mans requirements are limited which can be satisfied with a little and tension-free endeavor..
however man attempts not only to collect but also to grab and amass everything to the excess.
somehow he feels that he can be happy only when he has in abundance whereas others have nothingwhich seems to be the thread that runs throughout the history.
ISW,
Thanks for the reply but you didn't answer my question, What I actually asked was why you quoted him out of context since the context shows that Dr Patterson not only believes in evolution but has written a book about the subject. The quote that you mined is about the classification of transitional fossils not about suggesting that fossil evidence in anyway undermines the theory of evolution.
mans requirements are limited which can be satisfied with a little and tension-free endeavor..
however man attempts not only to collect but also to grab and amass everything to the excess.
somehow he feels that he can be happy only when he has in abundance whereas others have nothingwhich seems to be the thread that runs throughout the history.
ISW,
Why did you quote Dr Colin Patterson out of context, you know he believes in evolution and wrote a well known book on the subject?
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
stuffwotifink,
I can see no evidence that you have the slightest clue that you have any personal understanding of the things you have linked to. The things you have linked to are not exactly rocket science, it's very basic stuff and your repeated claims that people don't understand it because they disagree with articles you have linked to just makes you seem like you don't actually have anything to say.
If you care so little why do you keep replying?
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Stuffwotifink,
Is it your normal tactic to claim that people who disagree with you don't understand what you are talking about?
In what way did you think that voicing your opinion of the lack of value in epistemology, was encouraging my further "discussion" of it with you?
Well I am open to being persuaded by evidence, but since you seem to have no recourse to discussion preferring ad hominen and assumption to colour your 'contribution', then perhaps you have no opinion.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
I read the article on epistemology a while ago. It was outrageously tedious.
Seemingly you didn't understand it.
I fail to see that finding something very tedious means that you don't understand something. I used to find the meetings tedious, that doesn't mean I didn't understand them.
Someone who is aware that "facts" belong in the category (sic) of "belief", but who continues to say that "you don't have to believe a fact", would be intellectually dishonest.
Seemingly you don't understand that some people disagree with this point, that is not being intellectually dishonest. Since you have provided no argument to back up your claim then it is hardly appropriate to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty when they ignore it.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Nope. Lots of people are no such thing.
They are, it's why rational people don't walk out of second floor windows. I suggest you look up 'last thursdayism' as I think it applies to anything that comes from a study of epistemology.
I wasn't trying to convince you. Your opinion of epistemology doesn't effect me, one way or the other.
You bought it up, not me. If you don't want to discuss your own contribution to a discussion forum then why are you here?
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Evidentialism is an epistemological position.
We are all evidentialists, that doesn't convince me there is any value in epistemology.
i know this question has popped up from time to time but i really would like to know how you guys, those that no longer believe, came to that conclusion?
was it the wts and all its crap?
was it something you read?
Not unless you consider epistemology "Tedious semantics". An odd postition for someone who enjoys evidence so much, but hey, philosophy isn't everyone's bag.
But epistemology isn't about evidence, after all pretty much all the evidence I have confirms that the world we live in is as it seems. The world responds in a logical and consistent fashion to the things I do and there is no advantage to assuming that I am in a matrix type environment being fooled (or a brain in a jar). Let's be honest if there were such evidence to be found I very much doubt it is going to be provided by an epistomologist, because I see no evidence that there is any predictive power or value in epistemology.
who won, and why?.
the rebel..
This poster put his name and the date at the bottom, like a copyright. It was a good flow chart. There were a few messages saying 'thank you', 'well done' 'masterful use of logic', etc until another poster pipes up (sorry, can't remember their name either ) and points out that this logic was devised by a certain Greek philosopher (name?!) so the copyright should go.
Ah that would be me as the 'another poster'!
The other guy lost it a bit!
who won, and why?.
the rebel..
Perhaps because theists generally don't have open minds, atheists can be persuaded by evidence. Admittedly we want hard empirical evidence which is a little thin on the ground for supernatural beings.
There is an important distinction between having a high standard of evidence required for extraordinary claims and believing anything just because someone makes a claim. I would argue that the former is far more open minded than the latter.
The more rational debates with people who don't claim a personal mental hotline to the creator of the universe tend to be more useful.
