Quote:
|
Lassie or Flipper, being smart animals, would definitely be able to recognize a family member in a picture and respond in some way.
|
Ohh that's a keeper.
Quote:
|
No, we would not know just from bleating, but we would know from a combination of other movements and noises to get a clue that he was responding to the picture.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
No, that is some nonsense that you just made up.
|
It is nonsense: you are expecting human reactions, and reactions that are inappropriate for an image. If you were testing people, you would say they did not recognise pictures because they do not kiss images.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
No, I really won't be eating any crow. I will be right here, enjoying your feeble antics. And I am glad you admit this is a religious work - divine knowledge huh?
|
It is divine knowledge. You can call it religious if you want, but the truth is religion has nothing to do with these principles. Religion is on its way out because we won't need to pray for God to deliver us from all evil once we're delivered.
|
Well, it is something I am supposed to believe because someone had an alleged revelation. I do not get to see his data or methods to see if I agree with it: I just have to take his word for it.
I do not get to see why I should assume conscience works this way. I am not told why I should assume sight works the way he claims it does. In order to believe this book is true, I need to take all that on faith.
Sure sounds like a religion to me.
Quote:
|
Where does empirical testing indicate the exact opposite of what he predicted? There is nothing that has shown this. He didn't forget to include any. Empirical testing was not how he came to his conclusions. You don't seem to get it.
|
Cameras, Moons of Jupiter, tests regarding the speed of light, a simple examination of the optical nerve. Just to name a few. The rest is un-testable, except by a global social engineering project.
And he did not include any reason to believe conscience works the way he said it does - he did not just not supply any evidence, he forgot to even make a case for it. All he did was claim that it was so. Without it the whole system falls down... a system he expected us to implement, in order to see if it works!
If he did not forget to include, then he must have felt his say-so should be good enough for the entire world?
Quote:
|
I am repeating that after today if I see anything disrespected directed toward me or Lessans, I'm ignoring all your posts.
|
You can do as you please. The facts remain the same: where is the evidence for this vital, all important part? Where is there even a case for it? He either forgot to include it, or he expected people to just accept that it is so, based solely on his say-so... how much more arrogant can a man get?
He expected the
entire world to change, based on his say-so. He either did not notice he never even made it
plausible that conscience works that way, in which case he was a fool. Or he felt it was not necessary to explain this, in which case he was an arrogant buffoon. Either way I see nothing that warrants my respect.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Either show me the evidence, or admit that this book is nothing but a collection of a vain man's unsupported opinions. Or better still: continue these feeble attempts at moving the goalposts, setting up strawmen, and generally cheating and lying in any way you can, as long as you can hold on to what you have now openly admitted is a religious belief. It may be an example of all that is ignorant and despicable in dogmatic belief, but I do find it very entertaining.
|
When I say it was divinely inspiried, it doesn't mean it's religious.
|
So no evidence then?
It is your personal religion - unassailable by reason or reality.