Posts by notverylikely

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

Hey Dave, the other day I was sure the room was spinning.

59

Should Muslims Have to Register in the USA?

by sammielee24 in

that was the question being asked on right wing radio - things are getting strange out there.

sammieswife.

wednesday, september 1st, 2010 -- 6:32 pm.

notverylikely

Not true about the USA. Oddly enough I know this first-hand too.

So why are these friends of friends having to report to the police? what are the telling them?

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

I sense God. Billions of other people do too. The details may be blurred due to perception.

More people sense a different God than the Judeo Christian god. Is it just yours that is right? Perception isn't always right. You don't feel the earth spinning but it is.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

That you said this is hilarious considering how you quote me about what I said concerning cutting and pasting and how you quote me on other things. Further it's funny because I've never read any literature by WT writers. You are presumptuous...

It's only funny if you can show where I misquoted you or took something out of context. I never said you HAD read any literature by the WT. Attempting to discredit my point by refuting something I never claimed is clever, but futile. I did in fact claimed you sounded sounded like them by using part of a sentence out of context and claiming it meant something it didn't. That's not presumptuous at all, it's demonstrable.

In any event, when you quote me in the future, please be sure to include the entire quote and context.

A leap of faith is trusting something... (which you say you don't deny; am I being honest here?)

You are.

Trust means you don't know for yourself, you're expecting/hoping/believing something... so in not knowing, in having trust or a leap of faith, that would mean you do not know if it is true or false.

True. I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow but based on millions of years of evidence I can trust that it will and make plans for tomorrow. I can throw a ball to my son trusting that gravity will work the same way on earth it did two minutes ago. It doesn't mean blindly not knowing, you can have confidence, faith, if you prefer that word, based on evidence, proof and experience.

To basically say you don't make leaps of faith on falsifiability (paraphrasing, not trying to be dishonest, this is how I understand what you are saying) would take away the need for faith: you would * know * it is not false, you would not need trust or faith because you would know. You take a leap of faith when you don't know if it is true or false. If you know it is false you are not taking the leap. So: you contradict yourself.

Ah, no, I do not contradict myself because you do not under falsifiability. Falsifiability in science means that in order to prove something is true, there also have to be conditions under which it will NOT be true. It's a core component of testing a hypothesis, developing software, etc. A test that always proves "true" is not a reliable test. For instance, you can't scientifically prove "No human can live forever" because you would have to observe a human living for all time. You CAN test "all humans live forever". See this wiki link

Are you saying: Leaps of faith are a constant?

No.

When specifically addressing leaps of faith you say that there is demonstrable and repeatable evidence.

Yes, see my example about the sun and gravity.

What I think and ask: Don't things change concerning faith?

Sure they can. If the reality underlying reality for the basis for the faith changes, then the faith should change. For instance, Old Faithful, the geyser, erupts because of a certain set of conditions, so reliable you can set your watch by it almost. However, geology changes and eventually the tectonic plate will move away from the magma pocket that fuels it and it will erupt less and less relaibly and then not at all.

That does't mean that it will unwise to beleive (have faith) it would erupt reliably when conditions were right for it. Reality will have changed.

You can have faith in new things, loose faith in others. Not necessarily a constant. Repeatable evidence may vary at a given point and time...

I agree, see my example above. Of course, I wasn't suggesting faith was a constant. With regard to repeatable evidence changing, the key is understanding WHY the evidence changed, such as with Old Faithful.

To me this means that you are saying that reality is there if you have faith in it or not.

Absolutely. You could completely not beleive I am wearing a pink shirt right now, but that in no way changes the fact that I am.

All I'm saying is that to know reality you make leaps of faith

Why? In what way? To live your life you make leaps of faith that reality is the same as it was yesterday or that you know what it different about it based on past experience. When i go to the kitchen I have faith that it is there just like it was yesterday or five minutes ago, but the first time I ever went into the kitchen i wasn't taking a leap of faith, i look around until I found it, I looked for a room that matched the criteria that a kitchen has, a stove, microwave, sink, refrigerator. I don't just have faith that the room with the toilet is the kitchen because it doesn't pass the test for "what is a kitchen". You know reality through observation, tests and critera whether you are in a lab or have to go to the bathroom or get a beer.

and, in reality, due to our different perspectives: none of us may know for certain what is reality except on faith.

Only if you choose to limit your perpspective to what your own five senses can immediately detect. For instance, I have personally never tested that gravitional acceleration at sea level on earth is 32 feet per second squared, but so many other people have and it's so well documented and it works so well for so many calculations I have faith in it. I also have never seen old faithful but I have seen videos, documentaries, talked to people that have seen it. In other words, there is ample verfiable evidence.

And we all have different perspectives of the same reality. So whose is correct? What is correct reality? How do you know what is fact? How do you know it is evidence?

They all are. Just because you can't see my shirt doesn't make it less real.

Really notverylikely, I am not following you. And I don't think you follow what I'm saying either.

I'm following you just fine, thanks.

59

Should Muslims Have to Register in the USA?

by sammielee24 in

that was the question being asked on right wing radio - things are getting strange out there.

sammieswife.

wednesday, september 1st, 2010 -- 6:32 pm.

notverylikely

I can give you the email addresses of men who have lived and worked legally in the US for many years who have to report to authorities periodically after entry from visiting their parents in Pakistan.

Dude, everyone visiting the counry on a visa has to periodically report , especially when on an open ended visa or work permit. I had to do the same thing when I was in Russia.

59

Should Muslims Have to Register in the USA?

by sammielee24 in

that was the question being asked on right wing radio - things are getting strange out there.

sammieswife.

wednesday, september 1st, 2010 -- 6:32 pm.

notverylikely

Currently some ordinary Muslims who are in the US from other countries on normal work and study visas have to report to police stations at regular intervals.

For no crimes. Simply for being from perceived high-risk countries. I know this first-hand.

Regardless of the truthiness (not a real word) of this, from this reading you appear to be because of their point of origin, not the religion. Muslim could easily be replaced with "extreme knitting afficionado"

5

modern 'theocratic' terms applied to biblical times... not a new thing

by Aussie Oz in

we are well aware of the recent 2010 convention drama with the first century christians portrayed using modern theocratic terms such as 'field service' and 'reports' etc.... it seems this is not a new trick of the wt.... while researching something else i came accross these :.

watchtower 1944.

30 as a representative of the lords theocratic organization paul did, indeed, instruct that a congregational meeting be held, but not to vote with outstretched hand and indicate by a show of hands what was their judgment and decision on the matter.

notverylikely

What revisionist bastards.

11

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

by Mythbuster in

jw
friends

what do you guys think of this?

me.... http://www.vhemt.org/.

vhemt (pronounced vehement) is a movement not an organization.

notverylikely

Mythbuster, I think the article you quoted is very sick. It is disturbing that there are groups that will attempt to manipulate thinking in this direction.

Those guys have been around forever. I honestly think they are at least 1/2 satirical.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

reality is not the same for any two people.

Personaly circumstances is not the same as reality.BOth personal experiences in fact, part of the sum of reality.

We each hold a different point of view both literally and figuratively.

Personal opinion does not alter reality. In fact, people holding different points of views is part of the sum of reality.

A drug that works for one person and not another person is a subjective reality.

Absolutely it's not. That's personal circumstances, but the science and reasons why it works or doesn't are NOT subjective.

I am just showing that all people, even the atheist, has a sense of faith in something.

And I did not deny that. I am just saying that leaps of faith based on falsifiability, tests repeatable proofs are different from faith in any particular god.

120

Evidence! How did you come to know reality?

by zannahdoll in

is it possible that when we (as a people) make an advancement in science and learn new facts that they sometimes disprove what was once considered fact?

unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else.

or do you trust that things are certain?

notverylikely

Anything can be a buzz word. It is a word that is popular to say and I hear it often with atheists. Sometimes I think you just like to be contrary.

I just like for people to back up what they say.

So repetition makes it so? So repetition makes it so? Is Pavlov's dog then really caused by a bell ringing?

That makes what so? I am not sure what you mean by "it". Pavlov's dog was caused by two dogs mating. Its response to be was a leqrned behavior that a bell ringing meant food based on his experience. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

At one time in mankind's history it was logical, and repeatedly tested and demonstrated that the earth is flat. Scientists accepted this at one time.

Oh? Then I am sure you can cite documentation and tests that scientists performed with repeatable results that proved the earth was flat. Otherwise, I'll have to call BS on this one, since, you know, around 330 BC Aristotle use geometry (you know, science and math) to prove that it wasn't Many idiot disputed this for centures based on "I don't see no round earth so it's gots to be flat!" reasoning, but in the end, science won.

My point is that we have limits to our knowledge and thus: we have to take a leap of faith for everything: nothing is really certain.

Huh? Some things are very certain. You just said it was ridiculous to think the earth might be flat. When repeatable tests show a conclusion to be true, it's pretty certain. Your own flat earth argument just proved what you are arguing against.

Again: I think you like to be contrary. Nice sarcasm about my cut and pastes.

Cutting and pasting isn't making an argument. It's dumping a cut and paste. I know that when people ask questions and make you prove your assertions it can seem contrary, but really it's the only way to prove your ideas.

Exactly what I'm getting at: reality is limited to what we know, because we learn more and realize that what we knew in the first place is wrong. Yet we still continue to trust our knowledge in order to function.

Sigh....Let's try this again. Reality is NOT limited to what we know. Your second sentence proves that. It is REALTIY that confirms whether or not what we "know" is right. For instance, Newton came up with a formula that was the basis for gravitational math, based on observations on Earth. That math worked pretty well on Earth and is still used for basic terrestrial physics. People thought they had it figured out.

Then, something happened. Reality broke in on what we "knew". It was noticed that Mercury behave as expected based on the current understanding of gravity. Clearly something was going on that we didn't understand. For years scientists struggled with this until Einstein came along with an entire new branch of physics and math that predicted what Mercury was doing.

Reality wasn't limited to what we knew. What we knew was limited to what we could observed. Mercury's orbit, reality, always was what it was. More observations and new knowledge about reality was what changed, NOT reality.

Interesting, notverylikely, that you say in a couple places in this thread that "reality does not mean constant" but then you say in this same thread that reality is "demonstrable and repeatable evidence that can be demonstrated to others".

Well, let's look at what I really said..."See, the difference is that despite leaps of faith, there is demonstrable and repeatable evidence that can be demonstrated to others." I was specifically addressing leaps of faith, such as, based on prior personal and shared experience, I am taking a leap of faith and believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. I wasn't talking about reality, but leaps of faith.

Please try to be honest when quoting. Quote minining and selective quoting is dishonest and, frankly, makes you look a bit like the WT writers.