What Am I?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-01-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 01:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(18-01-2016 11:04 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  You don't need to review ALL the evidence just enough evidence as to make the belief rational. You can still be wrong, but being wrong about something doesn't make you irrational. Holding views and opinions not supported by ANY evidence, or even worse AGAINST the evidence is what makes a belief irrational.

Also if the claim is demonstrably true your acceptance of it is not really relevant to the claim being actually true. People willingly believe things that aren't factually accurate all the time. Reality always wins though.
That rules out 1 & 2 then.
So I am supposed to believe your claim that Niagara exists once I feel comfortable with the amount of evidence I find?
I could claim it exists after just 1 try if I felt comfortable with that then?
It's up to me to decide if it exists or not then.
I thought you once said reality exists regardless of perception.
Niagara is supposed to exist regardless of my perception.
So which is it?
1. Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
2. Niagara exists based on my perception?

If 1. Why should I believe that? How can I prove that? Oh right I'm supposed to use the scientific method of proving something exists.
But
I'm not supposed to believe it exists at the point when you tell me
I'm not supposed to believe it just because you provided the evidence
I'm only allowed to believe it after perceiving the falsifiable evidence and feeling COMFORTABLE with it.
But
Isn't Niagara supposed to exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what I was trying to prove? That Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
How did I end up at a point where I can only prove Niagara exists based on my perception.

Why can't I prove how Niagara can exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what you told me?
Niagara exists regardless of my perception?

oh wait didn't you say if a claim cannot be tested, it is useless and should not even be entertained let alone believed in?

Well guess what.

I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists regardless of how I perceive it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.
Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Guess what

I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists before my awareness of it needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists before my awareness of it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists before my awareness of it? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

There are many things that exist that you are not aware of.
You are not the cause of existence.
You are not the purpose of existence.
Your knowledge has no effect on existence.
Your philosophical flagellation has no bearing on existence.
Your concept of absolute knowledge has no importance in existence.

Get over yourself.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 05:33 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 05:46 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 01:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  That rules out 1 & 2 then.
So I am supposed to believe your claim that Niagara exists once I feel comfortable with the amount of evidence I find?
I could claim it exists after just 1 try if I felt comfortable with that then?
It's up to me to decide if it exists or not then.
I thought you once said reality exists regardless of perception.
Niagara is supposed to exist regardless of my perception.
So which is it?
1. Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
2. Niagara exists based on my perception?

If 1. Why should I believe that? How can I prove that? Oh right I'm supposed to use the scientific method of proving something exists.
But
I'm not supposed to believe it exists at the point when you tell me
I'm not supposed to believe it just because you provided the evidence
I'm only allowed to believe it after perceiving the falsifiable evidence and feeling COMFORTABLE with it.
But
Isn't Niagara supposed to exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what I was trying to prove? That Niagara exists regardless of my perception?
How did I end up at a point where I can only prove Niagara exists based on my perception.

Why can't I prove how Niagara can exist regardless of my perception?
Isn't that what you told me?
Niagara exists regardless of my perception?

oh wait didn't you say if a claim cannot be tested, it is useless and should not even be entertained let alone believed in?

Well guess what.

I cannot test if Niagara exists outside of my perception.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists regardless of what I believe needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists regardless of how I perceive it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists regardless of my perception? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

Does Niagara exists before my awareness of it?
How do I prove this?
Is there any way of going back in time to see if Niagara existed before my awareness? No.
Is there any way for me to collect the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to read the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to change the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to touch the data without & before me being aware of it? No.
Is there any way for me to predict the outcome without & before me being aware of the outcome? No

It is undemonstrable, untestable, unfalsifiable, unrepeatable, unpredictable.

Guess what

I cannot test if Niagara exists before my awareness of it.

Therefore anyone that tells me Niagara exists before my awareness of it needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to me.

Can you interchange the word Niagara to Reality & tell me where did I go wrong?
Or is the statement Reality exists before my awareness of it absolutely useless & therefore should not be believed in?

So tell me again Whiskey. Why should I believe Reality exists before my awareness of it? Or even more important how did you ever come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith or did you use some scientific approach?

There are many things that exist that you are not aware of.
You are not the cause of existence.
You are not the purpose of existence.
Your knowledge has no effect on existence.
Your philosophical flagellation has no bearing on existence.
Your concept of absolute knowledge has no importance in existence.

Get over yourself.
Every sentence you just said is untestable.
You already assume the conclusion in your premise.
Completely useless argument.

Sounds very Theistic.
"I already know God/Reality exists without your awareness"
"Get over yourself"

Ok how do you prove "God/Reality" exists outside of awareness then?

I never asked but, are you a Theist or simply an advocate of blind faith?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 07:17 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 05:33 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 05:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  There are many things that exist that you are not aware of.
You are not the cause of existence.
You are not the purpose of existence.
Your knowledge has no effect on existence.
Your philosophical flagellation has no bearing on existence.
Your concept of absolute knowledge has no importance in existence.

Get over yourself.
Every sentence you just said is untestable.

Did you really just assert that? Facepalm
Your lack of awareness of something has no effect on others' awareness and that is eminently testable.

Quote:You already assume the conclusion in your premise.

How? Be precise.

Quote:Completely useless argument.

Sounds very Theistic.
"I already know God/Reality exists without your awareness"
"Get over yourself"

Ok how do you prove "God/Reality" exists outside of awareness then?

Since things exist outside of your awareness and things exist outside of any person's awareness, the logical conclusion is that reality exists.

God does not.

Quote:I never asked but, are you a Theist or simply an advocate of blind faith?

I never asked but, are you a fifteen year old or simply an self-important ignoramus?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-01-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 05:33 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You already assume the conclusion in your premise.
Completely useless argument.

I never asked but, are you a Theist or simply an advocate of blind faith?

It's not a premise. It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact.
You are the one, in your OP's that stated "blind faith" in your thoughts,
and it's also very obvious you also have blind faith in a number of other things, (logic for example).

Not 15. I'd say about 13.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:07 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 10:11 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 08:03 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 05:33 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You already assume the conclusion in your premise.
Completely useless argument.

I never asked but, are you a Theist or simply an advocate of blind faith?

It's not a premise. It's not an argument. It's a statement of fact.
You are the one, in your OP's that stated "blind faith" in your thoughts,
and it's also very obvious you also have blind faith in a number of other things, (logic for example).

Not 15. I'd say about 13.
It's not a fact if it's untestable.
Where did you learn science in a church?

Is there any way for you to test what exists without you existing? No.
Is there any way for you to read the data on what exists without you existing? No.
Is there any way for you to change the data of what exists without you existing? No.
Is there any way for you to touch the data what exists without you existing? No.
How on earth are you ever going to perform a test that proves existence without you being there to perform the test?

You cannot test if anything exists if you are not there to perform the test. All you can do is hope someone else performs the test and you believe their results based on blind faith.

Therefore anyone that tells you something exists without you actually observing it yourself needs to know that what they are saying is absolutely useless to you unless you go see for yourself.

How could YOU possibly come to that conclusion? Was it a leap of faith? Are you secretly a Theist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 10:38 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 05:33 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Every sentence you just said is untestable.

Did you really just assert that? Facepalm
Your lack of awareness of something has no effect on others' awareness and that is eminently testable.

Quote:You already assume the conclusion in your premise.

How? Be precise.

Quote:Completely useless argument.

Sounds very Theistic.
"I already know God/Reality exists without your awareness"
"Get over yourself"

Ok how do you prove "God/Reality" exists outside of awareness then?

Since things exist outside of your awareness and things exist outside of any person's awareness, the logical conclusion is that reality exists.

God does not.

Quote:I never asked but, are you a Theist or simply an advocate of blind faith?

I never asked but, are you a fifteen year old or simply an self-important ignoramus?
Chas when I wrote "thoughts and self awareness are not closely related to each other" it's because I was repeating with Bucky said to show him how stupid it sounds.
I told him my Original Post uses the word "thought awareness" as a reference to "self awareness". Any child can correlate the 2 terms easily. I told him the only reason I didn't use the words "self awareness" was to stay away from being labelled a Solipsist because I condemn that world view.

He then claims that I am lying because the terms don't correlate. He even claim they are contradictory. I am glad you see how absurd the statement sounds.
All I ask is that you honestly put your vote near the true author of that phrase Bucky.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 10:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 07:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Did you really just assert that? Facepalm
Your lack of awareness of something has no effect on others' awareness and that is eminently testable.


How? Be precise.


Since things exist outside of your awareness and things exist outside of any person's awareness, the logical conclusion is that reality exists.

God does not.


I never asked but, are you a fifteen year old or simply an self-important ignoramus?
Chas when I wrote "thoughts and self awareness are not closely related to each other" it's because I was repeating with Bucky said to show him how stupid it sounds.
I told him my Original Post uses the word "thought awareness" as a reference to "self awareness". Any child can correlate the 2 terms easily. I told him the only reason I didn't use the words "self awareness" was to stay away from being labelled a Solipsist because I condemn that world view.

