Anthropology compendiums include lists and examples of people's various deities, if you're actually curious. That's where I'd get my ideas along those lines, if it mattered.
Not really. In the US the common purveyors of the notion that their God acts in the material universe and can be observed doing so are Abrahamic mono-theists.
Never's good for me. The habit wingies have of sending people on whimsical and irrelevant errands has lost its veneer of childish innocence. Followers? Not on this forum. Resident, on this forum. And a vanishingly small population, in comparison. Not the ones "shreiking", either. (What is it with this vocabulary of screeching and shrieking and so forth? We're typing, most of us - and the ones that aren't are pronouncing carefully in an established normal tone).
I see. So you are too over-qualified to participate in the thread, IYHO. I guess the loss is ours. That transition you just took from the macrocosm of the USA to the microcosm of this forum was so subtle I missed it. I guess I just attributed a psychological state to the the urgency and quantity of replies Bowser was getting in the previous thread.
And the mask comes off. You weren't fooling anyone anyway - people know better than to expect good faith, discussion, etc, when dealing with an Abrahamic theist on a science forum. So we agree that nobody here is shrieking, etc, and nobody here followed any theists unto the forum, so there aren't any available examples of this phenomenon of following and shrieking by atheists, and it has nothing to do with this thread. So that kind of bs can be omitted without loss of relevance, and "hence this thread" politely ignored as some kind of typo. Thinko? Cool. 5, 4, 3, 2, - - - - - - and we're back. You guys do a lot of that kind of "attributing". Attributing psychological states to other people is a major fraction of Jan's posting, for example. It doesn't work for argument, of course - but was that ever the prospect? Meanwhile: Let's take as common reality that the overwhelming majority of people claiming some God has or could have or must have observable effects on the material world are - in the US - Abrahamic monotheists.
Are you drunk? Or is this just your "normal"? Edit: it may actually be that you don't read a post fully before you decide to reply.
Ok, against my better judgment, I will humour you. Is this claim that I am representing abrahamic religion backed by any evidence or is it yet another claim of yours that you simply paint in thick coats of bluster? If its the former, feel free to indicate the evidence. If its the latter, just continue blustering. Technically no one is following either. We are more or less engaged in geographic movements on the surface of this planet irrespective of the geographic movements of others. For some reason I'm not surprised you are still not participating in the thread. I guess it has something to do with your before mentioned allusions of over qualification. Lol ... says the guy who thinks the mask has just fallen off the abrahamic religious practitioner. Its probably a default behaviour of others when they deal with people who seem to operate at a word count of 5% content, 50% self aggrandizement and bluster and 45% splitting of idiosyncratic hairs that are of zero consequence to the thread. You mean take it to Bowser's other thread, where it would be relevant? Or take it to this one and continue to stagger and swagger around like a vagrant?
Well, if your belief is similar to Bowser's god, that is, Bowser's god is beyond the limits of the mind to understand, here: My bold. Then, that puts your belief down to gut feeling rather than comprehension by the limited mind. Faith that your belief is true.
Wouldn't the suggestion that the mind is limited in regards to a given reveal a means to comprehension? It seems they can use infinity in mathematics without nailing crows to the door and what not.
Limited in ability to comprehend. The only ''given'' here is a gut feeling. It's a faith in your gut feeling that there is a something.
I believe there are limitations of the mind. The self is also beyond the mind to comprehend and must be experienced directly.
You just defaulted to "gut feeling" from "the mind is limited". Your ideas about "faith" aside, the mind being limited does not disqualify comprehension.
I do think it is reasonable to draw the conclusion that "its all made up". I do think it reasonable that once one lie is told one can treat the teller as a liar. I suspect you may own a collection of books which perhaps part of which we classify as non fiction and part of which we classify as fiction. May I ask if within the non fiction , section you find a text book that contains just one lie or falsehood would you keep it...could you bring yourself to sell it to another and retain your personal assessment that you are honest in your dealings with others. Would you trust that book? My rejection is not unreasonable and my observation that it is made up stands on solid footing. If you wish argue directly against my approach do so I know you will have no sound arguement but suspect reading your attempt to suggest I have it wrong will be pleasant but I doubt if even you will stand and defend a unsustainable position. Its all made up so perhaps try and show just one part , for starters, that is not made up. Alex
That's not begging the question; it's just not needlessly multiplying entities without good reason. Why say the universe started with one Big Bang, when we could say it started with six? Because there's no reason to invent more than necessary. So yes, it pays to first try to explain the world in terms of the things we already observe. A pile of bricks - and my existence - are both things that are plausibly emergent from the Big Bang. More to the point, if TBB can explain bricks and me, then it's not differential evidence, since it doesn't falsify the natural theory.
So TBB is the ultimate causeless element of reality? Or are you just pushing the furtherest notions of current trends of what has been invented under empiricism until the next "differential changing" breakthrough in empiricism is printed?
Given that the whole progressive path of empiricism relies on the premise of working out how today's truths are tomorrow's lies, it seems you are talking less about the rigid acceptance of truth and more about the rejection of things according to your values ("science good, religion bad" becomes your starting point. Not truth). If one fault is sufficient for the baby to go out with the bathwater in your books, its not clear what epistemological foot you could hope to stand on (since any epistemology can be critically assessed in accordance to factors that make it weaker or stronger, with a few practical examples to boot).
