MarcAC said:
I'm not arguing that you can't know the objective truth. Hell, you just might. I'm arguing that it would be by pure chance if you did -- and you couldn't be sure of it anyway. It would be a good guess, not a provable hypothesis. And, until you ascend into some higher life form/spiritual body that is completely, 100% free of error, bias, and self-delusion, you could never know you'd stumbled upon the real deal.
Again, so was the Koran. Why don't you believe it?
That's a pretty vague answer there, Marc. What are you, Deepak Chopra all the sudden?
Your own argument undermines itself. If this "love" guide is leading to a universal moral standard, then why do some church leaders disagree about abortion? If you look around, the reality is many major issues are coming to a head -- and populations are growing more polarized, not unified.
Ahh, I see. I'll take that as a "no."
Let me tell you something, Marc. I can tell by the vigor with which you debate that you are not some lazy Christian, blindly holding to your beliefs and not thinking, questioning, doubting, etc. After all, you came here to sciforums and now you're debating an avowed agnostic. Obviously, you're interested in the truth, and you are pursuing it. From what I've seen, I consider you a truth seeker, even if I disagree with you.
But from your quote, I see you don't regard me quite as highly. All you will admit is that I <i>think</i> I am a truth seeker. Gee, thanks. Not only will you not concede that I <i>could</i> be right about anything (usually a given in religious debates), but you will not even consider that I might <i>truly</i> -- and not just in my own delusional mind -- be honestly seeking the truth.
And therein lies the rub, eh?
Very.
Oooh so that's what Heart was so broken about. Well I don't see where it says God sent the bears (am I mistaken?). Remember Jesus' quote; "Faith can move mountains"? Maybe it can 'move' bears too.Otherwise read it in context. Sure, I find a lot of what the Romans did shocking - but hey, that was their culture.
Oh read the damn thing, for Pete's sake. It's obviously implying that Elisha's prayer somehow affected revenge on those children. Otherwise, why even mention it anyway? This is exactly the kind of obfuscation that pisses me off the most. Why, if not to reiterate the "my god has a bigger dick than your god" argument, would that story be included?
Let's say faith moves bears. Well, who is the faith in? The bear? No. It's in God -- an almighty high school sophomore with a penchant for bloody pranks apparently. Tell me. If this passage about bears attacking kids was in some other religious book, how would you feel about it? Would you ridicule it as being obviously wrong? Just curious.
I read it in context -- which, btw, it has very little of -- and it's still just a barbaric afterthought tagged onto the end of a story that has little to do with it. "Oh yeah, by the way, Elisha got made fun of, so he prayed to God and some bears came and ripped up 42 kids. The end." The only context that could make that story anything but a barbaric curiosity would be if it were preceeded by, "You'd have to be an idiot to believe..."
Yeah. Did you?
I didn't say there is no subjective way of knowing it. I simply said a lot of people "know" a lot of things subjectively (everything, in fact). And a lot of people are full of shit. This does not bode well for "subjectivity" as a barometer of truth.
You're doing a marvelous job of muddling the agnostic position, btw, but allow me to clarify one more time. The fact that I cannot say you don't "know" the truth does not mean you are <i>ipso facto</i> correct in your assumptions. "Well, since you can't say I'm wrong, I must be right!" Nope, sorry. Not that simple.
Plenty. By the way, my hypothetical was not meant to suggest that -- if I believed in Goatism -- it wouldn't mean "crap" to me. I just meant that, as far as ultimate, objective truth is concerned, it wouldn't mean a damn thing.
My analogy was clear. Belief in an invisible, odorless, tasteless, noiseless entity who, at one time, made water part and created men whose strength was determined by the length of their hair seems crazy to those who do not believe it. So, Goatism is probably crazy to you, for obvious reasons. But if I sincerely believe it (subjectively, as we like to say), then my opinion has just as much validity as yours, whether you like it or not.
Also, here's a fun little proof, just for shits and giggles:
1. The proposition "Everything is a Goat" is either true or not true.
2. If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
3. The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which gives us the proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
4. Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
5. Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
<i>From www.goatism.org</i> (don't worry, it's a joke site)
2. If it is false, then it's opposite must be true.
3. The opposite of "everything" is "nothing", which gives us the proposition "Nothing is a Goat".*
4. Now, this statement is clearly false, for goats certainly exist - we have all seen them. This means that it's opposite must be true.
5. Therefore, "Everything is a Goat" must be a true statement.
<i>From www.goatism.org</i> (don't worry, it's a joke site)
The fun part is you can do it with anything. I myself am a Orgasmist.
Because that's what reasonable people -- who realize their limitations -- do. It is only hubris that leads people to the point of believing in their own infallibility (which, by the way, is what you just admitted). I can believe I no longer have to take a shit, but that won't stop the shit from coming. Denying your intellectual or spiritual fallibility is no different. And that goes for the Pope too.
So, All Hail Marc! He <i>cannot</i> be wrong!
Perhaps if I were a lazy agnostic. Remember the term "agnostic" is not a substitute for a religious label. If there is an afterlife, I do not intend to remain permanently agnostic, demanding to never "know" anything. I merely seek the truth -- and I'm afraid latching onto one 2000-year-old book (among the many) and convincing myself of its inerrancy does not satisfy my truth lust, as it were. That would be taking the easy way out: No more wondering. No more thinking. No more questions. Just sweet Christian bliss. No thanks. I'm waiting until I get a real answer. And hey, if the Bible turns out to be 100% true, so be it, but I'm afraid while I'm here on Earth in this fallible skin, a book and some people who say it makes them happy doesn't satisfy me.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Ironically, you -- who believe in angels and demons and invisible battles of mythic proportions between the spiritual forces of Good and Evil -- cannot conceive of something beyond what you've figured out. You like to paint me as the one who has "limited" himself, locked myself in a cage of doubt, but the reality is I am only allowing for a vast number of possibilities, far beyond earthly, man-made religion or science. And I am holding out -- not shooting my wad before I even have half a clue what's going on -- because I am prepared to accept whatever the truth turns out to be. You, it seems, are not.
Well, confident in your belief in a creator.
If I knew what I was looking for, then I wouldn't really be open to all possibilities. I'd be looking for a <i>preconceived idea</i> of the truth.
As the joke goes, if a person believes that elves cause the rain, then every time it rains, that person will see "proof" of elves. Scientists early in the last century set about proving that black people had smaller brains than white people. And you know what? They proved it. At least to themselves and like-minded scientists. Lesson: in this life, you get the truth you look for... not necessarily <i>the</i> truth.
That's a good question. I don't know. Then again, I don't what will happen when I die either. We'll just see, won't we?
You're worrying yourself far too much with this obsession over knowing everything before it happens. Chill, bro. Niether of us knows what's going to happen tomorrow. And you know what, I wouldn't want to either. That's what makes life fucking interesting.
Actually, the lesson was this: No, I cannot know for sure that the answer you gave is wrong, but I can bet on it's probablity (as our system dictates, anyway). And that's all any of us are doing. Right now you are betting that your beliefs will get you to Heaven. You can say you "know" the ultimate truth for sure, but honestly, that's a lot like saying you know for sure what will happen tomorrow.
That's actually a good comparison. Let me ask. Do you know for certain what will happen tomorrow? If so, then I would say you are responsible for allowing September 11th to occur. If not, then what the hell makes you think you know exactly what happens when you die? Or what the Master Creator of Everything is like? Bit of a leap there.
The point of my number analogy was not that I could be absolutely, 200%, cut-my-balls-off-with-a-hacksaw-if-I'm-wrong certain of the untruth of your answer -- it was merely that I could use good ol' man-made logic and make a good educated guess. And that's all everything is. An educated guess.
Yes, I've seen "Dumb and Dumber" - t'was indeed a stunning film.
As far as hope goes, I'm all for it. Believe what you must to get through the day, by all means. Just don't pretend that your feel-good medicine is everybody's panacea.
Umm, dude. That's the definition of "versatile."
Oh, I'm shocked! You think I engage in disgusting sex? You know, not everyone who doesn't believe in God is an evil atheist beastman bent on carnal pleasure.
Some of us prefer <i>masochistic</i> carnal pleasure.
But seriously, I can say I've had first hand experience when it comes to joy and amazement. And, truth be told, the word "fuck" is no more offensive to me than than the word "copulate" -- after all, they can both mean the same thing and their sequence of letters was arbitarily chosen. Society determines how "dirty" a word is -- and frankly, society is full of overly-sensitive idiots.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Anyone who cannot handle reading or hearing a word -- just a WORD, mind you -- should not be able to vote, drive, or have children.
How do you know you're not inside a big computer simulation? Could you ever be <i>absolutely</i> sure you weren't? And if so, how?
Sorry. Had another Matrix moment.
Josh
Last edited: