🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <XV9od.198656$9b.140406@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
>news:TH7od.198361$9b.92369@edtnps84...
>> In article <Sj0od.175168$df2.60004@edtnps89>, Me@home.ca says...
>> >
>> >Its an important distinction.  Many atheists are pretty nasty to those
>> >"narrow-minded theists" as theists can be to dissenters from their faith.
>> >Only those who aren't really sure couldn't really care what your beliefs
>> >are.
>>
>> bullshit.  I am sure and I don't give a crap whether you are or not.  Soft
>> atheism (aka agnosticism) is for the weak.  Oh wait, I just made a
>negative
>> judgement so that must mean I do give a crap, right?  Not hardly. I LIKE
>the
>> fact that most people are stupid and inferior.
>>
>>
>There you go.  Since you obviously view anyone who doesn't share you views
>as being stupid and inferior, you clearly do give a crap.

Wrong.  Anyone who doesn't share my views is either inferior or superior.  But 
nobody is my equal because there is nobody who shares my views because they are 
unique to me, just as yours are unique to you.  

>> Pascal's wager is bunk because it assumes that there is no cost to the
>organism
>> in harboring faith, when in fact it is costing him cognition in his life,
>which
>> he expends until his death, afterwhich there is no compelling evidence
>that his
>> existence will continue..  It's a fool's wager.
>>
>And there is no compelling evidence that his existence won't either. 

Right, which is why logic needs to be used, not evidence.  There is no 
compelling evidence that a person who believes in astrology is wrong about the 
position of stars affecting his behavior any more than there is compelling 
evidence that a person who believes his behavior causes stars to move around is 
wrong.  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.  

If you insist on taking an 'agnostic' position of 'not knowing', just how much 
'not knowing' are you prepared to accept?  Are you prepared to accept that the 
moon might be made of cheese?  Or that you might be able to jump off a bridge 
and fly?  If you are prepared to know that you can't jump off a bridge and fly, 
 and that the moon isn't made of cheese, you're prepared to know that god 
doesn't exist.


> In
>addition, that assumes that cognition takes resources and is finite; in fact
>life-limited.  There is no evidence of that either

the rotting bodies and maggots don't tip you off?  If you want to believe that 
your consciousness is not an emergent property of the activity of material 
neurons in your brain that disintigrate after you die, then you are proving my 
point that agnosticism is a chosen path towards nothing but stupidity.  The 
only benefit of being on that path would be the increased possibility of 
recognizing how useless it is, and choosing a different path.
  

>I see.  I didn't know that  atheism was attached to amorality, and while
>many theists believe that no atheist can be moral, I have always refused to
>accept one is dependent on the other.  Clearly that is not the case for all
>people.
>

Was there something I said that struck you as 'immoral', or are you just 
pontificating for its own sake?