Okay...let's see...where was I...

I make lots of guesses.

Are you going to contribute to this conversation, Dys...or just do what you are doing?

By the way, Dys....I do not guess it is unknowable.

I've explained that.

I really don't have anything to offer Frank, I just hang around cause I'm bored and it's too hot to work outside today. I have to admit though that I am curiious about the concept of "Ultimate Reality" as I have never really considered there to be such a criter.

Whatever IS...IS.

That is the Ultimate REALITY.

Whatever IS.



Careful of the heat. Yer liable to pass out!

I don't know if such a thing exists. I am as agnostic about "ultimate reality" as you are about the Supreme Being.

Frank
Frank, after all of this discussion, it has merely reaffirmed that I'm an atheist---and certainly not a weak one.

I'm a rootin-tootin atheist---and I'm locked and loaded.

I think you are looking to0 far for the answer as to whether or not there are god(s). All one has to do is look around the world today, study how things occur, how legends get started, how scoundrels manipulate people to believe in their religious superior status for their own power. How come we never see people with halos? How come we don't see today the sort of miracles described in the Bible? How come we can't find heaven---or hell?

My point is that if the tales of the Bible's New Testament were more than religious lobbyists and dogmatic hustlers writing their own scripts for the leader(s) of a cult, why can't we see how similar circumstances are created today. Prior to the New Testament, I consider the Old Testament to be the writings of historians, flawed writing by their lack of scientific knowledge and incidences confined to a very small part of the world. Such writings are based on oral histories as there were few literate people then. Practice trying to write an oral history today such as in the old child's game of whispering a secret around a circle and noting the difference in the facts at the end of the game from where it started out.

Open your eyes, Frank, and look around you and our Earth. You don't have to look to the heavens to understand how the myths of gods began and were perpetuated. You know, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Today, there is no excuse for continuing the mysticism, is there?

If you still are not convinced, just imagine what Elvis Presley's status will be in a few hundred years. After all, people are seeing him everywhere these days. Maybe he will be our first rock and roll god.

BBB

BBB

You seem to be confusing the fact that the theists have got things all screwed up....with the notion that there cannot be a "god" explanation for existence.

I've tried to show you why this reasoning is illogical...but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

Fact is, we do not have any aliens from other planets to looks at...to touch...to communicate with. And some of these UFOers...are nuts.

But those two facts do not in any way address the question of whether or not life exists elsewhere in the universe.

If you don't get it....what can I tell ya.

I have this same problem when I am debating theists.

Frank
Frank, to add some coal to burning embers so we don't get bored. I'm one of those strange people who are open to the idea that multiple universes may exist. In fact, when I stop to think about it, why was our universe so named? Uni means one. Does that mean that someone, sometime thought other universes might exist?

I began wondering one day why we think our universe is round. Thanks to the Hubble telescope, we can see that one of the most common shapes within our universe is the spiral. Given that nature often repeats patterns, it may be possible that our universe is only one body in a larger spiral mega-universe.

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/aop/observers/galaxy.html

I know this will drive you nuts, trying to imagine how multi-universes relate to the concept of god(s). Will we end up debating how the god of our universe is better than the gods of the other life forms' universes that may exist?

I must be getting hungry for dinner and my mind is going berserk.

BBB

Re: Frank


Bon appetit. (or however it is spelled!)

Human narcissism, BBB. We want to believe everything revolves around us........I'm the baby, gotta love me stuff. That's what I think.

Fully agreed.How is it done?Show me.

how is what done?

The "gotta love me stuff".How is it done?How can it be done if I'm confused?

Back after a day of packing.. y'all still arguing?

It's cheaper than packing.

Man...one day and the whole topic moves 10 pages forward.

(In a desperate attempt to catch up)

Lola, Thomas, and whoever else was on the "God = urban legend" side:

You make some good points. we do accept that unicorns, manticores, griffins and the like are false without any real evidence, yet we haggle endlessly over "God's" existence. The reason for this, in my opinion, is the influence these doubted beings have over us. If there was, in fact, a unicorn in existence...it would not affect me very much. If there were a God, however, that would illuminate parts of our (humanity's) past we had no way of ever discovering, reveal truths of our present that we have no knowledge of, and possibly even show us the future. So, the real difference between the two categories of "God" and "other 'mythical beings'" is the amount of effort we are willing to expend to prove/disprove their existence. With "God", we are willing to expend so much more.

Hence, I would say that, respectfully, any who would eschew the search for a "higher power" or what-have-you...are wrong. If you would all like to continue your state of not caring, then I'll bid you adieu, and hope to talk to you later on other interesting topics. If, however, you would like to make statements about the nature of "ULTIMATE REALITY" (as Frank would put it), then I (and, probably, Frank) will be there to question and debate, and would like to .

I do not believe that you should ever stop searching, and that if you do, you are not atheist, theist, or agnostic, but rather apathetics.

That's my rant. Hope to speak to you all later.

oops...missed a point.

Thomas: About 7 pages ago , you made the argument that "the burden of proof" was not on you, since nobody is expected to disprove Urban Legends and the like.

While, as I said, it's an interesting point, I would also like to point out that just because we (meaning you :wink: ) don't feel the topic is worthy, and dismiss it, does not mean that your dismissal is correct. It ties into my "apathetic" point: while we don't really crave evidence proving unicorns, etc., that isn't logic; it's negligence. we should question the existence of everything, but, since few people can live that way, we instead confine our questions for "The Big One". If you are going to dismiss anything as nonexistent, especially something with as much potential relevance as "God", then you need to have proof. And, if you are going to commit this dismissal during a debate, then you need to explain why.

'Til next our electronic by-ways merge...

Yeh, I agree with Thomas, and think his dismissal is correct.
See various posts between, including citations by Soz.

On apathetic, I'm convening a meeting of Apathetics-R-Us shortly. Any takers?

haw about tomorrow?

Ossobuco wrote:


HA! Well said, Oss.

*I don't wanna grow up, I'm an Apathetics-R-Us kid!*

If only we could shave off three syllables to "apathetic". Curses.
Does anyone remember the full song?