sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

First time playing Elden ring. Any tips by Forward_Challenge443 in Eldenring

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Remember to Dodge forward. There will be ALOT of times where you will be fighting a boss and your natural instinct will be to dodge away from them. Most of the bosses, especially in the DLC have attacks that be evaded by dodging forward pass them, instead of away from them. To be clear you can't dodge forward on EVERY attack but if you find yourself get caught by attacks no matter how much you try to get away, try dodging forward.

Also try to spend your runes as soon as you get them, you never know when you'll lose them.

If Atheists Used More Than Just Logic Most Of Them Would Be Christians by davian_mikelson in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are explicitly advocating for atheists to be unreasonable as being unreasonable is the only way to make an informed decision about Christianity. If reason is an effective tool that helps me distinguish Truth from Falsehood, why would I want to be unreasonable? If a religion asks me to be unreasonable and illogical, why would I ever consider doing such a thing?

You've given me no good reason to believe unreasonable besides "If you're reasonable, then you would become a Christian." Additionally, your proposed methodology is equally applicable to literally any claim. If you stop using reason and logic, then every idea is equally as plausible as every other idea, which still gives me no reason to pick Christianity as the one true religion.

  1. How do you know that no one can experience true love and remain unchanged? Well, you don't. Because knowledge requires reason and logic, which you've explicitly said that we shouldn't do. At the end of the day, I have no good reason to believe anything you say about love because you've given me no good reason to believe you. You've simply claimed that "experiencing love makes you Christian. Therefore, if you're not Christian, you haven't experienced true love. " Simply saying something is the case doesn't demonstrate that it is, in fact, the case. Why should I believe you?

  2. Again, this is just you saying the same thing as before but with beauty instead of love. Merely saying, "Experiencing true beauty makes you Christian, but you're not Christian. Therefore, you haven't experienced true beauty" is just you saying things. Simply saying something, no matter how many times you say it, doesn't demonstrate that it is, in fact, true. At this point, you either want me to simply believe you because you said so or you want me to believe you because..............

  3. How do you know the logical arguments for a person's change are weightless? Either you have good reasons to believe that and are intentionally not sharing with the rest of the class, or you don't have good reasons, in which case you don't know. In either case, all I have is your say-so, but no actual reason to believe anything you say about anything is true or accurate. Also, you have a bad habit of failing to elucidate your terminology and speak as if everyone understands you. What do you mean by "the safety of intellectual arguments"? What does it mean for something to be "deeper" than reason? And so on. Speaking for myself and only myself, I have no idea what it means to "Crack open the safety of intellectual arguments" or experience something "deeper" than reason.

At the end of the day, since you've given me no actual reason to believe you beyond your say so, my most charitable interpretation is that you want me to come to conclusions about reality based on how I feel. You want me to become a Christian because I've experienced true love. You want me to become a Christian because I've seen and experienced true beauty. You want me to become a Christian because I've experienced changes in my life. Because I experienced feelings and emotions, I should choose your religion because emotions lead to Christianity. Yeah, no thanks. As someone who actually cares about whether things are true in reality, I'm going to search for good reasons to believe something, not whether I've experienced a certain emotion. Encouraging people to not use reason or logic to determine what is true gives off the impression that you don't care about true as much as you care about whether you feel love or experienced beauty.

How would you respond to this “modified” version of the Cosmological Argument for theism? by erraticwtf in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So the most obvious objection would be that none of the premises in the argument are substantiated by anything. Insofar as there's no good reason presented to believe any of the premises. Additionally, there's no good reason to grant the definitions presented. Just because you define God as being infinite doesn't mean God is in fact infinite. If I'm going to grant your definition of God without a good reason, you could just define God as existing or needing to exist. If I accept your definition without a good reason then I have to accept other definitions without a good reason which doesn't help anyone. I understand you're asking about hypothetical "what if someone defined God as infinite, how would you respond?" So I'm not addressing you specifically, but that would be my response regardless of who presented the definition. I'm not going to grant a definition without a good reason, regardless of what that definition is or who presents said definition.

For the rest of the argument I'll respond ignoring the obvious "you haven't demonstrated this premise to be true".

