It has surprised us many times (especially after we started on Quantum Mechanics).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not think science takes universe as playing nice. It has surprised us many times (especially after we started on Quantum Mechanics).

Well, one version do claim that in that all of the universe can be explained rationally. But that requires that the universe is rational and that is a form of playing nice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have one advice for you.
If you don't bother, then stop replying to my OP or thread answers, because you are not interested in listening to what is replied to you, you so nicely show this by saying

That's the epitome of arrogance / irony, considering that it's YOU who asked the question and it was then YOU who said that you won't listen to, or care for, anyone who actually answers it.

Maybe you should heed your own advice and not create threads with questions if you aren't actually interested in the answers.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not so much a joke as it is a really pathetic semantic attempt at dismissing the fact that when the question is "why is X wrong", one has to necessarily deal with evidence to answer that question.

Otherwise, it's a meaningless question


Just like a challenge for a tennis match would be meaningless if one would then refuse to get out of the chair and unto the tenniscourt if the challenge is accepted by someone.

The problem is that nobody so far in recorded history have be able to avoid being individual in part as how to make sense of the world. And that includes you and I.
You play by your rules, but they are not universal and neither are mine. You just believe yours are universal.

 

[Brian2]

The formation of planets is the result of gravity acting on matter, more specifically in accretion discs from solar formations (which also happens due to the influence of gravity).

These are physical processes.

So unless you also believe that "god" is a collection of physical processes, that would be a wrong belief.

God created the matter and energy and physical processes and God created the stars and gallaxies and the earth etc in that way and I believe also in a more personal and hands on way.
Science looks at the physical side of things and comes to conclusions and atheists and skeptics look at the conclusions of science and reach further conclusions which go beyond what science has the capacity to say.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God created the matter and energy and physical processes and God created the stars and gallaxies and the earth etc in that way and I believe also in a more personal and hands on way.
Science looks at the physical side of things and comes to conclusions and atheists and skeptics look at the conclusions of science and reach further conclusions which go beyond what science has the capacity to say.

I don't as a skeptic and atheist believe in a positive metaphysics. Most of my fellow atheist and skeptics do in effect. But we are not the same in effect as humans.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They change too frequently? Nothing wrong with that except that seems to show that you have not yet hit upon a stable set of beliefs that work for you.

Some people just can't do that. Their views will always keep changing. Krishna says;

"vyavasāya ātmikā buddhih, ekeha, Kuru-nandana;
bahu-śākhā hi anantāh ca, buddhayah avyavasāyinām."
The mind of those who are resolute in purpose in this world is focused on one thing, O beloved child of the Kurus; of those who are not resolute of their purpose the mind is branched without limits. Bg. 2.41

 

[Brian2]

The problem is that this "religious personal evidence" is not a pathway to truth.
Instead, it is a pathway to ending op with false beliefs.

As I pointed out the conclusions of atheists and skeptics from the science go beyond what science can provide, so those conclusions and religious personal type beliefs no matter how much you want to say otherwise.
And looking at some things that the James Webb space telescope is coming up with and looking at the history of science, how do we know that scientific conclusions are definitely right when it comes to many parts of science?
OR the scientific (empirical evidence) path to truth might get us there in the end but we might only be 5% of the way down that path and we may have gone down side tracks which science has no way of getting out of in some areas of science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Well, one version do claim that in that all of the universe can be explained rationally. But that requires that the universe is rational and that is a form of playing nice.

Any one version is not the whole of science.

As I pointed out the conclusions of atheists and skeptics from the science go beyond what science can provide, ..

Sure, lay people may understand things wrongly. But that does not change what science agrees to or does not agree.

 

[Brian2]

Yes. Because baseless beliefs are irrelevant and potentially infinite in number.

However, they become very relevant once they start affecting behaviour of believers.

That can be said about any ideas which affect the actions of people, including any philosophies and ideologies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any one version is not the whole of science.

There is no whole of science, because different versions are in effect different about what the whole of everything is and what science is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Different versions together make up the whole of science.

 

[Brian2]

I don't as a skeptic and atheist believe in a positive metaphysics. Most of my fellow atheist and skeptics do in effect. But we are not the same in effect as humans.

OK. I'm not sure how all that works because I'm not really familiar with the term positive metaphysics and what it entails in practice and how it relates to scientific conclusions and atheism/skepticism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

OK. I'm not sure how all that works because I'm not really familiar with the term positive metaphysics and what it entails in practice and how it relates to scientific conclusions and atheism/skepticism.

Some versions of science rely on metaphysics about what objective reality really is. Others don't.

Atheists/skeptics can have different views of science and what objective reality is and still be atheists/skeptics.

 

[Brian2]

Sure, lay people may understand things wrongly. But that does not change what science agrees to or does not agree.

Science agrees that it cannot say that god/s exist or not. Atheists and skeptics sometimes say that science shows there are no god/s. That goes beyond science and is a religions belief, not based on what science is capable of telling us but on preconceived ideas.