cuchulain

I amend my previous thoughts to include the possibility that there is a natural law which prevents us from knowing certain things. I do not accede that this natural law exists, much in the way I do not accede that God exists, merely that it is possible. However, the possibility does not necessitate action. We act merely with our current level of knowledge, and thus until it is proven to me that there is indeed a natural law capable of withholding certain knowledge from humankind, I will act as though it does not exist. I will continue to seek knowledge with the understanding that all knowledge is attainable, until it is proven otherwise to me.

I have seen odd things myself Dan. I sat up the other night in bed, waiting to fall asleep, you know? I wear a pretty high prescription contact lens, so things in the room, they looked pretty weird to me at the time. As I dozed off, things kind of started to twist and move...Oh no! I must have been seeing hell! (sarcasm intended)

I have seen lots of billboards on a variety of subjects. The most common is Christian. Usually it says something along a positive line, but there is one near where I live that proclaims those who don't believe are going to hell. A very negative message, in my opinion. Of course, that is a value judgment on my part. Still...I have seen atheist billboards, but only in the news, and only with the news anchor decrying it. Granted, it's only on Fox news that I have seen this, so I do not know how wide spread the denouncing actually goes. If a billboard says you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas, I see that as a positive message. Again, a value judgment on my part. They were sure making a big to do about it on Fox, though. That is just one example, of course. Locally, there is a church, or some such, that sprang up downtown. It's called the "War Room for Jesus". Now, I can use my own reasoning skills and life experience with people in this area to understand that they probably don't mean anything negative about it, you know? I can say to myself, it's just a catchy name and they are trying to attract people's attention. That's what those catchy names are really for, you know? There is a major debate about this place, because some atheist around here found it to be negative and hostile. Let's face it. You say "War room" and it comes across as hostile. If it said "War room for Allah"...well, you better bet the churches would be out en mass to protest it, that's for sure. So an atheist protests it, and the place of course cries foul. Now, they named it that for a reason: To get attention. They got it. Just not in the way they wanted. Now there is a division about the subject, one side thinks the name is provocative, the other thinks the atheist is simply yelling into the wind, so to speak. Raising a stink. I know the guy, I know he honestly believes what he is saying. But even if he didn't, he has the same right to complain about a name as the place has to name itself what it wants. Just my thought, but everyone involved would do well to remember that they only have power over themselves, and their own reactions(or responses, more appropriately). Just another example, though, of how an atheist speaking their mind can get a bad rap simply because they are atheist, not for the position they hold. I was debating with someone on another forum about homosexual marriage. I was using one user name throughout the debate, and making points that were very related, but the other person simply wouldn't listen or even read most of them because they knew that I was an atheistic stoic and they were fundamentalist Christian. So I did something deceitful and evil, and started making the same points under a different name, and backing them up with the appropriate bible verse. He started liking the comments and agreeing 100%, and engaged fully in the conversation. He conceded my points one by one. Then I told him about the deception. Yep, it was foul on my part. I don't mind living with the stigma of having tricked someone into listening to me, if he don't mind living with the stigma of not listening to someone else simply because of their lack of faith.

An understandable position. Give me some time to think about it, eh?

There are many who decry the atheist who talks about their nonbelief. It is said, sometimes on the news, that if they don't agree they should just let others have their faith and be quiet. Yet when a Christian proselytizes, if a Christian is "called" to preach, they are treated with respect for their decision. They are thought of as special, or holy. (A note added: I do not mean to pick only on Christians, I simply know more about Christianity than other religions). I wonder, why is it that a person who feels the call internally to speak the truth they see it is judged by the title at the beginning of their name? Reverend, Friar, Father, Atheist. Of course, the first three are thought well of while the last is reviled. Disconcerting, isn't it?

Not taking your meaning mererdog. Could you elaborate?

I have tried politely to break off this debate, which seemingly has degenerated into an argument. This is the simplest way to tell you: I won't believe you. You won't believe me. End of argument. Now, you may snipe away. Get those attacks in, that I won't respond to. That way you can feel better about it, and think you won the argument. It makes me no difference.

I will first start off by saying I watched that somewhat lengthy video, and wrote names and information down to check. The names check out for the most part, although I could find absolutely NOTHING posted by Shawn with the exception of an ad for a physical therapy place after his accident. The people seem to be connected, and actually know each other and exist. That's a plus. The accident really happened. So far as the miracle, I do not believe any miracle occurred from watching this video. The only people who ever said he was brain dead were bystanders with no medical knowledge other than the doctors telling them they didn't think he would make it. I can understand how it might SEEM miraculous. Especially to people who are already deeply religious, such as the people in the video were. But that is just my opinion. I did not see actual evidence, only an anecdotal story. Still, at least this one wasn't blatantly false testimony. At least, it seems the people involved really seem to believe it.

Being a heretic is what makes it fun though. I mean, aside from the church burnings and all.

I can fully appreciate that the virtues are meant for humans separate from animals, and to help us interact with society. It makes sense, to me. I don't think you have to worry overly much about offending anyone. Some of us are easily offended, others are not. But ultimately, each of us is responsible for our own reactions to what someone has to say, rather I should say RESPONSES, instead of reactions. I think it summed up by Temperance, one of the virtues listed. Thanks for your input!

I prefer people not judge me or tell me what to do. If your God exists, that's his job, and he's failing. Oops, infallible God, my bad. Maybe he is telling me exactly how to behave, then.

I can understand that stance from the Christian perspective, but from the outside it's a very scary thing to hear, you know? I have been debating with someone locally in a chat type of room thing(not the most technically literate person, sorry), and they sound scarily like they are about one step from being the next guy in the news because it's "in the bible, therefore good".

Can't do it, eh? See, up above, you were worried about souls. Right up until you were challenged. I would only be a fool if I were unwilling to change my mind in the face of ACTUAL evidence, such as you stating that scripture. If saving souls is your goal, mine has a pretty cheap price, easy for you if you can really talk to angels and Jesus, right? How about this challenge instead: If God wants us all to be saved and believe, ask what you should say to make me believe. That's even simpler, isn't it? Then just say what he tells you and, if God is all knowing and really does exist and know what I need to hear to believe, I will clearly be swayed. After all, how could someone as foolish as me challenge the knowledge of God? If he exists, that is...but no, that won't happen either. Know why? Because you are simply speaking, crazy(I assume it's ok to call you names, after you call me names, right?). At least I am smart enough not to claim to speak for God. But, I digress. Verse? Chapter? Nah...you can't. That's why. That's all the proof I need, that you are a quack, or at best crazy. So...if you provide the verse, I will convert, and respond further. If not, I simply ignore you. Sound fair?

It would be simple beyond belief to prove out of body experiences as well, you know. They almost always say they are floating above their bodies, drifting, at peace...so put a piece of paper on a shelf where they couldn't see it from the bed, and don't know what's on it, then tell them to repeat what it says after they have an out of body experience in the hospital. But it won't happen, and apologists like Child of God will simply make stuff up as to why it wouldn't really work.

I notice you aren't telling me the verse...

Mute people don't have faith? Wow, you are good at reading minds. Not gonna take me up on my challenge, I guess? Not going to ask those angels what scripture by chapter verse I wrote down on the paper? I mean, that WOULD be the simple way to prove your claim. The only way actually. But...nope, you can't, can you?

You have claimed repeatedly to speak to angels, Jesus, etc...so a very simple test. I have written a bible verse on a piece of paper and put it in a drawer. If your angels can tell you the verse by chapter and number I will fully acknowledge you actually speak to them and I was wrong. Otherwise, I consider you personally a liar, or at best crazy.

So then no salvation for the mute community?

What do you view as virtue, whatever your religion, philosophy, etc?

All of which can be known given time. I believe that all the laws of nature are observable, and thus can be known. It may take specialized tools or circumstance to observe said laws, which may not have been developed yet, which may take time to develop. Man can't actually escape its inexorable force...I do not see it as possible to escape the laws of nature, which we are capable of reasoning out. I could be wrong, but obviously if I thought I were wrong I wouldn't type it, eh? Man is perfectly capable of going with the flow of natural law, however. We can observe natural law, determine how things work, and then order our lives to flow with that natural law instead of trying to struggle against it. Observation and the six sided die. I don't know all the laws of probability, so I cannot speculate using knowledge I do not currently have. However, answering the question you pose, I would think(not be completely certain) that the die was loaded after five or six rolls, probably. I have no idea the maximum number of times in a row a fair six sided die can roll six, but I would guess infinitely. It is possible, even if the chance of it doing so is inordinately small, otherwise it would not have odds at all. Just my thought about it, of course. So from that perspective, I could pick up a die, have it roll 6 let's say 20 times in a row, and believe it to be loaded, but still be incorrect. I assume that is the point you are trying to reach? That I could still be wrong? I fully acknowledge my ability to be in error(and for the record, I do not claim to have mastered the stoic system, merely be an adherent to SOME of it's principles). For instance, the stoics believe typically in something called Logos, which is basically the divine as they see it, and I do not.

In so far as we exist, it is possible to injure me only in a temporary manner. We all die, and this is an inevitability. Any injury done to me is of a temporary nature at best, for I will either get better and die, or stay injured and die. Either way, the end result is death for all of us. So for someone to bash my face in, as it were, would only be speeding things along, and cannot alter the end result of death regardless.

Observation exists. Existence exists. If existence did not exist, the debate would be pointless, and nothing could be Known, with a capital K. On the premise that observation exists and existence exists, we can observe the world in which we live and come to an understanding of the rules by which the world operates. Certainly there have been observed contingencies where our observations fail us, or the rules by which the universe works are suspended for special cases, but in general the universe is understandable through pure observation and the use of logical reasoning. Through use of specific manners of observation and testing, which some call the scientific theory, we can share the findings we reach with others and share the findings of others, coming to a greater understanding of how the universe works than one person could typically garner in their own life time. This accumulative knowledge to date shows that the universe works on certain principles, such as sound moving at specific speeds and in specific manners, or people having generally the same anatomy. This is my conclusions as to the veracity of existence and our ability to observe and come to an understanding of existence in general. I am uncertain as to which conclusion you wish me to demonstrate using reason alone, so I would ask for clarification, if there is a specific conclusion you wish to discuss. The only part I can see that you might be asking me to demonstrate otherwise would be about virtue, but since I am not you and have observed on many occasions that what I guess you are getting at and what you are actually getting at are often different, I prefer to ask and find out from you.

It was a partial quote by Marcus Aurelius, I will have to look up the context. Ugh, context... But I believe he was referring to mental faults. I will have to double check though, and that might take a few days, as I forget which part of the book it was in.

I do not see that as the case. A person can observe the world and garner that it relies upon certain rules to function, in my opinion. Can you clarify how you believe it relies upon a leap of faith, fallacy, or other form of nonreason, or if you believe that?

Takes a long time, and I am not certain of anything lol, but am glad you had an interesting read at the least.