Scott wrote:In any case, what you seem to be describing is epistemological nihilism or epistemological skepticism. To me, the latter implies universal doubt which may still allow for probabilistic belief while the former implies a more complete inability to have justified information about the world at all.

Okay, So. Let's say I am an epistemological skeptic. What is the term for someone who is an epistemological skeptic, who argues that since it is impossible to know... You agree that the world is real and not a simulation based on faith rather than reason?

(quote not shown) So, is a non-falsifiable proposition illogical? If something can not be proven or disproven, does that mean that it can not be discussed? The idea of god for example? Does the fact that it is a non-falsifiable idea make it impossible to discuss? I think that if something is non-fal...

(quote not shown) Mysticism is based on personal experience, reason, and revelations. Correct? If not, please define. "If you want the truth, imagine it" - Is illogical. "Does the imagination not come true?" - Not in my experience. And not under the physical laws that bind the un...

(quote not shown) It doesn't necessarily mean it is evil. I will equate evil with immorality for this argument, because evil is so hard to define that it will only cause more issues in the definition. In a utilitarian perspective where, the greater amount of value for the most people, is the goal. Y...

(quote not shown) Not true, at all. I do not believe in the concept of the devil but I can label it. Likewise I can label a mythological being like a centaur but don't believe it. A label does not mean belief, Dawkins obviously does not believe in god yet labels it. And, certainly if Dawkins were on...

(quote not shown) If I'm not mistaken, which I'm not, there are plenty of posts arguing an atheist stance as opposed to a theist stance. In that, they are trying to "convince others" to their viewpoint. There are many philosophers, let's take Dawkins since you brought him up, who are self-...

It always takes me a moment to step back and realize that what other say often makes more sense than what I am saying. It only takes a nice nap and for me to re-read the discussion for a I realize.

(quote not shown) Nothing for nothing. But that first sentence seems to be wrong. If atheists did not want to try to convince others, then why are there so many arguments? And saying theists are "those who like to put a stamp on beliefs" is an invalid statement. You have put stamps on beli...

The first page answered the OP. No, evil does not begin with a lie.

Everything afterward is the conservation about definitions. Like every philosophical discussion. Eventually, we will all be brains in jars and there will be no such thing as lies

I, and many others, have been using the term "atheism" as the equivalent of the less understood term "Gnostic atheism". For the sake of future discussion, I think that the term atheism should be defined in the topic discussion. Whether or not someone is talking Gnostic/Hard/Soft/...

(quote not shown) Exactly, Even if god did provide a foundation for morals and ethics, there is still no reason to be moral or ethical. If the reason is to not be punished, as for the sake of argument assuming god is real, then punishment in itself is not a reason to do or not to do anything. Likewi...

Why wouldn't it be necessary? It seems to be that art, just as anything else, is just one aspect of existence. In fact, art can come in infinite forms. Even the way that we write our arguments is a form of art. Art is not only necessary, but impossible to be without. :) "How necessary is art?&q...

All Sagan's perspective convinces me is: The stars are our birthright, and if we mean to amount to anything. We need to dominate all of the stars of the galaxy, all the galaxies of the universe, and all of the universes of the various dimensions, and all the various dimensions of whatever else may b...

Who even says that there are any irrefutable reasons to be ethical? I surely can't see any for even people of faith. Even if your faith teaches that you should be ethical or you will be punished, that is still not an irrefutable reason to be ethical. I have not yet seen a convincing argument that as...

Quizzical18 wrote:Losing one's innocence begins at the point that the person realizes the difference between right and wrong and then intentionally doing wrong knowing that.

Wouldn't innocence just be the lack of realization between right and wrong? To lose innocence by choosing one aspect rather than another of a previously unacknowledged idea seems to be illogical.

Couldn't just the knowledge of right and wrong be the loss of innocence?