theist in a foxhole

[Arising_uk]

Okay, so you admit that "birth is a fraught process full of pain and possible death", yet you're okay with inflicting it on billions, for no reason or meaning? I should be laughing now. And what's this about the "miracle that is birth"? Since when did an atheist believe in miracles, or argue using theist terms?

My apologies, I used the term to describe something that is amazing and astounding to behold, won't do it again. There are many reasons to give birth, the least being that that is the purpose of life.

But okay, let the celebrations of surviving birth begin, shall we?

Let's.

It's so easy for you to brush suffering aside from where you sit, Arising. I would rather none come into this world, than one suffer for doing so, because I care.

About what? Your 'solution' is to have a universe devoid of meaning. I do not brush suffering aside I just don't ignore the happiness either, as I'm not a pampered westerner bemoaning the world from their comfy seat.

This is the result of your preference in continuation. And it will never end until the species ends. So, what's your tipping point before you say enough, Arising? A world of hurt for everyone? Is even that enough for you, as long as it's not in your face? Is suffering a numbers game for you?

Nope, suffering is part and parcel of existing as is joy and happiness. I see the issues you raise as political and economic issues not some existential metaphysical angst that appears prevalent amongst the well-off.

So, you tell me directly, Arising, because I'm truly sick of your rhetorical quibbling; after 6000 posts here on this forum, what real solution have you ever offered to end this?

I'd offer anarcho-socialism as a fair solution, allied with technological progress, an abandonment of religion and a drive to colonise the Solar System, or at least exploit its resources. Marx had it right and the solution is to try and end scarce resources and the solar system is abundant in much of what we need, not least space. On top of that, education and economic opportunity for women appears to be one of the best birth control methods.

At least I have one, like it or not. So go piss yourself in your self-centered, pig-headed world, where all you can do is criticize others for giving a true fuck.

Like I've said elsewhere, I admire that you have lived your conviction but your solution is no solution at all. You are on a philosophy site numbnuts, if you don't like critique go talk to the converted.

That's all you and everyone else ever do; sit around saying "That's life. I can't change a thing. It's too bad, but look at all the happy people in front of me. This is worth it."

And your 'solution' is no solution at all.

Ah, to heck with it. I've never asked anyone not to procreate, myself excepted. All I've ever asked is for people to truly consider the real consequences of procreation and natalism, and you can't even do that without a fuss, instead, attacking me as some evil or barking mad antinatalist that doesn't give a shit about mankind. Well, okay then. "Woof woof!" Why should I care. It's your future, not mine. I'm going to go watch the beauty of a nighttime rainfall.

Something you wish to deny to others? Seems a bit selfish to me.

But like I've said, I admire your action of living to your conviction and I agree people should consider the consequences before procreating but most do not have the opportunity you did and I'd have thought your promotion of anti-natalism is exactly the request not to procreate else what is the point?

[henry quirk]

Have any atheists been moved toward theism by any argument offered in this thread?

Have any theists been moved toward atheism by any argument offered in this thread?

[Immanuel Can]

Have any atheists been moved toward theism by any argument offered in this thread?

Have any theists been moved toward atheism by any argument offered in this thread?

An equally good question: If anybody had, would they tend to announce it to this list? Or is there a certain privacy to such a radical change of view that would likely cause people to be reticent about revealing it?

If arguments change nothing, Henry, then we'd also have to admit we're not rational beings. And if we're not rational beings, then what are we doing on a philosophy site? Venting spleen? Airing prejudices? Screaming incoherently? Or debating reasons, with the assumption that reason ought to change things?

[henry quirk]

"If anybody had, would they tend to announce it to this list?"

I'd hope (intellectual) honesty would move such folks to admit movement.

Ever the optimist: I

#

"If arguments change nothing..."

Arguments can change a lot...not seein', however, any change comin' about from these particular arguments, in this (or the other) thread.

[Immanuel Can]

Arguments can change a lot...not seein', however, any change comin' about from these particular arguments, in this (or the other) thread.

Well, maybe there's more than you see here. Maybe those who change their mind go away to consider their decision, while those who continue in their view remain to debate. That would look the same, would it not?

Anyway, why are you here making the point, if making the point changes nothing?

You can't "argue" that "arguing" doesn't work without contradiction to yourself.

[henry quirk]

"You can't "argue" that "arguing" doesn't work without contradiction to yourself."

HA!

Be fair, Mannie...all I did is ask two questions and make an observation...can't really claim I'm arguing anything right now.

#

"why are you here"

Don't wanna work or read or watch tv or wander aimlessly, so (between lookin' at porn and reading through email) I come here (along with a handful of other places) to pass the time (and mebbe rattle a cage or two).

I could go sit in a bar, drink gin, and watch sports on the black and white if you think that's a better option.

[Wyman]

Have any atheists been moved toward theism by any argument offered in this thread?

Have any theists been moved toward atheism by any argument offered in this thread?

An equally good question: If anybody had, would they tend to announce it to this list? Or is there a certain privacy to such a radical change of view that would likely cause people to be reticent about revealing it?

If arguments change nothing, Henry, then we'd also have to admit we're not rational beings. And if we're not rational beings, then what are we doing on a philosophy site? Venting spleen? Airing prejudices? Screaming incoherently? Or debating reasons, with the assumption that reason ought to change things?

I think these sorts of arguments lead to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in God and irrational to believe there is no God. Hence, agnosticism.

[Immanuel Can]

[quote="Wyman]I think these sorts of arguments lead to the conclusion that it is irrational to believe in God and irrational to believe there is no God. Hence, agnosticism.[/quote]
How does that make sense? Because people have different views, we stop believing there's any answer?

How would that work if we applied it to science? "Some people think disease is caused by bacteria, and some think it's caused by bad blood, and some think it's caused by chi, some think it's caused by pixies -- therefore no one can have the right answer, and we should all stop thinking about it"?

Really?

[henry quirk]

Agnosticism is simply the admission 'I don't know and may never know'.

How you get 'we should all stop thinking about it' from that is beyond me, particularly when it comes to Wyman (he doesn't strike me as the 'turn a blind eye' type).

[henry quirk]

Also: I'm not a scientist, but being agnostic (even as one gathers evidence, observes, theorizes, experiments) seems a sensible thing to be.

[thedoc]

How does that make sense? Because people have different views, we stop believing there's any answer?

How would that work if we applied it to science? "Some people think disease is caused by bacteria, and some think it's caused by bad blood, and some think it's caused by chi, some think it's caused by pixies -- therefore no one can have the right answer, and we should all stop thinking about it"?

Really?

Just because there is some unverified cause, does not make those causes that have been verified less accurate. If we were to do that, Lessans ideas would cause all of the scientific research done till now, to be thrown out, because someone has a contradictory idea. When any of those other theories can produce supporting evidence, then they can be considered along with the ones that have been demonstrated to be correct. So far Chi has a little support, and Pixies have none at all, but their existence does not mean that we should discount the theories that have been established to be true. What some people think, often has little relationship to reality. Some people do have the right answer, and those with the wrong answer, do not negate that.

[Immanuel Can]

Agnosticism is simply the admission 'I don't know and may never know'.

How you get 'we should all stop thinking about it' from that is beyond me, particularly when it comes to Wyman (he doesn't strike me as the 'turn a blind eye' type).

No, agreed.

But "I may never know" is simply a statement of one's own limitedness, with the "may" allowing for someone else to provide better information; whereas Wyman's statement moves from the observational premise...

"People are arguing."

To the conclusion...

"It's irrational to find/believe in/assume an answer to the argued issue exists."

I can't see how you get from that premise to that conclusion: but if you can provide the middle premise, I'm ready to hear it. Right now, it looks like the middle premise would have to be, "If people argue a thing, there must not be any answer," or something like that...but we can all see THAT isn't true, right? We wouldn't want to accuse Wyman of that sort of irrational middle premise, would we?

So in fairness to him, how do we make sense of his claim?

Maybe he can explain.

[Immanuel Can]

Some people do have the right answer, and those with the wrong answer, do not negate that.

Negate it? I wouldn't dream of doing so. I thoroughly believe it to be true.

Oh, I see...you mean, "The people who do not have the right answer do not negate the existence of the right one." The comma fooled me.

Correct. Full marks. Graduate school for you.

Science assumes it, and so should we all. Right answers do exist, despite the proliferation of wrong ones. And with the right procedure plus good data, conclusions can be warranted.

[Immanuel Can]

Also: I'm not a scientist, but being agnostic (even as one gathers evidence, observes, theorizes, experiments) seems a sensible thing to be.

Why, Henry?

Why would it seem sensible or, as many suppose, even intellectually sophisticated) to remain an agnostic? After all, "agnosis" is simply the root of our English word "ignorant." (after Latinization to "ignorantia,") Thus an agnostic is one who proclaims his own ignorance.

Maybe that sounds harsh. Seriously, I don't mean it to be. But sometimes a little shock awakens us to something we had not seen before. Let me be more kind.

I'll freely admit that "ignorance" could be a virtue of sorts (though obviously not a great one) if knowledge of a thing were genuinely impossible: but how can we know that? How can we know what we admit we cannot know? And what if the evidence exists, and if God says we SHOULD know, and we still don't want to know?

How virtuous does agnosticism then turn out to be?

Wouldn't we be better to stay open to possibilities of discovering more?

[henry quirk]

"I can't see how you get from that premise to that conclusion..."

Yeah, I get that. The fault is maybe mine: I always assume folks are speaking for themselves unless they obviously aren't (then I get irked [sometimes you irk me, Mannie...*shrug*]).

I assumed (still assume) Wy was speakin' for himself alone.

#

"Why would it seem sensible or, as many suppose, even intellectually sophisticated) to remain an agnostic?"

That's not what I said. For the scientist (or anyone, on any matter) the admission 'I don't know and may never know' is not an end point, but a way station.

If one cannot, based on what's available, say 'this' is real (or 'this is un-real) then acknowledging one's lack (one's agnosticism) is sensible even -- again -- as one 'gathers evidence, observes, theorizes, experiments' (an attempt to lay aside agnosticism).