by Qcmbr 384 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I don't follow the scientific method as if, it is the "ten commandments" nor am I an atheist, so I could not tell you. insert: I do not have belief, but I still get the same feelings of awe, however, now it is more raw and intense.
How you can you "not have belief" and not be an atheist? Agnosticism is the admission that all beliefs could be real, but cannot be proven without further science.
-Sab
Sab to be fair you are always trying to put a scientific gloss on speculative theories. Its not rude to ask you to provide evidence.
Skeptics are in fact very modest by nature. We are not the ones who claim special insights and revelations for supernatural sources. We are the ones who humbly admit we can only know what there is evidence for, evidence that is available to everybody. We don't imagine for a moment that we can figure out the hidden answers to life the unvierse and everything by gazing long and hard at our own navel.
I wanted to respond to some of Terry's comments about the alleged impossibility of thinking without words. Some may want to skip this because it not too relevant to the main topic at hand. Maybe we should start a new thread.
"Brain attentiveness to perception is what you are describing."
No, my comments were about active listening, not just the passive collection of sensory input. I would describe the active process of analyzing music, forming expectations and comparing musical patterns with previous patterns as a type of thinking. This type of thinking doesn't have to make use of words.
"Notice the word PROCESS. Thought process. If you go into a frankfurter factory you can observe the ingredents going into the hopper followed by the process.....ending up as the individual frank or hot dog. Don't confuse the process with the hot dog.
Thinking,(as I am using the term) is a From---To---process resulting in a conclusion and a conceptual grasp of implied or imputed meaning. Language labels the hot dog as it is---after the process."
I'm not sure I fully understand your use of the word "thinking". It may be that your assertion that we can't think without words is based on certain definitions of those words that would make that statement seem reasonable. If you want to start another thread, I would be pleased to try to understand where you are coming from and offer my response. If not, I might start a thread on the subject, but I probably won't have time today.
You say that "Language labels the hot dog--after the process." I agree with what I think you are saying. Language and the thought process are two different things. Although language might be involved in the thought process, it might only come later to describe the result. Therefore it is possible for the thought process to not involve words. I don't dispute the value of words. I'm just pointing out that thoughts and thinking can take place without them.
"In your (above) description you are using WORDS to describe a....non-verbal....ineffable process.
Ask yourself why you must resort to WORDS to get your "thoughts" across to us."
There are a number of other ways that could be used such as body language, drawings etc. In any case, my point related to the possibility of thinking without words. The problem of communicating those thoughts is another matter entirely.
Sab to be fair you are always trying to put a scientific gloss on speculative theories. Its not rude to ask you to provide evidence.
I wouldn't routinely answer rude questions. The rudeness is in the replies to my answers. What's wrong with a scientific gloss?
-Sab
Skeptics are in fact very modest by nature. We are not the ones who claim special insights and revelations for supernatural sources.
I beg to differ, it's often a curse to be the recipient of unexplained phenomenon.
-Sab
There is evidence a plenty that "right" has proved wrong. Is that not enough evidence for admitting that both sides have reasonable doubt? And if you did not hop over my posts you would have seen a pretty good argument for reason a believer CAN'T (I can't think of the word) It's a word in chess for when you know your going to lose, so you stop playing.... A believer can't do that. It's the very definition of believing.
A believer says to an atheist "be nice". Why does an atheists feel the need to advertise atheism?
An atheist says to a believer "please consider that you might be wrong".
It's night and day.
What's wrong with a scientific gloss?
Often your ideas are devoid of a basis in actual science. You tend to tag on some sciencey sounding words to make them sound better.
Lots of believers do the same thing.
Often your ideas are devoid of a basis in actual science. You tend to tag on some sciencey sounding words to make them sound better. Lots of beleivers do the same thing.
I find value in it because it has evoked response from people who know what they are talking about. I love science and what it has brought to this world, you could say I am "reaching out." Yet you seem to be blind to that because I am a believer and believers "often use science to their own advantage." You are essentially calling me a purposeful misleader again, very rude. I'll just chock it up to confirmation bias.
-Sab
There is evidence a plenty that "right" has proved wrong. Is that not enough evidence for admitting that both sides have reasonable doubt? And if you did not hop over my posts you would have seen a pretty good argument for reason a believer CAN'T (I can't think of the word) It's a word in chess for when you know your going to lose, so you stop playing.... A believer can't do that. It's the very definition of believing.
I think the word you are looking for is forfeit.
-Sab
