Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Then I am futurist-homo-theist aka 'futhomthe' Cool

futurist
A belief that the meaning of life and one's personal fulfillment lie in the future and not in the present or past.

Homo
A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans

Theist
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.

0 Replies

Not unlike those cultures that have not advanced much from centuries ago, and their first sight of airplanes.

0 Replies

What is a god (if not at least to some fair degree) a being that to the observer appears to have unbelievable unlimited powers?

0 Replies

I don't think that having a great technology makes us god-like. Indeed, to the extent that it does our thinking for us we are weakened by it. When the Melanesians saw American planes bringing Cargo (supplies) to the American soldiers during the WWII, they assumed that these supplies were sent to the soldiers by the gods as rewards for their good behavior--and that if the Melanesians would reform their ways their own gods would send them suppllies as well. But they never saw the soliders as gods, despite their good relationships with the supernatural or their technology (e.g., their weapons and airplanes. The man is not his machine.
Too bad our resident futurist, WoGoBo, is away.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I don't think that having a great technology makes us god-like.

Remember what I said

Chumly wrote:

Time limitations - extended life span
Resource limitations - exodus from Earth
Drudgery limitations - robotics
Mental and physical imitations - cybernetics, artificial intelligence, increased human brain horsepower
Man's character - the opportunity to redefine

IMHO you are focusing on the word "technology" much too narrowly and driving with the rear view mirrors. Also FWIW I did not predicate my assertions with the word "technology" per se.

JLNobody wrote:

Indeed, to the extent that it does our thinking for us we are weakened by it.

See my reference to "Mental and physical imitations" above. If I use technology via a cranial implant to have 24/7 access to the intent how am I hobbled? If I use bio engineering to enhance my mental faculties how am I hobbled? Most specific to your assertion, how would you expect the global monetary system to function without computers? Acres and acres of secretaries at desks with pen and paper?

JLNobody wrote:

When the Melanesians saw American planes bringing Cargo (supplies) to the American soldiers during the WWII, they assumed that these supplies were sent to the soldiers by the gods as rewards for their good behavior--and that if the Melanesians would reform their ways their own gods would send them suppllies as well. But they never saw the soliders as gods, despite their good relationships with the supernatural or their technology (e.g., their weapons and airplanes.

Some cultures have seen 'the new ones' as gods or god-like some not, only shows both are possibilities.

JLNobody wrote:

The man is not his machine.

Disagree wholeheartedly in particular since I would in this context classify "his machine" as in the 5 ways above. Where would we be without everything from fire to particle accelerators to aerospace to, yes, even language. Oh no now I am skewing the thread OT Razz

0 Replies

According to Genesis, aren't humans (in general) made in God's image? And when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree, didn't "the man... become like [gods]"?

0 Replies

Cool! If I was to put importance on that allegory, it would jive with me being a futurist-homo-theist aka 'futhomthe'.

We could get hordes of Neo Christian wanna-be's to worship old Apple Computers as the new Adam & Eve!
.
.
.
Doc is gonna kill me for ******* up his thread Exclamation

0 Replies

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-Arthur C. Clarke

0 Replies

Yeah, look at what scientists are doing with computer chips.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Cool! If I was to put importance on that allegory, it would jive with me being a futurist-homo-theist aka 'futhomthe'.

We could get hordes of Neo Christian wanna-be's to worship old Apple Computers as the new Adam & Eve!
.
.
.
Doc is gonna kill me for **** up his thread

Then, the partially hooked can manufacture a position, AGFUTHOMIST, and parade it around like it means something.
Beautiful.

Hey what happened to frank anyway? I didn't expect him to fold so quickly.

0 Replies

AGFUTHOMIST Exclamation

0 Replies

Agfuthomism is no laughing matter. Show some respect you filthy tefflocites.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

. . .
Hey what happened to frank anyway? I didn't expect him to fold so quickly.

Coulda told ya. Laughing

0 Replies

Chumly, points taken. But as I understood you, bionic people, no matter how much enhanced, are not gods, even if they are taken to be gods by the technologically less advanced.

0 Replies

Fair enough, but let me pose this earlier question.

Chumly wrote:

What is a god (if not at least to some fair degree) a being that to the observer appears to have unbelievable unlimited powers?

0 Replies

Appearing to be a god does not make one a god, especially since there are no such beings.

0 Replies

Appearance is one of the most deceiving human senses we have. That's the reason why research have shown that good looking people are given more credit for grades and jobs than their more homely looking counterparts. Sad but true.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Appearing to be a god does not make one a god, especially since there are no such beings.

OK. But you have yet to explain to me the difference from the observer's perspective. And since I would argue (as others have ad nauseam) that such observations by default must be from an relative observational perspective, and that there can be no absolute observational perspective, where is the pragmatic difference?

The same arguments hold true of the Turing Test for example, unless you dispute that also?

I am not making an argument for or against the existence of such beings in any absolute sense. I am making an argument for such future beings meeting the requisite's from an observer's perspective at this point in time in 2006.

I feel it's important for you to remember that my premise is not one of proving or disproving god in any absolute sense but in making a case for believing in a time in which the results of man's existence might become the equivalent from our present observational perspective at this point in time in 2006.

It's fun if nothing else Idea

0 Replies

Chumly, You're barking up the wrong tree. It's not a matter of "observation," because people subjectively decide what is true or not depending on their own personal beliefs. That's the reason why we have different political parties, different religions, different taste in food, women/men, and beer/wine. Those are all our "realities." Get it?

0 Replies

I would suggest, that in the particular case I have laid out, those "personal beliefs" hinge upon the observations I made reference to.

I understand that it is as given that their observations are filtered through their "personal beliefs" but without the specific observations (as I have made reference to above as per my example) they would have nothing to hinge their "personal beliefs" on.

I tried to make inference to the personal belief factor as being nailed down when I said "at this point in time in 2006." 2X

Perhaps I should have expanded on that.

0 Replies

Why agnosticism isn't a rational position

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know