Outline your beliefs.

In my list of what I stated as my belief, I forgot to state one thing that is very vital.

I believe that Pierluigi Collina is the scariest, referee in existence and may be the only person in existence that scares the devil.

http://www.sapere.it/tc/img/Sport/Calcio/Arbitri/Collina_Mondiali2002_oly.jpg

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Frank,

Solely for the sake of argument or humor (which often amounts to the same thing) if you were forced to choose, by whatever agent you wish to imagine could place you in this pivotal position, without your knowledge that you were being forced to do so, and assuming you only had these two choices, which would you choose and why.

1) There is a supernatural creator

2) There is not a supernatural creator

If forced...I would do what I have done many times in the past when presented with this scenario. I would flip Mr. Coin...a coin I have at my desk for just such contingencies.

Lemme do it.

Heads = There is a GOD somehow involved in the REALITY of existence.

Tails = There are no gods involved in the REALITY of existence.

(This was done honestly!)

HEADS!

My choice is: "There is a supernatural creator."

Why: Because of the way the coin fell.
Read what I wrote, that option is not available under the scenario I provided due to the "agent". I'll give you partial credits for humor though
Chumly wrote:
Frank,

Cannot do it, Chumly. I have absolutely no unambiguous evidence upon which to base any guesses about what the REALITY of existence is.

If I supposed my life were in danger if I chose one or the other...I probably would opt for the one that would save my skin.

But your scenario simply requires me to concoct a scenario that would place me in a "pivotal postion"....and I cannot conceive of one.

Give me scenario...and I will tell you how I would jump. But by now, you must realize that if you are asking which seems more likely or more apt to be so....my answer is....I HAVE NO IDEA.

I will say this...and this may answer what you seem to be after:

The theistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess...at least has a plausibility not available to the atheistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess.

By this I mean...IF a GOD exists...it certainly could make itself known to humans if it chose to do so.

If no gods exist...there is no way "nothingness" can make itself known to humans.

If this still doesn't satisfy what you are after...come after me again.

I don't mind discussing this at all...and in fact, rather enjoy it.

0 Replies

Well, Chumly. It looks like Frank's coin has yet to stop spinning.

http://www.glitter-graphics.com/images/empty.gif

http://www.fotosearch.com/thumb/DVA/DVA004/036-0003.gif

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

The theistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess...at least has a plausibility not available to the atheistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess.

I suggest it's much more accurate to use possibility rather than "plausibility", what say you?

Frank Apisa wrote:

If no gods exist...there is no way "nothingness" can make itself known to humans.

OK then, how do you account for a pure vacuum being "known to humans" today? Further if we extrapolate on the pure vacuum argument, I suggest given sufficient technological power, man or what man's advanced progeny becomes, could confirm the "emptiness of emptiness" and thus prove a negative; or if not that, then at the least put more zing behind the pure atheistic viewpoint. Not only that but cosmology has made inroads already into this search.

Neo,
Excellent humors!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The theistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess...at least has a plausibility not available to the atheistic position...when presented as certainty rather than as a guess.
I suggest it's much more accurate to use possibility rather than "plausibility", what say you?

If you prefer!

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If no gods exist...there is no way "nothingness" can make itself known to humans.
OK then, how do you account for a pure vacuum being "known to humans" today?

The "vacuum" did not "make itself known" to us.

Quote:

Further if we extrapolate on the pure vacuum argument, I suggest given sufficient technological power, man or what man's advanced progeny becomes, could confirm the "emptiness of emptiness" and thus prove a negative

We can already "prove a negative."

Quote:

; or if not that, then at the least put more zing behind the pure atheistic viewpoint. Not only that but cosmology has made inroads already into this search.

Every indication is that the atheistic position will never be anything more than a wild guess...most often made by agnostics who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their agnosticism.

Quote:

Neo,
Excellent humors!

I agree. Neo is a master!

0 Replies

I don't have time for this today. Suffice to say for the moment, Frank's one line littany is the stuff spewed by a confused mind. Agnosticism is a copout. If the natural world in no way offers any sort of evidence of gods, while the only assertions that one or more exists comes out of the imagination, we are not duty bound to doubt our atheism. We can be aware of new developements in science, and allow real proof to change our stance. Since that is pretty much a zero probability, atheism is the only alternative for the honest among us.

0 Replies

edgarblythe- For years, no, decades, I considered myself an atheist. Like you, I considered agnosticism a copout, a fence sitting ploy for people who were not willing to commit themselves to a philosophical life view.

As I grew older, I realized that at this point in time, human beings have pitifully little knowledge about the working of the universe, and its inception. From what we DO know, I could make a somewhat educated guess. I could conclude that there is no master "computer programmer" in the sky, who is leading the band. and is terribly concerned that all the little folks that he has created offer proper respect to him, or else!

