RE: A question game for agnostics.

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: A question game for agnostics.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: A question game for agnostics.

Page: << < prev 14 15 16 17 [18]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/21/2011 12:32:51 AM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lookinforyou

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ok... if you say "tend to", that means that sometimes you do. The reason "I have no empirical evidence" is therefore not enough (sufficient) for you not to draw a conclusion. Is there another reason, then, or do you irrational (with no reason) decide when to follow your trend and when not do follow it?

You draw the wrong conclusion, I didn't say that "I have no empirical evidence" is not enough for me to not draw a conclusion.

You have clearly stated that "not always". Therefore, taken as a whole, it is not enough: it is not a sufficient condition. Maybe sometimes it is, but this will be because, for some reason or irrationally, that time is handled in a different way as in other times.

Therefore, no wrong conclusions were made .

quote:

The reason I said "I tend to" is because I consider certain methods of observation that aren't directly measurable by my own senses as sufficient (an electron microscope would be a good example of such a case) and I also except certain other people's gathering of empirical evidence, mainly respected and established scientists, as sufficient (the existence of Pluto would be a good example of this).

I never will accept something as fact for which I don't have empirical evidence, but it's not necessary that this evidence is gathered by me personal, or measurable by me personally, as long as it comes from a reputable source, I could still accept it.

quote:

I never will accept something as fact for which I don't have empirical evidence

As you were explaining in the previous sentences why sometimes the lack of empirical evidence is enough to draw a conclusion... does this mean that in this case, the lack of empirical evidence is enough for you to draw a conclusion?

quote:

No, perception alone isn't enough. It needs to be quantifiable and repeatable, as well as verifiable by a source other than myself to count as a fact.

Ehm... are you seriously saying that, in your normal and everyday life, you only make assertions which are supported by quantifiable and repeatable perceptions, verifiable by a source other than yourself, perceived by you or a reputable source?

And that in the rest of situations, the lack thereof is enough (sufficient) for you to draw a conclusion?

I respectfully indicate you that you act based on thousands of assertions every single day of your life, even if they are not explicitly stated.

If not, please indicate which parts of the scenario of my question are wrong. Thank you.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/21/2011 12:42:33 AM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Lookinforyou)

Profile

Post #: 341

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/21/2011 12:55:59 AM

Lookinforyou

Posts: 6
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ehm... are you seriously saying that, in your normal and everyday life, you only make assertions which are supported by quantifiable and repeatable perceptions, verifiable by a source other than yourself, perceived by you or a reputable source?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Unless something can be verified by empirical research, I don't count it as a fact.
Now in some cases, I will draw on my experience to do such, but unless something can be tested, verified and reproduced, it's not a fact.

For example, when I see my car out the window, I will assume that the car being there is a fact, because I know from experience that perceiving the car has in all previous cases meant that the car is factually there, because I and others have verified this in the past.

But when something is not perceivable, verifiable or repeatable, I do not count it as a fact. And unless I receive new empirical evidence that previously established facts can no longer be regarded as such, I will live under the assumption that they are still verifiable facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

And that in the rest of situations, the lack thereof is enough (sufficient) for you to draw a conclusion?

In the rest of situations, I will simply not assume that something is a fact. That doesn't mean that I don't take into account the possibility that it might be a fact, and act accordingly. But I will not see it as a fact. Instead, I will merely consider it an assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I respectfully indicate you that you act based on thousands of assertions every single day of your life, even if they are not explicitly stated.

Yes of course, I base my actions of a myriad of facts and assumptions every day. What, may I ask, is your point?

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Profile

Post #: 342

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/21/2011 7:54:22 AM

willbeurdaddy

Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lookinforyou

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Ehm... are you seriously saying that, in your normal and everyday life, you only make assertions which are supported by quantifiable and repeatable perceptions, verifiable by a source other than yourself, perceived by you or a reputable source?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.
Unless something can be verified by empirical research, I don't count it as a fact.
Now in some cases, I will draw on my experience to do such, but unless something can be tested, verified and reproduced, it's not a fact.

For example, when I see my car out the window, I will assume that the car being there is a fact, because I know from experience that perceiving the car has in all previous cases meant that the car is factually there, because I and others have verified this in the past.

But when something is not perceivable, verifiable or repeatable, I do not count it as a fact. And unless I receive new empirical evidence that previously established facts can no longer be regarded as such, I will live under the assumption that they are still verifiable facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

And that in the rest of situations, the lack thereof is enough (sufficient) for you to draw a conclusion?

In the rest of situations, I will simply not assume that something is a fact. That doesn't mean that I don't take into account the possibility that it might be a fact, and act accordingly. But I will not see it as a fact. Instead, I will merely consider it an assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I respectfully indicate you that you act based on thousands of assertions every single day of your life, even if they are not explicitly stated.

Yes of course, I base my actions of a myriad of facts and assumptions every day. What, may I ask, is your point?

His point is that he needs to have the scientific process ignored for his tautological game to survive. He just doesnt know thats his point.

_____________________________

Hear the lark
and harken
to the barking of the dogfox,
gone to ground.

(in reply to Lookinforyou)

Profile

Post #: 343

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/21/2011 8:30:34 AM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lookinforyou

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Ehm... are you seriously saying that, in your normal and everyday life, you only make assertions which are supported by quantifiable and repeatable perceptions, verifiable by a source other than yourself, perceived by you or a reputable source?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

Thank you.

A question: You look at the window. Somebody tells you "how many cars cross in the next minute"? You start counting. You count 6 cars.
Now - is "6 cars crossed" a fact?
If it is - how do you pretend to repeat this perception?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lookinforyou
But when something is not perceivable, verifiable or repeatable

Please be exact. You said before "AND" repeatable, please do not change it to an "OR" unless you want to retract from the previous assert. Thank you.

You ask me for "my point". I do not understand your question. The most approximate answer I can give is "to learn more about you and your moves, to position some statements in strategic places, to be able to reflect my arguments in a way they can be refuted by you in a way I cannot longer defend my argument #3 of the nonexistence of God (I have other two, but this is my favorite)". Which is my target - I want to win!

I have another question:

* Which evidence is not empirical?

And still an evidence for you, that is.

< Message edited by SpanishMatMaster -- 11/21/2011 8:31:29 AM >

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to Lookinforyou)

Profile

Post #: 344

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 11/22/2011 9:14:19 PM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lookinforyou

_____________________________

Humanist (therefore Atheist), intelligent, cultivated and very humble :)
If I don't answer you, maybe I "hid" you: PM me if you want.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, pause and reflect.” (Mark Twain)

(in reply to SpanishMatMaster)

Profile

Post #: 345

RE: A question game for agnostics. - 12/2/2011 8:20:14 AM

SpanishMatMaster

Posts: 967
Joined: 9/28/2011
Status: offline