These threads go something like this . . . . .creative lays out a valid and nuanced account of an aspect of philosophy.

Someone does not understand or wants to argue, comes up with a sad sad rebuttal, that rebuttal is pulled apart and shown to be in error.

That person is then offended and makes it there mission to poison the well, ad hom creative, and try to make him the bad guy.

I come along stick up for creative point out the flaws in the rebuttal trying to use more common language in hopes that the usage is the problem with the miss-communication, then I get frustrated becuase I realize the objective is not to debate the topic rationally but to attack creative and I leave.

I come back to find redy has set down a beautiful and insightful accounting of how this all goes down, and then everyone shuts up for a bit.

Next topic please we have made full circle.

Ad nauseum.

I see. You think/believe that all of my responses make the situation worse, regardless of the content.



You're making no sense whatsoever. I cannot justify your statements for you. My admittance of past ridicule does not equate to justification nor proof for the allegation of current ridicule.



I've said no such thing.



You do address things I've not said. SEE ABOVE.

Are you denying talking about me personally Pan?



Are you not talking about me personally? Are you not attempting to ridicule me personally, Pan?

--

So in closing this post...

It has already been established that it is possible that I am ridiculing another.

NEXT.

Good idea. However

I find philosophical conversations to be a bit European and I am unfamiliar with the rules, customs and dialect involved. If the way Creative does it is proper, I'm afraid I find it a bit pompous and persnickety.

But I do know how to construct a sentence, and I believe I am well understood for the most part.

If that kind of dialect is not 'proper' for philosophical conversations then I'm thinking it is not for me at all.

It's good practice for the 'real world'.

Are you making the claim that discussions of philosophy
is good practice for the real world?

How so?

How does it add to your real world?

I keep hoping that someday, I will develope the skill of making my points clearly in the least amount of words possible, like I've seen Bushi and Creative do so often. JR, Jeanniebean and Pan - well most everyone seem more proficient in that realm than I. I'm working on it. My thanks to you Bushi and everyone else who takes the time to read my wordy responses.

religion is all about belief. one must beblieve there is a god as such a concept cannot even be theorized much less established as fact. when i lost my belief in god i concluded that to believe anything i senseless. afterall, the two people i trusted most, my parents, led me to my senseless belief.

Now... I don't think that that is any of your business. How does sound reasoning add to the world is a much better question. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of social convention.

Your thoughts and claims are always taken in good faith, Di. There's much to be said about the meaning of that statement, religion notwithstanding. My points are not always short and concise, but that is always the aim. It tends to work better. My follow up sucks...

So then you aren't here in Mingle to make friends.

Friends get to know each other and share things about themselves.

You have built a solid wall around you and you don't allow anyone to get close.

None of my business indeed.

Nope. Nor do I need to be. Making friedns is a necessary logical consequence of wherever I go at the time. Got it?



Agreed.



Only people I do not feel content with. Got it?



It would be nice if you took your own advice.

Most of the time at least... Thank you for the continued reads. I'm glad someone other than myself gets something good out of this.



It ought be left for dead then? I'll take that advice. Thanx again.

One more... out of respect alone.



That is an unnecessary switch from one end of the spectrum to the other. Religion contains belief, but I would not say that there is sufficient reason to believe that religion is all about belief. Religion is not necessarily bad nor false. Now mind you, there are many religious claims that rest upon dubious grounds, others which are clearly false. However, that does not constitute sufficient reason to conclude that religion is all about belief. Nor does the fact that religion contains belief constitute sufficient reason to conclude that belief is bad in the same way that religion is. "Bad" is of course opinion that is culturally relative, however that does not matter in this case.

no it was me that would say that.

People attempt to understand others from either by association (comparing another's experience to their own), or by empathy (attempting to feel what one feels about the issue being described). We can never be 'absolutely certain' that anyone understands us in any given situation.

There are also times in a person's life when a problem weighs on the mind and the individual becomes obsessed with the problem. For example: A neighbor's 13 yr old son was becoming obsessed with dying until he feared his own death and wondered why we try. I told him the facts - is there any human in history whose body has not died? (no) then we all face the moment when we realize our time here is limited and all we can do is use the time as we are allotted without regard to exactly when we will expire. A little further discussion but a couple days later his mom said he was a changed kid, even making plans and asked his mom about some long term goas he was thinking about.

Points: Although some are put off by the science of psychology, sometimes we have to admit that the research makes sense. The research indicates that humans have this innate and mostley automatic ability to and capacity for 'believing' in whatever will ease the burden that certain problems bring to us, like our own death. For some it takes religion - so you parents and other adults didn't lie, they simply used a TIME-tested traditional method of getting past the fear.

Another point is that we (all humans) hold certain beliefs on faith alone and it doesn't have to be religious is nature (as you know). We believe many things even IF skepticism is part of our evaluative process. We begin with a theory (belief)and evey day we proceed on that belief. >> I'm hungary, I'm going to eat << versus >> I'm not going to eat, there's no point, I'm dying anyway <<.

We do have faith and thus a certain level of belief, even if we hold that skepticism is first rule of order.

not so, red. at least in my case. soul doesn't lend credibility to my saying this but i've no faith in anything or anybody. i may conclude that something told to me or that i read is highly feasable based how i judge the credibility of the person and a likely explanation, but i never believe it to be fact.

you say 'we begin with a theory [belief]'. a belief is not a theory by any stretch of the imagination. we begin with a postulate and from their form a hypothesis. the theory follows later when a test or tests can be conducted and shown to produce predictable and repeatable results in support of the new theory. i've posted this before:

'a good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. if the predictions agrees with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct.'

stephen hawking, the universe in a nutshell.

so even the best scientific theories should not be believed to be fact, proved or even provable according to hawking. sure it's passed every test of the decades or centuries but nobody knows if it will pass the next test. scientists never take anything on faith alone. they love to one up the other guy. always trying to challenge a theory using scientific methodology to see if the theory will hold up to the latest test. in science we investigate to disprove a theory knowing that any attempt to prove it would be wasted time.

ah, but the social convention in saudi arabia would suggest that women should not drive. if that's not a matter of opinion why do women drive here????

So sorry I made you write all that for nothing. I wrote that very quickly before leaving for work and did not proof read it. I used an inappropriate word - my bad. But thanks for trying to correct my thinking - though it was language that was wrong.

I have no choice but to accept that you do not proceed in your day-to-day existence with any, faith, trust, or belief, in anything becasue I don't know you.

I will say however, that I cannot imagine what kind of person, friend, or relative, you would be if others could have no 'faith', 'trust', or 'belief' that your actions/behaviors were predictable. I say that because it seems impossible for someone to place such values in person who holds none of those values himself preferring to skeptical of everything and everyone around him.

To me that would be one scary dude.