quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
I notice peoples reluctance to answer very simple questions.

And I notice your reluctance to acknowledge it when people do.
When I reply to point out that I have answered, you (or someone else?) gets my posts deleted.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
this thread is like the seige of leningrad all over again.

LOL

Except that the Siege of Leningrad eventually came to an end.

courage comrade....

only 870 days to go

Freethinker, i promise you that ive never tried to get your posts removed. I have no reason to. And i always try to get back to people when they ask me something, and i try to address everything that is said to me. But i think its a good time to tell you that when you reply to anything i say, i deliberately ignore you. Ive been doing this for ages. There was a time when i could have a reasonable conversation with you but you repeatedly overstepped the mark with your insults and your attitude. There was no need for it. I may be "crazy" but i always try to maintain a certain amount of respect, which only decreases if i notice a decrease in the respect that i get in return.

So post as much as you like. Its a free country. Kind of.

*tumbleweed*

quote:

Originally posted by smokeAndMirrors:

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
What durrie said is correct, and nothing in your post remotely challenges it. Instead youre just expressing your own subjective beliefs.

What durrie said was his own subjective belief, and therefore - by your own words - remains ultimately dismissable without any reference to reality.

That's exactly the point smokeAndMirrors...the engagement of subjective\objective experience is as you suggest the most logical arbiter of “reality” and so it seems logical to conclude that these two facets of reality are a) both “real” and b) unable to be mutually exclusive…that is the sticky point...accepting that they are not individual things...

The focus is wrongly placed here on 100% proof being ultimately relevant…the discussion should logically come from the realisation that in reality there is [B]no[B] 100% proof for anything...for either subjectivity or objectivity...why...because they are not in any sense [B]real[B] entities on their own…thus lefar is suggesting that any citation of 100% proof being relevant to any discussion is always flawed...

When people say "prove it"...in reality this means..."help me to change my own subjective opinion"

I am not in the slightest bit theistic in my beliefs…but determinism does not make sense to me for a lot of the same reasons…namely that both ideals support a finality or rigidity to life’s origins and possibilities in an ultimate sense. It is logical to conclude that there is a definite order to life…science shows us this daily…however this order in no way what so ever means there is necessarily any finality, boundaries or any plausible limits to what life essentially [B]is[B]or might be on a fundamental level…

quote:

Originally posted by durrie:

That's exactly the point smokeAndMirrors

So when leafar gives us his subjective opinion we have to accept it, and when I give my subjective opinion it is readily dismissed. I see. It's not a great point, is it?

quote:

The focus is wrongly placed here on 100% proof being ultimately relevant

It's funny, I don't know how many times however many people, myself included, have written here that science is not about proof but offers the best hypothesis that fits the currently known data, but it seems like nothing ever sinks in. And that is why there is another tumbleweed coming, because people are getting tired of those whose ears are closed and who are singing "la la la", who think that their "subjective opinion" is the only thing worth listening to.

*tumbleweed*

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
In answer to your question, no, calling you geniuses isnt an attempt at ridicule, just harmless sarcasm.

yes there are 'rules' for some and 'rules' for others eh leaf?

quote:

Well, i cant hide the fact that im pretty sure of what i think the answer is, but im always open to suggestions, which is why ive repeatedly invited anyone who thinks they can to offer an alternative. If you know the real answer then lets hear it. It shouldnt be too difficult to correct me, and if i agree with whatever you come up with ill just say so.

more leafar doublespeak.

leafar has a 'question'. he likes his own answer best. he ignores alternative answers. he affects to pretend there might be a 'real answer' which he will accept. but the only 'real answer' he acknowledges or accepts is his own.

leafar does not understand that debate is about progressing ideas, not victory on your own terms.

*returns to behind revolutionary barricades and throws a few twigs on the fire*

quote:

smokeAndMirrors
…So when leafar gives us his subjective opinion we have to accept it, and when I give my subjective opinion it is readily dismissed. I see. It's not a great point, is it?

Miz’d
leafar has a 'question'. he likes his own answer best. he ignores alternative answers. he affects to pretend there might be a 'real answer' which he will accept. but the only 'real answer' he acknowledges or accepts is his own.

Not only is this not a great point as you suggest smokeAndMirrors…it’s not the point at all…nowhere has lefar said his suggestions are tantamount to anyone else…lefar’s discussion is circular I agree but this post of yours and miz’d is just sour grapes…thae same as lefar pointlessly fishing for agreement from you on what is ultimatley already the same point as is suggested...

quote:

smokeAndMirrors
And that is why there is another tumbleweed coming, because people are getting tired of those whose ears are closed and who are singing "la la la",

The tumbleweed only comes when this topic is applied to the subject of God…both factions do the “la la la” trick not because of physical evidence but ultimately because of subjective opinion on this topic.

Nobody in the 21st century is really stupid enough to argue with anyone else about the periodic table, Pythagoras theorem, penicillin…etc…because ultimately these things and many more improve our subjective quality of life which we all equally accept…

Problems only occur when people incorrectly think thay can use the tools of reality to individualise themselves from reality...this is delusional...you cannot individualise a [I]self[I] from reality because we are not the arbiters of reality...reality is the arbiter of us...

quote:

Originally posted by durrie:

quote:

smokeAndMirrors
…So when leafar gives us his subjective opinion we have to accept it, and when I give my subjective opinion it is readily dismissed. I see. It's not a great point, is it?

Miz’d
leafar has a 'question'. he likes his own answer best. he ignores alternative answers. he affects to pretend there might be a 'real answer' which he will accept. but the only 'real answer' he acknowledges or accepts is his own.

Not only is this not a great point as you suggest smokeAndMirrors…it’s not the point at all…nowhere has lefar said his suggestions are tantamount to anyone else…lefar’s discussion is circular I agree but this post of yours and miz’d is just sour grapes…thae same as lefar pointlessly fishing for agreement from you on what is ultimatley already the same point as is suggested...

quote:

smokeAndMirrors
And that is why there is another tumbleweed coming, because people are getting tired of those whose ears are closed and who are singing "la la la",

The tumbleweed only comes when this topic is applied to the subject of God…both factions do the “la la la” trick not because of physical evidence but ultimately because of subjective opinion on this topic.

Nobody in the 21st century is really stupid enough to argue with anyone else about the periodic table, Pythagoras theorem, penicillin…etc…because ultimately these things and many more improve our subjective quality of life which we all equally accept…

Problems only occur when people incorrectly think thay can use the tools of reality to individualise themselves from reality...this is delusional...you cannot individualise a [I]self[I] from reality because we are not the arbiters of reality...reality is the arbiter of us...

Durrie: "la la la la la..."

Miz'd / smokeandmirrors :

I said that im pretty sure that i know what the answer is. In other words the answer that ive been giving (that the question is aimed ultimately at ridicule) is one that im very sure is the correct one. But then i effectively said "I may be wrong, and if i am, lets hear it, and ill see what i think of the alternative answer". Which part of all that is doublespeak? Im saying "i think x but if you have a suggestion ill consider that". The fact that no one has come up with an alternative which i consider better doesnt have anything to do with closedmindedness or doublespeak.

I havent ignored anyones alternative answers (except for freethinker, who ive stopped talking to altogether). In fact ive addressed every single one of them. Well actually there havent been many of them, other than "Its to prove a point", to which i keep replying "what point?" and from there the conversation dies down, with hardly any explanation given. Thats when i start all over again, to see if anyone else can come forward, say what the alternative is, and when i disagree and dispute them, dispute back.

Absolutely no one at all has done this.


So heres the conversation so far :

Me :
I strongly think that the reason why i keep getting asked to prove my objectively unprovable claims is to ridicule. Here are my reasons :

- The purpose cannot possibly be to see if i can actually offer objective evidence, since all of us know that i cant. And all of you are intelligent enough to not suddenly forget this and think that maybe i can. So seeing if i can offer proof can be ruled out as a reason. Dispute this if you feel im wrong.

- The purpose cannot be to "prove a point". If the point being proven is that i ought to not believe my claim due to lack of objective evidence, then it will always be futile since im capable of accepting subjective evidence. And youre all intelligent enough to not suddenly forget this and think that maybe i will suddenly stop accepting subjective evidence. So that rules out that reason. And it cant be to prove that my claim is incorrect, for the same reason. Dispute me if you feel im wrong.

- So, the only realistic possible reason seems to be ridicule. Why" Because 1) thats always the result and 2) it happens repeatedly, so those who do it seem to be getting something out of it.

So i ask : If im wrong, what exactly is the purpose of the question?

"Your lot" :

"Its to prove a point"

Me :

What point?

Then...silence. The conversation never goes further than this. Then im told that i wont listen to the alternatives given, when the fact is that i listen to them and i reply and dispute them, but then no one disputes me back. They always get stuck at "to prove what point?"

What point?

leafar: "LA LA LA LA LA LA..."

More ridicule. Youre just proving my point.

For everyone else, i renew the question.

As ive said before i knew that this whole topic would result in resistance, avoidance, hypocrisy and ridicule. Ive hit a raw nerve, and absolutely no one has successfully challenged me. Nowhere near.

So once again, whats the aim of the question? If its to prove a point, what point?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:So once again, whats the aim of the question? If its to prove a point, what point?

tell us what the question is specifically & I'll tell you what point is being proved.

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:Ive hit a raw nerve, and absolutely no one has successfully challenged me. Nowhere near.

but this is only your opinion, not a fact,as you are clearly in the minority on this thread with this belief (i.e. the only one )

Im sure ive told you.

Anyway, the question is "prove it". Or more accurately, the repeated use of that question.

What point is the person asking it trying to prove?

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
Im sure ive told you.

Anyway, the question is "prove it". Or more accurately, the repeated use of that question.

What point is the person asking it trying to prove?

that you can't

quote:

Originally posted by leafar:
.. and absolutely no one has successfully challenged me. ...

So who is the arbiter of 'success'? Would that be yourself?
So actually it matters not what anyone posts as you have already decided what the answer is and as the criteria of 'success' are entirely set by and adjudicated by you, the whole exercise is entirely pointless.

could someone let me know if they reported my last post on this thread?

it wasn't abusive.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
could someone let me know if they reported my last post on this thread?

it wasn't abusive.

I have had at least two posts deleted, and they weren't the slightest bit abusive.

Please note that ive listened to your reason given and im about to dispute it, because i disagree.

If you read what i said a couple of posts back, youll see that this cannot be the purpose of the question. Youre going over old ground which has already been disputed and remains unchallenged by anybody.

We all already know that i cant objectively prove my claims. Asking me to prove it, and then i go "er, well, i can objectively do that" is a wasted exercise, because we all know that that will be the outcome.

Most of you ought to know that i already am aware that i cant prove my claims. So thats why i doubt that your reason is the real objective of the question. In other words i already know that i cant "prove it" so trying to prove to me what i already know is too pointless an exercise for it to be the reason. Ridicule seems more realistic because, as ive said, 1)its always the outcome, and 2) it keeps happening, implying that the askers of the question gain something from it : ridicule.

Ive thrown doubt on your given reasn, and ive put forward once again my suggestion, with strong reasons to back it up.

That last post was to greenjack, not freethinker.

quote:

Originally posted by miz'd:
could someone let me know if they reported my last post on this thread?

it wasn't abusive.

It has happened to me too. I made an incredibly witty post which would have had everyone rol