No really: Epistemological Bullshit (Was: Back to Windows...)

Wed Dec 6 11:32:32 GMT 2006

Y'all are forgetting to retitle the thread to comply with truth in
advertising regulations.

On Wed, 2006-06-12 at 22:03 +1100, Alexander Jacob Tsykin wrote:

> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 17:28, Nikolai wrote:
> > Senectus . wrote:
> > > No offence intended, but it's my considered belief that if you don't
> > > understand Atheism It's because you haven't thought about about it
> > > deeply enough.
> >
> > I have thought about it as deep as I possibly could and I have rejected
> > it. Atheism leads to skepticism and skepticism is irrational. I don't
> > think I can embrace an irrational world view (once I know it's
> > irrational of course).
> >
> Not sure I agree with that. What makes perfect sense to me, does not to other 
> people,m and I woudl never claim to be the posessor of truth. Religion 
> teaches us to be humble, and that si part of it in m opinion.
> > > For me the concept of me believing in a "God" concept is inconceivable.
> >
> > Yet, you have no trouble believing in "Saddam Husein" or any other such
> > concept.
> >
> It is impossible to convince soembody that there is a God. You either believe, 
> or you don't. There is nothign rational in belief. It is an inherently 
> illogical process. That does not, however, make it wrong, a mistake that I 
> believe many atheists make.
> > > I've tried, but I'm quite a logical person and the logic of belief for
> > > the sake of belief seems like Lunacy to me.
> >
> > It is lunacy, yes, you're correct. If, however, you're a logical person
> > (whatever that means), maybe you could briefly outline what sort of
> > logical problems you're having with what you have called a concept of God?
> >
> I coudl outline some of that oens I have, as a believer. I am Jewish. I find 
> it inconceivable that God allowed the Holocaust to occur, and yet he did. We 
> are his chosen people (according to oru Torah) and yet he allowed one of the 
> greatest crimes of history to be perpetrated on us. I do not believe that 
> belief in a God is such a simple thing as to be easily demnonstrable (or at 
> all).
> > > It con not be proved, Documentation on the subject can not be properly
> > > verified and many _many_ instances of those that profess to be the
> > > most serious about it are the ones to commit the greatest atrocities
> > > in the name of it.
> >
> > As far as proof is concerned, it all depends on what kind of proof
> > you're after. Usually, if not always, people demand one kind of proof
> > from those who defend Christianity all the while accepting different
> > kinds of proofs from everybody else. For example, the accounts of
> > Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rejected as fantasy all the while
> > similar accounts, and much less attested for, can be easily accepted in
> > a court of law as long as there are no miracles in them. But question
> > is, on what basis the miracles are rejected as impossible while the
> > possibility of miracles is precisely what is at stake? Can you see a
> > problem here?
> >
> There is a problem with the evidence proided in the gospels. Whiel it is 
> evidence:
> a) it is secondary (they were all written well after jesus' death)
> b) There is absolutely no corroborating evidence.
> 
> Please note, I am not saying that they are wrong, merely that their veracity, 
> like that of almost any religious text, cannot be verified.
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to by "atrocities".
> >
> crusades, forced conversions, spanish inquisition, 9/11, the middle east 
> conflict, pogroms, religiosu wars between Catholics and Protestants, the list 
> is almost endless.
> > > In my view the hypocrisy of nearly all religions is staggering.
> >
> > You of course are prepared to substantiate this?
> >
> here I must agree, whie many religious people are hypocritical (for example 
> preaching tolerance of other faiths and then acting to restrict their 
> practice, a good example is the far religiosu right in israel which tries to 
> prevent the sale of pork in the country), I would find it hard to 
> substantiate that the religion itself is guilty of hypocrisy.
> > > Your understanding and knowledge of "faith" is not absolute, nothing
> > > is absolute.
> >
> > Is this claim absolute?
> >
> lol
> > > You can't deny FN's opinion as absolutely wrong because you Cannot
> > > verify yours as absolutely right, and the same in return :-)
> >
> > I think I can. FN made a fool of himself by claiming a) there's no truth
> > to be known and b) that God is dead. In the former claim, he shows us
> > that he is not to be taken seriously and in the latter, he shows how
> > little he knew of what he so feebly attempted to critique. This is
> > enough to conclude that his was a wrong opinion.
> >
> Wel,, in fairness, his claim that "God is dead" was meant tnot to show that 
> the Chrisitian God no longer lives (an impossibility if you believe that he 
> ever lived as is implied in the statement that he is dead) but rather that 
> religion has no place int he modern world. Perhaps it shoudl be read 
> as "Religion is dead." I disagree with this perception, however, it is not in 
> itself demonstrably wrong if viewed with that interpretation.
> 
> Sasha
> 

-- 
Michael T. Richter
Email: ttmrichter at gmail.com, mtr1966 at hotpop.com
MSN: ttmrichter at hotmail.com, mtr1966 at hotmail.com; YIM:
michael_richter_1966; AIM: YanJiahua1966; ICQ: 241960658; Jabber:
mtr1966 at jabber.cn

"To [the Chinese], all other people are barbarians." --The Dalai Lama
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20061206/dc7a6d79/attachment-0003.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/sounder/attachments/20061206/dc7a6d79/attachment-0003.pgp 