Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Lola:-

Who's being naughty now.

Oh sorry-Good morning my leetle chickadee.

0 Replies

It's me, I admit it.......I live to be naughty......

Good morning, spendius smarty pants. Oh you of many compliments. Flattery is so good for my soul.

0 Replies

Lola:-

I don't flatter.If anything I understate.

0 Replies

See? You see? There you go again. Does everyone see what a flatterer Spendi is?

0 Replies

Lola:-

You're such a peach babe.I very much doubt you are appreciated.

0 Replies

Flattery:

Excessive or insincere praise.

Well, maybe we can't call it flattery......but if it is, I don't care, just keep it coming please.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Hey guys, how about the meaning of "ghastly"?

Yes, and please define "ghastly" for JLN, and don't be rude.

0 Replies

Ghastly?

Not nice but not in any traumatic way.Ghostly mixes its colour for me.Slightly funny.Unsightly.I might use the word to sum up my reaction to one of those big fat lady's bottoms in saggy jeans,I find tattoos ghastly.I don't think I'd ever say a "ghastly plane crash".Some of the food I have seen served in your movies looks pretty ghastly to me.Gas.Gastronomic.The mind works like that.Tinges and tones
Mathos would qualify.He's pretty ghastly.A pompous upper-class lady pontificating in a buzzsaw voice about nothing in particular as in "spendius-how many times have I told you blah blah" sort of thing.That's as close as Mathos.
But it is interesting how good authors get this stuff right and bad authors have no idea.

0 Replies

Twyvel, I was not arguing for the existence or non-existence of God in terms of percentages--there would be no way of establishing such percentages. I was arguing that Frank's position implied a fifty-fifty chance; that is how he phrased it, I believe. Since I do not think he has ANY belief in the existence of God, I was suggesting that he is a closet atheist. It's one thing to say one doesn't KNOW and it's another thing to make a statement of BELIEF (as in "tentative working hypothesis") on the basis, not of "unambiguous evidence" but, of one's general experience, the general experience that generates our conscious and unconscious worldview.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

JLNobody

Quote:
I tried to get him [Frank] to acknowledge that agnosticism is what you claim, a position wherein there is as much chance either way (theism or atheism). What was his response? It certainly was not in agreement.

If Frank did not agree that there is "as much change either way" then I agree with him, because it is simple false JLNobody.

There could be a seventy or eighty percent change that god exists (whatever that would mean), but if you don't know you don't know.

And besides, the law of the excluded middle isn't based on percentages. Either god exists or god does not exist. It has nothing to do with chance.

In other words;

It is already the case that god exists.
Or.
It is already the case that god does not exist.

We (most it seems) just don't know which one is true and which one is false.

Still, there is something to be said for "pretty damned sure." We have to assume some things as fact in order to make decisions. My "pretty damned sure" is so close to fact that I threat it as such. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money on it, of course, I won't be around to collect, so I can't. Too bad.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Twyvel, I was not arguing for the existence or non-existence of God in terms of percentages--there would be no way of establishing such percentages. I was arguing that Frank's position implied a fifty-fifty chance; that is how he phrased it, I believe. Since I do not think he has ANY belief in the existence of God, I was suggesting that he is a closet atheist. It's one thing to say one doesn't KNOW and it's another thing to make a statement of BELIEF (as in "tentative working hypothesis") on the basis, not of "unambiguous evidence" but, of one's general experience, the general experience that generates our conscious and unconscious worldview.

I think there are many of us whose hypothesis is way more than "tentative." If we define "fact" as absolute or "known absolutely" then we have no facts and we therefore have no science. It is foolish to talk in terms of absolutes. There is a truth, otherwise we would have nothing to strive for, however we'll never know it because to know it absolutely is dogma.

We're in a box, in a box and the lid is on tight. We can't see outside, not with all of our might. The aim of the game is to dig with our snout. To probe and connive and to figure it out.

0 Replies

Lola: Wait, did Frank leave or was he banned? And why?

As far as my leaning towards the view that there is a God, I formulated this opinion via a four hour conversation with two of my friends, which led me to switch from an atheist to an agnostic. Our train of thought was this:

1) I opened with a conversation about Jung's collective unconscious, and how I had found many similarities between religions separated by geography(i.e., it's unlikely they intermingled). I hypothesized that there must be something connecting all humans together. I had a pseudo-scientific theory that 'God' was really the combined force of all our brains, and not an external entity at all, and was thus not 'God', just the sum of humanity.

2) Then, they got me to acknowledge that since there were so many different views of 'God', that it was better if we just said "higher power", since that was non-specific.

3) Then, through the conundrums of how the universe began, how life on earth began, and the existence of this "collective unconscious", I began to accept that, while science had theories, it didn't really have answers.

4) Then, we defined both atheism and theism as non-questioners, and that, since I was questioning, I was therefore not an atheist. I developed a hierarchy which (I think) details how someone ascends to an agnostic view, but since I'm sure I'll offend some people by posting it here, I'll abstain for now.

5) Then, we separated my distaste for religion from my distaste of 'god', and acknowledged that they weren't the same at all.

