RE: Old Wine in New Bottles
September 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm
(This post was last modified: September 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm by Fred.)
(September 6, 2011 at 5:26 pm)ElDinero Wrote:(September 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm)Fred Wrote: Yo, ED, I didn't get to your last post yet, but the main line in it was this: “There has never, ever been any credible evidence to suggest that any further consciousness or life exists outside of this.”
That's going to be at the heart of all of this, and I was going to start another thread on that anyway.
Since I'm neither interested nor qualified to discuss the technical aspects of when dead is really dead, hence the NDE stuff and all that, I'm going to beg off that portion and stick with the main shot I put here. Fair?
No, not really. You said you didn't see compelling evidence that dead is dead. Now you're saying you aren't qualified to discuss it. So why make the statement in the first place? I explained concisely but I think fairly thoroughly what the evidence for 'dead is dead' is, and stated that the only reason to oppose it would be evidence for something else. So I asked you for what your reason for doubt was, and if it be based on evidence for something else, what is it?
I don't accept your decision to now evade the issue, since it was you that raised it in the first place.
Sigh. Ok, fine, but let's go back to the other thread, since it's off-topic here.
(September 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote:(September 6, 2011 at 5:12 pm)Fred Wrote: The bit about being unaware of Dawkins was the tipping point that convinced me you were either uninterested or incapable of playing a straight game. For an atheist to say that he is unaware of the main hitter in your lineup is akin to a catholic saying he is unaware of the pope. It's either a bald-faced lie or displays a level of ignorance of the social context the issue rests within that is beyond my ability to suffer.
So it makes me ignorant because I don't give a damn what Dawkins has to say outside of biology?
Uh, not at all. It would make you ignorant if, as an atheist, you were unaware of what he was saying outside of biology. I have no interest in what he says outside of biology because it's cartoonish and ill-informed. But I'm aware of it. After all, the gnu atheists are why atheism is on the radar at all, so it would be odd to not know what the main cheerleader for your team was up to. Also, it's important to the context of the issue, which is what my op is about and is so far being ignored in the rush to side issues.
