Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[The Norseman]

How would you or anyone know that the "universe doesn't care"?

There is no evidence that the concept of 'caring' is happening by 'the universe' in the first place. There has been no coherent, rational explanation that describes 'the universe' as having the capability to 'care'. Unless, of course, you should wish to redefine what 'the universe' and 'caring' mean. This is a common tactic amongst believers when trying to claim rationality or attempt to make their vague claims appear rational.

 

[The Norseman]

Norseman, please explain. How is the opinion of someone with expertise in a subject equally as valid as the opinion of a small child with no expertise whatsoever? Bearing in mind, of course, the logical meaning of "valid?"

I'd be happy to explain!

It was a joke. I was attempting the use of irony in describing how silly the idea is that all opinions are equivalent.

 

[slingblade]

I'd be happy to explain!

It was a joke. I was attempting the use of irony in describing how silly the idea is that all opinions are equivalent.

Oh, gosh, all right then! I thought I had to be misunderstanding you.

 

[Piggy]

Ok, yes I am saying there is an intelligent manipulator therefore there may be a god.

It gives me a rational reason for considering the possible existence of a god.

No, it doesn't, because it's not rational.

You're saying, "I see this thing here on earth, therefore the universe might have been created by something like it."

Yet you cherry-pick that thing, and don't make similar claims about everything else you see which in some way creates stuff around here.

What's more, you don't bother to look at the science to see if your idea matches the evidence.

Nor do you bother to check whether or not you've sufficiently described this thing so that "It exists" even makes sense.

Yours is a "seems to me" argument, made with your head firmly planted in the sand.

 

[Leumas]

^^^^^^^
THIS

I don't know how many times I've been asked about something that I investigated decades ago and found wanting yet the questioner acts like he's just discovered singlehanded sex and is sure that the rest of the world is just waiting to hear about the new discovery. When told that it's old news, hostility, taunting and deliberate misunderstanding ensues.

Tomes and volumes have been written about these same debates, over and over since Plato onwards....

What irritates me is not the naiveté of these people....it is the fact that they are unwilling to READ before making decisions that they think are revelatory.

Their ignorance of their ignorance compounded with the arrogance that limited knowledge invariably engenders in such ignoramuses is what irks and frustrates me.

 

[The Norseman]

Oh, gosh, all right then! I thought I had to be misunderstanding you.

Heh! It's all good.

Besides, if it were really true, do you know how much money we could save by taking our cars to the local elementary school for diagnosis and repair?!

A boat-load, let me tell you!

 

[abaddon]

How would you or anyone know that the "universe doesn't care"?

Well, because it self evidently does not.

Planets, stars and galaxies all spin in their courses.

They don't much care if your granny is ill, or you lost a set of earrings, or your pocket book, or your life in some tragic accident. They keep on going, regardless.

 

[abaddon]

I beg to differ. "Even if they may be undefinable or inconceivable to humans, they may exist regardless."

God of the gaps, is it?

We as humans do not completely understand how the universe works.

A short while ago, we didn't know how radiation worked. What is your point?

To say we do would be lying.

Of course, but to claim that we cannot would also be lying.

Also, to say that we can use our 5 senses to understand the universe entirely would be foolhardy; can we see or feel multiple dimensions for example? I can understand why people are naturally skeptical towards something that we cannot prove within our own physical means but that alone does not prove G-d does not exist. This is where philosophy comes in.

First, one cannot prove a negative.
Second, we can falsify an affirmative claim.
Third, the claim god exists is an affirmative claim.
Fourth, there exists no evidence that any such god exists.
Fifth, in the absence of evidence, there is no good reason to believe in the existence of such an entity
Sixth, why, if such an entity existed, would he really care about your spelling?

 

[The Norseman]

...to say that we can use our 5 senses to understand the universe entirely would be foolhardy;

Good thing we have more than five!

can we see or feel multiple dimensions for example?

Barring some physical abnormality, yes we can.

I can understand why people are naturally skeptical towards something that we cannot prove within our own physical means but that alone does not prove G-d does not exist. This is where philosophy comes in.

Okay, if you want to go all NOMA on us, I can say then that the god of the Torah has been logically disproved and it's irrational to believe it actually exists in any sense of the word 'exist'.

 

[punshhh]

Are you honestly trying to convince me that you're talking about something which no one has ever imagined in any way whatsoever?

Yes a precursor to the particular form of reality we are familiar with. Or at least to consider that there may be such a thing out there or in here.

 

[tsig]

Do you ever write home to "M-m" and "D-d"? Or do you not respect them enough to address them that way in print?

In other words... what in the world does omitting a vowel when writing have to do with respect?

I sure don't know P-ggy.

 

[tsig]

I'd be happy to explain!

It was a joke. I was attempting the use of irony in describing how silly the idea is that all opinions are equivalent.

Bit too deadpan there, I almost posted something till I reread it and saw who posted it.<--<--

 

[tsig]

Yes a precursor to the particular form of reality we are familiar with. Or at least to consider that there may be such a thing out there or in here.

Ok, I've considered it, now what?

 

[FattyCatty]

As I have stated previously, saying about someone that "Interesting intelligence and/or integrity is not to be expected in people who use 'g-d'" is arrogant, no matter what one's views are on religion. Saying that "Someone who uses 'g-d' rather than 'god' is either exhibiting or catering to superstitious beliefs, neither of which is acceptable to me" is arrogant in its assumption that what is acceptable to him is important or matters to others. And I didn't say it wasn't honest; it was honestly pretentious and arrogant.

I agree with you that it's arrogant, but that doesn't follow.

How so?

So when your mechanic tells you you need a new fuel pump that's just his opinion?

When a scientist says evolution occurred, that's just his opinion?

No, I don't consider those to be opinions. They are statements of positive knowledge or informed judgment.

And I should correct myself; concerning judicial rulings, the formal opinion by the judge about the ruling carries more weight than the opinion of other people.

I know what you said, and I didn't ask you to repeat it: I asked you to explain it.

I'm sorry, I thought my reply did explain it. Whether or not you hold religion in contempt, it is arrogant to assume that you know someone has neither "interesting intelligence" nor "integrity" merely because they use g-d, especially because that can be a cultural practice as opposed to a religious practice.

It also is arrogant to assume you know why someone does something; as I said above, g-d can be a cultural practice and does not necessarily indicate "religious belief or unreasonable respect for religious beliefs." Also, adding the phrase "neither of which are acceptable to me" gives a supercilious, arrogant tone to the whole thing.

So if I believe the earth revolves around the sun and you think the sun is actually a reflection in the sky-mirror of a deep-sea glowing jellyfish that travels the oceans in a day, your belief is just as good as mine ?

It depends on whether you are making a statement based on actual knowledge or are saying I just believe that's the way it is with no reasons. I don't consider the former to be an opinion. The latter is an opinion, and my opinion (if it also is just belief with no basis or reason) is just as good as yours.

Reading the responses to my statement about opinions, I realize that I may use the word in a different way than others. I don't consider opinions to be beliefs backed by facts; with facts, positive knowledge, they cease to be opinions and become statements or arguments. Opinions, to me, are just what one thinks about something; e.g., blue is nicer than orange or I like Clapton better than Hendrix. The rightness or wrongness is only in the eye of the opinion-holder. Because it is just what someone thinks about something, different opinions have equal weight.

 

[slingblade]

And now, a poem:

A Man Said to the Universe
BY STEPHEN CRANE


A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!"
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
A sense of obligation.”

 

[Nicole Friedman]

Evidence.

There is no evidence either way.

 

[Resume]

Nice misuse of 'skeptic', by the way.

So many claim to be such, then reveal they have no clue as to what that might be.

 

[slingblade]

So many claim to be such, then reveal they have no clue as to what that might be.

"I'm convinced all those people who are suggesting it's possible to be wrong are wrong!"

 

[The Norseman]

There is no evidence either way.

Yes. There is.

 

[The Norseman]

Bit too deadpan there, I almost posted something till I reread it and saw who posted it.<--<--

Yah. You should see me in real life. I am so good at the off-the-cuff deadpan quip that I scare myself sometimes.

That I have a tendency to scare others with this superpower is mere coincidence.