Faith
Posted on: December 24, 2009 - 5:30pm
Faith
1) What is faith?
2) Do you have faith?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple |
Faith
Posted on: December 24, 2009 - 5:30pm
Faith
1) What is faith? 2) Do you have faith?
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). Religious and/or spiritual experiences are commonplace in disparate cultures. Even if you disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension, you still have to explain why this is so.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Apparently you don't. Atheistic materialism is a worldview which requires us to specify our own purpose, and find our own meaning. From our point of view your worldview is bleak and depressing because it prevents you from doing that.
I can't comment on your worldview: no matter how many times we ask you won't state it in any detail.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
False implication and conflation there. Asking why anyone needs a positive or hopeful outlook as opposed to a realistic one implies nothing about ones own. Stating that we case to exist post-mortem isn't hopeful about death, but says nothing about life. Unless you wish to conflate life and death, which seems to be a popular fundie thing.
Now, I'm sure that distinction has been explained to you before. Difference between life and death implies that a positive outlook on life does not require a positive outlook on death.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Far from universal, have you seen the increase in atheism and rationalism throughout the western world (although some atheists do have a spiritual side).
Meanwhile if you consider it unreasonable to assume that something with no verifiable evidence isn't there, why are you using a computer? The existence of computers depends on physical theories which in turn depend on that epistemological approach. The same epistemology which demands that since you're asserting the existence of something, you must provide evidence for it.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
"No, I don't think that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. The fact is that belief in a spiritual or divine reality is universal (or nearly universal). ~"
Explanation: People are born without knowledge. They must be taught, hence schools.
Go back 4000 years. There is no technology or knowledge that even resembles current understanding. The shear wealth of information at our fingertips does not exist. Knowledge is reduced to day to day living (farming, cooking, danger), and even there pales to simple common sense today. People don't know what a volcano is, or what causes it. Same goes for most natural phenomenae such as lightning, aurora borealis, tides, drought, etc. The simplicity of rain becomes an unknown. Life is an absolute mystery, as is death. No answers will be forthcoming for thousands of years.
People made things up to explain events beyond their comprehension, to try to make sense of their emerging intellect and the world and themselves.
Simple, really.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
But you said you don't know how to tell the difference between someone who is having this "non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality" , and someone who's just making it all up. So how can it be unreasonable for me to conclude that you could be making it all up ? If you can't tell the difference, how am I supposed to do it ?
Not a problem. I disbelieve in the reality of a spiritual dimension because I don't have a non-sensory perception of a spiritual or divine reality.
Here is Paisley's definition of faith. What do other people think of this? Does anyone agree with the smallest part of this? That faith engenders strength? Bliss? Vision? Love? Wisdom???
I want to say here and now that this definition of faith - admirable in its ideology though it might be considered by some - cannot be applied to my reliance on my car, my short term trust in reproducible evidence, or my guarded acceptance of any other thing going on in the ordinary world. This definition of faith is loaded like a gun.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
How DARE you! I am shocked and horrified. I can't believe you would say such a thing *sniffle*
I note though that while Paisley responded to you, he hasn't to me.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
Mmmm. At the risk of Pais spanking my arse again I have to say I don't think he realised he was talking to an atheist of serious quality. I don't know why theists of various types insist we are not the same as they are - that we do not have the same bigness of feelings, the same qualities. I find serious atheists to be the best and the most accepting of people. Atheism at it's core is a journey of self discovery - but unfortunately it's a journey too few people make.
Anyway - the rest of us know what you do in the real world - big respect, Sapph.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I guess maybe he's saying that trust, hope, ect..can't be "engendered" by a plain old sensory perception. It's gotta be "nonsensory" or it's no good. Or just less so.
If that's what he's saying, then no, I don't agree.
Again, I'm wondering what's the difference between trust, hope, love, etc..inspired by nonsensory perception, and trust, hope, love, etc...engendered by sensory perception, and how the heck anyone can tell the difference.
Thanks. My friend that I was helping passed away yesterday and although it is great that the baby is out of pain and suffering, I am sad for the family.
I think atheism does involve a lot of self discovery, when done right.
oddly, I'm in stickam's religious debate room with an atheist arguing we should cull all less than perfect beings.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
Actually, it's a worldview which accepts the basic premise that we may not be able to understand that which you call "the purpose of life".
