Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
knowledge is simply datapeople obviously have knowledge of both "unjustified" and "untrue" things
Do they? Can you give examples of 'unjustified' knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
“Knowledge” is defined as “justified true belief”,
Agreed. However, it should be pointed out, faith is not a reasonable basis for justification as there is no position that cannot be held on faith. Faith is not a pathway to knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
basically,"go back and read this entire conversation over again, and if you still don't agree with me, you are not intelligent"does that sound about right ?
Yes, but with a side of over-the-top condescension.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
if it is not your position that an external realm doesn't exist, then it is your position that an external realm does exist
'If it is not your position that a gumball machine contains an even number of gumballs, then it is your position that the gumballs machine contains an odd number of gumballs.'
This is absurd reasoning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.Genealogy has always been central to Jewish sacred history, [...]
I'm confused as to what your view is. You've said the Bible is not meant to be historical and that it represents a sacred history. This is conflicting unless you are defining sacred history as something other than history.
Also, you've not addressed my other post regarding the OP. Is it wrong to take the Bible literally when Jesus says "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
It was never intended to be read literally as a historical record.
The genealogies of the OT and NT suggest, at least in some instances, the texts were meant to be taken as an historical record.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
As long as something is metaphysically possible you cant rule it out. Its just as dead as a nail that atheists constantly go on about how God is not proven therefore why believe?
possible=/=probable ...what kind of broken epistemology accepts possibility as fact?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I think it’s common for young children to see the Bible as a story book and to have a childish understanding of God as an invisible man in the sky that grants wishes to those who pray. Of course, as children age and mature their conception of God and their understanding of faith develops and matures beyond such childish ways of understanding things.But apparently, that isn’t always the case. There seems to be a group of very vocal Atheists whose conception of God and faith did not mature as they got older
Perhaps children and atheists take the Bible at face value, whereas, some believers discount verses that are demonstrably false:
John 14: 12-14
"Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in My name, this I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it."
If this verse is true, either no believer has ever asked for regrown limbs, an end to starvation, an end to child cancer....or Jesus lied or doesn't exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Depreciation of a house is inevitable over time. Property values of the land do not inevitably rise. Especially property in a city where crime is on the rise.
The value of my home is 4x what it was in 1999....and it was built in 1938. So...yea. Also, it sure seems like you're suggesting crime will be on the rise where POC live...
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
As usual democrats change rules at the last minute to get power
You got to wonder how those NOT in power have the power to change rules to get power...
Created:
-->
@Avery
You should be addressing my claim (since you quoted it) of: "we don't need to know this data".
And your claim is wrong because you easily lose the ball when percentages are presented. If only 25 respondents are black, then claims that '44% of black people believe X' would be referring to 11 people out of 1000. If 1000 respondents were black it would be referring to 440 people out of 1000. There is a pretty big difference between 1.1% and 44% of respondents. We need this data to better understand the poll results.
I explained why in the following paragraph, of which you've manage to drop and not address:"So it's only Liberals who buck the trend with this: "Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans." That 6% gap isn't going to be enough to cover all the other gaps from the other demographics (White, Asian, Hispanic, Republican, no strong political belief etc.)
You think this is a point worth repeating? That statistic comes from the 2013 poll rather than the 2020 - you're referring to old data. Beyond that, the fact you think the difference between 27% of liberals indicating white Americans are racist and 21% indicating blacks are racist is significant illustrates you don't understand the poll. It could have been that 100% of 'group X' indicated whites, and blacks, and Hispanics, and Asians were all racist. The questions were independent from one another.
Blacks are voting Blacks as majority racist more frequently than they are voting any other race. Hence, we conclude that Blacks believe Blacks are the most racist.
I see no info being provided regarding how blacks voted on blacks. Ive already shown how the Rasmussen article refutes this assertion. Blacks view all races equally racist. You pulled that stat out of thin air.
Therefore, Blacks are shown as "more" racist than any other racial demographic, hence the OP's title is correct.
That is a misrepresentation of what the poll shows. It doesn't show blacks are more racist- it shows more people (a small minority of people) think blacks are racist.
...and also, there was really only one relevant poll, so 'poll after poll' was also hyperbolic.
Also, you dropped all of the following, so I'll just assume you agree with it all:
It wasn't dropped. It has either already been addressed and/or it is a strawman. Repetitions and misrepresentation speaks to your dishonesty. Keeping it out of my reply speaks to me having better things to do than entertain you.
Created:
-->
@Avery
It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.We don't need to know this data
The demographics of the respondents is relevant. If we are to take the conclusions of the poll as a reflection of pluralistic American opinion, knowing the demographics is representative of the American populace is important.
It doesn't matter with Blacks because they are voting themselves most racist anyway.
Where did you get that? I see no break down of showing 100% blacks think they are the most racist. In fact, this poll shows "Blacks see themselves, whites, Hispanics and Asians as equally racist."
It's totally unreasonable to imply or argue that all or even the majority of poll respondents were voting Black [...]
I'll stop you short. The article says of the 75% that acknowledged racism as "any discrimination by people of one race against another", only 27% thought blacks were racist. 75% of 1000 is 750 and 27% of that is ~202...far from a majority. Even if we add those who preferred the other definition for racism (15%), only 21% voted black.. .that's another ~31 people. Rasmussen itself admits to only 25% of respondents voting against blacks:
"[...]25% believe most black Americans are racist."
Whites or whoever are the most racist, and that this poll is an accurate indicator of who is the most racist.
According to this poll, as high as 75% of respondents don't think blacks are racist. In other words, most Americans don't think blacks (or other races) are racist.
Created:
-->
@Avery
Liberals voted in this poll, too. Same with Black people.
What percentage? It's possible to have liberal and black respondents, but the results to overwhelmingly represent white and right-leaning answers.
Besides, maybe those people who voted were influenced to become Republican after experiencing racism from Black Americans.
Prove it.
why would you think Black people are racist for no reason?).
I doubt anyone believes another group of people is racist for no reason, but I recognize a racist and someone who has been the target of racism might give the same answer.
Is it solid evidence for Black Americans being the most racist in America? Yes.
No, its not. At best, it records what 1000 people believe or want everyone else to believe. The questions make no effort to weed out personal biases or ignorance. How would someone harboring distrust/dislike for another group answer the questions? How would someone who doesn't understand racism answer the questions?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Polls don't prove anything.
Agreed.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
What I meant by it being a clown diagnosis is that it [is] a mental disorder and not meant to coddle those genuinely afflicted with it.
Well, that's just it, "Gender Identity Disorder" is not a legitimate diagnosis. Plus, who is arguing diagnoses are meant to coddle?
Created:
-->
@Avery
There were multiple polls referenced in the OP, not just a South African one. There is American data referenced in the OP.
Yes, there were two polls referenced in the OP - one reflects the views of a group of right leaning Americans and the other views of South Africans about South Africans. Neither prove black Americans are more racist than other races.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I guess that's easy for you to think that when msm censors all coverage of the violent left.
Is that what conservative media is reporting now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
A Democrat psychopath won't know the difference if you are wearing a maga hat. The hat that most Trump voters wore at some point.
Keep your hat on - political violence is strongly associated with the Right currently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Are you unaware that every single person who voted for Trump in the 2024 election sees this as Biden saying half the country are extremists which also implies that they need to probably be put on some terrorist watch list?
Meh. Unwarranted fear-mongering. Biden made it clear he wasn't referring to all Republicans, dissenters, or Conservatives.
Created:
-->
@Avery
It's quite astonishing the wild arguments people grasp at to dodge a poll's obvious conclusion.
The poll was regarding South Africans. The OP is about Americans. Isn't it a reach to deem OP's conclusion "obvious"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lair77
Same for me. Some people are much more precise thinkers and can concisely (and efficiently) write a refutation/argument. I tend to mull over my responses and hone them until I am satisfied. Hopefully you get an answer we can both benefit from!
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin
Unless you're attempting to argue a blind person can't use tools (utilizing their other senses) to detect photons, I don't see the relevance to @Ramshutu's analogy. You're stating the obvious.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Gender Identity Disorder is a clown diagnosis
Indeed. If your medical professional uses this diagnosis, he/she is a clown:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
@Shila
Biden’s speech was a call to Americans to get real!! The institutions, constitution and democratic government are being attacked by the marginalized fringe minority led by Trump who will not accept he lost the elections 2 years ago yet still sees himself as the President of US. and republicans at the highest levels of government are still promoting the big lie.
Sounds like a good summary to me.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Opinion =/= factNever claimed that it was.
If you say so:
[Opinion] Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race
Created:
-->
@Shila
That’s like giving a blind man a torchlight and taught how to use the on/off switch. How does he know when to apply it?
You're inability to grasp how a blind person functions in the world is not a valid indictment of the analogy.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Blacks are also responding in that poll, and their opinion matters too. Or does it?
Opinion =/= fact
Created:
Poll after poll shows black Americans are MORE racist than whites or any other race.Truth is truth. I stand by the truth. I defend the truth. That's my position.
The only truth shown by the poll is that a group of right leaning Americans *perceive* blacks to be more racist than other groups...which, for the record, doesn't show blacks *are* more racist than other groups.
The conclusion is not supported by the evidence provided.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Do photon detection machines for blind people provide a braille print out, or voice output. Or do blind people rely upon a third party to tell them the truth.
You're off in the weeds... suffice to say, a blind person can rely on tools like anyone else.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How Cana blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?
The same way we 'see' anything beyond any of our sensory ranges. A sighted person can't see radiation any better than a blind person, but both can detect and measure it. In the same way, a blind person can measure photons.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
My mistake...it's not distraction you suffer from...its dishonesty. Your "objective" standard doesn't seem to be in effect friend.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
It seems you are easily distracted. 😂
Created:
"I can perfectly imagine my back yard" might be a fact,It either is or it isn’t.
I assure you, it is not a fact (I can't perfectly imagine my back yard), but that is irrelevant to the point: Something dependent on a mind is not objective.
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
The best way to think about objective vs subjective - is the difference between how bright the sun is, vs whether the sun is very bright.The first you only have to agree on a standard of measurement so that you’re both talking about the same things: visible light per square cm or meter - the quantity measured can’t be disputed.The latter relies on an arbitrary standard that can’t be agreed without taking someone word for it.A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.
Good analogy.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
are facts objective?
Depending on what definitiin you are use for objective and what this fact is regarding, facts can be objective.
"There is grass in my backyard" is an objective fact. My feelings and mind have no necessary role in this fact, and anyone can verify without my input.
"I can perfectly imagine my back yard" might be a fact, but it is not objective. My mind necessarily plays a role, and verification (if possible) requires interaction with me.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Once you add proof into the equation that’s when something is objective so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.
Proof of what? God? Heaven? There is no 'proof' for these things - only claims. Besides, even if you were able to provide proof of, say, God as the origin of the proposed standard of love, it is still dependent on a mind and still subjective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Not anything you haven’t said before
Agreed, but what I have already said is the explanation you asked for.
so what your just going to ignore my rebuttal?
Your rebuttal makes no sense. Love and desire (what god wants) would be subjective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉No, I just expanded on it for clarityIncoherent =/= clarityAre you going to explain yourself or not?
Sure! The definition you provided for objective does match the standards you're advocating, my friend. Eg. Love and desire are necessarily subjective. They cannot exist without a mind, and, as such, they are not objective.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉No, I just expanded on it for clarity
Incoherent =/= clarity.
Created:
-->
@Shila
SkepticalOne: Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉How is that Okay?
It's not, but my interlocutor has established he is comfortable with a self-refuting position. No further debate is necessary.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
Unless, of course, the other tribe has 1000's of warriorsI don't think anybody will dispute that more than one type of advantage can exist, and that some advantages are better than others
I'm not convinced indifference to survival is an evolutionary advantage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I've already explained, not all atheists.
Of course, of course. Let me clarify: not all posters claiming to narrowly direct criticism at subsets of atheists question reasoning any and all atheists might subscribe to.
Better?
Created:
-->
@Tarik
They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.
*There's*
Of the two definitions provided, love and desire qualify as objective exactly zero times. You're 0 for 2, my friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
This.This... this, what?
It simply means, "I agree". I too am not against the concept of gods in general. To be honest, I'm sick to death of being lumped in with a minority of atheists which claim there are absolutely no gods.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If a group has 30 selfless individuals unafraid of death and willing to die for their God, they have an advantage over tribes in warfare who do fear death
Unless, of course, the other tribe has 1000's of warriors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
@TWS1405
Most atheists are directly against the concept of god.I am an atheist, by definition, but I am not "directly against the (concept) of god."
This.
Created:
-->
@Tarik
Which conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
Even if we utilize your definition, love and wants are personal feelings and not objective. Ie. Philosophically or scientifically, your standard is not objective.
@Double_R has provided the only objective standard I've seen in this discussion: well-being.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How love objectifies parts of a person we are attracted to in expressions like:I love your hair, I love your body, I love your booty etc. etc.
Objective and objectify are not synonymous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Wow. I'm surprised there's been no pushback.
Created: