Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Why would you go out of your way to reject something that you reject? Is that the question? That doesn't make sense.
|
That's exactly the point. I'm not rejecting it. The very notion of rejecting it is absurd.
Quote:
Do I lend credibility to the concept of Santa by not believing in Santa? Unicorns? Harry Potter?
That also does not make sense.
|
Well, this is a bit of a non-starter. For one, I'm not sure that any adult really believes in Santa, Unicorns or Harry Potter however I'm sure there's someone out there to prove me wrong. Second, let's presume that there is someone out there that is a hard core believer in Santa. Would you bother to argue with him/her? If so, I would be curious why you would bother. What would be gained by it? Would the Santa follower be saved by you? I'm guessing (and I could be wrong) that you wouldn't lend any credence to the conversation to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Day Tripper
Gravity. The big bang. That the earth is not flat.
Yes, absolutely. I'd rather believe what is true than what is not true.
|
Arguing what is true and what is not true is a slippery slope. Descartes argued it much better than I could have but I'll try to paraphrase: you can't really know anything for certain that you see or hear or touch or smell. For all you know you're dreaming or living in someone elses fantasy. The only thing you can know for certain is that you are conscious of thinking. This is where the "Cogito Ergo Sum" or "I think therefore I am" comes from, although my explanation is sloppy at best. Obviously, this is an extreme example but I think it fits the conversation. 1000 years ago it was "true" that the Earth was flat. 1000 years ago it was true that God created everything. 1000 years from now maybe we'll discover that God farted and caused the Big Bang. I guess my point is (besides working in a fart reference) is that I'm not comfortable talking about what's true and what's not true with any degree of certainty.