h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dear TG:
Little point. You are so, so wrong. Cogito ergo sum' means 'I think, therefore I am'. Where on earth did you get the other translation from? You may think you have a reason to be arrogant, but your grasp of latin does not support this statement. I wonder what your great reason behind being arrogant is?
I would also like to point out that if you want people to read everything you say, you should try being a little more concise. Using lots of longs words does not lend weight to your argument.
Advice: 1) Learn Latin
2) Grow up
3) If you want to discuss stuff here, make your point clearly and simply.
Patriarch.

Actually I have no particular interest in learning Latin, although I thank you for your kind advice and clarification of that inconceivably important point.

I noticed that you have attempted to bury me on an altogether unrelated issue rather than responding to any of the points made or trying to formulate a cogent argument. I'm going to assume that means you don't have much to say.

The reason for my arrogance is that I was born arrogant, raised arrogant, and eschew any wussy christian humility ethic that dictates that I should be otherwise. It is a matter of personal choice, the best reason there is for being anything. Oh, that and the fact that I am a lot more intelligent than people like say, for example, you. My knowledge of Latin notwithstanding, of course. ( I do believe I recall making the point that I don't know very much. )

Here's some advice in turn:

1> don't get in over your head
2> know when you're beaten
3> clarity and simplicity will not offer as much as perspective and depth of understanding

No, you don't come right out and say "you're so stupid" because your smarter than that, and wield the subtle insult rather well. The highlights from one of your offending posts:

"I have noticed at any rate that your last two paragraphs contain a large number of generalizations (some of which are demonstrably based on a lack of knowledge, not to mention vocabulary)." - Here you said he is stupid, and talks like an ape man. This one isn't subtle at all, really.

"if you still feel the need to see me repeat myself again, you can reiterate everyone else's argument without offering any valid counterpoints, which seems to be a standard debating tactic here." - This one is pretty good, as it manages to belittle everyone who has participated in this forum. And since you made a comment about generalizations above, you follow it up with a generalization of your own.

"but as i find myself arguing against five people at once who all have different ideas they want to cram down my throat about what an atheist REALLY is, I have decided screw it, I can be as stubborn as anyone about pissant semantics." - I hadn't noticed anyone trying to be overzealous, trying to cram anything down anyone's throat. It was a reasonable discussion and debate... until this point.

"anyone else who might feel the urge to jump into the discussion will at least have something new to add to it." - Another generalization, and this one says that were all parrots, and that we've been repeating the same posts for a couple of weeks now. Very sensitive.

Anyway, I just want to say that you have displayed more of that arrogance that you accuse atheists of having than anyone you are attacking. By the tone of your posts, you're convinced that the rest of us are unworthy to participate in any discussion with you, and that our resistance to your enlightened view (which is really just your own cosmology, in spite of your arguments that you have none at all) is proof of our idiocy. This is not the first time I've seen you do this sort of thing, either.

Twophlag, I have yet to read this whole thread (my browser takes ages to load it, and I've been away for a week). But may I ask, with perfect honesty, why you choose to use words that only those with a college degree would understand (and even some of those may need a dictionary) in a forum populated by those as young as 14, and then turn around and insult (apparently) someone else's vocabulary?

(P.S. I only ask because I've often found that people who use words that most other people need to pull out a dictionary to learn the meaning of are trying to prove something to themselves.(

Twophlag, I have read the rest of the forum. I will not bother to dignify your attacks and insults with a response.

However, I need to remind you that H2G2 has a code of conduct which you agreed to when you first logged on. Your insults and put-downs may not quite breach that code, but your use of profanity certainly does. I need to ask you to watch your language. I never come out in a forum and said that I am an ACE, because I really feel that it doesn't matter. I am only mentioning it because, in signing on as one, I agreed to uphold the rules here on the Guide. I am doing that now.

