Nerd; Board, Card, Pencil & Paper Gamer; Avid Reader; to find me in other places: https://lnk.bio/JaymesRS

  • 8 Posts
  • 187 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Except things like law exist in a measurable state. Violating a law has a measurable outcome in the physical world. That’s the difference. If you run a stop sign in the presence of observers such as a police officer (such that it has an impact on that observer) you will be issued a citation for violating that law. We can test that hypothesis.

    If something has no measurable presence under any observable state it is indistinguishable from that which does not exist. And to assume it does is tautological and a fallacy.


  • How would the world change if god didn’t exist the way I described, as being socially real? There’d be no churches, no religious art, no pilgrimages that attract tens of millions each year.

    That is tautological and presumes the antecedent. It’s true because they have these experiences and produced these objects. It wouldn’t be true if they hadn’t done that.

    I didn’t ask, how would the world would change if people did not believe that God existed. I asked how it would change if God actually did not exist whether they believed or not. 

    I’m looking for the major distinguishing characteristic that would differentiate belief in something untrue versus the actual no existence in that. It’s accurate to say that if belief was none existent, those buildings, rituals, etc. would not exist, but that doesn’t distinguish between people believing it to be true yet it not actually comporting with reality.

    Those things you mentioned aren’t reliant on being consistent with reality only on people believing that they experience something that is unmeasurable in any actual sense. Our history is full of times where people believed something and developed practices, rituals, stories, and structures in recognition of those beliefs and purported to experience the presence of that belief target only for later peoples to recognize that those beliefs weren’t based on any thing that comported with reality.



  • That’s a lot of words that don’t tell us anything other than people created art and rituals they found meaning in. People do that with books and stories that we recognize as fiction all the time without us elevating that to a religion.

    Is it epistemologically consistent to say that something that cannot be measured or observed in a replicable manner exists? How would the world be conclusively different from that thing if it didn’t exist if it exhibits no measurable or replicable and observable outcome?


  • Without knowing the situation, in the world as it exists today, there’s a lot of racist people that use Muslim or anti-Muslim rhetoric to refer to or denigrate any person of roughly Middle Eastern descent. Think of how many stories there were of Sikhs that were assaulted physically or verbally after September 11.

    A moderator or admin who is aware of this could easily still allow criticism of Islam, the religion, while taking actions against those who are just being racist assholes with a veneer of anti religion. I have seen this many times before.