Define Atheism

Originally posted by Digi
But there's no evidence for either your God or a pink unicorn.

That's incorrect. It should be quite obvious for why it is incorrect, as well. I lightly revisit this topic later in my post.

Originally posted by Digi
I could say the pink unicorn is reason for the universe, and it would be as valid as your "reason" for God.

You're wanting to turn this into some sort of basic theistic vs. atheistic debate: that's not what is in question, at all.

Originally posted by Digi
It's the difference between possible and plausible. It's possible God is the reason for existence. It's also possible the pink unicorn is. Given what we know based on any sort of evidence, they're equally as likely.

And that difference is actually an illusion you have been programmed to think exists. You have been conditioned by your environment to reason that there is a legitimate difference between plausible and possible.

Originally posted by Digi
It's also possible the earth is round (or rather, spheroid). But in that case, it's also plausible based on numerous factors. And on a practical level, which of the three are you likeliest to believe?

The earth is an oblate spheroid, to be exact. stoned

Here's the problem with your conclusion: what if the Earth is none of the above? You're using your filtering lens (both literally and symbolically) to come to your conclusion. Your supposed "evidence" requires a plethora of assumptions before you can even start collecting "reasoned" evidence.

Originally posted by Digi
Ugh. Dude, you should know me by now. I'm dealing with actual usages of faith in the world, not a textbook definition.

And you should know me by now: if there exists a criticism for a set of reason, then it should be equally applied to the entire set.

If you want to call some people's faith "blind faith" then you are equally at fault for using blind faith to even function as a reasoning entity. Glass house and all that.

Originally posted by Digi
Religious faith is blind faith by my definition: there is zero evidence.

That's also incorrect. You use evidence in a specific way, too. The "blind faith" comes in how you reason or deem that collection and weighing of evidence, just the same as others you criticize. Others which you think have "blind faith" have quite a large set of evidence for why they believe what they believe. The operate on a set of assumptions, as well. Some even use empirical methods or the Socratic method. You just don't agree with their assumptions when they make their conclusions. They can just as well disagree with your assumptions for some of the things you put your "blind faith" into...and they can easily justify it logically. It is a two-way reasoning street.

The reason you think you're on a higher "reasoning" ground is due to the fault of centuries of an accepted way of reasoning. Western Theists are to "blame" for this, as well.

Originally posted by Digi
If a dictionary says blind faith is something else and it rankles your knickers, we can come up with a new term that pleases you. Bottom line: zero evidence.

Actually, the opposite is true: I was using the dictionary definition and you are using a personal definition. This appears to be irritating to you and I agree: it is irritating because these terms are clearly subjective/personal including the "common" one found on dictionary.com.

Bottom-line: there's zero objective evidence of anything including your existence.

Originally posted by Digi
The God/Pink Universe/Earth example I used above applies here as well.

Actually, that was almost irrelevant to what I was talking about.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not putting science on a pedestal or saying it's beyond reproach. I'm saying this particular line of reasoning to discredit it is unjustifiable.

That's an incorrect characterization of what I was conveying. My post clearly indicated that I like the empirical method of reasoning and the assumptions were necessary. I was only calling attention to your intellectually dishonest approach towards "blind faith".

And let me also make clear that I do not think "intellectual dishonesty" requires a conscious/proactive effort to accomplish. So do not take that the wrong way.

Originally posted by Digi
You can get off the soapbox now, I'm not uncritical of my own methods of reaching conclusions.

Actually, the soapbox was yours. I simply called attention to your soliloquy and illustrated why your "blind faith" definition is questionable.

Originally posted by Digi
Trying to say that "the Earth is round" and "God is real" are on equal footing in terms of faith is laughable.

No, trying to say that one group is operating on blind faith while everyone operates on blind faith is the laughable part. You esteem your reasoning superior because of your philosophical approach to reason. When someone calls attention to the philosophical implications (and the intellectual dishonest in such a position), it does not bode well with you. That's understandable because it is a direct criticism of something you believe.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't want to respond to it at length because this should really just be common sense.

I agree however I think your statement applies to my words, not yours (the common sense part).

Originally posted by Digi
Can you really not see how the two are different?

Can you not see how the differentiation is one of semantics on your part? Can you also not see how falsely superior you are esteeming yourself in that system, as well? You do know that how we do "science" is a philosophy, right?

Originally posted by Digi
Not true. I have faith that I'm going to wake up tomorrow. It's based on my age, average mortality rates, and past experience. It's still faith, but it doesn't lack evidence to support it. Your unicorn lacks evidence. So does God. I can't know that I will wake up tomorrow for sure, but it is not without evidence-based justification.

You also have faith that your past evidence is reasoned, well. You also have faith that your perceptions of those past events are accurate. You also have faith that the universe will maintain the same order (quite blindly, I might add) and physics. You also have extremely blind faith that your even exist in what form you do.

Originally posted by Digi
Dudemon quotes me a link saying that even blind faith isn't without evidence.

Incorrect. This explains why you are responding the way your are.

That's not what I have been conveying to you.

I have been conveying almost the complete opposite of what you're stating. I am stating the everything can be boiled down to blind faith, eventually.

Originally posted by Digi
You tell me that no kind of faith can include evidence. Can't we just use some common sense to see that there are different levels of faith, and that not all beliefs are equal in terms of the type of faith needed?

No, there are not differing levels of faith. Just differing uses and definitions of faith. Maybe there is differing levels of emotional convictionss on faith (and I mean that secularly and was as spiritually).

And, yes, I know your post was at Placidity.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bottom-line: there's zero objective evidence of anything including your existence.

I've always thought Cogito Ergo Sum was a very good bit of reasoning. Hard to come up with anything that works out better than that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've always thought Cogito Ergo Sum was a very good bit of reasoning. Hard to come up with anything that works out better than that.

IMO, that comes as close as possible to an objective truth as possible without being omniscient. But it falls victim to the "relative reasoning*".

*I don't know if that is an actual, fleshed out, philosophical concept but it makes sense to me. uhuh

Originally posted by dadudemon
IMO, that comes as close as possible to an objective truth as possible without being omniscient. But it falls victim to the "relative reasoning*".

*I don't know if that is an actual, fleshed out, philosophical concept but it makes sense to me. uhuh

I'm not familiar with the idea of "relative reasoning". As far as I can tell there are no a posteriori beliefs there. We only have to assume that reasoning is possible.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not familiar with the idea of "relative reasoning". As far as I can tell there are no a posteriori beliefs there. We only have to assume that reasoning is possible.

There are tons of a posteriori beliefs in that idea.

For example: define the idea "think".

Are there greater or lesser states of being?

Are there greater or lesser states of thinking?

Is thinking even necessary for being? If so, why?

And I made each sentence was longer, purposefully.

The statement itself places value in thinking and being as an assumption, to begin with. That value placement is relative/arbitrary. Neither a priori nor a posteriori knowledge are sufficient to conclude "being". Being must first be defined, a posterioi. Thinking must also be defined as such. Then a priori can be realized.

Another philosophical problem is that notion that a priori and a posteriori are mutually exclusive. As a necessity, neither set can exist without the other and all knowledge is both. The distinction is a "classic" problem that can only be resolved if you realize that a distinction is futile, from the beginning. Indeed, the only real a priori is a noumenon. This brings us back to my original point: relative reasoning.

If you haven't guess, by now, I'm a bit of Kant (lololololol).

Originally posted by dadudemon
There are tons of a posteriori beliefs in that idea.

For example: define the idea "think".

Are there greater or lesser states of being?

Are there greater or lesser states of thinking?

Is thinking even necessary for being? If so, why?

And I made each sentence was longer, purposefully.

Again, philosophy isn't my thing but I'm pretty sure all of this can be done a priori. You don't need sense information to have the thoughts "This is a thought." or "I'm existing right now."

Originally posted by dadudemon
This brings us back to my original point: relative reasoning.

Which you forgot to explain, I think 😛

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Again, philosophy isn't my thing but I'm pretty sure all of this can be done a priori. You don't need sense information to have the thoughts "This is a thought." or "I'm existing right now."

You do need sense information to have those thoughts.

Those thoughts are comprised of syntax. Pure thought...and I mean as pure as can get....has been hypothesized. I believe some have placed it in the realm of the divine.

All of our thoughts, even the ones we think we can purely label a priori, are inexorably connected to a posteriori knowledge.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which you forgot to explain, I think 😛

I thought I did. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
You do need sense information to have those thoughts.

Those thoughts are comprised of syntax. Pure thought...and I mean as pure as can get....has been hypothesized. I believe some have placed it in the realm of the divine.

All of our thoughts, even the ones we think we can purely label a priori, are inexorably connected to a posteriori knowledge.

The way that we, as human beings with senses, construct our thoughts is definitely tied to a posteriori stuff but I don't think that such things are a requirement for thoughts in the abstract.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought I did. 🙁

Which part of that post was it?

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
i don't know & don't believe in a god.

how could anyone believe in something off faith? :l

i'll believe in god if i see an afterlife.
which I doubt i will

an afterlife without a god wouldn't prove the existence of god for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The way that we, as human beings with senses, construct our thoughts is definitely tied to a posteriori stuff but I don't think that such things are a requirement for thoughts in the abstract.

Actually, they are. A pure thought entity, as has been theorized, does not exist, except when you delve into really weird justifications for god-like entities.

You must possess a certain degree of a posteriori in order to even experience the a priori.

ALSO....vice versa. Which is a bit philosophically frustrating. I believe, as my joke earlier implied, Kant made progress in bridging the gap between the two and showed how they were fairly related. Other philosophers, since his time, have agreed and disagreed. Some have even tried to do a "third kind" which I have a hard time differentiating between what Kant did. And I believe "this" was an essay question on a test I had a few years back: "Compare and contrast Kant's work to so and so's work on 'knowledge': cite specific examples from at least 3 philosophers."

That question was a doozy and I don't actually know if I got it right which might explain why I am having a hard time conveying the thoughts of people that are much smarter than I am.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Which part of that post was it?

Well, the whole post. How all thought or reason is built can be boiled down to relatives or degrees of interconnectedness with no way to have pure thought as we know it due to our a posteriori reliance. So defining anything becomes an act of setting a limit or an assumption and building reason upon those assumptions (making those assumptions your relative reasoning).

There might be a philosophical word for what I am thinking...but, just like you, philosophy is not my major.

Hmmm.

...

Maybe this: all consciousness is relative to the system in which it interacts. The brightest minds are simply an eventual byproduct of all the other minds that came before it and nurtured the growth. This reasoning is sympathetic to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's work (I had to Google that b*tch's name because there's no way I could remember all that shit) on the "Law of Complexity/Consciousness".

However, that's a bit off track of the original point I was making but that is one offshoot to the reasoning I am presenting on "relative reasoning".

Originally posted by dadudemon
This reasoning is sympathetic to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's work ... on the "Law of Complexity/Consciousness".

Also (if I may), check out the early work of Ken Wilber (eg, "Eye to Eye"😉. Although his ideas, at the core, are influenced by Buddhism, he does a fantastic job of translating the perennial philosophy into plainer English along a developmental-psych POV (his later works start to involve a lot of head-hurting nuance).

You migh also find something worthwhile in the concept of the "holon" (one of my favorite words/concepts; thank you, Arthur Koestler).

Originally posted by Mindship
👆

Also (if I may), check out the early work of Ken Wilber (eg, "Eye to Eye"😉. Although his ideas, at the core, are influenced by Buddhism, he does a fantastic job of translating the perennial philosophy into plainer English along a developmental-psych POV (his later works start to involve a lot of head-hurting nuance).

You migh also find something worthwhile in the concept of the "holon" (one of my favorite words/concepts; thank you, Arthur Koestler).

IMO, holons are a reinvention of Aristotle's 40 rings. The concept is expanded much more and interpreted a bit differently but holons are very similar in concept to Aristotle's rings. I guess the difference is like this: Holons are Oranges and Aristotle's rings are Lemons. Holons are also much more fleshed out and complicated. If Aristotle were alive, today, I would say he would have come up with the Holon theory instead of his 40 rings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
IMO, holons are a reinvention of Aristotle's 40 rings. The concept is expanded much more and interpreted a bit differently but holons are very similar in concept to Aristotle's rings. I guess the difference is like this: Holons are Oranges and Aristotle's rings are Lemons. Holons are also much more fleshed out and complicated. If Aristotle were alive, today, I would say he would have come up with the Holon theory instead of his 40 rings.

In any event, "holon" is still cooler than "40 rings." 😛

Originally posted by Placidity
You say this... yet I see no common sense or reason when you still pretend that having a faith in a God as a general idea as the explanation of the Universe is exactly the same as believing in a Pink Unicorn even after I showed you one is philosophically and logically viable while the other is not.

Lets just agree to disagree.

I usually dislike that phrase. I'll agree that we do disagree, but that's a different phrase.

There's no more rationale for God being the source of the Universe than there is for a pink unicorn. There's zero evidence for either, and philosophical justifications that can be applied to God could be applied to the other as well.

Does it help if I use an actual god instead of a unicorn? Let's go with Zeus.

Originally posted by Placidity
That is hardly the type of situation we are talking about. There is plenty of evidence that you will be waking up as you have said. The chances of you NOT waking up are relatively low. It does not take a lot of "faith" to do this. If you can argue this, then you can argue anything takes faith. Now to arbitrary suggest this example (evidence) is somehow definitive of having faith and to hijack the term exclusively is your opinion to be frank. Religious beliefs has always been described as faith. Philosophically, the term faith has always been inclusive of belief of God/gods, so when someone asserts their own definition, I don't see any grounds for it.

Everything does take a small amount of faith. The point of the "waking up" example was to draw an analogy with science, and how it is not the same type or level of faith as religious faith. The original point to my entering this conversation was that people were saying science requires blind faith just like religious faith, which I disagreed with. If you're thinking we're talking about something else, I'm sorry, but that's what all of my posts have been geared toward.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's incorrect. It should be quite obvious for why it is incorrect, as well. I lightly revisit this topic later in my post.

You're wanting to turn this into some sort of basic theistic vs. atheistic debate: that's not what is in question, at all.

And that difference is actually an illusion you have been programmed to think exists. You have been conditioned by your environment to reason that there is a legitimate difference between plausible and possible.

The earth is an oblate spheroid, to be exact. stoned

Here's the problem with your conclusion: what if the Earth is none of the above? You're using your filtering lens (both literally and symbolically) to come to your conclusion. Your supposed "evidence" requires a plethora of assumptions before you can even start collecting "reasoned" evidence.

And you should know me by now: if there exists a criticism for a set of reason, then it should be equally applied to the entire set.

If you want to call some people's faith "blind faith" then you are equally at fault for using blind faith to even function as a reasoning entity. Glass house and all that.

That's also incorrect. You use evidence in a specific way, too. The "blind faith" comes in how you reason or deem that collection and weighing of evidence, just the same as others you criticize. Others which you think have "blind faith" have quite a large set of evidence for why they believe what they believe. The operate on a set of assumptions, as well. Some even use empirical methods or the Socratic method. You just don't agree with their assumptions when they make their conclusions. They can just as well disagree with your assumptions for some of the things you put your "blind faith" into...and they can easily justify it logically. It is a two-way reasoning street.

The reason you think you're on a higher "reasoning" ground is due to the fault of centuries of an accepted way of reasoning. Western Theists are to "blame" for this, as well.

Actually, the opposite is true: I was using the dictionary definition and you are using a personal definition. This appears to be irritating to you and I agree: it is irritating because these terms are clearly subjective/personal including the "common" one found on dictionary.com.

Bottom-line: there's zero objective evidence of anything including your existence.

Actually, that was almost irrelevant to what I was talking about.

