Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

You had me nodding in agreement, then you went ahead and said this:

[ QUOTE ]
...It's each generations duty to expand, in some form or fashion, on what it's been provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t want that burden. If I were to pull a Kafka and wake up tomorrow atheist , the last thing I want to bring along is Catholic guilt.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

oops, yeah Mack is in the country - sorry - well don't tell us which you are vampire or Wwolf - continue being that enigma that you are.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

Remember the window dressing part and take solace! It's not a burden that "feels" like an burden. It just happens that way. Even Catholics are in agreement that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Hope so, anyway.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

[ QUOTE ]
oops, yeah Mack is in the country - sorry - well don't tell us which you are vampire or Wwolf - continue being that enigma that you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Sklansky logic beast, 2nd class.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

I know what you are saying and I agree. It is the journey.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

I don’t really think I am hijacking this thread - same topic - if I am, my apologies.

Well, it seems to me that not all atheists have the same “dogma”.

We have tried to show in this forum much of the folly of religions (especially, for some reason, Christianity).

We are only able to ALMOST prove religion is folly.

Why is it that we can’t prove there is no god.

We can’t we even come close to an atheistic dogma.

So, why is it again that all these genius scientists are so smug?

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but that definition of "denominations" renders it effectively meaningless. I suspect most people do not believe in magic elves, so you can group all "non magic elf believers" into "denominations" according to what they do believe, which probably wouldn't be too useful. In fact, by that definition, each of us can be placed in an infinite number of "denominations" of non-belief in an infinite number of arbitrary claims.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but that definition of "denominations" renders it effectively meaningless. I suspect most people do not believe in magic elves, so you can group all "non magic elf believers" into "denominations" according to what they do believe, which probably wouldn't be too useful. In fact, by that definition, each of us can be placed in an infinite number of "denominations" of non-belief in an infinite number of arbitrary claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you really are into the Blues. Was meant to be funny is all.

Re: The Anguish of Nonbelievers
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these people are actually intelligent. You've judged some of them to be equal or even smarter then yourself. They know what you know. Shouldn't they know better? To figure this out. Ask yourself, why is it you can't convince intelligent, rational people that they believe in a lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're all working with incomplete information, and because our beliefs are based, ultimately, on some necessarily arbitrary assumptions. Debating the logic of religious belief, even in the most rigorous and thorough fashion, will amount to nothing if I and my opponent hold to different premises which can neither be proven nor disproven.


David Sklansky:
[ QUOTE ]
I am now quite sure that intelligent believers have a syndrome similar to stroke victims who think they are not paralyzed. However I also believe that people who are highly intelligent or highly trained in logic and statistical inference, are often able to overcome this syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gah. I mean no offense, but this really is arrogant . . . or do you believe you can prove the non-existence of God?