Necessity of Causality - An Illusion

Necessity of Causality - An Illusion

There is no necessity in nature for one action to follow another. There is only a logical necessity.

For example, this violates the metaphysical nature of Karma, and the Abrahamic theological nature of a divine punishment for sin.

rough To Atheism (Specifically anti-non-materialism)

Note here that I'll be referring to anti-non-materialists as xmists, because most atheists are anti-non-materialists, however, not all are. xm is an acronym, and it should've been axm, but xm stands out so it also makes people use more of their neurons than otherwise to get the context.

Why am I using the label xmist? Firstly, it is a lot shorter than anti-non-materialist, and I don't want to be grouping all atheists into that category, like how many xmists group all theists into the category of theocrats.

Whenever a person from the illiterate laity makes an argument, such as how X or Y material phenomena is due to God or some other spirit, an xmist (or any rationalists) can quickly correct him using scientific explanations. [But since I've used the word "rationalist" here to include people other than xmists, I will need to explain this, because for xmists, only they are rationalists. This is actually similar to how the followers of Muhammad claim the label of monotheism for themselves alone, and how the followers of Muhammad and Jesus claim the label of "true faith" for themselves alone, while almost all others, minus fanatics, know that religion is based on one's own views.]

Similarly, if a person who was bad in English would argue with a theist

But if

They would say stuff like "why are you doing this, you know science." Then they try to suppress their voice.

This is because all belief systems are ultimately only based on our feelings, including atheism. There will always be unexplained phenomena. But there, the atheist claims

rough Content Organization
Blocks, Nested Blocks.

To fix my obsession for rationality there, I'd simply say that the world is a creative expression of Shakthi, and then classification only has to be on the basis of defining the context.

rough

Let me take the best argument of your premise.

You think in order to establish truth (i.e. what it is according to you), truth alone is not enough to win it. You believe that you need to lie to get rid of all that is not true, lies and delusions. Even better, you may think that it is necessary to combat lies with lies. Of course, that leaves naivety open - and I don't know what you guys do about them. I at least do know that the followers of Muhammad do lie to naive people, because he taught them that war is deceit.

However, you do not know which of these people are liars and which are honest. According to you guys, since you have dogmatically asserted that rationalism is the one true truth, to you guys, all others are either liars or naive. So you have the free excuse for lying to them and lying to them.

As Eren Yeager stated, if you were convinced that you were fighting for the truth

[But you guys would say for now, "hey we did not destroy anyone yet." Of course not. But Muhammad also did not destroy Mecca in the beginning. But when he had the power, he added that to his Qur'aan too, in 47:35.]

And you guys would say "the religious people are oppressing everyone." But I lost track of the number of times I "clearly" explained that my beliefs don't do it, and that there are very clear ways of reforming the religions. But you guys use your best attack, which is ad-hominem and mass downvotes without responding to any of it directly.

Here's my argument against logical positivism:

Necessity of Causality - An Illusion

Backlinks

Tags