For TheBorg,
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-09-2016, 07:06 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 06:49 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 10:52 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin


*Nods* This is true/correct. Yes



No, that statement is not correct. The two examples now given are not the same.

The cave-folk and their lack of skills knowledge is almost the opposite of a current person and the information available to them about evolution.


Um, I don't think they are and in a way it's not actually about 'perception'. Consider Though I may be wrong there.


Um, again, I don't actually think ow the method you're talking about is working/does work. Consider

Again, better educated people will come along and point out the differences better. Thumbsup



No, again, I do not think this is a correct statement. If some one makes an actual claim about something... Then others can try and test the claim. Think about the claim in comparison to other things they know or have details about and see how this (Possibly) new claim fits in.

The current claims for any deity fail when compared to what we know of the reality around us.

However there is also the Theist point of view that the deity is some how 'Outside' our reality. This is great/wonderful...

Now, having moved their deity some 13 odd billion light years away and into the past, they have to adjust their claims as to the how said deity does anything current with IN this reality.

Much cheers to you. Thumbsup

Why aren’t you working Angry








Tongue

I noticed it too... I worried about him and his wellbeing after discovering that he was apparently taking a moment off work.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
01-09-2016, 07:13 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I think we all agree that there are things we can experience with our five senses.

5?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
01-09-2016, 07:17 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 07:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 11:08 AM)Aliza Wrote:  I think we all agree that there are things we can experience with our five senses.

5?

Did I make a mistake? Hearing, touch, taste, sight, and smell. Yeah, five.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:19 PM (This post was last modified: 01-09-2016 07:23 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 07:17 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  5?

Did I make a mistake? Hearing, touch, taste, sight, and smell. Yeah, five.

When you see the text in blue you click the text and it takes you to your answer, silly. Tongue

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 07:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:17 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Did I make a mistake? Hearing, touch, taste, sight, and smell. Yeah, five.

When you see the text in blue you click the text and it takes you to your answer. Tongue

I admit to not reading the entire wikipedia page before replying, but my phone opened the link up to 5 pictures representing hearing, sight, taste, smell, and touch.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:51 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 11:43 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 01:00 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Yep. The syntax and grammar are similar.

I too detect the odours of bullshit and cheesy smegma but am unable to place their point of origin, pray do enlighten me dear sirs, Big Grin

In my personal estimation, Mr Nobody smells like HJ. I could be wrong, so I'll just peek in once in awhile.

BoT, Rhetorical question- has theBorg responded to this thread? Crickets
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2016, 07:54 PM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 07:24 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:19 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  When you see the text in blue you click the text and it takes you to your answer. Tongue

I admit to not reading the entire wikipedia page before replying, but my phone opened the link up to 5 pictures representing hearing, sight, taste, smell, and touch.

Your cellphone is censoring your content. Big Grin

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 05:48 AM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2016 05:54 AM by Gloucester.)
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 07:17 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(01-09-2016 07:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  5?

Did I make a mistake? Hearing, touch, taste, sight, and smell. Yeah, five.

Make it six, proprioception. That's the one that tells you exactly how you are standing, enables you to touch any part of your body accurately with your eyes closed etc.

OK not an "external"- sense but a sense all the same.

Plus that of balance, knowing which way is down, so seven if you want to be strict about it.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2016, 07:40 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 04:26 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 11:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sure. Does "wishing make things so" or does wishing not make things so? Is consciousness the faculty that perceives that which exists or the faculty that creates that which exists. Theism holds that existence conforms to consciousness. It takes the subjective view of reality. But the distinction between the real and the imaginary is only compatible with the view that "wishing doesn't make it so". So the question is, can a theist make this distinction while remaining consistent with what theism affirms at its foundation, subjectivism.

Of course it's subjective. Theism requires faith. Faith cannot be proved empirically, so in that regard, a belief in a metaphysical is completely irrational.

If theism was objective, everyone would be a theist just like everyone believes in mammals. Theism wouldn't even be a concept just like doubting the existence of mammals isn't one.

No god can be proved empirically. It's impossible; therefore, the belief has to be subjective and rooted in irrational faith - something the Bible clearly states.

If a Christian says otherwise (not speaking for other religions), they haven't read their manual.

You know, you are one of the only theists who I've dealt with who acknowledges this. I applaud you.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
02-09-2016, 07:53 AM
RE: For TheBorg,
(01-09-2016 11:56 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(31-08-2016 11:40 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  Sure. Does "wishing make things so" or does wishing not make things so? Is consciousness the faculty that perceives that which exists or the faculty that creates that which exists. Theism holds that existence conforms to consciousness. It takes the subjective view of reality. But the distinction between the real and the imaginary is only compatible with the view that "wishing doesn't make it so". So the question is, can a theist make this distinction while remaining consistent with what theism affirms at its foundation, subjectivism.

How do we know that our "consciousness" is the only kind there is? We can't wish or hope things into existence, but it's conceivable (to me at least) that there could be some higher type of consciousness that does have this power. I don't believe there is such a consciousness (hence my atheism), but I also don't believe that it's possible to be certain of this. A mole or a bat doesn't know what it is or means to "see", but that doesn't mean sight is impossible. The late philosopher Richard Taylor claimed that certainty regarding any metaphysical statement was a sure sign that you don't really understand that statement.

We do in fact know that our kind of consciousness is not the only kind there is. In fact our kind is exceedingly rare. There are all types ranging from the microscopic organisms that can sense light through all of the kinds that in addition to sensation have the ability to integrate their sensations into percepts and all the way up to our consciousness which has the ability to integrate percepts into concepts. But do you know what all of these types of consciousness have in common? They all have exactly the same orientation of subject with object. The objective orientation. In every case the primacy of existence is confirmed. So we are left with nothing but our imaginations if we want to observe a consciousness that has the opposite orientation and in order to believe such a thing is possible we have to drop the distinction between the real and the imaginary. Such a belief is irrational. Now that is faith. It's not just a belief without evidence. It's not just a belief in contradiction to some evidence. It is a belief in contradiction to all of the evidence. This is the proof that faith is indeed contrary to reason instead of a compliment to it like so many like to say. Reason is grounded exclusively in the primacy of existence principle. Faith is grounded exclusively on the primacy of consciousness. You can believe that such a consciousness might exist but you do so irrationally.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: