The absurdity of atheism

[Aloysium]

. . . From “Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man” by the Marquis de Sade.
Dying Man to the Priest: "Renounce the idea of another world; there is none, but do not renounce the pleasure of being happy and of making for happiness in this. Nature offers you no other way of doubling your existence, of extending it. - My friend, lewd pleasures were ever dearer to me than anything else, I have idolized them all my life and my wish has been to end it in their bosom; my end draws near, six women lovelier than the light of day are waiting in the chamber adjoining, I have reserved them for this moment, partake of the feast with me, following my example embrace them instead of the vain sophistries of superstition, under their caresses strive for a little while to forget your hypocritical beliefs."

Is this not the perfection of insane rottenness?

I don’t know about insane; it is more an evil fantasy to seduce believers, to cause eternal hurt, perhaps.
Having seen my share of death and dying, what is described here, is most certainly not reality.
No more lewd pleasures, only pain ahead, the only embrace that he would be seeking would be that of Hypnos.
Having remained always his own man, deciding on the nature of all that is in life and in death, the fictional character would get his reward - himself.
As to the author, offering empty promises to lure the weak from God, we pray for God’s mercy.
I would advise caution, we can tread too far down the road to the demonic, and become evil itself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, how do you “know” that? As far as I am concerned, it is sufficient to have an open mind, a willingness to contemplate and consider the presented evidence. Let’s look at all the facets of the question, both con and pro, and then let the chips fall where they may. The problem is the nature of the “evidence”.

There is no “nature” to evidence. There is relevance and significance. The question is whether having an “open mind” is sufficient to determine the significance of the evidence. There is a difference between being blasé with regard to evidence (aka “open-minded”) and pursuing the evidence to its logical ends, which many with “open-minds” are unwilling to venture because the work is hard and the task is daunting.

You could look up the on-line version of the book: “Atheism, a case against God” by George H. Smith. He quotes a contemporary philosopher Stephen Toulmin, who says this hair-raising sentence:
The existence of God … is not something to demand evidence for; nor is the sentence, “God exists,” one to be believed if, and only if, the evidence for its truth is good enough. The very last question to ask about God is whether He exists. Rather, we must first accept the notion of “God”: and then we shall be in a position to point to evidences of His existence.
Simply horrible. One must accept that God exists and seek for supporting evidence - while disregarding the one against it. That is not how intellectually honest research works.

This, again, depends upon how “honest” the research is. I agree with Toulmin in the sense that completing a “simulation” on an position positively requires an all-in type of commitment to garner all of the evidence and put up with all of the dissing and denunciations that come from those holding an opposing viewpoint. How else does one determine whether it is the actual “evidence” that makes a person abandon a position or whether it is facing one’s alleged peers?

Anthony Flew was soundly criticised on the grounds that he must have been a tottering old man when he renounced his atheism because his critics could not see the evidence as he saw it. Yet, he had spent well over half a century analyzing the evidence. I would suppose that his was at least as “open” a mind as most, given his background.

Nothing like atheists who declare their “atheism” at the age of nine or ten and then proceed to give the same arguments that convinced them at that age to “demonstrate” their atheism for the rest of their lives. A person would wonder what evidence it was, precisely, that had such an effect on them at that young an age and whether they were even competent with regard to being “open-minded” at the time. Yet no further “evidence,” they have resolutely decided, can possibly filter through their “open-mindedness” on the issue.

To grant an a-priori acceptance of the claim is not the same as “let’s see if the claim is true or not”. It is: let’s assume that the claim is true, and then let’s find supporting evidence for it. And then: “if the evidence does not support the claim, let’s try to explain it away”, or pretend that nothing was said. Actually it is the sign of insecurity. The apologist is “scared” of the failure of the test.

Whether or not acceptance is the same as “testing” the claim is an open question. For my money, I would suppose that “let’s see if the claim is true or not” is as much a fence-sitting exercise as anything. It means, essentially, “from the top of my high perch, I will survey the scene and make a determination on my time and my dime” Yet, there is nothing like being down in one of the open-pits to test the mettle of the self-proclaimed “tester.” How willing is this supposedly “open-minded” individual to roll up their sleeves and muck about in the brine and filth, pain and disorder? “No, no, let’s keep the entire enterprise academic,” will be the insistence, I am certain.

Whether God exists or not involves the very essence of existence – what it means to be – what it means to be as a human person. This is not an “academic” claim, one from which a person can merely stand-back, hold at arm’s length, and observe nonchalantly, “Let’s see if the claim is true or not.” No, it requires much more than that to be a completely honest answer to a completely honest attempt to make a determination. The measure of that “honesty” is the measure by which any resulting determination is to be taken seriously, which is why each person can only judge for themselves, and which is the grounds, I would suppose, upon which God will decide upon the sufficiency of each person’s answer to the question, before he moves on in the proceedings to making inquiries about commissions and omissions and such. Thus the idea of vincible ignorance.

Is there a vested interest for atheists? I don’t think so.

There is a vested interest for everyone because the question lies at the very heart of the nature of being human and upon where the “authority” and ground of one’s very being are to be located. Of course, there is a determinably “vested” interest for atheists, otherwise you wouldn’t have the visceral rants and cries coming from the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, et al. They do know very well what is at stake, and they knew it from the tender age of nine or ten, in some cases.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not necessarily. If they committed even a miniscule, but unrepented “mortal sin” (like missing one mass for frivolous reasons), they would be tortured forever. Not something to look forward to. It is really interesting that every believer sees himself among the “saved” and not the “condemned”. Especially considering the words of Jesus about the narrow gate which leads to salvation and the wide road which leads to damnation.

Hope springs eternal, but not for the atheist who doesn’t even believe in it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, in this life we must make decisions blindfolded, without having the pertinent information. Blind choice equals blind faith… nope, I am not interested. What you said here is probably the most devastating criticism against your “God”. Forcing people to make the most important decision without giving them the necessary information to make the correct decision is cruel, unfair and downright evil.

I am not interested in Pascal’s philosophy. Everything he said and was worth to learn I learned in the math class in college. He was an absolute genius, when it came to math. His contribution to probability theory was nothing if not awesome. Such a horrible waste of his talent was when he became religious.

Yes, we are all too familiar with the atheist presumption that Jesus was an evil man.

As to Pascal, I expect he is looking down on you with pity for making that remark.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It would be wonderful if this existence would not be “all there is”. Everyone would be delighted to see their deceased relatives again. Now apply the same principle to Christians. They DO have a “vested interest”. They would realize that they wasted a lot of time on meaningless rituals, refrained from doing “sinful” (but very pleasant) activities. Atheists can only gain if there would be a “truly benevolent” God (not the bloodthirsty tyrant of Christianity, who keeps track of every miniscule “sin” and condemns the person for even one of them, if the poor sucker does not repent.) Yes, that would be nice… But believers would lose a lot, if their faith would turn out to be misplaced.

It is interesting that you major on the “bloodthirsty tyrant” chord and completely sidestep the fact that every sin, every outrage will be forgiven except the unwillingness to repent of evil.

I just finished watching The Lord of the RIngs and it strikes me that the description of “bloodthirsty tyrant” would depend entirely upon which side of the “let’s see if the claim is true or not” fence you happen to live. I am sure, to the Uruk-hai, the men of Gondor were “bloodthirsty” and tyrannical. Perspective is everything.

What do you suppose God ought to do with the truly bloodthirsty and evil? Or do you think none of those really exist?

Nothing special about that. I have the very same experience with my wife, and had for many years. Sometimes it is downright “scary” to see how close our thoughts are. But that is hardly “telepathy”. Having been together for over 30 years and living in harmony makes our thoughts very similar. But that is not telepathy. When we are in mood to analyze how come that we could finish up each other’s sentences, there is always a simple and rational explanation. We see and hear the same things, and have very similar reactions. That would NOT work with strangers.

Well, you see, here is where your ill-treatment of “evidence” becomes obvious. You dismiss all instances as being of the same type or for the same cause, because some might be. Hasty generalization is a fallacy, you see.

Having been together for thirty years might account for much of what you characterize as “harmony” in thought or the capacity to “finish up each other’s sentences,” but it doesn’t account for all instances. Explain how, out of the blue, based upon no prior conversation, one of us brings into conversation something that happened years ago or someone from adolescence with no obvious connection to the “current conversation” because we weren’t having a conversation about anything at the time. Yet, the other of us “knew” that this precisel “something” was about to be brought up and knew the other would before a word was spoken. I am sure that your first inclination is to explain away the evidence, which was my point actually. You seek to explain away on tenuous grounds any evidence that may jeopardize your world view precisely because that evidence may, in fact, do so. Wouldn’t a proper open-minded approach continue to keep an open-mind about such evidences rather than dismiss them all on pretexts?

This is a very significant paragraph. “Something would be lost”, you say. Testing is not mistrusting the OTHER person, it is looking for the real cause of the event. I don’t look for “corroborating evidence”, rather want to know the truth, even if there is nothing “comforting” about it.

Again, there is a presumption on your part regarding what is the “truth,” just as there is on my part. This is why I have no objection to atheists pursuing their position to its fullest possible logical outcome and I have no objection to theists doing the same. This beats the fence-sitting allegedly “neutral” observer who goes no where and, on account of that, finds nothing.

Which brings us back to Toulmin’s point. Better to trust someone who has pursued a position to “the ends of the Earth” with regard to its truth value than someone who has merely “considered” it as a remote possiblity.

Which is why, I would suppose, that God permitted Adam and Eve’s willingness to possess knowledge of good and evil to take them and humanity into “the pits” so that we might know it intimately and repent of it completely.

Which is also why Jesus, in the parable of the treasure buried in the field, has that treasure hidden and found only by persistence and bought at a very high price. The “learning” of the Peter SIngers of the world is bought very cheaply, which is why it is not to be trusted.

This paragraph showed the fundamental difference between us. Testing and looking for proof is not about “trusting”, it is about “learning” and about “let the chips fall where they may”.

Your assumption presumes a whole lot about the nature of learning and ignores by the same token the investment required by it. Whose “chips” are those and what investment in the chips has the person made? You presume the “chips” are bought at a cheap price and are, therefore, quite disposable. This is not the world I live in. I doubt, very much, it is the one you live in since human beings are not so easily relieved of their cherished notions as your idyllic view of “learning” makes it appear. I lived in the world of “learning” for nearly fifty years.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You talk about metaphysical world-view and evidence. If the evidence does not support your world-view, what then? Even worse, if the evidence contradicts your world-view? That is what you call “vested” interest. If I am wrong, and there is a God, then I will appeal to his “assumed” justice (mercy is not needed). Since there is no actual evidence for his existence, he should not punish me for my lack of belief. And whether the evidence is sufficient or not is MY decision to make. No one can decide FOR ME if the evidence is good enough or not.

Correct, and no one will decide “for you,” which is why each of us bear full responsibility. You are betting, it seems to me, that there will be no such “accounting” at the end. But, that is a wager you are making, one for which you have no evidence, but for which you are willing to gamble all of what you have for your guess that nothing will be lost in the end. Pascal actually had something to say about that, brilliant mathematician that he was. But, of course, his speculations about wagers and such must have been done after checking his mathematical mind at the door since you have made all the determinations about his “genius” – or lack of – using your own, supposedly greater capabilities.

Make no mistake about it: “hell and eternal torture is the epitome of punishment”. It is not simply a separation from God. Here and now, in this existence we are totally separated from God, no “beatific vision”, no “vision” at all. No reward for believers, no punishment for unbelievers. And this existence - though it could be improved upon, is not “hell”.

We are “in this existence” totally “separated from God?” That is certainly not Christian or Catholic theology. God is Existence Itself. If we were “totally separated” from God, that would entail our non-existence. Now what precisely that means is an open question, but if we abide in any kind of existence then we exist to some degree. Sin is a “separation” from God, but that would imply distancing ourselves from being, from reality. “This existence” exists. without a doubt, but whether I or we, in a subjective sense, “exist” in reality or even have a connection to reality, to existence, at all is the proposal in question. Am I real, do I exist? is not to be determined by the existence of the “here and now” physical world. “This existence,” may, in fact, refer to our spiritual state as a separate question and issue from the physical objects that determinably exist around us. How real are you? To what extent do you, as you, exist at all? Many eliminative materialists (and not a few atheists) do not suppose “you” exist at all. Ever wonder why?

 

[Bradski]

Nothing like atheists who declare their “X” at the age of nine or ten and then proceed to give the same arguments that convinced them at that age to “demonstrate” their X for the rest of their lives. A person would wonder what evidence it was, precisely, that had such an effect on them at that young an age and whether they were even competent with regard to being “open-minded” at the time.

I’ve just replaced the word on which you had decided with X. Please feel free to insert any other word that might be applicable regarding mature belief systems.

Like, I dunno, political or maybe even religious beliefs…

 

[zyzz]

There is no “nature” to evidence. There is relevance and significance. The question is whether having an “open mind” is sufficient to determine the significance of the evidence.

I wonder what you meant by the “nature” of the evidence. For me it simply means the “type” of the evidence which is presented. There can be no relevance or significance until the evidence is actually presented. And so far you did not present anything. As I said before, and will repeat now, there is only one requirement about the evidence; namely that I can personally verify it. No second-hand or hearsay evidence is admitted.

This, again, depends upon how “honest” the research is. I agree with Toulmin in the sense that completing a “simulation” on an position positively requires an all-in type of commitment to garner all of the evidence and put up with all of the dissing and denunciations that come from those holding an opposing viewpoint.

All out commitment simply refers to the honest investigation of the claim, nothing more. Of course it is necessary to grant “provisional” acceptance (in the form of a null-hypothesis), but nothing more.

Nothing like atheists who declare their “atheism” at the age of nine or ten and then proceed to give the same arguments that convinced them at that age to “demonstrate” their atheism for the rest of their lives.

Get real. A nine or ten years old simply cannot know enough to perform an in-depth analysis.

Whether or not acceptance is the same as “testing” the claim is an open question. For my money, I would suppose that “let’s see if the claim is true or not” is as much a fence-sitting exercise as anything.

Of course. It is not a good idea to make premature commitments. I am sitting of the fence, and look down on both sides. On the believers’ side I see nothing but words. I see claims about God and demons and angels, but not one iota of verifiable evidence.

I look down on the side of the non-believers and I see no positive claims. They simply point out the lack of evidence on the other side. And the principle that “absence of evidence is a strong evidence of absence”.

What do you suppose God ought to do with the truly bloodthirsty and evil?

Slap them down, here and now, so they can learn from their mistakes. Or even better, prevent them from acting on their evil ways… after all Jesus proclaimed the “thought-crime” way before it was presented in 1984.

Wouldn’t a proper open-minded approach continue to keep an open-mind about such evidences rather than dismiss them all on pretexts?

That is what I suggested, and you rejected, saying that such testing would shatter the “trust”. Don’t try to argue both sides of the coin.

Which brings us back to Toulmin’s point. Better to trust someone who has pursued a position to “the ends of the Earth” with regard to its truth value than someone who has merely “considered” it as a remote possiblity.

Not true. Toulmin said something completely different. He advocates only considering the supporting evidence.

I lived in the world of “learning” for nearly fifty years.

I see your “fifty years” and raise my “seventy years”… No significance.

 

[zyzz]

Correct, and no one will decide “for you,” which is why each of us bear full responsibility.

But I reject it. No just judge would demand full responsibility if there is no full disclosure.

You are betting, it seems to me, that there will be no such “accounting” at the end. But, that is a wager you are making, one for which you have no evidence, but for which you are willing to gamble all of what you have for your guess that nothing will be lost in the end.

As I said: “absence of evidence is evidence of absence”. Since there is no evidence for the “afterlife”, I live my life accordingly.

Pascal actually had something to say about that, brilliant mathematician that he was.

Pascal was a genius mathematician, but that does not make him a good philosopher.

We are “in this existence” totally “separated from God?” That is certainly not Christian or Catholic theology.

I am not interested in “who says something”, I am only interested in “what has been said”. We cannot see God, cannot hear God, cannot feel God… the world around us does not have the small print: “made by God”. And most importantly it does not reflect God’s alleged “infinite love”. And that means “total separation”.

 

[Bradski]

I’ve just replaced the word on which you had decided with X. Please feel free to insert any other word that might be applicable regarding mature belief systems.

Like, I dunno, political or maybe even religious beliefs…

I should have changed the word atheist as well for it to make sense. Should have read:

Nothing like a person who declare their “X” at the age of nine or ten and then proceed to give the same arguments that convinced them at that age to “demonstrate” their X for the rest of their lives. A person would wonder what evidence it was, precisely, that had such an effect on them at that young an age and whether they were even competent with regard to being “open-minded” at the time.

 

[tonyrey]

I think Plato’s idea of the chariot and the charioteer is a better analogy.

How do you **know **there is none?

Moreover, the “mind” consist of two parts, the “conscious” and the subconscious". Of these two the subconscious is far more important. If your conscious mind would be responsible for your second-to-second existence, you would die in no time, since the conscious mind cannot process more than a few bytes per second - even though that processing is very important. The regulation of the body requires a lot more processing power than that. Also there are excellent experiments that prove (beyond ANY doubt) that decision making happens in the subconscious, and only when the decision was made, will the conscious part become aware of that.

Your certainty is totally unjustified and self-contradictory. We would be no more than biological machines which only imagine they have insight into the nature of reality and** we **wouldn’t be responsible for any of our conclusions. In fact **we **wouldn’t even exist!
:

Drugs cannot alter or destroy the mind because it is intangible but they can and do sometimes alter or destroy the relationship between the mind and the body, temporally or permanently. A guitarist survives damage to, or the destruction of, his guitar.

Another incorrect analogy. The destruction of the “legs” will make “walking” impossible. But adding some artificial legs will allow the person to walk again. However, until that happens, there can be no “intangible” walking.

Your argument presupposes that intelligence exists but in your scheme of things there are only electrical impulses in the brain which don’t** know** what they are doing…

I agree but intangible attributes refer to intangible entities like minds and persons. Intangible does not imply “supernatural” but I believe in the case of self-control it does because the self has unity and continuity which the body lacks over a period of time. We are the same persons as we were years ago even though our bodies may have changed beyond recognition and we are still responsible for what we did throughout our lives. A sobering thought on New Year’s Eve!

Intangible attributes refer to much more than that. Our “self” is not really the “same” as we have been as newborns. The difference is huge. Of course what is the “same” is more of a question of definition rather than an objective difference.Again in “your” scheme of things the self doesn’t even exist because the body is restricted to what it can detect with its eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin - and it doesn’t even** know** what it is doing!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, not necessarily. There is no evidence that the actual God (if there is one) is like the God as you imagine him to be. And that is why you need to provide actual evidence if you wish to “scare me”. Now, PP said that he does not care about evidence. I do. So, indulge me, present evidence that your “assumed” God is the exact equivalent of the “Christian God”. I am here to listen. Just give me evidence that I can PERSONALLY verify. That is all I am asking for.

I believe this is a vain taunt on your part. For one thing, you offer no idea of what you would consider to be acceptable evidence. For another, the evidence of God that involves the experience of God (which would be the most compelling evidence) is completely wanting in you. As Augustine said, we must suspend our disbelief before we can even begin to approach the knowledge of God. I don’t think, and I think you would agree, you are anywhere near that point. :banghead:

 

[tonyrey]

…We cannot see God, cannot hear God, cannot feel God…

We cannot see our mind, cannot hear our mind, cannot feel our mind and if you were logical you would confine “your beliefs” to material objects because in “your scheme” of things there is nothing else! Mindless molecules know precisely nothing…

 

[zyzz]

I believe this is a vain taunt on your part. For one thing, you offer no idea of what you would consider to be acceptable evidence.

I guess, I can’t “win”. If I would go into specifics, you would accuse me of “limiting” you to suit my preferences. So, I don’t want to limit you, I give you all the freedom to choose your best, most convincing evidence, and then you accuse me just the same… for not limiting you.

As I said, there is no special requirement, except that the evidence must be verifiable by me.

For another, the evidence of God that involves the experience of God (which would be the most compelling evidence) is completely wanting in you.

Nonsense. I am open to evidence, and that is all I am ABLE to do. If God wishes to manifest himself to me, all will be well. But it is his choice. I am waiting. The ball is his court.

As Augustine said, we must suspend our disbelief before we can even begin to approach the knowledge of God. I don’t think, and I think you would agree, you are anywhere near that point.

Why should I care what he says? If you can present evidence, it will “conquer” my disbelief. All the charlatans of the “paranormal” use the same trickery. You must suspend your skepticism, you must accept the reality of the paranormal, otherwise the experiment will fail. All the snake-oil peddlers use this technique. Do you know what is the phrase they use when they secretly mean: “screw you”? It is: “trust me”!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wonder what you meant by the “nature” of the evidence. For me it simply means the “type” of the evidence which is presented. There can be no relevance or significance until the evidence is actually presented. And so far you did not present anything. As I said before, and will repeat now, there is only one requirement about the evidence; namely that I can personally verify it. No second-hand or hearsay evidence is admitted.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I never took on the burden of having to convince you of anything whatsoever. What I did demonstrate was that whatever evidence you require from me regarding whether telepathy really occurred or not is something that I cannot supply to you precisely because you are not me. Therefore, the entire set of evidence that you are asking me to provide to you is impossible by its very nature BECAUSE you are not me AND, therefore, the evidence will be by its very nature “inadmissible” to YOU because it is necessarily “second-hand or hearsay evidence” for YOU. Obviously, you know that.

