(January 10, 2015 at 2:51 pm)strawdawg Wrote: I can see people not believing in God but why hate it?

There are aspects of religion that are harmful to both the people who practice it and the people they deal with. Primarily, the belief that god demands or expects certain behaviors or actions regardless of circumstance, on pain of horrible punishment or the missing out of a fantastic reward. This leads people to deny urgent medical care for themselves or their loved ones. It leads them to ostracize friends and family and destroy close relationships or beneficial arrangements that can have a ripple effect. It leads them to depend on a nonexistent person to solve their problems in lieu of action, and it leads them to credit that nonexistent person on those occasions when things turn out well in spite of their lack of effort.

And this is not to mention the people who take even more extremist routes, to the extent that they deliberately cause mental and emotional anguish to others, or even physical harm. The people who assault (and even kill) gays in the name of their deity are acting on that same primary impulse, and they can whip up a few scriptural verses to defend those actions. Religion can warp people in any number of ways. It is like other forms of tribalism (racism, nationalism, sports fanaticism) with the very dangerous difference that it claims the highest possible moral sanction of all.

(January 12, 2015 at 10:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. I do not know for a fact that it will, but after seeing the sun come up over 22,000 times, I think my faith is warranted. So yes, everyone demonstrates some faith.

Every been up north in the winter? Or, down south... I can't imagine it'd be any different in that regard.

The light of the sun be praised, that I can see.

(January 12, 2015 at 10:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. I do not know for a fact that it will, but after seeing the sun come up over 22,000 times, I think my faith is warranted. So yes, everyone demonstrates some faith.

I dunno, sounds like you have a little evidence there, Chief.

OK it seems some lesser gods would like to dispute my new definition of faith. It's almost as if me just saying it isn't enough to establish its instant truth.

So I'll try again. Faith is holding a belief for reasons not considered valid by robvalue.

Form a line please

(Good point though, zealotry is a better word, and which wouldn't cause misunderstanding. I would expect most theists to balk at being called that though, even though it is obviously a true description in many cases. We must respect each person's zealotry.)

On the topic of solipsism, I would describe my opinion of the pragmatic assumptions to be on faith, but not in zeal.

Wow, that sounded like a well-tossed word salad from an experienced tosser. Anyhow.

What I mean is, I make these assumptions, from which (at a minimum) I [try to] base every other part of my reasoning. However, I do not claim that these assumptions are valid; merely necessary for any meaningful discourse or action. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they are valid. I am far from sure that what I experience is "real" as we like to think of it. I have no good independent definition of what "real" is.

Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to just not worry about this, most of the time.

(January 13, 2015 at 5:47 am)robvalue Wrote: On the topic of solipsism, I would describe my opinion of the pragmatic assumptions to be on faith, but not in zeal.

Wow, that sounded like a well-tossed word salad from an experienced tosser. Anyhow.

What I mean is, I make these assumptions, from which (at a minimum) I [try to] base every other part of my reasoning. However, I do not claim that these assumptions are valid; merely necessary for any meaningful discourse or action. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they are valid. I am far from sure that what I experience is "real" as we like to think of it. I have no good independent definition of what "real" is.

At the end of the day, the crowning problem philosophy has... is that almost nobody gives a fuck xD

Discussing philosophical stuff can be a massive pain in the ass, even amongst friends, and those whose criticisms are wholly constructive. Sometimes all of that does ring 'true', and something interesting is learned... but the chance of it happening is... so rare.

I'm surprised I even commented. Usually merely suggesting anything out of the ordinary is enough to spawn like... 20 pages of pseudointellectual philosobabble

Quote:Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to just not worry about this, most of the time.

It's what makes us so very great. We don't stop to question our greatness while we can seize still more of it~

I tend to have sudden episodes, now and again, where things seem all too unreal. I'm looking at myself in the mirror thinking, "Who are you? Why do you look like that? Am I in control of myself? What is the point of all this? Is this real? Why doesn't anything make any sense?"

I feel myself losing my normal focus and sort of drifting about, as if nothing means anything any more. I look at words on a page and they are just weird symbols rather than having any meaning.

I usually snap out of it after a couple of minutes, as another of life's tedious interruptions demands my attention. Can anyone else relate to this? I do suffer from being extremely analytical, more so than I even want to be at times. I can't stop my mind from racing through things, before I seem to have made the concious decision to even give a fuck about the thing it's analyzing.

(January 13, 2015 at 5:47 am)robvalue Wrote: On the topic of solipsism, I would describe my opinion of the pragmatic assumptions to be on faith, but not in zeal.

Wow, that sounded like a well-tossed word salad from an experienced tosser. Anyhow.

What I mean is, I make these assumptions, from which (at a minimum) I [try to] base every other part of my reasoning. However, I do not claim that these assumptions are valid; merely necessary for any meaningful discourse or action. In fact, I'm not at all convinced they are valid. I am far from sure that what I experience is "real" as we like to think of it. I have no good independent definition of what "real" is.

Humans seem to have an amazing capacity to just not worry about this, most of the time.

The way I phrase it: I regard an objective reality to be axiomatic.

If you think about it, there's evidence that an objective reality exists. And the more machines take up the task of investigating the Universe for us, the less room there is for arguing solipsism.

(January 13, 2015 at 11:22 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: If you think about it, there's evidence that an objective reality exists. And the more machines take up the task of investigating the Universe for us, the less room there is for arguing solipsism.

What would that evidence be? Just because one believes in their mind that machines are testing and validating a reality does not make it real as it is all still in one's mind. All perception is within one's mind and there is no way to validate reality.

(January 13, 2015 at 11:37 am)IATIA Wrote:

(January 13, 2015 at 11:22 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: If you think about it, there's evidence that an objective reality exists. And the more machines take up the task of investigating the Universe for us, the less room there is for arguing solipsism.

What would that evidence be? Just because one believes in their mind that machines are testing and validating a reality does not make it real as it is all still in one's mind. All perception is within one's mind and there is no way to validate reality.

The fact that we're having this conversation means that we are each perceiving an occurrence. Shared perceptions between two otherwise unconnected minds would be evidence that those perceptions are at least somewhat accurate.

Now, if you wish to argue that you're not real, have at it.