Both a rationalist and an empiricist at the same time.

[steve_bnk]

Sigh...yet again atheism is not a belief or a philosophy.

Religion and some aspects of philosophy both serve the same purpose, non scientific ways to develop an emotional paradigm of reality and finding meaning.

Philosophy ad religion have the same metaphysical problem, definitions and meaning.

The Abrahamic religions resolve the problem by inventing an all powerful god from which all truth is derived.

Lacking such an entity modern philosophy is reduced to endless unresolvable debate on meaning akin to theistic discourse.

When Natural Philosophy evolved into modern empirical science philosophers lost a meal ticket. What was left was debating philosophical definitions.


There are no justifications. Things that work and things that do not in given situations.

Do you believe that goblins are real?

If not, why are you so extreme? Why can't you just take a more rational approach and find a more reasonable middle ground between believing goblins are real and not believing goblins are real?

Sorry. I'm using you to make fun of the original poster, which is doubly bad, but I can't help myself. The fundamental argument is so bad that I'm simply not sure how to respond.

Ditto here, I don't have a fucking clue what you are babbling about and how you relate it to what I said.

What I said was aspects of philosophy provides meaning as does religion. They both serve similar purposes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

True, but if nop had said: then it wouldn't have seemed nearly as condescending.

Don't have a clue what you are saying. Humor me and connect the dots.

All i'm saying is that no one particular is not attempting to define anything nearly as much as he's hoping to goad people.

 

[PyramidHead]

The OP is clearly not interested in anything other than peddling his awful website. Time to move on.

 

[Perspicuo]

"Empiricist" and "Rationalist" are outdated terms, completely historical, referring to two opposing camps of thought during the Enlightenment. To sustain any of them these days is anachronistic.

We are far from the times when believing that people acquire new information by processing it within themselves, was at odds with believing information comes solely from without through the senses. Nowadays the opposition is fundamentally between the scientific view versus fideism/spiritualism. And the caveat imposes itself that there are degrees and flavors of fideism, depending on how reasonable and educated the person having fideist/spiritualist conceptions is.

 

[Underseer]

Do you believe that goblins are real?

If not, why are you so extreme? Why can't you just take a more rational approach and find a more reasonable middle ground between believing goblins are real and not believing goblins are real?

Sorry. I'm using you to make fun of the original poster, which is doubly bad, but I can't help myself. The fundamental argument is so bad that I'm simply not sure how to respond.

Ditto here, I don't have a fucking clue what you are babbling about and how you relate it to what I said.

What I said was aspects of philosophy provides meaning as does religion. They both serve similar purposes.

I was lampooning the argument of the original poster. Sorry, but I used to you make a point at someone else.