Quote:
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
...which, in turns, speaks about the likelihood that it exists at all. That you would try to isolate phenomena from their evidence as if there were no relationship is rather... dare I say disingenuous?
|
Like I said before, it would be disingenuous if I didn't believe what I was saying.
Quote:
|
I'm beginning to wonder what it is with you and people who try to understand the world in which we live. It's almost as if you're offended at the notion that the Universe can be understood. This is just a guess and you're free to clarify...
|
I would be happy to guess, provided you go back and clarify this last paragraph. Right now it seems like you're trying to discount
everyone who tries to understand the world in which we live.
Quote:
|
It's perfectly reasonable to discard theories for which there can be no evidence.
|
Here's where you get caught up in silliness. Has anyone here offered up any sort of "theory of ghosts"? No. Did you know that a theory about the existence of ghosts isn't the same thing as believing in ghosts? Unless you mean "theory" in some sort of general sense, in which case, you're even wronger.
Quote:
|
In other words, untestable theories are worthless.
|
No, they actually aren't. The world would cease to function if people only relied on testable "theories" in during their day to day activities.
Quote:
|
If there can be no evidence for ghosts then how do their existence affect us at all? ...and if they can never affect us then how is it useful to think they exist in the first place? It's about as useful as holding on to the luminiferous ether. Are you going to get angry at this link too?[COLOR="DarkSlateGray"]
|
You're confused about what constitutes evidence, both scientific and nonscientific. This is evident in your seeming overreliance on wikipedia.
Quote:
|
It seems to me that he's not even trying to argue the points reasonably anymore. He's just trying to say anything that sounds convincing in the hopes that no one will be able to pinpoint exactly how he's not making any sense in order to create the appearance of winning a debate. This is what I pin with the label of "disingenuous;" a word I've been using far too much in this thread but I'm failing to find a suitable synonym...
|
I don't care if I win anything. What would I win?
That's why I didn't respond to your last post. I don't care if you think I'm wrong. We've had this discussion an unbearable number of time and you've never demonstrated the ability to understand what I'm saying. Normally, this would probably mean that what I'm saying doesn't make any sense, but the fact that other people understand what I'm saying, and that some of them even agree with me seems to suggest something different.
The only reason I'm responding to this post is that you pretty much called me a liar, and I wanted to point out that the implication that your inability to grok my perspective make me a liar is silly. It's unbecoming of someone who seems to be so in love with evidence-based belief.
Quote:
|
This angers me because I'm here to discuss issues honestly in an attempt to reach a mutual understanding and I see this as an attempt to subvert that...
|
Right. Speaking of disingenuous...