So, since you accept your own irrelevance, you can accept that God is irrelevant, even though you've been affected by/exposed to just the one doctrine/verion?You mean the version you once accepted has turned out to be non-existent, as far as you're concerned?Interesting. You're saying that the one version you know about is enough to form the opinion you have? All other "versions" must have the same problem as the one you know about?
I mean, good for you if you think you've seen enough to realise the Christian version doesn't work for you, but how do you manage to extend this "failure" to all the other versions?
You mean the realities that have been discovered so far. According to dark matter research, only 26% of all matter in the universe has been identified as part of the standard model. The other 74% can of course be anything.Bells said:Science is about the realities of life.
Quite frankly, I don't want to be brain washed by the insanity of a scientific community that can only account for 26% of the matter in the universe. But more to the point, I don't want to be brainwashed by a scientific community that incorrectly assumes that we don't have a soul. I would say, keep looking, it's there. I also don't want to be brainwashed by an insane scientific community that is based upon the premise of pessimism. It is a big mistake to become brainwashed by an ideology that tells you that everything good in the world, doesn't exist.If that bothers you, then I would suggest you stop posting on a SCIENCE site about your moronic and idiotic personal philosophical beliefs and find a forum that will cater to your woo woo needs. In short, stop spreading it here and acting as if it is reality. It is only reality for people who have consumed too many happy mushrooms, are high or are mentally ill. And perhaps that is the case. And if that is the case, perhaps you should put your chrystals down and find a very good psychiatrist, so they can medicate you and bring you back to reality.
I am posting in the RELIGION subforum. What you call "woo woo crap" is really about a God that is relevant to billions of human beings around the world.Until that happens, stop posting woo woo crap in the science forums.
Translation: "Censor this topic by inserting ad homs and belittlements of the OP's character."
If I told you that dragging a different subjext into a discussion was irrelevant, would you find it boring?who cares said:If I told you that I find Bigfoot to be a myth, would you advise me to reserve judgment on the Yeti?
Given that empiricism is a matter of knowledge, not of assumption for practical purposes, I'm not sure you're expecting the right behaviour from an empiricist.I will tell you what I have a lack of faith in, and that is finding a true empiricist who functions in a normal secular capacity. Like a Buddhist monk, the true empiricist would have to purposefully limit their experiences to maintain their distance ( in the empiricist's case, from the confusion of all the massive amounts of "unproven" data that is being used all day long by everyone in the world, including, most likely, sam harris and everyone else proclaiming the ridiculous nature of religion).
I am talking about the empiricist who insists that they are basing all their ideas on verifiable knowledge, which I think is not a sensible claim for humans to make. Normal humans living normal lives, that is. I am sure there could be exceptions, real people that actually hold all their beliefs in conjunction with empirical data, but most of the people who ridicule religion are not actually supporting all of their ideas only with empirical data and are therefore being disingenuous. To point out a lack of data on metaphysical and religious ideas is sensible of course, but to speak this way while insisting they don't also operate on a lot of questionable data is ignorant of reality. Of course, a person saying, "I refuse to believe in x because there is no scientific data", is perfectly reasonable, but nobody should pretend that this need for data carries over into all areas of their philosophy or life, and therefore should be a lot more reticent to condemn another person's use of non-verifiable 'evidence' to support ideas.It is merely when it comes down to establishing what it is that one actually "knows" (or at least claims to know) that the empiricist will restrict himself to the tenets of their philosophy.
I am talking about the empiricist who insists that they are basing all their ideas on verifiable knowledge, which I think is not a sensible claim for humans to make. Normal humans living normal lives, that is. I am sure there could be exceptions, real people that actually hold all their beliefs in conjunction with empirical data, but most of the people who ridicule religion are not actually supporting all of their ideas only with empirical data and are therefore being disingenuous. To point out a lack of data on metaphysical and religious ideas is sensible of course, but to speak this way while insisting they don't also operate on a lot of questionable data is ignorant of reality. Of course, a person saying, "I refuse to believe in x because there is no scientific data", is perfectly reasonable, but nobody should pretend that this need for data carries over into all areas of their philosophy or life, and therefore should be a lot more reticent to condemn another person's use of non-verifiable 'evidence' to support ideas.
Apologies, I thought you were referring to a true empiricist, rather than the one you are defining here.I am talking about the empiricist who insists that they are basing all their ideas on verifiable knowledge, which I think is not a sensible claim for humans to make.
Empiricism is a matter of knowledge, and it is quite possible to operate in the absence of knowledge on a matter, and in the absence of belief (beyond an assessment of probability which, for an empiricist, would be based on experience).Normal humans living normal lives, that is. I am sure there could be exceptions, real people that actually hold all their beliefs in conjunction with empirical data, but most of the people who ridicule religion are not actually supporting all of their ideas only with empirical data and are therefore being disingenuous.
Can you provide an example, perhaps, so as to explain your point better?To point out a lack of data on metaphysical and religious ideas is sensible of course, but to speak this way while insisting they don't also operate on a lot of questionable data is ignorant of reality.
Empiricism does not require the philosophy to carry over in to all areas of their life. Only in to areas of knowledge, and what one deems oneself to know.Of course, a person saying, "I refuse to believe in x because there is no scientific data", is perfectly reasonable, but nobody should pretend that this need for data carries over into all areas of their philosophy or life, and therefore should be a lot more reticent to condemn another person's use of non-verifiable 'evidence' to support ideas.
If I told you that I find Bigfoot to be a myth, would you advise me to reserve judgment on the Yeti?
Quite frankly, I don't want to be brain washed by the insanity of a scientific community that can only account for 26% of the matter in the universe. But more to the point, I don't want to be brainwashed by a scientific community that incorrectly assumes that we don't have a soul. I would say, keep looking, it's there. I also don't want to be brainwashed by an insane scientific community that is based upon the premise of pessimism. It is a big mistake to become brainwashed by an ideology that tells you that everything good in the world, doesn't exist.
Well I can tell you from my experience He is very real for me . He corrects my live...
Odd, you are using a computer, internet connection and these forums to spew your hypocrisy at science when it was science that provided them all for you. It looks like you've already succumbed to the brainwashing, else you would be living in a cave. :roflmao:
I suppose you don't know that many scientists are believer in God
So, since you accept your own irrelevance, you can accept that God is irrelevant, even though you've been affected by/exposed to just the one doctrine/verion?
You mean the version you once accepted has turned out to be non-existent, as far as you're concerned?
Interesting. You're saying that the one version you know about is enough to form the opinion you have? All other "versions" must have the same problem as the one you know about?
I mean, good for you if you think you've seen enough to realise the Christian version doesn't work for you, but how do you manage to extend this "failure" to all the other versions?
How many versions of a "magical invisible being who sits in the sky and who wants me to obey him" do I really need to go thru? What did I miss while thoroughly buying into the Christian version? Is there some piece of information about theism Christianity overlooked that would suddenly win me back over to this ludicrous delusion? I find that hard to believe..
I mean the theism I once personally believed in and tried to apply to my life. Yes..All theists experience theism as a particular version. But this doesn't invalidate their experience of theism. Should we say that since one is christian, or hindu, or muslim, or pagan, or Whiteheadian panexperientialist, that one is not really in a position to judge theism because they haven't explored all other possible versions of it? That's ridiculous. That's basically saying nobody experiences true theism because they are always experiencing only one version of it.
How many more versions of a delusion would I need to explore before being justified in calling it a delusion? The premise of theism is quite simple. There's an invisible magical person watching over me and demanding worship from me as well as my obedience to his will usually codified as a set of rules in some venerated book of scriptures. Christianity exemplified this concept perfectly for me. I fail to see what could be added to this premise that would suddenly make it believable and worth my time reconsidering. Perhaps you can suggest something?