Where is YOUR EVIDENCE ?

If this is re my not detailing what was evident to me re God in God gene thread, you accused me of being delusional before you even requested or showed interest in the 'evident' details.

The mere existance of details on this topic brought you to your ' you are delusional assumption', so this claim above is incorrect. Hence my provision of 'details' would not have satisfied regardless of how comprehensive or detailed.

The details were very personal and if the value was to be disregarded before even being revealed, revealing them would not have assisted. Your mind is made up.

Lacking the need to 'prove' anything re personal self to any other and recognising the futility of doing so is not in itself a sign of delusion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ToR: perplexity implied and confirmed:

No, sorry to burst your bubble, it doesn't mean anything. If I got a million people to believe in an invisible dragon with infinite power that lives in my garage, would you then believe in such things? This is the logic you're using when you say majority opinion determines correctness. It's true that a lot of people believe in a lot things that are correct, but only because it is proven by scientific methods, or is a given for such methods (the very basics).

By your logics jews should've been killed if you lived in Germany during WW2, 'infidels' should be eliminated if you're in certain middle eastern countries, suicide bombing is OK if you belong to certain religious groups, the crusades were a good thing.... do I need to go on?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would not believe in your dragon just as I don't believe in Adam and eve despite those that do. I credit myself with some intelligence and decide for myself what of the things that cannot be proven are likely and which not. but I cannot say catagorically I am right, they are wrong. Just that I do not agree, that it is my opinion etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no they get pissed off

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Do they EVER!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Keep od'ing on those vitamins, ToR, then, when you lose your proprioception and start complaining about feeling 'disembodied' you'll really have something to talk about which you can provide little evidence for.

Little evidence, that is, except for odd behavior.

 

I don't nor ever have felt disembodied, nor doubt I ever shall.

The overdose would have to be great and even then the effects only temporary.

 

I know. But interesting.

There are days when I consider overdosing on B6 just for the experience. Disembodiment, thankfully temporary, would be a fascinating experience to write about.

Plus, it fits well with the topic of evidence, for it would be a state which would have little direct evidence to back it up. People would think you're losing your mind before they thought that something was physically wrong with you.

 

Insanity is a state of concern only for the sane.

similarly sleep is a only a state of concern for the awake

while all four states exist only two are aware of the existance of the other two

what does this tell us?

(don't nit pick re lucid dreams etc)

 

Absence makes the heart grow fonder?

 

So, perplexity, you say once 1 million people believe in something you're 'impressed'? Does that mean you believe in it or what? There were more than 1 million Nazi's...

 

Ok wise guy, you still seem to be avoiding what I'm really saying.

 

1+ million Nazis', several + Million NOT Nazi's, thus they are not a majority.

Also, electing to 'ignore' a 'truth' is somewhat easier when you are not affected, raised or indoctrinated with it. Free thought flows smoother when there is nothing blocking the way.

 

So about half of the USA assumes that evolution did not happen, quite in contrast to say, European countries or Japan. Do we need to determine which one is in the majority before we accept or reject evolution (or conversely accept creationism)...?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Hmmm, I think I said this a few days ago, thanks for reinforcing what I already said, although I seem to think it was boring when I said it? You're a character. The fact that you base beliefs on majority makes you even more laughable.

 

No, it's not, how do you interpret that defintion as being majority opinion?

 

There are diffeernt types of evidence - regarding the current discussion of truth it seems to be about the evidence of popular opinion -

other evidences are
- direct perception (look both ways before crossing the road)
- empirical speculation (stay home for 40 years liek a maniac and manufacture a treatise about how the universe was created)
- authority (hearing from persons established in the field of knowledge in question)

popular opinion is a fallible means to determine the truth, particularly in comparison to the evidence of authority (at a court hearing a specialist will be asked to take the stand and give evidence, not the green grocer)

 

Ok lets use a more clearer example of authority - you have a legal problem - do you see a lawyer or a green grocer - you have a medical problem - do you se a doctor or a green grocer ( and not to neglect- you need some vegetables - do you see a doctor, lawyer or a green grocer)?
Hearing from an authority to determine the nature of truth means that you have a degree of faith that their direct perception in a particular field is stronger or more reliable than your own and therefore you tend to listen to what they say (more than what you may listen to someone who is not an authority in the field)

 

So in other words the determining factor whether a heart surgeon can do the task or not is whether he is popular or not? If that was the case how would it be possible for a medical practioner to enter into practice without a backlog of brownie points?

A qualified authority may or may not be popular, but it is not uncommon for a qualified authority to be popular, but that popularity is contigent to their qualification being established, not vice versa. Even if a heart surgeon was endorsed by 100% of the earth's population he wouldn't be successful unless he had some foundation of practical knowledge to actually be a qualified heart surgeon.

 

No it is not about the popularity of a person.
Except to be deliberately disingenous about it I fail to see why to suppose so.
It is about the meaning of the word, "truth".

Unless you can tell us where why and how an unsuccessful surgeon with no practical knowledge would be endorsed by 100% of the earth's population the point is impertinent.

--- Ron.