- Forum
- Our Servers
-
Leaderboards
-
DarkRP
- DarkRP Gangs
- DarkRP Money Printed
- DarkRP Suit RIPs
- DarkRP Mayor Survival
- DarkRP Nuclear Launches
- DarkRP Bank Vault Raids
- DarkRP Bartender Tips
- DarkRP Air Drops
- DarkRP Casino Vault Raids
- DarkRP Drug Runs
- DarkRP Arena Events
- Police Armory Raids
- Bartender Customers Served
- Police RIPs
- DarkRP GENCoin Sold
- Surf Records
- BHOP Records
- Trouble in Terrorist Town
- Deathrun
- Prop Hunt
-
DarkRP
- Community
- Help
- Store
|
Login to ZARP
|
TOPIC: Open discussion on what happens after death
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075183
|
Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective. RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075184
|
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] RealDenis wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Dr Richard wrote:
I'm an atheist and a guy who sticks to science and to facts. I will have to go with the most boring and logical answer: "We don't know, and we can't know, at least not for now." Thats not what atheism is though, atheism is the active denial of the existence of a higher power, not only the acceptance of our lack of knowledge. Simply saying “We don’t know” is what an agnostic would say, an atheist on the other hand would say “We don’t know and thus God does not exist” which is pretty stupid imo because by that logic the same thing could be applied to the existence of aliens for example like “We don’t know aliens exist and therefore they don’t”. Attitudes like that are what prevent progression in a society or field.[/quoteen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism There's a difference between saying "definitely doesn't exist" And "I believe he doesn't exist" 1st makes a truth claim 2nd doesn't Both are stating that he doesn’t exist its just one is more confident than the other? Both are rejecting theism. You are waffling mate. Can you read. If I say "I believe x" I don't claim it's true. If I say "x is true" I claim that what I'm saying is true and have to reason it. I don't believe in God, I do think there is a possibility that he exists though. You're claiming atheists say "GOD DOESN'T EXIST" which is wrong. Do you understand it this way? |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075186
|
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. Just because philosophers don't disagree with each other (why is why most things arent considered as fact) doesn't mean it's subjective. And there is things that we can consider as facts. |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075187
|
Mr Red X wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Mr Red X wrote:
i bet you are jew , or at least in israelKameltin wrote:
Islamic countries =Mr Red X wrote:
whats wrong in being from north africa ????what i understanded from this topic : to many atheist on the world , at least on zarp and thisRealDenis wrote: Whenever Red X posts on a topic it just turns to shit so quickly lmao If I remember right you're from north africa, explains all. Islamic influence in education, politics, ethics, society etc also what the fuck that have to do with a 2004 game forum even though its not even almost true , what you read on the internet you belive in right ?? It's funny how you think I'm a jew because I criticize Islamic countries. I bet you believe jews crucified Jesus. You're not the first one to avoid providing arguing by accusing the other that he "believes everything he sees on the internet". You don't even know my sources? Maybe Im from Egypt or tunesia? Maybe I have read books or have friends there. PS: not Jewish nor an Israeli |
|
|
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by Kameltin.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075188
|
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like Plato Kameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. |
|
|
falling for the pink pill :OMEGALUL:
Login or register to post a reply.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Denis
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075191
|
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly haha Zeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075201
|
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
we probably areRealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical |
|
|
falling for the pink pill :OMEGALUL:
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by pigskin.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075205
|
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075207
|
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. thats what ive said Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. |
|
|
falling for the pink pill :OMEGALUL:
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by pigskin.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075209
|
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. thats what ive said you said its not entirely objective. not empirical =/= not objective |
|
|
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by Kameltin.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075210
|
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. thats what ive said you said its not entirely objective. not empirical =/= not objective |
|
|
falling for the pink pill :OMEGALUL:
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075211
|
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. thats what ive said you said its not entirely objective. not empirical =/= not objective dude proof read it you're getting confused "It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today." "not completely subjective neither objective" |
|
|
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by Kameltin.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075212
|
u shid and fard
|
|
certified
Login or register to post a reply.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Denis
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075221
|
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
Kameltin wrote:
Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ][ Click to hide ] Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing but communicating it poorly hahaZeronixes wrote:
I'm not saying philosophy is completely objective, but there are some special subjects like PlatoKameltin wrote:
I strongly disagree, no philosophies are stated to be fact thus they cannot be objective. I agree that there are objective aspects to philosophies which are in place during their development but on the whole there is no philosophy that can be taken as fact since at that point it will no longer be a philosophy thus it cannot be objective.RealDenis wrote:
It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today.Zeronixes wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Yeah thats definitely true but humans will ultimately always put some type of subjective lens over everything they discuss since they are subjective creatures. For example the entirety of philosophy is subjective and there are those that value philosophy and those that don’t which appears to be where we differ. Also I must admit I feel like I worded myself poorly when I referred to Newton’s Razor since yes it wasn’t “created” by him as he did not actively catalog his philosophical views as such but the reason it was named after him was because he subscribed to it.Zeronixes wrote:
I might've worded that badly, but by infinite I don't mean the space of it infinitely which will obviously cause what you said but more likely the continuous modification of our universe (law of conservation) which is considered infinite possibilites since he was talking about luck. Can we call something a discussion where both parties lack complete knowledge of? I would say it's more subjective like Protagoras said. And since you talk about Newton's Razor, which btw wasn't obviously thought by Isaac Newton, it refutes itself and not only that but experiments are not the only source of knowledge, because if we argue about something we don't have knowledge about it will end with a subjective result.CeeZee wrote:
Firstly it is physically impossible for the universe to be infinite since if the universe was infinite that would imply infinite energy which would mean infinite energy everywhere and ultimely instant self destruction of everything in the universe as well as the destruction of the universe itself. So that’s just not a thing pretty much.ITzTrain wrote:
Evolution is not based on luck but time. The universe it's infinite, thus possibility doesn't apply, only finite parameters.SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds and millions of lightyears Anyway for the theism and atheism part, it's useless to argue on it, both are beliefs and until proven in a non biased way by our senses to the whole population, both might and might not exist, you know? We can't determine something we can't observe so we just make our own interpretations. Secondly while it is useless to have heated arguments which don’t progress in any way, an intellectual discussion in which logical points are made for both sides and acceptance of valid points is present is, in my opinion, the best way to educate yourself on a matter which is so complex and philosophical. The most ironic thing for me is that many atheists claim to be intelligent, logical people who refuse to respect anything but science with many of them idolising the greats such as Isaac Newton, Einstein etc. The issue with this however is that they forget that the majority of modern and historical scientists (the same people they idolise) tend to have their own philosophical beliefs and in some cases even religious beliefs which they subscribe to. Thus to only accept the scientific aspects of their work and to ignore the philosophical aspects is ignorance at its finest. A perfect example of this was Isaac Newton, many atheists will proudly exclaim that he was one of the best physicists and one of the best mathematicians of his time (some even argue of all time) and yet they completely neglect the fact that he was both a theist and a “natural philosopher”. In fact many people subscribe to one of his more popular philosophies without even knowing it and it is especially popular within the scientific community for obvious reasons and that is “Isaac Newton’s Flaming Laser Sword”. It states that “what cannot be settled by experiment is not worth debating.”. By calling themselves atheists they are participating in the passive objection of theism yet if asked whether something that cannot be proven is worth debating they will likely say no. But yeah this then comes down to opinion you clearly don’t value subjective discussions whereas I do. Philosophy is subjective.... You're kidding me Philosophy is based on logic and reason, it's objective, just mostly controversial. we probably are anyway @kameltin what you're thinking of is analytic philosophy which is not empirical theres barely anything empirical in philo is there? Things dont have to be empirical to be true anyway. Look at math. Its rationalistic all the way and yet still works, and we count it as objective. Same with logic, and analytic philo is based on that. thats what ive said you said its not entirely objective. not empirical =/= not objective dude proof read it you're getting confused "It's not completely subjective neither objective, some people can and can't agree on someone's philosophical value, for example most philosophers don't agree on sophistics views, or Democritus and Anaxagoras, and it's mostly objective when philosophy is more connected to science like today." "not completely subjective neither objective" |
|
|
falling for the pink pill :OMEGALUL:
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075224
|
Jim_Jam wrote:
You buy your items and then respawn Just ghost back to lane smh |
|
Ex Deathrun Head Admin
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075226
|
I am a devoted Muslim So here is my view:
Allah decides on your fate with the information he knows as he is omniscient and also he is told by your guardians that have been sitting on your shoulders from the minute you were born to the minute you die.From this he sends you to either Jannah (Heaven) or Jahannam (Hell). |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075227
|
Please keep it on the topic!
Personally I would consider myself an atheist. I do not believe in any kind of religion. I do not know what will happen, and I try not to think about it. But if I were to believe in anything it would be what Patrick said Patrick TM wrote: I believe you die, and thats it. Your brain shuts down and your mind and your soul aswell. |
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
The following user(s) said Thank You: eddie.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075278
|
The myth states that you actually shit your pants once you die!
|
|
Login or register to post a reply.
The following user(s) said Thank You: eddie.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075281
|
First of all, i am not a believer.
So for me God is just another reason for churches to ask for money(At least in my country.) So in my opinion there is no Heaven or Hell. Because of that, i think it's 2 options. 1. When we die it's only emptiness(some void, or complete darkness,) 2. We reborn(or like reincarnation) in other bodies(after some time) without any memories of past life.(It's like if we had some kind of living energy inside(soul if you want) that would transfer in a new born baby) |
|
|
Last Edit: 6 years 6 months ago by Red_Line.
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Open discussion on what happens after death 6 years 6 months ago #1075454
|
CeeZee wrote:
ITzTrain wrote:
SoraJS wrote:
RealDenis wrote:
Here's the real question why do you subscribe to atheism when there's no evidence available which disproves the existence of a higher being and there is no proven scientific explanation for the creation of the universe to name just one thing. There is actually, the big bang. The only issue with the big bang is we cannot find what initially caused the big bang unless we were able to teleport to the site of the original explosion but we all know that isn't possible. Even with light speed capabilities, it would still take millions of years to reach it, unless however wormholes exist but we can't know that without manned interstellar space travel capabilities. Oh yes! of course! A big bang boi just created a perfect universe where everything fits perfectly like a puzzle piece, and Evolution clearly created the humans where all the organs and features operate in perfect harmony! What a coincidence! but things don't fit perfectly, we're just really really really insanely lucky as a species to evolve, and we're the only intelligent (to this level) species for fucking hundreds of millions of lightyears What gives you the idea that we've existed for that long? The only thing that you can be sure of is the current moment we live in. A basic example would be following: If you decide to play a medieval game then that's the timeline you decide to be in. You can then assume things such as history and how it it all works through science by examining the surroundings but there is no definitive towards what actually has happened as it's all subjective. |
|
|
ex-minecraft owner, zarp legend (Was there during the infancy of Zarp), ex-ssrp admin, ex-teamspeak emblem (For SSRP admin & minecraft owner)
Login or register to post a reply.
|
Moderators: Clarky
Time to create page: 0.333 seconds
190 PLAYERS ONLINE
DarkRP
21/127
Online
Deathrun
0/40
Online
TTT
0/47
Online
Bhop
0/32
Online
Surf
3/32
Online
Prop Hunt
0/42
Online
Sandbox
0/42
Online
Discord
166/970
Online