It has a lot to do with maturity and being able to isolate a specific behaviour so you aren't attributing it to a person's entire personality.

Exactly. And I'm sometimes surprised to find some people who I thought were mature who can't seem to comprehend this.

EvF

There are a host of complicated factors that can effect unusual results. That's why they say psychology is an inexact science.

Well nothing in science is absolutely proven anyway.

EvF

I think intellectually skewed are the discussions on truth and proven fact.

Which discussions are you referring to?

EvF

I suppose when the discussion gets all bent out of shape while trying to strangle words to their absolute meanings as though language is perfectly developed to handle such conversations that language is made to bear the weight of the issues at hand.
My annoyance is that there seems to be limitations in language which don't allow extenuating circumstances and don't cover issues broadly enough to convey everything without being bound to the rules/confines of language itself.

(January 23, 2010 at 5:44 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote:

---

(January 22, 2010 at 11:43 pm)tackattack Wrote:

(January 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: There is no such thing as a wrong direction in evolution. There is no intrinsic flaw in nature, nature just is. The idea of flaw is an entirely human one. It may express an ethical or esthetical judgement or a shortcoming in the model of nature as made by man. If nature gives unexpected results it's not because nature has flaws, but because our model of nature has flaws.

Based off Fr0d0's post this just had to be done

There is no such thing as a wrong direction in Faith. There is no intrinsic flaw in God, God just is. The idea of flaw is an entirely human one. It may express an ethical or esthetical judgement or a shortcoming in the idea of God as made by man. If God gives unexpected results it's not because God has flaws, but because our model of God has flaws.

I like your response tackattack, and it had occurred to me when I wrote down my sentences that this one might come. A pitty of the first sentence though, why insert faith instead of god? The problem with your version is of course that it is a skyhook construction: you assume that god IS, where nature is verifiable all around is.

If you make the assumption god = nature your word use resembles that of Einstein. But there is a big difference with most religious takes in that Einstein was horrified by the idea that god is a personal god.

---

I inserted faith instead of God because I was substituting the word Nature for God. I feel that evolution is an explination for human nature thus faith is an explination for the idea of God. I agree that God himself being a personal one is horrifying. Theese are my thoughts on it. God is an entity that either existed in the sigularity before the bigbang or outside of it entirely. It is out of our reach, on this plane of existance, to go outside our universe to my knowledge. Therefore God will never be knowable. As a Christian, we believe that you can have an idea of what aspects of God could be by observing the effects of him within our universe. This "idea of God" is and should be personal as it is very subjective, being a construct of reason and perception. I'm not assuming God = Nature, just a little wordplay. If God were nature I'd have no reason to use the word Nature. Through observing nature/reality I can observe aspects attributable to God, but this of itself doesn't prove God exists. It does support my belief that most likely my idea of a God is a correct presumtion because it holds true to every test I put on it.

(January 25, 2010 at 11:26 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(January 23, 2010 at 10:59 am)Purple Rabbit Wrote: It's completely irrelevant that you don't know of such evidence. Not knowing does not constitute argument.

The amount of times you have stated this pettily obvious truth to me and I've already responded that I know that and I'm not making any argument of any kind whatsoever I'm not sure I can count.

HOPEFULLY THIS IS THE LAST TIME:

I am not making any argument whatsoever, I am merely stating the reason why I, as far as I'm concerned have no valid reason to believe in 'X' whatsoever - in this case 'perfection' - is because as far as I know I know of no evidence!!

Clear?

EvF

No not clear at all. How can a non sequitur be a reason to believe?

It does not follow from absence of evidence of X that there is absence of X.

So technically it can only be a reason to abstain from any statement about X.

Hopefully this will finally make things clear for you.

Oh my fuck.........


I can't believe that didn't make it clear for you.

It's NOT reason to believe that's my whole point. I claim nothing. I reject beliefs in which I do not know of any valid evidence, it's a DISbelief (no belief at all) that's that.

I have made no claim.

I said I was making no argument whatsoever, and I'm not. You've caught me up about this before incorrectly as you have also incorrectly this time. I said that I was merely stating the reason why *I* as far as I'm concerned [at least] have NO valid reason to believe. I didn't claim any valid reasons at all. I claimed nothing. *I* just consider it unreasonable TO believe when I DON'T know of any evidence/valid reasons by my own judgement.

Prabbit Wrote:It does not follow from absence of evidence of X that there is absence of X.

I NEVER claimed this. THAT is the argument of ignorance, but that is ALSO something which I have never claimed - and yet you have repeatedly claimed that I have. I speak of my own rejection of beliefs which I know of having no evidence to support them.... I do not speak of claiming that just because I think there's no evidence that it therefore doesn't exist. I never claimed that absence of evidence of X =no X. When did I ever claim that? Never. That's when.

EvF