Why I look forward to death.
Forums › General Discussion › Why I look forward to death.-
Besides, when you talk about the concept if belief you are talking about human behaviors and when you talk about human beings, reason becomes faulty.
Let's say I believe that if I do one thing, a person will react in a certain way because of a specific motivation. I might be right about the outcome, but comepletely wrong about the motivation, but I can't see the motivation. So I'll believe I was right, establishing a framework for the way I see human behavior. But that framework will be flawed because of the parts I can't prove that clearly exist. -
I assume that my perception is accurate.
Science doesn't "know" anything 100%. Everything must be open to revision. If we learn tomorrow that gravity sucks instead of pulls, so be it. We revise our models. We can be wrong about anything and everything. That's a good thing. Absolutes mean that we stop searching for truth, and if we are wrong, we'll never know.
I hear Galileo was just recently pardoned. The heresy, my god!
-
That's why we should question our perceptions. We no longer think the sun orbits the earth although it sure looks that way to casual observation. If we'd have stuck with religious dogma instead of questioning our perceptions we'd still believe our planet was the center of the universe.
-
Ojibwe wrote:
We might even believe that life begins at conception, the Earth is 6000 years old, the Earth will exist forever, a kangaroo can survive a volcanic blast that puts it on a near orbital ballistic trajectory, and that a space alien sent himself on a suicide mission by way of an un-tainted uterus to lift a blood curse placed on humans by that very same space alien as punishment for eating fruit that he gave them, so that they can eat his blood and flesh to avoid an infinite torture by fire. Because he loves us. BUT NOT FAGGOTS!!!That's why we should question our perceptions. We no longer think the sun orbits the earth although it sure looks that way to casual observation. If we'd have stuck with religious dogma instead of questioning our perceptions we'd still believe our planet was the center of the universe.
-
Absolute statements such as A=A already assumes valid reasoning does it not? Wouldnt that ignore your affirmation that "you" could be wrong about anything you claim to know such as A=A? I would agree that human (funny you say human 😜) reasoning can not be trusted at all times.
you still run into the same problem about trusting the validity of your reasoning about evidence. So when you make the case that the "scientific method" is the best we have to "observe" evidence, would it not follow that evidence is irrelevant given that your perception of A=A could be flawed?
Are you familiar with the "is and ought" fallacy? Id like to know how you came to say we "should" assume what we must. I mean i want to rid superstition too but wouldnt you beg the question what you determine what is superstitious or not when you can not trust your reasoning?
In this world of confusion. "Reason based upon my ability to reason" cant hold scrutiny to verify anything.
-
Brown🎵Note😲 wrote:
In this framework, truth assumes absolutes otherwise truth statements can not exist to you. But i dont believe you live your life that way brown. I believe you live your life in the most logical way...I assume that my perception is accurate.
Science doesn't "know" anything 100%. Everything must be open to revision. If we learn tomorrow that gravity sucks instead of pulls, so be it. We revise our models. We can be wrong about anything and everything. That's a good thing. Absolutes mean that we stop searching for truth, and if we are wrong, we'll never know.
I hear Galileo was just recently pardoned. The heresy, my god!
-
Just because we can never be 100% sure of anything does not mean the reasoning is invalid (0%). This is a perfect example of an appeal to probability fallacy.
I didn't say we should assume. I said we should only assume when it is necessary. There is a big difference. Assumption implies untested hypothesis. Not ideal. Is/Ought means that just because something is, it doesn't follow that it should be. I don't see how that applies here.
You seem to have a very hard time being comfortable with the fact that our brains are not perfect machines. You are saying that because they aren't perfect, all reasoning they produce should be discarded?
-
☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
This is key to the discussion to prove that evidence is irrelavent regarding atheism.
Is your point that because we cannot know anything to a 100% certainty all evidence is worthless?
I would absolutely disagree. Supporting evidence adds weight to a proposition. A little weight or a lot of weight, depending on how convincing the evidence is. There is no perfect evidence, and all of the evidence in the world cannot produce an absolute fact; only a very probable fact.
1+1=2. Probably. Noah's ark happened? Not even close. The only evidence is the claim, so... No evidence.
-
Binary systems are a good analogy here. Conceptually, there are 2 perfect and absolute states in a binary system: Call them on and off for this discussion.
Your phone works very well nearly 100% of the time because 5V and 0V represent on and off very reliably.
Except, there are almost no 5V and 0V states in your phone in reality. Your phone takes an analog value of perhaps 4.73278V and *assumes* this represents "on". 1.6397V comes in and your phone assumes off.
Can it be wrong? Yes. Is it? Almost never. It can be trusted in almost every application to be certain millions of times each second, though in reality it's not certain to 100% that the information is absolutely correct.
Does your phone function without absolute truth in a conceptual architecture that specifies absolute truth? It guesses and assumes, yet it functions perfectly well, without god.
-
༺☠Ꮹཞ༏ཀ☠༻ wrote:
How ugly. I'm actually speechless. But that may be because of all those religious "phallusies" you've been trying to shove down our collective mouths.Ojibwe wrote:
With Augustine it's only a matter of time. We're all going to hell except for him.☦ΔUGUSTIΠΣ☦ wrote:
Oooh, and Christian bigotry rears its ugly head. Again.I would join you to refute santa claus. And every other religion that opposes itself against Christ.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC