Divide et Impera

Everyone so far has given passive reasons, as their answer to this question, I can not blame you, it is a question that science will never answer, and one that sets up a rather painful dichotomy between Nihilism and an "appeal to emotion" (unless I am overlooking something).

I for one have no hesitation taking the latter route. It matters because it matters to me, I am alive and I want to be alive. It could be just an illusion, but I believe I am more then the sum of my parts.

Can pure logic answer all philosophical questions? Can it answer this one?

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

madmax2976

Typically questions are posed after several statements are made, thus setting the stage so to speak for the questions and the context in which they are asked and to be answered.

<strong> But your intentional obscurity did just the opposite. As your statments made little sense and were otherwise unsupported, you greatly "skewed" any potential results. If you can't understand this, I think it likely that you never will.

<strong> I await your next post. However I am uncertain as to which question you referred to. You asked several questions including:

To which I would answer:

1. Yes, naturally. An asteriod could strike the earth at any time, wiping out those less fit to survive such a calamity - including humans. Or some biological plague could do the same.

2. Very doubtful given the plethora of religions, the fanaticism to which certain religious beliefs are held and the plasticity of religious doctrines.

3. Unknown. There are too many variables involved to make an accurate prediction.

4. Unknown. Again, too many variables involved.

5. No

6. As this question is unfinished, I repeat; Does it matter to whom?

I'll also add: In what way is science "blind"? What do you mean specifically by "murderous" religion?

Divide et Impera

Are you drunk? I asked this question, which you went so far as to number:

- 1. Is our species hanging in the balance of a Darwinian version of "survival of the fittest ideology"?

...and you answered it in this manner:

1. Yes, naturally. An asteriod could strike the earth at any time, wiping out those less fit to survive such a calamity - including humans. Or some biological plague could do the same.

Taking this into consideration, I do not believe you are actually reading my posts, I give you this chance to prove otherwise.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: 1Time ]</p>

Ierrellus

1Time,

You ask many questions ; but you demand a single answer. I agree with madmax, who has tried to distinguish the questions, but has failed in some way to second-guess just what questions you are asking.

Any of us will fail to address a subjective question that cannot correspond to our understanding. You start with the concept of matter and end with moral, personal conclusions.
Who here can respond to that?

Ierrellus

PAX

madmax2976

I'm doing the best I can to make sense of your questions. So far I apparently haven't been able to do so.

Perhaps you can rephrase them so that poor unforunates like myself might be able to grasp the high intellectual calibre of your queries?

You asked:

"Is our species hanging in the balance of a Darwinian version of "survival of the fittest ideology"? To which I indeed responded: "Yes, naturally. An asteriod could strike the earth at any time, wiping out those less fit to survive such a calamity - including humans. Or some biological plague could do the same."

Here I have answered your question and did so in the context of the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" model. What specifically am I missing??

I implore you to humor me and come down to my level so that a ignoramous such as myself might understand your points. I'm trying - really I am.

tronvillain

It's always irritating when people are more interested in how what they say sounds that what they say means.