metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!
Hey, wait a minute, I have a copyright on "don't know"! Post it again and I'll sue your butt off.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!
I assume ''we'' is science.On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!
A classic false dichotomy.One can always make a decision on whether something has come about by luck or intelligence.
Anyone who says that they do not think it is intelligence must accept luck, as that is that is left.
A cop-out? And what would you call the application of a fairy tale as the explanation? I'd call it a lie. Your choice, a cop-out (till we can gather more information and make a proper determination) or a lie that we are stuck with forever and ever and ever. I'll take the "cop-out" thank you very much.To take the cop-out of 'I don't know' is just that, a cop-out. You might not know yet, but surely you can see complicated things do not come about by luck. There would have to be a guiding factor.
Me too.I am amazed at how many people do not seem to know this.
I assume ''we'' is science.
A fairy tale? Now that is ignorance... and from such a clever man. I am shocked .A classic false dichotomy.
A cop-out? And what would you call the application of a fairy tale as the explanation? I'd call it a lie. Your choice, a cop-out (till we can gather more information and make a proper determination) or a lie that we are stuck with forever and ever and ever. I'll take the "cop-out" thank you very much.
Me too.
Are you kidding?! The debate would still continue over the issue of who's "don't know" is the more extensively used and/or the most authentic. Hey, this is RF, remember?I think we should have a "don't know" day on the forum from time to time. Like a holiday from debating.
It is spiritually discerned. It is scriptural and science theory. People can know before evidence comes in, even if that is annoying for those who 'don't know'Anyone. You don't know, I don't know, nobody here knows. We can speculate but that's it.
Are you kidding?! The debate would still continue over the issue of who's "don't know" is the more extensively used and/or the most authentic. Hey, this is RF, remember?
And what is the title? Atheist ? hahaPoster A: I don't know
Poster B: I haven't got a clue
Poster C: I don't even understand the question
LOL!Poster A: I don't know
Poster B: I haven't got a clue
Poster C: I don't even understand the question
What you are missing is the that whole phrase is "I don't know YET." It is that last, always understood but oft not included word in the sentence that makes all the difference. It turns a "hide" that is somewhat better than the fairy tale, "head in the sand approach," into an organized inquiry. An inquiry, that if past experience is borne out, will resolve into a sound theory and another demonstration that religion is just fairy tales Pelion piled upon Ossa.A fairy tale? Now that is ignorance... and from such a clever man. I am shocked .
NOT. Stick with you luck then, and hide behind your 'don't know' if that is a comfort blanket to you.
It is truly, the only reasonable answer.On a question like this, "don't know" is actually the most sensible answer. Because we don't know!
I think you're playing games. So no thanks.
That really is still not answering the question. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, only that it seems more based on assumption.
It is truly, the only reasonable answer.
What you are missing is the that whole phrase is "I don't know YET." It is that last, always understood but oft not included word in the sentence that makes all the difference. It turns a "hide" that is somewhat better than the fairy tale, "head in the sand approach," into an organized inquiry. An inquiry, that if past experience is borne out, will resolve into a sound theory and another demonstration that religion is just fairy tales Pelion piled upon Ossa.
For us "I don't know" is not a security blanket as it is for you, it is quite the opposite, it is the start of a task. But then, if you understood that, we'd not be having this talk, you'd be pulling in harness with us to advance knowledge rather than attempting to race back into the swaddling comfort of your bronze age belief system.
Unsupported claim made unlikely by the evidence that is already on the table.Unfortunately, 'I don't know yet' is still operating within the old paradigm, with the same old approach. IOW, it already has an assumption formed about what it's going to find. While science will continue to uncover new facts about our world, it will never reach a true understanding as to the true nature of Reality.
Unsupported claim, requires a personal definition of "reason" that runs counter to normal usage.The kind of intelligence inherent in the universe is not the same as that of Reason.
Balderdash, go ahead and make your case.Not that it is irrational, but that it is non-rational. With all the new facts coming up about the universe, science is more in paradox than ever before.
Say's you, I disagree.Superimposing the gridwork of rational thought onto nature does not work.
I never look for facts, there are none to be found. I work on probabilities.Another kind of approach must be taken, unless all you are looking for are mere facts, facts which are not Reality itself, but only information about Reality.
That's what probability is, I'm way ahead of you on this, likely about a half century ahead.I would suggest that, in lieu of 'I don't know yet', we nurture a 'not-knowing' mind. That way, you're completely empty of baggage, and open to the way things actually are, rather than directed by the way the conceptual mind only thinks they are.