dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On 13 May 2008 20:35:11 GMT,
>nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>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,
more semantical games.
>>>>>>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.
no, we already agree that they are different.
your focus on semantical games is an apparent
attempt to gain attention and distract from the
fact that you have no means of constructing
knowledge, merely endlessly considering your
preferred hypotheses, and then choosing to
ally with what you are conditioned to enjoy.
>>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. ...
there is no use in showing you more of what you cannot
recognize or see. having shown you some, and you not
observed or understood it, it would be futile to
continue placing more before you.
>>>>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.
how did you determine that from your very small
sampling of what i am considering? it is an
inference without logical necessity.
>You have
>almost certainly not even advanced to the point of
>being able to consider how humans could survive
>independant of our solar system.
you have no way of determining that. you're just
saying that the same way that you expostulate
about faith, trying to goad your reader onward.
>>and may not be compatible
>>at the state of their knowledge. you don't seem
>>able to appreciate this.
>
> I "appreciate" the fact
you're just using the language to say what you want,
but you have no logical method of putting real
contentions and knowledge together, just goads.
>that you can't think realistically
you don't know what i can do based on what i am doing
now, you're just making warrantless conclusions based
on your narrow window and biased theistic premises.
>about the possible existence of a creator,
yes i'm thinking *completely* realistically about it,
because i am looking for evidence of any creation
having happened before presuming any creating agent.
you're not considering the logic of evidence or of
knowledge's construction based on observation, you
are just putting words together in the hopes that
you will goad atheists into wasting their time on you.
>and I can appreciate the fact that
>you almost certainly will never be able to.
your certainty is meaningless, because it derives
from conditioning and a desire to affront, inflame.
it isn't working on me. I see right through it.
>In your direction, that's all there is to "appreciate".
you have no way of evaluating that and are making
things up trying to sound meaningful.
>It's not like you have some special knowledge
>or insight that I lack,
yes, my sound reliance on empiricism gives me a basis
from which to criticize you and your expression,
whereas you are doing no more yourself than trying
to goad atheists who see that your lack of evidence
constitutes sufficient reason to ignore you completely.
knowledge born of logic in reflection of evidence is
superior to conditioning and biased theistic premises
which you have never tested or seriously considered in
rational ways (only irrational ways).
>but in contrast to that I consider the possibilities
>that you do and MORE.
your endless "consideration" is meaningless and without
any ramification. it just repeatedly points to what you
like and mouths words meaning nothing but what you
either were taught or are being shown but are ignoring.
>>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
you don't appreciate the distinction between your
statement and mine. I explain it fully just below:
>>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.
that distraction is irrelevant with respect to any creation
or any deity.
>>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.
you have no idea what validity is, awash as you are in
endless "consideration" of idea after idea, ratifying
some and negating others based on the style of your
conditioning.
>. . .
>>> 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
I have repeatedly done so: that empiricism and reason are
superior standards to endless consideration without reason
in an attempt to derive knowledge. you're incapable outside
"finding it out" (randomly selecting amongst a throng of
reasonable alternatives based on your theistic premises
and the conditioning of your childhood and later years).
>instead of boasting about it without ever giving the
>slightest hint of what you think it is?
because you cannot appreciate or see it that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist, though you may never become convinced
of that fact.
nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
--
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html
--
--------------------------------------------
--
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Gospel of Satan! http://gospel-of-satan.com
Dumbledore: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but
why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" - J.K. Rowling.
|
