So you offered an empty gesture that contradicted almost everything else you said as a means to end a conversation (that you voluntarily entered) before it started?
No. I wanted to make sure you understood that when I said it was “incredibly divisive”, I was agreeing and reinforcing your point, “people believing that they are the ‘true’ believers…”; I was NOT arguing that you expressing this was divisive.
As for my participation here, we are both free to enter or exit conversations as we please, but since you called me out, I will clarify: I am not responding to the rest of what you wrote because you are alternating so quickly between nonsense and ostensible lucidity that I don’t even know where to begin. Also, you’re kind of being an idiot.
I see the misunderstanding now. I apologize for being defensive.
This conversation didn’t go the way I wanted it to, but at least I learned something.
The last thing I’ll say… I think what you see as flip flopping is just me trying to convey the idea that if there is one underlying truth to the universe, no one knows it. We all live in reality bubbles of our own making, philosophically speaking. I think understanding that concept is a crucial component in thinking of ideas that are bigger than ourselves.
Given the lack of empirical evidence for spiritual claims, it’s tough to judge or verify them using the standard tools of knowledge, if at all. Spirituality, whatever it may be, is inherently personal and subjective, and this subjectivity makes it impossible to set up a consistent and objective framework in epistemology. Also, I’d worry that spirituality mingled with epistemology could undermine the strict scientific rigour that’s so critical to knowledge gathering.
So you offered an empty gesture that contradicted almost everything else you said as a means to end a conversation (that you voluntarily entered) before it started?
Cool. Cool cool cool.
Good talk.
No. I wanted to make sure you understood that when I said it was “incredibly divisive”, I was agreeing and reinforcing your point, “people believing that they are the ‘true’ believers…”; I was NOT arguing that you expressing this was divisive.
As for my participation here, we are both free to enter or exit conversations as we please, but since you called me out, I will clarify: I am not responding to the rest of what you wrote because you are alternating so quickly between nonsense and ostensible lucidity that I don’t even know where to begin. Also, you’re kind of being an idiot.
I see the misunderstanding now. I apologize for being defensive.
This conversation didn’t go the way I wanted it to, but at least I learned something.
The last thing I’ll say… I think what you see as flip flopping is just me trying to convey the idea that if there is one underlying truth to the universe, no one knows it. We all live in reality bubbles of our own making, philosophically speaking. I think understanding that concept is a crucial component in thinking of ideas that are bigger than ourselves.
Thank you. That makes sense, and I agree.
Epistemology is one of my favourite topics - I suspect if we had the conversation again without religion, everything would go smoothly. :)
“Epistemology” - Learned two things, lol
Just curious so I can understand your position a bit better. Leaving religion out, do you think Spirituality has a place in epistemology?
Given the lack of empirical evidence for spiritual claims, it’s tough to judge or verify them using the standard tools of knowledge, if at all. Spirituality, whatever it may be, is inherently personal and subjective, and this subjectivity makes it impossible to set up a consistent and objective framework in epistemology. Also, I’d worry that spirituality mingled with epistemology could undermine the strict scientific rigour that’s so critical to knowledge gathering.
Gotcha. Thanks for the perspective =)