Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what some of us have been discussing is a general lack of understanding about what tolerance is.
It's also a bit of a blunderbuss term. It can range from a simmering hostility that one is not allowed by law to turn into acts of gratuitous mayhem to cheerful and appreciative engagement with people whom one is aware they are not Part Of. So it's easy to take a very positive meaning of tolerance and use it to mean something rather negative.
I love being tolerated.
I don't need anyone to accept me, love me or hate me.
Tolerance is respectful and says a lot for that person that they are open to
being casually detached and live and let live.
I was wondering how anyone can view a cynical opinion in a positive manner, but anything is possible.
Cynical can often turn out to a jaundiced view of realism. There was one Christian colleague (another one ) who responded to anything he couldn't answer adequately with 'That's rather cynical'.
Cynical can often turn out to a jaundiced view of realism. There was one Christian colleague (another one ) who responded to anything he couldn't answer adequately with 'That's rather cynical'.
A person selling love does not know more about love than the person accepting it. A cynical view of that transaction will not teach something different about love; the cynical view is not really providing anything other than to say, move along.
Your problem with the logic being 'better' than just believing what you want is often debated but 'strawman' is nothing near it. And I don't need someone who reverses logic to fit with faith - beliefs to tell me how to formulate arguments.
Nonsense. Just believing what you want IS the straw man because it is the absolute weakest argument against ANY use of logic so it is disingenuous to pretend that IT is ever the strongest argument against your questionable use of so-called logic. I don't need someone who is stuck in concrete about the actual state of our Reality because of reliance on a failed and increasingly debunked reductionist materialist universe to tell me how to refute arguments.
Nonsense. Just believing what you want IS the straw man because it is the absolute weakest argument against ANY use of logic so it is disingenuous to pretend that IT is ever the strongest argument against your questionable use of so-called logic. I don't need someone who is stuck in concrete about the actual state of our Reality because of reliance on a failed and increasingly debunked reductionist materialist universe to tell me how to refute arguments.
Well, clearly you do because believing what you want rather than going with the evidence and the rules of logic is not the better logic or method for getting near the truth.
You show your illogical thinking by using my supposed reliance on what has been evidenced by science and so has not been debunked by anything, least of all your attempts to fiddle science (and logic) to support your Beliefs. Your attempt to fiddle mental EM energy into the evidence for a cosmic consciousness was debunked recently as was your effort to wangle the time -space cone (Minkowski's theorem)into some evidence for 'God' when the theory shows that nothing outside can affect (or effect) anything within it. And the ongoing efforts to reverse the burden of proof was shown up not long ago. In fact I'd just answered this argument of yours yesterday. You don't seem to be able to remember any debunk even that happened a few posts ago. What is this problem with your memory, old mate?
And do we have to have yet another thread hi- jack to peddle your own views and (increasingly, it seems) bash me?
Well, clearly you do because believing what you want rather than going with the evidence and the rules of logic is not the better logic or method for getting near the truth.
Bur the bold is NOT what I do and it is a straw man argument against what I DO in response to your so-called logic and evidence. This IS straw-manning because you pretend that there is no such thing as plausible hypotheses based on existing knowledge in the area of the currently unknown. Plausible hypotheses are NOT just making things up. It is how science expands current knowledge. Yes, they need to be fully tested before accepting them, but dismissing them as "believing what you want" or "making things up" is definitely "straw-manning." Just because you do not know enough to comprehend the plausibility of my extrapolations of the existing science does NOT justify your dismissal as just "believing what I want" or "making things up." Your default is NOT supported by existing evidence as it currently is so your standing on very thin ice throwing rocks from a very glass house. It is just your PREFERENCE for the unknown.
Bur the bold is NOT what I do and it is a straw man argument against what I DO in response to your so-called logic and evidence. This IS straw-manning because you pretend that there is no such thing as plausible hypotheses based on existing knowledge in the area of the currently unknown. Plausible hypotheses are NOT just making things up. It is how science expands current knowledge. Yes, they need to be fully tested before accepting them, but dismissing them as "believing what you want" or "making things up" is definitely "straw-manning." Just because you do not know enough to comprehend the plausibility of my extrapolations of the existing science does NOT justify your dismissal as just "believing what I want" or "making things up." Your default is NOT supported by existing evidence as it currently is so your standing on very thin ice throwing rocks from a very glass house. It is just your PREFERENCE for the unknown.
This is duplicating the very same argument you made on another thread...let me go find it.
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post I would have repped your honesty about this inability too, but the rules of the forum prevented it. I just have an abiding curiosity over why you have such a "courage of conviction" about a reductionist materialist universe. It truly mystifies.
(Trans)i don't. It just looks to you like that because you have a faith -based conviction that what science knows about the way the 5% reality we do know about (the rest is all 'Unknowns') is somehow invalid and that faith -based speculations and beliefs are somehow better. It only mystifies you and your Ilk because you will not listen to the explanations that I repeatedly make.
Rather it mystifies me why you can't see that you are admitting this fact every time you try to fiddle what 'science knows' to make it support your faith -based beliefs.
And here:
Nonsense. Just believing what you want IS the straw man because it is the absolute weakest argument against ANY use of logic so it is disingenuous to pretend that IT is ever the strongest argument against your questionable use of so-called logic. I don't need someone who is stuck in concrete about the actual state of our Reality because of reliance on a failed and increasingly debunked reductionist materialist universe to tell me how to refute arguments.
(Arq) Well, clearly you do because believing what you want rather than going with the evidence and the rules of logic is not the better logic or method for getting near the truth.
You show your illogical thinking by using my supposed reliance on what has been evidenced by science and so has not been debunked by anything, least of all your attempts to fiddle science (and logic) to support your Beliefs. Your attempt to fiddle mental EM energy into the evidence for a cosmic consciousness was debunked recently as was your effort to wangle the time -space cone (Minkowski's theorem)into some evidence for 'God' when the theory shows that nothing outside can affect (or effect) anything within it. And the ongoing efforts to reverse the burden of proof was shown up not long ago. In fact I'd just answered this argument of yours yesterday. You don't seem to be able to remember any debunk even that happened a few posts ago. What is this problem with your memory, old mate?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
doesn't that awful out of context (which was my asking asking which of the two terms you had used you were referring to)?
I was wondering how anyone can view a cynical opinion in a positive manner, but anything is possible.
) who responded to anything he couldn't answer adequately with 'That's rather cynical'.
