@PostITnoteGUY I haven't watched the video yet but i will predict from your comment alone that xychr0 makes false assumptions, begs questions appeals to ignorance and possibly even applies general to specific or visa versa without consideration for restrictions on its application to the other, not a dig at you but a prediction based on the fact that one who does not exploere the truth makes mistakes about the truth, which of course, since i haven't watched, i could just prove what i wrote.
@Frombelieftoaction After watching the video which i will have to watch again because i was still thinking about the question "athiest nihilist or both".
The question makes a mistaken presumtion that the words in which it is written true and not assumed, semantices
A belief in objective truth vs not having a belief that there is objective truth is what i caught from the video, each must recognise their lack og knowledge or as socrates put it ignorance, the only difference between an a....
@Frombelieftoaction ..theist and a nihilist is the beliefs we act upon, all athiests theist deist nihilist and so on are nihilist whether they recognise it or not. and for that matters xychr0 makes a falacy in trying to seperate a specific rule from a the general principal while ignoring the the restriction which is that the general principal is part and parcel of the specific rule, it would be like saying that yoke is not egg after removing the white or vise versa.
Maybe my take on nihilism isn't 'the norm', but the way I experience it is the acceptance that all things created by the mind do not have definitive value. Morality as an evolutionary tool for controlling behavior is based in non-truth. Even if every person in the world agreed an act was good, it would not be definitively good, only subjectively good on a mass scale. It wouldn't stop me believing it was good, or assuming that others would agree, I just remember that it's only a point of view.
Is it not true that scientific knowledge reflects the nature of things as we perceive them, as opposed to what they truly are or may be?
Just as a thought experiment, imagine that the simulation hypothesis is true. Our observed reality, including ourselves, is part of an advanced computer simulation designed by a vastly intelligent being. If this were true, we could formulate theories to describe the universe, but would that description be objective truth?
If we designed such a simulation -- which may be possible in the future, assuming that the computational theory of mind is correct -- we would not observe the simulated laws or objects or beings as "reality" or "objective truth" because it is neither.
The living things that evolve within the simulation are free to observe and understand their universe using the scientific method, but their findings are neither objective truth nor a description of objective truth.
If we are parts of a simulation, we can observe the nature of our simulated reality but objective truth, if it exists, resides beyond what we perceive as nature. This would not imply that science provides no utility to the human condition, but rather that objective truth is not necessarily accessible within our frame of reference, assuming that such truth exists.
The rejection of objective truths and acceptance of scientific naturalism do not appear to be mutually exclusive.
I'm an agnostic, meaning that I don't think the concept of the supernatural is inherently knowable. I'm also an atheist, since I don't subscribe to the concept of theology, the written word, as contained in the Bible, the Koran, or other such mythology.
The term "atheist" is redundant since it gives the implication of validity of theism. Non-believers need no label, since it's the religious who are the ones claiming the supernatural. I don't need to call myself a "non-flat earther" either.
I am a little confused with Atheists can believe in demons angels and miracles. Well I understand the definition of a miracle could be a non explanational recovery medically but essentially demons and angels would be a spiritual being. If an Atheist could believe in spiritual beings than why not a spiritual relam or governor (God) of these beings
@PostITnoteGUY I haven't watched the video yet but i will predict from your comment alone that xychr0 makes false assumptions, begs questions appeals to ignorance and possibly even applies general to specific or visa versa without consideration for restrictions on its application to the other, not a dig at you but a prediction based on the fact that one who does not exploere the truth makes mistakes about the truth, which of course, since i haven't watched, i could just prove what i wrote.
Frombelieftoaction 11 months ago
@Frombelieftoaction After watching the video which i will have to watch again because i was still thinking about the question "athiest nihilist or both".
The question makes a mistaken presumtion that the words in which it is written true and not assumed, semantices
A belief in objective truth vs not having a belief that there is objective truth is what i caught from the video, each must recognise their lack og knowledge or as socrates put it ignorance, the only difference between an a....
Frombelieftoaction 11 months ago
@Frombelieftoaction ..theist and a nihilist is the beliefs we act upon, all athiests theist deist nihilist and so on are nihilist whether they recognise it or not. and for that matters xychr0 makes a falacy in trying to seperate a specific rule from a the general principal while ignoring the the restriction which is that the general principal is part and parcel of the specific rule, it would be like saying that yoke is not egg after removing the white or vise versa.
Frombelieftoaction 11 months ago
@Frombelieftoaction ps ignorance of nihilism leads to atheism deims capitalisms etc not the otherway around
Frombelieftoaction 11 months ago
Maybe my take on nihilism isn't 'the norm', but the way I experience it is the acceptance that all things created by the mind do not have definitive value. Morality as an evolutionary tool for controlling behavior is based in non-truth. Even if every person in the world agreed an act was good, it would not be definitively good, only subjectively good on a mass scale. It wouldn't stop me believing it was good, or assuming that others would agree, I just remember that it's only a point of view.
inquisitorMence 1 year ago
thanks.
comic2001 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY
That statement is uncalled for.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Believing in no objective truths is anti-science.
alexfanx 1 year ago
@alexfanx
Is it not true that scientific knowledge reflects the nature of things as we perceive them, as opposed to what they truly are or may be?
Just as a thought experiment, imagine that the simulation hypothesis is true. Our observed reality, including ourselves, is part of an advanced computer simulation designed by a vastly intelligent being. If this were true, we could formulate theories to describe the universe, but would that description be objective truth?
(CONTINUED)
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
@alexfanx
If we designed such a simulation -- which may be possible in the future, assuming that the computational theory of mind is correct -- we would not observe the simulated laws or objects or beings as "reality" or "objective truth" because it is neither.
The living things that evolve within the simulation are free to observe and understand their universe using the scientific method, but their findings are neither objective truth nor a description of objective truth.
(CONTINUED)
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
@alexfanx
If we are parts of a simulation, we can observe the nature of our simulated reality but objective truth, if it exists, resides beyond what we perceive as nature. This would not imply that science provides no utility to the human condition, but rather that objective truth is not necessarily accessible within our frame of reference, assuming that such truth exists.
The rejection of objective truths and acceptance of scientific naturalism do not appear to be mutually exclusive.
ComprehendingChaos 1 year ago
I'm an agnostic, meaning that I don't think the concept of the supernatural is inherently knowable. I'm also an atheist, since I don't subscribe to the concept of theology, the written word, as contained in the Bible, the Koran, or other such mythology.
The term "atheist" is redundant since it gives the implication of validity of theism. Non-believers need no label, since it's the religious who are the ones claiming the supernatural. I don't need to call myself a "non-flat earther" either.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
I am a little confused with Atheists can believe in demons angels and miracles. Well I understand the definition of a miracle could be a non explanational recovery medically but essentially demons and angels would be a spiritual being. If an Atheist could believe in spiritual beings than why not a spiritual relam or governor (God) of these beings
bumpkin53 2 years ago
Same meaning.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
Hi PostIt: I'm uploading a reply to your comments. :)
xychr0 3 years ago