|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 16, 2020 0:24:41 GMT
I've already ruled myself out as I said I wouldn't presume. So who shall we choose then? They would need to be able to substantiate their opinions and be polite to everyone, while not being constantly ridiculed in public forums. And yet you take yourself way too seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 16, 2020 0:30:11 GMT
You studied philosophy in college and never heard of the JTB definition of knowledge? How is that even possible? Was your study limited to only Christian/scholastic philosophers or something? No, I don't remember studying that. But this was over 40 years ago. Maybe I forgot. So, at 61, with ALL that education and life experience you have not matured enough to back down and admit a small fault? I didn't even ask for an apology as that is not appropriate here, butt...seriously?..………. I repeat. You are entitled to your own religion and it is obviously very precious to you. Just don't judge others. It says so at the bottom of the RFS Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 16, 2020 0:34:06 GMT
Bingo. I'm trying to help you defeat Trump. One key to that is understanding why he won in the first place. He won in the first place because Democrats have adopted a false narrative they believe is based on science and it is not. Their concept of religion wrong (as is Trump's) and they are going to need the cooperation of people who are actually religious and scientific.
Just what is this false narrative based on science, because if it is a narrative, it can be easily articulated. So, give us a rundown and let’s see what’s false about it. You want 4 years of college in 20 minutes? It could take more like 20 years. Another problem is that colleges lately that give degrees in "social media" and such diversions might not be preparing students for the upper tiers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 16, 2020 0:38:59 GMT
He won in the first place because Democrats have adopted a false narrative they believe is based on science and it is not.
Just what is this false narrative based on science, because if it is a narrative, it can be easily articulated. So, give us a rundown and let’s see what’s false about it. You want 4 years of college in 20 minutes? It could take more like 20 years. Another problem is that colleges lately that give degrees in "social media" and such diversions might not be preparing students for the upper tiers.
Someone as brilliant as you should be able to sum it up. Give us the elevator speech version.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 16, 2020 0:39:25 GMT
Argumentum ad auctoritate and ad verecundiam are fallacies too, Adolph. You should thank me for not using those since religious people are more successful. I didn't bring that up first though. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when one uses tries to use it deductively, ie, to insist that something must be true merely because experts believe it; or when the experts are irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Literally no philosopher, logician, or debate coach would say that citing relevant experts in an inductive argument would be fallacious. If that were so, there would be no point in citing experts in academic papers. What's more, nobody would ever be able to learn anything from experts who know more than they do about a subject. That is until they meet you. The false assumption you are laboring under is that you would know which are the experts. You clearly do not. Can you at least see how that could be a problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 16, 2020 0:42:11 GMT
Appeal to authority is only fallacious when one uses tries to use it deductively, ie, to insist that something must be true merely because experts believe it; or when the experts are irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Literally no philosopher, logician, or debate coach would say that citing relevant experts in an inductive argument would be fallacious. If that were so, there would be no point in citing experts in academic papers. What's more, nobody would ever be able to learn anything from experts who know more than they do about a subject. That is until they meet you. The false assumption you are laboring under is that you would know which are the experts. You clearly do not. Can you at least see how that could be a problem? And how do you decide who's the expert? Surely you can explain that in less than 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 16, 2020 0:45:46 GMT
Appeal to authority is only fallacious when one uses tries to use it deductively, ie, to insist that something must be true merely because experts believe it; or when the experts are irrelevant to the subject being discussed. Literally no philosopher, logician, or debate coach would say that citing relevant experts in an inductive argument would be fallacious. If that were so, there would be no point in citing experts in academic papers. What's more, nobody would ever be able to learn anything from experts who know more than they do about a subject. That is until they meet you. The false assumption you are laboring under is that you would know which are the experts. You clearly do not. Can you at least see how that could be a problem? Your definition of experts is "people who agree with me," and I certainly see how that could be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 1:02:24 GMT
No, I don't remember studying that. But this was over 40 years ago. Maybe I forgot. So, at 61, with ALL that education and life experience you have not matured enough to back down and admit a small fault? I didn't even ask for an apology as that is not appropriate here, butt...seriously?..………. I repeat. You are entitled to your own religion and it is obviously very precious to you. Just don't judge others. It says so at the bottom of the RFS Board. I don't see any mistakes. What mistake do you see? |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 16, 2020 1:08:56 GMT
That is until they meet you. The false assumption you are laboring under is that you would know which are the experts. You clearly do not. Can you at least see how that could be a problem? Your definition of experts is "people who agree with me," and I certainly see how that could be a problem. My skepticism is fully operational, yours only works against religion. When you are as skeptical of science as you are of religion you will make fewer mistakes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 16, 2020 1:18:11 GMT
Your definition of experts is "people who agree with me," and I certainly see how that could be a problem. My skepticism is fully operational, yours only works against religion. When you are as skeptical of science as you are of religion you will make fewer mistakes. Your skeptical of things 100% of experts agree on, but then insist that we should trust laymen when they offer explanations behind their personal experiences. Yeah, sounds like fully operational skepticism to me.  As for mine only working against religion, who told you that? I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claims, including those in science, knowing full well that for any current area of study there are often dozens (or more) of hypotheses/theories and that only one can be right, and it's possible whatever is right isn't even any of the current hypotheses/theories out there. However, when 100% of experts agree on something, like General Relativity, then my skepticism ceases, as should yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 16, 2020 1:22:48 GMT
Ones happiness, or contentment, can often be founded on belief systems. Some may work, some may not.The belief in itself is intangible and may not stand up to logical scrutiny. How is happiness defined and what is the measure, especially in relation to God, which can't be defined? I don't see what's illogical about trying three things, and choosing what works best. That seems most logical. One may only understand their own notion of logic and to the individual, like yourself, it makes sense. When attempting to impart that logic, it can often take a departure into the realm of delusion, then understandably, it may not be considered logic, rationale or reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 1:25:03 GMT
I don't see what's illogical about trying three things, and choosing what works best. That seems most logical. One may only understand their own notion of logic and to the individual, like yourself, it makes sense. When attempting to impart that logic, it can often take a departure into the realm of delusion, then understandably, it may not be considered logic, rationale or reason. "The realm of delusion" . . Ha ha ha . . . What are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 16, 2020 1:36:13 GMT
One may only understand their own notion of logic and to the individual, like yourself, it makes sense. When attempting to impart that logic, it can often take a departure into the realm of delusion, then understandably, it may not be considered logic, rationale or reason. "The realm of delusion" . . Ha ha ha . . . What are you talking about? Paraphrased: "what seems logical to you may not be logical at all."
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 1:57:09 GMT
"The realm of delusion" . . Ha ha ha . . . What are you talking about? Paraphrased: "what seems logical to you may not be logical at all." In other words "What is simple logic to normal people, is incomprehensible to idiots" ?? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 16, 2020 2:00:22 GMT
One may only understand their own notion of logic and to the individual, like yourself, it makes sense. When attempting to impart that logic, it can often take a departure into the realm of delusion, then understandably, it may not be considered logic, rationale or reason. "The realm of delusion" . . Ha ha ha . . . What are you talking about? When I don't get what others are talking at, when it doesn't equate as logic or common sense reason. What you are defending, is your own rationalization of "personal" belief, that you see as real when it has no basis for anything but delusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 16, 2020 2:03:40 GMT
Paraphrased: "what seems logical to you may not be logical at all." In other words "What is simple logic to normal people, is incomprehensible to idiots" ?? How do you define "normal" and "idiot"? I am still waiting for your definition of "guilt" and "ignorance" supposedly associated with those that aren't religious.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 2:15:26 GMT
"The realm of delusion" . . Ha ha ha . . . What are you talking about? When I don't get what others are talking at, when it doesn't equate as logic or common sense reason. What you are defending, is your own rationalization of "personal" belief, that you see as real when it has no basis for anything but delusion. It's not hard to understand TC. I believe in God knowing full well there may not be a God. My life is better when I believe than when I don't. I tried them both. Believing works better for me. So I believe. It's pretty simple. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 16, 2020 2:24:30 GMT
When I don't get what others are talking at, when it doesn't equate as logic or common sense reason. What you are defending, is your own rationalization of "personal" belief, that you see as real when it has no basis for anything but delusion. It's not hard to understand TC. I believe in God knowing full well there may not be a God. My life is better when I believe than when I don't. I tried them both. Believing works better for me. So I believe. It's pretty simple. It is a simplicity of belief to you, based on your own rationalization only. The belief in and of itself is really irrelevant, because it only exists in the mind of the beholder. Meaning placed, can often create more confusion, especially when it comes to our existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on May 16, 2020 2:57:11 GMT
My skepticism is fully operational, yours only works against religion. When you are as skeptical of science as you are of religion you will make fewer mistakes. Your skeptical of things 100% of experts agree on, but then insist that we should trust laymen when they offer explanations behind their personal experiences. Yeah, sounds like fully operational skepticism to me. As for mine only working against religion, who told you that? I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claims, including those in science, knowing full well that for any current area of study there are often dozens (or more) of hypotheses/theories and that only one can be right, and it's possible whatever is right isn't even any of the current hypotheses/theories out there. However, when 100% of experts agree on something, like General Relativity, then my skepticism ceases, as should yours. It never ceases to amaze me how the theistic mind tends to work. They claim to be sceptical of science, whilst not applying that same sceptisim to the idea of a god.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 16, 2020 3:05:09 GMT
It's not hard to understand TC. I believe in God knowing full well there may not be a God. My life is better when I believe than when I don't. I tried them both. Believing works better for me. So I believe. It's pretty simple. It is a simplicity of belief to you, based on your own rationalization only. The belief in and of itself is really irrelevant, because it only exists in the mind of the beholder. Meaning placed, can often create more confusion, especially when it comes to our existence. That's what I have said all along. It's a personal decision. Everybody needs to decide for themselves. There is no proof God, a god or gods exist. So I always knew I wasn't going to try to proove anything to anybody. Just give my own decision and rationale. That's all you're gonna get from anybody. Like I said before, there may be a God. There may not. If there is - eternal happiness may be attainable. Why take a chance on that? |
|
