First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
About Making or Dismissing a Claim! Based on Logical Sound Judgment!!
114128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / in a world where...
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

See how logical mind thinks in my educated opinion is if there is no evidence for a tooth fairy, so the rationale thing to do is dismiss tooth fairy as being nothing more than a false claim until evidence is found to show otherwise.


I think that the rational response to anything is agnosticism until you’ve researched it. Sadly, nobody in the world is completely rational. I’ll give you a good example.

Have you ever seen Antarctica? No, but you believe that it exists because you’ve been told it exists. But wait, we have satellite images and proof that Antarctica exists…or at least you’ve been told that we have evidence that Antarctica exists. But have you actually gone and viewed this evidence yourself? Possibly, but I’m guessing probably not. What evidence do you have that the evidence exists?

Well, you have the word of somebody in a position of authority. For all we know Antarctica could be an imaginary land invented as a part of an international conspiracy, a term invented to be brought up while talking about this non-existent global warming thing.

You believe that there’s evidence of stars billions of light years away, of Antarctica, of tribal spear chucking barbarians in the Amazon rainforest because you’ve been told!

Just like so many religious people believe their religion because they've been told. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I think the only rational people being entirely intellectually honest with themselves in the whole world are the agnostics. Only the people who know that they don't know really know anything, because you can't KNOW anything except that you don't know something (saving that you exist.) It's that whole cogito ergo sum boundary.



ur right only a few ppl have gone to antarctica and as u say i cant know for sure that it exists other than being told but because u can ask someone and they can point to several references that verify that antarctica exist thats the difference. When you ask someone something concerning religion often times they will point to a single reference their holy text, if not their respective deity or god.

the rest of the Antarctica example brings into question our perception of reality (and our paranoia)... how do we know even if we go to antarctica that it exists? our sense can fail us thats why u have more than one person with u do they can verify ur claim. constant testing is wat validates evidence. how do u know YOU exist? how can u prove to me, who has never met u, that u exist?

we know stars are real cuz not only do i see it but everyone sees them unless they r under a constant blanket of clouds. but since humanity began to wonder wat those bright specks in the night sky were is wat spawned the explainations and then the testing and retesting of those explainations until we have wat we could call evidence.

you're right we cant know everything but that wont stop us from trying either. and yes people generally accept the reality and other things which they r presented with hence why we ask questions. Whether they want to think outside their box is their problem
Posted 10/28/09

JJT2 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


JJT2 wrote:
And if u want to argue conflicting philosophys, please remember that philosophy A can always be disproven by philosophy B. But philosophy C can disprove both.Philosophy D may be a conbination of all philosophys that proves everything ( a multiple truth).Philosophy E can reverse the entire order of things, ect.

just plz be aware when arguing different types of philosophys, it becomes a game of rock, paper ,scissors. All 3 playing by the rules of logic, reasoning, and critical thinking.

the world as we see it doesnt exists.i bet animals dont see the world the same way we do.i bet bacteria dont see the world as we do, or apes,plants, ect. So who has the "true" vision? Who is the most rationale?
peace over war

You're forming judgment based on scepticism; when "From the point of view of the sceptic, the reason for the mistake is not so important as the fact that the mistake itself is possible".

But remember that as long as your argument is based on point of views, aka perception. Don't you think that it's illogical to perceive the world that's other than humans'? When your audiences are human beings with critical thinking and reasoning based on human languages and human experiences. After all, human knowledge was formed from us humans questioning the world that we exist in.


lol, ok ok ok, i get it, but i was just trying to get phynix to accept that other perceptions of the world can be just as logical as his perceptions of it peace over war

Well that's to say that our human perception about our world must be universal. However our individual point of view won't be the same, because while we don't have the same point of origin(politic, nationality, religion, etc.), our methods to view our world can be different due to the sources that we're referring from.

This is why that personally, I never get tired of knowing different individuals from understanding their perceptions. Which is also why that I strongly oppose any institution that proclaims to "know the answer or truth" about life with a universal explanation that would lead to totalitarianism.
10652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / F / Indonesia Raya
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

Yes I took a look at that page.. It was a nice manipulation of the words to try to get it to fit with science. A few things it pointed out was dress up like science, but was found to be false statements. But I take the time to look at it closer.

Just so you know lets not turn this into a religious debate. This is about all things.. not just religion wen it comes to making claims.


Yes, it is a nice words for me as well. Every single word in Qur'an always been said like poetry. Even an Atheist in the past said, it's the most beautiful book. It's a holy book that explained many matters on the earth. Proving the evidence of Big Bang, universe etc... I can understand it, and it will be much clearer when you relate it to current science. It's a holy book that has been exist 1400 years ago. Did you look at the links? Well, if you're not willing to look at the truth that holy book has provided, that's your blind faith of Atheist.

OK, it's not about religion. I only brought up the evidence a religious person had, from different religion, from different holy book that you always referring to looking down to religions.

Let's look at another example. Could you proving Black Hole? or rather scientist lying about it? The dimension when this Black Hole absorbs everything, including lights. And if you being absorbed, what kind of thing the Black Hole is? Isn't that like go to another world as well? Do you know what is the other side Black Hole?

Now, some believe Alien exist, UFO exist without proper evidence and believing it only based on little and vague evidence. How come they believe in UFO and Alien? Isn't that just imaginary and illogical things they wanted to believe? Not to mention, evidence from victims that were being abducted and video of it. Still, people believe it immediately just seeing it, even there is no logical explanation of it.

There is a controversy of NASA's mission to the moon, whether Armstrong really landed there or not. Most people believe NASA was success but not all believe it due its strange phenomenon happening in the video. Truth or Hoax? They arguing about gravity, shadow, flag and landing sites. Why there is a controversy about it? Isn't that making a claims based on Logical Sound Judgment? Well, in this case the disagree part are the logic one, not the one who believe Armstrong was on the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

There is also a controversy of Loch Ness whether Plesiosaur is really there. It is mostly based on myth and Scottish history. Many people still believe it because of photograph and witnesses. That's not even logical, but they have photos, either fake or not, to state their belief Loch Ness is exist.

And so on, there's many controversy things which humans can't agreed on. Same thing like God or Evolution. Now, people believe in evolution without having complete evidence and explanation about how Humans were Apes. There's no so called Missing Links, I believe? Yeah, DNA and Genes could be explained because we are mammalian and had similar traits to them. But what important is Brain within Human and Apes head. That's the exact border line between humans and them.

17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 10/28/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

See how logical mind thinks in my educated opinion is if there is no evidence for a tooth fairy, so the rationale thing to do is dismiss tooth fairy as being nothing more than a false claim until evidence is found to show otherwise.


I think that the rational response to anything is agnosticism until you’ve researched it. Sadly, nobody in the world is completely rational. I’ll give you a good example.

Have you ever seen Antarctica? No, but you believe that it exists because you’ve been told it exists. But wait, we have satellite images and proof that Antarctica exists…or at least you’ve been told that we have evidence that Antarctica exists. But have you actually gone and viewed this evidence yourself? Possibly, but I’m guessing probably not. What evidence do you have that the evidence exists?

Well, you have the word of somebody in a position of authority. For all we know Antarctica could be an imaginary land invented as a part of an international conspiracy, a term invented to be brought up while talking about this non-existent global warming thing.

You believe that there’s evidence of stars billions of light years away, of Antarctica, of tribal spear chucking barbarians in the Amazon rainforest because you’ve been told!

Just like so many religious people believe their religion because they've been told. I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. I think the only rational people being entirely intellectually honest with themselves in the whole world are the agnostics. Only the people who know that they don't know really know anything, because you can't KNOW anything except that you don't know something (saving that you exist.) It's that whole cogito ergo sum boundary.



'Being told is not the only evidence for it..' We have pictures where we can see it are selves.. We have more than one living eye witness that can vouch for it. We have instruments created for the purpose to verify there existence. (and On another note if I wanted to I can go there my self and see it with my own eyes if I do wish. )

I have a little lab in my home, I can look under a microscope and see cells split if I wanted to.

