4 ms·

what do you mean by "exists"? They don't exist as a solid physical object. They exist more like a gust of wind, which moves all the leaves in the same direction

what do you mean by "exists"? They don't exist as a solid physical object. They exist more like a gust of wind, which moves all the leaves in the same direction and that's all we see. You can't "prove" that they exist, you can only postulate them as theories that explain why we see a whole collection of physical data that we can see. Your proof might be considered good if it coherently explains a large amount of the data, and makes predictions that come true. But you certainly can't "prove" that they "exist" to the same level of proof that an atheist will demand for the existence of God. Patriarchy and institutional racism are even ascribed agency, they "want" to hurt people, rather than merely being general forces such as gravity or a fluid flow.

honkycat 5y ago
I live in the real world where we have conversations and attempt to convince people and convey information. If we are digging into the bedrock of "can a thought exist" then you are not worth talking to.
- trees101 5y ago
  I don't question the existence of thoughts, I merely pointed out that "existence" is different for different types of things. I think there are "layers" of existence, similar to how the OSI networking model works. One layer is the physical. Something like a single human being is another layer. Collective phenomena such as the patriarchy are another layer. We have limited understanding, so we may not perceive these things accurately, but that does not stop them from being real, in other words "existing". I personally believe that the layers scale right up to levels not visible to the tools of science, which work at a lower layer. It seems a pity to write people off with a different understanding of the world as not being worth talking to. I recommend being open minded to this perspective even if it doesn't convince you. For a much better presentation of what I'm saying, I recommend looking into Jonathan Pageau; he has a good book or you can catch some interviews here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX78CipFi-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX78CipFi-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PGglfl5j_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PGglfl5j_I
- padobson 5y ago
  One of the advantages of rising secularism is that you don't see many religious holdouts eschewing thoughtfulness and nuance, but you sure see a lot of their interlocutors doing it. Why try to have a reasoned conversation with someone when you can just tell them they're not worth talking to? Why try to understand their point of view when you can just bluntly tell them they're wrong without so much as a reasonable argument? On Hacker News, it's the faithful irreligious who have abandoned reason, logic, and rationality in the discourse. You're that person in this thread. Congrats.
  - honkycat 5y ago
    No I've just had these conversations before, and trying to say god exists because science cannot yet detect it is not a new or engaging argument, no matter how much you dress it up with purple prose. The person I was responding to was not being an honest interlocutor and I don't feel like engaging that person. And now I'm "mean" or "close minded" because I called them out on their dishonestly. Weird how the atheists are expected to extend infinite grace and participate in the same circular arguments over and over again, but it doesn't matter how dishonest a theist can be.
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    > You're that person in this thread. Congrats. The other side of this debate is insisting we are actually spiritual and not really atheist and you are calling us out? I’ve been an atheist for 40 years now. After you’ve been through these arguments in high school debates, philosophy classes, on Usenet, slashdot, digg and Reddit; you start to recognize the signs for when you need to just walk away from the discussion because you are being sealioned or proselytized or otherwise being engaged in bad faith.

honkycat 5y ago

I live in the real world where we have conversations and attempt to convince people and convey information. If we are digging into the bedrock of "can a thought exist" then you are not worth talking to.

trees101 5y ago
I don't question the existence of thoughts, I merely pointed out that "existence" is different for different types of things. I think there are "layers" of existence, similar to how the OSI networking model works. One layer is the physical. Something like a single human being is another layer. Collective phenomena such as the patriarchy are another layer. We have limited understanding, so we may not perceive these things accurately, but that does not stop them from being real, in other words "existing". I personally believe that the layers scale right up to levels not visible to the tools of science, which work at a lower layer. It seems a pity to write people off with a different understanding of the world as not being worth talking to. I recommend being open minded to this perspective even if it doesn't convince you. For a much better presentation of what I'm saying, I recommend looking into Jonathan Pageau; he has a good book or you can catch some interviews here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX78CipFi-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX78CipFi-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PGglfl5j_I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PGglfl5j_I
padobson 5y ago
One of the advantages of rising secularism is that you don't see many religious holdouts eschewing thoughtfulness and nuance, but you sure see a lot of their interlocutors doing it. Why try to have a reasoned conversation with someone when you can just tell them they're not worth talking to? Why try to understand their point of view when you can just bluntly tell them they're wrong without so much as a reasonable argument? On Hacker News, it's the faithful irreligious who have abandoned reason, logic, and rationality in the discourse. You're that person in this thread. Congrats.
- honkycat 5y ago
  No I've just had these conversations before, and trying to say god exists because science cannot yet detect it is not a new or engaging argument, no matter how much you dress it up with purple prose. The person I was responding to was not being an honest interlocutor and I don't feel like engaging that person. And now I'm "mean" or "close minded" because I called them out on their dishonestly. Weird how the atheists are expected to extend infinite grace and participate in the same circular arguments over and over again, but it doesn't matter how dishonest a theist can be.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  > You're that person in this thread. Congrats. The other side of this debate is insisting we are actually spiritual and not really atheist and you are calling us out? I’ve been an atheist for 40 years now. After you’ve been through these arguments in high school debates, philosophy classes, on Usenet, slashdot, digg and Reddit; you start to recognize the signs for when you need to just walk away from the discussion because you are being sealioned or proselytized or otherwise being engaged in bad faith.