I am not dishonest to this forum. We discuss religion in temples not science. Thanks for causing this awareness me die to your odd and irrational egoistic attitude. Didcuss and base science in science forum. Here every written word need not to be supported bu science. I do not care, whatever way, it is taken because I am honest to this forum. A&F. Take care. No more TTTT on it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
I am not dishonest to this forum. We discuss religion in temples not science. Thanks for causing this awareness me die to your odd and irrational egoistic attitude. Didcuss and base science in science forum. Here every written word need not to be supported bu science. I do not care, whatever way, it is taken because I am honest to this forum. A&F. Take care. No more TTTT on it.
StackOverflow
Unregistered
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2017
- Messages
- 179
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No; you are not "honest to this forum". You are pretending that because this is a forum for discussing religion and philosophy, you are entitled to agreement on whatever half-baked idea you present. You are not; that is not a discussion.
If you make claims, be prepared to be asked to back them up. Saying that hey are true because they are "A&F" is no different from saying they are true because you say they are true.
Last edited:
Talk to R&P level to ne honest. Do you suggest, I should ask two Q to all here before interactions. 1. Your parents names? 2. Relevent DNA reports and other evidences. Do you suggest, I take out all odds of science and med science and start arguing on those as reaction,? Look it:
All models are wrong
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Then your Jain model of the world must also be wrong.
I think, that link suggested something about simple model. It may justify my thinking. When I studied and experianced some simplified system, I wondered how its simple suggestions are somewhat A&F. I usually note so many odds in much advanced and complex understandings but could not find any in that.??
Filippo Lippi
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2002
- Messages
- 5,537
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, but you have hung your hat on the notion that "All models are wrong".
That means that your models must also be wrong. To late to back out now.
Either you did not read or did not comprehend the article you linked and you certainly neglected to consider that your claim that "All models are wrong" would equally apply to your models.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
In your 14+ years here you seem to have learned nothing whatsoever. You seem allergic to knowledge. So at this point I don’t hink anyone here is under the illusion you are teachable; I’m certainly not.
Yes, but maybe you’ve noticed this is a skeptic’s forum. I know that’s been pointed out to you many times. That means when you fail to support your claims, you’re gonna be called on it. R&P is not an evidence-free zone where members can post nonsense unchallenged.
Who said anything about science? I didn’t. I pointed out your lack of evidence.
Oh, and if I want to post on-topic scientific evidence here, I **** well will. If you think that violates the MA, please feel free to report such posts. I suggest reviewing the MA before you do so.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Last edited:
Please explain what either of those has to do with the topic of this thread.
I was feeling, you will avoid that since odd in your intrest. But I shall not do that because against forum will be dishonesty. I can present non A& F evidences against most of my indications since most is available on internet. But I am not even trying on looking your odd, irrational, egoistic and one sided approach towards me or my likes. First be rational to really get, give or share. Good luck.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
No, I was asking how it is relevant to the thread topic. You seem to be unable to answer the question.
There appear to be big logic or sense in it. Simple vs complex, A&F vs non A&F, truth vs rational, even vs odd etc.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
And you do not have a firm grasp of any of it. The same baseless claims, the same misdirection, the same moving goalposts, the same misapplied terms, the same irrelevant web sites, the same refusal to recognize reality over and over and . . .
It's no longer even mild amusement trying to point out your innumerable fallacies & mistakes. There may be a few observers on the sidelines who gain a bit from the numerous explanations your refuse to acknowledge, but there's no other possible gain from a thread with your nonsense in it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, Kumar, your difficulty in this forum is not because all your critics are "odd," irrational, and egotistical, or biased. Stop calling your critics names.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
This is not a temple. This is a skeptics' forum. In a skeptics' forum we discuss science. It has a religion and philosophy section because science has something to say about those things. It also has a law second also because science has something to say about those things too. It has a paranormal section because science has something to say about that. Skeptics don't just talk about skepticism. They talk about how the principles of rational skepticism apply to different human pursuits.
This is not a safe space for your religion.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Someone needs to, because you simply lack understanding of most topics that aren't your religion, and you seem to lack even a fair amount of erudition in that.
When you're are trying to talk about whether the natural world supports your religious beliefs, you are indeed the student and I and others are indeed your teachers. You're in our territory, the things we've spend our entire lives mastering. And you are here by your choice, and can leave at any time if you feel you've made a mistake in coming here. You, in your extreme arrogance, seem to think you know it all already, but you make egregious errors almost on a daily basis. These are errors in understanding, or sometimes just haughty rejection of facts you can't abide. Your reluctance to accept the student's role in a discipline you clearly know nothing about doesn't improve your credibility.
Here if you make errors you will be corrected. You're nothing special in this forum. You are not entitled to be coddled. You're not entitled to approval you haven't earned. Now grow up and quit whining about how life here is so unfair and improper to you.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And in the story, all the blind men are factually correct within the narrow scope of their own experience. And they all honestly report their observations. That's the contrived scenario that leads up to the author's desired moral. But you have made the mistake of assuming that this contrived scenario completely describes real life. This has led you to commit an error that logicians call converting the conditional
The premise of the moral of the story may be stated formally as the conditional, "If everyone has a disjoint portion of the truth, there will be a conflict among them." The converse of this is, "If there is conflict among people, then everyone has a disjoint portion of the truth." Converted conditionals are rarely right. Another name for this fallacy is the affirmation of the consequent. You're observing that there is conflict and wrongly concluded that this means everyone must have some individually valid point of view. This line of reasoning omits data that didn't fit the conditional -- "if everyone has a portion of the truth."
What if there are people contributing to the analysis of the elephant who don't have even a portion of the truth? What if one of them lies about what he felt? What if one of them, led astray by some stander-by, feels a trash can instead and reports the "elephant" as cold and metallic? Bhagchandra Jain didn't simply have a different perspective on science when he claimed Jainism was confirmed by it. Bhagchandra was wrong. Factually wrong. There is no legitimate question whether he is wrong. This throws a wrench in the way you're trying to apply the elephant story -- and rightly so, because your application is patently illogical. Just because you are bringing your point of view to the table doesn't mean it must be any portion of the truth.
Even more disingenuously, you're trying to apply your version of the moral of the story one-sidedly. You're trying to say your critics, having only a portion of the truth in your estimation, cannot conclusively refute your beliefs. First, that's wrong. I'll talk about that in a minute. But more importantly, you assiduously avoid questions asking whether your own conclusions may be only a portion of the truth and may be erroneous or misinterpreted. It seems you remain firmly convinced that your own blind-man experience is the complete and accurate truth, honestly reported.
Can one blind man refute another? Yes, because not all questions are as complex as an elephant. They are often straightforward enough that even partial results can preclude certain hypotheses. Consider two blind men who are handed a cube and told to describe it. One of them simply lies, "It's smooth, like a sphere, with no sharp edges." The other one, honestly and accurately reports to the contrary. He can feel the edges. He can feel the corners. He can confidently know that the first blind man is wrong. It doesn't matter than a sighted person would have drawn a more confident conclusion quicker and via different senses. The finding of one corner or edge, by any means, refutes the "it's smooth, with no sharp edges" hypothesis.
What makes you think you don't want to get into arguments? You have, for several years, come here with various religiously-motivated arguments, knowing full well that they will meet with vigorous opposition. It should be apparent to you by now that simply declaring your beliefs and expecting them to be taken without question will result in an argument. Yet you keep doing it. Further, what you're doing is considered rude and offensive on this forum. It's the equivalent of me walking into a Jain temple with a radio blaring loud rock-and-roll music. It's very disingenuous of you now to try to claim a high moral ground, because you really don't have it.
The best I get from you is TTTTs. Same is got returned. Try to estimate, how I reciprocate to really contributive posts. So avoid TTTTs, blaims, claims, insults and criticisms and just get, give or share.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Who do you think you are, that you can dictate how other people must respond to you? No, your bad behavior is not everyone else's fault. Quite whining and answer the questions and challenges to your claims.
Last edited: