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.
however the person posting whom i responded to, does not recognize that.
they claim that undiscovered planets are not real, and they claim that those undiscovered planets are imaginary.
and until a specific planet is observed and confirmed to exist by science, then it is not real and it does not exist.
that is the view put forth which I was refuting.
their view is that until science observes something, then it is "imaginary" and "not real."
Hmmm...
Well we certainly can't know what we don't know, but I think we can all understand that everything we don't know is not necessarily imaginary or not real. I for one also prefer to stay on this side of the line when it comes to claiming knowledge about what we do know. A little reluctant to make claims about what we don't know as if we do. I think most scientists try to stay this side of that line too, without suggesting we know something about something we don't. That side of the line is called theoretical.
feel free to discuss with him and respond to post #371.
perhaps that will provide clarity. I look forward to reading that exchange. Sometimes it takes a different person to explain or clarify.
for you, what does "imaginary" mean? i am curious how that word is being used in his posts, and also how others use the word. your input is appreciated. thank you.
I think he has since done a good job of explaining what you first didn't understand about his post...
Not to accept his further explanation seems like just more want to argue rather than agree with what is ultimately an altogether clear, reasonable and sufficient clarification.
I took that poster to be talking about the difference between a priori knowledge and posterior.
He also clearly stated that God was real in the sense that He exists in a person's mind but it hasn't been proven these thoughts originate from the environment. Even if it is something coming from the environment it does mean we are perceiving it correctly anyway. Just like our brains use input like vibration to make music.
Interesting thing about our brains and even hearing as I've just now started sporting my new set of hearing aids to help me with a bit of hearing loss...
Did you know that if you go without hearing well for long enough, your brain begins to forget what sounds, speech, means? So if later you get hearing aids after too long of not letting your brain hear and translate those sounds, even hearing aids that allow someone to now hear those sounds won't be able to understand them.
Yet another fascinating example of how our brains dictate what we know, understand and hear going on all around us...
Why argue? Mostly it seems to me to vent one’s frustrations, fear and hate in the guise of making some cogent argument. That gives cover to make personal attacks. All heat and no light. That is about it.
Why anyone who has clear, logical, and convincing argument supporting his/her position would be frustrated, fearful and hateful? Where the frustration, fear and hate would come from? From having logic and reason on his/her side?
Why anyone would even need to make personal attacks when cogent argument provides more than enough persuasive heat and light all by itself just fine?
And, of course, what about another side? Side without clear, logical, and convincing arguments.
Is lack of those what makes them relaxed, confident, all-loving and intellectually honest interlocutors who never use any kind of sophistry b/c they don't need to?
I mean really, why would you even need to strawman, deflect and make a personal attack when you don't have logic and reason on your side?
Why argue? Mostly it seems to me to vent one’s frustrations, fear and hate in the guise of making some cogent argument. That gives cover to make personal attacks. All heat and no light. That is about it.
Considering my straw poll, where the arguments were started in 5 threads by the religious, and only 2 threads by 1 atheist, the bolded in your post is not a good advert for religion.
Considering my straw poll, where the arguments were started in 5 threads by the religious, and only 2 threads by 1 atheist, the bolded in your post is not a good advert for religion.
Not that I disagree with the message you seem wanting to send here, I can't say I see the logic or reason to suggest that the count of threads started by religious people and/or atheists means what you seem to think it means. I am an atheist who has started a thread or two, but we atheists represent a small minority of people generally speaking, so not surprise the number of our threads is fewer too. Perhaps more importantly, I can't speak for other atheists or religious people, but I for one have never started a thread for the reasons CB seems to think common. To "vent one’s frustrations, fear and hate in the guise of making some cogent argument." Not true with me in any case.
Considering my straw poll, where the arguments were started in 5 threads by the religious, and only 2 threads by 1 atheist, the bolded in your post is not a good advert for religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Not that I disagree with the message you seem wanting to send here, I can't say I see the logic or reason to suggest that the count of threads started by religious people and/or atheists means what you seem to think it means.
Not the threads started, the arguments started. I can not remember who started the threads, but of the 9, the attacks were started in 5 threads by religious people, in 2 threads by 1 atheist, with only 2 threads not having any attacks.
Why anyone who has clear, logical, and convincing argument supporting his/her position would be frustrated, fearful and hateful? Where the frustration, fear and hate would come from? From having logic and reason on his/her side?
Why anyone would even need to make personal attacks when cogent argument provides more than enough persuasive heat and light all by itself just fine?
And, of course, what about another side? Side without clear, logical, and convincing arguments.
Is lack of those what makes them relaxed, confident, all-loving and intellectually honest interlocutors who never use any kind of sophistry b/c they don't need to?
I mean really, why would you even need to strawman, deflect and make a personal attack when you don't have logic and reason on your side?
Why are sides needed when discussing worldviews?
How many of the people who side with you were there when you were born and will be present at your death?
Why are sides needed when discussing worldviews?
How many of the people who side with you were there when you were born and will be present at your death?
Because that's simply human nature.
Look, I can post almost anything on this forum, and I can count on one specific poster taking the opposite side. And a compadre of hers, if she's around, also taking the opposite side.
When you post something on a public forum, the other side (of the position) will respond.
How many of the people who side with you were there when you were born and will be present at your death?
I'm sorry, how is this relevant? Can you explain, please?
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.
