RE: Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions..
November 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2011 at 9:25 pm by Norfolk And Chance.)
Aimed at nobody in particular...just a general frustrated and rubbish attempt at philosophy...You know, I've had a lot of debate on here already, some good, and some bad. This place is great. There's some really clever guys on here, some wayyyyyyy too clever for me, but...
Not many people it seems to want to bring facts into their arguments, yet atheists and skeptics love facts, and thrive looking for evidence evidence? I do anyway. It seems facts aren't too useful to philosophical arguments. That said, maybe I just can't do philosophy.
Facts? A chimp is a primate - fact. Earth is a planet - fact. The tooth fairy is a fictional creation, as is the hobbit - fact. No arguments so far?
Personally speaking, and hey, I could be wrong - I feel no amount of philosophical gymnastics and arguments should be able to skirt around or oppose known facts. If we KNOW something to be true, then that should be it, end of story.
No I'm not talking about "theories" which can be updated on new evidence - of course we can accept a theory as true, and latterly change or update it. Or even bin it. Theory is about gaining knowledge, proving the theory and so on. Probably a bad analogy of what theory is but I'm sure most get the gist. What I'm talking about is factual knowledge, about knowing - such as we know a tree is a tree - fact. There will NEVER be evidence to prove a tree is a jellyfish. Why? Because it is a tree and we know it is a tree. Dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish is surely not suspension of critical thinking? If dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish would be a suspension of critical thinking, then I don't want to critical think!
What I'm trying to say is there are things we can know, as fact. There are possibilities we can instantly dismiss as absurd. Not even give the possibility the time of day, even if for philosophy's sake.
Likewise, if I write a book about a fictional fairy, I made it up. I know I made it up and I know it is not real. My knowledge is that I know that character is fictional - and that is a errrrrr, fact (lol) I also know there is NO possibility of it being real or being found in a jungle somewhere because it's fictional. Dismissing the possibility of this fictional character being real is IMO not suspending my critical thinking. In this example situation, with the "facts" to hand the fictional to real possibiilty of the fairy seems the same as the tree to jellyfish possibiility - both beyond absurd. Even philosophy must have some limits on possibility? Otherwise what is the impossible, and why do we even have the word?
Erm, back to my point I was trying to make in a previous post - we know the tooth fairy is fictional, and because of this fact I can dismiss any possibility it's real.
I hope somebody understands what I'm trying to say, I can't always explain myself as well as I'd like to.
Not many people it seems to want to bring facts into their arguments, yet atheists and skeptics love facts, and thrive looking for evidence evidence? I do anyway. It seems facts aren't too useful to philosophical arguments. That said, maybe I just can't do philosophy.
Facts? A chimp is a primate - fact. Earth is a planet - fact. The tooth fairy is a fictional creation, as is the hobbit - fact. No arguments so far?
Personally speaking, and hey, I could be wrong - I feel no amount of philosophical gymnastics and arguments should be able to skirt around or oppose known facts. If we KNOW something to be true, then that should be it, end of story.
No I'm not talking about "theories" which can be updated on new evidence - of course we can accept a theory as true, and latterly change or update it. Or even bin it. Theory is about gaining knowledge, proving the theory and so on. Probably a bad analogy of what theory is but I'm sure most get the gist. What I'm talking about is factual knowledge, about knowing - such as we know a tree is a tree - fact. There will NEVER be evidence to prove a tree is a jellyfish. Why? Because it is a tree and we know it is a tree. Dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish is surely not suspension of critical thinking? If dismissing the possibility of a tree being proven to be a jellyfish would be a suspension of critical thinking, then I don't want to critical think!
What I'm trying to say is there are things we can know, as fact. There are possibilities we can instantly dismiss as absurd. Not even give the possibility the time of day, even if for philosophy's sake.
Likewise, if I write a book about a fictional fairy, I made it up. I know I made it up and I know it is not real. My knowledge is that I know that character is fictional - and that is a errrrrr, fact (lol) I also know there is NO possibility of it being real or being found in a jungle somewhere because it's fictional. Dismissing the possibility of this fictional character being real is IMO not suspending my critical thinking. In this example situation, with the "facts" to hand the fictional to real possibiilty of the fairy seems the same as the tree to jellyfish possibiility - both beyond absurd. Even philosophy must have some limits on possibility? Otherwise what is the impossible, and why do we even have the word?
Erm, back to my point I was trying to make in a previous post - we know the tooth fairy is fictional, and because of this fact I can dismiss any possibility it's real.
I hope somebody understands what I'm trying to say, I can't always explain myself as well as I'd like to.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