The interesting difference between someone like you - who is a moron - and someone like me - who is very very smart - is that you are too stupid to realise that you are stupid, which leads you to the fallacious idea that you "get it" -- which of course you do, in a sense, if we reduce the entire scope of reality down to a twodimensional model, in which case any sphere large enough to make practical traversion in a lifetime impossible would constitute an infinite space.
You are that guy on that sphere. All you can do is go around and around, never realising that there is an "up".
Because you are that guy stuck on that surface, you will see a GLUME complex (I'll define that in a moment) such as "God" as something obvious.
GLUME (pronounced like gloom) = word that I made from the two words "glue" and "meme" that describes a sticky idea, i.e. something that sticks to your mind's membrane like for instance an annoying melody line from some pop song that plays over and over in your head, only in this case it is a meme (google memetics) that refuses to go away, such as for instance the absurd question "what is the meaning of life?". Clearly, since the concept of "meaning" has an infinite number of variables, there is no objectively logical answer to that question, so in the strictest sense it isn't a question at all. That is, unless you can get rid of the dizzying number of variables by for instance introducing a principle of infinite authority such as "God" to counterbalance it.
It resembles philosophy like rape resembles intercourse.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
"oddly, I'm in stickam's religious debate room with an atheist arguing we should cull all less than perfect beings."
How does he define perfect anyway? There's often a way to refocus such arguments to show the asserter would be among those culled. Eyesight, disease, disorder... hell, even intellect, beliefs, and education could be thrown in once such a system was activated. It's quite foolish.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yeah I agree with Paisley at last - it's gotta be nonsense-ory.
Hurry up and catch up with our debate, neuroscience, you slack heap of shit.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A lot of the time hope is engendered by no perception at all. Unless you count lack of perception. I don't perceive myself having a six figure bank balance, but I hope it might happen.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Yeah, but if you didn't have sensory information that having a six figure bank balance would be a good thing to have, then why would you hope for it to happen ?
These non-sensory perceptions, if Paisley's really having them at all, seem rather useless.
Touché
I can't help thinking that if it wasn't in the context of religion non-sensory perceptions would be called delusions and hallucinations.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
I know that some people can have faith in something without evidence. This is called blind faith, children have a lot of it because they have no experience, some of us grow out of it.
It's not fear Paisley, I argued with you a few times a few years back and I know how irrational your arguments are and that you will not listen to anyone, so arguing with you is like arguing with a wall. Yes, it was an ad hominem attack and was intended as such for my own amusement. I have no problem with my self-image or worth thanks,
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
Paisley has been around for almost 2 years. He has presented his views/beliefs on this subject many times. This effort is a repackage of his previous views.
He is a pantheist/parentheist. He is fascinated by 1 hour videos where he can find a minute scrap to support his views.
The 1st thread he started contains much of his beliefs, it is over 1000 posts - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/13045
Since that effort didn't work he tried another angle - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17328
And again - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17880
There are several more, all of which contain his agenda that atheistic materialism is purposeless and hopeless.
He has yet to pull out his dictionary in this thread or his favorite sources, but wait this thread still has time to develop.
I have no idea why he comes here, possibly he is taking another philosophy class.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Ok, I think I see the problem here. You are talking about outlook on life, and I am talking about outlook on death.
To answer your question, my interpretation and outlook on life is positive. My outlook on death is neutral. Not a contradiction at all.
I don't have much background in philosophy, though I am generally aware of what metaphysics and the like entail. However, the caveat with metaphysics, and philosophy in general, is that the methodology is useful for identifying and asking questions, as well as proposing hypotheses. But philosophy cannot test its claims.
However, this provides a great starting point for scientific pursuits. (And I do happen to be well-versed in science.) Science is great for discovering new facts and answering the questions that philosophy has put forth. I think that the task of "making sense of life and all we experience" is not one that rests solely on metaphysics, but also on science. However, you seem to completely reject the latter.
It is scientific practice to only accept that which has evidence to support it, which is apparently where we differ, since you prefer to make up a complex worldview, and cling to it despite lack of evidence, because it has not been or cannot be falsified. It's basically a metaphysical "god of the gaps" exercise.
Yes. He was arguing to "cull" at the embryonic/fetal stage so that therefore it wasn't culling people, just potential and is for the betterment of evolution of mankind. My connection was sucking ass, which made it difficult to get responses in. He advocated all defects, including family histories of obesity/heart disease/diabetes. It was rather annoying.
I would have thought he was a troll except he seemed to be a regular and he's spouted off on it before apparently.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
"Yes. He was arguing to "cull" at the embryonic/fetal stage so that therefore it wasn't culling people, just potential and is for the betterment of evolution of mankind. My connection was sucking ass, which made it difficult to get responses in. He advocated all defects, including family histories of obesity/heart disease/diabetes. It was rather annoying. I would have thought he was a troll except he seemed to be a regular and he's spouted off on it before apparently."
Admittedly I'm no doctor or geneticist, but wouldn't that cover every human in existence? Even if someone doesn't have a "defect", they carry the genes of defects which can still be passed down.
If not, he's effectively suggesting we concentrate on ending evolution within our species, as that's part of evolution. Even if a cull happened, it would need to be repeated. Again and again and again. We might as well start cloning ourselves and manipulate our DNA in the process.
I think he's a defect.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
What is dishonest is not the disbelief in the spiritual per se, but the profession of disbelief in the spiritual while siimultaneously making a profession of belief in a "collective or shared theory of mind." This is one of the reasons why I employ the term atheistic materialism. It is to weed-out 'atheists' who really have a lurking God-belief. In your particular case, the lurking God-belief is a pantheistic one.
Based on your profile, I can see you are a relative newcomer to this forum. On the other hand, I am a veteran here. And I can assure you that in the past I have created threads on this forum in which I presented the scientific evidence for a collective theory of mind. To say that they were not well-received is a gross understatement.
I am not denying that there is a physical aspect. But, by the same token, I am not denying that there is also a spiritual aspect. And the notion that you can profess to be an atheist and deny the reality of the spiritual while simultaneously speaking of a belief in a collective or shared theory of mind is laughable.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Is this your latest debating tactic? You used it against me in another thread earlier. It's exceptionally poor.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Agreed *L* Even in the best case scenario, bred for certain traits, we'd end up like purebred dogs with different health problems caused by shallow gene pool.
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
The item I underlined is the one I find most interesting. This is not to diminish the other areas of your work. They are certainly praise-worthy. However, I am simply focusing on this item because it is the one most relevant to the discussion at hand.
Here are my questions: Assume that my wife and I were undergoing the same situation as the couple in your nursing practice. What would you say to me on this score? Would you support my religious or spiritual conviction that love is eternal and everyone we encounter and love in this life we will encounter in another and/or that we will always be forever connected? Or, would you tell me that I must face up to 'reality' and that to entertain such irrationality is not healthy?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Now now, let him go with it. I've been here 15 months longer than him and have 3600+ more posts. So obviously he's lacking in the "veteran" category compared to me, who he's started ignoring because he can't respond to my demolition of his posts.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I just can't help but spot underhanded tactics, rhetorical errors, and of course everyone loves a good fallacy. Bad habit.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Well, actually there is another type of death. But it is not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
No, I am not - at least not to your definition of Christian.
If you're holding out the hope that some human beings in particular or that humanity in general will live forever, then you are clearly displaying faith.
If you are not the cause of your choices, then you do not make any choices. It's really that simple.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
True, I'm just a big fan of using people's own tactics against them. They're almost never prepared for it.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm not Sapphire but I'll jump in because I've been in similar situations.
You tell people things when they are able to handle them. If that means acquiescing to their God-belief to keep them sane, ok. Sometimes it just means shutting up and letting them have the floor. for as long as they need it. It's a natural, biochemical reaction for humans to not attack other humans when they're vulnerable.
From my experience, it takes religion to override this reaction. I had a friend who was dying of a very painful heart condition. One day he decided the pain was too much and shot the offending organ. At his funeral, his wife asked my mom if he was in heaven. she had the good sense to keep quiet. If my grandfather heard that question his response would have been, "Pat's writhing in Hell right now because all suicides go to hell". I was never so thankful Grandpa was as deaf as a post in my life.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Atheism only rejects belief in a particular immaterial entity, ie , something which is some sort of sentient intentional being.
To demonstrate your conclusion, you need to show: 1. That only the existence of such a being could make the world meaningful and purposeful to us; AND 2. That the world is necessarily meaningful and intelligible.Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"Well, actually there is another type of death."
No, there isn't.
Death:
the event of dying or departure from life; "her death came as a terrible shock"; "upon your decease the capital will pass to your grandchildren" the permanent end of all life functions in an organism or part of an organism; "the animal died a painful death" the absence of life or state of being dead; "he seemed more content in death than he had ever been in life" the time when something ends; "it was the death of all his plans"; "a dying of old hopes" the time at which life ends; continuing until dead; "she stayed until his death"; "a struggle to the last" the personification of death; "Death walked the streets of the plague-bound city" end: a final state; "he came to a bad end"; "the so-called glorious experiment came to an inglorious end" the act of killing; "he had two deaths on his conscience"
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"If you're holding out the hope that some human beings in particular or that humanity in general will live forever, then you are clearly displaying faith."
I don't believe either is the case. Given time enough, homo sapiens will be extinct. Though we may evolve into new species. In fact, we always are. Provided we don't destroy ourselves and nothing else does either in the near future, there's no reason to believe that we can't be around for millions or billions of years. You can try and predict a gloomy ending all you like, I have no reason to.
"If you are notthe cause of your choices, then you do notmake any choices. It's really that simple."
Illogical. It does not follow. It's really that simple.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That's a well thought-out response.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is a common tactic atheists employ - taking refuge under the banner that atheism simply means "without belief in God." The rationale for this ploy is obvious: You wish to have the luxury of attacking the spiritual worldview without subjecting your own materialist worldview to the same scrutiny. How convenient! If you reject a spiritual or divine reality, then this necessarily implies that you only accept the material as real. If there is another viable option, then I am not aware of it.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The only way how to not screw thing up, is to do all the occultism through one's own higher part of personality, called the soul. The soul is the true "white mage", that knows all the facts from it's realm and will solve the situations in most optimal and just way. So it's wise if I build my link to the soul, (antahkarana) so I can communicate and cooperate with it better. Building this link, consciously or not, is the sense of life and this is what makes people geniuses, artists, inspired, charismatic, and so on. In this way, even a rational and skeptical atheist can be much more spiritual than majority of occultists and believers.
If we want to make a game with guesses, then we just say it.
I know, maybe it's naive, but it works for years, there's no reason to start suspecting people of dishonesty. If someone is full of shit, then they don't have to be secretive, we have to respect that Those who are full of shit remind us of ourselves 10 or 20 years ago. We don't force them to agree with us, they can start their own group of like-minded people and 10 or 20 years later develop mentally where we are now. And in meantime, we can still propagate the topics on which we mutually agree. And if there is someone who's totally full of shit and he still gathers followers, then we have the "white soul magic" to make their own soul put them on a tighter and shorter leash.
Our main protection from lies and imprecision are the sources, that we already proved to be reliable by each our member independently. No potential liar among us could offer a different version without raising suspicion and demands for explanation.
Also, pretending too much of mystical experiences might cause others to think, that the person is astrally sensitive. This is an obsolete form of clairvoyance, known by it's unreliability.
But there is not much popularity that can be gained from that. The methods by which we usually work are very... esoteric and minimalistic. We don't need much talking, many people or a lot of equipment. The work is done quickly, effectively and quietly. Majority of it is done in the unphysical realm. We do nothing to impress people.
As for astrology, I study that and I have to say, if someone practices it on medieval level, (which is today still prevalent) then it may even give exact opposites, compared to reality. Medieval astrology was made for kings by their court astrologers. Perhaps you have to become a king, then it will fit on you
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
I'd be falling off my chair if it wasn't so comfortable. I can't believe you said this moments after saying in the thread next door
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Solipsism?
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Yes, I am quite aware of this fact (I encounter it all the time). That's why I employ the term atheistic materialism. Those atheists who refuse to identify themselves as materialists need not participate in my threads. So-called atheists who profess to believe in the reality of the immaterial are implicitly professing a belief in the spiritual. And I see no point in arguing with an individual who is bolstering my worldview.
And how does this support the notion that believers are incapable of doing science?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I tried to resist, but I couldn't.
You realise that the dictionary definition that you provide contradicts your own statement, right? Immaterialism is not synonymous with spirituality.
I don't identify as a materialist. Since I know the meaning of the terms 'atheism' and 'materialism' this doesn't present a contradiction. Cue hissy fit.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
The belief (you actually called it faith, your word - not mine) you have that the "sun will rise tomorrow because it always has" in your life is a prime example of inductive reason or inference. Induction is used in science and assumes a belief in what is called the "principle of the uniformity of nature" - the belief we have that things tend to behave in a regular manner. But just because something has happened before on a regular basis is no justification to rationally warrant that it will behave like that in the future. In other words, your belief that the "sun will rise tommorow just because it always has before in your life" is a belief that is ultimately taken on faith - faith as the atheist typically defines the term (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). So, my assertion is not silly! The very faith you profess to hold in utter contempt is actually the same faith that you employ in your everyday life. And moreover, this very same faith is employed in science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Okay.
Is this what you call civilized behavior? Tell me, what set you off? When I stated in a previous post addressed to you that an "atheist immaterialist" is an oxymoron?
Previously you stated that "we think we can explain our own and/or understand other people's worldviews. We can't." It would appear now that you really don't believe this.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Inductive reasoning DOES NOT assume that because something has happened in a particular way in the past that it will ALWAYS happen that way in future.
Rather, it makes the perfectly reasonable assumption, that in the absence of further information, that such a thing is likely to continue with a similar frequency in future.
It works in probabilities, not absolutes, which is the only way we can treat 'truths' which are not explicit logical deductions from given axioms, as in math or logic.
The 'problem' associated with induction is the problem of trying to apply binary (true/false) thinking to probabilistic reasoning. Such reasoning can be made more rigorous by applying Bayes Theorem.
The likelihood that any particular observation will remain consistent into the future is also subject to assessment by induction.
The confidence we are justified in applying induction is built upon the accumulation of experience of the results of applying it.
This process is the ONLY way we gain useful and relatively reliable information about reality.
Purely internal experience can be totally misleading - we only can have confidence in some 'belief' in so far as it matches independent observations.
NO system of thought, including formal logic or math or metaphysics, etc, can be proven to be internally consistent from within the system.
We do not need 'faith' at all, merely working assumptions to base our judgements on, assumptions which we should be prepared to adjust when confronted with evidence that they may be mistaken to some degree.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
That's atheistic existentialism, not atheistic materialism. The atheist existentialist views life as ultimately meaningless, purposeless, and absurd. However, he believes that he is able to create his own purpose. But this must necessarily be illusory based on his worldview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_existentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
You're contradicting yourself because you just stated above that my worldview is "bleak and depressing ."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
No, I will not contradict their views at all, because it is not my place to in that situation. I am a nurse and I have legal, moral and ethical responsibilities, which include caring for the patient and the family as best I can. If it makes them feel better to think that they'll see their child again, then bully for them. I believe that as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, you can believe whatever the hell you want. But yes, I will lie to parents and agree with them if they look to me for support and confirmation. It is not a nurse's job to try and tear down a family while they are mourning the loss of their child. I would posit NO ONE should do that. If they want to doubt god and be pissed at god, I'll support that too. If they are muslim, I support that. If they are pagan, I support that, or buddhist or hindu or anything. Because it's not about me, it's about them.
But here, you're not my patients' families nor my patients themselves. So I am free to tell you that you are on crack. (I would never say that to a family, even the ones who are literally on crack).
"Shepherd Book once said to me, 'If you can't do something smart, do something right.'" - Jayne
Personally subverting biological evolution in favor of social evolution every night I go to work!
It's not a perfectly reasonable assumption. You're engaging in circular reasoning because you're employing induction to justify the validity of induction. That's the "problem of induction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You've been alleging absurdity not absurdism. One is an insult and one is a philosophical position, they're difficult to confuse.
Do you really not understand that existentialism and materialism are not mutually exclusive options?
I should have said that I can't comment in detail. From the arguments you've made against the rest of us I can know that you cannot engage in the kind of processes that many of the rest of us do in order to find purpose and meaning. From the poor quality of the arguments you've made I can know that you can't even comprehend those processes. I find this knowledge bleak and depressing.
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Theory of mind is a mental faculty. Humans being one species it's quite plausible, even likely, that in all healthy adults the theory of mind is virtually identical and in that sense shared. There's even arguments to be made that this is necessary for society to function. Where in any of that is there anything spiritual?
God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"
Wikipedia-links have arrived. This thread is go !