🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <lHbod.198727$9b.52369@edtnps84>, Me@home.ca says...
>
>
>"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 said I don't care what other people's beliefs are, in the sense that I have 
no desire to try to change them.  I did not say I don't care about my own 
beliefs, or my ability to interface with others in a manner that maximizes to 
my benefit.

>> >>  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.

Empiricism is very important in the development of scientific methodology, but 
empirical evidence doesn't provide ontological proofs. 


>> 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.

Well if smurfs are figments of human imagination, why isn't god?


>
>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.

A universal signifier escapes everyone, since one does not exist.  The closest 
thing to a yardstick from which to measure all other phenomena is the self.  
Presumably, that's where Descartes was trying to get to with his widely wildly 
interpreted "I think therefore I am" statement...


>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.

See I get the impression you really don't have much experience with this 
subject because you should know that this is William Paley's Natural Theology 
theory, which is very easy to refute as the 'Blind Watchmaker' excerise 
demonstrates.  As Dawkins sums it up succinctly; "a deity capable of 
engineering all the organized complexity in the world, either instantaneously 
or by guiding evolution, ...must already have been vastly complex in the first 
place..." He calls this "postulating organized complexity without offering an 
explanation.""


>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.

I don't see what that proves.  Maybe god likes randomness (but apparently not 
very much since it only occurs on the subatomic level).  


>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.

Then you should not rule out the possibility that Arnold Schwartzenegger is 
god, and you should consider that possibility to be equally as possible as any 
other conception of god you might be able to imagine.


>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.

That is not, in any sense, a valid definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticsm does 
not require a belief or disbelief in god.  In it's original sense, when the 
term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley, it meant "the philosophical and 
theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown, 
or inherently unknowable. ".  That definition of agnostic is a definition I 
have no problem with, and I fall under that definition, and I believe everyone 
else does too, whether they know it or not.  The newer definition of agnostic 
which is what you've been describing yourself as, is used to describe those who 
are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and 
other matters of religions.  So for example, I have no problem saying "I am 
agnostic", but I'm definately not AN agnostic, as in one who places is faith IN 
agnosticism.  Whether you want to call yourself an agnostic or not, by saying 
that your faith hinges on your inability to know, you are classifying yourself 
by the definition of agnosticism.  Agnosticism is faith in non-faith, therefore 
it is a contradiction, and a delusion harbored by anyone who claims it as a 
component of their faith.
 

>> >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. 

Yeah I've studied that sort of thing extensively.  The key is what it means to 
'register the sensation'.  If there is an immediate danger the brain seems to 
know that there isn't time to process the stimuli in a conscious manner, so it 
does it unconsciously, so that it can happen much quicker.  In fact there are 
cases were people will hear a voice commanding them to duck or whatever is 
required to avoid an immediate danger when there isn't time to activate the 
'internal dialog'.  But of course, even if this explaination turns out to be 
wrong, there's no reason to believe a supernatural explaination will replace it 
as a better explaination.  


>> 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.

yes, will to faith, which is will to power.  You only have faith that you don't 
know much about the natutre of god.  The more you keep talking to me the more 
you'll know, and the less you'll be able to claim you haven't considered all 
the angles required to make an informed choice in your faith.




>
>> > 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.

Your sentence was idiotic gibberish.  What is the equation used to transfer 
units of information into units of energy?  


>>
>> 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.
>

I think it proves most of the things I have been saying.