Then again, that is a guess. Your guess is as good as mine. The point that I am making, is that nobody really knows. There are some concepts (most coming out of the pitiful religious traditions that were taught to us as kids) that we can probably dismiss out of hand, as juvenile nonsense.

Taught by clergy whose main raison d'etre was attaining and maintaining power over people through fear, many ancient ideas are still accepted by supposedly intelligent humans. I could speculate why, but to me, the rationale for a deity centered religion is of little concern, except where it infringes on my life.

I could postulate that there are no gods, but I really have no way, in terms of empirical evidence, to back up that concept. What I will say, is that at this point in time, there is not a shread of proof one way or the other. In the meantime, I will live my life the best way of which I am able, and leave the loftier matters to the religious amongst us. They are welcome to it!

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't have time for this today.

So why didn't you simply stay away rather than writing this piece of shyt and running????

Quote:

Suffice to say for the moment, Frank's one line littany is the stuff spewed by a confused mind.

There is no confusion in my mind. If that is the best you can do...you really should have stayed away.

Quote:

Agnosticism is a copout.

Only to a silly atheist trying to pretend he knows the nature of REALITY.

Quote:

If the natural world in no way offers any sort of evidence of gods, while the only assertions that one or more exists comes out of the imagination, we are not duty bound to doubt our atheism.

If you atheism takes the form of "there are no gods period"...you ought to doubt your atheism not because you are duty bound...but because you have a sense of decency and honesty.

Quote:

We can be aware of new developements in science, and allow real proof to change our stance. Since that is pretty much a zero probability, atheism is the only alternative for the honest among us.

Atheism, like theism, is not honesty at all. It is merely guesswork gone apeshyt.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

We can already "prove a negative."

I did not infer this was somehow not possible in other regards, my reference to "prove a negative." was specific and in context as a merited conclusion. I'll provide my quote again for clarification of the point at hand thusly:

Chumly wrote:

Further if we extrapolate on the pure vacuum argument, I suggest given sufficient technological power, man or what man's advanced progeny becomes, could confirm the "emptiness of emptiness" and thus prove a negative

Frank Apisa wrote:

The "vacuum" did not "make itself known" to us.

Yes it did, by it's very absence! A vacuum does not have to make itself known by announcing itself (so to speak).

Frank Apisa wrote:

Every indication is that the atheistic position will never be anything more than a wild guess...most often made by agnostics who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge their agnosticism.

That sounds to me like a position of faith to the degree that you Frank, can't predict the future, in particular given man's exponential potential. (rhymes too!) I'm a hard SF fan so naturally I may turn to "Clarke's three laws" to support my contention:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

I am getting hungry time for supper!

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I believe I'll have another drink.....

somebody had to say it, just be careful while drinking and divining, don't let your karma run over anyone's dogma

0 Replies

Phoenix
You don't need impirical evidence to deny imaginary concepts.

0 Replies

Calyr Church Statement of Beliefs

We Believe:
...that there is a God who loves us and cares for us.

...that goodness is the pathway to Heaven, and evil is the pathway to Hell.

...that all religions are based on a mixture of fact, legends, stories and myth designed to point the way toward goodness and uplift the spirit in its quest for enlightenment. No one religion, including our own, has all the knowledge of God.

...that those religions who control their followers with threats of damnation, and urge them to try to force others to believe as they do, are not walking the true path of goodness.

...that if one must be coaxed, coerced, begged, threatened, or prodded into either joining a religion or remaining a follower, then that religion was never meant to be theirs in the first place.

...that there are many roads that lead to heaven. God does not deny entrance based upon which road a traveller took. God is happy when a traveller, by walking a path of goodness, has found the gates of heaven.

...that all who walk a path of goodness, kindness, acceptance of others, and peacefulness, will one day find themselves at the doors of heaven.

...that donations should not be begged; they should be freely given only by those who have sufficient means to do so. Those who are poor should be encouraged NOT to donate to any church.

...that diversity in all things, including religion, is to be welcomed and nurtured, provided it is on a path of goodness that seeks to harm or control no one. God has chosen to make a world filled with diversity. We place our faith in the wisdom of that choice.

0 Replies

It's always funny when someone asks for empirical evidence of the non-empirical.

It's like trying to smell the color nine.

But, some will say, "Nine is not a color. And even if it was, you can't smell colors. "

That's my point, exactly.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Phoenix
You don't need impirical evidence to deny imaginary concepts.

Is that why you prefer imaginary evidence?

0 Replies

neologist
Have you quit beating your dog?

0 Replies

Neo has sweater puppies?

0 Replies

0 Replies

There you go with your imagination again. :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It's like trying to smell the color nine.

the colour nine smells like lilacs and unwashed sweatsocks, with a hint of corriander

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

real life wrote:
It's like trying to smell the color nine.

the colour nine smells like lilacs and unwashed sweatsocks, with a hint of corriander

Hogwash I say, nine smells of Allium and Azure with a hint of Periwinkle.

0 Replies

Outline your beliefs.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know