tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934044.post8175822188038271939..comments2023-04-14T06:03:36.764-04:00Comments on dreamlayers: Why I won't call myself an atheist.Boris Gjenerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01198202583955918644noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934044.post-66916128183961806082008-10-10T14:19:00.000-04:002008-10-10T14:19:00.000-04:00This is simply false. Nobody thinks that science a...<I>This is simply false. Nobody thinks that science actually explains everything.</I><BR/><BR/>People believe all sorts of things, including illogical things.<BR/><BR/><I>The naturalistic philosophical position is slightly different: Science is the only way to explain anything... because of what it means to explain something and because religion doesn't explain anything: "goddidit" is not an explanation.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a very good point! Because of that and related arguments, I probably shouldn't think that religion could offer answers about consciousness.<BR/><BR/><I>What other kinds of God are there?</I><BR/><BR/>For example, there are ideas about God being related to some form of collective consciousness.<BR/><BR/><I>If you cannot even understand a concept, you cannot say you believe or disbelieve it. A concept that you don't understand is meaningless to you.</I><BR/><BR/>If you don't understand the nature of something but you see its effects, then it's not entirely meaningless. However, I do see that it's more reasonable to label the inexplicable effects rather than the supposed source.<BR/><BR/><I>Almost all words in all natural languages have multiple meanings. If you absolutely do not want to be misunderstood, don't speak.</I><BR/><BR/>Some terms have more consistent meanings than others.<BR/><BR/><I>First, there are atheistic religions such as Buddhism. Dig one step deeper and disbelieve (or call meaningless) mystical mumbo-jumbo and bullshit.</I><BR/><BR/>I've read about Buddhism. It seems that when I strip away the mysticism it's just talking about psychology.Boris Gjenerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01198202583955918644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8934044.post-23165763733664110272008-10-08T15:40:00.000-04:002008-10-08T15:40:00.000-04:00To me the stereotypical atheist view is that scien...<I>To me the stereotypical atheist view is that science explains everything and so there's no need for religion.</I><BR/><BR/>This is simply false. <I>Nobody</I> thinks that science actually explains everything.<BR/><BR/>The naturalistic philosophical position is slightly different: Science is the only <I>way</I> to explain anything... because of what it means to explain something and because religion doesn't explain anything: "goddidit" is not an explanation.<BR/><BR/><I>I simply don't know. Actually, I'm pretty sure God doesn't exist as portrayed by religions I know about. There, "does not believe" is entirely appropriate.</I><BR/><BR/>What other kinds of God are there?<BR/><BR/><I>God might even be something I cannot imagine.</I><BR/><BR/>If you cannot even understand a concept, you cannot say you believe <I>or</I> disbelieve it. A concept that you don't understand is meaningless to you.<BR/><BR/><I>Then there's the issue of a term having multiple meanings. I wouldn't want to say I am an atheist using meaning two and then have it misinterpreted as meaning one.</I><BR/><BR/>Almost all words in all natural languages have multiple meanings. If you absolutely do not want to be misunderstood, don't speak.<BR/><BR/><I>Oh, and what about religion which doesn't involve God or deities?</I><BR/><BR/>First, there are atheistic religions such as Buddhism. Dig one step deeper and disbelieve (or call meaningless) mystical mumbo-jumbo and bullshit.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com