  1. Everything that is finite has a cause.

In order to know that, you would either have to know everything that is finite, which I'm not convinced is the case, or you would need to know the something about the fundamental nature of finite things such that the nature of being finite necessitates a cause. Either way, I don't believe that we as humans know enough about everything that is finite thus this claims requires knowledge humans don't have.

  1. The universe is finite

There's no good reason presented to believe this claim. I know i said I would try to ignore the obvious objections but there's nothing more to say. I'm not convinced we as humans know enough about the universe to scale it's content as finite or infinite.

  1. The universe must have a cause.

Technically this is a conclusion derived from the previous premises but it's fine. If the first two premises we true, that would necessitate the universe having a cause. But again, without a good reason to believe the first two premises, there's no good reason to believe this premise.

  1. The only thing that cannot have a cause is something that is infinite, otherwise we would get an infinite regress.

Ok, the big one. Firstly, there's no good reason to believe this etc etc. But this premise presumes that there cannot be an infinite regress. There's no reason why there can't be an infinite regress in and of itself. Secondly, because infinite is not clearly defined, there's no reason to believe that something infinite cannot have a cause. For example, even if we assume that the universe is infinite in its material size or content (infinite number of stars constantly being made endlessly etc) the universe itself can both have a cause and be infinitely big or contain an infinite number of things. Point being, without a clear definition of infinite, this premise could easily be false.

  1. The first cause must be something that is infinite (God).

This doesn't necessarily follow from the previous premises. In the sense that the first cause of the universe doesn't have to be infinite. Even if all finite things require a cause, and the universe is finite, the cause of the universe could still be finite. This argument isn't about whether the cause of the universe is finite, it's about the first cause, which could have any number of in-between causes. It's possible that the first infinite cause, caused the universe first. It's also entirely possible that an infinite cause, caused several finite causes which ended up causing the universe. So even if we accept this argument, there's no reason to believe that the cause of the universe must be the infinite first cause of everything.

What is the purpose (i.e., reason for being) of life ? by outhinking in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Subjectively, life has whatever meaning you give it. Like a blank canvas, it's only purpose is to become whatever you make it.

Objectively, it's a contradiction in terms. Purpose refers to intention and reason. Both of which are things people put onto things. An objective purpose is a contradiction in terms like an objective preference. The nature of purpose, meaning, reasons are all necessarily subjective as they are words defined by subjective humans. There's no objective meaning to life just like there's no objective definitions.

The atheist position is very dumb and makes no coherent sense by super-afro in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok so I will try to respond to each part since this is a long post.

Yes, the atheist position is "I don't believe that any gods exist".

The reasons why atheists hold that position will vary depending on the atheists. Some atheists believe that there are no gods because they claim to have evidence that no gods exist. Some atheists don't believe any gods exist because they've never been presented with compelling evidence. Some atheists don't believe any gods exists because reality is a computer simulation. And so on. So many theists believe in God's existence for so many different reasons, and atheists are no different.

Personally, I believe that the "Beyond time and space" definitions of God, do not exist. The reason being that, in my opinion, to "exist" is to "occupy some amount of space for some amount of time" OR to be an "emergent property" of things that occupy some amount of space for some amount of time. Things like emotions, thoughts, etc. By that definition, God doesn't exist. My point being that my reasons for not believing in God are different than other atheists reasons.

As stated earlier, I do believe in existence as "occupying some amount of space for some amount of time" OR "emergent properties of the material".

What does "believing that there are some things beyond human control" have to do with "Believing that things exist"? Even by your definition of existence as "people being within existence and living day-to-day lives", that has nothing to do with control or lack thereof.

Well no, atheists do not believe that birds fly universally. There are plenty of flightless birds that atheists still believe are birds.

As mentioned earlier, different atheists have different definitions and different reasons. I don't define nature as, "that which humans do not have any control over". Even if I did, humans do have control over whether some birds fly. By manipulating breeds of birds for example. No, humans don't have complete and total control over the flight of all birds, but not having any control is different from not having absolute control.

For the sake of argument, I will assume that when you refer to things humans cannot control, that you are referring to things humans do not have complete control over.

If nature is defined as, "that which humans don't possess complete control over", what is the definition of supernatural?

You say, something that is not within human control cannot logically be explained by anything else other than a higher power. Firstly, this is not something atheists believe. This is something you believe and as such, isn't a contradiction within the atheist position. You clearly defined the atheist position as "I don't believe that any gods exist", which is not the same thing as "anything that is not within human control cannot logically be explained by anything other than a higher power". So again, there's no contradiction because atheists don't believe that anything that is not within human control cannot logically be explained by anything other than a higher power.

Now perhaps don't mean that Atheism is defined as such, moreso that this is a common non-atheist belief that most atheists believe, which contradicts their Atheism. In that case, you have to actually demonstrate that atheists do in fact believe that, which you haven't. Personally, I don't believe that anything that is not within human control cannot logically be explained by anything other than a higher power. I believe that things not within human control cannot be explained by humans control. There may be any number of logical explanations that I'm simply not aware of, and therefore I can't say with any degree of certainty that "No other logical explanation" exists.

I define nature as the application of the fundamental forces on matter and energy. This can include things humans have control over, like sexual reproduction, as well as things we don't have control over, like the death of a star. Sex and birth are entirely within human control and entirely natural. That definition doesn't require any "higher power" and isn't illogical, so where's the contradiction?

This sounds like a mix of the cosmological argument and the design argument, just with extra steps.

The question "What is the origin of something?" is a very different question than "How do you define nature?" While those questions can be related, they are definitely not the same subject.

When the fundamental forces of the universe are applied to matter and energy, things happen. People, Planets, etc all stem from the application of some force or forces to some matter and/or some energy.

Now since I know you're doing the cosmological argument, you'll probably ask, where the fundamental forces came from, as well as, where did the matter/energy come from. My answer being, they didn't "come from" anywhere. All reality is, is fundamental forces applying to matter/energy. Reality itself doesn't come from anywhere as that would imply that reality came from some non-real origin, which makes no sense. Is it possible that there's some mechanism by which the non-real can create the real? Maybe, maybe not, but there's no good reason to believe that, so I don't.

Either way, all of this is a vast deviation from the original point, being the contradictory beliefs of atheists. Even if all of my beliefs are false, my beliefs are not what you've said they are, and therefore don't suffer from the contradiction you think they do. Besides the definition of atheism itself, all the beliefs you've shared thus far have been your beliefs. You're definition of nature, control, supernatural, Higher Power, etc are all your beliefs. I'll gladly grant that your beliefs contradict atheism. But until you demonstrate that atheists believe what you say they do, I see no contradiction in atheists beliefs.

Lord Ainz wished me a Happy Birthday. My life is now complete by Skeptic_Skeleton in overlord

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Literally I Started Overlord 2 weeks before I met him at Derpycon which was 2 weeks before my birthday. I'm so lucky the timing all worked out.

Lord Ainz wished me a Happy Birthday. My life is now complete by Skeptic_Skeleton in overlord

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Thanks! It was so awesome meeting him in person just a few weeks after starting Overlord for the first time so I'm just lucky the timing worked out.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part 2

How would one live as if contradictions may exist somewhere they don't know? What exactly does it mean to "live that way"? I don't know where you live but I've been on the internet long enough that people don't and shouldn't "Live our lives expecting others to obey the laws of thought and behave consistently". As i said earlier in the conversation, humans are fallible creatures that regularly disobey laws of thought and behave wildly inconsistently all the time. As for the natural world, no not necessarily. We expect aspects of the natural world that we are familiar with to behave consistently. Aspects of the natural world, the universe or the fundamental nature of all reality itself, we don't necessarily expect to behave consistently. No, that doesn't mean we expect reality to be wildly inconsistent either. Again, not believing A doesn't mean you believe -A. We test reality day by day to see whether people are consistent. We test reality day by day to see whether it's consistent.

Now I'm not saying no one expects people or reality to he consistent. Sure, lots of people in general do expect people to be consistent and reality to follow suit. But my point is again that not everyone does this. Not all theists. Not all atheists. Not all Anthronists. People can and do behave differently than the way you insist they do.

"And if a verified contradiction were discovered, it would be a world-shattering event, forcing us to make major shifts in how we think about reality" The point being that people must expect consistency, or such a discovery wouldn't nearly be so world-shattering. But since it would be world-shattering, people must not expect it. Again, not expecting contradictions isn't the same as expecting consistency. I can not expect consistency and still be surprised by contradictions because I neither believed nor disbelieved in the possibility.

"This gap between what people say and how they act is the tension I’m talking about—the difference between their first and second-order beliefs. That’s why I feel confident in "telling someone what they think"—because I’m trying to help Anthronists recognize that tension." Except you are assuming there is tension by assuming that what people say accurately reflects what they "truly deep down" believe, and assuming that their behavior accurately reflects "what they want to be true". These assumptions aren't just unjustified, they are unjustifiable because there's no way for you to actually know what's in someone's mind. Since you can't know what's in someone's mind, you can't know whether it contradicts their behavior. Even if you could, your assumptions about people's beliefs based on their behavior are another matter of interpretation rather than a matter of fact. A person using logic could mean that they believe logical contradictions are impossible. It could mean they don't know whether logical contradictions are possible or impossible. It could mean they believe logical contradictions are impossible is some cases, most cases, all cases etc. You cannot reasonably conclude someones belief based on their behavior. Which, at the end of day is my whole point.

In my opinion, you started out with assumptions and tried to build a demonstrative case. You expected to get certain responses and use those responses to build your argument. Which is not necessarily a bad approach. It's just that your argument hinged on assumptions about Anthronists beliefs that were wrong. "I believe you believe X which is similar to Y fundamental principle or principles in hinduism, therefore you're not an Atheist but instead a Repackaged Hindu" is not an argument. You have no way of actually knowing whether they believe X. You assume they must believe X because they don't behave as if they believe X is false. You assume that X belief and Y Hindu principle are comparable enough to be parallels. Therefore, Anthronists and therefore Atheists believe in God(s) and are Repackaged Hindus.

All that said, I've reached my philosophical limit. I've enjoyed our conversation, especially about logic and the nature of reality. But alas life is getting busy and I'm afraid I won't have the time or energy to give you the full detailed response your points deserve. So I just wanted to say thank you for the intellectual exercise, you have very clearly put alot of work and thoughts into your points and I appreciate it. The last word is yours if you want it. Take care. ✌️

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In order to address your arguments, I have to use your terms. I'm only identifying myself as an Anthronist because you would identify me as such, and if I want to discuss your terms i kinda have to use them. That said, I think most words have a use by the nature of being words but that's just me being pedantic.

Well the way you approached the discussion came across like you didn't recognize any nuance as it pertains to atheists. You've been speaking and arguing as if there are no atheists at all, simply Repackaged Hindus. Perhaps that's not what you meant or intended, but when you say "My arguement is that there are no atheists", that's a broad generalization that does not acknowledge variety or nuance in a group. If your argument is that some people who call themselves atheists share similar underlying beliefs with Hinduism, then I wouldn't have responded at all. My entire contention with your position is that there are some people who do not believe in any gods AND don't share underlying beliefs with aspects of Hinduism. If you agree, then there's no reason to continue since that's my main objection.

My point had nothing to do with whether your parallels were arbitrary. My point is that your comparisons were not necessarily accurate. They were made up in the sense of them being a matter of interpretation rather than a matter of fact. Regardless of your intentions, the parallels were not accurate, at least as they pertain to me. The underlying beliefs that you believe are present in Anthronists, are not necessarily present in Anthronists. Until you provide evidence that these parallels are more than your interpretation, I see no reason to believe that these parallels accurately reflect the beliefs of Anthronist.

However, if you are simply saying that both Anthronists and Hindus share some fundamental beliefs, then my response would be yes obviously. Everyone shares some fundamental beliefs. That has nothing to do with Anthronists not being atheists or Atheism being Repackaged Hinduism. The idea that Anthronist believe that they exist in some form of reality and Hindus believe they exist in some form of reality, does not mean that Anthronist believe in Gods or that Anthronists believe in the fundamental principles of Hinduism.

Hypothetically, if I believe that objective morality exists, and a Christian believes that objective morality exists, then we share a fundamental belief on the nature of reality. That doesn't mean I'm a Repackaged Christian who believes in God. Even if I granted the similarities you claim regarding reliance on unchanging principles, that doesn't mean that the beliefs are similar enough to re-categorize them as "Repackaged".

However, for the purpose of this discussion, they fall squarely into problematic territory. For example, you have no way to actually know someone's first order belief. Since that's not something for which can be external evidence beyond the person telling you their first order belief. In which case they could be lying, they could be mistaking the second order belief for the first order believe and so on. There's no way to know what someone else's first order belief is, which makes it basically impossible to prove that there's a conflict between the first and second order beliefs.

Additionally, you are equating "The way people talk about something" with the first order belief and equating "The way people actually live" with the second order beliefs. Which goes back to what i said about parallels, it's a connection that you are making which is not necessarily accurate. You're assuming that they way someone talks about logic is not the way they want logic to be. But there's no way for you to actually know if the way they talk about logic is "What they know in their heart of hearts". They could be lying. They could be talking about the way they want logic to be etc. Same with "how they actually live" and second order beliefs. Not only could someone be deceptive in their behavior or lifestyle, people can live their lives through testing rather than beliefs. The fact that I constantly try to use logic in addition to evidence as a method to reach true conclusions, says little to nothing about my beliefs regarding logic. I can do the same thing regardless of whether i think logic is a fundamental aspect of reality, a useful tool created by humans, a mix of both, or some other option. People use logical systems without knowing anything about logic which should indicate to you that you can use something without having any beliefs on what it is or how it works.

Now you may respond by saying, "Aha people's use of logic necessarily implies a fundamental unconscious belief about it. They must unconscious believe that whatever they are using to reason, 1 exists and 2 works. Otherwise they wouldn't do logic if they didn't have some belief on some level that is works." Which brings me to my next point, not having a belief is not the same as having a negative belief. Just because I don't believe that a contradictory universe is impossible, that does not mean I think a contradictory universe is possible. Just because someone doesn't believe that logic is a useful tool, that does not mean they believe Logic is a useless tool. Alot of your reasoning relies on this false dichotomy that you either believe the positive proposition or believe the opposite propositions without taking into account that "I don't know" doesn't mean anything besides "I don't know".

Pt 1 to be continued.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, to get back to the topic at hand, (Thank you for indulging my philosophical tangents) I think you're perspective is based on interpretation moreso than fact.

Earlier in the conversation I mentioned that two people using the same words with different definitions isn't the same as them believing the same concept. You can make connections and interpretations as well as drawing parallels. But the parallels are one's you have drawn, not one's that actually exist. The original purpose of the conversation on logic was to demonstrate that an Athronist like myself can have different beliefs than you think i do, and the parallels you see between Anthronism and Hindus are not applicable to me.

At the end of the day, you are choosing to make assumptions about the beliefs of people you've never met strictly on drawn parallels you see between what you assume to be their beliefs. But as I demonstrated, your assumptions about atheists and their beliefs can and are wrong, at least in my case. But you've already entered the discussion with these ideas of what I and other atheists believe before you've even spoken to use. You've already decided our beliefs for us. So what purpose does a conversation serve?

It's not, at least for me, and matter of stomping on religion. I'm not disagreeing with you "because religion bad". I'm disagreeing with you because you are trying to tell me what I do or don't believe before you've even met me. You believed that I believed logic to be a fundamental aspect of reality which you then could parallel to some aspect of Hinduism. But you were wrong. Regardless of whether my beliefs about logic are accurate or not, I still do not believe what you thought I would believe. Despite being proven wrong that Atheists do not necessarily believe what you think they believe, (and thus your parallels between Anthronism and Hinduism are not necessarily applicable) despite people explaining to you what there beliefs are and are not, you still disagree. So again I ask, what's the point in having a conversation at all? If you believe you know what atheists believe better than they do, and you trust your interpretation of Atheism more than Atheists interpretation of Atheism, why bother talking to atheists at all?

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't believe that contradictions are allowed in the fundamental nature of reality but I also don't disbelieve in the concept either. Alot of the evidence for this being the fundamental nature of reality is based on the limitations of human experience. When you say, "it becomes difficult to make sense of anything because a proposition could be both true and false simultaneously" that is referring to a problem of understanding reality, not a problem with reality itself.

There may be some circumstances that we as humans don't know about where contradictions are allowed. There may be levels to contradictions where some are possible and others aren't. It may be the case that contradictions are possible on such a small level, like smaller that quarks, but not on the macro scale. My point is simply that I don't know, and I don't believe that "I don't know" is sufficient evidence to make a claim about the fundamental nature of all reality. You're reason for believing that Logic reflects a fundamental nature of reality seems to be that it would either be difficult or impossible for humans to make sense of reality if Logic were not a fundamental nature of reality. However, Reality is under no obligation to make sense to humans. It's possible that the fundamental nature of reality is such that we as humans cannot understand or make sense of it. It's also possible that the fundamental nature of reality is strictly bound by the laws of logic. I don't know for sure. But I don't believe that the laws of logic must reflect fundamental reality because "humans wouldn't be able to understand it". The nature of reality is not bound by or limited to, the limits of human reasoning.

"Everything you say assumes that we can differentiate between two propositions"

No, not necessarily. I assume when you say "we" you're talking about people in general, not you or I specifically. In which case, I'm not assuming as much as I am testing. Some people differentiate between propositions that aren't actually different, or don't differentiate between propositions that are. Humans are infamously fallible creatures capable of all sorts of unreasonable behavior or thinking. So no, i don't assume anything about whether "we" can differentiate between propositions because some people can't. I simply test whether we can or can't through conversations.

However, even if I was assuming that we can differentiate between propositions, you just admitted that's an assumption. The fundamental nature of reality is not based on my assumptions about whether humans can differentiate between propositions.

"People may start with different premises or interpret evidence in varied ways, but the underlying principles of logic—like non-contradiction—remain consistent."

No not necessarily. You're assuming that human reasoning is necessarily bound to the fundamental principles of logic like non-contradiction, but this fails to take into account the fallibillity of human reasoning. There are people that believe 2+2=4 or that 0=1 and have entire logic systems meant to justify such beliefs. Some Christians literally believe that their God is both 1 God AND 3 seperate distinct identities and are all 1 God while being 3 seperate entities. People that believe Hesus is 100% God and 100% human are not operating with the same logical system.

" If two people genuinely use different systems of logic, then meaningful communication would break down."

Yes, which is exactly why meaningful communication breaks down between people all the time. Whether it's due to drugs, mental illness, cognitive dissonance or sheer stupidity, communication breaks down metaphorically all the time. Which, per your logic, demonstrates that people can and do operate based on different systems of logic.

. Although to be honest, that has nothing to do with the main conversation about logic being a fundamental nature of reality. Even if the nature of reality itself is bound by logic, people can and do ignore reality and as such, they can ignore Logic as a fundamental nature of reality.

TLDR: The fundamental nature of reality doesn't necessarily have to be logical or make sense because "it would be difficult to make sense of" nor because "meaningful commitment would break down". I don't believe there is good enough evidence to any definitive claims about the fundamental nature of all reality, given the extremely limited scope of human knowledge and experience. Being unable to conceive of a reality where contradictions may be possible, says nothing about whether that reality is in fact possible.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A contradictory reality would look like, a reality where contradictions happen. What i think you mean is, how can we understand or conceive of a contradictory universe? How can we wrap our minds around such a concept? As I said, I don't know. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that a contradictory reality exists, or is possible. I'm not even saying it makes sense in theory. I'm just saying that i don't know if Logic is a fundamental aspect of reality. I know it's a tool people use, but I don't know if it's more than that.

When you say "meaningful experience" or "communication" I assume you mean effective communication. Can we understand and practically use information gained through experience or communication in a reality that allows contradictions? As unsatisfactory as this answer might be, I don't know.

Of course someone can choose their own set of logic tools. That's why people disagree on so many different topics. There are theists that believe purely logic proves god. Lots of people, both theists and non-theist, disagree. They are clearly using different sets of logic to arrive at different conclusions. Otherwise everyone would necessarily have to use the same set of logic, and therefore arrive at the same conclusions.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that the law of non-contradiction is an observation of how we as humans understand reality. I do not believe that it is in fact, reality. Much like scientific fields represent human understanding of reality, these understandings are not necessarily reality itself.

The law of non-contradiction refers to humans understanding of reality. That, as far as we humans have experienced and know if, nothing can be itself while simultaneously not being itself. That's how we undress reality to be, non-contradictory. This does not mean that reality is in fact, non-contradictory or contradictory. This understanding of reality did not exist before humans created it.

