• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

gentlehorse said:
Ultimately, nothing we do is of any importance.

But, it's very important that we do it.

*The sound of one lip yammering*
Click to expand...

That was not the question. It was not asked 'is your life important?'

It was asked:

"Is there anyone here who sees no meaning in relation to their life?"
 
Navigator said:
"How can the third-person requirements of the scientific method be reconciled with the first-person nature of consciousness?"

"Science will find a way"

Admittedly it is optimistic presumption on my part, and may be that science (as a method) will only be part of the ingredient, but it has nothing much to do with science displacing anything, or for that matter EVE having any power to replace/take the place of subjective experience as was stated here

You could of course provide some examples as to what you understand to be EVE's then together we could look at these and see where they trump subjective experience/opinion/belief.

After that we can ascertain whether trumping means anything much in relation to the subjective.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. I said when empirically verified evidence “CONFLICTS” with subjective beliefs then the latter will be replaced by the former. This is usually the case except in instances of ‘denial’ in order to maintain personally important subjective beliefs such as in religion or some pet hobby-horse.

Oh, and your link didn’t’ work.
 
Tassman said:
You miss the point. I said when empirically verified evidence “CONFLICTS” with subjective beliefs then the latter will be replaced by the former. This is usually the case except in instances of ‘denial’ in order to maintain personally important subjective beliefs such as in religion or some pet hobby-horse.

Oh, and your link didn’t’ work.
Click to expand...

Well, if empirically verified evidence works in some cases, does it then work in all cases or are there some cases where subjective beliefs work, because there is no empirically verified evidence?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Well, if empirically verified evidence works in some cases, does it then work in all cases or are there some cases where subjective beliefs work, because there is no empirically verified evidence?
Click to expand...
Where there is no empirically verified evidence we simply don't know whether a subjective belief is correct or not.

People who choose to believe something for which there is no empirically verified evidence may be making a big mistake.

http://wn.com/the_ascent_of_man_1_of_6_knowledge_or_certainty__jacob_bronowski
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Well, if empirically verified evidence works in some cases, does it then work in all cases or are there some cases where subjective beliefs work, because there is no empirically verified evidence?
Click to expand...
What Pixel42 said.

Also note I specifically referred to cases whereby empirically verified evidence conflicts with subjective beliefs

Excellent link, BTW Pixel42!
 
Tassman said:
1: You miss the point. I said when empirically verified evidence “CONFLICTS” with subjective beliefs then the latter will be replaced by the former. This is usually the case except in instances of ‘denial’ in order to maintain personally important subjective beliefs such as in religion or some pet hobby-horse.

2: Oh, and your link didn’t’ work.
Click to expand...

1: Oh yes, which also in your opinion includes interest in life after death and ideas about god...even if one does not actually believe the hobby horse stuff, if I recall you correctly?

2: Sorry about that, here 'tis.
 
It is one of those days in RL, so here it is in short - is subjective knowledge possible in any sense? If no, how do you know this? If yes, how do you know this?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
It is one of those days in RL, so here it is in short - is subjective knowledge possible in any sense? If no, how do you know this? If yes, how do you know this?
Click to expand...

From what I can gather, very little subjective knowledge is possible. I know I am conscious and I seem to be in a physical universe which is agreed on objectively as a reality but what it is and how it got here is debated.

My personal 'bias' is that it is a simulation. That is to say, I lean towards that explanation as being the most logical not that I subjectively know this is the case. I don't believe it in terms of 'this is how it is' I just see it as quite possible and have seen no data so far which seriously is in conflict with the idea.
 
Navigator said:
From what I can gather, very little subjective knowledge is possible. I know I am conscious and I seem to be in a physical universe which is agreed on objectively as a reality but what it is and how it got here is debated.

My personal 'bias' is that it is a simulation. That is to say, I lean towards that explanation as being the most logical not that I subjectively know this is the case. I don't believe it in terms of 'this is how it is' I just see it as quite possible and have seen no data so far which seriously is in conflict with the idea.
Click to expand...

What does the hilite mean?
 
Navigator said:
It means that everyone else I have ever encountered agrees that we are in a physical universe, specifically on a planet, in a solar system in a galaxy.

That bit is objectively agreed upon.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between subjectively, inter-subjectively and objectively agreed on? How do you explain your usage of objective instead of another word or no word at all; i.e. "that bit is agreed upon"?
 
Navigator said:
It means that everyone else I have ever encountered agrees that we are in a physical universe, specifically on a planet, in a solar system in a galaxy.

That bit is objectively agreed upon.
Click to expand...

If your criteria is that everyone else agrees with it then this would mean that it's generally or universally agreed upon, not objectively agreed upon.

Sure, it might also be objectively true, but that's beside the point.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
What is the difference between subjectively, inter-subjectively and objectively agreed on? How do you explain your usage of objective instead of another word or no word at all; i.e. "that bit is agreed upon"?
Click to expand...

Because I understand the word objective has to do with the bit that is agreed upon when the bit itself is steadfast in its rendition.

You me us. The planet. The solar system the galaxy.

Waking up to that same situation each day. Interacting with others who are equally experiencing their subjective reality - essentially each the center of the physical universe due to that subjectivity. Each subjectively experiencing the same objective you me us the planet the solar system the galaxy reality and agreeing to that. "Yes. This is what we are experiencing."
 
Brian-M said:
If your criteria is that everyone else agrees with it then this would mean that it's generally or universally agreed upon, not objectively agreed upon.

Sure, it might also be objectively true, but that's beside the point.
Click to expand...

If it is objectively true, how is that beside any point?

ETA

To my understanding something cannot be declared 'general' or 'universal' if it is not first objectively agreed upon.

That is really the angle I am coming from.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
If it is objectively true, how is that beside any point?

ETA

To my understanding something cannot be declared 'general' or 'universal' if it is not first objectively agreed upon.

That is really the angle I am coming from.
Click to expand...

So what does objective, true, general and universal mean? I want you to explain how the words connect to the rest of reality and what they refer to? What are the referents of these words?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom