gricker@iu.net (George Ricker) wrote: >> jahnu@wineasy.se (Jesper Werneburg) wrote: >> It's not really a matter of whether you know something or >> believe something because the sum total of what you believe >> to be true, and know to be true, will determine your >> activities, and you will formulate a policy to justify those >> activities. > >Your inferences about what I think are totally off the wall. >I didn't make any inference to what you were thinking, I merely >stated that what you think will determine your action. Now address that point. >You certainly do get a lot of mileage out of a simple definition of atheism. I'm not defining atheism, I'm bringing up some facts which can be tested and verified. As you think so you will act. Chech that prediction out, and falsify it if you can. >Are you >completely incapable of understanding that ATHEISM IS NOT ... I repeat ... >NOT ... a belief system? Yes, I'm completely incapable of seing any sense in that exclamation. >> Of course you won't get any answers by that approach, but >> don't rule out categorically that there are no other >> approaches or alterntives to acertaining reality. You may >> choose to believe that noone has the ultimate correct >> answer, that noone knows better than anyone else, but I fail >> to see the sublimity of such reasoning. You speak like there >> isn't any other rational alternative than ignorance. >No ... I speak like there isn't any rational alternative to reason. Excuse me, does only your definition of rationality count? > It's a >hell of a lot more honest to admit that one doesn't have all the answers >than to claim that one does. But you don't claim that you don't know. You claim that your ignorance is superior to knowledge. How is it not honest to claim that one has all the answers, if one does? >You're right about one thing, though - I >don't think that anyone has the "ultimate correct answer." Is this a thinking contest? I can also think so many things. How on earth would you know if anyone had the ultimate correct answer, if noone told you? Or without checking it out if someone did? >In fact, I >doubt anyone has yet glimpsed the "ultimate correct question." Yes, I can understand that you are in doubt. You have no knowledge. >> >I Guess it serves a purpose for those who are either unwilling or unable to >> >say "I don't know" and live with the uncertainty created thereby. >> What purpose does it serve to be willing to be in ignorance >> and live one's whole life in doubt? Is that like, strength? >> Is ignorance superior to knowledge? How can you say that >> noone knows ultimate reality? What is the basis of such an >> assumption? >I don't know why I'm even bothering with this - it's not a mistake I'll >repeat. When you learn how to read and comprehend what you have read, look >me up and maybe we'll continue this dialogue. But frankly, Jahnu, I'm not >at all interested in arguing with you over your misunderstanding, whether >intentional or otherwise, of what I wrote. Maybe you didn't explain well enough what you meant. I'm simply just relating to what you are saying, and pointing the practical and philosophical implications of your statements. >Here's one final thought for you. A wise man knows that, even if he has >been most fortunate, he has seen but a small glimmer of the truth. How do you know whether someone has seen the truth? You have to know the actions and qualities of a person who has seen the truth. > A fool >is not troubled by such limitations. Think about it. The way I see it, is that you are defining the limitations here, which makes your statement circular and only consistent within your own vale system. That's what I think. >"The most fatal blow to progress is slavery of the intellect. The most >sacred right of humanity is the right to think, and next to the right to >think is the right to express that thought without fear." > Helen H. Gardner - Men, Women and Gods