That's an incorrect characterization of what I was conveying. My post clearly indicated that I like the empirical method of reasoning and the assumptions were necessary. I was only calling attention to your intellectually dishonest approach towards "blind faith".

And let me also make clear that I do not think "intellectual dishonesty" requires a conscious/proactive effort to accomplish. So do not take that the wrong way.

Actually, the soapbox was yours. I simply called attention to your soliloquy and illustrated why your "blind faith" definition is questionable.

No, trying to say that one group is operating on blind faith while everyone operates on blind faith is the laughable part. You esteem your reasoning superior because of your philosophical approach to reason. When someone calls attention to the philosophical implications (and the intellectual dishonest in such a position), it does not bode well with you. That's understandable because it is a direct criticism of something you believe.

I agree however I think your statement applies to my words, not yours (the common sense part).

Can you not see how the differentiation is one of semantics on your part? Can you also not see how falsely superior you are esteeming yourself in that system, as well? You do know that how we do "science" is a philosophy, right?

You also have faith that your past evidence is reasoned, well. You also have faith that your perceptions of those past events are accurate. You also have faith that the universe will maintain the same order (quite blindly, I might add) and physics. You also have extremely blind faith that your even exist in what form you do.

Incorrect. This explains why you are responding the way your are.

That's not what I have been conveying to you.

I have been conveying almost the complete opposite of what you're stating. I am stating the everything can be boiled down to blind faith, eventually.

No, there are not differing levels of faith. Just differing uses and definitions of faith. Maybe there is differing levels of emotional convictionss on faith (and I mean that secularly and was as spiritually).

And, yes, I know your post was at Placidity.

Rather than respond to each quote specifically, it seems like you're just getting at the idea that our subjective experiences make knowing anything impossible, and that anything we do, say, think, or believe requires utter blind faith in that experience and our own personal cognitive processes.

This isn't anything new, but I'm happy to revisit it. On a technical level, you're right, but it's also an oversimplification.

My point is that the two still aren't equal, even granting everything I just said above. I see a desk in front of me. I can't truly trust my perceptions, we'll undoubtedly agree there, but an experience is being had by me that manifests itself as a desk in my consciousness. Even granting that we can't objectively say that what I'm experiencing is true or real, the experience itself is suggestive of more than what the functionally nonexistent can claim (i.e. most religious claims) because there is no direct experience of such a thing.

The flip side of this is that, if we fully accept subjective blindness, it applies equally to all. So if you truly believe that, the logical implication is that we're all just floundering around in the dark making arbitrary guesses that have almost no chance of being correct. It invalidates your beliefs as much as anyone's. Any argument you make for any type of belief is silently modified with "this is a complete guess based on blind faith, and shouldn't be believed over any other claim, which are equally as invalid." I refuse to believe we can't know anything about reality, because we do in fact experience reality in some capacity, however imperfect that experience may be.

-------------

And there's still the practical side of my reasoning. If I say, the Earth is spheroid and there's a teapot in orbit around Mars, you're far more likely to believe one than the other. I don't have to explain the reasoning process behind that decision, because it would be similar for both of us. You may not accept that on absolute, philosophical grounds, or say that they're both assumptions. But in terms of how we live our lives, these sorts of things have much more importance than the philosophical nature of subjective and objective truth. If people truly believed in blind faith as the only means of believing anything, we'd have more "teapot-ers" and less "round Earth-ers." So I feel like people seem to agree with my assessment because of how they live...the proof is right in front of us every day.

-------------------

Also, you did say "that's not true" when I said God had zero evidence. I'd love to see your evidence.

Originally posted by Digi
Rather than respond to each quote specifically, it seems like you're just getting at the idea that our subjective experiences make knowing anything impossible, and that anything we do, say, think, or believe requires utter blind faith in that experience and our own personal cognitive processes.

No, that's not what I am saying.

Originally posted by Digi
This isn't anything new, but I'm happy to revisit it. On a technical level, you're right, but it's also an oversimplification.

Well, your entire post is built on a false premise so I am not sure if I should respond to anything else but I'll go ahead just for the sake of conversation.

On a technical level, it is an over-complication, not oversimplification.

Originally posted by Digi
My point is that the two still aren't equal, even granting everything I just said above.

That's just one subjective opinion, not an actual fact as you're trying to pass it off as.

Originally posted by Digi
I see a desk in front of me. I can't truly trust my perceptions, we'll undoubtedly agree there, but an experience is being had by me that manifests itself as a desk in my consciousness. Even granting that we can't objectively say that what I'm experiencing is true or real, the experience itself is suggestive of more than what the functionally nonexistent can claim (i.e. most religious claims) because there is no direct experience of such a thing.

See, here is the problem. You've set an arbitrary requirement. Additionally, the blind faith theist would disagree that their experience is "functionally nonexistent". In fact, many would hold that that label is utterly ridiculous and absurd and even delves into a level of ignorance and stupidity (trust me on this...I know several of these types).

Originally posted by Digi
The flip side of this is that, if we fully accept subjective blindness, it applies equally to all. So if you truly believe that, the logical implication is that we're all just floundering around in the dark making arbitrary guesses that have almost no chance of being correct.

I was kind of with you until that very last part: "that have almost no chance of being correct" would not have to be a qualifier.

But even then, I would not word it that way. It's more like, "everyone supposes their "truth" (knowledge) to be truth but no one can prove it to be objectively true."

Originally posted by Digi
It invalidates your beliefs as much as anyone's. Any argument you make for any type of belief is silently modified with "this is a complete guess based on blind faith, and shouldn't be believed over any other claim, which are equally as invalid." I refuse to believe we can't know anything about reality, because we do in fact experience reality in some capacity, however imperfect that experience may be.

You refuse to believe that your beliefs and faith in a system you have been convinced are correct, may be wrong, completely off base, or are not really providing you the comfort of actual objective knowledge. This is the problem. You don't like it. I most certainly do not like it. But it is the implications of your blind faith accusations: all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith beliefs by your very definition.

Originally posted by Digi
And there's still the practical side of my reasoning. If I say, the Earth is spheroid and there's a teapot in orbit around Mars, you're far more likely to believe one than the other. I don't have to explain the reasoning process behind that decision, because it would be similar for both of us. You may not accept that on absolute, philosophical grounds, or say that they're both assumptions. But in terms of how we live our lives, these sorts of things have much more importance than the philosophical nature of subjective and objective truth. If people truly believed in blind faith as the only means of believing anything, we'd have more "teapot-ers" and less "round Earth-ers." So I feel like people seem to agree with my assessment because of how they live...the proof is right in front of us every day.

But, see, you're making tons of assumptions even when designing your assumptions.

And your "teapot-ers" versus "round Earth-ers" point misses your own point. Actually, what you're pointing out is the subjectivity of human reasoning, not that one is more true than the other. Maybe the real point is that humans are social creatures who like to follow what they THINK is the most reasoned? What if we are "tweaked" specifically that we cannot see the truth because we are literally incapable (that's true...and probably getting very close to objective truths on human reasoning).

You are confining reason to a very specific subset.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, you did say "that's not true" when I said God had zero evidence. I'd love to see your evidence.

Man......

Wah wah wah...bla bla bla. I skipped a lot of whining on my part but, basically, you should not be asking me this question specifically because of our conversation.

Originally posted by Mindship
Doesn't Aristotle's 40 rings mainly have to do with celestial arrangement? I don't think it's pervasive nor fractal in nature, nor developmental. On the other side of the coin though, I don't think Koestler 'discovered' the concept: he just, as you said, fleshed it out.

In any event, "holon" is still cooler than "40 rings." 😛

Sort of. Each ring interacted with the "set" above and below it with the one about being the authority over the lesser.

It is a hierarchy of rings.

"Aristotle maintained that there is a graded series of realities, each step in the series revealing more and more those universal relationships which make it an object of true knowledge. At the end of the series, he said, lies that which is no longer relative, but absolute. "

That absolute ring is/was God. Aristotle believed in a Deist God...pretty much. God interacted with the universe through the 40th ring...subtly influencing how things worked through each each "tier". This is very similar to a holarchy. It is also surprisingly similar to the belief that God interacts with the universe, directly, through quantum physics (some associate this with "God of the Gaps).

But, like we both agree, holons and the holarchy are much more complicated and fleshed out.

Dudemon, please give me a mission statement of what you are saying then. Because frankly, saying I'm completely wrong about what I think you're saying when I paint it as subjectivist, then saying something like this:
all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith
...seem at odds to me. I'm trying to understand you, but I'm being told I'm dead wrong when I think I'm just paraphrasing your own words. Help me out here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You refuse to believe that your beliefs and faith in a system you have been convinced are correct, may be wrong, completely off base, or are not really providing you the comfort of actual objective knowledge.

Heck no. The idea of beliefs that could be proven wrong at some point is much more a part of scientific thought than (largely) dogmatic religious thought. One of the central tenets of most scientific worldviews is that even things we accept as truth are provisional.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is the problem. You don't like it. I most certainly do not like it. But it is the implications of your blind faith accusations: all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith beliefs by your very definition.

But I think it's possible to prove that we experience "something," because, well, we do experience something. Even in a solipsist sense, we can prove something exists beyond "nothingness." In an objective sense, we can't prove what that something is, but the fact that our experiences are more than nothing suggests existence. And since our perceptions and consciousness are true representations of our experience, if not objective reality, we can say that they approximate reality to some extent. Ergo, experiences, perceptions, etc. require faith, but not the faith based on absolutely nothing that religion represents.

I think we should also consider an Occum's Razor application here. Accepting that we can't know for sure, we should logically take the less complicated option. The options being: our experiences give us an approximation of reality, or our perceptions are 100% false and something else is true that is entirely unknowable to us. If our subjective experiences are even very bad at approximating reality, but have some percentage of success, they're more reliable than religious faith. And I also think that belief in the world around us should be the default logical position due to Occum's razor, even lacking proof, and even if we believe they both require total blind faith.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Sort of. Each ring interacted with the "set" above and below it with the one about being the authority over the lesser.

It is a hierarchy of rings.

"Aristotle maintained that there is a graded series of realities, each step in the series revealing more and more those universal relationships which make it an object of true knowledge. At the end of the series, he said, lies that which is no longer relative, but absolute. "

That absolute ring is/was God. Aristotle believed in a Deist God...pretty much. God interacted with the universe through the 40th ring...subtly influencing how things worked through each each "tier". This is very similar to a holarchy. It is also surprisingly similar to the belief that God interacts with the universe, directly, through quantum physics (some associate this with "God of the Gaps).

Originally posted by Digi
Dudemon, please give me a mission statement of what you are saying then. Because frankly, saying I'm completely wrong about what I think you're saying when I paint it as subjectivist, then saying something like this:
all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith
...seem at odds to me. I'm trying to understand you, but I'm being told I'm dead wrong when I think I'm just paraphrasing your own words. Help me out here.

I do believe I said all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith by your definition and that has always been my point. I even said I prefer the empiricist method and thought it necessary to entertain those "virtually baseless" assumptions.

I also made my point quite clear multiple times: you suppose your position superior over others with scoffing and labels such as "blind faith". But you accidentally call yourself a blind faither by your definition. Remember that part when I said, "Glass house and all that"?

Originally posted by Digi
Heck no. The idea of beliefs that could be proven wrong at some point is much more a part of scientific thought than (largely) dogmatic religious thought. One of the central tenets of most scientific worldviews is that even things we accept as truth are provisional.

But, you see, I am talking about that, too. I was referring to the empiricist method, period. There's deeper understanding/reasoning than the seemingly superficial "x can be proven wrong via the empiricist method".

Originally posted by Digi
But I think it's possible to prove that we experience "something," because, well, we do experience something. Even in a solipsist sense, we can prove something exists beyond "nothingness." In an objective sense, we can't prove what that something is, but the fact that our experiences are more than nothing suggests existence.

