On 13 May 2008 20:35:11 GMT, nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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,
We are disagreeing about whether lack of
belief is the same as disbelief, which it is not.
>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.
Try presenting some now. Go:
>>>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,
You have never advanced to the point of being
able to consider how a creator could exist. You have
almost certainly not even advanced to the point of
being able to consider how humans could survive
independant of our solar system.
>and may not be compatible
>at the state of their knowledge. you don't seem
>able to appreciate this.
I "appreciate" the fact that you can't think
realistically about the possible existence of a
creator, and I can appreciate the fact that
you almost certainly will never be able to. In
your direction, that's all there is to "appreciate".
It's not like you have some special knowledge
or insight that I lack, but in contrast to that I
consider the possibilities that you do and MORE.
>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.
Not according to this:
"I have confidence in the hypothesis that there was
no "creation" (cosmic origination) and no agent
responsible for it. you call that my faith, and i
am happy to affirm that this is my position, yes."
-- nocTifer
>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
Humans haven't even mined the first asteroid yet, so
the evidence that they might survive when the sun will
no longer sup****t life is practically non-existent. But even
if we don't, it doesn't mean that no beings have ever done
so.
>such that you consider anything "possible", but you don't
>seem to understand how to go about evaluating this at all.
There are billions of stars, meaning there are billions
of planets, and I believe some of them have intelligent
life. Whether or not any intelligent life had influence on
the development of life on Earth is a valid consideration
to me, and you have certainly provided no reason why
it should not be.
.. . .
>> 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
If there's something you have learned that I have not,
why don't you share it instead of boasting about it without
ever giving the slightest hint of what you think it is?
|
