<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
darren shawn greer wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W65CCCA05B4420DE21D3CFF9DB70@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/7/7 darren shawn greer <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dgreer_68@hotmail.com">dgreer_68@hotmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="padding-left: 1ex;" class="ecxgmail_quote">
<div>
<div class="im">>Lack of evidence is a perfectly fine reason to
not think something is so. If it also has logical inconsistency
problems and/or has no explanatory theory that is sufficiently sound
then that is more reason to disbelief it.<<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">It is such an important discussion,
for secular humanists and religious humanists are constantly having
this argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "It
most certainly is!"<br>
<br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
Is there really anything to say further though? If there are no
criteria for when it is remotely rational to accept a belief that are
agreed upon by the people having a discussion then they ight as well be
doing something else than this "discussion". It is guaranteed to be
fruitless.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W65CCCA05B4420DE21D3CFF9DB70@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
>Indeed most posthumanists could not care less instead of the
"evidence of non-existence". The very >concept of the monotheistic
God, e.g., is simply not palatable, irrespective of whether it be
"true" or not,>and whatever "true" might mean in the first place.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks, for that was my original point, that the argument is
polarizing and pointless and zaps useful energies and that collectively
as a species we'd be better off abandoning it altogether.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
If we haven't clarity of mind and plunk enough to deal with such grand
widely held fairy tales then why would we expect to make much
difference anywhere? What I mean is that if we can't unify a rational
viewpoint even for ourselves then what business do we have decrying
irrationality or extolling rationality? What is our basis for hoping
for a better world? <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W65CCCA05B4420DE21D3CFF9DB70@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> My belief is that in a (perhaps remote) future the concept of
god as we currently define it -- ie. the Supreme Being-- will cease to
even have meaning. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Why put it off to the remote future except out of cowardice?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W65CCCA05B4420DE21D3CFF9DB70@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>However, someone else made the point that it is currently very
relevant, as we see alot of violence and political strife because of
it. May be, but I no longer argue about my meta-physical beliefs or
yours or even think much about those subjects at all.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
That is a pity because without it you cannot fully integrate your
thinking and doing on the basis of it.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL112-W65CCCA05B4420DE21D3CFF9DB70@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> I do however spend alot of time semantically defending my
position that theism vs athiesm is a losing proposition on both sides,
as long as one is trying to convince the other of the correctness of
their own belief. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am not so big on trying to convince others as I am on understanding
when it is valid to consider something true to the best of one's
knowledge and evidence and applying that as widely as possible. I
gave up decades ago attempting to convince people who have no standards
at all to appeal or adhere to in the process of discussing a subject.
Getting them to agree with me would be meaningless if it has no depth
of basis in them. <br>
<br>
I once led an intelligent, honest fundamentalist friend step by step,
starting from what she did believe to be true outside fundamentalist
conclusions, to see clearly that her beliefs were highly inconsistent
and contradictory and the bible was filled also with such
contradictions, inconsistencies also and with many horrid things. She
saw perfectly clearly that much of what she believed to be true could
not be true. Do you know what she said at the end? It was what
persuaded me to not do that again. "Thank you for your patience and
even, calm, fair discussion with me. I learned a lot and see that you
are largely right in what you said at the beginning. But this is what
I believe and I like believing it so I am going to keep doing so."<br>
<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>