›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

I hate so much (or: The terrorists won.)

2»

Comments

  • PseudocidalPseudocidal
    I am all for coming out of the closet. Lying to people is generally a bad thing.

    As for evolution-deniers: If I meet someone who doesn't believe in the basic tenets of evolution, then I rarely interact with them on a personal level after that. As for wishy-washy "guided evolution" or deists, I try not to touch on their nugget of cognitive dissonance (religion). But, if we get in a debate on the topic, I will not hesitate to argue my position.

    Basically, people should be friendly when they debate. A lot of times people get very angry, which is a bad thing, especially if they are angry long afterward. Friends can debate very important topics, then continue to be friends afterward.
    I thought Deism was a philosophy, not a religion.
  • WalkerWalker
    edited October 2008
    I am all for coming out of the closet. Lying to people is generally a bad thing.

    As for evolution-deniers: If I meet someone who doesn't believe in the basic tenets of evolution, then I rarely interact with them on a personal level after that. As for wishy-washy "guided evolution" or deists, I try not to touch on their nugget of cognitive dissonance (religion). But, if we get in a debate on the topic, I will not hesitate to argue my position.

    Basically, people should be friendly when they debate. A lot of times people get very angry, which is a bad thing, especially if they are angry long afterward. Friends can debate very important topics, then continue to be friends afterward.
    I thought Deism was a philosophy, not a religion.
    It is, and it's probably not what he meant. "Theists" would be a better blanket term.

    EDIT: Heh, I re-read that and realized I completely forgot the context. Deism is a philosophy, but it still makes sense in the context of his post.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • Magnum_OpusMagnum_Opus
    This little conflict on deism makes me wonder: what separates a philosophy from a religion? And from the few minutes of reading the wiki it seems more like a religion to me than a philosophy.
  • WalkerWalker
    edited October 2008
    This little conflict on deism makes me wonder: what separates a philosophy from a religion? And from the few minutes of reading the wiki it seems more like a religion to me than a philosophy.
    A religion always involves a set of rules and practices, as well as very specific beliefs. "There is a god that wants us to think and live morally" isn't enough to constitute a religion by itself.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • JasonJason
    In philosophy, the only absolute is, "I don't know."
  • AprecheApreche
    In philosophy, the only absolute is, "I don't know."
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
  • RymRym
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
    Sometimes you know, but you can't prove that you do.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    What is the practical application of philosophy?
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
    Sometimes you know, but you can't prove that you do.
    What did you know and when did you know it?
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
    If you don't know you know it, does it count as knowledge? I might say that some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this. If that happens to be true, does that mean that I know it?
  • JasonJason
    If you don't know you know it, does it count as knowledge? I might say that some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this. If that happens to be true, does that mean that I know it?
    According to Joe, it means you're lying.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited October 2008
    If you don't know you know it, does it count as knowledge? I might say that some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this. If that happens to be true, does that mean that I know it?
    According to Joe, it means you're lying.
    No.

    The point of those threads you're talking about was that I don't buy the "it's not a lie if you believe it" meme. If you wanted to revise the statement to make it more like the statements we were talking about in that thread, the statement would be "Some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this", the reality would be that there was no guy, no oak tree, no nail, no penis, and no keyboard, but as long as the person who made the statement believed all of those things, the statement somehow wouldn't be a lie.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • RymRym
    edited October 2008
    Some languages have different verbs/nouns for knowing and knowing. i.e., they have built-in mechanisms for denoting certain and uncertain truths, or levels of perceived veracity. Imagine if people used either of these two constructions in all statements.
    • I believe that x may be true.
    • I know for certain and have observed personally that x is true.
    Lying suddenly becomes much more difficult out of which to weasel one's way.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • WingsWings
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
    If you don't know you know it, does it count as knowledge? I might say that some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this. If that happens to be true, does that mean that I know it?
    And if said oak tree falls, would said guy be able to hear it, even though his penis is nailed to it?
  • ......
    Maybe you do know, but you don't know it.
    If you don't know you know it, does it count as knowledge? I might say that some guy is nailing his penis to an oak tree as I type this. If that happens to be true, does that mean that I know it?
    And if said oak tree falls, would said guy be able to hear it, even though his penis is nailed to it?
    Nothing can be heard over his screaming.
  • FunfetusFunfetus
    Lying suddenly becomes much more difficult out of which to weasel one's way.
    This is the kind of English up with which I will not put. (Churchill)
Sign In or Register to comment.