Because anything else is an appeal to ignorance.I can't see why you choose to adhere yourself(s) so firmly to the known external reality.
I've never said we now anything. But you can't possibly make decisions based on ignorance. It's literally impossible.Humans have been steadily increasing their understanding of the world and the state of human existence. Are you under the impression that every "revelation" we will have as beings about our existence has already occured? That we "know" all their is about the philosophy of existing?
I agree. I've never said otherwise. But the point is that most of these religious concepts don't defy just one or two facets of what we know, but literally most or all of what we know. Additionally many of them are also literally logically impossible. Again, we can know with 100% that the Judeo-Christian God does not exist because it is logically impossible. That there is no such being as Yahweh/Jehova/JHVH/The Trinity is an objective fact. Anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. Period. The belief contains logical contradictions and thus is a falsehood that can be derived as a priori knowledge.Seriously, are we done with this facet of science and discovery? I'm asking you as I am clearly far too uneducated to even begin to answer this. My impression is that, as human history has showed us, we are just as likely to be seeing the tip of the iceberg as we are viewing the big picture. Thus, while I find it utterly foolish to (A) believe/suggest that God/a soul or other such concepts exist, (B) live under the impression that the external reality is false, I can't see the harm in keeping a healthy skepticism and a mild level of doubt that we have reached the pinnacle of human understanding of our own status.
If someone walks up to you and asks if Sagan's Dragon really exists are you going to not say no?I'm using way too many word again, and apologize for being so difficult to understand. Here's my point in short: I'm going to my deathbed without any expectation of an eternal consciousness, or heaven, or any of that. But if someone walks over to me and asks if heaven exists, I'm not going to simply say "no."
In other news!
EDIT: For content.
Here's a thing to consider for those of you who feel the Bible is right in some places and wrong in others. Let us, for the moment, ignore the insanity of picking and choosing and other instances.
Suppose you asked me to write your biography. Suppose that in my finished biography of you that I got most of the broad strokes right, but when it came to the particulars I was often quite wrong. Suppose, further, that I often attributed quotes or actions to you that were extremely offensive and equally untrue. I say that you are a bigoted racist, a misogynist, a rapist, and a murderer. Would you not steps to ensure that people who read or might read the biography knew that I was wrong and that you not only never did these things, but disapprove of them in the extreme? If you did not take such steps, then, would it really be wrong of people to assume that you either did do these things or, at the very least, do not have any issue with them?
If the Bible exists - and it does, obviously - we are left with only six possible conclusions:
1. The Bible is an accurate depiction of God and his values.
2. The Bible is inaccurate in its depiction of God and his values but God is unwilling to correct it.
3. The Bible is inaccurate in its depiction of God and his values but God is unable to correct it.
4. The Bible is inaccurate in its depiction of God and his values but God is unaware of this.
6. The Bible is neither inaccurate nor accurate because it is describing an entirely fictional being.
In the first two options we are left with an evil God. In the third and fourth options we are left with a God so radically different in scope from the god of the Bible that we can say with certainty that the Bible is not describing this being at all. And in the last option we are obviously left with a similar conclusion in that whether or not there is a God or gods, the Bible is entirely unconcerned with the possible reality of such beings.
Last edited by Kodos; 02-22-2011 at 02:06 PM.
Also your biography analogy is beautiful. I will be using it in the future.
Last edited by Fenn; 02-23-2011 at 11:59 AM.
People often try and avoid the Problem of Evil by saying that evil is necessary for good, and/or that suffering is necessary for happiness.
This is retarded.
You can experience something without knowing anything about it or its antithesis. I'd agree you need to have the concept of the antithesis of a thing in order to recognize the thing, but the idea that you need to experience both to recognize either is insane. One does not need to experience cancer to conceptualize or recognize the state of not having cancer. One cannot experience non-existence and yet we can recognize and conceptualize it. In order to recognize happiness we do not need to directly experience suffering, we merely need to have a concept of what suffering and/or the absence of happiness might entail.
Also another thought: I wonder how many impoverished people we could feed with the quantity of bread used as Eucharist at Mass every week. Hmm...
Last edited by Fenn; 03-03-2011 at 03:56 PM.
Let's ask a rape survivor if she would rather have never known rape or if the ability to more fully appreciate the state of not being raped was worth the one time event of being raped. Or ask a cancer survivor if her current state of not-having-cancer was worth the long period of suffering and monetary drain that cancer brought on.
Additionally, the argument Christians make is not "First hand experience heightens understanding" but rather "In order to experience something you must also experience its opposite." That is not true. You can experience, appreciate, and understand what it is to be happy without having ever experienced suffering.
Best quote evar.
"Atheism: A non-prophet organization"
But to your real point (which I finally get now). You are right. Although I can't exactly remember challenging that point? Wait, did I or were you continuing the convo?
Also you didn't reply to my last thought, but there wasn't much to say about it anyway.
Also, as an excuse to use one of these adorable new emotes, I would like to show you just what I look like in front of my computer after replying in this thread: