100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The nature of reality | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
martymark
on
Sat 11/29/08 10:10 AM
|
|
Maybe time to admit science isn't so bad after all, that your just mad becuase me and creative are skeptical . . In many ways I am skeptical too. But I am skeptical of the status quo and of some authorities. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. Although you might see me as somewhat "gullible" the strange thing is that I see you that way. You are gullible to authority. You tend to quickly believe anything that looks somewhat official and authoritative like clinical trials that are bought and paid for by the very drug companies who are trying to find a reason to sell their drugs. <rant> I am not mad at you and creative because you are "skeptical." I don't care what you believe. But I will tell you what does tick me off. Disrespect. Telling me that I ought to just "shut up or keep quiet" if I don't have scientific proof to back up my statements. Telling me that my thinking is "dangerous to the progress of society." Telling me that my ideas are ignorant and childish. Yawning, laughing, ignoring my posts, ignoring my questions. So now you know what ticks me off. Its your blatant and purposeful disrespect of my point of view. If you can't see it then it is your loss. You have failed to understand and I have failed to communicate with you. </end of rant> |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/29/08 10:59 AM
|
|
Well it is true I am disgusted with some things and some attitudes, but what I dislike is being disrespected.
If they sense my anger, they need to know the real reason for it instead of deluding themselves that I am angry because they are "skeptical." I don't think they are skeptical enough. They put too much faith in authority. And I am simply frustrated because I think they are simply being too stubborn to communicate and actually see my point. I do have a point and I have made my point. They just don't see it. I guess I am just not being clear enough for them. I did my best. Oh well.  
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sun 11/30/08 06:12 PM
|
|
<rant> Bravo!
I am not mad at you and creative because you are "skeptical." I don't care what you believe. But I will tell you what does tick me off. Disrespect. Telling me that I ought to just "shut up or keep quiet" if I don't have scientific proof to back up my statements. Telling me that my thinking is "dangerous to the progress of society." Telling me that my ideas are ignorant and childish. Yawning, laughing, ignoring my posts, ignoring my questions. So now you know what ticks me off. Its your blatant and purposeful disrespect of my point of view. </end of rant> |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 12/01/08 11:18 AM
|
|
Well it is true I am disgusted with some things and some attitudes, but what I dislike is being disrespected. If they sense my anger, they need to know the real reason for it instead of deluding themselves that I am angry because they are "skeptical." I don't think they are skeptical enough. They put too much faith in authority. And I am simply frustrated because I think they are simply being too stubborn to communicate and actually see my point. I do have a point and I have made my point. They just don't see it. I guess I am just not being clear enough for them. I did my best. Oh well. quote me. You will only find posts where specific examples where refuted, at no time have I told you to shut up. If you cite science in a way that is not accurate I will be there to put it into perspective, even if I where you I would find value in this. What I have called dangerous is specific things, I have never said "your thoughts" are dangerous. Although you might see me as somewhat "gullible" the strange thing is that I see you that way. You are gullible to authority. You tend to quickly believe anything that looks somewhat official and authoritative like clinical trials that are bought and paid for by the very drug companies who are trying to find a reason to sell their drugs. How could you possibly know this about me? This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me . . . well its silly. I quite literally question EVERYTHING. This post clears up few things for me however. You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me... ... You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now... Well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 12/01/08 12:48 PM
|
|
... This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me... ... You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now... Well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? I don't find this funny in the least. I go out of my way not to critic the author only the facts presented. I would enjoy your attempts to quote me as presenting any kind of characterization of either you or jb, or for that matter anyone on this forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/01/08 01:41 PM
|
|
... This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me... ... Well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now... And I agree that you usually refrain from anything that could be pinned down as criticizing another poster. So all I can say is that there are people who consider it personal when you refer to their beliefs as "amusing" and "silly". That comes across as condescending at best and can very easily be interpreted as ridicule. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me... ... Well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now... And I agree that you usually refrain from anything that could be pinned down as criticizing another poster. So all I can say is that there are people who consider it personal when you refer to their beliefs as "amusing" and "silly". That comes across as condescending at best and can very easily be interpreted as ridicule. Sure, again quote me. The only thing I have labeled silly is characterizations of me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/01/08 02:29 PM
|
|
... This seems to me to be a made up persona, that you could not possibly have any information to show this of me. Literally there is no way for you to come to this conclusion about me with any kind of evidence . . . this is just not fact. This is the straw man you have built up in your head to put me in my place, to try to understand me... ... Well I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh? You will project these things onto anyone who disagrees with you even if only on a point within your conclusion, that I understand. You will create a persona for the person you have debates with even if you have no real information to come to this conclusion, that is clear to me now... And I agree that you usually refrain from anything that could be pinned down as criticizing another poster. So all I can say is that there are people who consider it personal when you refer to their beliefs as "amusing" and "silly". That comes across as condescending at best and can very easily be interpreted as ridicule. Wed 11/26/08 07:53 AM Topic: New Age Energy “…well its silly” Sun 11/23/08 12:17 PM Topic: The brain vs the mind. “You guys are a hoot.” Fri 11/21/08 02:43 PM Topic: I believe.... “This is funny” Fri 11/07/08 05:42 AM Topic: god may be aware... but not eternal “…silly in the extreme” Thu 11/06/08 07:04 PM Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . “To anthropomorphize knowledge is silly” Wed 11/05/08 07:20 PM Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally “It is so funny how people rationalize destruction” Wed 11/05/08 03:28 PM Topic: god may be aware... but not eternal "Its funny how people who do not understand law..." Wed 11/05/08 01:22 PM Topic: PROP 8 “What is funny here is this . . . .” Thu 10/30/08 12:39 PM Topic: agreement-created reality “So challenging people to prove you wrong or come up with a better theory is silly to the nth degree.” In every single case above the subject (i.e. what is “silly” or “funny” or “amusing” or "a hoot") was the actions or beliefs of someone else. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 12/01/08 03:35 PM
|
|
I wish you would have posted the entire post with each one. It was a detail within the belief that was spoken of in each case and was a direct conversation about a reality WE CAN DETERMINE.
I can demonstrate my point, but not if you are going to quote mine with no context. Context. AT least give me the post # <rant> I am not mad at you and creative because you are "skeptical." I don't care what you believe. But I will tell you what does tick me off. Disrespect. Telling me that I ought to just "shut up or keep quiet" if I don't have scientific proof to back up my statements. Telling me that my thinking is "dangerous to the progress of society." Telling me that my ideas are ignorant and childish. Yawning, laughing, ignoring my posts, ignoring my questions. So now you know what ticks me off. Its your blatant and purposeful disrespect of my point of view. </end of rant> I will do what you failed to do, and go through and provide context. Above is our reference and if I find ANYTHING REMOTELY close to anything posted above I will apologize other wise I expect the same from you for making a characterization, then quote mining out of context to back it up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 12/01/08 03:47 PM
|
|
I will do what you failed to do, and go through and provide context. You don't need to go to all that trouble. I will concede that you did not have any intention of being insulting. Above is our reference and if I find ANYTHING REMOTELY close to anything posted above I will apologize other wise I expect the same from you for making a characterization, then quote mining out of context to back it up. But I did not make a characterization. I made a statement of personal experience. …there are people who consider it personal when you refer to their beliefs as "amusing" and "silly". That comes across as condescending at best and can very easily be interpreted as ridicule. That is simple fact. Not characterization. At least not characterization of you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 12/01/08 04:47 PM
|
|
Wed 11/26/08 07:53 AM
Topic: New Age Energy “…well its silly” The only mention of “well its silly” is not mine you fail. I said silly in this thread, but not about a belief it was about MY comparison. This is a silly comparison, but still I would like an answer. So would I be barred from selling draino as a miracle cure to all disease if I provided a small print label to make clear when your dead you have no disease to worry about? Sun 11/23/08 12:17 PM Topic: The brain vs the mind. “You guys are a hoot.” You guys are a hoot. As if we where neuroscientists. I wonder if you did a survey of scientists, the worlds most elite researchers on the brain what they think . . . . I wonder what they would say . . . Fri 11/21/08 02:43 PM Topic: I believe.... “This is funny” Suppose someone wants you to prove that you can move an object using your body. However, they are holding on to it with their body and their body is much stronger than your body. Does the fact that you didn’t move the object with your body prove that the object cannot be moved with a body? This is funny, we have ways of measuring any effect you could produce that would be meaningful. Now substitute the word “mind” for the word “body” in the above paragraph. Guilty until proven innocent? Or innocent until proven guilty? Pick your starting postulate. I think its a great hoot when there are more excuses then answers. So would you say that an opinion is a "meaningful effect that is produced"? If so, what "way of measuring it" do we have? And I meant that we could measure the force differentials even if no movement occurred . . . . either your example is a bad one, or you did not understand what I meant when I replied to you. Its ok sky, believe whatever you want. I still enjoy our conversations as I do with all of the intelligent people I tend to gravitate toward. Fri 11/07/08 05:42 AM Topic: god may be aware... but not eternal “…silly in the extreme” theism = belief in god. atheism = without belief in god. The term has baggage with it that is added on by theist to scare young children into rejecting anything termed atheist. Atheist are immoral, and reject god . . . lol silly in the extreme, sure maybe some that are atheist do these things, that does not change the root meaning. That is like saying Americans drive big cars, then saying the definition of American is a person that drives a big car. Thu 11/06/08 07:04 PM Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . “To anthropomorphize knowledge is silly” This one stands on its own, if you believe that only humans can have knowledge you’re a fool, not even silly, FOOL. Wed 11/05/08 07:20 PM Topic: Interpreting the Bible Literally “It is so funny how people rationalize destruction” I remember this one so I can explain it directly; if you want to rationalize revelations or Deuteronomy, or Leviticus go ahead . . . I think it’s funny to even try. You can be offended by this if you want, that would probably make me laugh even harder. Wed 11/05/08 03:28 PM Topic: god may be aware... but not eternal "Its funny how people who do not understand law..." Again this one I remember, and again HAS nothing to do with beliefs, it has to do with knowledge. So again a pure quote mine at its worst. Wed 11/05/08 01:22 PM Topic: PROP 8 “What is funny here is this . . . .” I am not even going to defend myself in regard to prop 8, you can again be offended all you want. Thu 10/30/08 12:39 PM Topic: agreement-created reality “So challenging people to prove you wrong or come up with a better theory is silly to the nth degree.” JB said Yes, everyone dreams. We have all manifested or 'created' dreams with our minds. How our minds create three dimensional space is not yet understood. Why three dimensional and not more like a movie? Why and how are we placed inside of the dream instead of just watching it like an observer who watches a flat screen movie? Yes I have had dreams that have continued for three or four nights in a row, which gives them what I call more "duration" and "stability." I even became very attached to the people in that dream who seemed like real people. When the dreams ended, I really did miss those people. The similarities between the basic structure of our dreams created by our minds and this reality have many similarities. 1.) Creates three dimensional space, people, landscapes 2.) Puts us inside of this three dimensional space operating in a body. 3.) Has some duration. (Length of time) 4.) Can be somewhat manipulated and controlled ~if it is a lucid dream. 4.) Sounds and senses from the outside (your reality) are blocked. 5.) The five senses are possible within a dream that match the dream scape, not your true reality: Touch, taste, sight, sound, smell, emotions. You dismiss it as "just a dream" but this dream reality has everything your current reality has only is less intense with a shorter duration. You stated that you don't think I am correct. I would like to hear your reasoning. What I am suggesting is that this reality is a dream-like structure and is projected in a similar way by the collective Universal Mind...or a larger more encompassing kind of mind in the same manner that our individual mind projects our three dimensional dreams. You don't think I am correct but where is the flaw in my logic? Why do you think I am not correct in this suggestion? If my idea is totally flawed, then do you have a more logical and more scientific explanation to the nature of this reality? Anyone? JB And I said Look, you might as well write a book and make some money. What you are suggesting is way beyond what our current physics can explore. You have no hope of making any kind of testable hypothesis with your level of education and math skills, me either, neither can 99.9% of physicists. So challenging people to prove you wrong or come up with a better theory is silly to the nth degree. The best theory is that we are biological that this biology is built on the standard model of particle physics, and that making theories that do not add to our knowledge, or make predictions as to observations that can prove your hypothesis does nothing to advance our knowledge. This is why Max Tegmark gets(politely)made fun of by the physics community, not because he isn't smart or good at his job, but because at this point this kind of reasoning is still sci-fi. Let Ed Witten keep at M theory for a few more decades and who knows. If we can explain the fundamentals of particle physics merge that with QM, then we might be on the right track to really talk about how reality is shaped from the bottom up. ________________ Im not criticizing your ideas, just putting it into perspective. In every single case above the subject (i.e. what is “silly” or “funny” or “amusing” or "a hoot") was the actions or beliefs of someone else. Is that right!? Because I think I just showed how that is not the case . . . . I await my apology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 12/01/08 05:17 PM
|
|
I apologize Thank you.  _______________________________ The issue here is that you guys think I am after your beliefs, I could not care less (well I care enough to respond and await a response back) what you believe to be true regarding reality insofar as it effects me. If it effected me I would care. I find it interesting, I find it educational (yes you and JB have brought things to my attention that I did not know, or brought forth an idea that required me to research) I find it to be a good use of spare time. What irks me is the use of science to support a claim as if it where true with no regard to uncertainty and then getting offended when your understanding of that very science is questioned. THEN to use the whole "questioning someone's beliefs" as your means to refute and undermine my stance. It is intellectually beneath both of you, you are smarter then that, and do not need to stoop there to make a point even if it is one we disagree on. I sincerely hope you can get over it, but I do not see where I need to apologize, however I would respect the both of you more if you did so for mixing up belief bashing with science correction and simple use of language, however I am not waiting with baited breath as I think I already know where your real motives lie. Perhaps I am wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue here is that you guys think I am after your beliefs, I could not care less (well I care enough to respond and await a response back) what you believe to be true regarding reality insofar as it effects me. If it effected me I would care. Well I don't see anywhere to go with all of that except that you have your opinions and other people have their opinions and the don't always agree. And that upsets stemming from disagreements cannot be blamed solely on one side or the other. I find it interesting, I find it educational (yes you and JB have brought things to my attention that I did not know, or brought forth an idea that required me to research) I find it to be a good use of spare time. What irks me is the use of science to support a claim as if it where true with no regard to uncertainty and then getting offended when your understanding of that very science is questioned. THEN to use the whole "questioning someone's beliefs" as your means to refute and undermine my stance. It is intellectually beneath both of you, you are smarter then that, and do not need to stoop there to make a point even if it is one we disagree on. I sincerely hope you can get over it, but I do not see where I need to apologize, however I would respect the both of you more if you did so for mixing up belief bashing with science correction and simple use of language, however I am not waiting with baited breath as I think I already know where your real motives lie. Perhaps I am wrong. As you seemed to have done with JB and me, I have tended to lump together you and Creative. And the problems I have with Creative have tended to spill over on to you. So just so I can better understand you viewpoint, where is it you think my real motives lie? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue here is that you guys think I am after your beliefs, I could not care less (well I care enough to respond and await a response back) what you believe to be true regarding reality insofar as it effects me. If it effected me I would care. Well I don't see anywhere to go with all of that except that you have your opinions and other people have their opinions and the don't always agree. And that upsets stemming from disagreements cannot be blamed solely on one side or the other. I find it interesting, I find it educational (yes you and JB have brought things to my attention that I did not know, or brought forth an idea that required me to research) I find it to be a good use of spare time. What irks me is the use of science to support a claim as if it where true with no regard to uncertainty and then getting offended when your understanding of that very science is questioned. THEN to use the whole "questioning someone's beliefs" as your means to refute and undermine my stance. It is intellectually beneath both of you, you are smarter then that, and do not need to stoop there to make a point even if it is one we disagree on. I sincerely hope you can get over it, but I do not see where I need to apologize, however I would respect the both of you more if you did so for mixing up belief bashing with science correction and simple use of language, however I am not waiting with baited breath as I think I already know where your real motives lie. Perhaps I am wrong. As you seemed to have done with JB and me, I have tended to lump together you and Creative. And the problems I have with Creative have tended to spill over on to you. So just so I can better understand you viewpoint, where is it you think my real motives lie? Well in the last few posts Id say it appeared to be undermining my credibility instead of my points. The same seems to apply to JB. But again perhaps I am wrong . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The issue here is that you guys think I am after your beliefs, I could not care less (well I care enough to respond and await a response back) what you believe to be true regarding reality insofar as it effects me. If it effected me I would care. Well I don't see anywhere to go with all of that except that you have your opinions and other people have their opinions and the don't always agree. And that upsets stemming from disagreements cannot be blamed solely on one side or the other. I find it interesting, I find it educational (yes you and JB have brought things to my attention that I did not know, or brought forth an idea that required me to research) I find it to be a good use of spare time. What irks me is the use of science to support a claim as if it where true with no regard to uncertainty and then getting offended when your understanding of that very science is questioned. THEN to use the whole "questioning someone's beliefs" as your means to refute and undermine my stance. It is intellectually beneath both of you, you are smarter then that, and do not need to stoop there to make a point even if it is one we disagree on. I sincerely hope you can get over it, but I do not see where I need to apologize, however I would respect the both of you more if you did so for mixing up belief bashing with science correction and simple use of language, however I am not waiting with baited breath as I think I already know where your real motives lie. Perhaps I am wrong. As you seemed to have done with JB and me, I have tended to lump together you and Creative. And the problems I have with Creative have tended to spill over on to you. So just so I can better understand you viewpoint, where is it you think my real motives lie? But again perhaps I am wrong . . . Fair enough I can see how one could draw that conclusion. And from your reply to my "quotes" post, I will assume that you see no reason why I should feel the same. So I, for one, will endeavor to not take offense at anything you say, and to not say things that I think you might take offesnse at. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 12/02/08 02:42 PM
|
|
edited for closure, I am done here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 12/02/08 03:07 PM
|
|
Bushidobillyclub,
I believe I have placed you in the same league with Creative and I apologize. You have been quite reasonable in your direct replies to me. But here are some of the reasons I placed you in the same league with Creative: You said: "quote me. You will only find posts where specific examples where refuted, at no time have I told you to shut up." You said to Sky: "Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim." (a nice way to say put up or shut up.) (I believe Creative may have actually used the words shut up but not directly to me.) Although that is reasonable advice it implies that our beliefs are "delusions." (That is an opinion.) Another reason I put you in the same league with Creative is you said to Creative: Topic: On human nature and behaviour.. "I tend to agree Creative, I am your choir sir keep a preachin!" I seldom see you and Creative disagree on much, so I assume you agree with most of what he says. Its like the debate team is you and Creative against me and sky. An insult from Creative translates as one coming from his team which seems to be you, so I guess I am judging you by the company you keep and I am sorry. Then when you say I am "MAD because "you and Creative" are skeptical, you place yourself on his team. Yet another reason. But I have no personal problem with you as you have been quite polite and reasonable most of the time. I am sorry I directed my remark towards you and your team. If I seem "mad" then I guess it is just the lack of respect coming from Creative. To Creative, if he reads this, no offense. You and me just have different beliefs that's all. I find your beliefs to be unbelievably robotic and mental and you find mine to be absurd. Such is life.  jb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 12/02/08 03:21 PM
|
|
Bushidobillyclub, I believe I have placed you in the same league with Creative and I apologize. You have been quite reasonable in your direct replies to me. But here are some of the reasons I placed you in the same league with Creative: You said: "quote me. You will only find posts where specific examples where refuted, at no time have I told you to shut up." You said to Sky: "Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim." (a nice way to say put up or shut up.) (I believe Creative may have actually used the words shut up but not directly to me.) Although that is reasonable advice it implies that our beliefs are "delusions." (That is an opinion.) Another reason I put you in the same league with Creative is you said to Creative: Topic: On human nature and behaviour.. "I tend to agree Creative, I am your choir sir keep a preachin!" I seldom see you and Creative disagree on much, so I assume you agree with most of what he says. Its like the debate team is you and Creative against me and sky. An insult from Creative translates as one coming from his team which seems to be you, so I guess I am judging you by the company you keep and I am sorry. Then when you say I am "MAD because "you and Creative" are skeptical, you place yourself on his team. Yet another reason. But I have no personal problem with you as you have been quite polite and reasonable most of the time. I am sorry I directed my remark towards you and your team. If I seem "mad" then I guess it is just the lack of respect coming from Creative. To Creative, if he reads this, no offense. You and me just have different beliefs that's all. I find your beliefs to be unbelievably robotic and mental and you find mine to be absurd. Such is life. jb "Do not make claims you cant back up is the moral to the story. Keep your delusions to yourself if you do not want a critical thinker to try to discover the veracity of the claim." Was actually a response to the idea of the lady who speaks to trees, and someone asked why anyone would questions her at all. I replied in length later that there are many reasons both those of the skeptic, and those of the concerned citizen where we would want to know, one becuase if she really can then we need to know how to further our knowledge and help the human race, but also that she may have a tumor or other medical condition that may get worse, or could harm her, or make it possible for her to harm others, who knows if you never check it out. While I certainly did not mean to imply that ever thing that cannot currently be tested is delusion, it appears this is how that statement was taken, then my subsequent detailed explanation was overlooked apparently. I do admit this seems harsh when worded like that and especially so if taken out of context, but think about it for a minute, if anyone claims to be Elvis, and wont let it go . . . if you had any desire to check this out how could you do so without being critical? To me saying you speak to trees, or that you are elvis is on par, and something that is a put up (evidence) or shutup kind of claim. I don't mean it to represent more then the specific example that is was intended as a response to. Sorry for any confusion. |
|
|
|
|
