Jesus, I hope you have found love and that it lasts (I wonder if this is the girl you met in your "another inactive JW" thread). She is beautiful. I wish you every joy. And, if it is a fool, well, I'm glad to see you celebrating holidays.
zannahdoll
JoinedPosts by zannahdoll
-
-
-
-
46
"Have you ever been in love?"
by compound complex inhorrible isn't it?
it makes you so vulnerable.
it opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up.
-
-
zannahdoll
compound complex : "They didn't ask for it"
It hurts even more that they don't ask for it.
FlyingHighNow : "I think love is the one exception to free will. Try to force yourself not to love someone you love. Can't do it."
The phrase "poor taste in men" bothers me. If I could choose someone it would be someone different; then again I'd choose the same all over again, I can't imagine another choice.
Wouldn't our glands turn off once we are either not able to procreate with someone or pregnancy is undesired? Wouldn't there be a turn off when we realize we don't have a partner to help raise and maintain the survival of offspring? - I wonder why people don't evolve from heartbreak. It is a continual theme in psychology, art and history. Unrequited love doesn't make sense and neither do Romeo & Juliet/West Side Stories. Either we still have further to evolve or there is more to love then glands.
Satanus "'"I hate love.”' I concur"
I concur too.
Some Frank Sinatra for you and all the stupid things:
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
notverylikely, you provide incomplete quotes again, from my first post:
In my experience: Evidence is the favorite buzz word of atheists/anti-theists/agnostics. Unless you test something for yourself you are taking the word of someone else. Possibly multiple experts. However we all know that only because many people will atest that something is true doesn't always make it so (example: cults). If you test something for yourself then you are limited to the facts and logic that are available to you (I think we can all agree that we do not have the full picture) and you are limited to your senses (I think we can agree that our senses can play tricks on us).
Yes, notverylikely, I do go on further to say in my first post that because our senses play tricks on us from time to time we take a leap of faith in trusting them (now here you quote me about how everyone takes a leap of faith: but this is based first on the fact that we know reality through our senses). In trusting our senses we take a leap of faith. In knowing evidence we have faith. From beginning to end of this I have asked (it is in the title of the thread) Evidence, how do you know reality?
If someone is guilty of strawman then it is you. You are also guilty of ad hominem, you are the first to say "witness bias" and "tainted" I was mirroring what you were saying to you. So: we have, in your arguments: begging the question, strawman, ad hominem - and yet you point out these things on me. Wow.
-
14
Who chose your flavor of God?
by cyberjesus inmost of us in this board at some point believed in the same god, jehovah!
but since there are many religions in the world and throughout ages there has been many other religions who also believed in their god, the question is,.
who chose your god?.
-
-
zannahdoll
beautiful snowbird
For me it's all about the golden rule.
-
19
A letter to my parents stating I dont believe in the Org anymore.
by cyberjesus ini just sent this letter to my dad 3 days ago.
i roughly translated it from spanish, so it has many weird sounding sentences but i just wanted to shared it with the board.
practically i just say good-bye to my family.
-
-
zannahdoll
It makes me sick to think you have to go through this. I can't imagine loosing the family I love. I am happy that you have found a greater joy in living an honest lifestyle and I hope you are filled with peace, love, laughter and dancing. I am here for you when you need a friend.
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
I ask:
Evidence, how do you come to know reality? How do you come to know evidence?
You answer:
With evidence. (yes, you put a bunch of adjectives in front: repeatable, testable, etc... however you still answer my question of knowing evidence with the answer of evidence.)
You're argument is begging the question and therefore does not prove anything I say wrong. You use circular logic... This confirms that you still have not proven my assertions wrong once. Again: my assertions are that you know evidence based on the 5 senses and what other people tell you. You know evidence based on your perceptions. You have not proved that you know evidence any other way.
You ask if we are still friends? I didn't know that we were friends to begin with, but okay. I can be friends with most people. It's been a long time since anyone took me on a Merry-Go-Round. fun.
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
There is no ad-hominem. Asking who doesn't have a bias isn't an attack on you, it isn't accusing you of anything. It is a question, and the point I was making in asking the question is that all sides have a bias. Just to through out names of fallacies doesn't mean that it is that fallacy. This is why I loose you so often, you make off the mark comments like this.
As far as the Marian Apparitions: there are non-Catholics who go to Marian Apparition locations out of curiosity and then believe. And again: there are people who want to believe something and then, when they do not see it for themselves, they don't believe in spite of wanting to. Also, adversely there are people who don't care one way or the other, or who don't want to believe because they think it is ridiculous superstition and they have already made their minds up about it: and then they see for themselves and then believe. I can dig you up real people who didn't start off Catholic who believe in the Marian Apparitions.
The examples you gave are still based on "overwhemloing physical, repeatable evidence" but did not show that that evidence was regardless of faith. Just saying that it is regardless of faith doesn't make it so. How did you personally come to that evidence? How did any other person in this world come to that evidence? At some point they had to depend on their senses or on what someone else told them - their perception.
Here is a perfect example of taking what I said out of context instead of the whole concept:
Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt.
I never argued that personal experience = reality. I argued that personal experience is how we know reality. Do you understand the difference? The fact that you say I "no longer argue" that shows me that you did not follow what I was saying, even though you claim to have followed just fine. It is one thing to say that you don't think I'm being clear, but to say you follow me is stating that I am clear because you understand my point.
We agree that things happen wether or not I like it or not (never said otherwise as you seem to assume that I have - circles!!!).
What I am saying is that what an atheist, using your words "takes" to know reality isn't always on all this provable, demonstrable, testable, repeatable, etc... blah blah blah evidence. That is the same as the theist. (it seems a little odd when you call the theist the the non-atheist - isn't that like saying the non-non-theist? Saying "theist" is more to the point, you and I already have issues with semantics, might as well try to keep a clear language.)
You know reality based on your senses. You know you wear a pink shirt because you look down and see it. To share that reality, to share that fact with others how can you do so? You tell them? You take a picture? You show them in person? All depends on our senses or trusting what you say to be true. If I know you are wearing a pink shirt or not doesn't change if you are or not. However for me to know reality, for me to know a fact, I need my senses.
The one point/concept I make is the same, has not changed once:
We know things based on our senses or based on what other people tell us (which is our perception). We are limited to understand what is real/reality/fact/evidence by our perception. Our perceptions sometimes fail us, however we depend on it to function in the world, we depend on it to test things, to know anything. Usually it is accurate and so we trust it. That trust is faith. And it is a leap of faith because it isn't always accurate, because people's perceptions differ and conflict and so on.
If I make another or a second point it is this:
Our knowledge is limited. When we receive new knowledge sometimes what was once known to be a fact is disproved. I made an example of it being logical to think that the Earth is flat and then later, once our knowledge increased, we find out it is round. [You discredited this because, well, I guess you feel everyone, with intelligence, always knew it was round.] One day we may have further knowledge what shows another possibility we cannot conceive of at the moment because we don't know of it.
I also cut and paste from wiki that the problem with evidence is our limited knowledge.
Long story short: (not saying anything new from the first points, just sort of summing it up)
There are ways to know things: evidence/fact/reality not only through repeatable/testable evidence (sun rising) but also through one time happenings and untestable events: (my surgery, your pink shirt)... We can have evidence that is not based on repetition or tests. We know evidence in the end, including the repeated and tested kind of evidence, purely because we sense it. If we never sense it: yes: it still exists: but it is only because we sense it that we know about it.
Okay, I'm getting off the merry-go-round because I can't imagine anything new you have to say except that you will continue to put me down saying "how cute" I am for putting you down or misquoting you - now that is an implied ad hominem because you are being sarcastic. If you met me in person you might think I am cute without the sarcasm. I've been told, sincerely, I'm cute before. Then again, your perception may differ.
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
Here is the merry-go-round we are on:
(quick note: I'm paraphrasing, don't call me dishonest because of this: anyone can read what you write for themselves here, I'm not, nor have I tried from the start of this thread, to misrepresent you) You make a point about taking things based on repeatable evidence is how we know they are true but then I tell you what about things that don't repeat and then you say that reality changes. You say that reality doesn't always repeat and I say exactly: it changes, repetition isn't a basis for all evidence, for all reality. Some, yes, but not all. Then you say well that is perception, I say yes I agree - and that perception is how we know things and you say no, it is by repeatable evidence...
You have not proved ONCE my assertion is untrue. We are going in circles.
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
I've demonstrated amply that your assertion was untrue.
...
Atheists take things based on proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence. Sun rising, gravity, etc. Many time.
This does not disprove even one thing that I said. What I said is that people take things based on their senses and what others tell them. Also, I proved that not all things that atheists "take" need "proveable, demomstrable testable and repeatable evidence" - an example you gave me of this is you wearing a pink shirt. You know that to be a fact but cannot always prove it (if you took a picture maybe you could prove it - and then, even if you did take a picture you could photoshop it so the t-shirt is pink, etc). It may or may not be repeated, that doesn't take away from the fact that you wore a pink t-shirt. And to test it would be by documentation or eye witness - in which I would trust what someone else tells me. OR I would see you in a pink t-shirt for myself - then I'm trusting my eye sight, I'm trusting my senses. My question from the start is what is evidence? How do you know reality? My answer is the senses and what other people say - basically: our perceptions. So to say that atheists use evidence doesn't disprove my assertions.
History can be verified and cross referenced with geology, archeology, and secondary records. People tendm, with good reason, to distrust records of people who have a vested interest in a particular outcome of the thing they are testifying to.
Some history can, what people said and did cannot always be cross referenced. Also, there are things, such as the Marian Apparitions that have cross references. I would bet Elvis sightings and Alien Encounters sometimes do too. (Remember I am not saying I can PROOVE the Marian Apparitions, I am just saying that I believe in them and come to know them the same way you come to know things)
Oh, sorry, have we discussed witness bias yet? Those people tend all be religious and WANT it to be true. They have an inherent bias that influences their witness and taints it.
Interesting, brings to mind a new question: WHY do they want it to be true? There are people who hope things are true and then don't believe. As a child I believed in Santa Claus. I wanted to believe. I stopped believing because he doesn't exist and because I found my letters to Santa in a box in a closet. I found sufficient evidence that he didn't exist. There are people who want to believe and end up not believing. I think this board is a good proof to that: the bias to want to believe isn't enough. It seems to me many ex-JWs want to believe in watchtower stuff, it would make life easier, keep the family together, etc... the bias to want to believe isn't what makes people believe.
Which I have to quote tec again as to why people want this to be true:
The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm?
By the way: who doesn't have inherent bias that influences their witness? This can work adversely that you do not want to believe it, you find it ridiculous and so you are tainted to not believe it. You are tainted with an atheist bias.
And because, if I were so inclined and if it mattered, I could check with the school, your classmates, the professor...
If so inclined you could check with the witnesses of the Marian Apparitions throughout history.
See "witness bias" again.
See "atheist bias" again.
People often get off PRECISELY because the jury doesn't trust the witness or witnesses.
Yes, but not always so, in fact someone may believe a witness who doesn't tell the truth if they are calm and collected. If witnesses were not important then they would not be needed to take the stand. Witnesses would be skipped.
-
120
Evidence! How did you come to know reality?
by zannahdoll inis 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?
-
-
zannahdoll
I love this:
The thing is, I can conceive of a progression and reason to get to these things. Inventions fall under the same category. But how did a purely natural species conceive of a spiritual realm?
tec: good one :) glad you enjoyed your trip. Sorry to hear about the drive though.
What makes something mass hysteria? Is it because all the witnesses witnessed something supernatural: therefore they didn't witness it? Even when there are repeated circumstances? And when there are people who are physically altered after?
For a moment, for the purpose of this next argument, let's say that pink unicorns are in fact real. Although the general population do not know about this (the same way we don't all know you are wearing a pink t-shirt). You and 1,000 other people see this pink unicorn. You document it. Then the pink unicorn shows up more then once, another few thousand see it people see it. Then the pink unicorn dies or moves away. She doesn't come around anymore. You and some 5,000 + share with the world: "YES! I saw a pink unicorn. I documented it. I can validate it with other witnesses."
The world will not believe you. Mass Hysteria.
Then 100 years passes. Another unicorn shows up, only this one is blue and it shows up in another country and to a new group of a few thousand people... same things happen.
The world still doesn't believe you: Mass Hysteria, even now that it happened twice...
If something supernatural such as unicorns did in fact exist: why wouldn't people believe you if these things happen? Or would there be some people who did believe you? Would they be crazy to trust you (and the few thousand witnesses)? Or do they only not believe you because it is outside of their perception of the world? The fact that they can't perceive it being possible wouldn't change that it happens.
Isn't this similar to how we know our history? Before video camera there are history books: don't we get our facts that events happened purely because they are documented and there were witnesses?
Why is it easy for us to believe what we hear on the news as fact? Or a slice of life story a person tells you that happened to them? For instance if I tell you I went to a college lecture and there were some 50 students who heard the professor speak. If I told you the professor existed and gave an interesting lesson. I don't have it video taped. I have far less witnesses then the Marian Apparitions. The professor will be dead before another 100 years passes. There will not be a repetition of this event because I will not take this class again. However if I were to tell you that you that it is more likely you would believe me. Why? Because it doesn't conflict with your perception of reality. However both Marian Apparitions and professors that you never meet for yourself depend on taking someone else's word for it.
What about a sole eye witness to a crime? Should they take the stand in a trial? Should a jury believe them? Or should it be dismissed as hysteria? If there were 100 people to witness the crime then it would be mass hysteria... but no, we trust witnesses... because if they say something it is in our realm of understanding, in our world of perception.