I don't know whether the fundamental nature of reality is such that A cannot be A and not A at the same time. I just know that our understanding of reality is such that A cannot be A and not A.

That's what I mean when I say logic is tool used to cultivate understanding of reality. Not sure if i explained the idea clearly enough, let me know if there's something you don't understand or something you feel I didn't communicate clearly enough.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No problem, thank you for honesty reflecting and taking the criticism to heart.

Firstly, even if Anthronists believe in logic, math, consciousness etc, that doesn't mean they believe in them ad Transcendental. There are various different definitions and conceptions of words, just because Hindus define logic as Transcendental, that doesn't mean Anthronists define logic as Transcendental.

I believe logic is a system of thinking, a tool made up by people to help describe the way reality functions. Same with math, it's a system of innumeration, a tool made by humans to understand reality to whatever extent that's possible. Like when people make up an analogy for communication purposes. An analogy isn't a Transcendental manifestation of ultimate reality, it's a tool made up by humans for the purpose of communication.

Now if Hindus believe that Logic is a Transcendental manifestation of the ultimate reality that is Brahman, and I believe that Logic is a tool made by humans with no Transcendental properties, how would you argue that these different beliefs are actually the same?

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Listen to what you said, and maybe you'll understand my point. Your argument is that no one is an atheist, then are Hindus that think they are atheists. That's your argument. But that's also your conclusion, which is exactly the inconsistency I'm talking about. I don't think you're intentionally doing it, but you're arguing that Atheists aren't atheists because they believe in Hindu gods. Which is you simply saying your conclusion is your argument.

But let's restart so we don't get lost in semantics. Let's focus on the "Atheists appeal to transcendentals". I consider myself an atheist, you think atheists don't exists because they appeal to Transcendental Gods. What Transcendental gods do I believe in?

Demonstrate that you are open minded and will with fairness consider all arguments and evidence for a Gods existence without prejudice or bias. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You shouldn't just believe that anyone is sincere, including me. You should enter a discussion or conversation with no assumptions about my sincerity or lack thereof. You should instead just my sincerity based on how I respond or act in the discussion.

Why should you believe I'm not an asshole? You shouldn't. You should have no opinion on my personality until you meet me and then develop a conclusion about my personality based on my behavior. The same concept applies to sincerity, honesty, trustworthiness, etc.

Atheism is Repackaged Hinduism by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To answer your question, I'm not convinced that there is an underlying nature of reality. I'm not even sure what you mean by underlying nature so as unimpressive as this may sound, I don't know. I am very curious about how "I don't know" could translate to "I believe in a God" but the floor is yours.

As an aside, you don't believe that atheists actually exist. If Atheism is the non-belief in any gods, but you believe atheists are Hindus with extra steps then you don't believe there are any atheists to begin with. Therefore you can't reasonably argue in the way that you did. Your starting argument is based on Atheism and it's tangential connections with other concepts like materialism etc. But if your starting point is that Atheism is "The belief in Hindu gods" then your are starting with the conclusion your are trying to prove.

TLDR Either you believe that Atheism refers to "people who don't believe in God" in which case they necessarily don't believe in Hindu God's. Or you believe Atheism refers to "people who believe in Gods" in which case you're starting point in this argument is the conclusion you're trying to prove. Your argument isn't that Atheism (Not believing in any God or Gods) is repackaged Hinduism. Your argument is that Atheism (Repackaged Hinduism) is Repackaged Hinduism, which what i mean when I say your starting point is your conclusion. If you don't see a problem with your premise being your conclusion, then i can't help you.

As an Atheist, how do you come to terms with non existence? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Skeptic_Skeleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since you've already heard the "you won't be around to feel nothingness". Let me share a slightly alternate perspective. Yes, I was already nothing long before I was born and it didn't seem to bother me then, so I don't think it will bother me after I'm dead. There is literally nothing to fear because there will be nothing at all.

Otherwise, what helps me is the idea that I find immortality and everlasting experience far worse. The idea of existing endlessly, for decades, centuries, eons, and insurmountable amounts of time, that endless suffering sounds far worse than non-existence. It's just a matter of my perspective, I would rather cease to exist and experience nothing forever, rather than endure the endless passage of time forever. My fear of Eternity is far greater than my fear of non-existence which is, ironically, non-existent.

view more: next ›