Open Thread

(And while you can’t prove a negative, you can actually prove a positive. You’re actually arguing that there’s no way of knowing anything is real, which is an assumption that just leads to insanity. The fact that I reject insanity means that I may be more surprised when deer ticks turn out to be divine gods, but that I’ll have an easier time doing things like crossing the street or juggling oranges)

“If a god showed up tomorrow on my doorstep and demonstrated magical powers, I’ll believe in it. Much as if a stoat showed up on my doorstep, I’d believe in that. As far as I know, that doesn’t make me an agnostic.”

Actually that does make you agnostic. That is precisely what you are. If you were an atheist, you would say there is no God. What you are saying is how the hell do you know if there is a God, no point in wasting brain space thinking about it, if there is one there is and so be it. That’s agnosticism, not atheism.

etson: Hey, your beliefs in what’s moral and ethical are also your beliefs, same as mine are my beliefs. The fact that they can be a point of contention proves that.

Middle east comment was to say that believing that you’re doing the will of a god doesn’t translate into universally admired behaviour. So saying that a religiously based ethics is superior to an ethics based on another system of thought seems laughable.

And yes, I’m certain god is not explicitly not explicable. That’s why god asks you for faith. That’s why his rules are not man’s rules. That’s why he gets to do miracles, etc., etc. Are you saying god is measurable and quantifiable? Because I’d be interested in hearing about that.

Perhaps I’m mis-defining explicable. I can explain how turtles carry the continents around on their backs, but the overwhelming evidence is against it. One could explain god all day, but you can’t *prove* it or *disprove* it. Therefore, it’s not relevant to me. Zeus could be in charge, Ganesh could be in charge, deer ticks could be the most sacred form of life, etc. If it’s all equally possible, one particular way is useless as a way to determine what to do with one’s life.

But hey, people dig on gods for all sorts of reasons, and they’re welcome to do so. As long as they don’t claim it makes emperical sense, and don’t ask me to base my actions on irrational premises.

I hate to break it to both snappy and arkady but gnorman is MINE. I traded my first born for his pot of gold. (Of course I didn’t tell him there is no first born but gnorman is not the kind of gnome who thinks to ask these things. I deliver only after he does 😉 Gnorman, my dear ladies, is fickle. Oh- and the dragon? Loves M&M’s.

Etson- I think a good moral question would be to ask if denying gays rights is moral. I know from the evangelical Christian point of view the answer is no, and there are lawmakers who believe the same and are working to keep them from having the same rights as other Americans. To me,that is both immoral and unethical. I don’t care how many times it appears in the bible- the bible was written by man and is the product of thousands of years of being passed down as Oral tradition, before being written. There are a whole lot of people claiming to believe in G-d who do the most immoral and unethical things so there is no basis to think that you must believe in G-d to be moral and ethical.

Compassion, empathy and survival are the true basis of morals and ethics. Really- do unto others is the only good basis for ethics and morals. Morals and ethics have to be anthropological in nature because based on the way of the world I haven’t seen religion doing more than pay lip service.