Don Penguinoini
Modi.
No its not.
It seems like you believe some one who said trolls exist.
You are an intelligent person, id expect some a lot more intelligent from you.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An appeal for the logic of religious belief
- Thread starter Popeyesays
- Start date
No its not.
It seems like you believe some one who said trolls exist.
You are an intelligent person, id expect some a lot more intelligent from you.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
It is pointless to assume something exists event though there is no evidence for it. It is equally as pointless to assume something does not exist just because there is no evidence for it.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
That doesn't seem right. I mean, shouldn't we at least provisionally assume that flying elephants from Lithuania, Giant Lavender Kumquats and a lovely flower-patterned but very small tea-pot orbiting the sun between Jupiter and Saturn do not exist? Just because there is not evidence for them? Or would you be agnostic concerning these entities?
Smoke
Done here.
Invisible spider monkeys are eating your brain. It's pointless to believe otherwise.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
Ignored the other part of my statement did you?(its in an earlier post) It is stupid to assume that spider monkeys are eating my brain without evidence
I didn't quite phrase it right
Barring evidence which shows the impossibility of your example, yes I would be agnostic to this.
The primary danger to assuming that something does not exist is that it blinds us to evidence that it may exist.
Smoke
Done here.
Then would you say you're agnostic as to the possibility that invisible spider monkeys are eating your brain? Really?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
No, because there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Such as the size of a spider monkey compared to the size of my head and that I appear to be cognitive.
Smoke
Done here.
Can you really assume that spider monkeys are never very small and able to live inside your head? Why?
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
...
Yes, because of what a spider monkey is.
I do not think this is a real question because they are clearly different. Although your intentions of asking this question are unknown to me, I will still make it clear that to know something is different then to accept that there is a change something exists. For example, someone who knows god exists is a theist, where an Atheist can be of the opinion God does not exist, but at the same time accept that there is a chance god can exist.
Super Universe
Defender of God
Do you have evidence that flying elephants from Lithuania are unlikely? Considering the weight of elephants the wingspan and wing muscles would have to be immense and we haven't seen any reports of them from Lithuania, yet. So I think you could doubt their existence.
But what does that have to do with God? God's very nature, the Prime Creator, First Cause, All That Is, means that He is quite different from anything we know of. You have to admit that if God created the universe then He greatly exceeds human knowledge and ability.
Do you explain yourself to an amoeba? How about an ant?
Azakel
Liebe ist für alle da
Silly the don't need wings to fly, they do it by magic like Asian Dragons ^_^
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Then i am right?
The first statement is a bit silly. I mean, a lot of people believe in things, callign their beliefs pointless?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Yes I think you're right, and I don't think that yossarian is right that the most sensible attitude to take toward these things is agnosticism. Given how unlikely they are, and given that, if they existed, we would likely see some evidence of them, then I think it's more sensible to at least provisionally assume that they don't exist. OTOH, I guess there's no actual harm in being agnostic, if such a thing is possible.
In that event I have no problem with being agnostic with regard to such a God. This would be a Deist God, beyond our conception entirely, about Whom we can know nothing and cannot hope to understand. In fact, I would say that I am agnostic as to such a God. However, I would also say:
--Anyone who tries to tell me that they know anything at all about such a God, including whether She exists, is wrong. By definition, we cannot know such a God.
--The existence of such a God makes no practical difference to my life that I can think of. It's a purely intellectual exercise, as far as I'm concerned.
--It seems unlikely that such a God cares what we wear, what we eat, whom we touch and how. In fact, it seems unlikely that such a God would be much concerned with us at all, given that we are but one species, not the most numerous, on one planet that is, in proportion to Her creation, basically about the size of an electron. However, since we can't possibly know, I guess I have to be agnostic about this as well.
Super Universe
Defender of God
For you to accept that there is a God why does He have to be beyond our conception? Why can we know nothing about Him? Don't you learn something about an artist just by examining His work?
Why can't others know God? Why do you think the universe is, or should be, entirely fair when it's obvious in daily events that it isn't?
The existence of an unknowable God makes no practical difference to your life? Unless God created the universe and life, then it makes all the difference.
When I am not for myself, others will be for me.
If I am only for myself, I am nothing.
But not now, tomorrow.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Sometimes, i think being too realistic doesent help.
Smoke
Done here.
I think the sensible attitude is not agnosticism -- "I don't know whether gods or flying Lithuanian elephants exist" -- but a reasonable skepticism -- "I don't believe in gods or flying Lithuanian elephants, but I'm prepared to change my view in the face of compelling evidence."
Any view should be subject to change in the face of compelling evidence; that doesn't mean we must suspend judgment about everything until we know everything there is to know.
It certainly doesn't help people to believe their religions or ideologies are factual; that's why religious leaders and ideologues are so resistant to realism and so careful to cultivate credulity in their followers.
In most fields and undertakings, though, realism not only helps, but is essential. For instance, I suspect you wouldn't be happy to learn that the crew of a plane on which you were flying was planning to shut down its engines once it reached an altitude of 12,000 meters and coast across the Atlantic to New York, based on the pilot's mystical beliefs about air currents.
yossarian22
Resident Schizophrenic
No
Unless your blind belief in something provides some kind of benefit, yes.
For the sake of advancing science, we have to provisionally assume things. The important thing is to always believe what the evidence shows us
That is my point of view, although it came out poorly.
Realism is essential to everything. Idealism works on paper and nowhere else.
Don Penguinoini
Modi.
Realism is essential and makes sense. But a coupla thousand years ago, you would me bad to say that the earth isnt in hte centre.
And who are you to say what is blind belief or not?
And who are you to say what is blind belief or not?
Smoke
Done here.
I'm not in a position to evaluate every belief, and I don't want to be. I was just responding to your idea that being too realistic doesn't help. Being realistic almost always does help.