Re: Genuine question
« Reply #40 on: April 21, 2016, 02:46:55 PM »
I don't care about agenda or sides...only truth. Between every extreme the truth exist.

That's only statistically likely, but not true in the sense that it follows from reason. There is no rule that says the universe cannot be extreme.

I think majority of "religion" is fueled by greed, power, agenda, and self interest. Just a form of control just like many forms of government control. However I believe in Yahweh and Yehushua as the ultimate truth. Some would say that is contradictory.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "ultimate truth". Belief in a highest being isn't irrational, though many specific claims about such beings are.

Flat earth...do I believe it flat, I feel it's highly unlikely.

What do you mean you "believe" it flat? The word is very poorly defined when it comes to opinions about empirical reality.

However, are these people reaching out because they feel there is something wrong and somebody is hiding something..yes. I just don't like putting things in a box of this group, that group. It's all about the search for truth for me, and usually that truth is never fully in each group because everyone tends to push for their own agenda. Usually the truth is in the outskirts somewhere, in the middle of many agendas.

Yet feelings can be a bad adviser when it comes to the search or truth. Many flaws in human reasoning are ultimately based on feelings.

Even this movement, is there errors there? Too many to count, yet it is people at least trying to think for themselves, yet look at the amount of hate generated towards them (yes I know flat earthers act like 3 year olds at times), yet they aren't hurting anyone.. Yet they are treated like cancer by most.

Trying to think for themselves? Not really. That would involve having actual honest debate, trying to refine your arguments, reading what other smart people have thought before you. That isn't happening.

This is cult mentality, not acceptance of different views or respect of the fellow man.

The fellow man can command respect by his nature, his opinion cannot. A statement of fact needs to actually be true in order to be respected.
Well going down the list of your replies in order.,

 Yes there is nothing that says the truth cant be an extreme. Though statistically it is more likely to be "in the middle somewhere". The few truths I have found in life were found in the " middle ground" somewhere, and "typically" "extremism" formed peoples opinions to be one sided. Also caused unhealthy biased that acted as binders against the truth. However, the very beginning of this paragraph is true, though unlikely.

I have chosen to accept that faith as a fact, yes. However, I still recognize it as a faith, though I have accepted it as fact...lol I know circular talk, however I feel you know what I mean. Though "fact" to me, I am not jaded into not knowing it is stemmed from "faith".

To me, considering the evidence, the answers to my questions, the attitude of the "majority" of FE believers...it is that, a belief. To me this is the word that describes this movement the best, and it is a belief I find mathematically improbable to be moved any further than a belief.

To me, I feel statistically , unbiased reasoning is one of the most sound logical approaches to finding the truth. It is when it turns to biased "feelings" that is loses its beneficial qualities.

This is why I injected the 3 year old statement there. Not all flat earthers act as you describe, though the majority do. However, from the action of the majority , this goes back to my statement before of a "belief". However, even people whom pose an argument for a belief or faith, if being honest should be able to present and logically debate without resulting in childishness behavior. Even though this is predominantly present in the movement, and certainly an issue if the movement would like to be given more of a serious view. I still stand by this statement, considering a view that is outside of mainstream is the attempt at freedom of thought, alot can bloom from that. Also, the deplorable treat of people whom do not accept the mainstream point of view is a certain fact, no matter what it is(as long as it isn't causing others harm), this is unacceptable.

Statement of " fact" is the only way to command respect? I would have to disagree with that. First off, absolute facts are not very plentiful in our existence. Secondly, many great things were born just from "ideas", fact or not. Say I look at this movement, I start to study it, find the world is a globe, but our theory on gravitation is incorrect. So I create something ground breaking that leads to many innovations. However, the flat earth model was the catalyst for this discovery. Many great things can be born from ideas, correct or incorrect. Ideas and freedom of thought should always be respected if presented without bias, logically, intelligently, and with respect. Number one this is a fellow human presenting it, number two, no telling what could blossum from it.


« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 02:51:24 PM by babyhighspeed »

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #41 on: April 21, 2016, 02:53:39 PM »
I don't care about agenda or sides...only truth. Between every extreme the truth exist.

That's only statistically likely, but not true in the sense that it follows from reason. There is no rule that says the universe cannot be extreme.

I think majority of "religion" is fueled by greed, power, agenda, and self interest. Just a form of control just like many forms of government control. However I believe in Yahweh and Yehushua as the ultimate truth. Some would say that is contradictory.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "ultimate truth". Belief in a highest being isn't irrational, though many specific claims about such beings are.

Flat earth...do I believe it flat, I feel it's highly unlikely.

What do you mean you "believe" it flat? The word is very poorly defined when it comes to opinions about empirical reality.

However, are these people reaching out because they feel there is something wrong and somebody is hiding something..yes. I just don't like putting things in a box of this group, that group. It's all about the search for truth for me, and usually that truth is never fully in each group because everyone tends to push for their own agenda. Usually the truth is in the outskirts somewhere, in the middle of many agendas.

Yet feelings can be a bad adviser when it comes to the search or truth. Many flaws in human reasoning are ultimately based on feelings.

Even this movement, is there errors there? Too many to count, yet it is people at least trying to think for themselves, yet look at the amount of hate generated towards them (yes I know flat earthers act like 3 year olds at times), yet they aren't hurting anyone.. Yet they are treated like cancer by most.

Trying to think for themselves? Not really. That would involve having actual honest debate, trying to refine your arguments, reading what other smart people have thought before you. That isn't happening.

This is cult mentality, not acceptance of different views or respect of the fellow man.

The fellow man can command respect by his nature, his opinion cannot. A statement of fact needs to actually be true in order to be respected.

Leave it up to you to somehow break every single word or sentence down until it doesn't make sense anymore. I don't understand your need to pick apart everything to the bone, especially when you have no actual conclusion or obvious reason to do so.

I had no problem at all following what babyhighspeed said, and I agree for the most part with his message and believe it to be logically sound. What exactly are you trying to prove by meticulously fragmenting his message to the point of incoherence?

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #42 on: April 21, 2016, 03:06:58 PM »
Leave it up to you to somehow break every single word or sentence down until it doesn't make sense anymore. I don't understand your need to pick apart everything to the bone, especially when you have no actual conclusion or obvious reason to do so.

It helps me to structure my thoughts. I try to keep the original meaning - as I perceive it - intact. Perhaps I fail sometimes, but then one can always reply and correct the wrong impression.

I had no problem at all following what babyhighspeed said, and I agree for the most part with his message and believe it to be logically sound. What exactly are you trying to prove by meticulously fragmenting his message to the point of incoherence?

To prove? Nothing. I found some of his statements interesting and worthy of discussion. As to me "fragmenting" his message to the point of incoherence: What does it matter? His original post is still available and as coherent as it was before, I merely use fragments of it to give context to my questions. If you find that my questions are incoherent, then I apologize. If you tell me what exactly you found incoherent, I can try to improve it.

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #43 on: April 21, 2016, 03:52:10 PM »
I don't care about agenda or sides...only truth. Between every extreme the truth exist.

That's only statistically likely, but not true in the sense that it follows from reason. There is no rule that says the universe cannot be extreme.

I think majority of "religion" is fueled by greed, power, agenda, and self interest. Just a form of control just like many forms of government control. However I believe in Yahweh and Yehushua as the ultimate truth. Some would say that is contradictory.

I suppose that depends on your definition of "ultimate truth". Belief in a highest being isn't irrational, though many specific claims about such beings are.

Flat earth...do I believe it flat, I feel it's highly unlikely.

What do you mean you "believe" it flat? The word is very poorly defined when it comes to opinions about empirical reality.

However, are these people reaching out because they feel there is something wrong and somebody is hiding something..yes. I just don't like putting things in a box of this group, that group. It's all about the search for truth for me, and usually that truth is never fully in each group because everyone tends to push for their own agenda. Usually the truth is in the outskirts somewhere, in the middle of many agendas.

Yet feelings can be a bad adviser when it comes to the search or truth. Many flaws in human reasoning are ultimately based on feelings.

Even this movement, is there errors there? Too many to count, yet it is people at least trying to think for themselves, yet look at the amount of hate generated towards them (yes I know flat earthers act like 3 year olds at times), yet they aren't hurting anyone.. Yet they are treated like cancer by most.

Trying to think for themselves? Not really. That would involve having actual honest debate, trying to refine your arguments, reading what other smart people have thought before you. That isn't happening.

This is cult mentality, not acceptance of different views or respect of the fellow man.

The fellow man can command respect by his nature, his opinion cannot. A statement of fact needs to actually be true in order to be respected.

Leave it up to you to somehow break every single word or sentence down until it doesn't make sense anymore. I don't understand your need to pick apart everything to the bone, especially when you have no actual conclusion or obvious reason to do so.

I had no problem at all following what babyhighspeed said, and I agree for the most part with his message and believe it to be logically sound. What exactly are you trying to prove by meticulously fragmenting his message to the point of incoherence?

I was aware of his strategy in breaking down the post like that, it is an effective tactic to remove coherence, thus allowing the following rebuttal to include "added" context that was not originally present. It helps to support a preconceived notion and an agenda, typical strategy in scientific and religious documents. It's difficult to add context to a completed text.

However, I attempted to answer his rebuttal with as much accuracy as possible. Removing the notion that his break down was done out of malice, possibly it's just the way he processes information. I don't like making assumptions, no matter the mathematical plausibility of the assumption being correct.

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #44 on: April 21, 2016, 07:11:19 PM »
Sorry, I overlooked your reply. I only realized you had replied when I saw you answering to TheTruthIsOnHere.

Yes there is nothing that says the truth cant be an extreme. Though statistically it is more likely to be "in the middle somewhere". The few truths I have found in life were found in the " middle ground" somewhere, and "typically" "extremism" formed peoples opinions to be one sided. Also caused unhealthy biased that acted as binders against the truth. However, the very beginning of this paragraph is true, though unlikely.

Yeah, black and white vision is usually bad, I'd agree. It's just that I'd also caution against assuming some element of truth in every claim. Sometimes things really are as simple as they seem.

I have chosen to accept that faith as a fact, yes. However, I still recognize it as a faith, though I have accepted it as fact...lol I know circular talk, however I feel you know what I mean. Though "fact" to me, I am not jaded into not knowing it is stemmed from "faith".

I Think I get it. I would probably name it different categories of truth. There is empirical facts, there is philosophical truth, and there is faith.

To me, considering the evidence, the answers to my questions, the attitude of the "majority" of FE believers...it is that, a belief. To me this is the word that describes this movement the best, and it is a belief I find mathematically improbable to be moved any further than a belief.

Ah, ok. I didn't realize you were talking about the movement. I thought you meant that you, personally "believe" the world to be flat. I always find it odd when basic factual (i.e. empirical) questions are framed it terms of belief.

To me, I feel statistically , unbiased reasoning is one of the most sound logical approaches to finding the truth. It is when it turns to biased "feelings" that is loses its beneficial qualities.

I can agree with that.

This is why I injected the 3 year old statement there. Not all flat earthers act as you describe, though the majority do. However, from the action of the majority , this goes back to my statement before of a "belief". However, even people whom pose an argument for a belief or faith, if being honest should be able to present and logically debate without resulting in childishness behavior. Even though this is predominantly present in the movement, and certainly an issue if the movement would like to be given more of a serious view. I still stand by this statement, considering a view that is outside of mainstream is the attempt at freedom of thought, alot can bloom from that. Also, the deplorable treat of people whom do not accept the mainstream point of view is a certain fact, no matter what it is(as long as it isn't causing others harm), this is unacceptable.

What frustrates me is how much those people who describe themselves as "free thinkers" actually cling to dogma. They just replace one authority with another. But you are correct about how it is sometimes sad how people treat one another. Thinking in clans and trying to assert our superiority against other groups seems to be deeply built into our psyche, though that is of course no justification.

Statement of " fact" is the only way to command respect? I would have to disagree with that. First off, absolute facts are not very plentiful in our existence. Secondly, many great things were born just from "ideas", fact or not. Say I look at this movement, I start to study it, find the world is a globe, but our theory on gravitation is incorrect. So I create something ground breaking that leads to many innovations. However, the flat earth model was the catalyst for this discovery. Many great things can be born from ideas, correct or incorrect. Ideas and freedom of thought should always be respected if presented without bias, logically, intelligently, and with respect. Number one this is a fellow human presenting it, number two, no telling what could blossum from it.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean that only statements of fact command respect. For one, (empirical) facts are but one aspect of truth. For another, there is of course plenty of opinions that I can respect, like what faith one chooses. What I meant was that if you make a statement that can be either truth or falsehood, it can only be respected as the truth. If one considers it falsehood, there is no reason to respect it. One still has to respect the person, but their opinion does not deserve any deference. One must be allowed to point out things that are wrong, even if that is unpleasant to the person who holds the statement to be true.

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2016, 08:57:26 PM »
Sorry, I overlooked your reply. I only realized you had replied when I saw you answering to TheTruthIsOnHere.

Yes there is nothing that says the truth cant be an extreme. Though statistically it is more likely to be "in the middle somewhere". The few truths I have found in life were found in the " middle ground" somewhere, and "typically" "extremism" formed peoples opinions to be one sided. Also caused unhealthy biased that acted as binders against the truth. However, the very beginning of this paragraph is true, though unlikely.

Yeah, black and white vision is usually bad, I'd agree. It's just that I'd also caution against assuming some element of truth in every claim. Sometimes things really are as simple as they seem.

I have chosen to accept that faith as a fact, yes. However, I still recognize it as a faith, though I have accepted it as fact...lol I know circular talk, however I feel you know what I mean. Though "fact" to me, I am not jaded into not knowing it is stemmed from "faith".

I Think I get it. I would probably name it different categories of truth. There is empirical facts, there is philosophical truth, and there is faith.

To me, considering the evidence, the answers to my questions, the attitude of the "majority" of FE believers...it is that, a belief. To me this is the word that describes this movement the best, and it is a belief I find mathematically improbable to be moved any further than a belief.

Ah, ok. I didn't realize you were talking about the movement. I thought you meant that you, personally "believe" the world to be flat. I always find it odd when basic factual (i.e. empirical) questions are framed it terms of belief.

To me, I feel statistically , unbiased reasoning is one of the most sound logical approaches to finding the truth. It is when it turns to biased "feelings" that is loses its beneficial qualities.

I can agree with that.

This is why I injected the 3 year old statement there. Not all flat earthers act as you describe, though the majority do. However, from the action of the majority , this goes back to my statement before of a "belief". However, even people whom pose an argument for a belief or faith, if being honest should be able to present and logically debate without resulting in childishness behavior. Even though this is predominantly present in the movement, and certainly an issue if the movement would like to be given more of a serious view. I still stand by this statement, considering a view that is outside of mainstream is the attempt at freedom of thought, alot can bloom from that. Also, the deplorable treat of people whom do not accept the mainstream point of view is a certain fact, no matter what it is(as long as it isn't causing others harm), this is unacceptable.

What frustrates me is how much those people who describe themselves as "free thinkers" actually cling to dogma. They just replace one authority with another. But you are correct about how it is sometimes sad how people treat one another. Thinking in clans and trying to assert our superiority against other groups seems to be deeply built into our psyche, though that is of course no justification.

Statement of " fact" is the only way to command respect? I would have to disagree with that. First off, absolute facts are not very plentiful in our existence. Secondly, many great things were born just from "ideas", fact or not. Say I look at this movement, I start to study it, find the world is a globe, but our theory on gravitation is incorrect. So I create something ground breaking that leads to many innovations. However, the flat earth model was the catalyst for this discovery. Many great things can be born from ideas, correct or incorrect. Ideas and freedom of thought should always be respected if presented without bias, logically, intelligently, and with respect. Number one this is a fellow human presenting it, number two, no telling what could blossum from it.

I think we have a misunderstanding here, I am sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean that only statements of fact command respect. For one, (empirical) facts are but one aspect of truth. For another, there is of course plenty of opinions that I can respect, like what faith one chooses. What I meant was that if you make a statement that can be either truth or falsehood, it can only be respected as the truth. If one considers it falsehood, there is no reason to respect it. One still has to respect the person, but their opinion does not deserve any deference. One must be allowed to point out things that are wrong, even if that is unpleasant to the person who holds the statement to be true.

Once again running down the list in order

1.You are right, some situations there is no truth...I absolutely agree. This was not meant to be implied, though I can see how you would see it being implied. That was my error in wording.

2. I can agree here on point two, I see no differing of opinion here. Though I hate seeing the word "fact" so much, since true facts are very close to the reality of a mythological unicorn. However, I know you were just making a point to clarify.

3. This point I see no disagreement.

4. This point I see no disagreement.

5. This point I see no disagreement. I feel the same irritation when "free thinkers" are just replacing authoritative sourcing. "I don't trust the government but now I trust every utterance of alex jones""I don't trust NASA, but I trust every youtube video speaking against NASA" the list could go on for many moons. However, people whom are blind folded by whatever source need to be treated with love, respect, and dignity...otherwise their defenses will never drop long enough to allow a free thought to form. Also people whom are truly forming free thoughts, even if we consider them wrong..there should be the same love, respect and dignity. For they are a fellow living creature one, also who knows what could be born from their idea. Maybe you are wrong and they are right, or maybe the reverse. Possibly the truth is in the middle, so when the thoughts are combined you find the truth..possibly it would not have been available with two individual thoughts and ideology. 

6. This I believe you are saying that if someone states an obvious error that you yourself can prove as false for whatever reason, then you still respect the person, but there is no respect of the idea. If this is what you are stating, I can agree to that. Though I have to say, it takes me a long time to write off a an idea as 100 percent implausible, this is for reasons I have previously stated. Even the flat earth model for example, I began researching it because I hear all ideas for reasons stated prior. Even though I consider it a very low percentage of being correct (very low single percentage), I am still not willing to completely write it off as 100 percent incorrect yet. Also I 100 percent agree with people should not hold back on presenting evidence of why another is incorrect. That is the only way progress can be made. Fear of having ones views changed or being proven wrong is why people fear such arguments, yet the truth needs no defense, it stands under its own strength.


See this is quality, intelligent debate. The outcome is learning there is a lot of common ground here. However, this would have never been accomplished if I would have called you a s#$t eating douche for dissecting my words to spin them in an untruthful way suiting your agenda. Or you call me a dim witted, s%$t swarming fruit fly who speaks in hypocritical, deceiving circles.  Would have just ended in more insults, wasting time, and no one learning a thing about each other or ones self.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 08:59:26 PM by babyhighspeed »

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #46 on: April 22, 2016, 05:33:42 AM »
Once again running down the list in order

1.You are right, some situations there is no truth...I absolutely agree. This was not meant to be implied, though I can see how you would see it being implied. That was my error in wording.

2. I can agree here on point two, I see no differing of opinion here. Though I hate seeing the word "fact" so much, since true facts are very close to the reality of a mythological unicorn. However, I know you were just making a point to clarify.

3. This point I see no disagreement.

4. This point I see no disagreement.

5. This point I see no disagreement. I feel the same irritation when "free thinkers" are just replacing authoritative sourcing. "I don't trust the government but now I trust every utterance of alex jones""I don't trust NASA, but I trust every youtube video speaking against NASA" the list could go on for many moons. However, people whom are blind folded by whatever source need to be treated with love, respect, and dignity...otherwise their defenses will never drop long enough to allow a free thought to form. Also people whom are truly forming free thoughts, even if we consider them wrong..there should be the same love, respect and dignity. For they are a fellow living creature one, also who knows what could be born from their idea. Maybe you are wrong and they are right, or maybe the reverse. Possibly the truth is in the middle, so when the thoughts are combined you find the truth..possibly it would not have been available with two individual thoughts and ideology. 

6. This I believe you are saying that if someone states an obvious error that you yourself can prove as false for whatever reason, then you still respect the person, but there is no respect of the idea. If this is what you are stating, I can agree to that. Though I have to say, it takes me a long time to write off a an idea as 100 percent implausible, this is for reasons I have previously stated. Even the flat earth model for example, I began researching it because I hear all ideas for reasons stated prior. Even though I consider it a very low percentage of being correct (very low single percentage), I am still not willing to completely write it off as 100 percent incorrect yet. Also I 100 percent agree with people should not hold back on presenting evidence of why another is incorrect. That is the only way progress can be made. Fear of having ones views changed or being proven wrong is why people fear such arguments, yet the truth needs no defense, it stands under its own strength.


See this is quality, intelligent debate. The outcome is learning there is a lot of common ground here. However, this would have never been accomplished if I would have called you a s#$t eating douche for dissecting my words to spin them in an untruthful way suiting your agenda. Or you call me a dim witted, s%$t swarming fruit fly who speaks in hypocritical, deceiving circles.  Would have just ended in more insults, wasting time, and no one learning a thing about each other or ones self.

Yeah, in honest debates you usually do get a lot of common ground. After all we are all very alike in the ways we think, if not in our opinions.

When I use the word fact, I take it only to mean a "best guess about the empirical world". Nothing like objective, immovable truth. That is, in the end, all that facts are, but that is sufficient for us to base our decisions on. Just like you get irritated by people throwing the word "fact" around and taking it to mean what it doesn't, I don't understand why people "believe" so much out of religious contexts. Either it is your best guess - then it isn't a belief; Or it isn't your best guess, and then you just claim to believe it, but don't really. It's not like anyone has objective "facts" about empirical reality, so there is no reason to couch the statement in that much uncertainity.

I understand your points about how one should be hestitant to write things off completely. But at the same time I feel that a lot of people cling to things they should, by rights, write off as implausible, at least for the moment. Writing something off as "wrong" doesn't necessarily imply it stays "wrong" forever. You can change your mind - in fact reason kinda requires you to change your mind all the time based on new information. But if there is no good reason to cling to a belief, it should simply be dropped, if only momentarily. I feel this is connected to the general reluctance of people to make up clear rules and goals. Nowadays, everything is relative, nothing is true. Everything deserves respect, but by that token, nothing ultimately gets any actual respect. Being tolerant and open minded is not the same as being undecided. I much prefer a healthy argument between people with a clear opinion to everyone taking the middle ground by default.

By the way, I did think about what you said, to TheTruthIsOnHere, about me breaking posts up into bits. It may actually be connected to the way I process information. In my field, very precise textual analysis is a key element, so I am kind of trained to dissect every single sentence.

Re: Genuine question
« Reply #47 on: April 22, 2016, 08:31:21 AM »
Once again running down the list in order

1.You are right, some situations there is no truth...I absolutely agree. This was not meant to be implied, though I can see how you would see it being implied. That was my error in wording.

2. I can agree here on point two, I see no differing of opinion here. Though I hate seeing the word "fact" so much, since true facts are very close to the reality of a mythological unicorn. However, I know you were just making a point to clarify.

3. This point I see no disagreement.

4. This point I see no disagreement.

5. This point I see no disagreement. I feel the same irritation when "free thinkers" are just replacing authoritative sourcing. "I don't trust the government but now I trust every utterance of alex jones""I don't trust NASA, but I trust every youtube video speaking against NASA" the list could go on for many moons. However, people whom are blind folded by whatever source need to be treated with love, respect, and dignity...otherwise their defenses will never drop long enough to allow a free thought to form. Also people whom are truly forming free thoughts, even if we consider them wrong..there should be the same love, respect and dignity. For they are a fellow living creature one, also who knows what could be born from their idea. Maybe you are wrong and they are right, or maybe the reverse. Possibly the truth is in the middle, so when the thoughts are combined you find the truth..possibly it would not have been available with two individual thoughts and ideology. 

6. This I believe you are saying that if someone states an obvious error that you yourself can prove as false for whatever reason, then you still respect the person, but there is no respect of the idea. If this is what you are stating, I can agree to that. Though I have to say, it takes me a long time to write off a an idea as 100 percent implausible, this is for reasons I have previously stated. Even the flat earth model for example, I began researching it because I hear all ideas for reasons stated prior. Even though I consider it a very low percentage of being correct (very low single percentage), I am still not willing to completely write it off as 100 percent incorrect yet. Also I 100 percent agree with people should not hold back on presenting evidence of why another is incorrect. That is the only way progress can be made. Fear of having ones views changed or being proven wrong is why people fear such arguments, yet the truth needs no defense, it stands under its own strength.


See this is quality, intelligent debate. The outcome is learning there is a lot of common ground here. However, this would have never been accomplished if I would have called you a s#$t eating douche for dissecting my words to spin them in an untruthful way suiting your agenda. Or you call me a dim witted, s%$t swarming fruit fly who speaks in hypocritical, deceiving circles.  Would have just ended in more insults, wasting time, and no one learning a thing about each other or ones self.

Yeah, in honest debates you usually do get a lot of common ground. After all we are all very alike in the ways we think, if not in our opinions.

When I use the word fact, I take it only to mean a "best guess about the empirical world". Nothing like objective, immovable truth. That is, in the end, all that facts are, but that is sufficient for us to base our decisions on. Just like you get irritated by people throwing the word "fact" around and taking it to mean what it doesn't, I don't understand why people "believe" so much out of religious contexts. Either it is your best guess - then it isn't a belief; Or it isn't your best guess, and then you just claim to believe it, but don't really. It's not like anyone has objective "facts" about empirical reality, so there is no reason to couch the statement in that much uncertainity.

I understand your points about how one should be hestitant to write things off completely. But at the same time I feel that a lot of people cling to things they should, by rights, write off as implausible, at least for the moment. Writing something off as "wrong" doesn't necessarily imply it stays "wrong" forever. You can change your mind - in fact reason kinda requires you to change your mind all the time based on new information. But if there is no good reason to cling to a belief, it should simply be dropped, if only momentarily. I feel this is connected to the general reluctance of people to make up clear rules and goals. Nowadays, everything is relative, nothing is true. Everything deserves respect, but by that token, nothing ultimately gets any actual respect. Being tolerant and open minded is not the same as being undecided. I much prefer a healthy argument between people with a clear opinion to everyone taking the middle ground by default.

By the way, I did think about what you said, to TheTruthIsOnHere, about me breaking posts up into bits. It may actually be connected to the way I process information. In my field, very precise textual analysis is a key element, so I am kind of trained to dissect every single sentence.

I say "belief" or "faith" out of respect of science. Since as far as I know unless some miracle happens, I will never be able to touch, feel, prove the existance of the God I consider truth. There will never be able a test I can design to either prove or disprove Yahweh or Yehushua. Even though I have made up my mind, very honest with people of what I have chosen and the bias that exsist. I would never say "fact" on a subject like this, even though to ME I have accepted it as fact. I even spent 3 years attempting to disprove myself sticking to the scientific method as much as possible.

First I needed to find a belief that "wins" over all other beliefs. Something that is historically accurate, provided insight that was ahead of its time, the belief it self did not benefit the people at the time of its origins (financially, power, ect), when it was begun ect ect. So after thoroughly studying 240 some beliefs and religions I came to my conclusion. Then I looked at the science we have of our origins, the math used to calculate this, all the variables, the actual test themselves not the biased conclusions presented. This i actually leanred the most from, which is why i always say now science is 2 percent actual science now, 98 percent biased conclusion that supports whatever agenda needed. Compared the two and asked myself which horse I choose.

As for not deleting a theory. When I say that I don't mean keep it in your head all the time. Like flat earth, say I don't give it a thought for a decade, then some evidence comes and I say hmmm..maybe flat earth was on to something, let me investigate some more. Just once an idea is written off, don't be affraid to re approach it if need be. I think we mean the same thing just a little different wording.


This is another example of what not acting like 3 year olds and making broad biased assumptions can accomplish. Instead of calling you a troll for  dissecting my posts and making assumptions. I injected other options for your actions, which caused me to learn more of how your process info, and it seems you might have learned something about yourself at the same time.

The only reason I keep pointing out this stuff is to show by example of what can be learned in the right environment. Possibly the people who add unhealthy elements to places like this MIGHT learn something about their behavior. Though unlikely, definitely not impossible.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2016, 08:36:53 AM by babyhighspeed »