Franktalk wrote:There are many on the earth that believe a different history than you or I do.
So?
Are they all ignorant?
Many probably are, but it depends on the issue and what the facts are. Holocaust deniers are not so much about ignorance as they are about hate.
Or do they feel the west has lied to them?
Who is this west? You are still avoiding the issue and facts I have brought up. Lets look at the facts instead of your feeble attempt at distraction. Facts are what we need to make good decisions, not beliefs we have no evidence for but like anyways.
It is both fascinating and dismaying to me that there are otherwise seemingly rational and sentient people like Franktalk who seem so hold firmly to the conviction ideas arrived at with little or no supporting evidence are more reliable than long established concepts abundantly supported by the best available evidence. He seems sometimes to claiming or implying that the more supporting evidence there is, the less suspect the conclusion, or that if something really were true, there would be no necessity to provide or rely on supporting evidence for it because it would be somehow self-evident to any rational person whether or not anyone could cite any evidence for it.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
spotlight wrote:I am just curious as h*ll who Franktalk is referring to that are not on the earth. I can't ignore his posts, the anticipation is too great. I must find out.
With most of the people on the earth I believe in a higher being or beings that have been around for eternity. I fail to see this as earth shattering news.
Gunnar wrote:It is both fascinating and dismaying to me that there are otherwise seemingly rational and sentient people like Franktalk who seem so hold firmly to the conviction ideas arrived at with little or no supporting evidence are more reliable than long established concepts abundantly supported by the best available evidence. He seems sometimes to claiming or implying that the more supporting evidence there is, the less suspect the conclusion, or that if something really were true, there would be no necessity to provide or rely on supporting evidence for it because it would be somehow self-evident to any rational person whether or not anyone could cite any evidence for it.
Actually you are pretty close to what I believe. It is my belief that we are eternal beings that come here in the flesh to experience mortality. We do this for the experience. So our greater self knows the truth about everything. What we learn here is but a small part of the knowledge of the eternities. I have always said that given more time man will zero in on truth but today we are far from it. We know of some relationships with energy and we build devices to make our lives better. But we also make devices to make war on each other. So we still have a lot to learn. Part of my belief system is that we come back here again and again as different people. And as we are born we forget the last life we had and all those before it. But we are born into an expanding social system and knowledge set of man. So my view of man's systems are seen through my belief system. I am pretty open about my beliefs. Now part of my belief system tells me that we all can believe what we wish. In the big picture it does not matter. This world will unfold just as all those countless worlds have done for eternity.
This world view, and its associated conclusions are based on what?
Can you point to any actual evidence on which to support the assertion that we are eternal beings? The parts that compose our bodies us will be here for the duration, but will not constitute our bodies as we start to decay at death. Can you point to any thing on which to support the assertion that our consciousness, identity, whatever is eternal?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Gunnar wrote:It is both fascinating and dismaying to me that there are otherwise seemingly rational and sentient people like Franktalk who seem so hold firmly to the conviction ideas arrived at with little or no supporting evidence are more reliable than long established concepts abundantly supported by the best available evidence. He seems sometimes to claiming or implying that the more supporting evidence there is, the less suspect the conclusion, or that if something really were true, there would be no necessity to provide or rely on supporting evidence for it because it would be somehow self-evident to any rational person whether or not anyone could cite any evidence for it.
At least one other possibility exists, and that is that Frank is just playing with people's heads, that he doesn't actually care about the issues and just wants to get a reaction and attention.
Gunnar wrote:It is both fascinating and dismaying to me that there are otherwise seemingly rational and sentient people like Franktalk who seem so hold firmly to the conviction ideas arrived at with little or no supporting evidence are more reliable than long established concepts abundantly supported by the best available evidence. He seems sometimes to claiming or implying that the more supporting evidence there is, the less suspect the conclusion, or that if something really were true, there would be no necessity to provide or rely on supporting evidence for it because it would be somehow self-evident to any rational person whether or not anyone could cite any evidence for it.
At least one other possibility exists, and that is that Frank is just playing with people's heads, that he doesn't actually care about the issues and just wants to get a reaction and attention.
I admit that actually may more probable than that he actually believes the stuff he seems to be promoting here, but why would anyone deliberately make themselves appear to be abysmally stupid and ignorant?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Maksutov wrote: At least one other possibility exists, and that is that Frank is just playing with people's heads, that he doesn't actually care about the issues and just wants to get a reaction and attention.
I admit that actually may more probable than that he actually believes the stuff he seems to be promoting here, but why would anyone deliberately make themselves appear to be abysmally stupid and ignorant?
Because it's irritating to others. It's a variety of troll.
SteelHead wrote:This world view, and its associated conclusions are based on what?
Can you point to any actual evidence on which to support the assertion that we are eternal beings? The parts that compose our bodies us will be here for the duration, but will not constitute our bodies as we start to decay at death. Can you point to any thing on which to support the assertion that our consciousness, identity, whatever is eternal?
No, I can not. But I can describe how I came to this conclusion. I have done so many times but I will do so again if you wish.
Franktalk wrote:I am pretty open about my beliefs.
You think you are, but not really. Your beliefs seem to only change based on what you feel. When facts are presented that do not fit what you feel like believing you start talking about something else. You think you are a truth seeker, but your posts tell us you are not. I can understand people may have numerous beliefs in which no good evidence supports or denies them. The problem arises when one does not change their beliefs when confronting good evidence to do so as you are doing. That is why you will not get back to the subject of dating methods used by sciences. Have fun though.
