still....... it's great to be able to discuss read and contribute, even if the subject is irresolvable. One good thing about dying (apart from a few tax dodges) is you get to solve the argument, but unfortunately, just like the here and now, only to yourself. Anyway, my thanks goes to darkhorse for forwarding his point of view so forcefully and for the seriously profound and illuminating thoughts from Kymar, along with the amusing posts made acuminate in fasterpussycat's own prevocative way. For what it's worth, I certainly enjoyed and learned from it all. I always said Traders are a great bunch !
it's great to be able to discuss read and contribute, even if the subject is irresolvable. Yep- if done right it can be fun and educational at the same time, like Sesame Street. And every once in a blue moon resolution does occur / doors do open / minds do change... One good thing about dying (apart from a few tax dodges) is you get to solve the argument, but unfortunately, just like the here and now, only to yourself. Yes and no, depending on your view of what happens- if existence simply stopped there would be no moment of revelation, continued consciousness is a prerequisite of understanding, worm food doesn't get to say I told you so (or anything else for that matter)... Anyway, my thanks goes to darkhorse for forwarding his point of view so forcefully and for the seriously profound and illuminating thoughts from Kymar, along with the amusing posts made acuminate in fasterpussycat's own prevocative way. My thanks to you guys too for making it interesting and worthwhile- hopefully not just for the participants but for others who dropped in also, at least in an entertainment/ enlightenment sense if not a deeper one.
Oh, but i most certainly DO have a genuine interest! I was hoping for a real answer, not another typically evasive response. I did read the thread. You have about 30 pages of posts full of nothing but hot air! I am yearning to hear the crux of what your multi-year search for answers yielded. The stuff that brought (supposedly) even Oxford scholars to their knees! Faster asked you for it, I ask you for it too! 30 pages wasn't enough for you to even guide us in the right direction?? Basically Darkhorse, I find your modus operandi despicable. Your attempts to blur the line between reason and faith are laughable. Reason and faith inextricably linked? HA! HARDLY! Reason and faith, my ignorant (or intellectually deceitful) friend are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! Faith can only make room for itself at the expense of reason. Religion, far from being based on reason, requires - DEMANDS - unquestioning faith from its followers. The moment a follower of a particular brand of religion lapses into reason and asks, "why mine and not theirs? How can I be certain I am right and they are wrong?", he is asking for HIS religion and the OPPOSING religions to be evaluated rationally on their merits. Given that no holy book of any religion gives a rational argument for choosing IT over another, but instead resorts to intimidation tactics, like threats of eternal torment, to keep the follower in check, such an exploration will quickly yield the realisation that, given the mess of contradictions, absurdities and monstrosities everpresent in ALL organized religions, it is impossible to objectively, rationally choose one over another. The thinking man will be forced to conclude that atheism is the only rational alternative. Let me pull out a favorite quote from my atheist bag of tricks: "Few men doubted the existance of God until philosophers set out to prove it." Darkhorse, attempting to use reason to justify your religious views dooms you to failure! Will this fact cause Darkhorse to relinquish his faith? I doubt it. However, in that case, Darkhorse is not only irrational, but a HYPOCRITE! ("I will use reason to prove my point, but if reason proves me wrong, I will still maintain I am right.") Modern, liberal Protestant theologians, well aware of the dire straits the Bible leaves them in, have interpreted and reintrepeted this "holy writ" so many times that it has become so far removed from anything remotely resembling Christianity as it was practised for the past 19 centuries that it is a misnomer to even call it Christianity. These theologians freely admit that the Bible is NOT the "inspired word of God" (whatever that meant) and is full of (in their own words) "editorial constructs". (For me, such a suicidal admission effectively signals the death knell for Christianity. The fact that these theologians then maintain and defend Christianity (in its new mutated form) is intellectual dishonesty, pure and simple.)
I find it amusing that someone who quotes descartes has such poor grounding in the basics of philosophy. You don't even understand the terms you are using. Reason itself rests upon faith. You demonstrate faith in your ability to reason and observe correctly. You demonstrate faith in the validity of logic and thus contradict what you are saying. Furthermore, the opposite of belief is not unbelief, it is noncommittal. If you truly believe that only science can answer your questions, then to be consistent you would have to be an agnostic. If science is your only tool of measure, you would have to admit you have no idea whether God exists or not, because there is no empirical scientific method that can prove or disprove God's existence. You rant and rave like a good little atheist. Atheism is just another belief system. All belief systems require faith, even if that faith is in nothing. You bring up problems that have nothing to do with me. One man and the truth is a majority. I'm not worried about the flaws that other believers have in their reasoning- you will find that I see differently than many if not most. Again you assume you can haphazardly apply others' flaws to me. Again not a wise assumption. If you actually read what I wrote, you clearly understood none of it. Agreeing to disagree is one thing. Calling the other person laughable/ despicable is quite another. I have a firmer grasp on my reality than you have on yours. This is clearly demonstrated by your propensity to put your foot in your mouth. Why are you embarassing yourself here? Chill out. Let it go.
More hot air Darkhorse? I am embarassing myself! hahahahaha. You truly are a piece of work! Of course there is no empirical method to test for God's existance - we don't even have a definition of what it is we would be testing FOR! Atheism is NOT "just another belief system" it is the specific rejection of YOUR belief system - theism. A-theism is simply "without theism". You cannot infer anything more from the statement "I am an atheist" than that I do subscribe to theism. I could get into a lengthy discussion about faith and reason, but, lest I am accused of further "ranting and raving", I'll ask you directly: define your God and give evidence for his existance. That is all I have ever asked for. I AM interested in building a more accurate model of reality, and if God can truly be proven to exist, I have no problems incorporating him into my world. Since you are the one asserting that he exists, the onus of proof rests squarely on your shoulders. Put up or shut up.
====== atheism \A"the*ism\, n. [Cf. F. ath['e]isme. See Atheist.] 1. The disbelief or denial of the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being. ====== agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc. ====== Care to argue with Webster's? The first position, atheism, is a committed stance that requires faith in an asserted but unprovable negative proposition. The second position, agnosticism, is intentional neutrality, i.e. no position. If you cannot see a difference, you are blind. You storm in here and demand incontrovertible evidence when the last half of this thread basically consisted of all participants in all camps agreeing that there is no incontrovertible evidence to be had for ANY of the positions, including whatever one you may hold. You don't know your definitions and you don't know what you claim to have read, or else you ignore it. This is really getting tiring. The only one gushing hot air is you, dude.
This is not getting good, this is pointless and stupid rehash. Everything he said has already been voiced by Faster, Stu or someone else- and said better at that. This ground has been covered three times over at least on this very thread. All we have here is an extra dash of arrogance, small mindedness and solipsism. Dan, why don't you go take a piss on someone else's leg.
Darkhorse, you are quickly going from one of my favorites to the functional equivalent of a blithering idiot! 1) Since when did the world agree that the participants in the last half of this thread were to be final arbiters as to whether or not there can be ever be incontrovertible evidence. Are you guys omniscient? Furthermore, my negative proposition "there is no God" is certainly falsifiable - by you proving there is one! 2) I certainly would take issue with Websters. There can be no middle ground. (Check your philosophy textbooks on that, oh great one). A belief in God is either present or it is not. If someone professes to have no opinion on whether God exists or not, such a position is implicitly atheist. The prefix "a", meaning without, when combined with "theism", produces "atheism". Without theism. If theism is absent, a position is automatically deferred to atheist. 3) You state there was agreement established that there is no possibility of conclusive evidence for my position or yours, Darkhorse, yet claim ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY in your beliefs. The logic of this is lost on me. 4) You still haven't answered my question, so I'll pose it again. I am a non-believer, but I have subscribed to Pascal's wager and agreed that I ought to believe - how do I go about choosing which religion to follow? Each claims as punishment eternal torment for the non-believer, am I to believe them ALL?