We have Images of stars, from are man made satellites and telescopes. we also can tell a lot about them by measuring the light wave and radiation there giving off. (internet is a great thing, you can see it as well, just like the scientist, there not hiding the research from you, all you have to do is look for it.) I hope tomorrow is clear, I just got the need for star watching, and its a good chance to test out my new telescope.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/16/09
'Well I got my computer back up and working, it does not seem I mist anything... But if I did let me know... I think my first post back will be on this thread.. I like this thread.

After taking a step back and looking at my Ideal of the rational way to look at everything, my opinion still has not changed. It seems to me that everything should still be looked at in this way, at that if you do this exercise and look at the world this way you find it does work for everything, and you be more confident about all your decisions you have made.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/7/10
Its about time I woke this Thread up from its deep sleep.
67723 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 7/7/10
Why? What's the fascination on this forum with 'necro' threads?
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

papagolfwhiskey wrote:

Why? What's the fascination on this forum with 'necro' threads?


'Have you not seen 80% of the new anime out right now.. There about zombies, or ghost, demons.. So it safe to say it is the season of the Necro colt. Welcome.. And you know this is one hell of a Good reawakened thread.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?


If the story has credibility we can give it a chance. Such as exact facts we can trace back, such as real city names, advents that can be verified through archeological means, more than one source from the same time period as such advent happen not 50 or 100 years later. Logical and common sense factor "could this have happen there giving the time line and what we know of the area at that time through are research." So yes we can accept a story. But not a story that has no backing. That would be illogical till the time evidence is found to back it up.

Let it be known just because a story has one factor still does not make it credible, even story books sometimes use real city names, or real peoples names.. Does not make what is in them any more true. So it must back it self up with more than one source of evidence.


2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?


If the story has credibility we can give it a chance. Such as exact facts we can trace back, such as real city names, advents that can be verified through archeological means, more than one source from the same time period as such advent happen not 50 or 100 years later. Logical and common sense factor "could this have happen there giving the time line and what we know of the area at that time through are research." So yes we can accept a story. But not a story that has no backing. That would be illogical till the time evidence is found to back it up.

Let it be known just because a story has one factor still does not make it credible, even story books sometimes use real city names, or real peoples names.. Does not make what is in them any more true. So it must back it self up with more than one source of evidence.




bottomline is, you say our family history may not be true unless we find an archeological evidence?

The graves of our forefathers are not located. City names changed over centuries ir decades.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10

alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?


If the story has credibility we can give it a chance. Such as exact facts we can trace back, such as real city names, advents that can be verified through archeological means, more than one source from the same time period as such advent happen not 50 or 100 years later. Logical and common sense factor "could this have happen there giving the time line and what we know of the area at that time through are research." So yes we can accept a story. But not a story that has no backing. That would be illogical till the time evidence is found to back it up.

Let it be known just because a story has one factor still does not make it credible, even story books sometimes use real city names, or real peoples names.. Does not make what is in them any more true. So it must back it self up with more than one source of evidence.




bottomline is, you say our family history may not be true unless we find an archeological evidence?

The graves of our forefathers are not located. City names changed over centuries ir decades.


Wow your not very smart are you. We have resources for names of cities. In the past mountains of evidence backing up what the names was at the time. Archaeologist and paleontologist are able to judge by the evidence they found how a city died, wen it did, and what kind of weather it was having around the time.... We have 1000's of documents from maultable and random sources for places, people, and even advents.

If a stories does not fit in with the mountain of verifiable evidence we do have. Most likely it not true. We even know where the Roman soldier called 'Panthera' grave is. Panthera is a Roman solder who is said to be Jesus real father, after a single night of passion.

So yes we can back up are family history using evidence like I detective to find the facts. Old letters from family members, birth certificates, And much much much more.


2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?


If the story has credibility we can give it a chance. Such as exact facts we can trace back, such as real city names, advents that can be verified through archeological means, more than one source from the same time period as such advent happen not 50 or 100 years later. Logical and common sense factor "could this have happen there giving the time line and what we know of the area at that time through are research." So yes we can accept a story. But not a story that has no backing. That would be illogical till the time evidence is found to back it up.

Let it be known just because a story has one factor still does not make it credible, even story books sometimes use real city names, or real peoples names.. Does not make what is in them any more true. So it must back it self up with more than one source of evidence.




bottomline is, you say our family history may not be true unless we find an archeological evidence?

The graves of our forefathers are not located. City names changed over centuries ir decades.


Wow your not very smart are you. We have resources for names of cities. In the past mountains of evidence backing up what the names was at the time. Archaeologist and paleontologist are able to judge by the evidence they found how a city died, wen it did, and what kind of weather it was having around the time.... We have 1000's of documents from maultable and random sources for places, people, and even advents.

If a stories does not fit in with the mountain of verifiable evidence we do have. Most likely it not true. We even know where the Roman soldier called 'Panthera' grave is. Panthera is a Roman solder who is said to be Jesus real father, after a single night of passion.

So yes we can back up are family history using evidence like I detective to find the facts. Old letters from family members, birth certificates, And much much much more.




Our country has been ravaged by war many times. Cities burned by the invaders (yes. we have cases of people who are registered on national census but their records were burned during war hence missing).

well, that is just me. my point is, my family history can be valid only if we have evidences. The problem is, there wasn't any existing. Sure the places are real, but you said it also that not because they used real places they are true already.

What i'm saying also is that your rules of thinking is not applicable to my case. We did do investigations about this family origin of ours. We got a dead end after the Spanish colonization (340-350 years ago). Even our name is out of mystery also for it cannot be found in any Spanish dictionary but that is a different story
Posted 7/8/10 , edited 7/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


alupihan45 wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



What most people fail to realize is that their are different methods when it comes to attaining truth.

So how about my family's history, it is an oral tradition. Their is no written or any kind of hard evidence that they existed.

would i just dismiss their story as false just like that?


If the story has credibility we can give it a chance. Such as exact facts we can trace back, such as real city names, advents that can be verified through archeological means, more than one source from the same time period as such advent happen not 50 or 100 years later. Logical and common sense factor "could this have happen there giving the time line and what we know of the area at that time through are research." So yes we can accept a story. But not a story that has no backing. That would be illogical till the time evidence is found to back it up.

Let it be known just because a story has one factor still does not make it credible, even story books sometimes use real city names, or real peoples names.. Does not make what is in them any more true. So it must back it self up with more than one source of evidence.




bottomline is, you say our family history may not be true unless we find an archeological evidence?

The graves of our forefathers are not located. City names changed over centuries ir decades.


Wow your not very smart are you. We have resources for names of cities. In the past mountains of evidence backing up what the names was at the time. Archaeologist and paleontologist are able to judge by the evidence they found how a city died, wen it did, and what kind of weather it was having around the time.... We have 1000's of documents from maultable and random sources for places, people, and even advents.

If a stories does not fit in with the mountain of verifiable evidence we do have. Most likely it not true. We even know where the Roman soldier called 'Panthera' grave is. Panthera is a Roman solder who is said to be Jesus real father, after a single night of passion.

So yes we can back up are family history using evidence like I detective to find the facts. Old letters from family members, birth certificates, And much much much more.




Now tell me, how does those documents really fit in and how were those sources were really reliable. How can you actually tell that those documents came from the time of Jesus 1000 years ago? Documents can made or even forged some hundreds of years later. And anyone can write a book and create documents. If you say random sources, those sources may come some hundreds of years later after Jesus had existed and may have been created by those who were against him to put a bad image on the church. Sources varies and sources can also be "BIASED".

If we are to rely on the dating methods on the documents then sorry to tell you none of them are accurate not after nuclear weapons were tested and radioactive fallout was introduced in the atmosphere and doubled the concentration of 14C isotope. We cannot deny that we are still living in the age of hypothesis and your claims in these thread could be wrong as you believed in them.

If you want me to prove the flaws of your trusted dating methods then I will show you...

http://www.essortment.com/hobbies/carbondatingac_szhq.htm

http://creation.com/immeasurable-age

http://creation.com/carbon-dating-into-the-future
Posted 7/8/10
we are to ignore the spoiled brat again now he brought up some credible sources to back up some claims...

treat them as if they don't exist and move on.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.