RIP Christopher Hitchens

[Skjellyfetti]

JoltinJoe, you are an old dude arguing on the internet with a high schooler for page after page after page. Step back and think how pathetic that is.

[JoltinJoe]

JoltinJoe, you are an old dude arguing on the internet with a high schooler for page after page after page. Step back and think how pathetic that is.

Get a job, loser.

[youngterrier]

I could go on forever, this is easy

It's funny that you just read about Aristotle and Seneca on the internet last night and admitted that you don't know what "pragmatic" means (so I guess that means you've done no background reading in Pragmatism, which is pretty damning for you because the Rationalist school so prevalently influenced the Pragmatists). From this, I can deduce you have never read any Rationalists or Pragmatists, and this would mean you've never read any critiques of Rationalism or Pragmatism.

Ok, but you've read about Aristotle and Seneca on the internet, and this is so "easy" for you.

Not for nothing, YT, you may be able to impress D1B, but that ain't saying much.

Ad hominem

[JoltinJoe]

It's funny that you just read about Aristotle and Seneca on the internet last night and admitted that you don't know what "pragmatic" means (so I guess that means you've done no background reading in Pragmatism, which is pretty damning for you because the Rationalist school so prevalently influenced the Pragmatists). From this, I can deduce you have never read any Rationalists or Pragmatists, and this would mean you've never read any critiques of Rationalism or Pragmatism.

Ok, but you've read about Aristotle and Seneca on the internet, and this is so "easy" for you.

Not for nothing, YT, you may be able to impress D1B, but that ain't saying much.

Ad hominem

It's not.

It's to show that you are saying a lot of things you know little about. For example, you seem to be saying that you are a Rationalist, but you don't even really have an idea what that term means philosophically. I'm actually way more of a Rationalist than you are. I think it's time to just tune you out, because you've become more intent on "proving" you are right, than having a discussion. I've suggested many times you need to broaden your reading list in order to more fully grasp the things you are talking about. Here's something to get you started, the most influential Rationalist ever:

http://www.answers.com/topic/immanuel-kant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 1783 Kant restated the main outlines of his first critique in a brief, analytic form in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. In 1785 he presented an early view of the practical aspects of reason in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. In 1788 he published the Critique of Practical Reason.

While theoretical reason is concerned with cognition, practical reason is concerned with will, or self-determination. There is only one human reason, but after it decides what it can know, it must determine how it shall act. In the analytic of practical reason Kant attempts to isolate the a priori element in morality. The notion that happiness is the end of life is purely subjective, and every empirical morality is arbitrary.

Thus the freedom of the will, which is only a speculative possibility for pure reason, becomes the practical necessity of determining how one shall lead his life. And the fundamental, rational principle of a free morality is some universal and necessary law to which a man commits himself. This principle is called by Kant the "Categorical Imperative," which states that a man should obligate himself to act so that any one of his actions could be made into a universal law binding all mankind. The dignity of man consists in the freedom to overcome inclination and private interest in order to obligate oneself to the duty of performing the good for its own sake. In examining the consequences of man's freedom, Kant insists that practical reason postulates the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as the conditions for true freedom.

[Ivytalk]

By my count, this thread now has more posts than the number of reviews received by all of Hitchens' books during his life. For the love of Allah, let him rest in peace!

We need one of them AGS-style locks...

You love it.

The same way I love root canals and writing off unpaid client bills.

[D1B]

YT offers a simple explanation

That's about all you can handle.

You're getting schooled by a high school kid.

[D1B]

JoltinJoe, you are an old dude arguing on the internet with a high schooler for page after page after page. Step back and think how pathetic that is.

Get a job, loser.

Says the lawyer.

[youngterrier]

Ad hominem

It's not.

It's to show that you are saying a lot of things you know little about. For example, you seem to be saying that you are a Rationalist, but you don't even really have an idea what that term means philosophically. I'm actually way more of a Rationalist than you are. I think it's time to just tune you out, because you've become more intent on "proving" you are right, than having a discussion. I've suggested many times you need to broaden your reading list in order to more fully grasp the things you are talking about. Here's something to get you started, the most influential Rationalist ever:

http://www.answers.com/topic/immanuel-kant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In 1783 Kant restated the main outlines of his first critique in a brief, analytic form in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. In 1785 he presented an early view of the practical aspects of reason in Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. In 1788 he published the Critique of Practical Reason.

While theoretical reason is concerned with cognition, practical reason is concerned with will, or self-determination. There is only one human reason, but after it decides what it can know, it must determine how it shall act. In the analytic of practical reason Kant attempts to isolate the a priori element in morality. The notion that happiness is the end of life is purely subjective, and every empirical morality is arbitrary.

Thus the freedom of the will, which is only a speculative possibility for pure reason, becomes the practical necessity of determining how one shall lead his life. And the fundamental, rational principle of a free morality is some universal and necessary law to which a man commits himself. This principle is called by Kant the "Categorical Imperative," which states that a man should obligate himself to act so that any one of his actions could be made into a universal law binding all mankind. The dignity of man consists in the freedom to overcome inclination and private interest in order to obligate oneself to the duty of performing the good for its own sake. In examining the consequences of man's freedom, Kant insists that practical reason postulates the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as the conditions for true freedom.

No, it's an ad hominem to the argument we were having. When you commit such fallacy you confuse yourself by putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be a rationalist, rather a rational person, I don't study philosophy, but I can spot a fallacy when I see it. You've done nothing to refute any of my statements other than saying I'm too young understand and that "I'll learn one day" when there are many who share the same beliefs as I do. Instead of engaging in civil conversation you undermine those with different opinion as that of the level of D1B as opposed to refuting said statement. Your tactics are no better than mine, until you can address my points and refute that precedents and conclusions of A) Virtue being the most rational way at which man can thrive B) Rationality deriving from evolution C) evolution being natural D) thus rationality is the way at which man can thrive at his best and to ignore said rationality would be unnatural. But instead, you would like to change the subject to my ignorance of the philosophical history and arguments of philosophers I haven't studied in-depth yet (and we all KNOW I haven't) and thus make the claim that your claim is correct simply because you've studied more, as opposed to acknowledging the arguments set forth and refuting (especially when said philosophical subject rationalism vs pragmaticism, has nothing to do with this discussion). Instead of citing works of philosophers, how about you use their arguments instead? You seem claim a philosophical viewpoint that is not yours as if it's intellectually inferior, as if all philosophers are in overwhelming agreement over these precedents. From what little I've studied of philosophy, it's clear that consensus on any issue is not as obvious as you make it out to be, and in this case you're just taking advantage of your superior knowledge in the history of the subject. Notice how you didn't rebut my rebuttal and instead changed the subject to how I didn't know what pragmatism was and instead focused on my lack of ethos as a means to undermine what I had to say. By definition, that is an ad hominem. Twist and spin it all you want, but you're almost as bad as D1B, you're just more lawyered up than he

[D1B]

It's not.

It's to show that you are saying a lot of things you know little about. For example, you seem to be saying that you are a Rationalist, but you don't even really have an idea what that term means philosophically. I'm actually way more of a Rationalist than you are. I think it's time to just tune you out, because you've become more intent on "proving" you are right, than having a discussion. I've suggested many times you need to broaden your reading list in order to more fully grasp the things you are talking about. Here's something to get you started, the most influential Rationalist ever:

http://www.answers.com/topic/immanuel-kant" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No, it's an ad hominem to the argument we were having. When you commit such fallacy you confuse yourself by putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be a rationalist, rather a rational person, I don't study philosophy, but I can spot a fallacy when I see it. You've done nothing to refute any of my statements other than saying I'm too young understand and that "I'll learn one day" when there are many who share the same beliefs as I do. Instead of engaging in civil conversation you undermine those with different opinion as that of the level of D1B as opposed to refuting said statement. Your tactics are no better than mine, until you can address my points and refute that precedents and conclusions of A) Virtue being the most rational way at which man can thrive B) Rationality deriving from evolution C) evolution being natural D) thus rationality is the way at which man can thrive at his best and to ignore said rationality would be unnatural. But instead, you would like to change the subject to my ignorance of the philosophical history and arguments of philosophers I haven't studied in-depth yet (and we all KNOW I haven't) and thus make the claim that your claim is correct simply because you've studied more, as opposed to acknowledging the arguments set forth and refuting (especially when said philosophical subject rationalism vs pragmaticism, has nothing to do with this discussion). Instead of citing works of philosophers, how about you use their arguments instead? You seem claim a philosophical viewpoint that is not yours as if it's intellectually inferior, as if all philosophers are in overwhelming agreement over these precedents. From what little I've studied of philosophy, it's clear that consensus on any issue is not as obvious as you make it out to be, and in this case you're just taking advantage of your superior knowledge in the history of the subject. Notice how you didn't rebut my rebuttal and instead changed the subject to how I didn't know what pragmatism was and instead focused on my lack of ethos as a means to undermine what I had to say. By definition, that is an ad hominem. Twist and spin it all you want, but you're almost as bad as D1B, you're just more lawyered up than he

Listen here you little motherfucker, he's ten times worse than I, because he's fucking wrong. I don't twist and spin shit.

Now carry on.

[JoltinJoe]

YT, the point here wasn't to demonstrate that you are wrong, it was to nudge you into being open to other ideas.

Did you even read the link about Kant? I found one I thought would be particularly interesting for you, given your "pure reason" type of position. Why don't you pick up and read his Critique of Pure Reason? I think it will challenge you to re-think your ideas. You're going to go to college in a year or so and, in order to get the most out of your education, you need to be open to new ideas. I think if you read Kant, as a rational person, you might find this concept to be intriguing:

The dignity of man consists in the freedom to overcome inclination and private interest in order to obligate oneself to the duty of performing the good for its own sake. In examining the consequences of man's freedom, Kant insists that practical reason postulates the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as the conditions for true freedom.

Dammit, YT, you (WE) are special. We're not just the most evolved and rational of animals.

Done.

[Ibanez]

27 pages. Bravo!! Well done boys


Sent from my iPhone.

[CAA Flagship]

27 pages. Bravo!! Well done boys


Sent from my iPhone.

Not so fast my friend. Looks more like 22.

[andy7171]

27 pages. Bravo!! Well done boys


Sent from my iPhone.

So much fail.

[D1B]

YT, the point here wasn't to demonstrate that you are wrong, it was to nudge you into being open to other ideas.

Did you even read the link about Kant? I found one I thought would be particularly interesting for you, given your "pure reason" type of position. Why don't you pick up and read his Critique of Pure Reason? I think it will challenge you to re-think your ideas. You're going to go to college in a year or so and, in order to get the most out of your education, you need to be open to new ideas. I think if you read Kant, as a rational person, you might find this concept to be intriguing:

The dignity of man consists in the freedom to overcome inclination and private interest in order to obligate oneself to the duty of performing the good for its own sake. In examining the consequences of man's freedom, Kant insists that practical reason postulates the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as the conditions for true freedom.

Dammit, YT, you (WE) are special. We're not just the most evolved and rational of animals.

Done.

And Kant was wrong.

We're special because we evolved. Religion/God is a product of evolution and was created by man.

Sociobiology holds that in considerable part human behavior is based on our biology - specifically, by gene-directed tendencies developed in us by evolution. We eat, sleep, build shelters, make love, fight, and rear our young in a wide variety of human fashions because, sociobiologists say, through the process of natural selection interacting with social influences we developed genetic predispositions to behave in ways that ensured our survival as a species. Complex interactions among numerous genes give us the capacity and inclination to develop into people who are either more or less violent, more or less altruistic, monogamous or polygamous, Muslim or Catholic, or whatever - depending on how our upbringing, experiences, and the myriad influences on us of the culture we are immersed in elicit the potentialities within those congeries of genes.

