Heartless Angel
The Mad God

Hey there, how've you been?

I would have paid to see that one. I always get so pissed when I have tried nearly every strategy I can come up with only to die, then somehow win by pure luck. It is really hard to repeat the circumstances where luck is involved. Anyways, crongrats on your win, as soon as my hubby decides that it is time to give WoW a chance I will check it out.

Ahhh.....the simple joys in life

I've never gotten into online gaming, mostly because my connection is a bit erratic. I am on pins and needles watien for the last 2% of my game to finish downloading, so will probably go into hibernation for awhile here soon

Another boring day?

Funny, that sounds a hell of a lot like my day. I have this weak little window unit that is entirely incapable of handling the 106 degree weather, and I am equally incapable of handling heat. All the anime I own has been watched so much that if I don't give it a rest, I will never want to pop em in again!

How have you been?

I feel the same way. Its so interesting to hear so many different opinions about the subject. What else have you pondered? or do you currently think about in terms of reality and what you percieve to be truths?

Ive spoken with David Tyler of the Athiest Experience in texas about our ultimate conclusion and he had a defusing response. Heres what I told him.


"so basically the debate ended up establishing that since neither belief can prove the fundementals of existence, neither one is more worthy of belief than the other. "

and his reply was as follows:

"
This seems to be an argument from the postmodernist school that all beliefs are equally valid. It also has a bit of solipsism mixed in with the idea that we cannot be sure or knowing anything. This can be interesting to speculate but is otherwise not very useful. I may be a brain in a vat but I am none the less forced to deal with the world as I can perceive it. There is also a big difference between ideas supported by evidence and those supported by hot air.

Spirituality is a meaningless term. Does it refer to ghosts and goblins and such or only to the emotional side of human nature. If you are talking about the supernatural and claim that science cannot measure it, then what do you have? Something that is invisible, immeasurable and cannot act in this world. In this case the spiritual and the non-existent are the same thing for all practical purposes.

I am a reductionist and to me the spiritual is part of the emotional side of human nature. This aspect of being human becomes more measurable all the time. Anything like the mind which is what the brain does, can be ultimately evaluated by science. We may not know how yet but if something acts in this world it can be studied."


What do you think?

We cant be sure theres not a third option either. It is a rather dull conclusion for something that requires such deep thought, but it is an answer at least. Well I guess I have no choice but to agree with that for now even though im still doubting, it just seems easier to accept it for now. I'll be thinking about this a lot from now on. You've been incredibly insightful and very respectful, thanks for that.

Ill be sure to keep a record of this conversation for future reference, I think its important. Hopefully we can find some answers in our lifetimes. Although I'm sure at some point society will force us to forget about such things.

But thats what I meant. Neither is more valid than the other since neither can provide the true fundemntals for our existence. Is that correct?

So we dont percieve spirtitual evidence to be valid evidence because we dont trust in it since it doesnt deal with scientific evidence. And what you are saying is that we must accept it as equal relevance to science since neither one can prove the fundementals of existence?

also, to make an end to the debate, would you say that because everyone percieves things differently, nothing could ever 'be'?

Well I wouldn't need your opinion to validate my own when it comes to something so easy to identify. I agree that the human mind is fallable and its easy to fool but for the sake of argument, this is a duck. I know its a duck because it has all the charactaristics of a duck. I can see its webbed feet, bill, feathers and overall image. I know this is a duck. I dont believe in faith to a degree, I believe in informed decisions based on whatever evidence there may be. My evidence is both physical and visual. I understand that you may think that faith is required to complete a belief but if theres evidence, no faith is required since im convinced for reasons surrounding physical and visual evidence. (let me know if you're over this, haha)

So can we be absolutly certain that its a duck? And if so, then cant we be absolutly certain about other things? I realise humans have defined it as a duck, but having done so, can that not make peoples perceptions of it incorrect if they were to call it anything other than a duck?

So it all comes down to how we define reality. Each of our realities are different although how can you claim so if we share similar outcomes? reality should be universal for everybody. If i died, I wouldnt be able to be seen by anyone, it applies to all in this world. The reality is we have no way of identifying anything other than our senses. Lets call that logic. So how it is that logic doesnt take precedence over spirituality? Does it come back to fundementals? In which case, are the fundementals even that important if we are getting results and answers? shouldnt the physical evidence be worth more than what we cant see? And I apologize in advance if this is a circular argument as this is pretty deep and its taking me a while to understand it all.