dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>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.
the above (failing to see the difference among types
of faith or between 'lack of belief' and 'disbelief')
is what is known as a 'semantical debate', wherein
we wrangle solely over words, intentionally or no,
misunderstanding what another is doing or what they
are saying. it is grounds for dismissing those who
engage or initiate it as lacking in sincerety.
>>> 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.
note the bases of my actions.
>>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.
you seem to want to ignore this distinction made in the
paragraph immediately above.
>>>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.
>
> Why don't you share it?
I am doing so, in the paragraphs above, but you are
not apparently able to see this.
>>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,
>
> Since I can't recall having seen you show any
>signs of consideration as to how a creator could
>exists,
one of the things that adults do is to put away
childish things. people are at different levels of
knowledge or development, and may not be compatible
at the state of their knowledge. you don't seem
able to appreciate this. what you see as signs is
through a narrow window of internet. you haven't
seen the past of my mind, and so your view of it
is completely inaccurate as you conclude based
only what you see now. ability to consider is only
one aspect of conscious knowledge manipulation.
a return to base levels at every moment is counter
to progress and human development, however it may
demonstrate to you ability to do so.
>and what thoughts you have had about it
>have led you to put faith in the possiblity that he
>does not,
that is a misstatement. it is not that i don't have faith
in the *possibility* that whatever you are talking about
(you don't really describe or define it clearly) doesn't
exist, but that i have an active, empirically-derived
*disbelief* in what you label "creation" and agents that
you have imagined caused such an event. since my standard
is empiricism (observation), i ask you for your evidence
such that you consider anything "possible", but you don't
seem to understand how to go about evaluating this at all.
>of course I can only consider you to be very weak in
>that area....
granted that you haven't a basis in empiricism, your
considerations are fairly inconsequential.
>>>or: Do you deny that you consider the possibility
>>>of God's existence,
>>
>>at a point in life one puts away childish things,
>
> I know you admit your disbelief, so I don't see
>why I would have even asked you about it.
because you are endlessly considering things and want
everyone with whom you speak to return to your level
of knowledge, evaluating them based on your groundless
and ill-founded imperatives you biasedly maintain.
>>are you ashamed of your lack of understanding re faith?
>
> You explain what you think I don't understand so
>I can get some idea of what you think you're talking
>about.
you fuse more than one concept associated with "faith"
and then pretend that there is no distinction. when this
is brought to your attention you ignore it. are you
ashamed of your lack of understanding regarding 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
>
> LOL. You haven't come across any knowledge
>that God does not exist.
how would you know? how do you go about evaluating that?
>The best you can do is guess like everybody else.
no, that's your premise. you must continually guess and
move from consideration to consideration because you
have no basis for knowledge. I have repeatedly informed
you that i have a basis for knowledge in observation, and
at times you have even followed me and agreed with some
of my premises. your preference for having no means of
creating knowledge seems to be related to your early
conditioning to accept figments as explanations.
>But a plus side for you
>above most strong atheists, is that at least you're
>not ashamed to say you have faith that your guess
>is correct.
they aren't either, if you put it to them properly.
you want to offend them by pretending that they are
using your methodology (or none at all).
>>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.
here you're ignoring once again the central point.
we have a means of creating knowledge and this is
demonstrated through the construction of technology.
what do you have that compares with that, aside from
an Evil Genius?
nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
--
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html
--
--------------------------------------------
|
