viv, lighten up - I certainly was not attempting a cheap insult. It was more spontaneous than clever I guess - a she wolf who nurtured abandoned boys who grew up to become founders of Rome...us foundlings here who express confidence in our new knowledge of science to start a new life...actually it is quite clever!!!!
Death is not something to be feared!
Ruby, calling a woman "hormonal" rather than addressing the substance of her argument is a cheap insult. Smarten up instead of telling me to lighten up.
apart from you viv, who hasn't provided any substance to any argument on this thread that I can see, I have to admit that this has been an enjoyable topic as there have been many different viewpoints.
There may not be a "Why" in the sense that you are using the word OP.
Mankind does not know.
Nobody claiming that there is a "Why", has ever been able to elucidate to the rest of the world a "Why" that's sufficient, never mind come up with one that's also necessary.
Unless you can show a good reason for believing there even is a "Why" to be puzzled over - what is the purpose in doing so? It may well be akin to asking how many corners a circle has.
I've never understood why people are impressed when asked a question they can't answer. It is hardly a mark of the question's merit...
"What has it got in its nasty little pocketses?"
stuffwotifink - "I've never understood why people are impressed when asked a question they can't answer. It is hardly a mark of the question's merit."
When used skilfully, however, it's really handy for getting morons to STFU. :sunglasses:
apart from you viv, who hasn't provided any substance to any argument on this thread that I can see,
All that tell usbis that you need glasses.
When used skilfully, however, it's really handy for getting morons to STFU.Sure, that'll do it. I just agree with whatever the hell they are saying, straight faced, in the most oily way I can. Works a treat for ending the interaction.
"Death is not something to be feared!"
'Specially if she looks like this:
okay here is my olive branch - viv you are right about everything.
I'm just catching up with Carl Sagan and want to suggest that he was not all that out of tune with the OP as he advanced nothing less than a new sense of the sacred by giving public attention to "humanity's oneness with the cosmos" (according to his wife and collaborator, Ann Druyan 2000 pp 25-27). Indeed he often used religious language to describe his ideas to the public, for example Demon Haunted world.
He also spoke and wrote about an immanent world of mind consciousness. For me all this brings Carl Sagan closer to what the OP is saying than further away. Not that I accept without controversy all that either Carl Sagan or Iconoclastic write as the one thing I do agree with, that Carl Sagan emphasized, is skepticism. However Carl Sagan was not so skeptical as to not formulate ideas of sacredness and spiritual consciousness.
btw I am not a supporter of either Carl Sagan or iconoclastic. I just like reading about such debates and the different ideas they generate as most of this occupies a controversial arena which can enrich us.