Originally Posted by ACt
OK - first off, bullshit. We know a whole fucking lot. I hate the whole "we really don't know anything" statement. Humans are an impressive bunch when it comes to how much they have figured out about the world around them and used that information to manipulate it. Then we even have manged to create external memories (books, computers, etc) that provide us with the brain capacity to learn more! We are fucking intelligent beasts (and yes, I know that is oxymoronic with my utter opinion that we are fucking stupid beasts but that is more about information use and the fact that we could be doing so much better). Humans know a lot, there is just a lot to know. Wisdom comes from the acknowledgement that your knowledge is not complete.
If you hate the "I don't really know anything" statement, it's because you are young enough that you just haven't lived long enough to have the majority of things that you not only deduced, but have been taught get changed.
To think that there is any sort of permanence to the knowledge you currently possess is simply a failing of the youth, believe it or not. As you will get older you will find yourself over and over saying. 'Man I can't believe how stupid I was that I used to believe that.' And that isn't just me, that happens to everyone, get ready for it. People are much smarter when they acknowledge their own stupidity from the get-go. If you don't realize you're an idiot, fine. Don't try and convince me of it. I'll continue to believe that we all are. I have a hard time taking anyone seriously who doesn't preface their statements with "I am an idiot" or something of the like, since I know that person is usually trying to impart knowledge instead of taking it.
I'm 34 years old man, I have scored in the top percentile of almost every test I have ever taken. When I take an IQ test today I still score around 150. My knowledge is based on experience. In other words it is wisdom. To put it in layman's terms, I'm no dummy. I am an idiot. You are an idiot. We are all idiots. Don't try and talk to me with authority about anything that you've read. I don't care if you can provide me a link on the internet that says something or not. It could still be bullshit while being on the net, it could still be 100% true while not being on the net. Give me your deductions, not what someone else says. Give me something you came up with, not something you destroyed. Tell me what happened to you, not what's on the news.
This basically boils down to a scene from Dumb and Dumber when Jim Carey finally confronts the woman of his obsession with his odds of ever being with her:
Carey: What are the odds, like 1 in a 100?
Woman: More like one in a million.
Carey: ... ... ... so you're saying there's a chance!!
You're argument style, if I'm understanding it, means that you will never be definitive on anything. If one person believes in the Easter Bunny and you don't, you'll accept that there is a slim chance the Easter Bunny does exist, work that into your argument so as not to perclude the existence of the Easter Bunny, grinding the entire discussion to a halt because your opponent believes he does and you, though unbelieving, won't deny it.
You, sir, are a fence sitting douchebag.
Way to aptly put exactly what I stated was my point. If you want to throw attitude because you don't like to do that that's fine.
I would say that the idea that either you or the other guy's belief must be proven instead of just you agreeing to disagree would make you a douchebag, but to each their own.
Arguments/discussions cannot progress along those lines. In this case, you are not adding anything and crafting a stance that prevents you from being wrong, which limits your ability to challenge anyone. Ignoring the fact that it is inheritly true we cannot fully disprove the existence of an actual Easter Bunny, the evidence is wholy on the side of his non-existence (right down to parents saying so.) The burden on proof is, again, on the believer, but you won't challenge them because you accept the slight possibility that you could be wrong in argument. The believer in the Easter Bunny then wins the argument because you don't reject their hypothesis that he exists, you actually accept it.
First off, I don't have arguments. How many times must I say that before it penetrates into you numskulls. A discussion requires no agenda to progress, hence why I use those, and never arguments. I challenge people with new ideas, not by attacking their foundation. I want a new possibility they came up with at their best, I don't want to destroy what they believe for shits and giggles. In other words, I like to have an intelligent discussion, not a scathing teardown session. Oh I know you hot-headed invincible types must tear down any and all opposition, cool, leave me out of it.
When it comes down to it the only thing that is precluded by acknowledging our own stupidity is speaking with authority about other people's thoughts. I have seen some of the most marvelous ideas spawned from the heads of people who can hardly even speak, so I know that presentation doesn't mean a damn thing either.
For the last decade I have been taking care of people with traumatic brain injuries.
Before that I did a variety of different things. At one point I started a cult, kind of petered out after getting to about 14 members. I hitch-hiked around for a couple of years. I have had jobs in construction, factories, food and otherwise. I have spent a couple years in prison, and a couple years in jail on various charges. About the only walk of life I could have been down that I haven't is that of a high powered executive type, and believe me, I don't want to be one. That would go against my whole philosophy in life.
That all seems silly, but it is supposed to because it is made to make you seem silly. I could have easily used god, which is the common go to mythical being that likes to be debated. In actual truth, I do not believe in a god but cannot, on current evidence, reject the idea of a god existing. However, I believe god does not exist because all evidence I have encountered reject the hypothesis of a god above men. Therefore, for me, the only arugment that I can pursue is that god does not exist and I act accordingly to that. It then pressures the believing side to prove themselves while I stand in opposition to it, improving the field of knowledge.
Here you stated that this was your viewpoint. Way to go. People seem to be incapable of taking a stance on these forums without claiming that what they know is the absolute truth. I, however, feel absolutely no pressure to even begin to talk about my own beliefs on the subject, since you have already proven that you are the kind of person that doesn't respect another person's beliefs.
You always have to tip-toe when you are talking about other people's beliefs. They are the most useful and the most dangerous thing in the world. If you ignore or dispute them, they could end up killing you, but if properly nurtured could cause the birth of something new and potentially wonderful to this planet.
Attacking someone's beliefs is the same thing as pointing a gun at them in many ways. The things that keep someone going are much more mental than physical in my opinion.