<p>Basically what silence_kit is saying guys, is that a political opinion can be 100% correct or 100% wrong.</p>
<p>A typical liberal viewpoint.</p>
<p>There has to be some understood rule on some level that tells us we are supposed to accept that what we observe is reality, assume that reality is consistent and that the past is not an illusion, admit that hallucinations do not really exist, etc. Even if there are assumptions to be made, there have to be rules as to what does or does not constitute a valid assumption.</p>
<p>No one walks around constantly skeptical that what they perceive is not true reality. Everyone has relatively similar behaviors, which I would expect not to find in a world where there are no rules about assumptions, and where people assume anything they want. Even when comparing science and religion, there are obvious commonalities that make the products of both relatively compatible.</p>
<p>It almost appears as if the axioms of science are core axioms that create (or explain) human behavior the way we know it today.</p>
<p>
I don’t understand what point you are trying to make… I was talking about the people who don’t literally interpret the bible, who have their own personal interpretations (because it’s very unlikely that any two people have exactly the same interpretation).</p>
<p>"There has to be some understood rule on some level that tells us we are supposed to accept that what we observe is reality, assume that reality is consistent and that the past is not an illusion, admit that hallucinations do not really exist, etc. Even if there are assumptions to be made, there have to be rules as to what does or does not constitute a valid assumption.</p>
<p>No one walks around constantly skeptical that what they perceive is not true reality."</p>
<p>If only our existence were that simple… however, I believe there have been numerous philosophical discussions over the course of human history about such epistemological concerns. Probably starting with Plato (at least in Western philosophy) who did believe that the sensible world was a world of shadows and was not the “true” reality. Kant was also an epistemological idealist who claimed that the only things that could be known for certain are just ideas, abstractions.</p>
<p>Now, I understand that these people are dead, but my point is that such views are not impossible to hold. I cannot claim to have interviewed everyone living today to find out if they have similar views.</p>
<p>In terms of religion, actually, I think that Hinduism posits that this existence is not real, but I’m bringing that off the top of my head and I don’t claim to be a scholar of Hinduism.</p>
<p>It may seem that everyone has similar behaviors and acts as if this reality were real, but you can’t really get inside their minds and find out for sure what they believe.</p>
<p>I think it is more pragmatic and better from a perspective of risk-analysis to treat observable existence as real, however, and most people probably feel the same way, and thus act in a way that corresponds with a such a metaphysics. Also, a number of religions require such behavior as part of their doctrine, so that is another explanation in terms of seeing religious people act in the same way as materialists/realists.</p>
<p>And if there are rules to be made, who makes them…? What qualifications must they have? Are we simply to say that empirically and rationally speaking, empiricism and rationalism are the best modes of knowledge acquisition, therefore the people who come up with the rules must have such a mindset and must design rules that are consistent with science?</p>
<p>“It almost appears as if the axioms of science are core axioms that create (or explain) human behavior the way we know it today.”</p>
<p>This is a little bit vague to me… by axioms of science do you mean the first principles of logic + the concept of realism?</p>
<p>I will note here that I am not at all religious, I am just being argumentative for the sake of argument (playing “devil’s advocate”?). I would probably characterize myself as a strong agnostic, if such characterization is necessary.</p>
<p>LOL at how ppl type out these long arguments on the internet</p>
<p>you ppl arent going to change ur minds</p>
<p>i gave up on this a while ago</p>
<p>
It’s one thing to philosophize, it’s another to base your behavior on these beliefs. It’s similar to the idea of free will and not being capable of truly believing you are not in control. If it IS an illusion, it’s an unavoidable one.</p>
<p>Just as with free will, it would be abnormal to live your life not assuming your senses were accurate. That means on some level, our basic assumptions are either natural or learned. They obviously aren’t explicitly taught, and I personally can’t think of a way in which they might be indirectly taught, which leads me to believe there are natural axioms, which might coincide with the axioms of science.</p>
<p>
True, but you can reasonably expect someone who holds radically different assumptions to behave in obviously abnormal ways.</p>
<p>
You make it sound as if it is a conscious decision… It does make sense that it is a matter of survival, which could mean we might have evolved natural axioms over time.</p>
<p>
I mean this:
</p>
<p>@bagelsbagels
Who said the goal was to change anyone’s mind? Lol. For me, the goal is always to discover truth. Real life debates (at least with my friends) are all pointless, because there just isn’t enough time to accurately convey meaning, and it’s harder to scrutinize an argument to identify fallacies. It becomes a competition of authority more than truthfulness. All of my friends (and i) have “won” several debates each and then later realized they were wrong. I’m one of the few who has the modesty to admit when this happens, but I care about my credibility more than I probably should.</p>
<p>Of course not, don’t be ridiculous.</p>
<p>I stopped believing in God. I think it’s because my peers didn’t practice what they preached, and then I became really confused and frustrated that I just stopped believing all completely. I keep an open mind to what people say their thoughts about God; I respect it and all, but sometimes it really goes too far.</p>
<p>OK, so let me get this straight, according to you guys there is a giant pretty old Caucasian Man (which is pretty sexist and racist by the way) with a really really long white beard That live inside the Clouds and has the power of all superheroes that ever existed in the world combined, who somehow can watch every single person of the 6 billion people in the world (which means 2 things: 1st god is a Creepy Pervert, and possibly a Pedophile <seriously, he=“” it=“” can=“” see=“” you=“” while=“” are=“” taking=“” a=“” shower=“”>and second god has more than 3 billion eyes). He created Humanity at his image (which means he/it is hermaphrodite since he created both women and men at his image; it also means god can get an erection, btw). Then he/it came to earth and raped a woman (who is literally her daughter) and impregnated her, she gave birth to his/its child which wasn’t really his child but was actually god himself, so god is his own dad and grandfather, ouch! Then he was killed by his own sons just because, and came back from death, which means that god is a Zombie too. Not to mention all the people that his/its followers have killed because he /it said so. He also live in a community where most people are half Human and Half Bird (obviously god rip “Maximum Ride” here) and one of those half-Human Half-Bird guys turned red and grew some horns and a tail and went to live to parallel world made of fire which happens to be inside Earth. god also is a narcissist since he insists we should all worship his/its image and will sentence you to an eternity of pain and burning if you do not accept him/it (which also means he/it is not an advocate of freedom for speech or Human Rights). Also god is supposed to be about salvation and all that kind of stuff, yet the Vatican is the richest organization in the world while a person is dying of hunger every 3 second in developing country, and what do they do about it???</seriously,></p>
<p>so in a nutshell, we worship a narcissist, sexist, racist, murderer, perve, rapist, and possibly pedophile Zombie who is his one dad/grandpa with super powers sitting on a cloud??
WOW that’s quite a story.
C’mon people stop reading Harry Potter, it’s not doing you guys any good.</p>
<p>To be fair though, this would make an amazing fantasy novel, oh wait there’s already one, it’s called The Da Vinci Code.</p>
<p>it still exists!</p>
<p>i feel sorry for some of you all… may god forgive you…</p>
<p>I don’t know if there’s a God or not, but if he/she/it exists, I hope he/she/it will not throw me in eternal hell just for not having believed in his/her/its existence.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Ok. These silly religion questions get like 2000 posts and when i want to know the answer to a simple question nobody wants to help.
There is only a God if you believe there is one. The thing is everyone gets into heaven no mater how bad they were, so it doesnt matter what you think.</p>
<p>some things make it difficult to believe in god. i was raised catholic, and thats what i identify myself as. i have hard time believing though that even good people, who were not raised christian and havent been exposed to it much, would go to hell. i believe that there is a a god, and that the various religions that promote the basic idea of being a good person are all paths to heaven or whatever the good form of the afterlife is. idk if its just i wanna believe in a god, but i prefer to believe in god then not and to me it just makes more sense if theres a god</p>
<p>I do believe and understand the concept of God
of course, whether if the god I believe in is the same the typical christian god or not, I dont know and, honestly, dont care.</p>
<p>People who believe there is a entity of higher power or God generally are just not exploring the scientific and fundamental laws of nature and matter. There could be one, for sure, but I believe it is a waste of one’s life to try to search for a God when he/she should be searching for a practical understanding of the fundamental laws of our universe. One day, we will come to a concluding answer, and by that time, everything may reset because it will take us that long. The big bang will happen all over again.</p>
<p>^Wait, so you think everything will randomly reset one day, yet searching for understanding of the universe is still more worthwhile than searching for a God?</p>
<p>I think you’re just a person who is trying to come off as more intelligent/knowledgeable than he actually is.</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>ten char</p>
<p>Definitely not, as I have rather compellingly enunciated over in a formerly longstanding thread in the High School Life forum. There seems to be a far greater secular concentration in this discussion, which I do not find all too unexpected, considering the dissimilarities in demographical attraction.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/high-school-life/924944-science-religion-wins.html</a></p>
<p>I hope you’ll allow me to state that this thread is probably repeating arguments that have been repeated several times already in various threads on this website</p>
<p>In short, I personally do believe in God because it is incomprehensible that a divine being should not exist. I do not, however, feel that following a specific religion is advisable, as it means an approach to spirituality that is not authentic to the believer, who should be permitted to believe what he or she believes without having to compress it into a religious framework.</p>