He then claims that I am lying because the terms don't correlate. He even claim they are contradictory. I am glad you see how absurd the statement sounds.
All I ask is that you honestly put your vote near the true author of that phrase Bucky.

You did not make that at all clear, if that's what you actually meant.

I have no beef with Bucky as his communication skills are quite good. Yours are not.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 19-01-2016 10:45 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 10:25 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Chas when I wrote "thoughts and self awareness are not closely related to each other" it's because I was repeating with Bucky said to show him how stupid it sounds.
I told him my Original Post uses the word "thought awareness" as a reference to "self awareness". Any child can correlate the 2 terms easily. I told him the only reason I didn't use the words "self awareness" was to stay away from being labelled a Solipsist because I condemn that world view.

He then claims that I am lying because the terms don't correlate. He even claim they are contradictory. I am glad you see how absurd the statement sounds.
All I ask is that you honestly put your vote near the true author of that phrase Bucky.

You did not make that at all clear, if that's what you actually meant.

I have no beef with Bucky as his communication skills are quite good. Yours are not.

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
"The only disagreements I have had thus far with other posters is this:
Some of them are 100% certain that things exist outside of their senses even if they have no physical interaction with it. ie. Sight, Touch, Smell, Hear, Taste.
I am uncertain if anything outside of my senses exist until I have physical interaction with it." (p.s. at which point would make it inside of my senses)

BuckyBall Wrote:
"Thanks for demonstrating even further that you were dishonest in your OP.
So now "thoughts" have magically turned into "senses". "

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
"Not dishonest just overly cautious. Thoughts and self awareness go hand in hand.
It's quite probable I would have been called a Solipsist way more if had put self awareness in my op.
Still I take full responsibility for confusing many of you as a result of my own insecurities."

BuckyBall Wrote:
"Dishonest rationalization. It DIRECTLY contradicts what you claimed in the OP. You are shown to be self-contradictory, and you try to obfuscate. "Thoughts and self awareness go hand in hand" has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with the point you made it look like your were addressing. You are a solipsist. You are too dishonest to admit it."

Agnostic Shane Wrote:
"Ok Bucky thoughts and self awareness are in no way closely related to each other. In fact they contradict each other.
Is this an honest statement?"

BuckyBall Wrote:
"Are you on drugs ? You can't even follow your OWN statements.
Something is very fishy here."

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
"There is just no pleasing you is there? Even when I'm agreeing with you, you find flaw."

What could I have possibly said that in any way contradicts what I claimed in my OP?

Feel free to neg rep me but at least quote me within context please.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-01-2016, 10:44 AM
RE: What Am I?
(19-01-2016 10:42 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(19-01-2016 10:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  You did not make that at all clear, if that's what you actually meant.

I have no beef with Bucky as his communication skills are quite good. Yours are not.

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
The only disagreements I have had thus far with other posters is this:
Some of them are 100% certain that things exist outside of their senses even if they have no physical interaction with it. ie. Sight, Touch, Smell, Hear, Taste.
I am uncertain if anything outside of my senses exist until I have physical interaction with it. (p.s. at which point would make it inside of my senses)

BuckyBall Wrote:
Thanks for demonstrating even further that you were dishonest in your OP.
So now "thoughts" have magically turned into "senses".

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
Not dishonest just overly cautious. Thoughts and self awareness go hand in hand.
It's quite probable I would have been called a Solipsist way may if had put self awareness in my op.
Still I take full responsibility for confusing many of you as a result of my own insecurities.

BuckyBall Wrote:
Dishonest rationalization. It DIRECTLY contradicts what you claimed in the OP. You are shown to be self-contradictory, and you try to obfuscate. "Thoughts and self awareness go hand in hand" has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING to do with the point you made it look like your were addressing. You are a solipsist. You are too dishonest to admit it.

Agnostic Shane Wrote:
Ok Bucky thoughts and self awareness are in no way closely related to each other. In fact they contradict each other.
Is this an honest statement?

BuckyBall Wrote:
Are you on drugs ? You can't even follow your OWN statements.
Something is very fishy here.

Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
There is just no pleasing you is there? Even when I'm agreeing with you, you find flaw.

What could I have possibly said that in any way contradicts what I claimed in my OP?

Why is that addressed to me? Consider

You OP was pure Solipsism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-01-2016, 10:47 AM
RE: What Am I?
What am I?"
A twat!

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: