Oh, you’re a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don’t really exist? I’m somewhat similar, I’m an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It’s cool that you don’t believe in trees, though!
Comment on big facts
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks agoi don’t believe in wifi, just like i don’t believe in trees. i know they’re there.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 weeks ago
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
no
Digit@lemmy.wtf 2 weeks ago
I’m happier with non-belief, than squirming through the exercise of deciding what to believe and disbelieve under the unchecked presumption that we must believe something.
Even more so for the distinct “believing in” something.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The belief would be that your senses aren’t being actively deceived. Also, that you’re not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.
I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It’s still fun to poke at them.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
the atheist says “i will not believe”. the agnostic says “i can not believe”. one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I don’t think reasonable is even it, it’s just a helpful assumption.
If “they” are doing a perfect job, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they’re not and play your role.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
pishadoot@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
Honestly? Without evidence, they’re both equally probable. And believing, or refusing to believe in a god or something, are both faith of equal measure.
It’s just whether someone thinks their version is faith is more realistic than the opposite.
MalReynolds@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
I’m willing to accept Atheism, ‘I do not believe in God’, as somewhat dogmatic, but as others have said, it’s the null hypothesis and they have Occam’s razor going for them. Pragmatically it is a useful stance in light of the societal harm religion does.
I am however unwilling to conflate Agnosticism with ‘I can not believe’, always been “I’m waiting for evidence one way or the other” to me, so perhaps the more scientific point of view.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s not 3 points, but 4.
Atheist==>Theist Agnostic==>gnostic
There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
to me, those last two statements are pretty close in the grand scheme of things. it was allegorical anyway, since we weren’t really talking about god.
if there is no proof one way or the other, the pragmatic stance is to be neutral. if one side is more theoretically sound, the pragmatic stance is to assume that’s the correct side while still being open to the other. only when there’s proof of one side can you dismuss the other. none of those steps require “belief”, i.e. unfounded assumptions.
as an aside, personally i feel like religion is one of those issues where there is proof.