Frank Apisa wrote:What I do not know, Set...I acknowledge that I do not know.
What I am unwilling to guess about...because of the nebulous nature of the evidence available to me...I decline to guess about.
I do not know, for instance, if there is a God...or gods involved in the REALITY of existence.
I also do not know that there are no gods.
I do not have enough evidence upon which to base a guess about whether or not there is a God...are gods...or are no gods.
That's fine, for as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. There is practically nothing in life about which you can know every detail to a certainty, so you are, as is anyone, obliged to "make guesses" (to employed your favorite simple-minded formula) about so many things in life, to avoid being paralyzed by your uncertainty. That is why i call your "philosophy" hypocritical--because you apply it selectively, for example, selecting the question of whether or not there are any gods to apply your uncertainty.
But you go farther than that--you preen yourself on being intellectually, philosophically or morally (all terms you've used in the past) to people who do not apply selective uncertainty. The position which i take, which i believe it is fair to say is similar to EB's position, is that there is insufficient plausible grounds for believing in a god, and no evidence at all, and therefore, i don't believe there is any god. However . . .
Quote:Because you idiots want to equate this with no knowing about purple CPA's working on a moon of Saturn...doesn't mean that they are equals.
I am willing to make guesses about some things I do not know.
What is your fukin' problem with that?
You cannot respond to criticisms of your position without crudity and personal insult (and i've reported that post as well, we all have a right to discuss this without being characterized as idiots; you seem incapable of separating the thought that something may seem idiotic to you without implying that the person from whom you heard is an idiot). I have never personally advanced the "purple CPAs" thesis, and don't do so now. An Animist will tell you that all things in the cosmos, animate and inanimate, are possessed of a spirit and partake of the deity. The only way you can assert this is a "guess" on the part of the Animist is to "guess" on your own part that this is not so. Anyone who asserts to you, not that they believe there is a god, but know that there is a god because he or she has met and spoken with that god, can only be said by you to indulge a "guess" if you "guess" on your own part that that is not so. Anyone who asserts that the Sun is god--same story: by your "logic," they can only be asserted to have made a guess if you assert that you know better--if you guess yourself.
You write:
I am willing to make guesses about some things I do not know. You acknowledge yourself that you do not assert a universal principle. You apply your uncertainty selectively, and are then willing to call people who do not agree with you idiots on such a basis. It is a feeble basis; it is a flimsy argument.
