It drives me crazy when people assert metaphysical truths, whether they be the Christian God, an old Greek god, a unicorn, elves, etc. There is no rational belief for supernatural higgedly-piggedly beyond "Duh, you can't prove there ain't none"

Fucking Christ. The aforementioned student rightly notes that The Journal of Creation appears to meet the college's facile guidelines for assessing "scholarly" material (said guidelines are adapted from a sourcebook published in Chicago by the Association of College & Research Libraries).

She wants to reference articles by this guy.

I am revising the handout on reliable sources. It will now include a section titled "Relativity and Peer Review: How Not to Get Stabbed in the Face by a Sessional Instructor in Front of Your Peers."

galanter wrote:Yeah. Doesn't it drive you crazy when people claim absolute certainty about the ultimate metaphysical nature of reality?

Since when is it a given that there is a metaphysical anything? Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

Radio_Birdman wrote:Scientifically speaking, death will be the permanent and irreversible loss of cognitive function, with the death of the cerebral cortex. All hope of recovering human thought and personality is then gone. Who is to say that the essence doesn't forgo a metamorphosis after this stage? Something we can't ascertain with science right now with the limited range of our technology?

there is no "essence" without our minds and bodies being reasonably functional.

what do you think happens to someone who's alive but has severe dementia, to someone whose mind is slowly becomign mush? do you think that before he becomes a vegetable his "essence" somehow discetely slips away in to the ether preserving his being in some sort of idealized state for all eternity?

Who is to say that the essence doesn't forgo a metamorphosis after this stage? Something we can't ascertain with science right now with the limited range of our technology?

Of course there are a great many mysteries that remain about our world, and science can't explain everything. Any of us could think up a zillion things that might be true after we die, but we would just be pulling them out of our asses. Maybe the 9/11 hijackers were right, and they went to paradise and were issued 72 virgins. Who is to say they didn't? Maybe when I die I'll turn into a fire engine. Who's to say I won't?

It used to be thought that when people were ill, their bodies were posessed by demons. But then we learned about germs and viruses and the like, through science. The demon infestation part was just made up, because people didn't understand what was actually happening, and the demon thing had a certain wacky logic to it. Of course, the Vatican still believes in exorcism...

There are all manner of things that are possible, and many are inspiring and interesting. There might be life after death; it is interesting to think about and speculate on; it is in no way necessarily true and assigning truth value to it is simply dishonest.

Gramsci wrote:The biggest problem in the whole creationist argument is if a creator created the university, who created the creator?

A fantastic typo.

newberry wrote: Of course, the Vatican still believes in exorcism...

i heard they still believe in god and heaven too.

Radio_Birdman wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

A million years hence it may not even be considered that special.

You mean when the AI's finally take over or primates becoming genetically enhanced?

hal9000.

steve wrote:

galanter wrote:Yeah. Doesn't it drive you crazy when people claim absolute certainty about the ultimate metaphysical nature of reality?

Since when is it a given that there is a metaphysical anything? Why would anyone believe such nonsense?

Metaphysics meaning...

met‧a‧phys‧ics  /ˌmɛtəˈfɪzɪks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[met-uh-fiz-iks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun (used with a singular verb)
1. the branch of philosophy that treats of first principles, includes ontology and cosmology, and is intimately connected with epistemology.
2. philosophy, esp. in its more abstruse branches.
3. the underlying theoretical principles of a subject or field of inquiry.
4. (initial capital letter, italics) a treatise (4th century b.c.) by Aristotle, dealing with first principles, the relation of universals to particulars, and the teleological doctrine of causation.

You consider all of this as nonsense?

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

galanter wrote:

Gramsci wrote:I find this massively egotistical...

And your claim to have absolute certainty about the ultimate metaphysical nature of all reality is what? Circumspect and modest?

Certainly not, but neither do i make supernatural claims based on Iron Age beliefs.

I have no answers, but God is not in the gaps.

So you say. But you also say you have no answers.

C'mon...call yourself an agnostic already. It's almost defined as "I have no answers".

In terms that we can never know anything as an absolute certainly, that would make me "agnostic", however this isn't what you seem to be pushing for. It seems that you are expecting me to be an agnostic about a specific god, Yahweh, the god of Christians, Muslims and Jews.

I have no difference in opinion of this particular god or Zeus or the flying Spaghetti Monster for that matter.

Can you give a reason why I should?