That's how the individual develops. But how did we come to have a genome that incorporates such developmental possibilities? That's where Wilson's theory comes in. His latest version of his theory centers on what he calls "gene-culture coevolution." He proposes that certain physiologically based preferences channel the development of culture (an example might be the development in every society of some form of family life in response to the infant's and mother's need for continuing sustenance and protection). On the other hand, certain cultural influences reciprocally favor the selection and evolution of particular genetic tendencies (an example might be society's inhibition of uncontrolled aggression and its favoring of people with built-in responsiveness to social control of aggression).

To see how interaction works, consider the case of language. (This is my example, not Wilson's.) No other animal has anything remotely like our language capacity. That's because only the human brain has two specialized zones, Broca's Area and Wernicke's Area, both on the left side, in which the neurons are so connected as to form a mechanism that recognizes the relationships among the words in sentences. No actual language is prewired in those areas; no child, raised apart from the sound of language, has ever spontaneously spoken. But our brains evolved in such a way that every normal toddler can spontaneously figure out what people around him or her are saying, no matter what words and grammar they are using. The evidence of prehistoric skull sizes and shapes, ancient artifacts, and the customs of primitive peoples indicates that the immense advantages of linguistic communication favored individuals with greater neurological capacity for verbal communication, and that culture and genetics coevolved to produce the modern human brain and the resultant thousands of human languages.

This is a paradigm for the development of religion. As Professor Burkert puts it: "We may view religion, parallel to language ... , as a long-lived hybrid between cultural and the biological traditions." He maintains that we have biological tendencies and capacities that cause us to need, learn, value, and practice religion - not any specific religion, of course, but any one of the thousands of religions that, despite the vast differences among them, all tend to fulfill similar needed functions for individuals and, just as important, for the society they live in.

The primary needs met by religion, sociobiologists say, were the allaying of fear and the explanation of the world's many mystifying phenomena. With the development of the brain's capacity for language, humans beings were able to develop concepts and have experiences that had been unavailable to prehumans, among them the consciousness of risk and of death, of time, the past, and the future; of reward and punishment; puzzlement about natural phenomena; the satisfactions of problem-solving; and aesthetic pleasure, wonder, and awe.

But verbal and conceptual ability also had rich rewards. Primitive humans developed a sense of awe at the wonders they could now think about: birth, the return of life in spring, the rainbow - and with that sense of awe came a need to explain those wonders. Human beings' new cognitive powers yielded the joys of recognizing health returning after sickness, hardships survived, crops harvested, problems solved, wrongs righted, and the aesthetic pleasure yielded by the many beauties of the world around them.

Early humans, and most humans to this day, make sense of all these mystifying negative and positive experiences by means of religion.

If there is evil in the world, it is, in some religions, the work of an evil deity - Ahriman, Satan, Asmodeus, Loki - but in other religions, it is the product of evil desires in human beings. Against the uncertainties and dangers of the future, people pray, asking the deity to make all turn out well. Against the misery of losing a loved one or the fear of one's own death, people seek reassurance that they will live after death in some other realm. Against injustice, inequality, the desperate unfairness of life, what better consolation than to expect a just and generous reward in heaven by a loving Father? And conversely, when things go well, when the world is beautiful, when people are surrounded by those they love and enjoy the rewards of their work, what is more natural than to give heartfelt thanks to the supposed source of good things?

Religion thus met the newly evolving human need to understand and control life. Religion serves the same purposes as science and the arts - "the extraction of order from the mysteries of the material world," as Wilson puts it - but in the prescientific era there was no other source of order except for philosophy, which was comprehensible only to a favored few and in any case was nowhere nearly as emotionally satisfying as religion.

Still another major function of religion was to act as a binding and cementing social force. I quote Wilson again: "Religion is ... empowered mightily by its principal ally, tribalism. The shamans and priests implore us in somber cadence, Trust in the sacred rituals, become part of the immortal force, you are one of us." Religious propitiation and sacrifice - near-universals of religious practice - are acts of submission to a dominant being and dominance hierarchy.

Religion thus helped meet the need of human beings to live together. That need is biologically based: We require social life to thrive emotionally - and, in fact, physically. Recent evidence shows that people who live alone have less immune resistance to disease than people who live with spouses or partners. But social living requires some system of hierarchical leadership in order to avoid endless fighting over food, sex, and other benefits. You've seen all this on television documentaries of life among troops of chimpanzees and baboons. The human creation of various systems of social control is a response to biological urges we inherit from our prehuman ancestors.

But early peoples were aware that certain inexplicable and mighty forces - earthquakes, drought, epidemics - that affected their lives were beyond the control of their leaders. It was only natural that they should suppose that these forces were the work of unseen things analogous to their leaders but far more powerful, and whom they regarded with fear, awe, and respect. From early times to the present, in nearly every religion, God or the gods are the "lords" of creation, rulers whom all humans, including emperors and presidents, must obey and revere. So in addition to whatever form of social governance and leadership human beings developed, they also sought the leadership and help of shamans, medicine men, priests, or other special people who could mediate between them and the spirits or gods, and adopted acts of submission ritual to placate and please those deities. But of course these religious beliefs and practices relieved the leaders of society of the blame when things went wrong; religion thus bolstered social governance.

For all these reasons, says Wilson, "Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving." The human mind evolved to believe in the gods even as religious institutions became built-ins of society. [9]

http://www.secularhumanism.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Wedgebuster]

What's all this fuss about Christopher Robins??

[JoltinJoe]

NO, Kant was not wrong. Kant was a Rationalist who realized that the "performing the good for its own sake" could not be "rationally" explained, i.e., in the absence of something greater, there is no rational reason to perform good for its own sake. The truth of his observations have not been affected by any advance in science. No matter what advances science makes, the need to perform good for its own sake can only be "rationally" explained by reference to something more which we do not "rationally" understand. Kant's gradual evolution to this position over the course of his writing career remains the single most influential development in the history of Rationalism, and represents a rebuke of the "pure reason" type of Rationalism that our young friend YT is so wedded too. I think he would be interested in reading it.

[JoltinJoe]

What's all this fuss about Christopher Robins??

[D1B]

NO, Kant was not wrong. Kant was a Rationalist who realized that the "performing the good for its own sake" could not be "rationally" explained, i.e., in the absence of something greater, there is no rational reason to perform good for its own sake. The truth of his observations have not been affected by any advance in science. No matter what advances science makes, the need to perform good for its own sake can only be "rationally" explained by reference to something more which we do not "rationally" understand. Kant's gradual evolution to this position over the course of his writing career remains the single most influential development in the history of Rationalism, and represents a rebuke of the "pure reason" type of Rationalism that our young friend YT is so wedded too. I think he would be interested in reading it.

Kant's wrong in that there is no proof that god exists. Kant also lived about 300 years ago and you can bet his writings and theories would have changed had he the benefit of the vast body of current knowledge and science.

There is something greater or more, as our young friend has explained, it's just not god, at least your christian definition of god.

There are socio-biological and scientific explanations for altruism. Reams of em.

[JoltinJoe]

NO, Kant was not wrong. Kant was a Rationalist who realized that the "performing the good for its own sake" could not be "rationally" explained, i.e., in the absence of something greater, there is no rational reason to perform good for its own sake. The truth of his observations have not been affected by any advance in science. No matter what advances science makes, the need to perform good for its own sake can only be "rationally" explained by reference to something more which we do not "rationally" understand. Kant's gradual evolution to this position over the course of his writing career remains the single most influential development in the history of Rationalism, and represents a rebuke of the "pure reason" type of Rationalism that our young friend YT is so wedded too. I think he would be interested in reading it.

Kant's wrong in that there is no proof that god exists. Kant also lived about 300 years ago and you can bet his writings and theories would have changed had he the benefit of the vast body of current knowledge and science.

There is something greater or more, as our young friend has explained, it's just not god, at least your christian definition of god.

There are socio-biological and scientific explanations for altruism. Reams of em.

Interesting enough, Kant rejected all proofs of God's existence and, as a rationalist, said that the existence of God cannot be "proven." And yet he still believed. Imagine that.

You see, Kant grasped that there were limits to human reason, and that there objects which were unknowable but which nonetheless existed (what he called the ("noumenon"). Accordingly, Kant famously observed that the question of God was the "proper object of faith, not of reason." In the past, when you have requested proof of God, I have told you that the burden of proof or non-proof is on the Atheist. That's because I am a Kantian rationalist. I don't need "proof." My belief that good is an end in itself compels faith.

[D1B]

Kant's wrong in that there is no proof that god exists. Kant also lived about 300 years ago and you can bet his writings and theories would have changed had he the benefit of the vast body of current knowledge and science.

There is something greater or more, as our young friend has explained, it's just not god, at least your christian definition of god.

There are socio-biological and scientific explanations for altruism. Reams of em.

Interesting enough, Kant rejected all proofs of God's existence and, as a rationalist, said that the proof of God cannot be "proven." And yet he still believed. Imagine that.

You see, Kant grasped that there were limits to human reason, and that there objects which were unknowable but which nonetheless existed (what he called the ("noumenon"). Accordingly, Kant famously observed that the question of God was the "proper object of faith, not of reason." In the past, when you have requested proof of God, I have told you that the burden of proof or non-proof is on the Atheist. That's because I am a Kantian rationalist. I don't need "proof." My belief that good is an end in itself compels faith.

Great rationalization, but you still believe morality (altruism) emanates from a homicical and narcissistic god who ravished the planet and people for several thousand years then cloned a less harsh version of himself who dishes out rewards and punishments to humans who evolved from apes. Dwell all you want in philosophy Joe, but you will always have to answer for your absurd religion.

You claim the supernatural, I claim the sociobiological. You have faith, I have decades of peer reviewed studies and research. You have theology, I have biology, psychology, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry and molecular biology.

Life goes on...

[youngterrier]

YT, the point here wasn't to demonstrate that you are wrong, it was to nudge you into being open to other ideas.

Did you even read the link about Kant? I found one I thought would be particularly interesting for you, given your "pure reason" type of position. Why don't you pick up and read his Critique of Pure Reason? I think it will challenge you to re-think your ideas. You're going to go to college in a year or so and, in order to get the most out of your education, you need to be open to new ideas. I think if you read Kant, as a rational person, you might find this concept to be intriguing:

The dignity of man consists in the freedom to overcome inclination and private interest in order to obligate oneself to the duty of performing the good for its own sake. In examining the consequences of man's freedom, Kant insists that practical reason postulates the immortality of the soul and the existence of God as the conditions for true freedom.

Dammit, YT, you (WE) are special. We're not just the most evolved and rational of animals.

Done.

I dunno, one could make the point that that characteristic is a way in which we've evolved, just sayin

[D1B]

YT, the point here wasn't to demonstrate that you are wrong, it was to nudge you into being open to other ideas.

Did you even read the link about Kant? I found one I thought would be particularly interesting for you, given your "pure reason" type of position. Why don't you pick up and read his Critique of Pure Reason? I think it will challenge you to re-think your ideas. You're going to go to college in a year or so and, in order to get the most out of your education, you need to be open to new ideas. I think if you read Kant, as a rational person, you might find this concept to be intriguing:



Dammit, YT, you (WE) are special. We're not just the most evolved and rational of animals.

Done.

I dunno, one could make the point that that characteristic is a way in which we've evolved, just sayin

[JoltinJoe]

Great rationalization, but you still believe morality (altruism) emanates from a homicical and narcissistic god who ravished the planet and people for several thousand years then cloned a less harsh version of himself who dishes out rewards and punishments to humans who evolved from apes. Dwell all you want in philosophy Joe, but you will always have to answer for your absurd religion.

Straw man. If you want to debate my religion, don't distort it.

You claim the supernatural, I claim the sociobiological. You have faith, I have decades of peer reviewed studies and research. You have theology, I have biology, psychology, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry and molecular biology.

Life goes on...

You have all that, but no answer for "Why?"

Oh, and I'm happier than you. Why?

[youngterrier]

Kant's wrong in that there is no proof that god exists. Kant also lived about 300 years ago and you can bet his writings and theories would have changed had he the benefit of the vast body of current knowledge and science.

There is something greater or more, as our young friend has explained, it's just not god, at least your christian definition of god.

There are socio-biological and scientific explanations for altruism. Reams of em.

Interesting enough, Kant rejected all proofs of God's existence and, as a rationalist, said that the proof of God cannot be "proven." And yet he still believed. Imagine that.

You see, Kant grasped that there were limits to human reason, and that there objects which were unknowable but which nonetheless existed (what he called the ("noumenon"). Accordingly, Kant famously observed that the question of God was the "proper object of faith, not of reason." In the past, when you have requested proof of God, I have told you that the burden of proof or non-proof is on the Atheist. That's because I am a Kantian rationalist. I don't need "proof." My belief that good is an end in itself compels faith.

I disagree with the burden of proof point, but I see what you're saying for the rest. The real question is whether or not scientific fact is in itself, at least on the scientific front, is finite. If it's finite, it's irrelevant whether or not it's possible for a creature for a know it all, but the fact that it CAN be known onto itself disproves the ignorance argument. For instance, if you put forward "prove God doesn't exist" and scientifically I was able to explain how the universe worked without mystery, there would be no scientific ignorance for one to believe maybe there is. In other words, I can't answer all of the scientific questions about physics, astronomy, and cosmology, but that doesn't mean they can't be answered some day. If all knowledge is obtained on a scientific front, there's no physical evidence for God. Whether or not he is above perception is irrelevant. If there was an anomaly we can't explain, then we wouldn't know everything scientifically. The finity or infinity of knowledge is more of a philosophical argument upon itself.

My point is, if we can know everything about how reality "ticks" and what is or isn't possible within its domains, that would mean there would be no physical reason for there to be a God. Furthermore, if spirituality through religion was dis-proven by means of showing the flaws of religion(which I think is a lot easier), that takes away spiritual aspect. Take away religion, and man becomes agnostic as he has no proof to believe in God, claiming ignorance about the universe; take away that ignorance and give him knowledge and he becomes a Gnostic atheist. He knows how the universe works, and thus there is no mystery. It matters not whether or not he can perceive a higher power or not, because there is no mystery in the universe, as he knows how it works, there's no proof of a higher being interacting with him. Thus, if there is a God, he is outside of reality and doesn't care about man. If he did, man would have objective proof to say he does.

In the end, God on a philosophical front is something that can't be explained, thus we cannot acknowledge Him. If he was, he'd be a force that either could be measured or explained. If He was pertinent to our existence at all he'd interact in some way that could be observed. The only concept of which man knows God is that of which he can't explain in that he is infinity in all things. Logically I don't think that is possible because infinity is a relative term for description for numbers; the universe isn't infinite, nor is anything inside it.

[D1B]

Great rationalization, but you still believe morality (altruism) emanates from a homicical and narcissistic god who ravished the planet and people for several thousand years then cloned a less harsh version of himself who dishes out rewards and punishments to humans who evolved from apes. Dwell all you want in philosophy Joe, but you will always have to answer for your absurd religion.

Straw man. If you want to debate my religion, don't distort it.

You claim the supernatural, I claim the sociobiological. You have faith, I have decades of peer reviewed studies and research. You have theology, I have biology, psychology, sociology, archaeology, anthropology, chemistry and molecular biology.

Life goes on...

You have all that, but no answer for "Why?"

Oh, and I'm happier than you. Why?

Been answering the why all throughout this thread. You conveniently ignore anything that counters your dogmatic world view.

Of course you're happier, most delusional people are.