So, at present, I maintain a high distaste for most organized religions, and while I think that the paradoxes outlined in 3) indicate that there is a 'higher being' of some sort, I'm humble enough to admit that I really don't know. If science comes up with an answer, then I'll be an atheist, I guess, since that view will have been proven. Conversely, if the world ends in 2012 and Jesus comes to save the day, then you can count me as a theist. Very Happy

Until then, I'll just keep hypothesizing. Laughing

Hope that answered some questions. Now can someone please explain what happened with Frank? Thanks.

0 Replies

CodeBorg wrote:

As long as you keep attacking Frank, you fail to hear or understand how the agnostic position works.

I'll give you a sneak insight into my personality. I am frequently the very soul of civility, kindness and respect. Until someone attacks me, at which point I demonstrate the grave mistake of their decision. Not that I don't listen, it's just a matter of principle. See?

Quote:

Why not ask HOW it is superior, rather than saying "No, I refuse to listen and without knowing your position I say you are wrong."

I'm sure that if it were pertinent to Frank's assertation he would have included it as supporting evidence. If he left it out through ommission I'm sure he will add it when he realises his mistake... well, under normal circumstances he would.

Quote:

One benefit of the agnostic position is that scientists and philosophers are no longer "penny-wise and pound-foolish". An agnostic can look at all the possible avenues to explore, and pick only the most worthwhile questions.

You know... if you didn't attack me and instead asked why I feel the way I do, perhaps you'd understand my point of view. Oh sorry, that was your position wasn't it. Not mine. Still, I'm not sure why you're recommending it if you seem to want to follow my policies instead. Not that my policies aren't better... I just find it odd that you wish to disuade me.

Leaving that aside you could simply read my previous post in which I specifically state several times that everyone (thus including myself as a logical subset) is agnostic. Thus with sufficient intellectual honesty we can all do these illustrious feats that you describe.

Just some of us are additionally capable of positing an opinion.

Quote:

If someone spends days, months and years debating about the existence of God:

As I have. Which is why I have learned sufficient information that I have an opinion to venture.

Quote:

1) There's a good chance they won't get anywhere.

Gosh. I'm someone who posts longwinded replies on an internet philosophy board. Thus I'm clearly deeply concerned about wasting my time. It's not exactly like I'm going out and getting drunk... bad example, I just got home from that (and I'm still a little tipsy, bear with me here if you don't mind). Umm, it's not like I'm getting laid here.

Quote:

2) The answer is not constructively pertinent to very much in daily life.

I'm a writer. The number 1. global best seller is a book on religion. Think about it.

Quote:

"convert others to your ignorance and act in an arrogant superiority"? If you want to claim that agnostics support ignorance, that is your right.

A = No
Gnosis = Knowledge

Yeah... it's my "right" to call agnosticism ignorance. Oh and additionally: Feel welcome to reread the part where Frank agrees with me on this point.

EDIT: Oh incidentally. Ignore, in the french origins of the word (sorry, don't know the latin) means "Don't know". Thus making the terms literally synonymous.

Quote:

It could also be argued that religion (including atheism)

Don't expect me to translate this one... you can do it yourself. Oh, incidentally stop attempting to convert me to the religion of agnosticism.

Quote:

Again, nobody here is trying to act superior or sound superior

Here's my impersonation of Frank "I see my position as being superior to yours. I won't degrade myself by assuming your position."...

Sorry, what were you saying. I wasn't paying attention?

0 Replies

I think Frank's point here is elementary (being a friend of Frank's, I won't say sophmoric) and therefore not in need of further explication. Of course we can't know and technically that makes everyone who recognizes that fact an agnostic. And his point, if it is his point, that both extremes are denying the reality of the human condition is a good one, imo.

However, if we stopped at this point, we would be exactly only half way. "What next?" is the question. Having good scientific evidence that God does not exist and none that he does gets us somewhere. So let's move on to it.

0 Replies

Taliesen,

Your evidence is an example of a process of reasoning, but it's based on unscientific premises, therefore it cannot be considered to be scientific evidence.

There is a lot of scientific evidence that indicates that there is no god and none that there is. There are those who try to twist themselves into contortions even Houdini would envy to say there is scientific evidence. But this "evidence" fails the logic test. So, I think I will call myself a functional atheist. Function is all there is anyway, so who really cares if we can't know absolutely? I don't. I'm content with my human condition. If we knew everything, there would nothing left to discover and therefore be boring.

0 Replies

Lola said:

Quote:

Your evidence is an example of a process of reasoning, but it's based on unscientific premises, therefore it cannot be considered to be scientific evidence.

I agree, which is why I'm not a theist. :wink:

I would, however, like to point out that while science is my main tool for reasoning, I still accept that science has not, as yet, explained everything, so I'll stay open to other possibilities. Also, please tell me what happened with Frank. Thank you.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:

There is a lot of scientific evidence that indicates that there is no god and none that there is. There are those who try to twist themselves into contortions even Houdini would envy to say there is scientific evidence. But this "evidence" fails the logic test.

0 Replies

Thanks JLNobody.

We could pursue these points, but given they're about about Frank's comments, and given Frank's absence....?

Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know