One more thing: I define myself as an atheist because I reject the Western idea of the definition of God. I claim to know very little about the nature of the universe, as do the intelligent and thoughtful people in this forum. Our beliefs are diverse, and continue to grow and change as we gain experience. Your arrogance is misplaced. Indeed, arrogance always is, for those who think themselves (or their ideas) better than others have proven only that they don't understand the others in question very well at all. Your postings say very little about our characters, and quite alot about your own.

bp

TG,

I (being one of those youngsters bp mentioned) am not able to follow the whole God argument quite so well, especially considering the length of posts which, when I bother to struggle through rather than skim, tend to be extremely verbose. Even yours.

Couple things - as the mummy mentioned, not understanding the english language doesn't necessarily make someone stupid. Neither does disagreeeing with you - seeing as how you, as well as everyone else in this forum, are supposedly repeating the same things, perhaps your explanations aren't clear enough. Brevity, my friend - although I can hardly talk what with this post.

But the big thing.
"None of these traits are what I would term 'common'. Even at h2g2, a gathering of ostensibly above-average intellects, I see an awful lot of dreck and crap masquerading as real opinions. 85-95% of people are morons, face it. "

The fact that 85-90% of people are not as intelligent as you, and indeed as I, does not make them morons. I admit that sometimes it's nice to be able to use all your vocabularly. But when you're discussing something like theology, it's not about how complex your sentences are - it's about your ideas. A high IQ doesn't mean jack s**t if you can't think for your self, and a low IQ has the same significance if you can. In my history class, there's a girl who's extremely slow to pick things up, and needs stuff explained to her repeatedly, but when she grasps a concept her insights are often shocking. Those of us who just keep thinking - boom, boom, boom, and move on - often miss things that she picks up on. She's no moron.

On the other side there's the prospect of life within your own little IQ bracket - god, I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Sometimes you can stop functioning purely intellectually, and have *fun*. It ain't so bad.

Sorry for the length - but I think ignoring, or maligning, those who are not as quick as you is almost always a mistake.

Hmmm...this forum sure does develop in a 24-hour period .

TG - for that point somewhere up there about being obsessed with rejecting theism:

I agree with you that the main argument from me and in this forum is whether or not to reject theism and how to go about it. But, this forum is not about belief, it is about Atheism and Agnosticism. It is about why and why not we should reject Christian belief. These arguments have been going on now for several weeks. There is a fundamental difference between Atheists and Agnostics and it leads to length conversation. But the reason why we are not talking about our beliefs is not because we are obsessed with dismissing God, but because we are arguing against a countering viewpoint stating we should not simply dismiss God. Though the only thing connecting all atheists is the rejection of God, most atheists have gone past that point. They are investigating different possiblities; thinking about cosmological models and possibilities. But Atheists go by the principle (and tell me if I'm wrong) that if it's ridiculous, it is unlikely - if it is illogical, it is unlikely. But ruling out is only done to a certain extent. Just because I have dismissed the concept of God doesn't mean I will not examine evidence contrary to my viewpoint. That's what makes atheists different to theists.

Good points, all around, especailly Mr. C and loreth!
Look, TG, we could have an argument about who's most intelligent, but this forum is not really the place for it. Start one based from my home page if you want.
re: rejecting theism. I would not say that it's something I deliberately set out to do. I am first and foremost a scientist, and I like to be able to explain the world I see in logical terms. Okay, so this doesn't always work, but it works a hell of a lot better for me than the Christian beliefs I used to have. The fact that the way I explain the world to myself leaves no place for a god is almost incidental. Perhaps we should draw a distinction here between a sort of 'passive' and 'agressive' atheism. Is agressive atheism as bad as blind faith?

Hi gb

Sorry i'm late getting back to this, I admit I am sort of running out of steam and interest in following this post, but you did make a couple of decent counterpoints (!!) that I wanted to address before signing off.

The whole point about going after mummy for his generalizations, if you pay close attention, was to respond to his original, out-of-the-blue comment that I was making generalizations 'based on a lack of knowledge'. My point was that it was HIS post (go back an re-read it) that was laden with several gross generalizations, and I was hoping to point out to the astute observer the irony if his accusation. I added the jab at his vocabulary to imply that he was not even bothering to follow the argument (let alone attempt to further it), but was in fact parroting other people. I had no desire to put him on the spot about speaking english as a second language, but then again I have to wonder if it would be fair for me to go and join a discussion in say, german, (which I have only halting knowledge of) and attack someone's argument without fully comprehending the gist of it, or even some of the specific words used; would I then throw a tantrum because the fellow whose argument I attacked called me on my lack of fluency? In other words, if you're not a boxer, don't get into the ring and cry ouch when you take a shot in the head. Doesn't this make sense to you? At any rate, I hold no less regard for those fluent in languages other than English, but I do feel I should defend my right to point out, in an argument, that one party has completely missed a certain point.

By 'standard debating tactic' I was probably unclear in that I was referring to h2g2 forums in general, in which I do find a marked lack of progressive logical argumentation and quite a great deal of innuendo, and well, as we've seen here, chest thumping. I'm not sure if this needs come across as belittling; but if you go back and read DNA's post, for example, he has made some fine and some not-so-fine counterpoints which needed to be addressed, and this is what I have been attempting to do (originally in defense of your piece, I might add). I become quickly frustrated finding this attempt obfuscated in places by people wishing to chip in their two cents but with no idea of how to move the argument forward by finding flaws with specific points I have made (and I will readily admit that there are some).

I think the zeal is there if you look closely. I have yet to see a post that reads 'you're wrong and this is why'. Instead, I see, 'you're wrong and that's that'. In that respect I feel that this reinforces my accusation of fideism (although I would even defend fideism as useful at times). My hope was to encourage people to find fault with my thinking and not to encourage them to merely spew condradictions at me (let alone venom, heh).

"Anyway, I just want to say that you have displayed more of that arrogance that you accuse atheists of having than anyone you are attacking." I am admittedly arrogant.

"By the tone of your posts, you're convinced that the rest of us are unworthy to participate in any discussion with you, and that our resistance to your enlightened view (which is really just your own cosmology, in spite of your arguments that you have none at all) is proof of our idiocy. This is not the first time I've seen you do this sort of thing, either." This is pretty astute, and I'm glad you called me on it. This is, in fact, the kind of thing I have been looking for up till now. I think perhaps you read quite a lot into the tone of my posts and I would much rather have you infer concepts from the ideas contained in them. I am not really so much convinced that other people aren't worthy of talking to me, but I do have a chip on my shoulder about people wasting my time. In other words, if you're going to argue with me, at least make it good and don't just force me to repeat myself or blither nonsense at me. Perhaps this is unjustifiably arrogant, but I think I'm within my rights to defend my time as important. Billypilgrim's post, below, is a really good example; he/she attacks my vocabulary as being beyond his/her comprehension? So go read something else, dork; It wastes my time and his/hers to engage in an attempt to compromise when we are functioning on different levels, and it's probably safe to assume that any verbosity on my part is to seperate the wheat from the chaffe in hopes of sparking a specific kind of discussion with a specific kind of person.

Another really good point you make here is that I seem to be simply defending my own cosmology and attacking yours. Now you are starting to get what I was trying to say in the first place; all cosmologies are models, more or less useful, but not verifiably true or false. My argument is simply that atheism per se is at least as useless as theism when it comes to a comparison. I think I'm within my rights to say this as well (regardless of the fact that it betrays my own bias); I've been no more gentle with atheism than many atheists are with theism Anyways my main point here is that you are right, I am guilty of the same perceptual fallacies that we all are, and hence the urgent need to be cautious and admit 'i know nothing'.

Thanks for your time, hope we'll tangle again, and I'll try to tone down being rude in the future; It seems I have the 'niceness police' after me now Didn't DNA make a jab elsewhere at that overwrought british wishy-washiness?

Um, excuse me, Twophlag. I won't say the two words that come immediately to mind, because it isn't allowed on the site. One rhymes with "duck." I will leave it to you to determine the other.

First, "he/she" is a "she." Unimportant, really.

Second, you (once again) totally misinterpreted what someone (me) said, in your usual arrogant manner. I personally have no trouble following your arguments or understanding your vocabulary. So please get off your intellectual high horse and come down here with the rest of us. For your information (not that it's important) I graduated second in my high school class many moons ago. I graduated from the University with a cumulative GPA of 3.9 (out of a possible 4.0). My degree is in education. I have an older sister who is a writing teacher at the college level, and a father who has a PhD in reading, with plenty of coursework in linguistics and philosophy. I have been engaging in these sorts of debates (with people equally as wonderful and gifted as yourself) since I was in grade school. I am many things, but I am not, nor have I ever been, a "dork." You may say that you do not personally insult people. However, I find it difficult to find a way to take that as attacking my argument and not myself.

I have more than a few credits in philosophy and theology. My skills in debate are fine, thank you. I choose not to get into a debate with a fine upstanding person such as yourself who insists on bringing personal insult into a discussion which has gone on for weeks with little or no hostility, at least until you arrived.

My argument about vocabulary was simply this: when in mixed company, one does not try to dazzle and impress by using vocabulary that is not familiar to some of those present. One of the first rules of writing (and of teaching) is to write to your audience. Many much more gifted than yourself have followed this rule. You choose not to. I honestly questioned why, and you chose not to answer, but instead to insult me. That choice is yours, but it brings into question your supposedly superior debating skills.

You will note that nowhere in any of my posts do I mention or even hint that anything you said was beyond my comprehension. You are so quick to say that you don't want others to waste you time. Well, try not wasting mine by reading what I actually said instead of what you THINK I said. I am no more chaffe than you are wheat.

The FFFF was formed as a way for people to meet and trade ideas, not as a way for someone to belittle others, nor as a way for one person to try to dazzle us all with his brilliance.

You say you don't want to waste your time debating with a certain sort of person. Twophlag, my dear, if you are such a snob that you can pretend to know what sort of person any of us is just by a few posts on a website then you are, indeed, superior to any of us. I bow down before you.

As for your idea about debating with people for whom English is a second language, I would say that you are missing out on a great opportunity to gain insights from those with different experiences from your own. Then again, I doubt that is very important to you.

You are right in one thing. You and I are operating on different levels, just not in the way you think. The goal is not to win, for if you win and come out all alone in the end, are you really better than the person who is respectful and respected?

I apologize to everyone here for allowing myself to be sucked into this nonsense. I should just turn the other cheek and walk away, but when someone insists on repeatedly insulting myself and some people whom I consider to be friends at the Guide, I find it difficult to stand by and take it.

Your stand that agnosticism is the only acceptable answer, since we know nothing, is in and of itself based on a claim of knowledge, the knowledge that it is not possible for us to know the nature of the universe, and whether or not God exists. Therefore, it is as flawed as any other argument. You claim that you know nothing. You then contradict yourself by saying that you know that we cannot know the nature of the universe. How do you know this, if we, collectively speaking, know nothing?

You cannot base any argument on the premise that we know nothing, for anything built on that premise is inherentely a logical fallacy. It is sort of like making the statement "I always lie." By saying that, you are telling the truth, and thereby refuting your own stance.

Debate needs to start with a premise which can be built upon with reason and evidence. By starting any argument with the premise "I know nothing" you are leaving out the possiblity of later using either reason or evidence.

By definition, an agnostic says it is not possible to know whether or not God exists. By making this statement, the agnostic is claiming to know quite a lot, really.

Not true - I don't say it's not possible to know whther God exists - I'm just saying I don't know, at least not at the moment.

Seeing as how you've gone to such ridiculous lengths to put me in my place, I feel I at least owe you a generous reply. Relax, I will try to keep myself from slinging any mud and simply reply to your points in a sensible manner.

