Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How does one distinguish faith from delusion?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 196 of 279 (519930)
08-18-2009 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:08 PM


We Are ALL Internally Contradictory In one Way Or Another
A lot depends on who is doing the study, what they expect or want to find, how they set it up, what the methodology is, what the initial assumptions are . . .
Of course. Which is why by "reliably" I meant extensive and numerous double blind trials with large numbers of patients in each trial.
If such results were negative (or at least no more impressive than the placebo control groups) would you change your mind? Do you have evidence or "faith" in the purest sense of the word?
I already said I'd start a thread about the scientific study of the paranormal; I am researching and I've ordered a book, though at the moment this thread is keeping me busy
Well faith is on topic even if the specifics of psychic healing or whatever are not.
I am both intrigued and confused by, what seems, a conflation between evidence and faith in the non-atheist participants in this thread. When I talk to Bluejay or Percy (or a few others) they talk of faith as irrational and unevidenced but, whilst intellectually interested to a degree, they don't really care about any seeming contradictions. They and are happy to go (on a rational level at least) with most atheist conclusions regarding gods. They believe despite these contradictions. They believe anyway. In short they are incredibly rational about their irrationality. They recognise it, embrace it and deal with it in their own personal way. Which I kinda grudgingly respect.
I think that we are all intellectually conflicted on one level or another (Yes - Even me) with regard to one (or more) subjects. So I accept their irrational faith and leave them to their own honest analysis of their own self recognised contradictions. I don't doubt that I have my own irrational and contradictory beliefs. Even if I don't think that mine are theistically related. But I do try to recognise them and either change them or accept that they are contradictory.
But you guys seem intent on the idea that faith in immaterial beings is not irrational, is not illogical and that any comparison with "absurd" ideas like the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is insulting and unwarranted because there is in fact some form of "evidence" that I (and other atheists) just will not admit. BUT which justifies such faith and which I should recognise at least to the point of agnosticism but for my "world view" bias.
I promise to not even reply to your answer to this post or even mention it again if you don't want me to. It is not a trick. I just want to understand how faith and evidence are related (or not) in your mind.
I am honestly not the baby eating monster RAZD would have people believe of me ..........
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling, wording and clarity.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:08 PM Kitsune has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2009 9:42 PM Straggler has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 197 of 279 (519931)
08-18-2009 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Straggler
08-18-2009 1:22 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
quote:
you guys seem intent on the idea that faith in immaterial beings is not irrational, is not illogical and that any comparison with "absurd" ideas like the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is insulting and unwarranted because there is in fact some form of "evidence" that I just will not admit to but which justifies such faith.
I think this is the fourth time I've said here that I think the fact that humans have adopted various forms of spirituality as far back as we can see, points to something real. Yet humans also have a propensity to personify and simplify abstract concepts. The fact that you keep referring to "immaterial beings" shows that you are not listening to what I'm saying.
I've talked a lot with Modulous lately about differentiating between delusion and spiritual experience. If you are as interested as you say you are then please read my recent posts to him. I don't expect you to respond in any detail or at all, which should make it easy for you.
You reject most other epistemologies, which is causing some of your confusion. IMO epistemology is a philosophical topic, and while you can debate it you can't ultimately show that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I feel sometimes that certain things are "right" though I make sure I look for other types of evidence too, because I don't fly by the seat of my pants and I do not want to cause harm to myself or others. Like I said to RAZD, you couldn't put this in a scientific paper, but you could use it to help you formulate a hypothesis, and it's a good motivator (as long as you remain open-minded to the notion that you could be wrong).
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.
Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 1:22 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 2:12 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 203 by Theodoric, posted 08-18-2009 3:59 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 204 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 5:03 PM Kitsune has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 198 of 279 (519937)
08-18-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
The commonality of human psychology and the universal need for explanation, higher purpose etc. etc. is as objectively evidenced as is the fact that humans invent supernatural answers.
In terms of pure evidence it comes down to this versus an undefined form of immaterial subjective evidence that requires both a sixth sense and that is no better than guessing as to what immaterial entities might exist.
The fact that you keep referring to "immaterial beings" shows that you are not listening to what I'm saying.
Well if gods (which is the topic of the OP here) are material they are presumably as detectable as any other material entity? In which case we have no argument at all specifically with regard to "immaterial" gods except the degree to which they are materially evidenced.
I am interested in the faith/evidence thing and I will accept your answers on that as personal opinion unquestioningly as promised.
BUT that does not mean I am going to start accepting forms of evidence that lead to conclusions that are no better than guessing just to be friendly. Such claims are unjustified. Period.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:46 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 2:21 PM Straggler has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 199 of 279 (519939)
08-18-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Straggler
08-18-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
quote:
I am interested in the faith/evidence thing
I'm not sure you really are.
You don't answer questions I've put to you several times about things you've said.
You don't read posts I direct you to when my answers to your questions are there.
You ignore replies I make in favour of reiterating the same things you've been saying throughout the thread.
We have been here once before in this thread and it sounds like RAZD is used to this in other threads. I'm wondering now whether it's a good idea to introduce a paranormal thread because if you carry these habits over there we won't have a very productive conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 2:12 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 2:25 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 201 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2009 2:39 PM Kitsune has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 200 of 279 (519940)
08-18-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 2:21 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
Straggler writes:
I am interested in the faith/evidence thing
I'm not sure you really are.
Well I am. You don't see me arguing with Percy or Bluejay that they "should be atheists" as RAZD has accused me of attempting to do with him, do you?
Do you really think that the questions in my Message 160 have been answered? Really? Honestly?
Because in three previous threads and this one it feels to me as if every effort and every tactic in the book and beyond has been used to NOT explicitly answer these questions.
Repeatedly being told I am too blind or stupid to see the answers doesn't really help. If I am blind and /or stupid it seems I am not alone. It also seems that the theists/deists involved are truly unable to cite the answers in any way that they can be quoted on or pinned down to.................?
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 2:21 PM Kitsune has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 201 of 279 (519943)
08-18-2009 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 2:21 PM


"Faith"
Phat writes:
I freely and readily admit that they are often illogical.
Straggler writes:
As are everyone's to some extent - Yes even mine
I guess the aim is to recognise that fact and then, as those inconsistencies become apparent, either learn to accept or seek to rectify each of those individual inconsistencies as you see fit.
Message 10
Edited by Straggler, : I linked to a CFO post!!!! Link corrected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 2:21 PM Kitsune has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 202 of 279 (519946)
08-18-2009 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 12:50 PM


Re: Experiences
or why thinking about the nature of existence does not appeal to you. Philosophy must be one enormous delusion in your regard.
I can't believe it I am getting condescension from someone that trusts her health to meridians and energy healing. Do you have any objective evidence for those, or is it all just subjective?
Why do you make such a statement about me and philosophy? Philosophy is not a delusion it is an attempt to explain things. There are many philosophical viewpoints and ideas. I am familiar with quite a few of them. You are being a pompous ass and making assumptions about things you know nothing about. I have explored many philosophies in my life. Maybe even more then your highness yourself. How does not accepting them make me any less capable of understanding them?
Still waiting for some tangible way to tell the difference between delusion and faith.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 12:50 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 5:27 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 203 of 279 (519948)
08-18-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
I think this is the fourth time I've said here that I think the fact that humans have adopted various forms of spirituality as far back as we can see, points to something real.
Why do you think this?
Is the idea that it was developed to explain the unexplainable hold any credence with you?
You are using faith to explain why there is faith. Seems to be a very disingenuous way to conduce a debate. Can you justify and explain faith without using faith?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:46 PM Kitsune has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 204 of 279 (519952)
08-18-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 1:46 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
You reject most other epistemologies, which is causing some of your confusion. IMO epistemology is a philosophical topic, and while you can debate it you can't ultimately show that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
IMO, though, you can't just jump between epistemologies. If you think rational empiricism is the best way to get answers in one instance, why does it suddenly stop working in another? Is it because the answers given by rational empiricism do not satrusfy you, or go against what you want?
I think it's very easy to hold epistemologies up against each other and determine which one works best. The way you do that is you use each epistemology to try and discern something about the world and then see if that viewpoint leads down a path to more accurate ideas and predicitons, or if it ends up giving you inaccurate answers. If an epistemology works only in areas where we can't be certain, then what makes that epistemology seem like a likely path to an accurate answer?
In essence, I use rational empiricism because I see it work. Without it, the science and technology we use every day would not exist. When I come up against a question that rational empiricism can't answer, I make a guess that I like best, acknowledging that I'm possibily (and quite probably) either wrong, or merely making a subjective judgement and leave it at that. I in no way assume that the answer I have come to must be TRUE, merely that it works for me, though I'm willing to change that answer if I find compelling reasons to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 1:46 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 08-18-2009 5:55 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 207 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 6:01 PM Perdition has replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 205 of 279 (519954)
08-18-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by Theodoric
08-18-2009 3:50 PM


Re: Experiences
Hi Theodoric,
Peace. I think you can say what you want to say without the ad hom.
You made it clear that you thought the philosophical questions I listed earlier in the thread (in order to discuss epistemology) were "mumbo jumbo." You said in reply to at least one of them that you didn't care. This didn't sound to me like someone who is interested in philosophy; and since you said you are an empiricist, I deduced that you were uncomfortable with the limits of empiricism in philosophy. If you believe I'm wrong, I suggest you simply say so and give your reasons why.
quote:
Still waiting for some tangible way to tell the difference between delusion and faith.
When Straggler asked this yet again, I told him he could find a detailed discussion of this between Modulous and me, particularly my last two posts to him. I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that no matter what I say, neither of you will ever be satisfied with the answer.
quote:
Is the idea that it was developed to explain the unexplainable hold any credence with you?
Yes. I just don't see why that has to be the sole purpose of religion. It certainly isn't today.
If this isn't clear now, then I'll spell it out so that people know where I stand. I don't believe in a personified god or gods and I've given my reasons why. Pantheism comes close to what I currently believe, though I wouldn't say that's a 100% accurate description. I am, and always have been, willing to change my viewpoint. I was an agnostic for maybe 15 years. I see too many connections in life now to maintain that old standpoint. I've also read studies in subjects such as near death experiences. Believe it or not I always weigh evidence carefully and am always synthesising it into my world view; I just don't limit myself to empiricism alone. And most importantly for this discussion, my beliefs are not falsified by empirical evidence. I can't be sure of where I'm at on the road to The Truth, but I think it's reasonable to say that I am not deluded.
Edited by LindaLou, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Theodoric, posted 08-18-2009 3:50 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Theodoric, posted 08-18-2009 6:28 PM Kitsune has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 206 of 279 (519958)
08-18-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Perdition
08-18-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
IMO, though, you can't just jump between epistemologies. If you think rational empiricism is the best way to get answers in one instance, why does it suddenly stop working in another? Is it because the answers given by rational empiricism do not satrusfy you, or go against what you want?
LindaLou is just leading us off-course with a gigantic red herring.
If I assert that there is a dragon in a local park, what's the most practical way of determining the veracity of my claim?
Obviously, rational empiricism. Platonic navel-grazing and debates about the nature of knowledge have nothing to do with whether the dragon exists or not (Cue an argument that the dragon may exist "metaphorically" or some such nonsense that is quite obviously outside the scope of the claim being made).
When talking about the asserted existence or nonexistence of something in objective reality (not a subjective emotion, not the subjective "meaning" of a concept or symbol, but actual real-world existence) the only practical method of determining the veracity of the claim is empiricism. Period.
"God" may hold some "truth" to some individuals, but this is a subjective philosophical assessment, and is utterly irrelevant to whether god(s) actually exist in reality or not.
All methods of gaining knowledge about objective reality other than empiricism have shown to be utterly useless. Only through rigorously testing models and adhering to objective evidence can one maintain the highest possible degree of accuracy regarding the existence or nonexistence of entities and the way everything in the Universe interacts.
Empiricism may not be able to describe that "love" exists...but it never claims to. Love is a subjective human emotion. It's not an objective fact, and so is outside of the scope of empiricism.
Claims that "god(s) exist," or that there is a pen on my desk, are claims about objective reality and as such are best tested through empirical means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 5:03 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 6:17 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 225 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2009 4:30 AM Rahvin has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 207 of 279 (519959)
08-18-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Perdition
08-18-2009 5:03 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
Hi Perdition, thanks for your input.
quote:
you can't just jump between epistemologies.
Well, jumping all around with wildly different ones is very inconsistent and is probably likely to lead more to confusion than knowledge. But what about using the best that seem to apply to a certain situation -- why do you believe that is not possible?
quote:
If you think rational empiricism is the best way to get answers in one instance, why does it suddenly stop working in another? Is it because the answers given by rational empiricism do not satrusfy you, or go against what you want?
It's because I do not see empiricism applying in every situation; at which time, you use another epistemology. In Message 140 I wrote a list of questions that I believe empiricism cannot answer, and asked the empiricist I was speaking with to propose how he would hypothesise and then test his hypotheses in regard to those questions. Sometimes logic is the better option, especially where empirical evidence is limited or absent. Some others that have been mentioned in this thread, in varying degrees of subjectivity and objectivity, are historical, textual, psychological, philosophical, experiential, instinctive and anecdotal.
Empiricism is very important; it is the foundation of science. Science has taught us a great deal about physical reality (though the smallest of the small is still a puzzlement in many ways). But empiricism cannot tell me if there is a purpose to life; it cannot tell me if free will exists; it cannot tell me what my dream meant last night; it cannot tell me what the nature of consciousness is; it cannot tell me if aliens exist; it cannot confirm for me that I am in love. I thought before I joined this thread that these things were obvious but maybe they aren't. I am used to using other epistemologies in order to try to answer these questions or at least assess possibilities, so why should it be irrational or delusional of me to do the same when meditating on the nature of the divine?
quote:
you use each epistemology to try and discern something about the world and then see if that viewpoint leads down a path to more accurate ideas and predicitons, or if it ends up giving you inaccurate answers.
This works with empiricism, but not all epistemologies. How do I know what is accurate if . . . I don't know what is accurate? Is there an accurate answer to all the questions I posited above, or is it sometimes the best we can do just to study the possibilities and admit we don't know the answer?
quote:
In essence, I use rational empiricism because I see it work.
I do too. But I also see energy healing work. Yet I expect the empiricist crowd would simply tell me that my personal experiences are irrelevant. I don't agree with that, though you then get into messier issues of subjectivity.
quote:
When I come up against a question that rational empiricism can't answer, I make a guess that I like best, acknowledging that I'm possibily (and quite probably) either wrong, or merely making a subjective judgement and leave it at that. I in no way assume that the answer I have come to must be TRUE, merely that it works for me, though I'm willing to change that answer if I find compelling reasons to do so.
An honest answer, thank you. Though I suspect that if you look at that moment in time where you make your best guess, you are probably employing some combination of the other epistemologies I've listed. I admit that I use all of them myself, depending on the circumstances.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 5:03 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Perdition, posted 08-18-2009 6:27 PM Kitsune has replied
 Message 219 by AZPaul3, posted 08-18-2009 10:48 PM Kitsune has not replied
 Message 223 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2009 12:29 AM Kitsune has not replied

Kitsune
Member (Idle past 4300 days)
Posts: 788
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 09-16-2007


Message 208 of 279 (519961)
08-18-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Rahvin
08-18-2009 5:55 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
Hi Rahvin,
There have been quite a few posts here since we saw you. Maybe you can have a look at my last two posts to Modulous: Message 157 and Message 189. Also my recent post to Perdition. I don't expect you to respond in detail to the posts as such, but I think they would give you an idea of what I've been saying here. I've been exploring the issue with Modulous of how one can differentiate delusion from spiritual experience. And you'll see that I've told Perdition that I feel empiricism is important; there are simply some areas where it does not apply, and in those cases we need to use other epistemologies.
I think that looking for objective proof of the divine is difficult if not impossible, though its absence does not disprove it as other types of evidence can be examined. In Message 180 I have attempted to list some reasons why empirical evidence for the divine is lacking. (Sorry to link you to so many posts but I hope you can appreciate that there's been a lot of discussion here and I'd rather not repeat whole arguments I've made.) There are other reasons too for me personally. I don't believe in gods who interfere with physical reality so I have no problem with a lack of evidence for this. I don't believe in the divine personified, so I'm not concerned about defending whether Zeus or Allah or Tiamat is the "true" god. It would be complicated to explain what I do believe but it's not contradicted by what we have learned so far empirically.
I'm particularly interested in your ideas about Message 180. No one has responded to that post so far, though I only posted it this morning. I will slow things down over the next few days as we will be going on holiday. (Summer -- no work, no night school. Too much time on my hands.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Rahvin, posted 08-18-2009 5:55 PM Rahvin has not replied

Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 209 of 279 (519963)
08-18-2009 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 6:01 PM


Re: Evasion - As Expected
It's because I do not see empiricism applying in every situation; at which time, you use another epistemology.
I disagree. If rational empiricism is the method you've chosen to view the objective world through, why would you change that just because rational empiricism gives you an unsatisfactory answer? If R.E. doesn't work, it either means the question is subjective in nature, which is a different thing entirely from what we're discussing, or the question itself is probably invalid. If you're talking about liking a picture, love, or anything of a subjective nature, then R.E. doesn't touch it, but it doesn't claim to, and if it's subjective, then delusion and faith don't apply either, as both imply some measure of objectivity.
This works with empiricism, but not all epistemologies. How do I know what is accurate if . . . I don't know what is accurate? Is there an accurate answer to all the questions I posited above, or is it sometimes the best we can do just to study the possibilities and admit we don't know the answer?
If you're talking about subjective aspects of life, then you're right, R.E. doesn't apply, but neither does faith or delusion. DO I think there is an accurate answer to "Do I love my girlfriend?" Yes. Is it a truth for everyone? No. So we've moved from the realm of objective truth to subjective truth and we've moved away from what R.E. claims to work on. A faith or belief posits something that objectively exists. A desit believes there is an objective deity in existence somewhere. A Christian believes there is a specific God and his son/clone named Jesus objectively existing in a heavenly realm. These are beliefs that make objective claims and can be investigated with R.E.
I do too. But I also see energy healing work. Yet I expect the empiricist crowd would simply tell me that my personal experiences are irrelevant. I don't agree with that, though you then get into messier issues of subjectivity.
You've seen someone get better after having something done that was claimed to be "energy healing." For this to become a rational belief, however, it would require consistent results for many people and rate of success greater than a placebo effect would indicate. Seeing it once, twice, or even a hundred times when used on people who think it will help them is not an accurate way to see if it works. You run the risk of false positives, confirmation bias and self-deception on the part of the healee.
An honest answer, thank you. Though I suspect that if you look at that moment in time where you make your best guess, you are probably employing some combination of the other epistemologies I've listed. I admit that I use all of them myself, depending on the circumstances.
If we're in a subjective realm, then sure, I use my feelings because that's what subjectivity covers. If we're talking about something that makes an objective claim for which there is no empirical evidence, I maintain skepticism, while accepting the possibility that some new evidence will turn up, but I don't jump to belief until it does.
As an aside, I'm using rational empiricism to include empirically tested or observed phenomena and logic used to deduce other things which have not been observed, but should be true if the other assumptions are true. For example, it's a logical extrapolation tro believe that life exists on other planets based on what we know and assume, but I hold that possibility with a grain of salt and knowledge that I want it to be true and that this want may overshadow my skepticism at times. When it comes to actual extraterrestial visitations, I am much more skeptical, again because of what we think we know about the universe, it's physical laws, and the entirely subjective nature of any "evidence" provided by UFO believers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 6:01 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by kbertsche, posted 08-18-2009 9:54 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 226 by Kitsune, posted 08-19-2009 4:38 AM Perdition has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 210 of 279 (519964)
08-18-2009 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Kitsune
08-18-2009 5:27 PM


Re: Experiences
This didn't sound to me like someone who is interested in philosophy; and since you said you are an empiricist, I deduced that you were uncomfortable with the limits of empiricism in philosophy. If you believe I'm wrong, I suggest you simply say so and give your reasons why.
It is your condescending attitude and vague insults I have a problem with. I have previously explained that I have studied philosophy and feel your philosophical take on the world is not what I agree with.
Message 191
If you are an empiricist, which is one epistemology, then you will consider anything delusional which cannot be proved empirically. Maybe this is why you are so firm about disagreeing with any of the philosophical viewpoints I posited, or why thinking about the nature of existence does not appeal to you. Philosophy must be one enormous delusion in your regard.
Message 185
I have some suggestions which may assist your contributions to this thread. ...Find out what epistemology means and be aware that you are advocating one particular kind.
It's interesting that your reaction is to avoid having to do so at all by dismissing the questions themselves.
Kind of condescending don't you think.
I have a sneaking suspicion, though, that no matter what I say, neither of you will ever be satisfied with the answer.
I have the sneaky suspicion that you won't be satisfied with anything we say.
So there you go.
So why are Straggler and I debating in bad faith when we do not agree with your arguments, but you are so virtuous when you do not agree with ours?
I take your philosophy of life and existence and outright reject it. Now back to Stragglers question.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Kitsune, posted 08-18-2009 5:27 PM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Kitsune, posted 08-19-2009 4:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024