dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>panamfl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>>jesucris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>> >I don't believe your gods exist.
>>>>
>>>> Are you willing to admit your faith in that,
>>
>>lack of belief is not a faith.
>
> Why do you want--so very very badly--for lack of
>belief and disbelief to be the same thing....
I don't. I'm quite clear that panamfloyd said that
she did not believe, not that she disbelieved.
you do not appear to understand the difference.
> Do you deny your disbelief,
me? you're mixing people up now. I am convinced of the
accuracy of hypothesis that there is no overarching
cosmocrater (God), yes. I actively disbelieve in it,
based on reason, observation, and the conclusions to
which i have been led by empiricism and its advantages.
I have confidence in that hypothesis, yes, so no i do
not deny my disbelief. that said, it is not like your
(or the typical theistic) faith which denies reason
and relies upon dogma to enshrine knowledge absent
basis in observation.
>admitting that you do consider the possibility
>of God's existence
your terms are confused. I have at times considered
the possibility of numerous types of deities and
those who are called "Gods", as well as what type
of evidence such deities should leave, and what
would be reasonable to find to presume one. it is
not a matter of 'admitting' having considered this,
but that our condition/position with respect to
them is simply different. you're in a position of
apparently endlessly considering whereas, i have
moved further along and have begun constructing
knowledge. you seem to have no means of doing that,
or if you do you haven't explain it at all.
>even though you are incredibly weak in that area?
your observation skills through this narrow window
aren't very keen. you seem to be willing to make
large leaps of presumption about everyone, including
premises such as that everyone is at the same stage
in our construction of knowledge, and that we have
the same methodology of such construction -- either
that or you don't consider these things at all.
>or: Do you deny that you consider the possibility
>of God's existence,
at a point in life one puts away childish things,
and that includes worn out hypotheses for which
there is simply no evidence discovered.
>admitting that you do have faith he does not exist?
I am confident in the supposition that no such
cosmocrater exists, yes. I have told you this many
times and your tired focus on it is becoming tedious.
that might work with the raving atheists who don't
like to be told that they have "faith", but once you
allowed it to mean "confidence in a hypothesis",
then i could always reply in the positive to you.
>>>> or are you ashamed
>>>> to as the vast majority of strong atheists appear to be?
>>
>>your lack of understanding regarding faith doesn't change.
>
> I have faith that the tooth fairy is a lie.
a deception to be sure. good start.
>I have faith that the Earth will rotate at least
>100 more times.
now you're onto something.
>Can you admit your own faith in anything,
>or do you deny all of it?
I shall now begin to ignore all of your ridiculous
questions about faith and contentions about shame.
that appears to be your obsessive routine.
>>are you ashamed of your lack of understanding re faith?
you didn't answer this question to you:
are you ashamed of your lack of understanding re faith?
you even began pulling out singular definitions of the
term as if it only has one. pretty futile and only
demonstrative of the fact that you're ashamed of your
lack of understanding re faith. why can't you admit it?
>>>Which is an indicator of the deeper problem. You are
>>>still pondering about whether or not gods exist.
>>
>>yes, dh is continually doing that, and never moves
>>beyond such a consideration
>
> Who do you think does,
anyone who constructs knowledge and leaves the random
"considering" of things behind like all other childish
things; epistemological progress.
>and how do you think you do it?
through empiricism. we've covered this before. in brief,
observation leads to hypotheses which may be tested,
which lead to refinements in knowledge about the world
that can ultimately be demonstrated with technology.
nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
--
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html
--
--------------------------------------------
|
