Is it possible for a person to have no beliefs at all?

And this is according to the gospel of St. Fresco?

No chance your take on the REALITY could be wrong...am I correct?

I am saying I do not know...and you are saying you know.

And I am pictured as balmy???

This kind of absurdity is what makes the Internet worthwhile.

I am sorry Frank but on this one we part ways...unless you can provide what is normally called a good reason for believe in anything the simple hypothetical possibility as assumption on itself ends up as poor work...as someone suggested the difference between an informed guess on how gravity works and believing on dwarves elves fairy's and Flying Spaghetti Monsters is precisely that while some good reason is presented on the first example no such reason is presented on the second...one cannot go disproving an infinite set of possibility's only because someone said they exist...rather one should provide some reasonable justification on why we believe on something !

I see, ci...I am stupid and/or obdurate, and you are insightful.

You can see that “god” and the “flying spaghetti monster” are the same concept…and I am not able to do so.

I am wrong when I say I do not know answers about REALITY…and you are correct when you say you do.

Very interesting.

...and all this time I believing they were cousins...you are a very well informed person Imposter !

At no point in this conversation have I said I "believe" anything. In fact, over the last 15 years of discussions here and at Abuzz...I have never said I "believe" anything.

I have said on many occasions that I cannot categorically rule out certain things. So I am not sure where we are "parting company."

...fair and square !...

We all have our balmy ego committee members. The trick is stop them being persistent chairman !

You called yourself "stupid," but who am I to argue?

You had to add,

I never claimed such a thing. That's entirely your conclusion.

When people have pointed out my errors, I have (most of the time) agreed with the correction and/or apologized.

Something you ought to master, Fresco. Because what we have here is me saying “I do not know the true nature of REALITY. It may be this or it may be that; there may be gods; there may not be gods.”

I am acknowledging that I do not know what the REALITY actually is…except for the fact that whatever actually IS…IS.

Fresco here is saying that the REALITY is that gods exist for theists…and do not exist for atheists. As far as he is concerned, the possibility that one or the other is the REALITY…cannot be. He is dogmatically declaring what the REALITY is...and the REALITY according to the gospel of St. Fresco is that what humans think about REALITY is the REALITY...and no other possible explanation can be!

Ci is saying, “AMEN" to all that.

So what we have is me acknowledging that I do not know…and Fresco and ci claiming they do know.

And I am getting the heat.

Wow!

I love it.

We have the makings here of Pulp Fiction II!

Keep it coming guys. If only for the entertainment value.

Frank, Here's a clue for you: You're the entertainment. That's the reason so many here engage you; it's entertainment in chat form.

Frank, just in case you're wondering who's giving you all those 'thumbs-up' , I must plead guilty. You' re the only one here honest enough to admit that you do not know what the nature of 'reality' is, while others keep trying to push their own quite subjective definitions to the fore, pretending they have some sort of universailty.

I'd like to go you one better, Frank. I not only admit that I don't know the answer, I'm pretty sure in my own mind that we -- qua homo sapiens sapiens --are not capable of knowing or understanding any part of the answer to that particular riddle. Contrary to the belief of so many 'scietifically-minded' people, I do not believe that the human intellect is limitless and able to understand all that there is to understand.

It's kind of like me trying to teach my cat to read. It's not just that I can't teach him this skill; it's that that there is no way for him to understand what this skill is. Our own human brains ain't too much different when it comes to solving any problem which goes beyond the easily measureable.

That depends on a number of things, among them is how we define "gods".

And that's what atheists do; they define god as an impossibility and then deny it's existence. I think religious people are often misguided, but atheists are worse. The whole idea of "atheism" is a response to "theism". Ironic, that atheists should be so concerned by what they dismiss...

We don't "dismiss" as much as respond to "maybe there is a god."

There is nothing in human knowledge or ability that provides for the existence of any god. Many humans believe in many different gods; for them a god(s) do exist. For them, it's not a matter of "I don't know."

There are only three possibilities; 1) there is a god, 2) there is no god, and 3) I don't know.

To claim one has better knowledge over the other is futile and childish.

Give Frank another thumbs up!

Glad to see you coming around, Tak. "I don't know" (and probably cannot know) is the only reasonable stand here.

Btw, I have to share this story about a guy I knew years ago. He told me: "I hate god. Well, I'm an atheist anyway."

I'm still trying to figure out how one can hate something that one doesn't believe exists.

Lustig, agreed. It has been my position for a long time that we are inherently incapable of the intellectual posing or answering of questions regarding the Ultimate nature of Reality. But I have also insisted that despite our inherent ignorance we are still able to savor (a non-intellectual "understanding" of) Reality as it manifests in our nature. That's why I like meditation (the first-hand examination of our true nature) as the most appropriate method for identifying our participation in whatever it is that is Ultimate.

You seem to have made a universal statement about the meaning of "to know". Some of the arguments about the futility of agnosticism are based on the deconstruction of such universality, indeed about the transient nature of semantics itself.

The atheist who "hated god" was spot on if what he meant was that he hated the social consequences of the actions of some of those for whom their concept of "God" was unquestionable. That atheist is in good company.

Ask yourself how you "know" whether the concept of "Nazism" is correct or not. The only reasonable answer is surely "by their deeds shall ye know them."

ci
Note that my pragmatist stance is based on equating "knowledge" with "functionality", and also takes the view that words stand for socially negotiated concepts not "things" or "reality" (two more concepts, "existence" being another).

Thank you, Lustig. I'm delighted you agree with the basics of my contentions here as strongly as you have indicated.

Too often we humans dislike having to acknowledge we do not know the answers to things. Too often we humans think we are so important to the whole of REALITY...that we determine it.

Perhaps we do...BUT PERHAPS WE DON'T.

The REALITY may be much, much too complex and complicated for us to come close to understanding.

I think Fresco and JL could be one to something with their theories about how things actually are...and about how things actually work. But they would do their ruminations more honor by presenting them in less dogmatic terms. Humans...and the human mind...may not be anywhere near as important to the truth of REALITY than they suspect.

Once again, Lustig, I appreciate you mentioning your agreement.

Not better, just different.
From my perspective god is a human creation. Gods exist in the minds and lives of those who give the concept validity by embracing it. God does not exist in the minds and lives of those who reject the concept.

This "We can't know" is bullshit. It is so obviously contrived. I don't look down on one for disagreeing with me, but I have to assert my view from time to time.