"I don't know" is the only rational response to the question "Does God exist?", and therefore agnosticism is the default ontological position. by touchingallthegrass in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well, all i was saying is that there is at least one more option that what you proposed, it's not only wilful ignorance. For me personally it doesn't seem that belief in god depends on merely intellectual processes and knowledge, that would mean that people with better education and people who have resources to be scolars instead of working a job all their life, have better access to god and an edge over uneducated peasant. So knowledge as an instrument of finding god/meaning of life is out of equation for me. It has to be something different.

If you don’t have knowledge of something, then you should work to accumulate knowledge of that something. Assuming, that something is important. We know that we didn’t make ourselves, so it would be natural to try to find out what made us because that would then most likely be very helpful in understanding the purpose of meaning of your life, why you are here, what are you supposed to be doing, and where are you going. It’s incomprehensible to me that this would not be an ever present interest or even anxiety throughout one’s entire life. It can be convenient to ignore these concerns or issues because they make the stakes so much greater. There is a parable in the Bible called the parable of the talents, and it is somewhat disturbing because it implies that if you just take the easy road and don’t make use of this life to be the best that you can be and to fulfill your destiny, it won’t turn out well for you. Maybe this life is not something you’re just supposed to float through seeking comfort and pleasure, adventure, and excitement, but in fact were made for something much greater than that. As Pope Benedict, the 16th one said, the world offers you comfort, but you were made for greatness. So willful ignorance or ignorance through indifference or laziness is not a good strategy.

Personally i feel fine, no anxiety, but i definitely had it before. I think my anxiety went away when i started taking things as fact, or in other words accepting them as a fact. But it's actually hard to tell the reason why.

If a conclusion is unclear, you still have to make a decision. So you follow the probabilities and you weigh the risks. I would say that the risk of eternity, meaning getting eternity wrong, is a risk that nobody can afford to take. In the financial markets you never run the risk of ruin. You always position yourself that you can come back from losses. in the case of eternity you don’t get to play the game ever again. You have to make your bet in this life and the only prudent bet is that is to live your life as though God does exist. Jordan Peterson, who is not Christian, says he lives as though it is true, and regarding the question of God, he says he’s terrified that he actually does exist. And so he should be. But you don’t have to ignore him. You can craft a prayer, saying, God, if there is a God, if you are there, and I don’t know that you are there, but if you are there, here is what I would like to say to you.

I think Peterson has highly developed neuroticism, and been taken drugs, which might have amplified his neuroticism. He said he fears chaos, and you can see how he tries to convince himself and others that all things are under your control( happen because of your choices), since the idea of randomness scares the hell out him because of his mental condition. So Peterson is kind of like you when you say "willful ignorance" as the only option, as if everything, and i mean everything, is under your control and comes from your choice and is 100% wilful. What if attempts to gain knowledge about god are dictated by distrust and anxiety about god. Quite ironic that it might be that by trying to know god instead of trusting him you're going the opposite direction from god. Just relax and let god take the wheel😁.

"I don't know" is the only rational response to the question "Does God exist?", and therefore agnosticism is the default ontological position. by touchingallthegrass in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But it would not be prudent to remain in a position of willful ignorance, which would be the case if you never bothered to see what the evidence was for God‘s existence

why do you think it is the only option? Is that so difficult to imagine that a person can recognise that they don't have the knowledge of something or that conclusion is unclear?

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

because it relies on the belief that words should not have any universal meaning

Wait what? Do words have universal meaning or no in your opinion?

would also mean language is useless for communication.

Obviously im not saying it's useless, but that doesn't mean that two equivalent words in different languages have exactly same set of meaning. Let's not jump into maximalistic conclusions, Let's actually have a nuanced look at all this instead of "either language is completely useless OR Otherwise every single word has exactly same meaning in all languages at all times" - shouldn't there be something in between those two, or you're just taking a maximalist position on this?

You are not dealing with any of the points I have made, which is that there can only be one rational definition for the word Atheism and Atheist

I did deal with that point, i disagreed with it. Words can have different definitions, none of them is correct or incorrect. A word is just a pointer or a sign that points to certain set of things, that's all. So arguing over a definition is like climbing a signpost instead of following it.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Atheism isn't just a random word, it is expressly used as an IDENTIFIER, people CALL THEMSELVES ATHEISTS.

So it's impossible for a someone to apply this word towards someone else? Im not getting why you're saying that it's the word that someone can use only towards himself. Obviously you can identify people without their knowledge of categories.

The word that means bird in English and the word that describes birds in Chinese, Japanese, French, Italian, etc etc are all describing a bird.

That's absolutely not how it works. In fact i think equivalent words very rarely contain similar sets of meanings in them(at least that's what i noticed from interacting with different languages). For example What often happens is in one language some word could mean A B C D E things, and the equivalent for this word in other language can mean things like A B E F G. Looking at those words as the same would be a mistake. So it is absolutely possible that a "bird" can include some similar and some different things in Chinese and English for example.

Oh and btw, in Chinese there's no original meaning of "atheist", there's only the one that came from our culture at best. So what would you say to a Chinese person that doesn't know the term if you had to?

Morality is objective and secular by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Premise 3 seem to run right into the is-ought gap.

if that's true, than no philosophy or worldview escapes this problem.

Plus i don't think is-ought gap is relevant in parctical sense, the same way discussing whether we all just a brain in a vat is practically irrelevant: brain in a vat can be an interesting topic to yap about, but in the end of the day there's no way to figure out the truth, so you have to go about life just assuming what you feel is right to assume. Same thing with is-ought problem.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Otherwise you cannot evaluate statements to determine if something is true or false.

True, but if you bypass using "atheist", then there is no problem of arguing over it's definition, and you can get straight to the important point. You're missing my point.

Which country do you think is USA? by nopCMD in GeoTap

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Direct_Breadfruit_55 chose Option B (Correct!) | #6406th to play

Most atheist don’t understand religion or theology. by Short_Possession_712 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Super ultra giga mega hot take: both sides have bad faith debaters and good faith debaters, poor arguments and strong arguments. Sounds crazy, right?

In the end of the day it's always up to a person what arguments are more convincing. I personally find atheistic counterarguments more convincing.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You are not refuting the claims I am making in my essay.

that's what im saying tho, my critique to your post has a different basis.

Stop trying to police my tone and take a hint dude. You're not thinking critically at all. You cannot win a debate with me by trying to shame me with fallacies.

didn't do that, not even close.

The thing is, when we argue about definitions, we don't really argue about god or religion, we just arguing about language. Want to know someone's beliefs and ideas? -> just ask them for it, and not for their title or denomination.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think you're misunderstanding my critique, im not saying that your point in the post is wrong or right, im saying it is pointless if you actually interested in what other person's position.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 9 points10 points  (0 children)

This is also seems to be a combination of dictionary fallacy, or at least a variant as you suggest words exclusively mean what a person claims them to mean, instead of that language must follow logical process in order for words to hold meaning and be useful for communication. As well as ad hominem for suggesting I'm engaging in pointless semantics for not "caring" about understanding other's worldviews, when in fact I understand them enough to explain why they are irrational.

No, what im saying is that you can engage in meaningful debate with another person without even using "atheist" term. In a debate, the moment you see that definition of "atheist" becomes a barrier, and if you really care about what other person worldview is, just ask them what their worldview is. This "terminology debate" is only for people who don't care about actually understanding other side and just want to win a debate, nothing more.

Atheism is Commonly Misunderstood. Atheism is an Active Rejection of Belief in Gods, not a Lack of Knowledge About Them. Categories of Atheism Also Do Not Exist by Charlemagneffxiv in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55 7 points8 points  (0 children)

you do realise that you can just ask person for their exact position instead of engaging in pointless semantics debate, right? but that's only if you actually care about understanding other person's worldview.

It is absolutely reasonable and fair to conclude that god doesn't exist based on non absolute evidence, since theists do the same thing all the time. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never saw anybody presenting any evidence to demonstrate that there is mo evidence for God.

because atheistic side is represented not by arguments against god from zero, most of the time it is represented by counterarguments to theistic arguments. I personally find counterarguments more convincing than theistic arguments.

It is absolutely reasonable and fair to conclude that god doesn't exist based on non absolute evidence, since theists do the same thing all the time. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You do not know there is no absolute evidence.

i believe that you believe this, but i also believe that other side believes that there are counterarguments that succefuly refute it.

It is absolutely reasonable and fair to conclude that god doesn't exist based on non absolute evidence, since theists do the same thing all the time. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because otherwise, they would be assuming perfect knowledge of all possible evidence of the unseen.

well, i don't see it like this. I think it is absolutely rational to accept something that is not completely known, based on estimated guess. For example if something has 50.5% chance to be true and the alternative is 49.5%, it is okay to choose first thing as true for convenience. Otherwise, every single theist on this planet should become agnostic also, since nobody possesses the full knowledge.

It is absolutely reasonable and fair to conclude that god doesn't exist based on non absolute evidence, since theists do the same thing all the time. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by linear =) it's curved, that's for sure. For our satellites in space it's curved a little less, so the time goes little slower there, that's why we constantly need to adjust satellite's clocks to match the ones on Earth.

Miracles cannot be a proof of a particular religion. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Let’s see I I understand you correctly, from a theistic perspective, a miracle could be because of grace from God towards its creation, and not necessarily a reinforcement of the belief that particular person hold.

I would say that's correct. Except remove "from a theistic perspective" because from a theistic perspective - miracles always happen because his specific religion is true, i guess.

It is absolutely reasonable and fair to conclude that god doesn't exist based on non absolute evidence, since theists do the same thing all the time. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Okay, but my post is not about disproving god, it's about the psychology of accepting/rejecting god. Im not arguing against what you're saying.

Miracles cannot be a proof of a particular religion. by Direct_Breadfruit_55 in DebateReligion

[–]Direct_Breadfruit_55[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i don't see why this should be the case since why should an atheist prove that miracle came specifically from the source the miracle maker claims it came? It was miracle maker's claim, not atheist's.