Atheism and opinion
Atheism is an opinion. I might be wrong in my atheism. If I'm wrong, I'm completely wrong.
Have you ever given much thought to the fact that you might be wrong? I know that Bertrand Russell give it plenty of thought, much to his detriment.
Have you ever given much thought to the fact that you might be wrong? I know that Bertrand Russell give it plenty of thought, much to his detriment.
Comments33
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
I can be right about it all, none at all, or I could be hitting and missing.
The difference is that I observe it happening, where others pretend it is fake or all in their imaginations.
The difference is that I observe it happening, where others pretend it is fake or all in their imaginations.
I gave it some thought, but I came to the conclution that it doesn't matter. If I chose to accept the Christian view, there is the Muslim Hell to worry about and the other way around. Or the underworld of the Northern Gods(Tor, Odin etc.), or the realm of Hades. Or the afterlife of another religious belief. There are so many of them that has risen and died down that the religious people of today are just as likely to be wrong as we are.
I've given a lot of thought to being wrong. Take consciousness for instance.
when speaking of consciousness, it's like asking where did substance come from. it's a nonsense question, like asking when does infinity end?
So the standpoint I take on that is that I acknowledge Descartes' "I think therefore I am" statement derived from doubting everything and determining that the only thing he could say for sure is that he was thinking and in essence that proved that he at least "was". From this you can go wild in assuming things about the universe like a child.
But from that he build up his logic anew, saying that "god had to exist" because "something" was (I actually forget his reasoning to my dismay) but thats where we go our separate ways.
I doubt everything, but what I get from that is that regardless something exists which is fantastic in and of itself. when you get down to it, maybe the impossibility is that "nothing" exists. and that is truly mind-blowing.
I guess when thinking I might be wrong it doesn't phase me, because if "nothing" can't exist I'll always "be" and no-matter if I'm right somewhere along the line whether I'm right or wrong wont matter at all.
when speaking of consciousness, it's like asking where did substance come from. it's a nonsense question, like asking when does infinity end?
So the standpoint I take on that is that I acknowledge Descartes' "I think therefore I am" statement derived from doubting everything and determining that the only thing he could say for sure is that he was thinking and in essence that proved that he at least "was". From this you can go wild in assuming things about the universe like a child.
But from that he build up his logic anew, saying that "god had to exist" because "something" was (I actually forget his reasoning to my dismay) but thats where we go our separate ways.
I doubt everything, but what I get from that is that regardless something exists which is fantastic in and of itself. when you get down to it, maybe the impossibility is that "nothing" exists. and that is truly mind-blowing.
I guess when thinking I might be wrong it doesn't phase me, because if "nothing" can't exist I'll always "be" and no-matter if I'm right somewhere along the line whether I'm right or wrong wont matter at all.
Enough. I wouldn't have gotten where I am if I didn't.
I think I was wrong once...
I believe that the earth is the shell of a turtle...
I like turtles.
God is real. Why is he any less a guess than anything else? Because God is a nonsense answer, he explains nothing. Of course, he is a little more than everything to the faithful but that is equally nonsensical.
the fuck?
All voiced thoughts are opinions. The universe is only as accurate as our senses perceive it. Logic can't escape hard solipsism but at the same time solipsism is useless.
Then all opinions are baseless?
Not without making a few fundamental assumptions.
1.) That I exist. (Which hard solipsism accepts)
2.) That the universe exists. (Which solipsism says one cannot be certain of)
3.) That my senses are at least sometimes accurate.
(Which must be made if we are to use them to evaluate evidence)
4.) That physical evidence is a good means of understanding the universe.
1.) That I exist. (Which hard solipsism accepts)
2.) That the universe exists. (Which solipsism says one cannot be certain of)
3.) That my senses are at least sometimes accurate.
(Which must be made if we are to use them to evaluate evidence)
4.) That physical evidence is a good means of understanding the universe.
Then anything assumed is at best a guess, an estimate? It seems obvious.
I should have said Science is knowledge as accurate as we currently can possibly know.
"Knowledge is limited." Albert Einstein
"Science is constrained by physical laws
But ignorance knows no bounds.
Virtually everything can happen -- and does --
In a world where ups are downs." ~ Horatio Algeranon
But ignorance knows no bounds.
Virtually everything can happen -- and does --
In a world where ups are downs." ~ Horatio Algeranon
View all replies
Essentially however it is as accurate as we can currently know.
Doubt is humane. As Mark Twain said, "All generalisations are false, including this one."
When in doubt, laugh.
I think all religion (or lack thereof) is opinion in the end. Nothing is provable.
Agnosticism is the only logical stance.
Both the existence and non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
Also, wow, a coherent thread.
Both the existence and non-existence of God cannot be scientifically proven.
Also, wow, a coherent thread.
Hold that thought. What is the meaning of god?
So if you contend that god has so many different meaning as shown in pantheists and other alternative forms other than man-in-the-sky model, then agnosticism would be also illogical.
So if you contend that there is only this definition or that definition, then ignosticism is irrelevant and agnosticism is logical.
So if you contend that god has so many different meaning as shown in pantheists and other alternative forms other than man-in-the-sky model, then agnosticism would be also illogical.
So if you contend that there is only this definition or that definition, then ignosticism is irrelevant and agnosticism is logical.
I think that it is logical to assume that God does not exist, although his existence is still a question.
If by your assumption that god is man in the sky, then yes it's arguable.
If the assumption that god=universe, good luck arguing against that.
If the assumption that god=universe, good luck arguing against that.