Bigfoot :)

[juantoo3]

No I do not think so. Unless I am mistaken, what I hear you saying is that factual evidence must be accurate 100% of the time or it doesn't count. What I am saying is that factual evidence that is 95% accurate is 'good enough' to be considered accurate. Why? Because there is no 100% perfect system in the human condition. If 100% is all that could be accepted, we would be paralyzed by never being able to achieve it.

That is where it seems to me we still disagree. If I am reading your statements correctly.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are reading my statements correctly. From my vantage, you are justifying your position to yourself precisely as I predicted. We all do. However, in light of your statement that immediately followed those quoted above:

No. The way I perceive it is not that 'people cling desperately to what they believe', rather it is 'people cling desperately to what they want to believe. Even when there is no genuine evidence to support what they want to believe. So they settle for unsupported evidence as being good enough so they can continue to believe what they want.

You are clinging, desperately, to what you *want* to believe...and what I said about being "faced with the challenges and contradictions" that invariably will come...which here you cavalierly write off as 5%...and on a percentage basis I would say that figure is probably about right across all belief systems.

The difference being you are still in denial of what I already predicted and you are *finally* beginning to see, although not quite ready to admit yet. Kudos to you! You have come a great deal further than anyone else that has dared to look into this. The typical, usual, stock in trade response is a mind that closes like a steel trap, refusing to even consider...not limited to religion, atheists do it every bit as predictably.

 

[juantoo3]

disregard...I'm not liking the new forum formatting, too many of my posts disappear for a time only to resurface later...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Weeeell, some of us are just fine with knowing we have flawed positions. Some of us might even find it arrogant that people think they can actually move beyond that level.

 

[juantoo3]

Weeeell, some of us are just fine with knowing we have flawed positions.

Indeed, I am one of them. I just don't try to explain my way out of or somehow justify the flaws in my position...I try to see them for what they actually are, flaws.

Some of us might even find it arrogant that people think they can actually move beyond that level.

I suppose anybody can view anything anyway they like. But if using critical thinking skills somehow evokes arrogance, I would suggest that perhaps the issue isn't with the critical thinker so much as the person that has their mind sealed to critical thinking. Then too, it seems to be the way of the world since humans could communicate...nobody likes to have their cherished beliefs challenged, yet all too often the same persons are only too eager to challenge the beliefs of others.

This is an Interfaith forum, no? Ostensibly we are discussing ways of mutual cooperation among belief systems, no? In practice, here *everyone's* beliefs are open to challenge, no?

Have I somehow missed something?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

The irony is pointing the denial finger at someone else can be done by anybody. I'm not the one in denial here, Juan, you are. See. How easy that is? I'm not clinging desperately to anything. I'm simply not seeing the end result the way you do. Or more to the point, the way you want me to. What is also ironic is you are doing what you are accusing everyone else of doing in upholding their own belief structure. That you apparently cannot see this is fascinating to me.

I have come further than anyone else, according to you. But I cannot make the final step to your way of thinking, again according to you. I suggest that I have come so far because I am open to your version of belief structure, to look at it impartially and see where it makes sense and where it does not. That I cannot make the final step for you is for the simple reason that I find your end result flawed.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Indeed, I am one of them. I just don't try to explain my way out of or somehow justify the flaws in my position...I try to see them for what they actually are, flaws.

I just don't agree here, you seem to try and justify a lot that is flawed from where I'm sitting. Not sure what I'm justifying according to you...my own opinion?

I suppose anybody can view anything anyway they like. But if using critical thinking skills somehow evokes arrogance, I would suggest that perhaps the issue isn't with the critical thinker so much as the person that has their mind sealed to critical thinking. Then too, it seems to be the way of the world since humans could communicate...nobody likes to have their cherished beliefs challenged, yet all too often the same persons are only too eager to challenge the beliefs of others.

This is an Interfaith forum, no? Ostensibly we are discussing ways of mutual cooperation among belief systems, no? In practice, here *everyone's* beliefs are open to challenge, no?

Have I somehow missed something?

Here you lose me somewhere. The discussions going on are all over the board and I reject many small things that you have been building on the last couple of weeks. Your definition of 'fact' for instance makes it hard to continue further discussion on the subject, you're don't appear to want to exchange ideas as much as define things on your own terms. I hope you and DA have the patience to sort it all out but I don't see any way out of this one. I'll chirp if I think I have something to contribute with.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Your definition of 'fact' for instance makes it hard to continue further discussion on the subject, you're don't appear to want to exchange ideas as much as define things on your own terms.

Yep. More or less what I said. I don't think there is any 'sorting it out' possible. I have walked Juan's path, listened, considered, and have at this point reached my own conclusions. They are not Juan's conclusions and he finds fault in me with that. Which is silly. I am not at fault anymore than he is. We look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. Happens all the time.

Unless some new angle is introduced, I will probably not continue any further as I think we have both presented our case to the best of our abilities.

 

[juantoo3]

Fair enough.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Be careful what you wish for:

http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/877/

http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/17660/page-3#post-298449
This article popped up on my facebook. It might be a good place to restart our discussion when you get back. They seem to agree with you about trickery in the classroom. Perhaps it's different here, or I just remember it differently. The bottom line seems to be that 'species' is ill defined. How did we start this anyway, was there a problem with evolution?

 

[juantoo3]

I don't do Facebook.

I think I have reiterated sufficiently for your benefit at this point, particularly since you don't really have any skin in the game. You know where the material is, if you truly are interested.

Cheers!