The default position.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 443
#121
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
You think there is outerspace and that stars aren't a map based on set amounts and such, that is the cause of your confusion.

Let's say I believe in NASA's teachings, I know there are 2 stars 'for sure' A sun and the north star. The rest (since in this scenario I guess I'm not an astrologer nor any level above novice at cosmology) is all mystery to me yeah? Alright, then I'd bet on even.

The sun is not a star in flat earth theory.
Topic's author
#122
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
All I mean when I use the word in the context of a debate or intellectual discussion is that I do not believe the claim being made unless it can be proved. That does not mean that I am claiming the opposite or even making a claim at all. Part of the difference between us is that I may not use the dictionary definition but I try to be clear what I mean by way of explanation. You use the definition precisely so that you can obfuscate your actual meaning. I have told you before what I mean by reject and you have not suggested an alternative term with the meaning I wish to convey. I don't know is not synonymous with rejecting a claim but neither is it mutually exclusive to I don't know. I can equally reject an unproved premise and a disproved premise. In one case I don't know in the other I am as close to knowing as I can be. In both cases I am rejecting a claim.

If you object to my specific terminology then I still need a word in my lexicon thay conveys my meaning. If you reject a word I would very much appreciate a replacement. Without that conversation grinds to a halt which is the opposite of my desired goal. Why do you continuously try to shut the conversation down?
Topic's author
#123
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@blamonkey
Then simply rejecting a claim does not necessarily incur a burden of proof?
Topic's author
#124
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Ok then forget stars I'm not trying to get into your conspiracy theories right now and that misses the point. Do you believe that there are an even number of cells in your thumbnail?

#125
blamonkey
blamonkey's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 532
3
5
8
blamonkey's avatar
blamonkey
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
In an intellectual discussion or debate it would be helpful to point out the logical flaw. However, I am under no obligation to prove you wrong in the thought experiment, nor could I unless you open the box. So, no, I am under no obligation to prove your fallacious argument wrong. 
Topic's author
#126
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@blamonkey
Then we are in agreement. I am not familiar with you but you don't seem the sort to make a red ball statement so we have reached what I consider to be the natural conclusion of this discussion.
#127
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
If I had to pick a colour at random for the ball with NO ONE telling me a colour it would be just as hard as that question, I get what you're saying.

0 clues, 0 odds to invest/bet with.
#128
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I have told you this from the very beginning....


...your superstitions are greatly the result of bad language.


You accuse me of using proper language to "obfuscate" what I'm saying...


Did it ever occur to you that maybe you might be a tad bit arrogant?

Definition of superstition courtesy Merriam-webster...



Full Definition
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary


#129
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I can't possibly mean what I am saying, that would mean I am telling the truth.

No, everything I say must be some kind of code!

Really, the lengths people go in order to deny THE TRUTH.


I couldn't be more lucid. I speak the way I do to prove a point. The only. thing rejection does is solidify my faith because the prophets said it would be like this. 

Topic's author
#130
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
We are completely off topic. I would like to.make myself clear to you but you don't seem recognize any of my words as having the meaning I am trying to convey. Is talking to you an excessive in futility? Are you simply unable to understand any language that does not dogmatically support your belief system? Have you considered that this might be a tad bit arrogant? 
Topic's author
#131
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
0 clues, 0 odds to invest/bet with.
The same is true even if someone does suggest a color. The people in my example don't know what color the ball is and so the color they suggest does not effect your odds of guessing correctly in any way. One says red only one says blue only you say purple or half red half blue or they are both close to right and still you could open the box and find a yellow ball or an orange one or a clear one or it might end up being a cube or a disc. You can form an opinion in the absence of evidence but you cannot achieve knowledge under such circumstances. Pretending to have knowledge is not analogous to knowing and even if you eventually find out that you were "right the whole time" you weren't right you were just lucky (with the understanding that I don't believe in luck and that luck is just a convenient term for the incidental coincidence).
Topic's author
#132
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
In addition if you form an opinion in the absence of evidence you run a greater risk of falling victim to confirmation bias.
#133
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
And I repeat:
For all I know the strangers have far more than 5 senses and/or far superior intellect and RANGE ON their senses such that they can perceive what to me 'makes no sense'. You cannot explain to a deaf person why you know the sound coming from a source is definitely of a certain pitch but what a fool she/he'd be to fold the hand rather than all-in. You wanna play like a pussy, you gonna end up in the dirt (and yes, so will those that bet wrong). Guaranteed failure is the least-safe strategy there is.


#134
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
confirmation bias is what people with your mentality fall into because they try and make everything fit the simplest theory.

Occam's razor is BS.
Topic's author
#135
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
And for all you know they don't have any special knowledge of any kind. They haven't demonstrated any special knowledge or powers of perception. If you assume they do that is yet another unfounded belief you have no evidence for. This is not the kind of thinking that leads to truth it is the sort of thinking that leads to being taken in by con men and snake oil salesmen.
#136
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
That's why it gets more and more fluid the more inputs there are.
Topic's author
#137
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
Occams Razer is just a good rule of thumb. The answer that makes the fewest assumptions is often the correct one (if there is.a gum.wrapper in a rubbish can it may have been pit there by a trained tap dancing eagle but the most likely answer is the one which makes the fewest assumptions that a human put it there) but the only honest answer to most questions is I don't know. Not knowing isn't losing. It's an opportunity to learn and grow. I hope I never know everything because I love to learn. I am comfortable with I don't know if not entirely satisfied with it.
#138
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
You said it's 100% certain you're not lying or conning me. Nice try.
#139
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@secularmerlin
it's not. Occam's Razor is absolutely disgusting as an approach to life in general and furthermore pursuit of deeper truths.
Topic's author
#140
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
In the hypothetical situation I described no one was conning you. In real many people will try and a little healthy incredulity is a good defense against such scoundrels.
Topic's author
#141
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
What do you.mean bybdeeper truths exactly?
#142
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Again a stupid atheist tries to explain religion using physical objects. Gods are not physical beings on Earth. It's like saying I love my wife, prove it, there is a red ball in the box. Idiots. How about just saying, I don't understand it so I hate it and you can't have it because of it. Bigots. 
Topic's author
#143
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
This is not about hate poly this is about burden of proof. How about responding to the op? Don't you think that might be an interesting change of pace?
#144
SamStevens
SamStevens's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
1
3
SamStevens's avatar
SamStevens
0
1
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Imagine if you will that I have in my possession a box which I have not opened. Now imagine there is a ball in this box. This ball may be any color but I have claimed that the ball is red. Now since I have not seen the ball you may well wonder how I know this and you may well ask me "how do you know the ball is red?" 

Let us further imagine that rather than opening the box and proving what color it is once and for all I reply "You can't prove that it isn't red".

Now you can't actually prove that the ball is not red. Should you simply accept my word?

Assuming you didn't order a red ball online and had it shipped in a box that you have not yet opened, I do not simply accept your word.  You have no way of knowing what color it is. As convinced as you may be, it could easily be another color as you have no direct evidence of it being red. Someone else could easily come up to us and say it was blue...

"You can't prove that it isn't red"

That is true, however, I'm not the one claiming knowledge about the ball's color. The default position is to claim no knowledge about the ball's color and to reject the claims of people who say stuff without any evidence. 

#145
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@SamStevens
The default position is to claim no knowledge about the ball's color and to reject the claims of people who say stuff without any evidence. 

I think we have a winner here!

#146
SamStevens
SamStevens's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 287
0
1
3
SamStevens's avatar
SamStevens
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
:O that was easy lol

#147
Tyronebiggs
Tyronebiggs's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 29
0
0
5
Tyronebiggs's avatar
Tyronebiggs
0
0
5
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah, much easier to. Accept your word, plus I usually just accept what people say about their balls instead of trying to examine them. The doctor can examine them if something is wrong.
#148
Tyronebiggs
Tyronebiggs's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 29
0
0
5
Tyronebiggs's avatar
Tyronebiggs
0
0
5
Must be a bunch of gay guys on thus site if the most popular thread on the front page is about balls. I came here for intellectual discourse not to watch gay guys circle jerk. Please let's lock this thread and delete it mods. 
#149
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I think what you are saying is clearer to me than it is to you.

Does that sound arrogant? You are the one arguing with the dictionary.



I don't know if there is a ball in the box. Maybe there is a ball in the box.

You insist on saying reject because you don't really care what words mean. So what is the deal?

Either you are too prideful to admit your use of language is sloppy...

Or

You really do mean reject, and are only leaving it open as a pretense to appear more reasonable....

But no, I think me leaving the answer open ended is very rational. I don't know what is in the box. Maybe there is a ball in the box. I don't reject that there is a ball in the box, neither do I accept that there is a ball in the box.

In fact, I have no good reason to care about what is in the box.
#150
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I don't recognize the words as meaning what you are trying to say.

You won't use correct dictionary English.


No connection at all.


I huess that is why this has been something I discerned shortly we began talking.