(Agreeing with the need for faith based beliefs)He's right he actually. I tend to use the term "axioms".We all make assumptions and we need to. Technically philosopher's call these suppositions. (I hate words that I can't spell).
There is an apparent need for a priori assumptions but this is the same as a battery on a diesel engine – once started, there is no longer a need for it. Our aim is to find what works and by patterns we do this.
He clearly doesn't know what atheist means, he thinks of it in terms of "strong atheism". The absolute conviction that no Gods exist.
Which my stance. I am as convinced as I am that Russell's Teapot does not exist at all, nor has it ever.
For example, how do you know everybody dies? You can have a good degree of confidence in making that claim but you can't say with 100% knowledge.
This is fine for arguing semantics. It is good after a few pints of beer and I would recommend it in a philosophy exam. We, however, live in the real world. 100% of people do die – we know why people die. It is like saying “Does zinc always dissolve in hydrochloric acid at room temperature? How can you be sure?” The answer is, “Yes it does and we know why it does it and it would do it if we weren’t there!”
It is such loose reasoning that leads to superstition, and a feeling that all may not be as it seems – it is the delight of new agers and those who attribute mysterious powers to crystals. Let me assure you, all is as it seems. Individually, we may see things slightly differently, but by and large we know a lamppost when we see one.
How do you know other people exist? You are implicitly making a ton of assumptions here; e.g., trusting your senses.
Yes, and being as all animals do this and the entire world is based upon our doing this, then I feel secure in accepting that this is how it should be done. If we are all fooled by an illusion, then that is reality. The real reality would be wrong.
(on being able to understand the brain)In theory, potentially. In reality? Not yet and certainly not to the extent we'd like to. Neuroscience is apparently growing in leaps and bounds but nobody would claim that they "understand" the brain with any degree of confidence.
I have not referred back to the poster Flavor’s original, but he was using the argument through ignorance – "we do not know therefore anything/my theory is as likely as yours. The truth is that we know a tremendous amount, and, as such can say we know the brain. It is clear that Flavor does not.
(GB)There you go, getting it wrong again. I am here because I believe that ignorance and superstition have kept mankind back from great things.
What great things are you talking about? Has it not occurred to you that other factors might be involved; e.g., simple human greed?
If you see my answer, I restricted the things that are both part of religion and part of the causes that have held mankind back. That there might be others, is neither here nor there.
I am willing to argue that, as religion had a stranglehold on power for 1000 years, those who purveyed it were responsible for learning and progress – which was minimal and could have been so much better.
I have never met anyone who qualifies as a Christian. I don’t think you would qualify.
What do you think is required to qualify?
You will be fully aware that to give an answer to that is the subject of several volumes, and I am simply not going to do your work.
That you ask, indicates that you have your own thoughts. These would have been useful.
In short, each and every Christian agrees with the bits of the Bible that suit them personally and discard the parts they find unpalatable
[1]. This is not Christianity; this is creating your own god in your own image and worshipping him/her.
