I Am Atheist (strong)
Yes, but what sort of atheist? As a science maven and empiricist, it seems foolhardy to claim epistemologically that we KNOW God doesn't exist. Agnostic atheism seems like the sensible choice.
41-45, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
helenS · 36-40, F
I am of the opinion that an [i]agnosticist[/i] is just a [i]coward[/i]. He can’t be debunked. He’s always on the safe side of life. No offence meant.
View 10 more replies »
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@helenS so 'soul' is just another word for a subjective experience of existence?
However, you also said:
[quote]all of your inner experiences are part of your soul[/quote]
So, are my subjective experiences my 'soul', or are they just a part of it... and what comprises the rest?
How is any of this something 'completely different' from the points I offered about agnostic atheism?
I cannot see the relevance
However, you also said:
[quote]all of your inner experiences are part of your soul[/quote]
So, are my subjective experiences my 'soul', or are they just a part of it... and what comprises the rest?
How is any of this something 'completely different' from the points I offered about agnostic atheism?
I cannot see the relevance
helenS · 36-40, F
@newjaninev2 I wish I was more articulate Janine.
"and what comprises the rest?
— the rest is a mystery.
"I cannot see the relevance
— My reply did not address your points about [agnostic] atheism. I wanted to point out that [i]you[/i] and me and user "[i]RevolutionaryDoctor[/i]" exist on different levels, and only one of these levels is explained by science. (Not that I would believe scientific results are wrong!) "Either something can be accounted for by using laboratory equipment, or it does not exist" is [i]not[/i] a result of scientific research, but part of a narrow belief system.
"and what comprises the rest?
— the rest is a mystery.
"I cannot see the relevance
— My reply did not address your points about [agnostic] atheism. I wanted to point out that [i]you[/i] and me and user "[i]RevolutionaryDoctor[/i]" exist on different levels, and only one of these levels is explained by science. (Not that I would believe scientific results are wrong!) "Either something can be accounted for by using laboratory equipment, or it does not exist" is [i]not[/i] a result of scientific research, but part of a narrow belief system.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@helenS and so we have subjective experience, and no compelling necessity to make postulations beyond that
We should not bounce back and forth between Epistemology and Ontology here. While terms such as 'belief system' may have relevance in Epistemology (I assume), science is inherently ontological, and comprises a set of methods (those methods being the best way we have to keep from fooling others and, more importantly, to keep from fooling ourselves... the easiest to fool).
As someone said to me, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts... and that is the distinction we perhaps need to maintain here.
We should not bounce back and forth between Epistemology and Ontology here. While terms such as 'belief system' may have relevance in Epistemology (I assume), science is inherently ontological, and comprises a set of methods (those methods being the best way we have to keep from fooling others and, more importantly, to keep from fooling ourselves... the easiest to fool).
As someone said to me, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts... and that is the distinction we perhaps need to maintain here.
