You Are Right, But You Are Wrong.

[Mellon Man]

15 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I've never met anybody from management; I just work here.

Did you create this? 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, eight bits said:

No, typically I believe some of what they say and disbelieve or disagree with other parts. Actually, that's more or less true of just about everybody's collected works, I concur in part and dissent in part. I suspect that just about everybody would say the same about me.

Oddly enough, that's also the topic title, that I might say to anybody else and anybody else say to me, You are right, but you are wrong.

After all these years, do i strike you as a frivolous poster? Do I impress you as somebody whose attention to the principles of normative belief, preference and choice is casual and ill-informed? Very well, then. No point trying to fix that now.

I've never met anybody from management; I just work here.

Cute dragons, gnarly tree. Nobody ever falls for that one, either.

On a point arising with another poster:

You really don't see that what I doubt is that there is any such thing as "training" by which anybody could be a "trained observer," do you? Yes, yes, I know, in 1987, you were awarded Teacher of the Year at Hogwart's. Silly me.

Finally:

Well at least we agree on somethng.

A lovely lot of prevarication and evasion  

Your first answer indicates that indeed you DO disbelieve all such accounts in that, at heart, you dont accept the y are encounters with real independent entities  

 

Apart from  what we choose to call them, there is no part right, or part wrong, when we look at any individual event.

It is either a contact with a real/physical independently existing entity or it is not  When we look a t 100 ,10000 or 1 million, however, some will be one thing and others different things,  such as hallucination delusion misperceptions.  

You avoided the question on choice.  I am not sure why 

Unless again we are arguing different things, .then the following truths apply  

Itis the unique nature of human beings that we have the ability to make conscious choices 

if you  don't believe you can make such choices and are not a free agent, then you have no responsibility for your thoughts and behaviours 

If you can make choices, then you are responsible for them .

I do not believe tha t you think you can not make your own choices about anything in life.  but even if you believe it ,you a re wrong

There is no one else and nothing else in your mind other than what you constructed there  Ie the I inside.   You are both management and the work force 

And you avoided the poin that humans can categorise and create taxonomies for ANYTHING; and  then other humans can learn to use them.

  if you  haven't learned the categories/taxonomies  of ghosts and gods, fair enough, but do not presuppose  that i have not (i have also learned many others including many mythical creatures) 

oh i know you  dont think a person can be a trained observer of ghosts and gods ( disallowing that one can learn it from books, so one can be a trained  (and quite expert  ) observer of dragons in media) 

That is because you  don't believe a human can have enough experience with such entries to learn anything.

And THAT'S  because you don't believe they exist,  to give a human the opportunity to gain that experience   

 

You said this 

 What I believe about those reports and about those interpretations, as with any belief, are not a matter of choice.

I said this 

And human choices are ALWAYS a matter  of choice.

you said this 

Well at least we agree on somethng.

 

So which is it?

Are the things  you  believe a matter of choice or not ?

Do you accept  that human beliefs are constructs of the mind, which we choose to construct,  to meet conscious or subconscious needs, or not ?

And if the y are constructs of our mind, then we constructed them, and we had a choice in doing so.

We could have chosen not to, or we could have chosen a different construct.

True or false ? 

 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Are the things  you  believe a matter of choice or not ?

Not, as I have said repeatedly. What I agreed with you about was a tautology, a vacuous statement about choices, with not a word about beliefs in it.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

And you avoided the poin that humans can categorise and create taxonomies for ANYTHING;

Including no-things. So what? In order for me to avoid your point, first you have to make one.

[jmccr8]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Did you read my post ?The point was tha t EVEN fictional entities can have taxonomies and classifications and thus be recognized  

Ghosts and gods aren't necessarily fictional, but even if they were, 8 bits is wrong. A trained observer could not only discern that something was  a ghost or a god, but tell you what type the y were. 

Hi Walker

You are correct that dragons come in many sizes and shapes in the fictional world. I do not think you are correct in projecting that gods, angels and ghosts are more tangible than dragons.

Hey Dany is that how it works.

jmccr8

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You are correct that dragons come in many sizes and shapes in the fictional world. I do not think you are correct in projecting that gods, angels and ghosts are more tangible than dragons.

Hey Dany is that how it works.

jmccr8

Perfect.

I am sure MrWalker is now reflecting on his initial premise.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

3 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You are correct that dragons come in many sizes and shapes in the fictional world. I do not think you are correct in projecting that gods, angels and ghosts are more tangible than dragons.

Hey Dany is that how it works.

jmccr8

He's just going to respond with his false claim about knowing that there is a real, physical god.

[Will Due]

27 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

He's just going to respond with his false claim about knowing that there is a real, physical god.

 

How do you know, that he doesn't know?

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

5 minutes ago, Will do said:

How do you know, that he doesn't know?

Because if said god is a real, "physical" thing then it can be objectively verified. The god in Walker's claims cannot be verified.

[Will Due]

53 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Because if said god is a real, "physical" thing then it can be objectively verified.

 

But how do you know, that's true?

How do you know that unless you can objectively verify that God is real, that he isn't real anyway?

 

 

Edited November 14, 2020 by Will do

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

Not, as I have said repeatedly. What I agreed with you about was a tautology, a vacuous statement about choices, with not a word about beliefs in it.

Including no-things. So what? In order for me to avoid your point, first you have to make one.

You argued that i could not /would not, be able to recognise a god or differentiate it from not god.

I pointed out ha t i can do this for dragons so that, even if gods WERE imaginary I could identify one,Same for ghosts.  

Given the y are real, and i have 50 years of experience with them, It 's even easier for me.  I appreciate that it would be harder for someone with no learned knowledge or experience with them Thats true for anything eg  To identify a moth from a butterfly requires a certain level of knowledge and expertise 

I am sorry if you  dint get my point but to me your answers were contradictory   

first you said human choices were involuntary then you said  the y were a matter  of choice 

Maybe i should  have used another word for choice but i don't believe there IS a choice if you have no option.

Thus humans choose every choice they make. 

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You are correct that dragons come in many sizes and shapes in the fictional world. I do not think you are correct in projecting that gods, angels and ghosts are more tangible than dragons.

Hey Dany is that how it works.

jmccr8

lol That wasn't my argument 

I know angels ghosts are real.

The point i was making was that a person with knowledge and experience in an area can identify catalogue and characterise ANYTHING, both real or imaginary Eg i can describe a lot of the taxonomy of Australian sea shells AND fictional dragons  I can tell you what a shell is and what group it comes from and probably what part of Australia just by looking at it   And i can do the same for dragons  

8 bits argued tha t i am not capable of knowing a ghost or a god when I see one.

  My response was tha t I can tell you what type a dragon is form an image so why shouldn't  I be able   to tell what is a ghost or a god, and what is not ?

The main problem is other people's tendencies to see gods as ONLY of one form, rather than many 

A god can be a playful water sprite or tree nymph or  a powerful being, like jehovah.  

Edited November 15, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

He's just going to respond with his false claim about knowing that there is a real, physical god.

It is not false, anymore than a claim that there are real cats and dogs  There are real gods and ghosts and things we call angels   These are all just names we give them  Millions of humans encounter them   in the present day and always have 

I accept tha t you could call them something else, but in the English speaking world we know them as gods, ghosts, angels etc. 

I know it.

You do not.

You are thus  free to believe as you wish.

But if you  want to tell me what i can know, you  have to  provide me with evidences (or, at the very least, solid arguments)   showing how you  can know I am wrong 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Because if said god is a real, "physical" thing then it can be objectively verified. The god in Walker's claims cannot be verified.

 Bolded bit is correct.

The second bit is false and an assumption on your part, based on what you believe about these things

When YOU encounter one of these entities, the only way you can know it is real (has its own independent objective existence)  and verify its nature, is via solid objective evidences.

(That happens to be true for everything you  meet, including dogs and cats ) 

I appreciate that, when you see a dog you probably don't give it a second thought, but, if you  needed to prove to yourself that this particular dog was real,  (maybe it  was a strange dog  in your bedroom, when you woke up  after a hard night.)   how would you  go about it?

In answering this, you  answer how you would prove to yourself that  a ghost or a god/angel  etc which you encountered  was real,  and not; a figment of your imagination, an hallucination, or a misperception. 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol That wasn't my argument 

I know angels ghosts are real.

The point i was making was that a person with knowledge and experience in an area can identify catalogue and characterise ANYTHING, both real or imaginary Eg i can describe a lot of the taxonomy of Australian sea shells AND fictional dragons  I can tell you what a shell is and what group it comes from and probably what part of Australia just by looking at it   And i can do the same for dragons  

Hi Walker

Yes we can describe a great many things even 3 boobed aliens, fiction describes a great many things that don't exist and that coupled with some peoples livid fantisifle thinking creates more fiction. What the problem is is that we can and do qualify and quantify so we know that real things exist in a real world and people have an experience with those real things. Comparing the reality of fictional beings/characters/beasts with a dog is pointless dogs are real and everywhere and people have experiences with them both good and bad.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

8 bits argued tha t i am not capable of knowing a ghost or a god when I see one.

Well he not unlike myself seem to have a common position on that. I can neither deny or support what you think you have experienced as it stands as there has been not one bit of data that is relevant to your claims on a personal level of your experiences. You have given copious amounts of subjective material and supplied links to support your claims that do not live up to scrutiny. So a thousand people told a thousand different stories about as many kinds of beings and because they told a story that doesn't sound like anything that you say has happened to you is not really a clincher for me.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

My response was tha t I can tell you what type a dragon is form an image so why shouldn't  I be able   to tell what is a ghost or a god, and what is not ?

Well really no one is telling you that you can't if they are both fictional they can be anything like a pretty boy dropping off a bible then disappearing off the balcony or a bright light or a bright light with a door or a 3 boobed alien(my personal favorite)

Who and with what credentials do you think has the qualified background to review claims such as yours in an objective manner?

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

31 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Yes we can describe a great many things even 3 boobed aliens, fiction describes a great many things that don't exist and that coupled with some peoples livid fantisifle thinking creates more fiction. What the problem is is that we can and do qualify and quantify so we know that real things exist in a real world and people have an experience with those real things. Comparing the reality of fictional beings/characters/beasts with a dog is pointless dogs are real and everywhere and people have experiences with them both good and bad.

Well he not unlike myself seem to have a common position on that. I can neither deny or support what you think you have experienced as it stands as there has been not one bit of data that is relevant to your claims on a personal level of your experiences. You have given copious amounts of subjective material and supplied links to support your claims that do not live up to scrutiny. So a thousand people told a thousand different stories about as many kinds of beings and because they told a story that doesn't sound like anything that you say has happened to you is not really a clincher for me.

Well really no one is telling you that you can't if they are both fictional they can be anything like a pretty boy dropping off a bible then disappearing off the balcony or a bright light or a bright light with a door or a 3 boobed alien(my personal favorite)

Who and with what credentials do you think has the qualified background to review claims such as yours in an objective manner?

jmccr8

I agree with your first point, but not the tone of it To be human means having  imagination and fantasy as MUCH as realism and materialism.

It is just who we are 

The trick is to separate the two, and to  use them both to best effect

You still don't get the point.

  if i see a god (whether it is in a movie or in a dream or in real life i can tell what it is because of its characteristics. i might even be able to tell you what culture and period the god came from  eg ancient egyptian, asian,  polynesian, meso american, Animist,    ancient greek/roman, christian, jewish, islamic,   Hindu etc.  OR one of the many fictional (constructed) gods from  novels and movies.  

8 bits claimed I could not identify a god form a non god but youjus tuse the same means as you use to tell a cat from a non cat   

Doesn't matter what you know or can prove. it only matters what evidences I have.  This is (or should be)  true for everything in your life as well  Ie as long as YOU have physical evidences that the things in your life  are real, that i  all that matters.

If you believe you have a dog, but never need to clean up any dog poo, then you may have a problem      

No one has  the credentials to review the life of another person  Those best able to do so, however, are those who live with them and those with specific qualifications and expertise in  disciplines like neuroscience and psychology  

The cases you described were witnessed and commented on by others thus proving the y were not hallucinations delusions etc   The 3 breasted alien woman was a deliberate dream construct to serve the needs of a 13/14 year old boy    I know clearly and have the  evidences to confirm tha t all these things are different in nature and quality Eg the alien was a dream.

The visitation in hospital was not.

The "doorway in the sky" was visible to my dogs who were barking at it, but to this day i have no explanation for  it 

Hallucinations dont leave bibles behind or impress the nursing staff with their good looks and expensive suits      But purely human beings dont disappear off an isolated fifth floor balcony. 

 

 Believe them or not, these make interesting reading.

https://www.liveabout.com/angel-encounters-true-stories-2593644

 

 

Edited November 15, 2020 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

12 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I agree with your first point, but not the tone of it

Hi Walker

You are correct in agreeing with me however I believe you are mistaken about my tone, I just had a shower and didn't use any tone but I did spray a little Versace Eros Flame on after but I usually get a much better reception in person, mostly from the girls though.

19 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

To be human means having  imagination and fantasy as MUCH as realism and materialism.

It is just who we are 

I'm not arguing that we aren't.

20 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The trick is to separate the two, and to  use them both to best effect

Why does there have to be a trick I work with my hands, eyes, ears and much more every day and are the means by which I take my or the other imaginary ideas and make them, give them a place in a physical world where other people can have an experience with it and describe the exact same physical structure within there skill level. Anything that I cannot touch or observe in any physical way and isn't affecting what I have to do then it's imagination until there is enough physical evidence to show for a potential and I am not close minded but I am critical and ask questions for clarification.

47 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You still don't get the point.

49 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

if i see a god (whether it is in a movie or in a dream or in real life i can tell what it is because of its characteristics. i might even be able to tell you what culture and period the god came from  eg ancient egyptian, asian,  polynesian, meso american, Animist,    ancient greek/roman, christian, jewish, islamic,   Hindu etc.  OR one of the many fictional (constructed) gods from  novels and movies.  

No doubt you can they are all fictional, I like fiction have read a fair bit on my years and watch and for some reason think fictional characters are in fact fictional and give them that credence and don't use them as comparatives with that that can be observed and measured.

58 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

8 bits claimed I could not identify a god form a non god but youjus tuse the same means as you use to tell a cat from a non cat   

Once again you are correct in how Eight Bits has made this claim we are on a roll here. As to the last bit how would you explain that real cats are evidence of imaginary cats and yet all we have for gods/angels etal are imaginary so what do you really have to compare with other than the quality of the story telling?

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Doesn't matter what you know or can prove. it only matters what evidences I have.  This is (or should be)  true for everything in your life as well  Ie as long as YOU have physical evidences that the things in your life  are real, that i  all that matters.

Correct up to a point real evidence is what can be physically observed by effect by anyone.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

If you believe you have a dog, but never need to clean up any dog poo, then you may have a problem

That would be correct although I have neither a real or imaginary dog.

jmccr8

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

No one has  the credentials to review the life of another person  Those best able to do so, however, are those who live with them and those with specific qualifications and expertise in  disciplines like neuroscience and psychology  

The cases you described were witnessed and commented on by others thus proving the y were not hallucinations delusions etc   The 3 breasted alien woman was a deliberate dream construct to serve the needs of a 13/14 year old boy    I know clearly and have the  evidences to confirm tha t all these things are different in nature and quality Eg the alien was a dream.

The visitation in hospital was not.

The "doorway in the sky" was visible to my dogs who were barking at it, but to this day i have no explanation for  it 

Hallucinations dont leave bibles behind or impress the nursing staff with their good looks and expensive suits      But purely human beings dont disappear off an isolated fifth floor balcony. 

Walker 

 Correct They were all stories with no supporting evidence.

To be fair to Dany we should continue this off topic discussion that I am only keeping the OP on track by telling you how correct you are and take it to your thread which would also be correct.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

You are correct in agreeing with me however I believe you are mistaken about my tone, I just had a shower and didn't use any tone but I did spray a little Versace Eros Flame on after but I usually get a much better reception in person, mostly from the girls though.

I'm not arguing that we aren't.

Why does there have to be a trick I work with my hands, eyes, ears and much more every day and are the means by which I take my or the other imaginary ideas and make them, give them a place in a physical world where other people can have an experience with it and describe the exact same physical structure within there skill level. Anything that I cannot touch or observe in any physical way and isn't affecting what I have to do then it's imagination until there is enough physical evidence to show for a potential and I am not close minded but I am critical and ask questions for clarification.

No doubt you can they are all fictional, I like fiction have read a fair bit on my years and watch and for some reason think fictional characters are in fact fictional and give them that credence and don't use them as comparatives with that that can be observed and measured.

Once again you are correct in how Eight Bits has made this claim we are on a roll here. As to the last bit how would you explain that real cats are evidence of imaginary cats and yet all we have for gods/angels etal are imaginary so what do you really have to compare with other than the quality of the story telling?

Correct up to a point real evidence is what can be physically observed by effect by anyone.

That would be correct although I have neither a real or imaginary dog.

jmccr8

Humasare evolved to be both highly logical and highly imaginative 

It realy is important to be able  identify,  separate,  and use the two skills 

People who cannot are either ill or, a t best, non functional in the real world  

People who ONLY live in an imaginary world, or only live in purely materialistic world are incomplete and  missing something of human reality 

The y may be functional, but the y are lacking in balance

You tend to the material, but have enough of the imaginative to make you  interesting     Purely materialistic people tend to lack humour because, after all, humour is a non material quality    

There are real cats and there are imaginary cats/ Same  for ghosts, gods and aliens  

The skill is in being able to identify and ascertain which are which, by using context and evidence 

Its just not true tha t all WE have for gods and ghosts is imaginary. Tha t might be true for you but its not true for me or millions of other human beings. 

I have real things to compare. You do not. You have to  chose belief or disbelief or keep an open mind  Maybe, one day, a god or a ghost or an angel will come into your life for long enough for you to get to know it.  

True.  Real evidence can be observed or felt by everyone BUT first they have to be there to experience it    So if you were eating breakfast,  someone with you could check to make sure it was real and not imaginary,  but if no one was with you,  you only have your story about what you ate  YOU know its true and the food was real, but no one else does 

Say you lived alone on an island. You would know what  was real and what was not,  from  the evidences and context  if you  could not tell the difference you would not survive for long .  You would not need anyone else to confirm for you what was real and what was not  .

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Walker 

 Correct They were all stories with no supporting evidence.

To be fair to Dany we should continue this off topic discussion that I am only keeping the OP on track by telling you how correct you are and take it to your thread which would also be correct.

jmccr8

The y are all accounts of things which happened to me.

There was plenty of supporting evidence for their reality

But it is not transferable  People who expect transferrable evidences, lack understanding of real life   

The y will get their own evidences, via their own experiences, if they have them   

[+Nuclear Wessel]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The y are all accounts of things which happened to me.

There was plenty of supporting evidence for their reality

But it is not transferable  People who expect transferrable evidences, lack understanding of real life   

So you don't have any supporting evidence.

[TashaMarie]

On 11/11/2020 at 10:42 PM, openozy said:

I think it is,skeptics are invariably academic types and think they have the answers to everything,when they don't they dismiss it as BS.To me it is limiting yourself to think like this.

As a non academic type  I disagree.  Looking for the truth is never limiting. 

[XenoFish]

You can sow a seed of doubt in a person's mind, but you can't change their mind. They must choose to do that on their own. 

[openozy]

1 hour ago, TashaMarie said:

As a non academic type  I disagree.  Looking for the truth is never limiting. 

That's a good attitude.

[danydandan]

8 hours ago, XenoFish said:

You can sow a seed of doubt in a person's mind, but you can't change their mind. They must choose to do that on their own. 

Do you think sowing the seed is a good way about things? Or is blunt force a far better way?

Can you trick someone into changing their mind, well sort of like gas-lighting?

[XenoFish]

40 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you think sowing the seed is a good way about things? Or is blunt force a far better way?

Can you trick someone into changing their mind, well sort of like gas-lighting?

Planting a seed of doubt. That way you're not dealing with resistance. Going with the blunt approach may work on some, but looking at all the repeat threads around here, it doesn't seem to work. People dig in and won't budge.