[geocentrism] Re: Fruitless arguments
- From: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 09:10:52 +0100
Philip wrote:
> How true Mike. But I think you label yourself wrongly as a devout atheist.
> Agnostic may be a fairer title.
Yes, theorectically I am an agnostic as my belief in there being no God
must be faith as there is no way of proving this. But by the same token
I would say everyone is agnostic. I know people with faith will argue
that this isn't true, but purely from my perspective as a non believer
that is the only conclusion I can consistently draw. For all intents
and purposes though, I am an atheist, I really do believe there is no
God with (I believe) as much conviction as anyone else believes there is
one.
> But true science if it is to arrive at truth cannot be exclusive can it?
Um, no, but I don't know what you're getting at.
> I
> remember as a youth, reading of a university, Duke Uni I think, that had set
> up a department on the paranormal. Can't help thinking, if the paranormal
> was real, then it would be normal wouldn't it? Like the so called
> supernatural. If the evidence supported the existence of these phenomena,
> can physics claim to be true science if it excludes them?
I agree entirely, I have often used this line of reasoning with people
who believe in astrology, psychic powers etc.
> I guess you can see my connection here in regard to the geocentric question
> and exclusion. Telepathy is not Radio, or is it precogniscence?
Um, no, maybe I'm a bit dense today but the only connection I see is
that your reasoning about the paranormal and supernatural equally
applies to religion.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
