Atheist/Agnostic

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

 

[johnny crossan]

'Curiosity therefore a god', no matter what the complexity and no matter how loosely you want to frame the argument, is still a non sequitur.

I think pauldominic is using an enthymematic argument there. He will no doubt explore the suppressed premises with you at length if required.

 

[johnny crossan]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

If only the other proponents of your persuasion were as reasonable as you nijinsky we could all concentrate on the undeniable miracle of City.

Thanks to the wonders of evolution, we have very diverse and wonderful people. I was gobsmacked to hear that John Rutter the hymn writer isn't a Christian.

Not as gobmacked as I was to discover the Oxford Professor of Divinity is a rag.

 

[pauldominic]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

Actually my faith has changed. I'd spent too much time sacrificing chickens, trying to transfer signal data over a 1553 databus at the right frequency, writing a mountain of documentation for every line of software while simultaneously using time dilation to keep the project manager at bay.

My mind had grown rusty on such matters as these.

If you want to investigate truth, may I recommend the Bible as a starting point and the words of Pontius Pilate at the non-trial of Jesus "Truth? What is that?"

Its a dangerous book you know. I can guarantee it will raise questions inside your mind - especially the New Testament if you read with an open mind.

 

[tonea2003]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

Actually my faith has changed. I'd spent too much time sacrificing chickens, trying to transfer signal data over a 1553 databus at the right frequency, writing a mountain of documentation for every line of software while simultaneously using time dilation to keep the project manager at bay.

My mind had grown rusty on such matters as these.

If you want to investigate truth, may I recommend the Bible as a starting point and the words of Pontius Pilate at the non-trial of Jesus "Truth? What is that?"

Its a dangerous book you know. I can guarantee it will raise questions inside your mind - especially the New Testament if you read with an open mind.

much prefer <a class="postlink" href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm</a>
you should read it sometime

 

[pauldominic]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

Actually my faith has changed. I'd spent too much time sacrificing chickens, trying to transfer signal data over a 1553 databus at the right frequency, writing a mountain of documentation for every line of software while simultaneously using time dilation to keep the project manager at bay.

My mind had grown rusty on such matters as these.

If you want to investigate truth, may I recommend the Bible as a starting point and the words of Pontius Pilate at the non-trial of Jesus "Truth? What is that?"

Its a dangerous book you know. I can guarantee it will raise questions inside your mind - especially the New Testament if you read with an open mind.

much prefer <a class="postlink" href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm</a>
you should read it sometime

Its a very good humorous read I admit.

 

[tonea2003]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

Actually my faith has changed. I'd spent too much time sacrificing chickens, trying to transfer signal data over a 1553 databus at the right frequency, writing a mountain of documentation for every line of software while simultaneously using time dilation to keep the project manager at bay.

My mind had grown rusty on such matters as these.

If you want to investigate truth, may I recommend the Bible as a starting point and the words of Pontius Pilate at the non-trial of Jesus "Truth? What is that?"

Its a dangerous book you know. I can guarantee it will raise questions inside your mind - especially the New Testament if you read with an open mind.

much prefer <a class="postlink" href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm</a>
you should read it sometime

Its a very good humorous read I admit.

sort of exposes your truth somewhat,

by the way i'm happy to go with nijinsky's suggestion of this thread having run its course. as we are at a definite rock and a hard place.
but if you continue to post your tosh, i'm afraid i can't let you get away with it.
so for common senses sake give it a rest now paul.

 

[pauldominic]

Thanks to the wonders of evolution, we have very diverse and wonderful people. I was gobsmacked to hear that John Rutter the hymn writer isn't a Christian.

Not as gobmacked as I was to discover the Oxford Professor of Divinity is a rag.

Evolution is a wondrous process. There are a few very intelligent rags, who you can have a decent conversation with about football.

Unfortunately they are an endangered species.

 

[ElanJo]

'Curiosity therefore a god', no matter what the complexity and no matter how loosely you want to frame the argument, is still a non sequitur.

It may be a non-sequitur just as string theory may be. Spot the crucial difference.

I've just discovered this website while I was searching for the side.

It make a good read and the humour section references the far side.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.spotlight-on-science.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.spotlight-on-science.com/</a>

Got this one off the internet: -

<a class="postlink" href="http://joyerickson.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/the-far-side1.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://joyerickson.files.wordpress.com/ ... -side1.jpg</a>

Gary Larson has to be up there with Scott Adams.

It isn't a case of "it may be a non sequitur". It is a non sequitur.
String Theory is irrelevant.

'Curiosity therefore a god', no matter what the complexity and no matter how loosely you want to frame the argument, is still a non sequitur.

I think pauldominic is using an enthymematic argument there. He will no doubt explore the suppressed premises with you at length if required.

Good one!

 

[pauldominic]

Purely in my opinion,this thread has long since ceased to have any real purpose or relevance.
Nobody in either camp can bring anything new to the table that hasn't been said ad nauseum,and we seem to be going round in a theological timewarp increasingly reminiscent of Groundhog Day.
Those amongst us,such as myself,with no faith have not been provided with anything tangible to make us reassess our position,and those who have faith,such as Johnny Crossan and pauldominic have belief of sufficient certitude that is unlikely to be shaken by an internet thread,which is understandable - I myself would be amazed if someones fundamental faith,(or,in my case,non-faith),was changed as a result of an on-line forum debate.
For what its worth,my conclusion is that the existence of a deity,(any deity),is not proveable in any quantifiable or substantive way,but that belief requires a leap of faith,if you pardon the cliche,that transcends rational analysis,but is a step too far for sceptics such as myself.
Religion,or any doctrine that defers to a higher power,will always be with us,for better or for worse,as mankind is curious and enquiring by nature,and discussion is a much preferable option than any Jihad or crusade,but it is doubtful that any common ground can ever be found between those who believe in something,and those who cannot.
And,for that reason,I really am out of this thread,contribution-wise,until such time as someone blinds me with overwhelming proof either way.
Good luck to those who wish to persue the elusive quarry that is absolute truth.

Actually my faith has changed. I'd spent too much time sacrificing chickens, trying to transfer signal data over a 1553 databus at the right frequency, writing a mountain of documentation for every line of software while simultaneously using time dilation to keep the project manager at bay.

My mind had grown rusty on such matters as these.

If you want to investigate truth, may I recommend the Bible as a starting point and the words of Pontius Pilate at the non-trial of Jesus "Truth? What is that?"

Its a dangerous book you know. I can guarantee it will raise questions inside your mind - especially the New Testament if you read with an open mind.

much prefer <a class="postlink" href="http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm</a>
you should read it sometime

Its a very good humorous read I admit.

sort of exposes your truth somewhat,

by the way i'm happy to go with nijinsky's suggestion of this thread having run its course. as we are at a definite rock and a hard place.
but if you continue to post your tosh, i'm afraid i can't let you get away with it.
so for common senses sake give it a rest now paul.

I could say the same thing to you tonea2003. As long as you continue to post tosh, Johnny and I will be the pantomime villains.

I was going to suggest this a few pages back.

All I've been trying to achieve is to demonstrate that religion and religious people can be serious minded, thoughtful and intelligent just like some atheists and agnostics.

I'd be happy to have cyber handshakes and leave it at that.<br /><br />-- Thu May 12, 2011 5:16 pm --<br /><br />

'Curiosity therefore a god', no matter what the complexity and no matter how loosely you want to frame the argument, is still a non sequitur.

It may be a non-sequitur just as string theory may be. Spot the crucial difference.


It isn't a case of "it may be a non sequitur". It is a non sequitur.
String Theory is irrelevant.

'Curiosity therefore a god', no matter what the complexity and no matter how loosely you want to frame the argument, is still a non sequitur.

I think pauldominic is using an enthymematic argument there. He will no doubt explore the suppressed premises with you at length if required.

Good one!

If we consider causal complexity in relation to the domain of theology, its not like economics for example where economists have some understanding of the relationship between government policy, interest rates, inflation etc etc.

There is a causal link which may be a non-sequitur regarding the relationship between human curiosity, our position within the atheist tree of life and the existence of life in the universe.

1. Human curiosity is a reality.
2. Life in the universe is also a reality.
3. The relationship between human curiosity (a term coined by Damocles btw - not me) and the existence of a deity who wants to reveal himself to his creation could be true or false.