My burden was to demonstrate that the level of evidence you demand be shown to you to convince you is not available and, in fact, not even possible which means nothing to me, really. The evidence is available to me and to anyone who chooses to trust me on it. You have your lamp post and I have mine, I suppose. And what you find under your lamp post does not necessarily determine what will be under mine. It is just that you want to insist that only your lamp post provides the kind of light that can determine whether anything of any sort exists or not.

Again, all I needed to demonstrate is that direct evidence is available to me and to any reasonable person first-hand which can and should be persuasive to them, I do not need to claim the evidence must be third party observable, unless I take on the additional burden of proving to third parties that the evidence was of that “nature.” It obviously wasn’t third-party accessible, ergo your insistence that evidence MUST BE third party accessible for it to be persuasive evidence for me (as a first party observer,) is logically incorrect.

I have personal subjective existence. There is no way that I can prove that to you in any way that would make you convinced of who I am, should you choose to declare it inadmissible because it is “third party or hearsay.” You can deny it until the cows come home, but that does not disprove to me that I am conscious and self-aware. There is simply no way to prove that to you with any evidence at all if you choose to not accept it, but that does not mean I must deny my own subjectivity, my character or anything else about me as me, merely because I cannot provide you with the evidence you require, should I have any interest in that enterprise to begin with.

When you experience a tree or a forest, first hand, I have no idea what your first hand experience of that actually is. Sure I can extrapolate and presume it is much like mine, but there is no possible “evidence” which proves that when I experience the colour green, for example, that you are experiencing exactly what I am. Similarly, to experience being itself or what it means to exist may be radically different between us even though we may use roughly the same words to describe our corresponding experiences. I would presume that when a theist or believer speaks of having a direct “experience” of God’s presence to them this is not the kind of thing for which observable or third party accessible “evidence” can necessarily be provided.

I would further suppose that since God is not “a thing” in the world, that God would not be the kind of “thing” that provides for observable third party evidence. Since God is presumably Being Itself, I would suppose that direct personal experience through one’s own act of existing would be the appropriate method of experiencing God, if “method” is at all a proper word for it.

This is not to deny that God could “become man” or take on a human nature or in some other way manifest his existence in the physical, observable world – burning bush, pillar of cloud and the like to whomever he wishes, but that would be entirely left to God to do so and the validity of each manifestation would be case by case, not a priori. But, of course, your presumption would be otherwise since you demand, not merely third-party evidence, but both third-party evidence that is, at the same instant, directly accessible to YOU. No reliable first hand accounts, but reproducible, observable, physical evidence.

In other words, for God to exist, God must be a physical thing, controllable and dissectible by you, observable by all and amenable to retrial by experiment – not God at all, but another “thing” in the world. Good luck with that.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Of course. It is not a good idea to make premature commitments. I am sitting of the fence, and look down on both sides. On the believers’ side I see nothing but words. I see claims about God and demons and angels, but not one iota of verifiable evidence.

I look down on the side of the non-believers and I see no positive claims. They simply point out the lack of evidence on the other side. And the principle that “absence of evidence is a strong evidence of absence”.

I see your “fifty years” and raise my “seventy years”… No significance.

I’m sitting on a fence and looking down on both sides. On one side I see the entire history of the world consumed by conviction of an afterlife. On the other side I see a few stragglers pompously announcing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as if they had one iota of evidence that the nay-sayers had to be smarter than the yea- sayers.

I see your 70 years and raise you my 75. Respect your elders!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why should I care what he [Augustine] says?

Then for that matter, why should I care what you say?

Do you have ingrained hostility toward the wisdom of the dead?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see your “fifty years” and raise my “seventy years”… No significance.

You spent seventy years in the field of education? :bigyikes:

You have my sympathies.

 

[zyzz]

I’m sitting on a fence and looking down on both sides. On one side I see the entire history of the world consumed by conviction of an afterlife. On the other side I see a few stragglers pompously announcing that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as if they had one iota of evidence that the nay-sayers had to be smarter than the yea- sayers.

Are we going to VOTE and let the majority decide? Sheeesh.

I guess, it is time to wrap it up. Not one of you could present an evidence which can be verified. It is all hearsay.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are we going to VOTE and let the majority decide? Sheeesh.

I guess, it is time to wrap it up. Not one of you could present an evidence which can be verified. It is all hearsay.

I guess you know the final verification is post hoc.

Some of us hope. Others are hopeless.