OutOfTheDarkness
Member
Speaking of colorful, that is a nice shade of red you put on that pig.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
*[I believe] Atheism is an absurd worldview
- Thread starter Gambit
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
more rhetoric? lol. Nevertheless, it is there in print. I am sorry if you were not able to follow the conversation in real time. Next time just ask questions, I am a nice guy; I don't mind breaking it down for you.
OutOfTheDarkness
Member
Indeed it is there in black and white... and I find it amusing how a little education goes to one's head.
One poor sap asked questions... it's all there in black and white... and got the runaround because you simply refused to either realize, or point out, that you were using a rigid, narrow, and very problematic definition of knowledge.
I'm not sure why you simply can't admit it and move on. You got caught. Oops. Oh well. It's not like anyone is going to think any less of you than they already do.
OutOfTheDarkness
Member
No, a pig must be wearing lipstick, in order to be lipstick on a pig.
OutOfTheDarkness
Member
The inference is that it is a simple issue... like 2+2... it's as easy as 2+2. In saying so, I am relying on your common knowledge of the saying, and the answer. Inference requires knowledge.
We can get into a debate about the definition of inference and whether it's a subset of anything if you like... lol.
Perhaps someone can point out that 4 must have a 2+2, in order to be 2+2=4. I love that complex stuff.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Ooh, look "rigid, narrow, and very problematic" definition. Is that an actual argument? Backed by no support but an argument nonetheless. This definition of knowledge is not problematic for most, what is the problem you see? How is this definition rigid and narrow? What is a better definition for knowledge?
The person to whom my reply was made, @ImmortalFlame is very educated. He or she is far from a "poor sap" and if I thought they were incapable of understanding my language, I would modify my language.
Do you actually have content? I am more interested by the moment.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Cheers, man.
For the record, I never really had a problem with your definition of knowledge - it is a commonly used definition, and you defined it relatively early on in the discussion. I would argue that it is a somewhat problematic definition, but I have yet to come across a definition of knowledge that wasn't problematic on some level, and the important matter for discussions relating to knowledge is that at least you are both working of a commonly understood and previously decided definition from which the discussion can be based.
So, no, I don't feel your definition was overly rigid or problematic, and I never really felt I was getting the "runaround". I wish I had, though. Sounds like fun!
outhouse
Atheistically
Reflex
Active Member
Really? I've seen so much irrational nonsense from IF that I put him/her/it on my ignore list. Same with outhouse. (My ignore list is quite long and would be longer if I could put a staff member or two on my list.)
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
He's just bitter because I embarrassed him. Putting me on ignore was really his only defence.
OutOfTheDarkness
Member
This goes back even further, so compartmentalizing history, and sucking up to rucruit likes is oh so tacky.
Fill your boots. Perhaps you will indeed discover which is a subset of which, and go down in history as... well... nothing.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Lol, smh.
I am not quite sure what you are driving at here. Goes back further to where? Are you bottom-hurt about some other discussion? Compartmentalizing history? Whiskey tango foxtrot, bud? Go down in history as nothing? That is just strange. Why don't you just toss it all out on the table? It is already apparent you think I am inconsiderate, elitist who tries to intimidate others by using jargon, despite really being a pretentious moron who just talks in circles.
So, let's just figure out why you feel this way. Obviously, this is more personal than me having a conversation with other people using readily available terms that are very much related to the coversation in which we were engaged. Feel free to pm me, or tag me in another thread, or we can discuss knowledge and belief [ about which you don't really care].
Reflex
Active Member
Don't flatter yourself. Your post was simply too absurd to merit a response....but I did anyway.
Last edited:
Is it atheism that is "unjustified" or is it not believing in your particular god that is "unjustified"? If the latter then both atheists and some theists would be "unjustified" so stop your atheist discrimination.
Then that's metaphor.
Inference is a conclusion, like, "All swans are white," based only ever having known anyone to encounter white swans.
Inference requires knowledge, but it isn't itself knowledge (black swans are indigenous to Australia).
Last edited:
Induction is rationally justified, too, by evidence. But that's neither here nor there. Deductive inference is also predictive in nature. With deductive reasoning, I may conclude that there are black swans, though never having seen one, based on patterns of genetic dispursion in similar birds.
Gambit
Well-Known Member
Actually, it is not. In philosophy, this is known as the "problem of induction." (In fact, the example you gave of the black swan being the most prominent one to illustrate the problem.)
It is so, as the problem of induction exemplifies. The "problem" is, in basing the conclusion on only evidence, do you arrive at knowledge?
To which the answer is, "it depends."