Hume was right

[RAD]

David Hume:

Since nothing is ever present to the mind but perceptions, and since all ideas are deriv'd from something antecedently present to the mind, it follows, that 'tis impossible for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of any thing specifically different from ideas and impressions. Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe;

Isn't this just as powerful an argument for following Jesus, (or at least testing his claims and promises) as well as an argument for getting rid of medieval religious beliefs?

So in practice, before we could know if Jesus' sermon on the Mount would lead to peace and prosperity, we would have to practice it to find out. Correct? And since nobody does practice it fully, (and probably can't) we certainly don't know. I seriously doubt Hume figured that out.

This part is especially interesting

Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible

Hmm, isn't that what most Christians are saying we must do to save this planet????

[Edwardo Piet]

One doesn't need to observe something in order to conceive of it.

Because ideas can be combined.

i.e Angels = Humans + wings. One doesn't need to perceive an angel to think of this. One only has to perceive the separate parts. (or at least the parts of the parts - somewhere down the line you find observation).

The core of ideas originates in observation but ideas can evolve from their origins.

Where is your actual evidence for Jesus as the son of God and God as "The father" (Who is also Jesus) actually existing?

[RAD]

One doesn't need to observe something in order to conceive of it.

Because ideas can be combined.

i.e Angels = Humans + wings. One doesn't need to perceive an angel to think of this. One only has to perceive the separate parts. (or at least the parts of the parts - somewhere down the line you find observation).

The core of ideas originates in observation but ideas can evolve from their origins.

And, so, what? Y are not answering my question as far as I can tell. Isn't he saying what

He says let us "chase our imagination to the heavens" so I don't think he is talking about science here

The problem with most "free-thinkers" is they don't really think freely, the limitations of Christian thought not withstanding.

"I think more freely than you, therefore I must be a true "free-thinker'" is a logical fallacy. Not only that, it's dangerously limiting in itself. That is how i take Hume here.

Where is your actual evidence for Jesus as the son of God and God as "The father" (Who is also Jesus) actually existing?

The burden is entirely on you to prove the Gospel writers are lying, as any lawyer will tell you. Slander and libel cases put the burden of proof on the accuser, for good reason.

But I'll bite. Explain to us how fisherman wrote similies like Shakespeare, and IMO much more communicative of deep and useful insights?

How come the writers recorded Jesus' vulnerabilities and comments which lost him disciples by the hundreds, if they were merely inventors?

If you can answer those, we'll move on to Durant's argument for the basic veracity of the Gospels, which only one athesit I showed it to would even attempt. You can be the second.

It doesn't require any faith to believe the bulk of it, but as Durant says, cynics find one little contradiction and immediately say "false in one part, so false in all" a major logical fallacy. (Durant, an agnostic, described the discrepencies as "minutae.")

[KichigaiNeko]

David Hume:

Since nothing is ever present to the mind but perceptions, and since all ideas are deriv'd from something antecedently present to the mind, it follows, that 'tis impossible for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of any thing specifically different from ideas and impressions. Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe;

Isn't this just as powerful an argument for following Jesus, (or at least testing his claims and promises) as well as an argument for getting rid of medieval religious beliefs?

Errmmm no

Hmm, isn't that what most Christians are saying we must do to save this planet????

Seriously....what makes you think the planet needs saving??


There is a whole set??? And where can I purchase these things?? :rofl:

[Edwardo Piet]

And, so, what? Y are not answering my question as far as I can tell. Isn't he saying what

He says let us "chase our imagination to the heavens" so I don't think he is talking about science here

I never mentioned science.

I believe it is quite obvious he is being poetic and not literal about the matter of "the Heavens".

When Hume says:

'[...]tis impossible for us so much as to conceive or form an idea of any thing specifically different from ideas and impressions. Let us fix our attention out of ourselves as much as possible; let us chase our imagination to the heavens, or to the utmost limits of the universe;

- I believe he is saying that since our ideas ultimately come from out observations of the outside world... then we should focus more on the outside world if we are to really be truly creative and imaginative... and by chasing "out imagination to the heavens" he simply means perfecting out imagination, "Heaven" being used as a poetic term for ideal imagination. He then even clarifies this poetic usage but saying how he in other words means 'to the limits of the universe'.

Now, if we start from the premise that he's not being poetic at all and he somehow illogically means that since our imagination has its origins in our perceptions then therefore Heaven exists (which doesn't logically follow)... even if he is saying that, it certainly doesn't make it true, and as I said, it doesn't logically follow. Saying that just because he says it means it is true would be the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

The problem with most "free-thinkers" is they don't really think freely

Where is your evidence for that?

"I think more freely than you, therefore I must be a true "free-thinker'" is a logical fallacy.

Who has said this? What are you referring to?

If someone thinks freely at all then they are therefore a "free-thinker" I would have thought, in the tautological sense.

Not only that, it's dangerously limiting in itself. That is how i take Hume here.

How is being free thinking or claiming to being free thinking, limiting? What has what Hume says got to do with it?

The burden is entirely on you to prove the Gospel writers are lying,

It would be if I made such a claim.

But I'll bite. Explain to us how fisherman wrote similies like Shakespeare, and IMO much more communicative of deep and useful insights?

What relevance does that have?

How come the writers recorded Jesus' vulnerabilities and comments which lost him disciples by the hundreds, if they were merely inventors?

What relevance does that have?

If you can answer those, we'll move on to Durant's argument for the basic veracity of the Gospels, which only one athesit I showed it to would even attempt. You can be the second.

How can any book whatsoever be evidence for God's existence without being a magic/supernatural book? And if the book itself is magic/supernatural..... there needs to be evidence for that to rationally believe that too. So where is the evidence for that I would then ask.

It doesn't require any faith to believe the bulk of it, but as Durant says, cynics find one little contradiction and immediately say "false in one part, so false in all" a major logical fallacy.

On the supernatural claims of the Gospel at least... I am yet to know of any evidence of one correct part.