Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Materialism and nihilism are fundamentally different concepts. Materialism is not a denial of everything, but a rejection of fairy tales and tales about fictional elves, leprechauns and other gnomes.
Humanity sees and knows more than enough to not need the absolutely unconvincing props of its existence. Every educated and self-sufficient person understands perfectly well that to explain the existence of the universe, there is no need to involve additional entities.
The basic physical laws are already known, and the constants are calculated. Some ambiguities remain, but they will also be resolved, and by the forces of humanity itself. And the belief that Santa Claus constantly thinks and cares about someone – at least, uncertainty in yourself and others. This takes up valuable time and blunts the objective perception of reality.
Of course, there are quite a few people who speak sharply about various paranascientific statements. The bottom line is that strictly declare the non-existence of pink unicorns, in general, it is impossible, as well as to say the opposite. If you consider yourself a critical thinker, then discussing such issues should not be possible at all. They lie outside the scientific picture of the world until someone observes this phenomenon or another phenomenon that could indirectly affect them within the current scientific paradigm. Unfortunately, no one has yet been able to reliably observe either divine intervention or the transmission of thoughts over a distance. It is important to understand that I do not refute the hypothetical possibility of both, I just make it clear that these hypotheses do not fit into the current scientific paradigm. Science itself, like the scientific paradigm, is undergoing evolutionary and revolutionary changes, so in the future it is quite possible that these and any other non-scientific questions will become scientific. Right now, it doesn't make sense to discuss them from the point of view of a critical person. No one forbids you to fantasize.
No, I don't think so. “Swarming” is actually a decidedly disrespectful word. You can infest with lice or larvae. In any case, those who swarm are some small and nasty creatures. Which you find very annoying for some reason.
And yes, what does “deny everything” mean? Your religious beliefs are not ” everything.” It is obvious that you are very angry with people who do not believe in the deities that you believe in, but this does not mean that such people can be compared to insects swarming in a dung pit. You want respect for yourself, don't you? Then present your arguments and express your opinion. Skeptics don't owe you anything, and they don't have to justify themselves to you. This is a normal state of people.
It seems to me that this is how it looks from the outside, on TheQuestion people, on the contrary, try to give the most objective assessment (well, not always of course) to extraordinary questions. It is always easy to refer to something unknown and that we know little; it is very important to extract the essence from our “small” and can achieve more
The problem really is that many “smart” people confuse the arguments of modern religions, with their gods and all other attributes, with very different ideas of some people that it is impossible to explain some things from a purely material point of view, and some things cannot be approached at all. Based on this, these “some people” do not consider themselves materialists, but also believers, in the modern religious view, they also do not consider themselves, which allows them to be skeptical of both of them. But this complicates everything, and people, for the most part, do not like “complexity”, so I understand your question and in my opinion, your dissatisfaction is justified.
I personally am ready to reject not “everything”, but “everything that has proved its inconsistency”.
Yes, we know only a small part of our universe, but this does not mean that anything is possible in the small part of the universe that is accessible to us.�
Maybe somewhere in the unknown distances (for example, in another galaxy) everything is arranged quite differently. But where we live, there are very specific laws, and while no one has canceled them, we have to accept reality as it is.
Yes, it's boring. Yes, probably with dragons and unicorns, working magic pills and the existence of the Lord God, everything would be much more fun.
But alas, it just so happens that if a person has eyes, ears and brains working, then he has to be a materialist.