Do people ever think?

Post Reply New Topic

Define the word "evidence" so it can be provided. The word is fairly nebulous and as such evidence is often discarded if it doesn't lead to the conclusion one wants to hear. If the word evidence is defined in a rigid enough manner so that 1) it does not exclude everything in an attempt to exclude an undesirable conclusion and 2) if it is presented in the form so defined it will be accepted, then presenting what little evidence can be presented upon an internet forum would actually be possible rather than merely a vicious cycle of "yes it is" "no it's not!" with only slightly more verbosity as decoration alone.

so working a rather low wage, anyone can be trained to do it type of job doesnt require thinking at all???? he's on auto-pilot because maybe he is just that damn good at his job that he doesnt have to think. he knows his job inside and out. im probably splitting hairs here, but it seems rather presumptious to think that just because you may find people doing jobs that to you may not require thinking and because of this might even be boring for you that the people who have these jobs/responsibilities/ dont think at all. i mean its almost like going up to injured people and saying "wanna dance, iron legs?" i believe its just flat out common sense that any job of any sort of complexity does require thinking. sure they might not be interested in quantum physics or the latest images from Saturn, but dont be going through your life thinking your fellow members of your various communities are not thinking. and no im not the guy at the drive through window or the bank teller or the garbageman. to me, i give everyone the matter of fact belief that any and all workers think and not just on the job. however i will say that as humans can be rather unpleasant to deal with on occassion, i can carry the thought of some random people of how the hell do they even know how to get outside of their house. but thats being a f*****g hateful ass. so who knows. knowledge is power!

The issue is that claims of "truth" need confirmation. Yeah well, the issue is why some claims are discarded as valid evidence, I think you already know how rigurous the scientific method is to say an example.

Confirmation bias is something that needs to be avoided, but that is most likely to happen on the believers side. Not to mention that ad hoc crap, is a crappy way to express the "truth".

In my opinion, AngelsRho seems to be, typically, confusing truth with belief.

When I cite sources and back up what I say, I just get accused of being a parrot. Then the same individuals usually don't even bother posting sources and they start claiming they are all brilliant.

Canned Witticisms topic

I am loved.

Drunk at the post topic

PUI.

Not just responding with buzz words...generally not thinking, they get an idea put into their head and don't think about it so just repeat it, even though if they were to think about it for a second they'd realise that they know this idea they have is false, they just get so blinkered to a certain way of thinking or responding. It's somewhat irritating.

I concur.

peace j

I actually work from a large set of pre-existing ideas in each post, and thus rarely have to bother with thinking out all of the implications each time. Sometimes my reflexes go haywire, and I give the wrong response as a person might have already excluded a claim that my original argument would rely on. I try to make sure that doesn't happen though.

I can auto-pilot out a post if the topic is gun control, simply because I've been arguing that topic for so long with so many people that I do believe I've actually heard every argument pro or con. Other than that, I try to engage posts based as much on the logic (or lack thereof) underpinning them as on the facts as they are known to me; if they aren't known to me I have google. Lately I'll admit to *mostly* sticking to less serious posts, since I've been tied down with work and haven't had the energy to really dig into researching anything.

Last edited by Dox47 on 19 Apr 2011, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No, I'm really not. If someone asks if I think God exists, and I believe that God exists, and I say, "Yes, I believe God exists," I say so because IT IS TRUE that I believe God exists. What more evidence do you want that I believe what I say I believe? Further, what evidence can I possibly provide that it is true that I believe something? Um, none. Either you take me at my word that I believe God exists, or you tell me, "No, you do not believe what you say you believe." OK... So what evidence do you have that I do not believe what I say I believe?

It is true that I believe God exists. It doesn't matter how many times I am asked. I will repeat the same answer because each time the same answer is true. Ask me now, I will say I believe God exists, because it is true that I believe God exists. Ask me 10 minutes from now, and I'll say the same thing because it will still be true that I believe God exists. If I ever say, "no, I do not believe God exists," then it is possible that I'm using that as an example of something else (as I am here), that I'm possibly lying, or that I've perhaps completely lost my mind.

So that I believe "God exists" is a true statement of fact. I also find your demands for evidence to be absurd. Prove that God doesn't exist. Cite evidence, please.

I'm not actually disputing what you believe in, if your argument was about the truth about your convictions and/or beliefs then I apologize for misunderstanding.

Thus, I can say that it is TRUE that you believe God exists, but I can't say that your belief is true.


Ok, I must pressume that it is a fact that you believe "God exist" which I know I can't blatantly deny.


sigh, I haven't claimed that God doesn't exist, and......the burden of proof is on your part, not mine.

Two things:

#1: I never made the claim that God exists, merely stating the fact that "I believe God exists" is a statement of truth. I don't know that if that is a falsifiable statement, though I suppose you could test it by asking me "Does God exist?" and see if I ever vary in my response.

#2: No, you did not claim that God doesn't exist. And since neither of us made any claims, there is no burden of proof! On either of us.

But that wasn't really the point. It is absurd for you to demand proof of the truth that I believe a certain thing. It would be equally absurd to ask you to prove that God doesn't exist. One must take care that what one asks is reasonable.

I already pointed out that I misunderstood you.


You saying this: "Prove that God doesn't exist. Cite evidence, please." justifies that reply.

Is there a needle (or god) in a haystack? topic

The above posts got me thinking about the concept of a god, and the believe in such a concept leading to its existence.

It is true for me that even if there was evidence that such a god exists, even beyond just the concept, I would choose NOT to believe/adhere to this. There are many beliefs, philosophies, religions, etc., but i pick and choose carefully that which I wish to believe/adhere to/practice. So for many I would be in denial. That is MY choice, just as it is for someone to deny evolution and espouse creationism. The tricky part comes when we wonder which belief is going to prevail in the marketplace and be the default option in education. What happens is the ones that learn only creationism lack a basis for advanced hard sciences and thus their education and choices in life will be limited, but then, that is their choice. Is this a wise choice? For me, it is not, but at the same time creationists cannot stop those who study in the evolution stream. And many students drop studying sciences altogether, preferring humanities, social sciences and such.

In the democracy where I live you can adopt such a belief (in creationism), carry it with you and be reasonable/responsible with it. You can do the autodidact route and study either on your own, so there is no need to push an agenda.

I have come to the conclusion that both ways of studying science are here to stay, as they have been for many years. Adopting the one best for you, and leaving the other, is a rational compromise available, at least in the country I live in.

And this is not the end of the argument for many if not most. No one has the last word, but for me, this is where the god idea stops.

Things just flow more freely PUI.

Some people think deeps thoughts sometimes. Otherwise the Pyramids would never have been built.

ruveyn