Well, Chuck is dead...so your chances are not zero.
Good one!
And you didn’t say they were a sure thing either.
Just to be sure, you are saying that you you followed the logic and facts I presented in my protein argument and agree that they are true, but you just do not agree with my conclusion. Do I have that right?
They didn't start showing it over here until just before the film came out.
It's not something I saw much of at all.
Sherman and Mr Peabody is another, I've only seen the film version.
I suppose that's what comes of only having three channels and restricted children's broadcasting.
We did get some good Czech fairy tales and there was one programme about the son of an African chief who is forced out of his village when his father is killed.
I don't remember where abouts it was from but it was bloody good. I don't think there were any white actors in it, which was unusual for the 1970s
The sub thread ended for me a page or two back. I'm planning to write my personal reasons why atheism is the only reasonable option, but it may take a few days or longer.
Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
As I stated earlier I am open to civil discussion, but have to make an exception for bullies, racists, and megalomaniacs. People such as you and Izzie and some others who frequent the pages will find me willing and open.
This is the longest running sub-thread in a 48 hour period that I can remember on A2K. (Maybe the word game threads last longer, but idk.)
It was subversive stuff and our parents never got it.
0 Replies
Leadfoot
0
Mon 25 Apr, 2022 07:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
The sub thread ended for me a page or two back. I'm planning to write my personal reasons why atheism is the only reasonable option, but it may take a few days or longer.
No rush, but I look forward to reading.
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
2
Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:11 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Quote:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW THERE ARE NO GODS. BUT IF THERE IS A GOD...THE GOD COULD REVEAL ITSELF.
SO WHILE IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY, "THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THERE ARE NO GODS"...
...IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SAY, "THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THERE IS AT LEAST ONE."
There is no contradiction there, Leadfoot.
So based on this logic (which I agree with), wouldn’t the conclusion at this point be that the more logical direction of open minded inquiry be 'let’s look into the possibility that there is?'
No.
I already KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is the possibility. Unless a thing is established as impossible, it is...by definition...possible.
Why would I have to inquire or search for that?
I know it is possible at least one GOD exists...and I know it is possible that no gods exist.
Quote:
Not saying you haven’t, I’m just curious how you decided there was no possibility of an answer.
The only thing I have said one cannot know...is that there are no gods. One would have to be a GOD in order to know that...and being a GOD would mean there is at least one god.
Quote:
Even if God did not disclose himself to you at the time, that would not stop an inquiring mind. There must have been more.
Not sure what you are saying here, but you seem to be indicating that I did not search enough to "find" a god of some kind...or that I should have searched enough to "find" one.
If there is a GOD that wants me to know it exists...I will not have to search. And if there are no gods...and still search...I suspect I will one day "find" a god. I think that is what many religionists do. They simply "find" a god because they are already sure it exists.
I am not willing to do that.
The position I have on this issue, Leadfoot, is one I have considered very carefully and at very great length.
0 Replies
Frank Apisa
2
Tue 26 Apr, 2022 03:13 am
@Theo202,
Theo202 wrote:
Quote:
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO KNOW THERE ARE NO GODS. BUT IF THERE IS A GOD...THE GOD COULD REVEAL ITSELF. SO WHILE IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY, "THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THERE ARE NO GODS"...
...IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SAY, "THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THERE IS AT LEAST ONE."
Indeed. "No explanation" always fails when you're applying Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razon and Pascal's Wager are bullshit. They are to philosophy what a wart on the ass of a horse is to bicycle racing.
Well, Chuck is dead...so your chances are not zero.
Good one!
And you didn’t say they were a sure thing either.
Just to be sure, you are saying that you you followed the logic and facts I presented in my protein argument and agree that they are true, but you just do not agree with my conclusion. Do I have that right?
Allow me to answer that question this way:
I have never heard an argument suggesting that anything we humans know to exist requires any kind of god or outside "design." There is no complexity that suggests to me that a god (or designer) is required to explain.
That is why in my explanation of my position, one of the elements is:
"I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence..."
Occam's Razon and Pascal's Wager are bullshit. They are to philosophy what a wart on the ass of a horse is to bicycle racing.
Your opinion would be way more credible if you could actually spell the name of the principle. Maybe you could even find some halfwit who cared about what you thought about it as well.
Occam's Razor is useful because it provides a rational basis for evaluating explanations of behaviours. The principle is that the more assumption are made in an explanation the less likely that explanation is to be true, simply because each assumption is a possible source of error.
I never watched it as a kid so it hasn't got that special place.
With the exception of Deputy Dawg, Tom and Jerry and Warner Brothers shorts the only American cartoons we got back then were Hannah Barbera.
We had our own stuff though, Cosgrove Hall gave us Dangermouse and Count Duckula both of which are very good.
We had Rhubarb and Custard, Rhubarb being the dog and Custard the cat, Willo the Wisp and lots of Oliver Postgate stuff.
Most of it, the Clangers and Ivor the Engine were quite light, but Noggin the Nog which was based on Norse sagas was quite dark.
And Captain Pugwash.
The Clangers were aliens who spoke with a series of whistles.
The voice actors used slide whistles, and later on it emerged it was all swearing, phrases like **** this for a game of soldiers I'm off home would be reduced to a series of whistles and nobody was any the wiser.
It was much later that the truth emerged, and if you have the original line in front of you you can see that the cadence and rhythm match the swear words exactly.
0 Replies
Leadfoot
-2
Tue 26 Apr, 2022 04:23 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Leadfoot asked:
“Just to be sure, you are saying that you you followed the logic and facts I presented in my protein argument and agree that they are true, but you just do not agree with my conclusion. Do I have that right?”
Frank replies:
Allow me to answer that question this way:
I have never heard an argument suggesting that anything we humans know to exist requires any kind of god or outside "design." There is no complexity that suggests to me that a god (or designer) is required to explain.
That is why in my explanation of my position, one of the elements is:
"I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence..."
You do not my permission to “answer” my question any way you wish.
But that was no answer at all.
I did not ask anything about God, god, or gods.
I asked whether you understood a purely scientific argument concerning the likelihood of the biological process of protein production occurring by chance on the Earth or anywhere else in the known universe.
If you do not know enough about biology to give a meaningful analysis it is perfectly fine to say so.
If you DO understand the argument but find it ambiguous, it should be no problem for you to point out why it is ambiguous.
But to dodge the question in this manner is dishonest and not worthy of the man I thought you were.
