Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> why can't one conclude this ? (any less than without Darwin we would not know the mechanics of Human Evolution)

Alfred Russel Wallace had also arrived at a similar conclusion. But Darwin beat him to the publisher.

Uyi Iredia:

also note that i referred to his method before referring to him >>> the issue of a being as God is (or is concieved of) isn't one that deals on better information. also note that i never referred to him as the best authority (if i did show me where/how) >>> but as the forebearer of the information we have

This still does not make him the best source of current knowledge or the best authority for the subject at hand.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> kindly check comment #86

What about the comment?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> i have, and i have brooded over this issue. i assert that you play the semantics card >>> you contradict yourself >>> see what you said

he is demonstrating a belief >>> question? why doesn't Person b demonstrate that he does not believe >>> Person B is demonstrating a belief not a non-belief. if i were there i would say that he believes fire doesn't harm. >>> prove that 2 +2 ≠ 3

What semantics? You may need to note that that is a negative statement.

Person B has stated that fire does not harm him and to demonstrate this belief, he stuck his hand in the flame.

To expand it, person B states that fire does not harm him and he wishes to demonstrate his non-belief in fire harming him by sticking his hand in the flame. Or, he demonstrates his belief in fire not harming him . . . .

So what he is demonstrating is a negative belief which is that fire does not harm him.

thehomer:

Alfred Russel Wallace had also arrived at a similar conclusion. But Darwin beat him to the publisher.


This still does not make him the best source of current knowledge or the best authority for the subject at hand.*1


What about the comment?*2[b]


What semantics? You may need to note that that is a negative statement.

Person B has stated that fire does not harm him and to demonstrate this belief, he stuck his hand in the flame.

To expand it, person B states that fire does not harm him and he wishes to demonstrate his non-belief in fire harming him by sticking his hand in the flame. Or, he demonstrates his belief in fire not harming him . . . .

So what he is demonstrating is a negative belief which is that fire does not harm him.[/b]*3

*1 >>> whilst Aristotle beat both of them to it >>> this piece of info is one i got from reading the preface of the Origin of the Species >>> right, but he is the forebearer of the information we currently have

*2 >>> i modified it to fit in the points I was addressing

*3 >>> you err by confusing 'statements' and 'beliefs' >>> the statements by both persons are to explicate a belief >>> the objective of Person B was to evince that he does not believe that fire harms >>> negative belief ! huh ? this is still semantics >>> we are talking about a non-belief (a belief that isn't there) not a negative belief >>> which can be conversely expressed (i.e it is exposed positively)

by negative belief, i understand that a person accepts a thing as not true
by positive belief, i understand that a person accepts a thing as true

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> whilst Aristotle beat both of them to it >>> this piece of info is one i got from reading the preface of the Origin of the Species >>> right, but he is the forebearer of the information we currently have

Really, Aristotle did? Whether or not he was the first to think of it still does not make him the best authority currently available. Even Darwin would not be considered the best authority on evolution because, he simply did not have the knowledge that is currently available.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i modified it to fit in the points I was addressing

Ok. I guess I've lost my train of thought there. I'll probably come back to it later.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> you err by confusing 'statements' and 'beliefs' >>> the statements by both persons are to explicate a belief >>> the objective of Person B was to evince that he does not believe that fire harms >>> negative belief ! huh ? this is still semantics >>> we are talking about a non-belief (a belief that isn't there) not a negative belief >>> which can be conversely expressed (i.e it is exposed positively)

What about that statement do you not understand? Person B was trying do demonstrate that fire does not harm him. He believed that fire does not harm him i.e he does not believe that fire will harm him. This is a non-belief (that fire harm him).

Uyi Iredia:

by negative belief, i understand that a person accepts a thing as not true
by positive belief, i understand that a person accepts a thing as true

Yes and Person B accepts that fire harming him is not true.

thehomer:

Really, Aristotle did? Whether or not he was the first to think of it still does not make him the best authority currently available. Even Darwin would not be considered the best authority on evolution because, he simply did not have the knowledge that is currently available.*1


Ok. I guess I've lost my train of thought there. I'll probably come back to it later.*2


What about that statement do you not understand? Person B was trying do demonstrate that fire does not harm him. He believed that fire does not harm him i.e he does not believe that fire will harm him. This is a non-belief (that fire harm him).


Yes and Person B accepts that fire harming him is not true.*3

*1 >>> oh yes! he did >>> and i surmise elements of evolutionary thought in the Eleusinian mysteries which doubtless influenced Aristotle >>> Darwin is the forbearer of evolutionary philosophy he personifies it >>> without him (and T.X Huxley) they would have been no ground for the present knowledge of evolution which, by the way, is still inconclusive >>> i assert again Socrates is the forbearer of the information we have and is widely acknowledged as a symbol of critical thinking

*2 >>> okay

*3 >>>  *sighs* semantics again >>> this is a contradiction that stares at you in the face

He believed that fire does not harm him i.e he does not believe that fire will harm him >>> 

therefore Person B has demonstrated a negative belief and not a non-belief

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> oh yes! he did >>> and i surmise elements of evolutionary thought in the Eleusinian mysteries which doubtless influenced Aristotle >>> Darwin is the forbearer of evolutionary philosophy he personifies it >>> without him (and T.X Huxley) they would have been no ground for the present knowledge of evolution which, by the way, is still inconclusive >>> i assert again Socrates is the forbearer of the information we have and is widely acknowledged as a symbol of critical thinking

You need to look up these fallacies: the genetic fallacy and the appeal to misleading authority. They are what you're doing.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> okay

*3 >>>  *sighs* semantics again >>> this is a contradiction that stares at you in the face

therefore Person B has demonstrated a negative belief and not a non-belief

So, is a non-belief a positive belief? What's the difference between a non-belief and a negative belief? Could you demonstrate this with examples?

thehomer:

You need to look up these fallacies: the genetic fallacy and the appeal to misleading authority. They are what you're doing.*1


So, is a non-belief a positive belief? What's the difference between a non-belief and a negative belief? Could you demonstrate this with examples?*2

*1 >>> the 'appeal to misleading authority' fallacy is self-descriptive and my reply to your claim against this fallacy is one i have dealt with previously in Comment #93

i didn't make the argmentum ad vericundiam fallacy >>> Socrates is, a well respected figure >>> his dialectic method (which you use) >>> is one of the tools used in critical thought >>> and i am not bothered with current information >>> in my last post i simply pointed out that without him and people like him >>> we would not have the information we have >>> where does improper authority come in all of this ?

as for my reason why the genetic fallacy doesn't apply >>> my first use of Socrates was intended as a satire (not as an argument) >>> where it became an argument (thereby changing the context of my mention of Socrates) was when you said that Socrates didn't have the informaton we currently have
(check comment #89) >>> i agreed to this when i said 'nope' (check comment #92)  >>> the rebuttal i made was saying that without him and like-minded people we would not have the information we have >>> that is my argument

*2 >>> by non-belief >>> i understand that a person has no belief whatsoever (in a given topic/issue/argument)
by negative belief (as i have previously stated) >>> i understand that a person accepts a given topic/issue/argument as not true

non-belief is a position that deals with belief (it is passive as regards an argument)
negative belief deals directly with the argument

Example >>> for clarity, i'll stick with your example >>> Person B needs to prove that he has no belief that fire harms (i.e he proves his non-belief)  >>> you state that he does this by sticking his hand in the flame and showing that no harm occurs >>> he has only proven a negative belief (he believes that it is not true that fire harms) >>> expressing what person b has proven as a positive belief, i say that Person b has proven that he believes that fire does not harm

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> the 'appeal to misleading authority' fallacy is self-descriptive and my reply to your claim against this fallacy is one i have dealt with previously in Comment #93

And my response was that Socrates was not an appropriate authority to appeal to.

Uyi Iredia:

as for my reason why the genetic fallacy doesn't apply >>> my first use of Socrates was intended as a satire (not as an argument) >>> where it became an argument (thereby changing the context of my mention of Socrates) was when you said that Socrates didn't have the informaton we currently have

I guess the satire didn't come through the medium. And he didn't have the information.

Uyi Iredia:

(check comment #89) >>> i agreed to this when i said 'nope' (check comment #92)  >>> the rebuttal i made was saying that without him and like-minded people we would not have the information we have >>> that is my argument

Your argument implied was that if Socrates, one of the founders of this dialectic method of argument, was not an atheist, then no one who uses a similar method should be an atheist. This is the genetic fallacy. The fact that we know Socrates pioneered this method and that he was not an atheist does not mean anyone who uses a similar method must not be an atheist.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> by non-belief >>> i understand that a person has no belief whatsoever (in a given topic/issue/argument)
by negative belief (as i have previously stated) >>> i understand that a person accepts a given topic/issue/argument as not true

This is a simple repetition. If a person does not believe something, does it not mean he thinks the proposal is false or not true?

Uyi Iredia:

non-belief is a position that deals with belief (it is passive as regards an argument)

No it's not passive especially when one can demonstrate it. A person who does not believe a statement or proposition must have a reason.