I'll have to reread the code of conduct at H2G2, but it seems sort of funny to me that you would wave your ACE badge in my face with one hand and tell me to play nice, and then turn around and invite me to f**k off in the next breath. I do understand that you are upset, though, and I can more than handle being told off; pity more people here don't have that kind of spirit, as again I think the casual observer might notice that very little of the venom here is being slung by myself.

You are correct, I just reread your post and realized (blush) that you were asking me to tone down the level of my arguments for other people's sake and not for your own. I think I shall stand pat on my assertion that by choosing a verbose level of discussion I hope to find specific kinds of sparring partners, and would invite those not up to the task to find someone else to bother.

I'm not really on an intellectual high horse. I'm a janitor, I dropped out of university, and I smoke a lot of pot. I don't go through life convinced that everyone else except me is an utter moron. In fact, the reason I am here in the first place, and indeed the reason I am even bothering to reply to your address, is that I am seeking conversation with other intelligent people. I am, however, a misanthropic type of fellow who is convinced that humanity is doomed (hence the assertion that 95% of people are morons, etc etc.). this is in large part where the arrogance comes in. So I congratulate you on your string of accreditations, and laud you on your (apparently) tenacious pursuit of higher understanding. At the same time, I have to wonder, given the fact that I have admitted to my arrogance (a trait that I acknowledge is a shortcoming, but that I nevertheless find to be empowering) that you feel the need to keep berating me over it, or the even the need to show me up. Noone likes a chest-thumping alpha male I guess; I'm good at bringing out the screeching monkey in everyone.

As for calling you a dork, well, I will apologize again for misinterpreting the slant of your post (something that seems to happen often here, damn printed medium) and accept your castigation of my capacities for having done so. Still, I'll stand by my point that going after me for my verbosity in the first place was a rather obstinate and ludicrous stance to take; given that this is a medium where verbosity is sort of key, and especially given my point that people who don't understand certain passages are under no obligation to reply to them out of stubborn, invincible ignorance. In other words, if you don't like what I'm writing, don't read it (advice I would do well to take myself, but then again I have never taken my own advice). I write here mostly to amuse myself anyways, not out of some compulsion to save the world, or to teach anyone anything. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear, etc etc.

Again, I might point out that very few of the insults here are being slung by myself, fine upstanding person that I am.

What does the FFFF have to do with this? I'm not sure where you got this point from. I might point out that the tone of said site is very much in line with the concept of belittling others though

As far as wasting my time, I think I have said before, yes I am arrogant; oh wait, 'snob' you said. Well whatever. So what? You're the one talking to me, not vice versa. Not everyone's perfect

Re: people speaking different languages. I feel a need to defend myself here; perhaps my point didn't come across well, or perhaps it is simply your turn to misread something someone else wrote and go off half-cocked on the insult wagon. I speak three of them, I'm deeply interested in what other cultures have to offer, and in fact it is my specific interest in Eastern modes of thinking as opposed to the shortcomings and fallacies ingrained into our Western perceptual models that are behind many of the arguments that I have offered in this forum. My point here was simply that I have trouble feeling empathy for someone who makes a point of taking an antagonistic stance in a debate carried on in a language they have yet to master, and then cries foul when they are called on a point they made poorly due to their lack of fluency. I would certainly expect to be raked over the coals if I were to do something similar (perhaps I have )I'm not sure how you infer from that that I am bigoted against those who speak other languages, although perhaps you too are eager to assume things about me.

Overall, I respect your position but I think you'll find yourself as guilty as I am of many of the things with which you are finding fault.
I think Gargleblaster's advice was staid; maybe we all need a nap.

Peace

This is the very heart of the issue; the metaphoric 'event horizon' of perceptual limitations which prevent us from making absolute assertions about what is true or false. This kind of riddle has popped up everywhere; from heisenberg's quantum uncertainty principle to the zen koans of eastern buddhists to the 'strange loops' Alan Turing struggled with in his work on decryption and artificial intelligence.

To whit; I know that I know nothing. This statement is false. All things in moderation, especially moderation. etc, etc

There is no logical soloution in conventional bivalent Western thinking for this sort of self-defeating puzzle. Trivalent logical models are being developed, based in part on such such notably astounding feats as the Aymaran aboriginal tribe's development of a language incorporating 9 seperate words for 'yes' and 'no' (which offered a valency field of 27,000 possibilities as opposed to the 16 of bivalent greek logic). In a sense, this is the kind of model-building practised by theoretical physicists working on cosmic string theory, for example.

Process philosophers like Alfred North Whitehead attempted to develop a soloution to this kind of problem by explaining everything as a model with 'more or less useful' applications rather than as 'facts' with specific rigid categories of 'truth' or 'falsehood'. Where the models broke down at the limits of perception, Whitehead appealed to 'meta-models' to encompass the models. This led to a pretty mind-bending implication that reality was simply a conglomerate of limitless layers of perspective which lay compressed until decoded by conscious observation ( a view very reminiscent of Mandelbrot's 'fractal geometry of nature' ). If you are curious, you can link back to my page and read the Guide entry I wrote about the process philosopher's primary model-building methodology, critical rationalism.

If all this sounds confusing ( I barely grasp it myself) harken back to the work done in the 1960's by such questionable luminaries as Timothy Leary, the Harvard perception psychologist who pointed out that everything that seems 'real' is actually just a sensory-filtered mental construct existing within the neural corridors of a hormonally insane monkey. That makes it pretty hard to take any 'given premise' all that seriously as gospel truth; again, a fact or truth in the sense that most of us usually think of it is simply a model that has proven to be more useful than others.

An agnostic, for the sake of argument, says that it isn't SAFE to assume that one knows anything for sure. I donno... I sort of find myself going more with the gnostics at times. But look at it this way; if the agnostic, to retain an open mind, must of necessity give some credit to ludicrous assertions about reality (like that a giant space-ghost is the divine being of the universe) as being useful models, then that can be considered a necessary evil endured for the sake of the greater good of being open to a good idea when one comes across it. I might compare it to the old censorship debate; absolute freedom of speech for everyone is often very difficult to keep an open mind about because of the horrible excesses and abuses that people heap upon the concept by putting all kinds of hateful crap up on websites, in books, or whatever. And yet, the potential for far greater evil ( a la 1984 or farenheit 451) exists if a liberal stance is not rigidly observed in response. I think that the agnostic has determined to take the stance that eschews the potential for greater ignorance by avoiding making assumptions where he/she can; the agnostic has opinions, but not beliefs. I have no idea if this point is clear or not; I'll offer it for what it is.

You know loreth old buddy, I think you have a pretty good point. In a recent posting I acknowledged that my contention that 95% of people are morons stems from personal misanthropic attitudes and the firm conviction that humanity, as a species, is doomed to choke on its own feces in the next 100 years or so. The point I was really hoping to make is that Common Sense is functionally in this society what tells us 'hey, western civilization is the best thing since digital watches'.

Theology in particular is always a tricky topic, and I would do well to remember that I am probably one of the very few people who have bothered to get any formal training (albeit minimal) in discussing and thinking about it. You know, I have long contended that intelligence and wisdom were markedly seperate traits, and the person you describe sounds like she has an abundance of the latter. I think intelligence affects one's ability to work within a given paradigm; wisdom is what allows one to step outside of paradigms and to make decisions that incorporate the 'human' intuitive element into intellectual planes of dealing with issues. Wise people seem to know what to do and why it should be done; intelligent people just figure out how best to do it.

The only place where I believe I have made any claim to intelligence was in a post addressed to patriarch, and mainly it was for the purpose of getting his goat So, I'll take your veneration of my lonely-at-the-top IQ bracket as a backhanded compliment. Still, as much as it may seem that I am really isolating myself with my towering arrogance, it may help to understand that I don't mind being isolated, in fact I almost prefer it. I really have come to a point in my life where I have reached the cynical conclusion that some people are just not worth my time ( I administrate an internet MUD if that is any indication). This is not to say that they are not worthy of breathing my air, or that they are in and of themselves bad people; but I make no bones about having arrived at a decision to be rather picky about who I associate with and on what terms. This would be a mistake if I was doing it unconsciously, contrary to what my true desires were; but in fact, it was quite a direct choice on my part to make the most of what time I have left on this planet; and that does not include surrounding this misanthropist with the sort of people that drove him to misanthropy in the first place

I hear in your tone a sort of gentle urging to have an open heart and to give people the benefit of the doubt. I used to feel that way... here's hoping circumstance doesn't crush it out of you any time soon

TG:
You know, I do agree that intelligence and wisdom are different traits. I often end up discussing my own subjects with people who have no training in them. Their views are often very refreshing and interesting. i.e. they think of things I do not, because they are not always blinded by facts.
I think that you have to give people the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, you lose all tolerance and will to associate with them. I am sorry that you seem to have done so. (it is also established that social interaction makes you less likely to develope Alzheimer's Disease, which would put paid to your precious intelligence!). Would you still prefer to be isolated if you were dying?
I do not agree, however, that humanity is doomed to choke of its own faeces in the next 100 years or so. That's a rather pessimistic attitude (or optomistic, depending on your opinion of humanity...).
What particular doomsday scenario did you have in mind?

I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone here to "Be Excellent to Each Other," as you agreed to do when you joined the FFFF. There is intelligence, which has been shown throughout here, and there is wisdom, which tells us when to do something and when not to. Remember that this is strictly a print medium, and things you could say in person you cannot say here, for the simple fact that you have no body language or tone to let them know you're kidding around, so you have to be careful in your posts. There is also emotional intelligence, which keeps us from exploding over trivial matters. What this forum needs is to return to the use of all three.

*Steps down from soap box*

Doomsday scenarios have existed throughout history, and everyone has seen decay and predicted that the world was about to come to an end. The fact that we've survived so many of these scenarios, and in fact flourished through them, leads me to believe that man will continue to do so, and that whatever appallingly horrible trends we're on now, we will find a way to reverse them in due time. People are stupid, but the desire for survival can motivate temporary bouts of mass wisdom.

My intention was never to "wave my ace badge in your face", Twophlag. You will notice that I don't even have the word "ACE" after my name, and seldom introduce myself on the site as such. I only said it to preempt you from saying "What gives you the right to tell me....". If indeed I have any right at all....

Regarding agnosticism, my biggest argument against it (at the intellectual level, for in truth spirituality is a personal, emotional thing which is really shaky ground for intellectualism to get a foothold on) is this: by saying it is not possible to know whether or not God exists, the assumption is being made that all the religious leaders and prophets who have gone before, and claimed to have personal contact with God, are automatically assumed to be wrong.

Personally, as you know, I do not believe in God. However, I do stand open to the possiblilty that those who do are correct, and I am wrong. Just as I stay open to the possibility (however unlikely) that the Greek gods existed, and simply vanished when they were no longer worshiped. For is it not possible that the collective willpower of the people actually calls into existence forces which we do not understand? Is it not possible that man creates God in HIS image, and not the other way around?

Being open to an idea, however, does not equate with doubting my own beliefs. Do I question them? Yes. Do I believe in them, because it is how I order my own universe? Again, yes.

The flaw with agnosticism (and all belief systems are flawed; this does not make them invalid, simply flawed) is that it assumes that NO ONE can know if God exists, and therefore discredits those who claim to have witnessed Him. I am not saying I do not respect the principals of agnosticism, because I do. I am simply saying that any construct of man (or woman) is flawed, and agnosticism is really just another way of giving order to a world which we barely begin to understand.

Twophlag, I do appreciate the fact that you have toned down your arguments considerably. I stand by my view on choosing vocabulary conservatively. You obviously disagree, as is your right.

It is much more enjoyable to debate when ideas are being questioned rather than attacked.

I will make a slight comment on the vocabulary issue. There is a rule for good written English, and I think Mark Twain states it best: "Don't use a twenty dollar, gilt-edged, hand-tooled word where a ten cent one will do."