If you have seen brown apples, so you have seen its color, so you are lying to us that you are color blind. rotten is truth.
Let's all have a big fight over my mortal soul.
- Thread starter redarmy11
- Start date
If you have seen brown apples, so you have seen its color, so you are lying to us that you are color blind. rotten is truth.
Those are mutually exclusive arguments; however color blind people see some colors and not others.
He can be theistic without religion (if he so wishes); saying he has to choose an existing paradigm is not necessary. Of course, if an existing paradigm meshes with his beliefs that is a separate story.
Uh, I'm not the one cooped up in a one bedroom apartment with cats.
You haven't made an argument, you've merely made another baseless assertion. That is your reality.
"MY" reality happens to be nature and the world around me. Many of the people who share nature with me, on the other hand, don't recognize nature as reality, their reality is filled with supernatural, beings such as gods, angels, spirits, demons, heaven and hell, and other such beings and places they have yet to demonstrate as existing.
They build churches and mosques to glorify their realities, free of any taxes. They send out their evangelists to bring yet more people into their realities, blissfully unaware of the contradictions and hypocrisies they attempt to shove down your throats.
That is your reality.
Yes, I do step out into that world, unfortunately.
Life is rarely so simple. Apples are often a mixture of colours. Show a dozen people a red and green apple then, some way down the line, ask what colour it was and you'll get considerable diversity in the answers.
A considerably more complex question, with no conclusive evidence to support acceptance or rejection of the idea. Of course, one can talk probabilities but it seems... dishonest to reject the idea out of hand, on the basis of little more than intuition, without conclusive evidence to back it up. It's not that I believe the proposition to be true; I don't. As greenberg said, it's more a question of... niggling doubts that arise when you compromise your intellectual integrity.
you are making yourself appear very silly
there are things that we don't know, but there are things that we most deffinitely know. the same principles, methods and rules which allow for you to be sitting comfortably at home typing in your computer are the ones used to reach conclusions such as evolution is a fact and cosmological theories are sensible. how can you answer every questioning with "you can't know for sure" when we are using this concepts right now to our own benefit?
Perhaps, but to say that all people process information in the same way is the height of nonsense.
There is, in truth, little prospect of me choosing any religion at all. Like I said, it's more a question of philosophical and intellectual integrity.
that does not rule out my question
sam, that does not matter
it doesnt matter if you perceive red differently from me, what matter is that we know for a fact that the frequency of red is 480-430 THz
How do you know that the red I see is the exact same as the red you see?
what is the weight of this question from the scientific method standpoint, if i can use a spectofotometer to acurately define a color? science is not interested in the subjectivity of an individual's opinion
But we are talking about people processing information, not machines.
e.g.
example, if there was something wrong with your sample, could the spectrophotometer know that? Machines do not perceive, they merely process mechanically.
And science is based on observations, even the data from your spectrophotometer is meaningless if your sample is incorrectly processed.
Another example is between spatial and nonspatial thinkers. Autism. Is everyone the same in terms of processing information?
Too funny. You now claim that not having the ability to process information is the same as having the ability to process information.
Idoit.
That is entirely different from your original claim.
Welcome to the incomprehensible world of the theist.
The passage you quoted also addresses how we fail to register new information in the first place, if it we can't frame it in a recognisable way. Plenty of psychological research to support this. When we're expecting certain data the unexpected often passes unnoticed.
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing again. Why do you lie?