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 12, 2019 at 4:27 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I'm not upset. Again, you're interpreting things then insisting your perception is true. In reality, I'm just relaxing with my dogs. Not upset about anything. Aside from that, it's just a bunch of silliness coming from you and maybe a chuckle or two after hearing about your self-proclaimed rationale and bravado.
I don't care if you are with your dogs or not.
You are still upset that someone came along and said "that is not true".
If you truly believe a baby can be born without a second set of DNA and grows up with super powers and ends up dying only to survive rigor mortis, what do you want me to say? The only thing I can say is, it never happened.
Just like Thor does not make lightening, and Poseidon does not cause hurricanes.
You don't care. I care.
You want to tell me what I'm doing, so I'm actually telling you what I'm doing.
How can you make fictional assumptions about me, then accuse me of being misguided by fiction?
When "I" is always the subject of your reality, then you will not be able to see reality beyond yourself.
(January 12, 2019 at 4:40 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I don't care if you are with your dogs or not.
You are still upset that someone came along and said "that is not true".
If you truly believe a baby can be born without a second set of DNA and grows up with super powers and ends up dying only to survive rigor mortis, what do you want me to say? The only thing I can say is, it never happened.
Just like Thor does not make lightening, and Poseidon does not cause hurricanes.
You don't care. I care.
You want to tell me what I'm doing, so I'm actually telling you what I'm doing.
How can you make fictional assumptions about me, then accuse me of being misguided by fiction?
When "I" is always the subject of your reality, then you will not be able to see reality beyond yourself.
Yes you care, about defending old mythology.
Look the only thing that will please you if anyone, not just me, suddenly agrees with you that magic babies are real, and god cloned himself, committed a fake suicide to threaten humanity to kiss his ass.
If you want a prime example of "I" narcissism, look no further than the orange turd in the White House.
You are simply frustrated that someone is challenging your claims. If you stupidly think I am the only one who does, has or will challenge your claims, you haven't spent much time on this website, much less the internet.
(January 12, 2019 at 6:31 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: You don't care. I care.
You want to tell me what I'm doing, so I'm actually telling you what I'm doing.
How can you make fictional assumptions about me, then accuse me of being misguided by fiction?
When "I" is always the subject of your reality, then you will not be able to see reality beyond yourself.
Yes you care, about defending old mythology.
Look the only thing that will please you if anyone, not just me, suddenly agrees with you that magic babies are real, and god cloned himself, committed a fake suicide to threaten humanity to kiss his ass.
If you want a prime example of "I" narcissism, look no further than the orange turd in the White House.
You are simply frustrated that someone is challenging your claims. If you stupidly think I am the only one who does, has or will challenge your claims, you haven't spent much time on this website, much less the internet.
- Again telling me what I care about. You are the subject trying to determine. More "I"
- Never said anything about magic babies or whatever else you presumed. More "I" with what you want to believe.
- Now it's who's in the White House. Your focus is on something irrelevant to the conversation, so more "I".
- Now I'm also frustrated again when I wasn't before. I don't feel challenged, but you assume I have some regard towards feeling challenge. Nope, focus is on taking the dogs for a walk after I'm done with this post.
- Of course I haven't spent enough time on this website or the Internet says you. More "I" Telling yourself what you want to believe.
All I can say is at this point, I hope for you. Good things that expand outside of you.
January 12, 2019 at 7:15 pm (This post was last modified: January 12, 2019 at 7:15 pm by Brian37.)
(January 12, 2019 at 6:55 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:
(January 12, 2019 at 6:47 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Yes you care, about defending old mythology.
Look the only thing that will please you if anyone, not just me, suddenly agrees with you that magic babies are real, and god cloned himself, committed a fake suicide to threaten humanity to kiss his ass.
If you want a prime example of "I" narcissism, look no further than the orange turd in the White House.
You are simply frustrated that someone is challenging your claims. If you stupidly think I am the only one who does, has or will challenge your claims, you haven't spent much time on this website, much less the internet.
- Again telling me what I care about. You are the subject trying to determine. More "I"
- Never said anything about magic babies or whatever else you presumed. More "I" with what you want to believe.
- Now it's who's in the White House. Your focus is on something irrelevant to the conversation, so more "I".
- Now I'm also frustrated again when I wasn't before. I don't feel challenged, but you assume I have some regard towards feeling challenge. Nope, focus is on taking the dogs for a walk after I'm done with this post.
- Of course I haven't spent enough time on this website or the Internet says you. More "I" Telling yourself what you want to believe.
All I can say is at this point, I hope for you. Good things that expand outside of you.
Out for about 30 minutes. Later dude.
If you didn't care about the god you believe was real, then why are you here?
You are trying to emotionally blackmail me for use of the word "I" when you believe something yourself, which starts with "I believe".
Saying "I think you got it wrong" is not the same as saying "I am the center of the universe".
You say to yourself "I am right" don't you? Please don't insult my intelligence and claim you don't think you got it right.
You do say to yourself, "I believe" and to others "you believe"..... So don't lie to me and claim you do not think or say that.
If you didn't believe what you do, you wouldn't be here arguing what you do.
Unlike you, I don't buy an old claim, based on old mythology, based on a head character that demands blind loyalty. But, to be fair, other religions have god characters that demand the same blind loyalty. So don't feel bad, you are not alone.
(January 12, 2019 at 6:55 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: - Again telling me what I care about. You are the subject trying to determine. More "I"
- Never said anything about magic babies or whatever else you presumed. More "I" with what you want to believe.
- Now it's who's in the White House. Your focus is on something irrelevant to the conversation, so more "I".
- Now I'm also frustrated again when I wasn't before. I don't feel challenged, but you assume I have some regard towards feeling challenge. Nope, focus is on taking the dogs for a walk after I'm done with this post.
- Of course I haven't spent enough time on this website or the Internet says you. More "I" Telling yourself what you want to believe.
All I can say is at this point, I hope for you. Good things that expand outside of you.
Out for about 30 minutes. Later dude.
If you didn't care about the god you believe was real, then why are you here?
You are trying to emotionally blackmail me for use of the word "I" when you believe something yourself, which starts with "I believe".
Saying "I think you got it wrong" is not the same as saying "I am the center of the universe".
You say to yourself "I am right" don't you? Please don't insult my intelligence and claim you don't think you got it right.
You do say to yourself, "I believe" and to others "you believe"..... So don't lie to me and claim you do not think or say that.
If you didn't believe what you do, you wouldn't be here arguing what you do.
Unlike you, I don't buy an old claim, based on old mythology, based on a head character that demands blind loyalty. But, to be fair, other religions have god characters that demand the same blind loyalty. So don't feel bad, you are not alone.
- I didn't say I didn't care. YOU are implying it. Like I keep saying, just ask.
- Not trying to blackmail you. I care about what you think, but the focus is one-sided. Your interpretation of yourself and your interpretation of me. Instead of asking, you insist that it's what you believe. If it all shifts to you, then no need to have a discussion. If you ask, then we have dialogue and can consider the whole, and equally from both perspectives.
- Of course "I believe" things, but you keep trying to tell me what those things are.
I can do that too.
Why do you believe pink unicorns live under your bed?
Why do you hate all this evidence that people are proving you wrong with? Shouldn't you want to learn from them?
Your belief that hamsters are controlling your brain is your downfall. Stop listening to them.
If I seriously asked or implied any of that, you would probably think I was off my rocker. So how do you think you sound when you do it to me about things I didn't say or suggest?
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:
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.
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?
I agree here. I would need someone to demonstrate some facts that describe a spiritual world before I could reasonably believe in one.
Quote: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.
Yes, I can agree that is a satisfactory summarization of the definition of "knowledge".
Quote: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.
I'm still with you here. No objections from my end!
Quote:4) Information can be evidenced too, it just has a much lower standard than facts.
I'm nit picking again. The words "fact", and "information" are synonyms. I'm not sure it's useful to discuss them as if there is enough of a difference between the two to matter.
Quote:You and I stand on opposite street corners, and between us is the typical doomsday gin holding, homeless looking loon.
I like this story already!
Quote: 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.
Correct. I am in possession of a number of facts about the scenario that you are not, therefore my understanding of the scenario is more closely in line with reality.
Quote:I act on faith based on observation only and avoid the character and you act on evidence that's unknown to me.
Yes.
Quote: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.
Sure, so I think it depends on what your goal is in any given scenario. If your goal is for your beliefs to be as closely aligned with the truth as possible, then you're going to want to have those facts about this guy on the street, regardless of which direction the conclusion points you in. If your goal is simply to continue to hold a belief that you already have, then those facts probably aren't that important to you.
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.”
(January 12, 2019 at 3:03 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I think Brian is being hyperbolic for the sake of brevity. He can correct me, if I'm wrong, ofc. If you want little personal spiel, it goes something like this:
I have been on these forums for upwards of four years now, and I have never been presented with a positive case for the existence of god that wasn't either logically fallacious, or didn't misrepresent science in some fashion, or both. Unlike many of my cohorts here, atheism is not my preferred position. I would prefer that there be "something else", or something "more", beyond death. The fact is, no one has ever made a convincing case to me. No one has ever made a convincing case for the existence of the supernatural. No one has ever been able to give me a sound, positive description of what the supernatural is. So, I withhold belief until such a case is presented.
Quote:You have always been fair and you seem kind, so hopefully I can provide the same back to you.
Thank you, and likewise!
Quote:It's not about what everybody else can prove or what others can show you. It's about you seeking regardless of your own personal biases.
No one is free from internal biases, and I am no exception. That being said, biases don't drive my lack of belief. As a said above, I would actually prefer there to be a god, so if anything, I think my bias would be favor of theism, not in opposition to it. I used to be a Christian, and then I dropped organized religion and was a generic theist. Then, that belief just sort of fell away. I don't continue to seek God despite lack of evidence. That would be biased. I simply look at what is available to me, and make a decision about whether or not there's enough to convince me a god exists.
Quote:I can show you a million things and claim they are evidence, but until you experience God, you will have a reason to say that's not good enough, because that's not God.
It would depend on what it was you were claiming as evidence, and if it met the general standards of evidence. I'm not sure what would or could convince me that a god exists. It's hard to say. But 'absolutely nothing' isn't going to cut it. If a god is out there and he wants to make himself known to me without question, he knows where I am.
Quote:If our own human determination was the root problem, then how can we assume ourselves to be the solution?
Apologies; I'm not sure what root problem you're referring to here.
Quote:Seek the source by the source and its assumed attributes. That doesn't mean others can't assist you along the way, but as much as someone can be helpful, they can also be hurtful. Even if someone means well, they can give you misinformation.
Sure, I don't disagree with this.
Quote:If I wanted to find you (hypothetically), I would need to assume you have an identity, I would need to be willing to seek, I would need to know what attributes you have to recognize you, and no matter who anybody else says you are or where they say you are, I will only have found you when I matched you with what I know to be you.
But, you're starting with the assumption that I exist. How do you know I exist?
Quote: At that point, I will have accomplished my mission and you can hit me with a purse or a brick, or even shake my hand, but the latter is always preferred.
Hey, as long as you don't come charging at me with a bible in your hand, we'll be good, friend!
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.”
(January 12, 2019 at 11:09 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Thank you, and likewise!
Quote:It's not about what everybody else can prove or what others can show you. It's about you seeking regardless of your own personal biases.
No one is free from internal biases, and I am no exception. That being said, biases don't drive my lack of belief. As a said above, I would actually prefer there to be a god, so if anything, I think my bias would be favor of theism, not in opposition to it. I used to be a Christian, and then I dropped organized religion and was a generic theist. Then, that belief just sort of fell away. I don't continue to seek God despite lack of evidence. That would be biased. I simply look at what is available to me, and make a decision about whether or not there's enough to convince me a god exists.
Quote:I can show you a million things and claim they are evidence, but until you experience God, you will have a reason to say that's not good enough, because that's not God.
It would depend on what it was you were claiming as evidence, and if it met the general standards of evidence. I'm not sure what would or could convince me that a god exists. It's hard to say. But 'absolutely nothing' isn't going to cut it. If a god is out there and he wants to make himself known to me without question, he knows where I am.
Quote:If our own human determination was the root problem, then how can we assume ourselves to be the solution?
Apologies; I'm not sure what root problem you're referring to here.
Quote:Seek the source by the source and its assumed attributes. That doesn't mean others can't assist you along the way, but as much as someone can be helpful, they can also be hurtful. Even if someone means well, they can give you misinformation.
Sure, I don't disagree with this.
Quote:If I wanted to find you (hypothetically), I would need to assume you have an identity, I would need to be willing to seek, I would need to know what attributes you have to recognize you, and no matter who anybody else says you are or where they say you are, I will only have found you when I matched you with what I know to be you.
But, you're starting with the assumption that I exist. How do you know I exist?
Quote: At that point, I will have accomplished my mission and you can hit me with a purse or a brick, or even shake my hand, but the latter is always preferred.
Hey, as long as you don't come charging at me with a bible in your hand, we'll be good, friend!
Sure, we all have biases, but sometimes our biases can get in the way of things we should be able to see.
Here's an example of one of them us guys often make. He sees the pretty girl and the so-so one. Their first inclination is to go for broke and chase the prettier one, assuming he's not afraid. However, sometimes she's the mean one, or just very wrong. He may get to know her, but all that "cuteness" goes away he can barely look at her. Her perceived beauty changes once he melts away that original bias. Likewise, there's the so-so girl, and he gets to know her, but not too seriously. He's happy just to get to know her as a friend, and without the "puppy love" interfering. Her qualities speak on their own, and suddenly she goes from so-so, to a shining star.
Anyway, the point I'm attempting to make, sometimes we just need to look at someone for who they are, and not what we presume them to be. God is said to be "love", and just based on that alone, I can assume that I should be seeking someone who cares for me. I may not understand all the fine details, but I know to look for someone who's not hostile, but rather waiting with open arms.
You also asked an important questiion. How do you know someone is there? Or how do I know you're there even? I think it's fair to say we don't know. You could be a computer program or someone different than you portray, but that's when we can incorporate some of our own bias. I would be willing to bet my last nickel that you are very similar to who you appear to be on here, which is exactly why we can talk back and forth like this. Bias isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes it's there for a reason.
I don't know that I charge at anyone with a Bible. If someone did that to me, it would probably freak me out too and I would have to hide behind something. If someone wants to discuss something, I'm happy to do it with our without a Bible in my hands. The thing is, if what I'm saying to them is spot on, it should ring true regardless.
