🚀 go-pugleaf

"Danie|_ Swan" <DAN@ZIONIST-HEADQUARTERS.com> wrote in message
news:Apbod.198724$9b.14384@edtnps84...
> In article <TYaod.198688$9b.127856@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
> >
> >
> >> >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;
>
> Oh I see, you're attempting to portray my caring about my survival as a
> weakness.  I don't see it that way.  I exist, I live in a society, and I
care
> about maximizing my potential within the reality I exist.  But I don't
consider
> approaching every phenomena I encounter as a dunce (agnostic) who can't
figure
> out what matters to him to be condusive to maximizing my potential.
That's why
> I find confident theists to be far less pathetic than so-called agnostics.

No.  You're original arguement was that you couldn't care about anyone's
beliefs; ie. you are indifferent.  I don't portray your caring as a
weakness, only that you are not indifferent.

> >>  Empirical evidence faces problems of induction.
> >>
> >
> >You're kidding, right?
>
> No. You're kidding about "You're kidding, right?" being a refutation of my
> claim, right?
>
No.  Impirical evidence is pretty good proof generally accepted in just
about any intellectual discipline; including science.

>
> >
> >> 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.
>
> You also can't know whether god is in fact a large smurf who lives on the
> planet jupiter and smokes cosmic crack every day.  So does it make you
feel
> like an 'open-minded', politically-correct kind of guy by accepting that
as a
> 'possibility'?  Because you are clinging to your beliefs because of how
they
> make you feel, just like I am.
>
Not really.  First of surfs couldn't live on Jupiter because they are a
figment of a human imagination and humans can't live on Jupiter.

I don't cling to my beliefs because of how they make me feel at all, but
because any attempt to explain the world around me satisfactorily and with
one consistent set of reasons or causes, escapes me.  Consequently, I don't
know.  If I could show that the universe happened by accident, I could
accept that there is no God.  However, it is far too orderly to have been by
accident.  But, if I could state that the universe was by design, I could
accept that as proof of a God.  However, it is far too random for that too.
Also the limit of our ability to sense beyond a certain point and the many
mysteries of even our own consciousness that defy explanations, does not
allow me to rule out God either.
>
> >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.
>
> What you've been "simply willing to admit" is that you're not agnostic at
all,
> you just think it's politically correct to pretend to be agnostic. Maybe
you
> have a fetish for the word?  You just said "I'm more willing to accept
that God
> doesn't exist than that God does".  That doesn't make you agnostic, it
makes
> you a theist too weak and pathetic to claim his own belief!
>
To the contrary.  I have never once used the word agnostic in this entire
thread.  You did.  I have never claimed to be an agnostic at all.  Again,
since an agnostic DOES believe in God but simply pratices no religion, I
would say you are a little shy on that definition too.

> What makes you so sure you're agnostic?  An agnostic shouldn't argue for
> agnosticism, since he claims to NOT KNOW if it's true.  And yet here you
are
> insisting that agnosticism is based on the truest interpretation of
reality.
> Isn't that because you think agnosticism protects your very tenuous faith?
>
>
> >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.
>
> What evidence are you referring to?
>
>
Pain.  The body will respond to pain (ie. touching a hot burner) before the
brain can even register the sensation.  Some studies have shown that may
instinctive reactions in humans and other creatures that the brain simply
catagorizes and makes sense of a series of events and stimuli.  It may or
may not cause a response to them.
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't think there's anything that 'defies explaination at all',
> otherwise you wouldn't even be able to refer to it with words.  But why
> should things which have not yet been explained very deeply or adequately,
like
> consciousness, compell a person to believe in the godly smurf living on
jupiter
> smoking cosmic crack?
>

How about will?  If it is so easy, give us the benefit of your wisdom.

> > 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).
>
> Wait a second.  I think I'm debating an idiot.
>
Simply because I am not understood doesn't make me an idiot.

> >> 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.
> >
> >
>
> Oh, not in my opinion.  As far as morals go, everyone's got their own
opinion.
>
>
Precisely.  That statement alone proves most of the things I have been
saying.