Instead of posting a lengthy response, I just rewrote the bolded section (you seem to prefer brevity and conciseness, anyway...I can do that):

"In an objective sense, we can't prove what that something is, but because I suppose our experiences are more than nothing, I can subjectively conclude existence."

Originally posted by Digi And since our perceptions and consciousness are true representations of our experience, if not objective reality, we can say that they approximate reality to some extent. Ergo, experiences, perceptions, etc. require faith, but not the faith based on absolutely nothing that religion represents.[/B]

I would reword that to the following:

"And since our perceptions and consciousness are subjective representations of a perceived experience, we can say that they approximate a perceived reality to some extent. Ergo, experiences, perceptions, etc. require faith and represents no functional or literal superiority position over what religion represents: the perceived superiority is only an illusion brought about by a social movement."

Originally posted by Digi I think we should also consider an Occum's Razor application here. [/B]

Maybe not. Occam's Razor has plenty of philosophical and literal problems on its own, as well.

As an atheist, don't you think you would prefer the plenitude principle?

We should use Kant's "Razor": "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished."

Because I'm a "business professional", we run into the oversimplification of solutions all the time. Here is a read that may change your mind on invoking Occam's Razor: http://www.elefsis.org/Complexity_Decision-making_and_Requisite_Variety_Remington_and_Pollack.pdf

Originally posted by Digi Accepting that we can't know for sure, we should logically take the less complicated option.[/B]

That's not logical, though. That is not empirical, either. That runs counter to what you said prior:

"The idea of beliefs that could be proven wrong at some point is much more a part of scientific thought than (largely) dogmatic religious thought. One of the central tenets of most scientific worldviews is that even things we accept as truth are provisional."

Originally posted by Digi The options being: our experiences give us an approximation of reality,[/B]

We have faith that they do. 😉

Originally posted by Digi or our perceptions are 100% false and something else is true that is entirely unknowable to us.[/B]

Dude...not even kidding, but I sighed a relief when I read this. I think we are on the same page, now.

Philosophically, I have a hard time distinguishing who is right or who is wrong. Everything is definitely subjective and nothing is truly objective.

Originally posted by Digi If our subjective experiences are even very bad at approximating reality, but have some percentage of success, they're more reliable than religious faith.[/B]

While I agree with the first part, I disagree with the second part. You keep invoking a differentiation unnecessarily or even inappropriately. Until the second comma, both "sides" should be included in your statement.

Originally posted by Digi And I also think that belief in the world around us should be the default logical position due to Occum's razor, even lacking proof, and even if we believe they both require total blind faith. [/B]

I don't think so. Using empiricism, you must conclude that Occam's Razor rarely applies to any type of science we do. I am having a hard time thinking of anything where Occam's Razor applies in science. I think, instead, what people do is claim to have employed Occam's Razor for something scientific but in reality they have not employed it at all...but a watered down version of it making the invocation of the label inappropriate. That's not directed at you...it's directed at Occam's Razor, in general.

But, at the base of it...to directly address the above text...both lack proof. The proof you suppose is built on a system of assumptions.

By the way, by Occam's Razor, you should believe God exists. This is part of the reason why I do not like using it...it leads to irritating conclusions like, "Oh..well, then God exists. Thanks for playing!" That sounds awfully atheistic of me, I know, but as a necessity for being Mormon, I argue much more with theists than I do atheists.

Originally posted by Digi
Dudemon, please give me a mission statement of what you are saying then. Because frankly, saying I'm completely wrong about what I think you're saying when I paint it as subjectivist, then saying something like this:
all beliefs can be boiled down to blind faith
...seem at odds to me. I'm trying to understand you, but I'm being told I'm dead wrong when I think I'm just paraphrasing your own words. Help me out here.

This is what happens in 90% of debates with him, which is why I keep him on ignore to avoid getting sucked into it. Next he'll start freaking out and call strawman. I think it's subtle trolling. Make himself difficult to understand then say the person who misunderstood is trolling him.