Re: Objects and Relations

On 18 fév, 13:34, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >>paul c wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>>Nobody asked me, but I think everybody should agree to stop this thread
> >>>as it gets into matters which humans are obviously incapable of. (Being
> >>>as religious as they seem to be, it amazes me how some posters can
> >>>persist in such arrogance, and me being rather atheistic, I think I
> >>>qualify as objective in this case.)
>
> >>As a devout lifelong atheist, I feel I have to step up and defend my
> >>irrationality here. Atheism is at least as irrational as any other
> >>religion or superstition. Some argue it is the least rational of
> >>religions because it doesn't offer the emotional crutch of promised
> >>salvation, ritual or social interaction.
>
> > When I walk, I do not need crutches. I do not consider my
> > walking without crutches to be the least rational way of walking. Draw
> > the obvious conclusion about god.
>
> I have no conclusions about god. I believe there is no god. I have no
> evidence to support my belief, and I don't need any. I simply take it on
> faith.
>
> >>True objectivity demands agnosticism in the absense of empirical evidence.
>
> > Occam's Razor: you want me to take a notion of yours seriously?
> > Show some proof. Other than that, I can not be bothered.
>
> > For example, I am not a unicorn-agnostic, a fairy-agnostic, or a
> > vampire-agnostic.
>
> Neither am I, but I have at least one friend who is an absolute
> empiricist. If one asked him whether unicorns exist, he would admit "I
> do not know". He is extremely intelligent and very effective.
>
> I, on the other hand, would admit I do not believe in unicorns (narwhals
> excepted).
Received on Sun Feb 18 2007 - 14:33:51 CET