Science and Technology always disproving religion.

This is exactly the conundrum facing the youth of today: whether to literally believe the church's myths and symbols and reject science or totally reject the church. Their choice is seeminly between fundamentalism and atheism...

...and neither choice is adequate.

Most choose to leave the church, and that is why the pews seem so full of elderly people.

Quote:

Fundamentalists, atheists, and agnostics are closely related because they can't get past the literal.

The inclusion of agnostics in that sentence was gratuitous, self-serving, and illogical.

For the record, fundamentalists and atheists are much closer to what you are spouting...than to agnosticism.

What Coluber said...especially
"Fundamentalists, atheists, and agnostics are closely related because they can't get past the literal."

Also what Terry said.

Nicer try, Frank. You call me a "believer," I assume because I am an atheist.

But you resist my efforts to explain my kind of atheism.

Remember, I do not BELIEVE in a no-god and worship him. I let myself be labeled "atheist" because to me the idea of a personal diety is totally without meaningful value. I don't understand it. I think I know what believers mean by it.

YOU, on the other hand, have always argued that since you have no "unambiguous" evidence for or against the theistic thesis, you call yourself an "agnostic", meaning one who does not know--either way. But that also means that you are UNDECIDED, and that indecision suggests that you are closer to being a believer than I am.

You never fail to give pleasure to your fellow A2Kers.

JLNobody wrote:

Nicer try, Frank. You call me a "believer," I assume because I am an atheist.

I call you a "believer" ... because you often talk about the things you believe...and you actually use the word "believe" when doing so.

Quote:

I don't remember JL ever saying that he knew the true nature of reality. I think he means that our true nature is beyond knowing and being is the best we can hope for, or maybe I'm just projecting my own understanding. It's something like Alan Watts said about not being able to see our own eyes, but still being able to see. E. M. Forster said that he didn't believe in belief. Some people take that as cynicism, but it makes good sense to me.

Well...you can apply the word "believers" ONLY to people who "believe" in a God or who worship a God or a no-God...but if you simply open your mind...you will easily be able to see that all indications suggest that ANYONE WHO AVERS THAT HE/SHE KNOWS THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY...is indulging in belief.

You often indicate that you KNOW the true nature of REALITY.

My guess is that you don't.

I have never seen you offer a single item of evidence that you do.

When (IF) you ever do...we will discuss it.

Until then...you are a believer every bit as much as someone like Jerry Falwell is a believer. You just "believe" in other things from the ones Jerry "believes" in.

Quote:

YOU, on the other hand, have always argued that since you have no "unambiguous" evidence for or against the theistic thesis, you call yourself an "agnostic", meaning one who does not know--either way. But that also means that you are UNDECIDED, and that indecision suggests that you are closer to being a believer than I am.

No it doesn't.

And the fact is that your thesis here is absolutely wrong.

Not only do I suggest I see no evidence for or against the theistic thesis that insists there is a God...I also (and just as frequently) suggest I see no evidence for or against the atheistic thesis that insists there are no gods.

I am not closer to theism than I am to atheism...and I am not closer to atheism than I am to theism...no matter how much you want that to be the case.

If you want to be an atheist...be an atheist. And if you atheism stops at simply saying you do not "believe" in gods...fine. We are shoulder to shoulder on that. But if you, as do so many atheists, want to insist there are no gods...then that is a belief.

Either way...YOU HAVE OFTEN EXPRESSED BELIEFS about REALITY...and that makes you a believer.

Quote:

You never fail to give pleasure to your fellow A2Kers.

Good. Enjoying this forum is part of its purpose.

Behave, Frank.
I have a sidewalk and I'm not afraid to use it.

Frank, I hope you did not receive an eye injury. You probably did have a concussion, having been unconscious. Sober up, man.
Coluber did mismanage the quote system. I've never figured it out, which is why I simply use my "edit" system (i.e., "cut" and "paste")
But Coluber does understand my comments about Reality. I never say that I understand its nature in the same sense that I understand its observable manifestations; it's not about "knowledge" has you apply it to me. My relation to "reality" is the same as yours, except that I am pleased to experience it more immediately--as my true nature. But I assure you, my friend, that you have no idea what that means. That's seen clearly in your statement:
"You often indicate that you KNOW the true nature of REALITY."
Your use of "know" is so off the mark with regard to what I, Coluber and Tywvel have been saying that it's not even wrong. We do not claim to have a theoretical knowledge of reality that you lack; we have--or at least try to have--a relationship with Reality that is totally alien to your perspective. Before you attack what I am saying please re-read what we've been saying with an open mind. But I'm sorry to "know" that this is very unlikely.