-->
@3RU7AL
Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.Noumenon.
Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.Noumenon.
Noumenon is a logical necessity. It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.Noumenon has no epistemological significance. Once again, in your declaration that the abstract/imaginary isn't nothing, you acknowledge it as something.
What significance is that?It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.
It is not "nothingness" and it has profound epistemological significance.What significance is that?
Except the "unknown" can be partitioned into "that which is yet to be known," and "that which can't be known." Noumenon relates to the latter as it posits existence of events independent of the senses and/or perception, making it epistemologically insignificant. Your statement relates to the former given that you characterize our sample-biased, "more than guesses" conclusions as provisional. It may be that one is incidentally "accurate," but that's clearly ontological not epistemological.It is an acknowledgement of the unknown which renders our sample-biased, provisional conclusions, little more than mere guesses.
The concepts of "that which is not currently known" and "that which can't be known" are specifically relevant to epistemological limits.
I don't deny it's relevance in understanding the limits of an epistemological argument or statement; I deny it's significance to the argument itself which is epistemological in nature.
there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural,
unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe.
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
The worst aspect of accepting an atheist mentality. Mostly that it's so limiting for the individual, it also forces them to not accept anything outside materialism.
Why not?No, I don't believe in solipsism.
things that look like miracles happen to theists, particularly after they pray. like someone who is blind getting a healed retina, something irreversible being reversed. i never see that sort of thing happen to an atheist. near death experiences. they are consistent. they are thought by the experiencer to be more real than our life, and definitely more than just dream like. to think the brain is just telling us a story, or that there is a story embedded in our brain, is far fetched. there are lots of credible people who verify things that happen during out of body experiences. the AWARE study showed two examples in their study that were verified. i heard of one study that showed someone reading numbers on a piece of paper that they shouldn't have been able to read. there are ghost visions from credible people. credible people say possessed people can make inanimate objects move without touching them. that sort of thing. there are lots of circumstantial evidences and even things that are not debunked that look pretty compelling, such has this...i think there are good arguments from causality and design, at least as evidence even if it's not exhaustive proof. there's too much evidence to just write off the supernatural, unless you just have a deep seated need to not believe.
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a [theistic] god figure, which is no limit at all.
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety.
Like the blind men observing the elephant, we are prone to different interpretations of the "whole" because none of us can see the entirety.Except, I'm not outright rejecting your notions. I'm rejecting your pigeonholing. If we were to use the analogy, it'd be akin to my saying that the whole elephant represents existence, and your saying that "no, only the trunk represents existence, given that it's the only part of the elephant which has a verifiable function." And then when I press on to ask about its other body parts (e.g. brain, ears, tail, etc.) you go onto say that it's abstract and that the elephant in its entirety represents "Noumenon," which hasn't given you pause to refrain from positing "practical distinctions." I'm not one of the men arguing with you over different body parts; I'm the one stating that these parts are apart of the elephant, and making these distinctions doesn't change that it's an elephant. (I'd even go as far as to say that some if not all of these parts are intertwined, e.g. "brain" and "trunk.")
What is an "atheist mentality"? Atheism is the lack of belief in God because of absence of evidence. How does it have a "mentality"?
Utterly wrong. The only thing atheism does is stop people from imagining a non-existent super-being is involved or responsible.
Spirituality doesn't have to involve a god.
Atheism requires one to explain and understand things in terms of the real, not the imaginary. If spirituality can only be understood and explained in terms of the imaginary, that could only mean spirituality itself was imaginary.
Atheism means you can't get your spirituality and meta-ethics 'off the shelf' - you have to work at it. Atheism is not the easy option - theism is for those who like things on a plate - theists just have to learn the rules of their church.
Atheists aren't limited to materialism... they are only 'limited' to doing without a god figure, which is no limit at all.
most atheists who have a near death experience come back believing in God. that should count for something.
The catch is that how can you have a transcendent reality without a Creator??
Theism and Atheism are merely labels we attach to alternative conclusions.
The relative data or "evidence" is all very similar if not the same.The difference between the so called theist's and atheist's conclusions, is all down to a slight variation in how we process the same data or "evidence".
We have imputed and processed the same data as each other and have concluded that:I do believe in a god.I do not believe in a god.The only real difference is the inclusion or exclusion of the word not.
Though I personally conclude that I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.So what will you label me?