Burqa or chador?

[Al-Fatihah]

So everything that isn't from your mind is a secondary source? Is the Quran a secondary source? I'm guessing it is an exception if that is so?

Response: Reasoning that is not based on what you have tested and observed yourself is based on secondary evidence. The Qur'an is a secondary source but my reasoning in accepting it to be true is based on firsthand, observable testable evidence.

 

[BigJoeNobody]

The hadith regarding the Prophet pointing to his face, feet and hands is not authentic.

Many scholars would disagree.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: Reasoning that is not based on what you have tested and observed yourself is based on secondary evidence. The Qur'an is a secondary source but my reasoning in accepting it to be true is based on firsthand, observable testable evidence.

And firsthand sources are superior to secondhand sources. Always? And in what way?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Many scholars would disagree.

Response: That's fine. It does not change the validity of what I stated.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

And firsthand sources are superior to secondhand sources. Always? And in what way?

Response: Yes. Always because the chance of someone lying without detecting it or ambiguity is greater when the evidence is based on secondary sources than firsthand. If I tell you the shirt I am wearing is black and you cannot see me, you would have to trust me as evidence, but I could be lying. Yet if you saw me yourself, firsthand, wearing a black shirt, then there is no doubt or ambiguity that my shirt is black. Firsthand evidence is more reliable.

That does not mean secondhand evidence is not reliable. It just means that it is not as reliable as firsthand evidence. So the best way to verify whether secondhand evidence is valid is when it is logically deduced from firsthand evidence.

For example, I say the shirt I am wearing is black but you never saw me. However, you have a bunch of reports saying that my shirt is black, that they are eyewitnesses to it, that each of the stories are logical and consistent, and that there is no contrary evidence that my shirt is not black or that they are lying.

In this case, it is very reliable to say my shirt is black based on secondary sources because we can verify firsthand that anytime a story is truthful and it spreads, it has the following attributes:

Logical
Consistent
The majority
And there is no contrary evidence to refute otherwise


For example, Pigs cannot fly. You would agree. Now you can leave your house right and ask people "Do pigs fly", and the results will have the following attributes:

Logical
Consistent
The majority
And there is no contrary evidence to refute otherwise

So since we have firsthand evidence that confirms that these are the attributes of truth, THEN we can logically deduce that any secondhand source that has these attributes is also truthful or the most reliable.


Hope this explains my application of distinguishing truth from falsehood based on firsthand evidence, deductive logic based on firsthand evidence, and how to verify whether a secondary source is reliable.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: Yes. Always because the chance of someone lying without detecting it or ambiguity is greater when the evidence is based on secondary sources than firsthand. If I tell you the shirt I am wearing is black and you cannot see me, you would have to trust me as evidence, but I could be lying. Yet if you saw me yourself, firsthand, wearing a black shirt, then there is no doubt or ambiguity that my shirt is black. Firsthand evidence is more reliable.

And people always see the things 'as they are' and cultural bias or ignorance does not effect the observer in any meaningful way?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

And people always see the things 'as they are' and cultural bias or ignorance does not effect the observer in any meaningful way?

Response: Absolutely. That is why I rely on firsthand evidence or deductive logic based on firsthand evidence. When doing so, bias or ignorance is avoided. Just as 2+2 is 4 based on such evidence and not on culture or bias.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: Absolutely. That is why I rely on firsthand evidence or deductive logic based on firsthand evidence. When doing so, bias or ignorance is avoided. Just as 2+2 is 4 based on such evidence and not on culture or bias.

I don't follow here. I'm reading you as saying absolutely to people being effected. But you use your first hand evidence implying that you are not yourself effected by bias or ignorance. Correct? And you are also saying that deductive logic can not become flawed because of bias or ignorance?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

I don't follow here. I'm reading you as saying absolutely to people being effected. But you use your first hand evidence implying that you are not yourself effected by bias or ignorance. Correct? And you are also saying that deductive logic can not become flawed because of bias or ignorance?

Response: I am saying that truth is not affected by bias and ignorace and evidence of truth is based on firsthand, observable, testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Response: I am saying that truth is not affected by bias and ignorace and evidence of truth is based on firsthand, observable, testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence.

So if you say something is true then it automatically is true not matter what anyone else bring to the table or how bias and ignorant you are?

 

[Al-Fatihah]

So if you say something is true then it automatically is true not matter what anyone else bring to the table or how bias and ignorant you are?

Response: I said evidence of truth is based on logic from firsthand, observable and testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence. No where does it say something is true because I or someone else says so or from bias and ignorance. Just as 2+2 is 4, regardless of your ignorance and bias or you saying otherwise.

 

[wil]

First hand experience is anecdotal... but green are the states where women can go topless....red are the states they can't....and orange has limited venues (certain beaches)

 

[wil]

Women are as horny and as attracted to men (if men is there thing) as men are to women (if women is their thing). It is only societal / religious / prudish pressure which changes that. And requiring women to cover up, increases sexual tension of seeing any flesh. There is far less sexual tension at a nude beach than at a public beach and less ogling too.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

First hand experience is anecdotal... but green are the states where women can go topless....red are the states they can't....and orange has limited venues (certain beaches)

Response: If firsthand observable, testable evidence is unreliable then that means the proof your map is valid is based on say so evidence. By that logic, your own logic and map is invalid because ..."I say so".

Secondly, no one disputed which states go topless or not so your point has no relevance.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Women are as horny and as attracted to men (if men is there thing) as men are to women (if women is their thing). It is only societal / religious / prudish pressure which changes that. And requiring women to cover up, increases sexual tension of seeing any flesh. There is far less sexual tension at a nude beach than at a public beach and less ogling too.

Response: The fact that there is a nude beach makes my point. For it is a beach where people who normally practice modesty and covering in public go to be naked at times. Not a place or society of nude people where the same people are nude 24/7 of their lives. So the beach is only further proof that modesty and covering is the best policy in creating a moral and decent and compassionate society since those same people at the beach practice modesty much more so than open nudity.

 

[wil]

We would be better off if nudity was a normal thing... That women could go topless everywhere that men can go topless... If kids grew up knowing about sex and humanity and the human body and not ashamed of it.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

We would be better off if nudity was a normal thing... That women could go topless everywhere that men can go topless... If kids grew up knowing about sex and humanity and the human body and not ashamed of it.

Response: Yet no social study or experiment supports the claim. So it has no logical basis. Instead, we see that whereever there is the promotion and adoption to freely choose modest clothing, the society and people are progressive and much more compassionate in comparison to those who are openly nude.

In fact, there are many isolated tribes to this day that are openly nude, and they are the most backwards and barbaric people on Earth. Look at African Tribes. In fact, put in your computer Google search ODDAfrica and see for yourself.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

Instead, we see that whereever there is the promotion and adoption to freely choose modest clothing, the society and people are progressive and much more compassionate in comparison to those who are openly nude.

In fact, there are many isolated tribes to this day that are openly nude, and they are the most backwards and barbaric people on Earth.

Don't know about that mate and I can't speak for Africa, but down here, in the remote regions of Australia, the native peoples go about starkers most of the time. They live quite primitively by modern standards, but I can tell you first hand, a more spiritual, compassionate and caring people you'll never meet. Now, by sharp contrast, crime, alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence are rampant among many of the native peoples that have been assimilated into modern society.

 

[Al-Fatihah]

Don't know about that mate and I can't speak for Africa, but down here, in the remote regions of Australia, the native peoples go about starkers most of the time. They live quite primitively by modern standards, but I can tell you first hand, a more spiritual, compassionate and caring people you'll never meet. Now, by sharp contrast, crime, alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence are rampant among many of the native peoples that have been assimilated into modern society.

Response: You are making the assumption that they are more spiritual and most peaceful. You yourself are not openly naked nor live amongst them. So there is no logical basis for your assumption.

Just like the African tribes I referred to, they are peaceful and very spiritual as well. That does not negate the barbarism. Similarly, just because you have seen some footage of peace and spirituality amongst Australian tribes does not negate the existence of barbarism and savagery amongst them. It just means you have not seen it. Even when I put "Rape indigenous tribes in Australia" into Google, horrific stories come up.

 

[Aussie Thoughts]

You are making the assumption that they are more spiritual and most peaceful. You yourself are not openly naked nor live amongst them. So there is no logical basis for your assumption.

Fraid not mate. I'm Australian. Many aboriginals live and work on our family farm. We've worked closely with the native peoples of Australia from the time my ancestors arrived here in the late 1600's. I grew up listening to stories and songs of the dreamtime. Our family routinely enlists the help of native tribes during harvest. My knowledge of Aboriginal society does not come from books or TV. It's first hand.