For someone so keen to accuse others of raising straw men and being intellectually dishonest, Vociferous, you do raise enough of your own, and suffer your own share of dishonesty....
No, that's your own straw man.
No, it's an implication of what you said:
To remind you:
But I agree that beliefs lacking compelling evidence are on pretty equal footing.
You then clarified that you were speaking about beliefs lacking objectively compelling evidence, and that the equal footing was with regard to being "not knowledge".
So how is this different to the tautology of "not knowledge is not knowledge"?
And as such, if it is not known how X was caused, then both the belief it was A and the belief it was B are on equal footing in that those beliefs are "not knowledge". With me so far?
Good. Now, if A is possible and B is impossible, you end up with the possible and impossible being on equal footing. Did you manage to follow that?
So, now, please pray tell how it is a straw man for me to say that you have simply stated a tautology that puts the possible and impossible on equal footing?
So either
you are being intellectually dishonest in your dismissal of it as a strawman, or you are demonstrating intellectual deficiency in your ability to follow the implications of what you said.
If you want to compare unicorns to theism (which ~80% of the world believes in) that's your own intellectual dishonest.
Straw man (oh, the irony) on your part, Vociferous: I have not compared unicorns to theism. In my posts to you on this I have not once (until just then) even mentioned theism. So where have you got this little gem of a strawman from?
You making faulty, straw man analogies says nothing about any point I've made.
Nothing faulty about the analogies. Nothing about them are a straw man, either.
What you consider reasonable is obviously subjective.
Have I said otherwise? You said that I hadn't given thought to how I justify my assumption: I had. Whether that is subjective or not is irrelevant. But, oh, I guess you're just setting up yet another ironic straw-man, right?
Lots of people function fine without agreeing on reality, just look at politics.
Sure - and lots of people undoubtedly think gravity is subjective.
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. Is it that not everything is objective? Sure - noone has said otherwise. Is it that everything is subjective? If so, pointing to something subjective isn't going to show how everything is. Is it that there is both the objective and subjective? Well, pointing to something subjective doesn't really address that. So, other than rambling, what point are you actually trying to make?
But again you've missed the point. Whether or not we observe the world as it is is an open philosophical question, as you can only even be sure one's own mind exists, and everything else is subject to some form of justification.
Where have I said otherwise? I simply said that it is reasonable to assume that, if we can function reasonably, that the world matches what we think about it. Clearly, if two similarly well functioning people have different views on a matter (e.g. politics, beauty etc), those differences show that those views are subjective. But again, where have I said otherwise?
That you seem to dismiss that fact out of hand tells me you're ill-equipped for the discussion you've haplessly stumbled into.
I haven't dismissed anything - so yet another of your ironic strawmen. (And given that you are so ready to accuse others of raising strawmen, yours really can only be deemed "ironic strawmen").
Lots of whining about something people like Yaz readily comprehend.
And more (ironic) intellectual dishonesty from you, Vociferous. Or maybe not dishonest but just another sign of your intellectual deficiency... you tell me which it is:
Your accusation of me being "literal and obtuse" was, for anyone following the conversation closely enough, clearly referencing me answering "no" to your question of whether we "
actually know how what we perceive relates to the world as it is"? You then created your ironic strawman by using that answer to claim I was being contradictory. I showed how I wasn't, because you clearly hadn't considered adequately the question you had asked. Hence you called me "literal and obtuse".
This had nothing to do with those matters that "
people like Yaz readily comprehend". Hence your intellectual dishonesty in trying to link the two.
Alternatively, as said, you are not being dishonest but simply demonstrating intellectual deficiency in linking the two.
No, that's still your own faulty comparison and straw man. No one here ever said anything to the effect of something which "can't possibly be caused by B" being equal to anything else,....
No faulty comparison, and no straw man from me, Vociferous, as set out for you above.
...no matter how much you may, subjectively, think that description fits religion or anything else. You're arguing your own straw man.
And there we are back to your own ironic straw man.
I think I've more than adequately addressed your repeated straw man.
No straw man, Vociferous, and any further attempt by you to dismiss the point as such will be seen as further clear evidence of your intellectually dishonesty in the matter, given that I don't believe you are
that intellectually deficient.
