Being an atheist doesn't mean you cant be spiritual and believe in a spiritual world or realm. — David Solman
I'm not a believer in any religion in the world
...but i do believe that our existence is far more than a physical existence. i believe we are able to go beyond our physical body and that there may be some kind of life after death.
it is possible to believe in these concepts without referring to God in any religion.
But, as for sets of them, the fact that we can divide them into sets as we choose--Doesn't that mean that there are infinitely many sets of them, equal to the number of combinations that can be formed from those infinitely-many abstract logical facts? — Michael Ossipoff
But as I say, who gets to choose? A "subset" might be a mathematical abstraction, but it seems faintly silly to assign a universe or whatever to each one. Surely any mathematical underpinning of existence isn't based on Venn diagrams??!! — Jake Tarragon
All the distinct systems of inter-referring abstract facts are irrelevant to eachother, — Michael Ossipoff
All the distinct systems of inter-referring abstract facts are irrelevant to eachother, — Michael Ossipoff
Yes, providing they are indeed distinct. I think we agree that this is debatable... — Jake Tarragon
No, I say they're distinct, because they're unrelated to eachother, and completely independent of, and irrelevant to, and inaccessible to, eachother, with no connection of any kind to eachother. — Michael Ossipoff
"No, I say they're distinct, because they're unrelated to eachother, and completely independent of, and irrelevant to, and inaccessible to, eachother, with no connection of any kind to eachother." — Michael Ossipoff
Russell and Whitehead came very close to deducing all of mathematics from logic only (Principia Mathematica). Perhaps mathematical facts are not so independent as you might think? — Jake Tarragon
Because mathematics is a logic subject, I have no doubt that the same mathematics obtains in every possibility-world, and in every life-experience possibility-story — Michael Ossipoff
"Because mathematics is a logic subject, I have no doubt that the same mathematics obtains in every possibility-world, and in every life-experience possibility-story" — Michael Ossipoff
I think we are trapped/guided (delete as inappropriate) by logic as humans, but what if logic is illusory? Is it possible to talk about such a thing (as logic being illusory) even? — Jake Tarragon
Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums. — Michael Ossipoff
I'd say it isn't.
A proposition can't be true and false. — Michael Ossipoff
Each of those abstract facts is valid with or without minds, or any larger context or medium. — Michael Ossipoff
A proposition can;t be true and false, and so we don't live in a willy-nilly-self-inconsistent impossibility-world. That's why I say that logic has authority over experience, — Michael Ossipoff
So your vocabulary of objective rationality dependent on evidence from a physical world, implying metaphysical assumptions which underle the various theologies I mentioned, becomes challenged when the subject-object, mind-world, consciusness-material dualisms are dissolved. — Joshs
A question on the meaning of existence
"Quite so. Though most, nearly all, Atheists are Materialists, believing that the physical world is all of reality, being an Atheist doesn't definitionally require being a Materialist. There are probably non-Materialist Atheists at these forums." — Michael Ossipoff
I must disagree here. Not everyone is so theoretical! Some people just don't go to church, don't pray, don't expect help from secret sources.
— ff0
Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend.
Most people do not pick some "ism" to wear and defend. We are the strange ones. We are the word-mongering intellectually vain theological poets. — ff0
What secret sources? Let me in on the secret. — Michael Ossipoff
There are many variations of materialism — Joshs
, and many variations of theism
, and many variations of something that lies between the two. What these terms connote doesn't fit neatly into simple categories
There is also a whole community of phenomenological and post-phenomenological thought that turns the materialist-theist binary on its head.
I'm of the opinion that if there is a conflict between an assertion and rational thought, then rational thought wins, and I believe that theism is poorly represented as irrational.So, here Iam, torn between being open to possibilities (theism) and being rational (shaping my world view with reason). What should I do? — TheMadFool
The atheist POV is reasonable because rationally speaking it's a mistake to go beyond the evidence. Our senses can't perceive x and so it is reasonable to believe x doesn't exist — TheMadFool
I'm of the opinion that if there is a conflict between an assertion and rational thought, then rational thought wins, and I believe that theism is poorly represented as irrational. — AngleWyrm
I completely disagree. Rationally speaking, it's extremely unreasonable to believe that something doesn't exist simply because we are not aware of its existence. Based on how many times and how vastly in scope our "knowledge" of the world has changed, it's insane for us to think that what we are aware of at this point in time is all that is real. That has literally never been true. — JustSomeGuy
rationality is empirical and science is at the forefront of such a worldview. But look a few centuries ago micro-organisms and radio waves were undetectable to us. If one is to stay true to the empirical viewpoint we must believe that bacteria or radio are nonexistent. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.