To 24/7,
Firstly, thank you for the comment! Yup, you make a good point, and
i almost thought i had been caught(in my own logic), until i
re-read my original post. -->
Not to argue semantics with you, but let me re-cap. I do believe i
said that:
~Basically we don't know enough to say "god doesn't exist", AND
"god does exist".
Both. What did i base that on?
~Personally i feel that since we haven't even travelled to Mars yet
(which is the nearest planet by FAR), or even discovered any TRACE
of extraterrestrial life(not to mention actual aliens),
therefore, we cannot yet affirmatively say "There is no god" or
"There is a god".
--------NOW, i definitely see the point of your disastisfaction
with my comment. Your reading of my meaning is basically correct,
but perhaps your logic to reach your conclusion is a little too..
absolute. There is not just ONE way to take what i said.
==> Although it may certainly seem like I'm implying that
Religion is misguided, I haven't actually gone that far.
I'm saying, "nobody can be 100% sure". And that THUS, we should all
be tolerant of what others believe in. (I.E: NOBODY CAN/SHOULD SAY
THAT THE OTHER IS WRONG, catch my drift?)
And in the first place, i don't think that any religion is about
proving to the rest of the world that "Our religion is correct, is
absolute, you must believe"...
~~~~~~~~~IN A NUTSHELL,
-Yes, i said we know too little to confirm ANY side.
-However, my saying that (E.G.) "Christians or Non-christians both
cannot be 100% sure that christ/god exists or not", IS NOT EQUAL TO
saying Christians are "misguided"!
-In fact, if you want to take an extreme reading of my words(as you
have), you could even say that I'm taking Christianity's side, by
telling the Evolutionists: "Hey, you can't be sure either!" (that
there is not some supreme being looking over/guiding us.)
To dispute your use of the [Elephant Analogy] in this case,
i believe that i would actually be ANOTHER blind man, telling the
other 3 that "Hey guys, we ALL can't see, we ALL can't be 100%
sure, so why don't we just leave it at that for now?" :)
Come on, mate, since when is saying "We all don't know enough",
equal to implying "Hehe, actually i know everything", or "Hehe,
Side B is actually foolish?" Isn't that your own suspicion or
defensiveness, showing through?
Again, i hope this makes sense to you and others. I am not arguing
for the sake of picking a fight, i simply explain myself more
clearly so nobody will misinterpret my words, and think that I am
taking sides or belittling any side.
I'M NOT.
hi mate,
don't take me too seriously on this account. It was tongue in cheek
as i responded to your original post, any malice detected was
totally unintended.
your position is a novel one to me, or at least the name was. But
upon further reflection, it seems that you argue for a middle
ground, that seeks to remain politically correct as much as
possible. Principally speaking, I've no problems with this position
but philosophically speaking, it lapses into trivialism (well,
eventually anyway). Arguable, but well it seems that's where most
middle grounds usually go.
but perhaps
your logic to reach your conclusion is a little too.. absolute.
There is not just ONE way to take what i said.
no denial about that after all, truth is absolute isn't it? Any
denial of truth being absolute ends up refuting itself. Perhaps
there's not just one way, but in positing more than one ways, or
maybe too many ways, one ends up saying nothing (or again,
trivialism).
I'm saying,
"nobody can be 100% sure".
hmm ... except you and those who hold your views? (tongue in
cheek)
And that
THUS, we should all be tolerant of what others believe
in
one would hope that this tolerance extends to those who assert that
there is / is no God? If i do claim that view A or your view is
wrong, will you tolerate me?
And in the
first place, i don't think that any religion is about proving to
the rest of the world that "Our religion is correct, is absolute,
you must believe"...
hmm... truth by definition is exclusive. The logical implication of
religion A claiming to be the truth would be implying that other
religions (worldviews) are not true, especially when they make no
pretensions to mask that claim and on certain tenets that
contradict one another.
Secondly, would you not think that your view which advocates
tolerance strives to be the absolutist one in promoting tolerance
or neutrality as the way to go?
However, my
saying that (E.G.) "Christians or Non-christians both cannot be
100% sure that christ/god exists or not", IS NOT EQUAL TO saying
Christians are "misguided"!
i know that and i'm not suggesting that. Also doesn't bother me if
you do, hence this forum.
In fact, if
you want to take an extreme reading of my words(as you
have),
how is this not an example of an "absolute form of logic" what ever
that is?
if it seems extreme, i do apologize. I try not to obfuscate things
here and to reason simply but this is where simple reasoning leads
matters to. I try not to argue semantics, but that might be where
the key to sussing out the truth lies, not in meaningless semantic
debates, but in using language to construct meaning and to reason.
The postmodern rejects reasoning but employs his reasoning ability
in doing so (self refuting).
i
believe that i would actually be ANOTHER blind man, telling the
other 3 that "Hey guys, we ALL can't see, we ALL can't be 100%
sure, so why don't we just leave it at that for now?" :)
not trying to be funny cuz God knows i can't be funny to save my
life but if you were blind (as in the analogy), how would you be
sure that the other 3 guys (or 1 of them) are actually blind too?
Could they (or one of them) not be duping you by claiming to blind
but actually possesses sight?
Even if my point doesn't make sense to you (and i hope it does),
the point i hope to make would be NOT to milk an analogy to death
because they're mere representations of the real thing (the point /
argument) and not the thing itself.
But back to the Elephant analogy itself, the thing is, by claiming
to be blind yourself (your view), you have lost all grasp on truth
(because you don't see and can't be sure others don't see. In fact,
if others see and you can't, you'll be doing yourself a disservice
by not choosing to believe them), which is why agnosticism and
skepticism (again, arguably) is self refuting.
In trying to be neutral, your view has just shot itself in the foot
and can't even lift off the ground to begin with. Am i promoting
intolerance? Absolutely not, don't get me wrong. But i suspect the
issues go deeper than that.
Come on,
mate, since when is saying "We all don't know enough", equal to
implying "Hehe, actually i know everything", or "Hehe, Side B is
actually foolish?" Isn't that your own suspicion or defensiveness,
showing through?
i looked in my reply but i don't think i implied that. As in, you
rightly claimed we don't know enough but i don't think i made a
sweeping statement such as you know everything.
In any case, i'm not picking a fight. Just exchanging some thoughts
is all.