Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(January 10, 2019 at 6:18 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - You say there has never been any evidence. Others clearly say differently. Who determines evidence?
- I don't go around rejecting claims of Apollo, Thor, or Poseidon. Not sure where you got that idea.'
- Why try to invalidate my Muslim friend? I have hope for him, not hate. I even gain from him at times, but he's not a tool. He's a friend, and I don't need to be a Muslim to be his friend.
You know what claims are like, don't you? Everyone has one.
Again, there are certainly plenty of claims of deities/God/gods/super natural. So what?
It cant be humans are merely projecting their own qualities, desires, narcissism, and insecurities into the form of bad claims that take on comic book form?
Next time you see your pet, or a video of a pet reacting to it's own reflection in a mirror, remember this.
And where did I accuse you of having hate for your Muslim friend? I already said I value human rights myself. I am not asking you to hate anyone. I am saying you got it wrong.
You're assuming yourself as an authority to determine value to things. Why? Who gave you such authority?
How do you know why a pet responds the way they do? Does it have to be specific or can the pet determine their reason for doing so? This very thing happened last night. I was walking one of my dogs and on our way home we went by a glass door. He noticed movement in it from a distance. walked towards it for a moment, I said "come on Max" and we were back home a minute or two later. We didn't need to stop, and no reason to assume he attributed any special consideration for what moved or why it did such.
Not quite sure what you are suggesting I got wrong. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance.
(January 10, 2019 at 6:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote: You know what claims are like, don't you? Everyone has one.
Again, there are certainly plenty of claims of deities/God/gods/super natural. So what?
It cant be humans are merely projecting their own qualities, desires, narcissism, and insecurities into the form of bad claims that take on comic book form?
Next time you see your pet, or a video of a pet reacting to it's own reflection in a mirror, remember this.
And where did I accuse you of having hate for your Muslim friend? I already said I value human rights myself. I am not asking you to hate anyone. I am saying you got it wrong.
You're assuming yourself as an authority to determine value to things. Why? Who gave you such authority?
How do you know why a pet responds the way they do? Does it have to be specific or can the pet determine their reason for doing so? This very thing happened last night. I was walking one of my dogs and on our way home we went by a glass door. He noticed movement in it from a distance. walked towards it for a moment, I said "come on Max" and we were back home a minute or two later. We didn't need to stop, and no reason to assume he attributed any special consideration for what moved or why it did such.
Not quite sure what you are suggesting I got wrong. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance.
I am not assuming myself as an authority of anything.
You either have evidence or you do not.
Oh did I mention I am dating Angelina Jolie? It's true because she exists and I do as well too.
(January 10, 2019 at 7:52 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You're assuming yourself as an authority to determine value to things. Why? Who gave you such authority?
How do you know why a pet responds the way they do? Does it have to be specific or can the pet determine their reason for doing so? This very thing happened last night. I was walking one of my dogs and on our way home we went by a glass door. He noticed movement in it from a distance. walked towards it for a moment, I said "come on Max" and we were back home a minute or two later. We didn't need to stop, and no reason to assume he attributed any special consideration for what moved or why it did such.
Not quite sure what you are suggesting I got wrong. Can you clarify? Thanks in advance.
I am not assuming myself as an authority of anything.
You either have evidence or you do not.
Oh did I mention I am dating Angelina Jolie? It's true because she exists and I do as well too.
WHAT? You doubt my claim you say?
See how easy it is to dismiss naked assertions?
Sure you did. To determine evidence of supernatural cognition. Or are you suggesting this wasn't you?
"Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any."
If you did say this, then we should assume you are the end all in determining evidence of supernatural cognition? I mean you did declare an absolute, so that's a pretty hefty claim in itself.
Aside from that, congrats on dating Angelina Jolie. Send her my regards.
(January 10, 2019 at 8:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I am not assuming myself as an authority of anything.
You either have evidence or you do not.
Oh did I mention I am dating Angelina Jolie? It's true because she exists and I do as well too.
WHAT? You doubt my claim you say?
See how easy it is to dismiss naked assertions?
Sure you did. To determine evidence of supernatural cognition. Or are you suggesting this wasn't you?
"Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any."
If you did say this, then we should assume you are the end all in determining evidence of supernatural cognition? I mean you did declare an absolute, so that's a pretty hefty claim in itself.
Aside from that, congrats on dating Angelina Jolie. Send her my regards.
I never claimed there was evidence of any super natural cognition. Theists do that not me.
I say humans make up those claims as a reflection of their own qualities, desires, narcissism and insecurities. Just like a dog will bark at it's own reflection in a mirror.
Otherwise my odds of dating Angelina Joile are 100%.
But somehow, I think you are smart enough to get my sarcasm in knowing it is a snarky way of wishing.
(January 10, 2019 at 8:23 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sure you did. To determine evidence of supernatural cognition. Or are you suggesting this wasn't you?
"Sorry, but there has never been any evidence in our species history of a super natural cognition. Certainly lots of claims of countless labels throughout our species history, but no evidence of any."
If you did say this, then we should assume you are the end all in determining evidence of supernatural cognition? I mean you did declare an absolute, so that's a pretty hefty claim in itself.
Aside from that, congrats on dating Angelina Jolie. Send her my regards.
I never claimed there was evidence of any super natural cognition. Theists do that not me.
I say humans make up those claims as a reflection of their own qualities, desires, narcissism and insecurities. Just like a dog will bark at it's own reflection in a mirror.
Otherwise my odds of dating Angelina Joile are 100%.
But somehow, I think you are smart enough to get my sarcasm in knowing it is a snarky way of wishing.
- No, you said the opposite and asserted "no evidence." So by what authority are you claiming an absolute?
0 = None = Absolutely nothing
To declare this, wouldn't you need to be an authority to declare what is evidence and what isn't? If someone else says they've shared or found evidence, by what authority do you declare their claims null?
- My dog didn't barked. I "barked" at him and told him to come on. He listened. If it wasn't around 2 am, I probably wouldn't have minded him trying to figure it out.
- So you attribute a special value to Angelina and the possibility of dating her. If you assume it impossible, then it probably won't happen, but if you believe it can happen, then your odds are probably better.
(January 10, 2019 at 8:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never claimed there was evidence of any super natural cognition. Theists do that not me.
I say humans make up those claims as a reflection of their own qualities, desires, narcissism and insecurities. Just like a dog will bark at it's own reflection in a mirror.
Otherwise my odds of dating Angelina Joile are 100%.
But somehow, I think you are smart enough to get my sarcasm in knowing it is a snarky way of wishing.
- No, you said the opposite and asserted "no evidence." So by what authority are you claiming an absolute?
0 = None = Absolutely nothing
To declare this, wouldn't you need to be an authority to declare what is evidence and what isn't? If someone else says they've shared or found evidence, by what authority do you declare their claims null?
- My dog didn't barked. I "barked" at him and told him to come on. He listened. If it wasn't around 2 am, I probably wouldn't have minded him trying to figure it out.
- So you attribute a special value to Angelina and the possibility of dating her. If you assume it impossible, then it probably won't happen, but if you believe it can happen, then your odds are probably better.
Yes I did say there is no evidence And?
If every claim is true until proven false then I am dating Angelina Jolie because you cant prove I am not.
(January 10, 2019 at 8:53 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - No, you said the opposite and asserted "no evidence." So by what authority are you claiming an absolute?
0 = None = Absolutely nothing
To declare this, wouldn't you need to be an authority to declare what is evidence and what isn't? If someone else says they've shared or found evidence, by what authority do you declare their claims null?
- My dog didn't barked. I "barked" at him and told him to come on. He listened. If it wasn't around 2 am, I probably wouldn't have minded him trying to figure it out.
- So you attribute a special value to Angelina and the possibility of dating her. If you assume it impossible, then it probably won't happen, but if you believe it can happen, then your odds are probably better.
Yes I did say there is no evidence And?
If every claim is true until proven false then I am dating Angelina Jolie because you cant prove I am not.
So you made yourself the determining factor of all evidence. Got it.
If your hope is to date Angelina Jolie and she's available, then I'll wish you the best in it.
January 10, 2019 at 9:43 pm (This post was last modified: January 10, 2019 at 9:44 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(January 10, 2019 at 8:53 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:
(January 10, 2019 at 8:30 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I never claimed there was evidence of any super natural cognition. Theists do that not me.
I say humans make up those claims as a reflection of their own qualities, desires, narcissism and insecurities. Just like a dog will bark at it's own reflection in a mirror.
Otherwise my odds of dating Angelina Joile are 100%.
But somehow, I think you are smart enough to get my sarcasm in knowing it is a snarky way of wishing.
- No, you said the opposite and asserted "no evidence." So by what authority are you claiming an absolute?
0 = None = Absolutely nothing
To declare this, wouldn't you need to be an authority to declare what is evidence and what isn't? If someone else says they've shared or found evidence, by what authority do you declare their claims null?
- My dog didn't barked. I "barked" at him and told him to come on. He listened. If it wasn't around 2 am, I probably wouldn't have minded him trying to figure it out.
- So you attribute a special value to Angelina and the possibility of dating her. If you assume it impossible, then it probably won't happen, but if you believe it can happen, then your odds are probably better.
What is evidence? Have you heard of the evidence hierarchy?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
If knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association or the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning (standard definitions from MW) then knowledge is pretty easy to obtain. You don't question whether the sky is blue, or a tree is firm enough to hold you, or that tomorrow is another day.
Thank you for a thoughtful response! And, now you'll hate me because I'm going to be pedantic about the definitions of knowledge, lol. I'm not trying to be difficult; I just want to make sure we're on the same page before we move further on in the conversation. I don't want us talking past each other. From MW:
Quote:knowl·edge
1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
So, knowledge is, 1. the acquisition of facts about a thing, or said another way in definition 2., an awareness of facts about a thing. Would you agree with my summarization? If so, then knowledge of a subject requires the subject itself to be a thing that exists. As you said further down regarding your examples, we know the sky is blue, that trees are strong, and that the sun will rise tomorrow because these are material subjects that can be demonstrated. We can acquire facts about them, and these facts can be subsequently demonstrated. Facts are descriptive. They inform us of the reality of a thing. If a fact cannot be demonstrated, what qualifies it as a fact? We may intuitively understand these objects as real through our first-hand experience, but they can also be independently verified via the scientific method. Put another way, if I was the only one who ever saw trees, I may begin to doubt my first hand experience that informs me that trees exist. Intuition is functional short-hand, but it’s not without its flaws.
Quote:Those things are grounded in the material and natural. They are easy to quantify and measure with other tools we have like materialism and science. Neither knowledge or faith require evidence in their definitions.
I disagree here. Facts, in and of themselves, are evidence. And, knowledge is a collection of facts that inform us of a thing. It's implicit in the definition, even if the word "evidence" is not explicitly stated. If there are no demonstrable facts about a thing, then there is no evidence for that thing. If there is no evidence, why believe it exists at all?
Quote:People however, demand proofs and evidentiary standards to include a view into their own beliefs. That could be difficult to accept for those that don't believe there is a spiritual world.
I agree here. I would need someone to demonstrate some facts that describe a spiritual world before I could reasonably believe in one.
Of course I don't hate you and you're welcome. Now on to the pendantics.
If I thought it needed a summary I would probably disagree with your summary. If you were to say knowledge is the acquisition of facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education I would agree with that. I agree that intuition is good, but I've known people that rely on their intuition to survive (not that it's a plea or makes a difference in this convo). As to long term survival and practicality it could be good or bad. I consider faith an additional input to a belief, not the only input.
I'll bullet these for ease:
1) facts, information and skills are descriptors that enable actors - I agree with you on that.
2) A fact does need to be demonstrable because it needs to be proven or used as evidence
3) You disagreed with my second statement because we had not yet agreed on a definition. As I stated in 2 if you're only focusing on facts that inform knowledge then I can see where you would disagree.
4) Information can be evidenced too, it just has a much lower standard than facts. For instance:
You and I stand on opposite street corners, and between us is the typical doomsday gin holding, homeless looking loon. You look and say what a good actor, and I look and say what a crazy lunatic. Why is that? You know he's just an actor playing a role for a hidden camera TV show and I don't. You have more information from your perspective than I do, so you understand what you see a lot better, even though we see the same thing. I act on faith based on observation only and avoid the character and you act on evidence that's unknown to me.
Even though I was wrong, it still fortifies the belief that I should avoid doomsday lunatics on street corners and reinforces/informs that belief, even though it is a false premise. Having the facts in that situation might actually make me more inclined to question every lune on a street corner to see if I'm on a TV show.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
