Chas. I'm sorry.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-05-2014, 06:38 AM
RE: Chas. I'm sorry.
(13-05-2014 12:57 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  You were right, way back when, when you said "Everything is bullshit until proven otherwise." I gave you crap for it, but you're right, bro.

The thing is that Occam's Razor - the basic idea that the simplest answer should be taken as the most likely - tells me that when I hear a thing that sounds like bullshit, odds are, it probably is. When someone tells me they woke up and saw a ghost in their room, I'm inclined to believe it's bullshit. And why am I justified in this? Because there are so many other reasons why this person might've had this - or at least believe they had this - experience, that it's very, very probable that their initial conclusion that it was a "ghost" is, in fact, bullshit.

Back then, I took it at face value. I heard "everything is bullshit" and took that as a positive claim. Naturally, as a skeptic, I require backing evidence for positive claims, and that meant that I wanted evidence that the claim was, objectively, bullshit. (Which didn't make sense because what if the thing wasn't, ultimately, bullshit? Then the claim would have been false)

But now I get it. I understand that, until a claim can be demonstrated to be true, the only logical course of action is to assume (a key word, there) that it is false. I do this with gods all of the time. "You haven't proven your god exists yet? Oh cool, cool. Then I'm just gonna assume he's bullshit." It's what we do - the majority of us - as atheists. We don't positively believe that the gods are non-existent, usually, but we do assume that they are, simply because there's no evidence to show otherwise.

So, I get it. I got it this evening and I felt compelled to waste valuable (lol) forum space telling you openly. I was wrong, and I now understand the reasoning.

Cheers, brother. Thumbsup
Hello! I'm glad for your growth in reason. Would you please provide some more detail? How would you express the position you had before? What was the argument or experience that brought about the change of heart?

For example, I personally believe there is one true world. However, we don't know what it is and not all that is real has even names in our language. Our language as it is now can not possibly integrate all that is real. So, we can experience the reality for which we have no words. Trying to put it into words without a proper procedure (science) is a mistake.
In principle, we are allowed to see and touch as many ghosts as we want, we just aren't allowed to put it into language with any serious authority. In practice it boils down to the same thing, I just sometimes make an allowance for anonymous internet forum talk.
In personal interaction, I reject unjustified talk by the same standard. Except when I experienced the thing, then I say I know exactly what do you mean, I just can't talk about it publically, because I have no evidence. I don't know what the people involved think about it. I think this kind of standard is new to them.

My result is the same, I just get into a lot of extraordinary circumstances, so I need a much broader take on things. I am actually surprised why did you have any other position beforehand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: