13 Feb 2023, 9:24 am
Pepe wrote:
This coming from someone who believes in an "Invisible Friend". 
You are just helping my side of the argument. Everyone with a capable mind will have noticed that instead of attempting to properly respond to the argument, you instead chose to indulge in a childish attack on religion, by comparing it to the invisible friend phenomenon seen in children.
I do understand the implications, indeed that is how I understand that you hold a faith, a faith I, myself, used to hold too - whereas you labour under the chains of faith you do not even recognise as faith or chains at all and believe yourself to be free and open minded. The faithless are agnostic. Atheists are just as faith-filled as theists, but at least theists know their own faith.
13 Feb 2023, 11:50 am
Dengashinobi wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
^
Granted, while you could investigate the existence of fairies by looking for them, it's hard to know where you'd even begin to look for some extra dimension that by definition we're inherently blind to. But the result is much the same in either case - having scoured the planet for fairies and found none, there's still no way round the notion that maybe they didn't want to be found so they hid themselves on the Moon till you'd abandoned your search. Nobody knows how to absolutely disprove the existence of a thing, but that doesn't make believing in fairies or some external cosmic plan particularly sensible.
Granted, while you could investigate the existence of fairies by looking for them, it's hard to know where you'd even begin to look for some extra dimension that by definition we're inherently blind to. But the result is much the same in either case - having scoured the planet for fairies and found none, there's still no way round the notion that maybe they didn't want to be found so they hid themselves on the Moon till you'd abandoned your search. Nobody knows how to absolutely disprove the existence of a thing, but that doesn't make believing in fairies or some external cosmic plan particularly sensible.
God gave us the ability to think rationally.
Erm...
Using this ability of reason, we can approach a more realistic probability.
Consider this speculation:
Archeologists seemingly have identified when the concept of an afterlife approximately began through, burial rituals.
This seems to have coincided with an evolutionary development of the prefrontal cortex.
What this means is that previous to the evolutionary development, the concept of a "creator" was not possible.
Conclusion:
To me, this quirk of evolution is just that, and all the religious hocus pocus was a result of a simple "blind" evolutionary accident.
BTW, Studying human psychology is vital to understanding the irrational power of the spiritual/religious concept, imo.
We could draw such a conclusion comfortably if it wasn't for our incapacity to fully understand the universe. We know and understand nothing, especially on an individual level. We are inadequately intelligent to be fully logical.
Logic is simply tool, anyway. No amount of logic can fix an incorrect premise.
(More saying this in a general sense, not saying that Pepe is correct or incorrect)
13 Feb 2023, 11:59 am
Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This coming from someone who believes in an "Invisible Friend".
You are just helping my side of the argument. Everyone with a capable mind will have noticed that instead of attempting to properly respond to the argument, you instead chose to indulge in a childish attack on religion, by comparing it to the invisible friend phenomenon seen in children.
I do understand the implications, indeed that is how I understand that you hold a faith, a faith I, myself, used to hold too - whereas you labour under the chains of faith you do not even recognise as faith or chains at all and believe yourself to be free and open minded. The faithless are agnostic. Atheists are just as faith-filled as theists, but at least theists know their own faith.
It sounds like you are saying there is one kind of atheist. I can imagine an atheist as being agnostic but just not believing that things are as the theists believe.
One has to ask why the theists would have the correct story. For example: there is the question of why God of some religions is all loving and ever present in the lives of everyone at all times. There are alternatives to that which some religions address.
My ultimate point is that someone, yourself or your sources, has a need to put people in little boxes. I don’t mean it derogatorily, I am just pointing it out. I imagine it helps for arguing a point perhaps hence the need.
Let’s say someone just thinks that some of the foundational literal precepts of religion are utterly ridiculous. Does that make someone an atheist or an agnostic? They are probably neither. You could say that person is only agnostic but in the end it is all word salad.
13 Feb 2023, 12:41 pm
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I agree with Twilight. There is MUCH beauty in the world. Even in places where people go through a lot of struggle.
And I agree with the skunk in that there are untold atrocities in the world and that has always been the case where there was sentient life.
And since there is no inherent meaning in life, there is no rational reason to procreate other than a selfish one.
Emotionalism is not recognised in this here courtroom.
So sayeth the judge.
But your honour, I was only following the orders of the selfish gene when I procreated.
They said the same thing at Nuremberg, and how did that work out?
Well yes, but those chaps did a lot more damage than I ever did.
13 Feb 2023, 1:11 pm
13 Feb 2023, 7:06 pm
13 Feb 2023, 7:29 pm
13 Feb 2023, 7:42 pm
13 Feb 2023, 9:46 pm
Dengashinobi wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
^
Granted, while you could investigate the existence of fairies by looking for them, it's hard to know where you'd even begin to look for some extra dimension that by definition we're inherently blind to. But the result is much the same in either case - having scoured the planet for fairies and found none, there's still no way round the notion that maybe they didn't want to be found so they hid themselves on the Moon till you'd abandoned your search. Nobody knows how to absolutely disprove the existence of a thing, but that doesn't make believing in fairies or some external cosmic plan particularly sensible.
Granted, while you could investigate the existence of fairies by looking for them, it's hard to know where you'd even begin to look for some extra dimension that by definition we're inherently blind to. But the result is much the same in either case - having scoured the planet for fairies and found none, there's still no way round the notion that maybe they didn't want to be found so they hid themselves on the Moon till you'd abandoned your search. Nobody knows how to absolutely disprove the existence of a thing, but that doesn't make believing in fairies or some external cosmic plan particularly sensible.
God gave us the ability to think rationally.
Erm...
Using this ability of reason, we can approach a more realistic probability.
Consider this speculation:
Archeologists seemingly have identified when the concept of an afterlife approximately began through, burial rituals.
This seems to have coincided with an evolutionary development of the prefrontal cortex.
What this means is that previous to the evolutionary development, the concept of a "creator" was not possible.
Conclusion:
To me, this quirk of evolution is just that, and all the religious hocus pocus was a result of a simple "blind" evolutionary accident.
BTW, Studying human psychology is vital to understanding the irrational power of the spiritual/religious concept, imo.
We could draw such a conclusion comfortably if it wasn't for our incapacity to fully understand the universe. We know and understand nothing, especially on an individual level. We are inadequately intelligent to be fully logical.
Are you saying we have no right to have an OPINION?
I am sorry.
That is not in my DNA.
And as my grandpappy skunk used to say:
"In the absence of facts, speculation is king."
13 Feb 2023, 9:50 pm
Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This coming from someone who believes in an "Invisible Friend".
You are just helping my side of the argument. Everyone with a capable mind will have noticed that instead of attempting to properly respond to the argument, you instead chose to indulge in a childish attack on religion, by comparing it to the invisible friend phenomenon seen in children.
I do understand the implications, indeed that is how I understand that you hold a faith, a faith I, myself, used to hold too - whereas you labour under the chains of faith you do not even recognise as faith or chains at all and believe yourself to be free and open minded. The faithless are agnostic. Atheists are just as faith-filled as theists, but at least theists know their own faith.
You do realise that no matter what is said, neither one of us is going to agree with the other, right?
<copy and paste>
"Let us agree to disagree."
13 Feb 2023, 10:02 pm
JimJohn wrote:
It sounds like you are saying there is one kind of atheist. I can imagine an atheist as being agnostic but just not believing that things are as the theists believe.
One has to ask why the theists would have the correct story. For example: there is the question of why God of some religions is all loving and ever present in the lives of everyone at all times. There are alternatives to that which some religions address.
One has to ask why the theists would have the correct story. For example: there is the question of why God of some religions is all loving and ever present in the lives of everyone at all times. There are alternatives to that which some religions address.
Talk about a false premise.
An "all-loving" god doesn't allow an estimated/projected-figure of 50,000 deaths in Turkey and Syria as a result of the earthquake/s.
There may be a god, whatever that is, but it certainly isn't a compassionate one.
And finally, getting back on topic:
What is the incentive for bringing children into a compassionless, godless life system?
To live, suffer and die?
Pass.
Something simply doesn't seem right, here.
13 Feb 2023, 10:03 pm
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I agree with Twilight. There is MUCH beauty in the world. Even in places where people go through a lot of struggle.
And I agree with the skunk in that there are untold atrocities in the world and that has always been the case where there was sentient life.
And since there is no inherent meaning in life, there is no rational reason to procreate other than a selfish one.
Emotionalism is not recognised in this here courtroom.
So sayeth the judge.
But your honour, I was only following the orders of the selfish gene when I procreated.
They said the same thing at Nuremberg, and how did that work out?
Well yes, but those chaps did a lot more damage than I ever did.
"Evidence."
13 Feb 2023, 10:10 pm
Mikah wrote:
JimJohn wrote:
It sounds like you are saying there is one kind of atheist. I can imagine an atheist as being agnostic but just not believing that things are as the theists believe.
I argue against Pepe's "hardcore" atheist, the self-proclaimed Oracle of Truth, who somehow knows things he cannot possibly know. When challenged he resorts to childish arguments like the one I quoted. Atheists smarter than Pepe call themselves "agnostic atheists" because they realise what he does not - that "hard" atheism must be faith because knowledge cannot apply in this situation - you cannot know what lies beyond the material, if anything, unless you'd had a divine revelation from beyond. Divine revelation does not apply to atheism, I hope we all agree. Therefore any atheist who claims to know there is nothing is lying or seriously mistaken.
Firstly, I "resort to childish arguments" because we will NEVER agree.
It is pointless arguing discussing this subject with you.
Once again, I am NOT interested in discussing this with YOU, and probably not in depth with ANY theist.
"Read my lips":
"Let us agree to disagree."
BTW, My definition of "atheism" may be crude to you, but it is this:
"Those who do not believe in a 'creator'."
Have a nice day.
13 Feb 2023, 10:20 pm
Minder wrote:
I'd classify myself as an agnostic, but my stance is pretty similar. It don't feel a need for a great cosmic meaning. But I think such a meaning can be very helpful for many people, so I don't mind if they choose to be religious. My only issue is if they keep trying to get me to convert.
Indeed it is.
It is there to placate the void of existential anxiety.
Religion is an emotion-based philosophy, not a rational one.
(If it soothes Mikah, I will add "In my considered OPINION".)
It makes me wonder how many ppl bring life into this existence with a false premise.
13 Feb 2023, 10:23 pm
13 Feb 2023, 11:08 pm
Mikah wrote:
Pepe wrote:
This coming from someone who believes in an "Invisible Friend".
Atheists are just as faith-filled as theists, but at least theists know their own faith.
Not really. While some atheists hold a belief that there is no God, others, like myself, simply lack a belief in a higher power. It simply isn't a question I entertain. It has nothing to do with faith.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Is 3 the magic number for children now? |
05 Jul 2025, 1:17 pm |
| Anything wrong looking at children or young adult books? |
14 May 2025, 10:05 am |
