🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:8uaod.198673$9b.56834@edtnps84...
> 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.
>

No, you are wrong again.  Any measurement against another still means that
you do care; iferior, superior or equal.  You need to measure in order to
make the statement in the first place.

> >> 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.
>

You're kidding, right?

> 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.
>
To the contrary.  I can accept things that I can never know.  I can know
whether I can fly or not, and I can know whether the moon is made of green
cheese.  What I can't know is whether God exists or whether He doesn't.
And, as I said, I am more willing to accept that God does exist, than that
God doesn't.  However, the nature of a God is something that escapes me.
Consequently, I don't know.  You believe.  You don't know either.  I'm
simply willing to admit it.

>
> > 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.
>

You're missing the point.  If cognition is finite, then it may limit life
itself; which it doesn't.  People die for a variey of reasons.  I have never
heard of anyone dying from overthinking.

Secondly, if you think that consciousness is as a result solely of brain
activity, you are the foolish one.  There is significant evidence that some
consciousness originates elsewhere.  Even if you don't believe in a 'soul'
or an afterlife, the body can react at fundamental levels to stimuli at a
greater speed than the brain is capable of sensing, and then processing the
information.  Given that, there is also considerable portions of cognition
which defy any explanation at all.  Most things that are organically-based
have some biological reason for being and are as a result of evolution to
give the organism an advantage.  Also, the amount of information that we
process in a lifetime is not even close to the amount of energy we can
produce (even if the information was stored at the atomic level).  Since
there is so much about cognition that we can't understand, I am not willing
to categorically rule out anything with respect to it.

>
> >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?
>
>
Exploiting other people for one's own gain is immoral in my view unless it
is a mutually beneficial arrangement.