asadfasdfasdf asdf

@DoctorWelch said:

First, read up on nihilism, because you clearly don't understand that there is a level at which one can say reality does not exist when subscribing to nihilism. To add to that, the sentence "Your assertions about rejecting reality are not comparable to the definitions of Nihilism," has nothing to do with anything I said, because I never stated rejecting reality is an inherent part of nihilism. I only suggested that one can exist within the other.

Second, you are no different than any religious person by simply stating facts on the basis that you think it is that way. You start by saying "Reality is not evidence of God or a definition of God." Then you go on to simply state more of what you think because you think it. This is the the way religious people think, because they similarly restrict their view of what what God is. You are still holding on the the contradiction of religion's definition of God, and your entire post reveals that you think what you think and refuse to evaluate it. I am not saying this is the way things are, I am simply giving a summary of my views. I would be glad to evaluate and incorporate other information and knowledge I don't have, and compare it against my current stance as I said in the first post when I talked about an ever changing understanding of existence. However, simply telling me I'm wrong because you think I'm wrong adds nothing to the conversation, and proves nothing.

Lastly, going in depth about reality, logic, and reasoning requires a larger discussion. This is why I made a summary of my understanding, not an explanation. If the definition of God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent as well as unknowable, which would technically make it indescribable, then my understanding of God fits perfectly. The only hole in my understanding would be if reality doesn't exist. The general basis of what I'm talking about when I say reality is the Theory of Forms. These things are undeniable facts, and this is what reality is. Even if our understanding of what it is changes, it still exists.

The last thing I'm going to say here is that you need to let go of your preconceived notions about what God is. In fact, let go of the notion that you actually know anything. Simply evaluate the information you have on hand, and compare it against any new information you come across and form your own understanding. Because really, if you want to get technical, I have no idea that you even exist. I have no idea if anyone exists. The only thing I know is what my senses tell me and the forms that are constant, and even that is iffy.

My investigations into atheism and Nihilism have (from the philosophers I referenced and others) already enabled an understanding of Nihilism that does not include a rejection of reality. I require a justification and evidence to believe something, just like anyone - religious or not. I was letting you know that your justification is faulty and you have provided no evidence for your assertion.

Your objections to me telling you that you are wrong would back-fire if you considered that it was exactly what you were doing yourself to atheists, with your ill-formed and ungrounded comments about the nature of reality and your Nihilist's rejection of it.

If you let go of the fact that you know anything, then you won't be able to make such posts as you have about why atheists are "wrong". You say you have no idea if anyone exists, yet are still able to make assertions about why atheists are wrong. My own "agnostic atheism" (like that of many other atheists) is grounded in the position that many "truths" are unknowable (hence the agnosictism).

@ManU_Fan10ne said:

I'm not going to take any side in this, I actually could care less. But there is one thing I want to say: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I guess that could work both ways, but really, who cares. To each his own.

Who cares? That axiom is not really sound, especially when yo confuse evidence for absence with ignorance. If your axiom were true, we'd all be entertaining possibilities for Russell's invisible pink teapot spinning around the sun (and then every other imaginable possibility).

@Mushir said:

Definitely not my friends, school or even the media portrayals of muslims. It was a lot of things I guess, but most of all knowledge. I just couldn't seem to agree with a lot of the things that the Quran claimed, because so much of it is simply against hard science.

I thought of it like this: If I'm judging a murder case with two suspects, should I choose the suspect with the most and best proofs or the one who I just "feel" is guilty? There were just too many things pointing against Islam for me to accept it. I still think you can learn a lot of positive things from it, but to follow a religion I think you should believe everything it says and that just wasn't the case for me.

I see. What knowledge do you have in mind? Physics, biology, cosmology, things read on reddit? I sometimes wonder why it is that evolution (and all the sciences) have been taught in Norwegian schools for decades as a fact without people stop believing in a God, but now in the last 10-20 years something is changing? To me it seems to be a cultural shift I am very skeptical towards and the reason behind, a mystery.