SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : FREE AMERICA
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: epicure who wrote (14254)6/10/2007 12:03:32 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 14758
 
I am sorry for getting your status wrong. I remember somebody in a past debate declaring themselves to be an atheist and you were present as a non-believer. There were several of us so I got your status confused. The only antagonist so far on this thread is a declared atheist so I lumped you with him. Several years ago we discussed the difference between atheist and agnostic for a while and as I recall there wasn't universal agreement between the definitions. I don't think we don't need to do that again for this debate, or do we?

"Faith and reason are not necessarily in conflict, but it depends a lot on what you claim your faith is."

I agree, which is why I clarified what I would consider irrational beliefs.

"If your faith is "There are things we do not know, and we may find them out some day, or we may not"- then I'd say your faith is pretty reasonable.

Well I certainly expect to know (believe I will know) more and more as my experience in this life continues and as I seek knowledge as a course in life.

If your faith is "There are things we do not know, and we will never know these things"- I cannot say I see a basis for such certainty, just as I see no basis for "There are things we do not know and we will definitely know them all some day."

Many have gone before us not knowing much. We as a group have learned more than those who went before. Spontaneous generation of frogs comes to mind. We have likely lost knowledge that those who went before us had but who knows what that would be. I see no indication that human societies will ever be all knowing and see enough evidence of things that we do know about, can observe to some extent, and that are not totally measurable to believe that type of knowing is out of reach in the temporal (some day) sense of reaching. That seems rational to me.

You are right, the parenting example was very weak. You may take some points for that.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News