On 13 July 2014 07:34, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/12/2014 4:23 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 July 2014 07:58, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Liz, you missed my words about 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Fighting AGAINST >> something reqires SOME concept of the enemy, so an atheist 'requires' SOME >> concept of 'a' (any) god as a target. >> > > Yes, I agree. Or at the very least they have a definite idea of what is > the correct approach to understanding reality, and have decided that any > contradiction to it isn't allowed. > > You pretend that atheists have some dictatorial power. >
They have taken over the sides of buses (and much of the internet). > Anything is allowed. Are you channelling Aleister Crowley? > That doesn't mean that one has to agree with or believe anything. Indeed. Nothing means one has to agree with or believe anything, although George Orwell made a good case for people being able to make themselves believe anything given enough incentive. > Sorry if I missed your (or anyone's) posts, there are some very long posts > on this forum and I don't have that much time so I often miss things > (although I would love not to!) > > >> - MY - agnostic, however, does not find any such 'target' reasonble so >> the totality has to be built on some different basis. Who knows on what >> kind of? >> I call it an infinite complexity, not on arithmetical basis as Bruno >> advised, since arithmetic ways of thinking are HUMAN logic and the totality >> is much much wider than what such restrictive boundaries would allow. >> > > Ah, now that depends on whether humans are capable of discovering > universal truths. (Do you think aliens with advanced technology would > disagree that 17 is a prime number, however they chose to express that > fact?) > > Of course they wouldn't because "17 is a prime number" is a tautology. > That sounds suspiciously like hand waving again. According to Bruno's (very reasonable) observation, it's actually a fact to do with how you can arrange 17 identical objects in a plane. > It's true simply in virtue of it's meaning like "x is x". > It tells you something about the number 17 that you might not otherwise know (it might help to consider 359334085968622831041960188598043661065388726959079837 instead of 17 at this point - whether it's prime or not would probably tell you something you didn't know). Whereas "x is x" merely asserts that x is identical to itself, which you probably do know, even for 359334085968622831041960188598043661065388726959079837. > But is it a fact about the world or just a fact about language? > I'd say it's a fact about the world, for example a fact about how you can arrange 17 objects in a plane. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
