What is the point?

[Ambig]

I'm the other way - I'd rather debate someone who kicks my ass with facts that support the opposite point of view.

Yeah... that's learning.

The highest and best use of a forum like this one, I think.

 

[southwest88]

I can live with the fact that science may never know, yes...because science deals with the physical realm and God is of the spiritual realm...that does not mean God has not disclosed the beginning to those of us who are willing to listen...He has..."In the beginning"...

Yah, neat metaphysics there. Of course, you spoil the effect, by quoting from a scroll - Genesis, yes? Aren't scrolls, books, etc. material? As such, those transient records have provenances, histories, and, from 200CE or so, very muddy back histories of people (authors) trying to make/enforce/rewrite what happened to reflect their theological POV. That is a very weak straw to build a theology upon, I should think.

 

[Cordelier]

Yeah... that's learning.

The highest and best use of a forum like this one, I think.

Trouble is, the people who use objective facts are few and far between anymore. Why go through all the trouble of researching stuff if you can just make up your own alternative reality?

 

[Ambig]

Trouble is, the people who use objective facts are few and far between anymore. Why go through all the trouble of researching stuff if you can just make up your own alternative reality?

Even better, let Tucker feed it to you, morsel by morsel, with occasional fully cooked feasts.

Why work for your food? Just sit back and let Tucker make you a fatter and stupider couch guy, easy peasey.

 

[DCCougar]

Fearandloathing said:

Science is never "concluded".​

Who are you quoting?

That simple statement doesn't need to be "quoted" from anyone. It's a statement based on one's understanding of science. It conforms with my understanding of science, which I have studied for over half a century.

"Facts" are simply direct observations. Often we accept facts that have been observed by others who are reputable, who have no particular agenda, who have no reason to "spin" what they have observed.

It is not easy to describe what a scientific theory is. So I tried ChatGPT, and I think I got a good description:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon that is supported by empirical evidence and has undergone rigorous testing and verification through the scientific method. It is a logical and coherent framework that seeks to explain and predict the behavior of a particular aspect of the natural world, based on a set of principles, laws, and empirical observations. A scientific theory is subject to refinement and modification as new evidence and information are discovered, but it remains a reliable and robust framework that explains the available evidence and makes testable predictions about future observations.​

When I first got online, back around 1998 (?), the discussion forums I was interested in were science forums. I was, and am, a proponent of mainstream science, as opposed to pseudo-science.

But with the advent of the awfulness of Trump, I've found that it is difficult not to call out his lies and argue against those who have believed his lies, especially his Big Lie. It's more than just keeping one's writing skills sharp -- I think Trump is a serious danger to this country in his pandering to white supremacists, anti-semites, misogynists, replacement-theorists, Qanon wackos, and the rest of his deplorables. Trump has loosed and emboldened right-wing domestic terrorists; he thinks he is above the law since he has yet to be charged with anything. This must change. He must be held to account, especially for his attempt to, yes, steal the 2020 election -- his biggest and most obvious projection.

So, maybe my comments here don't change anyone's mind. But if no one opposes Trump's lies, I expect more people could tend to believe them. As respected conservative Judge Luttig testified, under oath, Trump and his allies are a 'clear and present danger’ to American democracy.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

That simple statement doesn't need to be "quoted" from anyone. It's a statement based on one's understanding of science. It conforms with my understanding of science, which I have studied for over half a century.

"Facts" are simply direct observations. Often we accept facts that have been observed by others who are reputable, who have no particular agenda, who have no reason to "spin" what they have observed.

It is not easy to describe what a scientific theory is. So I tried ChatGPT, and I think I got a good description:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of a natural phenomenon that is supported by empirical evidence and has undergone rigorous testing and verification through the scientific method. It is a logical and coherent framework that seeks to explain and predict the behavior of a particular aspect of the natural world, based on a set of principles, laws, and empirical observations. A scientific theory is subject to refinement and modification as new evidence and information are discovered, but it remains a reliable and robust framework that explains the available evidence and makes testable predictions about future observations.​

When I first got online, back around 1998 (?), the discussion forums I was interested in were science forums. I was, and am, a proponent of mainstream science, as opposed to pseudo-science.

But with the advent of the awfulness of Trump, I've found that it is difficult not to call out his lies and argue against those who have believed his lies, especially his Big Lie. It's more than just keeping one's writing skills sharp -- I think Trump is a serious danger to this country in his pandering to white supremacists, anti-semites, misogynists, replacement-theorists, Qanon wackos, and the rest of his deplorables. Trump has loosed and emboldened right-wing domestic terrorists; he thinks he is above the law since he has yet to be charged with anything. This must change. He must be held to account, especially for his attempt to, yes, steal the 2020 election -- his biggest and most obvious projection.

So, maybe my comments here don't change anyone's mind. But if no one opposes Trump's lies, I expect more people could tend to believe them. As respected conservative Judge Luttig testified, under oath, Trump and his allies are a 'clear and present danger’ to American democracy.

sorry to inform you, but as I prefaced in my OP, you are trying to reason with someone who..........

have a fixed view of reality, who believe knowledge can be fake, and who would deny existence to people different from themselves

 

[Daisy]

Yah, neat metaphysics there. Of course, you spoil the effect, by quoting from a scroll - Genesis, yes? Aren't scrolls, books, etc. material? As such, those transient records have provenances, histories, and, from 200CE or so, very muddy back histories of people (authors) trying to make/enforce/rewrite what happened to reflect their theological POV. That is a very weak straw to build a theology upon, I should think.

Actually, if you've ever checked into its history, you'll find that for its time and considering the passing on of history from one copyist to another, it is surprisingly accurate...

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples:

Critics used to believe … the Bible was wrong because they felt that King David was a legendary, mythical character. They pointed to the fact that there was no archaeological evidence that King David was an actual historical figure.

But then … in 1994, archaeologists discovered an ancient stone slab in northern Galilee that was inscribed with the references to King David and the "House of David."

Critics used to believe … the Bible was wrong because there was no evidence (outside of the Bible) that a group of people called the Hittites ever existed. The Hittite civilization is mentioned approximately 40 times in the Old Testament, thus skeptics were convinced that this proved the Bible is a mythical creation of ancient Hebrew writers.

But then … in 1906, a German archaeologist named Hugo Winckler was excavating in Boghaz-Koi, Turkey, and discovered the capital city of the ancient Hittite empire, the entire Hittite library and 10,000 clay tablets documenting the Hittite history. Scholars translated these writings and discovered that everything the Bible said about the Hittite empire was true.

Critics used to believe … that a king named Belshazzar never really existed, thus calling into question the historicity of the book of Daniel, which mentions this Babylonian king.

But then … in 1854, Henry Rawlinson discovered an inscription in Iraq that named Belshazzar as the oldest son and co-regent of King Nebonidus, who would often leave Belshazzar in charge of Babylon while he traveled. This discovery also helped to clarify Daniel 5:29, which states that Daniel was elevated to the “third highest ruler in the kingdom.”

Critics used to believe … the book of Acts was not historically accurate. A man named Sir William Ramsay, who is well known to be one of the greatest historical scholars and archaeologists in history, decided to try to disprove the Bible as the inspired Word of God by showing that the book of Acts was not historically accurate.

But the … after 30 years of archaeological research in the Middle East, Ramsay came to the conclusion that “Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.” He later wrote a book on the trustworthiness of the Bible based on his discoveries and converted to Christianity. Sir Ramsay found no historical or geographical mistakes in the book of Acts. This is amazing when we realize that in the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, nine Mediterranean islands and 95 people and he did not get one wrong. Compare that with the Encyclopedia Britannica. The first year the Encyclopedia Britannica was published it contained so many mistakes regarding places in the United States that it had to be recalled.

https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/...he,ancient documents in archaeological work.”

 

[Noodlegawd]

Tongue in cheek you might be guessing, but we could take the question seriously.

What IS the point?

Since this forum is about "the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence from a non-religious basis", I have to wonder what difference it makes to ANYONE trying to bring knowledge, reality or the nature of existence to someone or a group of people who live in an alternative universe where knowledge is frowned upon (because science can't be trusted), where reality is what you make it (rigged elections in the US are real, the MSM is all fake) or where our existence is denied because we are different (not white, not Christian, not straight, not American)

In short, we have all spend quite some time on here arguing back n forth with those who have a fixed view of reality, who believe knowledge can be fake, and who would deny existence to people different from themselves, and we have all noticed one immutable point:

Arguing, debating, even attempting to educate, a certain crop of people will ALWAYS fall on deaf ears.

So, in that case, what IS the point?

Do you believe that there is only one correct way to view the world?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Do you believe that there is only one correct way to view the world?

That, of course, is NOT what I suggested. Do you need to look up the meaning of a Strawman argument? Maybe read each word of my opening OP more slowly? Try to grasp the context?

 

[Noodlegawd]

That, of course, is NOT what I suggested. Do you need to look up the meaning of a Strawman argument? Maybe read each word of my opening OP more slowly? Try to grasp the context?

Here's what you said: "In short, we have all spend quite some time on here arguing back n forth with those who have a fixed view of reality, who believe knowledge can be fake, and who would deny existence to people different from themselves...."

You seem to have a problem with people who have a "fixed view of reality," which seems to mean that you think their view of reality is necessarily wrong (because in holding this view of reality, they obviously must believe "knowledge can be fake"), and yours is necessarily right.

Feel free to correct me. Perhaps an example would help illustrate your point.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Here's what you said: "In short, we have all spend quite some time on here arguing back n forth with those who have a fixed view of reality, who believe knowledge can be fake, and who would deny existence to people different from themselves...."

You seem to have a problem with people who have a "fixed view of reality," which seems to mean that you think their view of reality is necessarily wrong (because in holding this view of reality, they obviously must believe "knowledge can be fake"), and yours is necessarily right.

Feel free to correct me. Perhaps an example would help illustrate your point.

CONTEXT. The entire thesis of my OP is "what is the point?" It's in the title. That my view is necessarily right is something you are reading into my OP but is never stated. I suspect, SOMETHING in the OP has got you spooked. I might be wrong, but you are trying very hard to make this about me, and not the subject matter. Don't attack the the poster, debate the subject is a concept alien to you.
Fair enough. I have learned long ago that those who don't want to deal with the subject of a thread, but rather prefer to attack the motivations of the poster, are doing so because something in the OP touched a nerve. It's NOT rocket science. Take a deep breath and you will realize that I have a point.
Now back to the OP: I posed a question if it is worth while debating someone who has a fixed view of reality. The point being that when you DO debate someone with a fixed view of reality, it isn't likely to change. Also no point debating someone who believes knowledge is fake. AGAIN, the point being that it would be a waste of time debating someone like that. The last part is the most obvious: why would YOU debate someone who would deny your existence. In all of those examples I never said I was right, I did however explicitly say that debating a certain crop of people is futile. Would you debate me if I had an outlook on life totally alien to you and you knew I would NEVER see the world your way? I mean, wouldn't THAT be a waste of your time?

One last point, and then you can have the floor, because I am not interested in getting drawn into a "you said, I said" argument. There is a reason I posted this thread. It is to elicit a response about the nature of debate. And about who or which group of people debating becomes futile. Those with intransigent views. You might consider mine as such if you wish. Fair enough. The purpose of debate is to convince the other, perhaps to get them to reflect or consider a different view. If that is the purpose of debate, then it is wasted on a certain group of people, who...

"have a fixed view of reality, who believe knowledge can be fake, and who would deny existence to people different from themselves...."

 

[Noodlegawd]

CONTEXT. The entire thesis of my OP is "what is the point?" It's in the title. That my view is necessarily right is something you are reading into my OP but is never stated. I suspect, SOMETHING in the OP has got you spooked. I might be wrong, but you are trying very hard to make this about me, and not the subject matter. Don't attack the the poster, debate the subject is a concept alien to you.
Fair enough. I have learned long ago that those who don't want to deal with the subject of a thread, but rather prefer to attack the motivations of the poster, are doing so because something in the OP touched a nerve. It's NOT rocket science. Take a deep breath and you will realize that I have a point.
Now back to the OP: I posed a question if it is worth while debating someone who has a fixed view of reality. The point being that when you DO debate someone with a fixed view of reality, it isn't likely to change. Also no point debating someone who believes knowledge is fake. AGAIN, the point being that it would be a waste of time debating someone like that. The last part is the most obvious: why would YOU debate someone who would deny your existence. In all of those examples I never said I was right, I did however explicitly say that debating a certain crop of people is futile. Would you debate me if I had an outlook on life totally alien to you and you knew I would NEVER see the world your way? I mean, wouldn't THAT be a waste of your time?

One last point, and then you can have the floor, because I am not interested in getting drawn into a "you said, I said" argument. There is a reason I posted this thread. It is to elicit a response about the nature of debate. And about who or which group of people debating becomes futile. Those with intransigent views. You might consider mine as such if you wish. Fair enough. The purpose of debate is to convince the other, perhaps to get them to reflect or consider a different view. If that is the purpose of debate, then it is wasted on a certain group of people, who...

You seem to be really sensitive about how people characterize what you wrote. My response to you was an analysis of what you wrote, not of you personally. You obviously had to think it to write it, so naturally it's a reflection on you.

The only thing that "spooked" me about your OP is that it seemed to be a one-way street. You bemoaned the pointlessness of debating people with a fixed point of view, while (probably unintentionally) telegraphing that you have a fixed point of view yourself (i.e., that debating people with a fixed point of view is pointless). If that weren't the case, then you'd realize that the point of such a debate is to challenge YOUR point of view, which is NOT fixed. Maybe the reason they have a fixed point of view is that their point of view is right, and yours is wrong. Or maybe they just like to debate for the sake of debating, and don't even believe in the point of view they're defending. Or maybe they're just really dumb, and in that case, I agree with you, not worth debating.

Again, it would be really helpful if you could give an example of such a "fixed point of view," or what you mean by "believes knowledge is fake" (I've never seen an example of anything that fits the meaning of this phrase).

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

You seem to be really sensitive about how people characterize what you wrote. My response to you was an analysis of what you wrote, not of you personally. You obviously had to think it to write it, so naturally it's a reflection on you.

The only thing that "spooked" me about your OP is that it seemed to be a one-way street. You bemoaned the pointlessness of debating people with a fixed point of view, while (probably unintentionally) telegraphing that you have a fixed point of view yourself (i.e., that debating people with a fixed point of view is pointless). If that weren't the case, then you'd realize that the point of such a debate is to challenge YOUR point of view, which is NOT fixed. Maybe the reason they have a fixed point of view is that their point of view is right, and yours is wrong. Or maybe they just like to debate for the sake of debating, and don't even believe in the point of view they're defending. Or maybe they're just really dumb, and in that case, I agree with you, not worth debating.

Again, it would be really helpful if you could give an example of such a "fixed point of view," or what you mean by "believes knowledge is fake" (I've never seen an example of anything that fits the meaning of this phrase).

One last point, and then you can have the floor, because I am not interested in getting drawn into a "you said, I said" argument.

Arguing, debating, even attempting to educate, a certain crop of people will ALWAYS fall on deaf ears.

So, in that case, what IS the point?

 

[Noodlegawd]

....certain crop of people....

"Certain crop of people". Got it. Having had this "discussion" with you, I now have an example of such a person.

 

[DCCougar]

Actually, if you've ever checked into its history, you'll find that for its time and considering the passing on of history from one copyist to another, it is surprisingly accurate...

In general, though, this claim of "accuracy" is totally wrong. I took a course in comparative religions in my university studies. In that course I learned that with the passage of time, it was shown that the stories of what had previously occurred during biblical times were continually exaggerated, amplified, enlarged, expanded, colored, heightened, and inflated. 2,000 to 3,000 years later you're thinking that we've got an "accurate" account? Not hardly.

 

[DCCougar]

....You bemoaned the pointlessness of debating people with a fixed point of view, while (probably unintentionally) telegraphing that you have a fixed point of view yourself.... Maybe the reason they have a fixed point of view is that their point of view is right, and yours is wrong.....

This thread may be talking about hypothetical points of view that may be right or wrong, but in large part, this discussion forum is talking about actual points of view, such as "the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump," which I assert is flat wrong. And I claim my assertion is right not because I think Trump is a toxic narcissistic criminal, but because his baseless election fraud claims have been investigated by the Attorney General who HE appointed, among many others, and no significant fraud was found. You got a problem with that?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

In general, though, this claim of "accuracy" is totally wrong. I took a course in comparative religions in my university studies. In that course I learned that with the passage of time, it was shown that the stories of what had previously occurred during biblical times were continually exaggerated, amplified, enlarged, expanded, colored, heightened, and inflated. 2,000 to 3,000 years later you're thinking that we've got an "accurate" account? Not hardly.

Simple experiment. Take a room full of people. One whispers a story to another. They pass it on to another and they pass it on to yet another, and so forth. By the time the story has circled the room and comes back to the original story teller, it will likely be unrecognizable.

Religious people, bless their hearts, really don't "get" how the Bible was written. And how long AFTER an event it was written. They also don't get that Christianity is an offshoot of the Pagan religion. They probably don't even realize that Christ was not a Christian.
They also don't "get" that at best, the Bible is a series of morality tales, but tales nevertheless.

AND to top it all off, preaching the gospel is not what this thread is about. Elora has attempted to hijack this thread to set up her soapbox and preach to the masses. Not that I mind, each their own, but it would be best we just ignored her and not give her the pleasure of her attempt to hijack this thread.

 

[Daisy]

Elora has attempted to hijack this thread to set up her soapbox and preach to the masses.

I have not...I mistakenly thought you welcomed differing views in this thread...guess not...

 

[Noodlegawd]

This thread may be talking about hypothetical points of view that may be right or wrong, but in large part, this discussion forum is talking about actual points of view, such as "the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump," which I assert is flat wrong. And I claim my assertion is right not because I think Trump is a toxic narcissistic criminal, but because his baseless election fraud claims have been investigated by the Attorney General who HE appointed, among many others, and no significant fraud was found. You got a problem with that?

So someone started a thread about the point of view of the stupidest people on earth. In a forum about philopsophy.

That's depressing.

 

[quip]

The point: Our continual grasp at finding the (ever elusive?) Truth.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The point: Our continual grasp at finding the (ever elusive?) Truth.

Haven't you heard, Truth isn't Truth and there are Alternative Facts.

 

[quip]

Haven't you heard, Truth isn't Truth and there are Alternative Facts.

FAKE NEWS!

 

[ralfy]

We have to try.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Religion is belief without proof, purely set on faith. Science is finding the truth through experimentation, discovery, analysis, even 2nd guessing, and then proving a reality based on discovery and facts.

Just a quick note: this really only describes one religion…and only a segment of the population that is of that religion. Faith is emphasized heavily in Protestant Christianity, but is seldom mentioned in Buddhism, Taoism, the various South Asian cults, Orthodox Christianity, etc. Faith is a concept in Judaism and Islam, but it’s not nearly so forward in those religions as it is among Protestant sects of Christianity.

Further, it’s really questionable that Paul meant, by the word Pistis what we think of as faith. Etymologically, pistis has the same root as episteme, which is usually translated as “knowledge.” I don’t have time to go into it right now, but a close reading of the Greek where Paul invokes pistis suggests he had the idea that we should infer from evidence in much the same way that Aristotle tried to do in Meta-ta-phusica (The Metaphysics)—reasoning from what is observed to what must be true but that is not observed.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Paul invokes pistis suggests he had the idea that we should infer from evidence

Infer, and what evidence?