Views beyond Atheism

[Edwardo Piet]

So, should indoctrination be prevented, or should it be allowed in the name of free speech (no matter how bias)?

Sorry I missed this one earlier...

--

Well, I'd say that it should be prevented because I think it is abusive to deliberately cut a child off from other points of view for example; - especially when the stuff the child is being 'brought up to believe' is not only bullshit, but bullshit of the harmful and intolerant kind.

I think just how it's every child's right to be educated - I think it's every child's right to not be MISeducated to believe in bullshit AND - cut-off from different points of view (and like I said, especially if it's bullshit of the particularly intolerant and harmful kind).

You're not simply 'speaking your mind' as in free speech with childhood indoctrination - I think it's abusive. Such a child has a right to know about other points of views besides the bullshit (and specifically harmless/intolerant bullshit, etc) it's been indoctrinated in.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I respect your RIGHT to your belief. But I DON'T respect your actual belief.

You have a right to your opinion. But I don't have to respect your belief(s) - I mean, what if I believe they are ridiculous with good reason? i.e.: No evidence.

One way to put is:
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs." - Brad Reddekopp

I laugh at funny beliefs. I guess I have no problem if you find it funny. What right have I to insist on respect? None I'd say.

"what if I believe they are ridiculous with good reason? i.e.: No evidence."

what if I believe they are ridiculous with good reason? i.e.: No reason.

There is reason though. It just happens not to be your reason.

When do you decide that someone's reason is ridiculous enough for you to laugh at it? If you're only laughing at the conclusion maybe you should be looking at the detail more.

A lot of times there's a thin line between one extreme and another.

[Edwardo Piet]

Because I said no evidence AND - that includes Non-Empirical (NE as I say) evidence. It includes your 'reasoning ' too (I've said this before btw....sigh lol) - because if your reasoning WAS valid it would count as evidence of SOME form at least (i.e valid NE evidence).

So by no evidence I mean I know of no valid reasons AT ALL, both forms of evidence included, NE included as well I mean.

I know of no evidence whatsoever for such a complex being, and yet others go ahead believing it and I am still yet to know of ANY evidence whatsoever (NE included! 'reasoning' and 'reasons' too as I have explained).

So I find it to be ridiculous. I say all of this is certainly grounds for laughter (to me anyway), I have certainly thought it through.

I am not claiming to absolutely KNOW there is no God however, I just find the whole fact people go ahead believing it so silly because of how extremely improbable I believe he is.

So I'm not being ignorant or closed-off because I DO accept the possibility of being wrong. I believe it is possible just...not at all probable.

I do not know of your 'reasons' in any way counting of evidence of God actually existing...not reason to believe he actually exists therefore, not valid.

If they WERE valid reasons to actually believe he actually EXISTS then that WOULD count as valid evidence (if it was indeed true) - whether empirical or NON-empirical (and it would have to be NE really because we've already established, I think; that God is outside the 'empirical realm' although I currently know of no 'NE evidence' either of course).

EvF

[fr0d0]

I think people believe primarily because of reasons besides assurity of existence. Faith in existence is a struggle for all of us, not just you. That's just how it is. No one can know, so how can't it be a continual problem?

Faith makes it make complete sense. Faith = the strength to achieve more.

What follows is the point, and not the unknowable question.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah some people believe on faith. Some believe with evidence. They have their 'own reasons' those who believe 'on faith' - but they're not valid to the actual question...because if they WERE it would count as evidence. And if it counted as evidence - I'd say that's valid because it means that their reasons actually count towards their belief being true or not! (It actually addresses the question "Does God exist?" - if there's evidence, then there's reason to believe he exists; if there's reason to believe he exists - then it WOULD COUNT as evidence).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Why are U still talkin about evidence? that's the science view in you is it refusing to let go?

No, no one believes with evidence. that isn't belief. That's certainty surely?

Reasons to believe with just faith are exactly important, because that's the point.

[Edwardo Piet]

I've told you before (a few times already) that NE is included (so are 'reasons' and 'reasoning'!) - how many times lol.

I know of none.

As I explained above, if your reasons are valid reasons to believe God actually exists then they WOULD count as (NE) evidence!

How many times! Lol.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Yeahbut.. you keep throwing in the evidence word and not qualifying it. Just say reasoning (aswe've agreed) and I'll know what you're on about.

[Edwardo Piet]

I thought we'd agreed to swap 'reasoning' for 'NE evidence' since it's so easy to forget that this 'reasoning' if valid (as I have explained) would have to count as evidence of some form (because the word 'reasoning' is so ambiguous, so it's easy to forget that we are still actually in the realm of (NE) evidence here (as I have explained))

BECAUSE - if this 'reasoning' gave valid 'reasons' for believing that God ACTUALLY EXISTS then it WOULD count as evidence (NE included).

NE=non-empirical. I'm sick of saying non-empirical lol. Maybe I should just write it down on my windows sidebar and copy/paste it LOL.

EvF

[fr0d0]

No I think NE Evidence is just confusing. Especially when you keep using it (seemingly) interchangeably with 'evidence'. I can't follow which you're referring to. Hellish confusing as we agree (I thought) that evidence was impossible.

Nothing could give us cause to believe beyond doubt that God actually existed. That whole holy grail of yours is a mirage.

I don't think 'reasoning' is confusing term at all.