Statistics: Posted by Belinda — March 15th, 2024, 5:20 am
In what way is sitting on the fence about the bleedin' obvious indispensible?
Why is it, do you think, that the "bleedin' obvious" cannot (apparently) be confirmed by any means other than unfounded assertion? Don't you think that's odd? I do. After all, if its truth is so very obvious, why can't you show it's so, easily and conclusively? If it's so obvious, *where* is the evidence that confirms your confidence?
History, anthroplogy, common sense , reason.
History might, I suppose, be a source of evidence, but "evidence" is quite specific, and history is a record of past events. There have been a near-infinite number of events that you might be referring to. Which of those events do you offer as evidence?
Anthropology likewise. It's a big field, and the knowledge appertaining to that discipline could, as before, be a possible source of evidence. But which specific fragments of knowledge do you present as evidence?
"Common sense" and "reason" are tools that we might use to evaluate evidence, although the former might be somewhat informal for our purposes here...
So it looks like you don't have any evidence to offer, doesn't it?
So, no evidence, then. I can't say I'm surprised.Try opening a book.
You might want to be inspired by the French philosophes of the French Enlightenment whose reflections upon the newly discovered human cultures across the world enabled them to challenge the status quo and oppresion of he "black beasts" of the priesthood.
Statistics: Posted by Sculptor1 — March 14th, 2024, 6:01 pm
Statistics: Posted by LuckyR — March 14th, 2024, 2:14 pm
Why is it, do you think, that the "bleedin' obvious" cannot (apparently) be confirmed by any means other than unfounded assertion? Don't you think that's odd? I do. After all, if its truth is so very obvious, why can't you show it's so, easily and conclusively? If it's so obvious, *where* is the evidence that confirms your confidence?
History, anthroplogy, common sense , reason.
History might, I suppose, be a source of evidence, but "evidence" is quite specific, and history is a record of past events. There have been a near-infinite number of events that you might be referring to. Which of those events do you offer as evidence?
Anthropology likewise. It's a big field, and the knowledge appertaining to that discipline could, as before, be a possible source of evidence. But which specific fragments of knowledge do you present as evidence?
"Common sense" and "reason" are tools that we might use to evaluate evidence, although the former might be somewhat informal for our purposes here...
So it looks like you don't have any evidence to offer, doesn't it?
So, no evidence, then. I can't say I'm surprised.Try opening a book.
You might want to be inspired by the French philosophes of the French Enlightenment whose reflections upon the newly discovered human cultures across the world enabled them to challenge the status quo and oppresion of he "black beasts" of the priesthood.
Statistics: Posted by Pattern-chaser — March 14th, 2024, 11:20 am
In what way is sitting on the fence about the bleedin' obvious indispensible?
Why is it, do you think, that the "bleedin' obvious" cannot (apparently) be confirmed by any means other than unfounded assertion? Don't you think that's odd? I do. After all, if its truth is so very obvious, why can't you show it's so, easily and conclusively? If it's so obvious, *where* is the evidence that confirms your confidence?
History might, I suppose, be a source of evidence, but "evidence" is quite specific, and history is a record of past events. There have been a near-infinite number of events that you might be referring to. Which of those events do you offer as evidence?History, anthroplogy, common sense , reason.
No you are still squirming.Oh no, we're not going down that rabbit-hole again. We all know, in terms specific enough for the purposes of discussion, what/who God is; even though our personal impressions or concepts of God differ in detail. This is a distraction, perhaps offered to direct our conversation away from areas that you find uncomfortable? I don't know.So remind me again. What exactly is the thing you call "god" that you are agnostic about?
Statistics: Posted by Sculptor1 — March 14th, 2024, 8:58 am
Why is it, do you think, that the "bleedin' obvious" cannot (apparently) be confirmed by any means other than unfounded assertion? Don't you think that's odd? I do. After all, if its truth is so very obvious, why can't you show it's so, easily and conclusively? If it's so obvious, *where* is the evidence that confirms your confidence?
History might, I suppose, be a source of evidence, but "evidence" is quite specific, and history is a record of past events. There have been a near-infinite number of events that you might be referring to. Which of those events do you offer as evidence?History, anthroplogy, common sense , reason.
Oh no, we're not going down that rabbit-hole again. We all know, in terms specific enough for the purposes of discussion, what/who God is; even though our personal impressions or concepts of God differ in detail. This is a distraction, perhaps offered to direct our conversation away from areas that you find uncomfortable? I don't know.So remind me again. What exactly is the thing you call "god" that you are agnostic about?
Statistics: Posted by Pattern-chaser — March 14th, 2024, 7:55 am
Statistics: Posted by Toomuchtimethinking — March 14th, 2024, 6:52 am
Statistics: Posted by Lagayscienza — March 14th, 2024, 3:02 am
Why is it, do you think, that the "bleedin' obvious" cannot (apparently) be confirmed by any means other than unfounded assertion? Don't you think that's odd? I do. After all, if its truth is so very obvious, why can't you show it's so, easily and conclusively? If it's so obvious, *where* is the evidence that confirms your confidence?In what way is sitting on the fence about the bleedin' obvious indispensible?
Statistics: Posted by Sculptor1 — March 13th, 2024, 11:33 am