Uyi Iredia:

negative belief deals directly with the argument

Actually, they both deal with the argument.

Uyi Iredia:

Example >>> for clarity, i'll stick with your example >>> Person B needs to prove that he has no belief that fire harms (i.e he proves his non-belief)  >>> you state that he does this by sticking his hand in the flame and showing that no harm occurs >>> he has only proven a negative belief (he believes that it is not true that fire harms) >>> expressing what person b has proven as a positive belief, i say that Person b has proven that he believes that fire does not harm

So demonstrating a belief that fire does not harm a person by his sticking his hand in the flame is different from demonstrating a non-belief in fire harming a person by sticking his hand in the flame? This is getting ludicrous.

thehomer:

And my response was that Socrates was not an appropriate authority to appeal to.*1


I guess the satire didn't come through the medium. And he didn't have the information.*2


Your argument implied was that if Socrates, one of the founders of this dialectic method of argument, was not an atheist, then no one who uses a similar method should be an atheist. This is the genetic fallacy. The fact that we know Socrates pioneered this method and that he was not an atheist does not mean anyone who uses a similar method must not be an atheist.*3


This is a simple repetition. If a person does not believe something, does it not mean he thinks the proposal is false or not true?*4


No it's not passive especially when one can demonstrate it. A person who does not believe a statement or proposition must have a reason.*5


Actually, they both deal with the argument.*6


So demonstrating a belief that fire does not harm a person by his sticking his hand in the flame is different from demonstrating a non-belief in fire harming a person by sticking his hand in the flame? This is getting ludicrous.*7

*1 >>> my response (as it has been) is that Socrates is the forbear of the information we have >>> besides the information we have is much inconclusive since there is an infinitude of things to be discovered

*2 >>> okay >>> yes, he didn't have it but we owe what we have to him and his likes

*3 >>> then your inferences were wrong

*4 >>> semantics ! >>> false and not true are two different things >>> that I learn in philosophy class

*5 >>> this is so because there are no 'unbeliefs' >>> only beliefs and their antecedents

*6 >>> they don't

*7 >>> you'd best make your point

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> my response (as it has been) is that Socrates is the forbear of the information we have >>> besides the information we have is much inconclusive since there is an infinitude of things to be discovered

So what's the relevance of whether or not he believed in a God?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> okay >>> yes, he didn't have it but we owe what we have to him and his likes

Sure he did a lot of work there. Still, what's the relevance of this to whether or not he believed in a God?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> then your inferences were wrong

So what did you mean by your reference to Socrates?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> semantics ! >>> false and not true are two different things >>> that I learn in philosophy class

Oh? Could you please expatiate? e.g a = 1, b = 2.

If I said a = b is false, and a = b is not true, what's the difference?

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> this is so because there are no 'unbeliefs' >>> only beliefs and their antecedents

Huh? Could you please clarify what you mean? In general parlance, non-christians are "unbelievers".

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> they don't

Please explain.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> you'd best make your point

I made my point several posts ago. See here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.64.html#msg7351081
Check the last paragraph. Also, please try to familiarize yourself with the concept of negative statements.

thehomer:

So what's the relevance of whether or not he believed in a God?


Sure he did a lot of work there. Still, what's the relevance of this to whether or not he believed in a God?*1


So what did you mean by your reference to Socrates?*2

Oh? Could you please expatiate? e.g a = 1, b = 2.

If I said a = b is false, and a = b is not true, what's the difference?*3


Huh? Could you please clarify what you mean? In general parlance, non-christians are "unbelievers"*4


Please explain.*5


I made my point several posts ago. See here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.64.html#msg7351081
Check the last paragraph. Also, please try to familiarize yourself with the concept of negative statements.*6

*1 >>> to let you infer that critical thinking doesn't necessarily tend to Atheism

*2 >>> same as above - plus the sarcasm

*3 >>> saying is false is an affirmative statement (a positive belief that a=b is false is true) *I hope I'm clear* >>> saying a=b is not true signifies a suspension of judgement as to the value of the equation (i.e whether it is true or false)

*4 >>> phew! I'd say that the fact that Person B _referring to our earlier argument_has reasons for a stance and can articulate it shows that he has a belief in it >>> There is no such thing as an unbelief if you have, even a bit of, knowledge as regards an issue.

*5 >>> i have already said that non-belief is passive as regards an argument >>> it is a redundancy much the same way the 'not equals to' symbol is redundant >>> non-belief is a mere adumbration of a belief, whether it be +ve or -ve

*6 >>> I intend to especially since my upcoming GST 311 (History & Philosophy of Science) exam deals with it and (apparently) our argument on science and religion. BTW, I rummaged through my Dad's archives and got the 'Tell Me Why' book where I read that animals engage in farming practices. I'll scan it later so you can evaluate it.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> to let you infer that critical thinking doesn't necessarily tend to Atheism

*2 >>> same as above - plus the sarcasm

You see the reference to Socrates because he was an originator of an idea is a fallacy. Whether or not Socrates was an atheist even if he was one of the originators of the idea is irrelevant to the discussion.
Besides, I never said it necessarily makes one an atheist especially if a person chooses to suspend critical thinking when it comes to certain issues e.g their personal religion.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> saying is false is an affirmative statement (a positive belief that a=b is false is true) *I hope I'm clear* >>> saying a=b is not true signifies a suspension of judgement as to the value of the equation (i.e whether it is true or false)

No it's not. You may need to refer to logic tables to clarify this error.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> phew! I'd say that the fact that Person B _referring to our earlier argument_has reasons for a stance and can articulate it shows that he has a belief in it >>> There is no such thing as an unbelief if you have, even a bit of, knowledge as regards an issue.

If his belief is directly contradictory to yours, this means he does not believe your statement is true thus is an unbeliever in your belief.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> i have already said that non-belief is passive as regards an argument >>> it is a redundancy much the same way the 'not equals to' symbol is redundant >>> non-belief is a mere adumbration of a belief, whether it be +ve or -ve

Non-belief or belief that something is not true is not passive. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_negation

Passivity would be a null value or a response such as I do not know (but be careful with this because even if one does not know an answer, one can still be quite clear that an answer is not correct).

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> I intend to especially since my upcoming GST 311 (History & Philosophy of Science) exam deals with it and (apparently) our argument on science and religion. BTW, I rummaged through my Dad's archives and got the 'Tell Me Why' book where I read that animals engage in farming practices. I'll scan it later so you can evaluate it.

Ok then.

thehomer:

Yes it's biased towards statements that are verifiably true.*1

Why not? I ask because this person has free will and wishes to exercise it this way.*2

Whether or not it was evident, only one of them was actually true.*3

Truth is relative to what, falsehood?*4

People such as?*5

Whether or not one believes a statement is true would not stop the statement if true from affecting such a person when necessary.
*6

*1 >>> and 'unverifiably' false >>> how romantic !

*2 >>> the means to do a thing like that (i.e cutting off the head and stitching it back) isn't available >>> you really should use analogies from maths (geometry to be precise) when trying to demonstrate the absolution of truths >>> note that a person can (of his free will0 believe in a glaring contradiction e.g a square circle

*3 >>> which is precisely why it is relative >>> any one of them could have been true

*4 >>> yes >>> and it also relative to unknown knowledge (that's my posit form the start) >>> note the emboldened parts below

It is absolutely relative because it is impossible to know all things >>> Knowledge is an infinite attribute >>> this is proven by the fact that there is always new knowledge to gain about the simplest of concepts/postulates/questions e.g man, 1+1=2, what is evil ? >>> it is relatively absolute because inspite of the fact that there will always be knowledge we don't know >>> we are certain of knowledge we have


Insofar as we can never have absolute knowledge of reality >>> then free-thinking will always be limited

*5 >>> u still havent gone to read GWR >>> do some homework please ?

*6 >>> as a matter of fact i disagree with this >>> science is built on what is fundamentally opposed to what u have stated >>> it tries to falsify a truth (which in this case is a hypothesis) >>> besides you appear to conflate truth and truth statements in this instance >>> your talk of if also implies conditionality >>> which only goes to back up my claim of relativity

thehomer:

You see the reference to Socrates because he was an originator of an idea is a fallacy. Whether or not Socrates was an atheist even if he was one of the originators of the idea is irrelevant to the discussion.
Besides, I never said it necessarily makes one an atheist especially if a person chooses to suspend critical thinking when it comes to certain issues e.g their personal religion.*1


No it's not. You may need to refer to logic tables to clarify this error.*2


If his belief is directly contradictory to yours, this means he does not believe your statement is true thus is an unbeliever in your belief.*3


Non-belief or belief that something is not true is not passive. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_negation

Passivity would be a null value or a response such as I do not know (but be careful with this because even if one does not know an answer, one can still be quite clear that an answer is not correct).
*4

Ok then.

*1 >>> it was not an argument it was sarcasm *unless fallacy applies to sarcasm as well  * >>> and how many times should i repeat that i simply referred to Socrates as the forbearer of information we have 

*2 >>> i conflated beliefs with truths for a moment here *error noted*

*3 >>> and he explicates his belief >>> not his unbelief

*4 >>> i goofed here >>> i certainly erred by associating belief with truth values >>> this is something you seem to have equally made >>> beliefs and truth values are different though closely related

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> and 'unverifiably' false >>> how romantic !

No just verifiably true.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> the means to do a thing like that (i.e cutting off the head and stitching it back) isn't available >>> you really should use analogies from maths (geometry to be precise) when trying to demonstrate the absolution of truths >>> note that a person can (of his free will0 believe in a glaring contradiction e.g a square circle

This was what I was trying to demonstrate. There is a necessity of function that applies to humans that is outside of freewill and thus not considered to affect or negate freewill. That was what I was demonstrating in my post there: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.0.html#msg7241298

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> which is precisely why it is relative >>> any one of them could have been true

No. Based on the physical laws, only one of them could be true.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> yes >>> and it also relative to unknown knowledge (that's my posit form the start) >>> note the emboldened parts below

It is absolutely relative because it is impossible to know all things >>> Knowledge is an infinite attribute >>> this is proven by the fact that there is always new knowledge to gain about the simplest of concepts/postulates/questions e.g man, 1+1=2, what is evil  ? >>> it is relatively absolute because inspite of the fact that there will always be knowledge we don't know >>> we are certain of knowledge we have

Insofar as we can never have absolute knowledge of reality >>> then free-thinking will always be limited

Please have you made this statement before because I previously didn't notice it.
Keep in mind that we act and think based on what we know not based on what we don't know. One doesn't need to know all things to be a free-thinker. In fact, it is necessary for one not to know all things to be a free-thinker. And there is a difference between the totality of one's knowledge and statements that can be true.
How do you get to the last line there? Free-thinking will be limited to what? Free-thinking implies a readiness to question conclusions and assumptions so I don't get what you're driving at.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> u still havent gone to read GWR >>> do some homework please ?

I have checked but couldn't find a reference. I would be grateful if you could direct me to a resource where such a survivor was noted.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> as a matter of fact i disagree with this >>> science is built on what is fundamentally opposed to what u have stated >>> it tries to falsify a truth (which in this case is a hypothesis) >>> besides you appear to conflate truth and truth statements in this instance >>> your talk of if also implies conditionality >>> which only goes to back up my claim of relativity

You disagree? This means you think that a person who does not believe that a decapitation will not kill him will not be killed by a correctly applied guillotine.
My use of if is to demonstrate that if it is true that e.g a guillotine that decapitates someone kills the person, then the person will die. If it is false, then the person will not die. This has no effect on the fact that the statement being true will kill someone properly subjected to it irrespective of the person's belief.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> it was not an argument it was sarcasm *unless fallacy applies to sarcasm as well  * >>> and how many times should i repeat that i simply referred to Socrates as the forbearer of information we have 

Sarcasm? Does this mean that you actually agree with me?
My point is that referring to him as the forebearer is irrelevant in this discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i conflated beliefs with truths for a moment here *error noted*

Ok

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> and he explicates his belief >>> not his unbelief

If a person's view is directly contradictory to yours, that person demonstrates an unbelief towards your view.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> i goofed here >>> i certainly erred by associating belief with truth values >>> this is something you seem to have equally made >>> beliefs and truth values are different though closely related

Where did I err in this association?

thehomer:

Sarcasm? Does this mean that you actually agree with me?
My point is that referring to him as the forebearer is irrelevant in this discussion.*1


Ok


If a person's belief is directly contradictory to yours, that person demonstrates an unbelief towards your view.*2


Where did I err in this association?*3

*1 >>> my talk of Socrates was relevant to my satire, it's that simple >>> and i repeat without him & his likes we wouldn't have the info we have. kapish !

*2 >>> i corrected your statement >>> we are concerned with beliefs not views >>> btw, this only cements the fact that a person explicates his belief not his 'unbelief' >>> Person B was demonstrating what he 'does not believe' by actually showing us what he believes in - that fire does not harm >>>

"you do not prove (nor explicate) a non-belief"

- Uyi Iredia

*3 >>> the Wiki article you posted concerns propositions, truth values, or semantic values >>> beliefs whilst related to them is more_shall i say_ insidious

for example, beliefs can violate the basic logical law of non-contradiction, a person can believe 2 mutually opposing views * consider 'double think',  'cognitive dissonance', 'schizophrenia' e.t.c* >>> like faith, it is tricky to define belief >>> this doesn't apply as such to propositions, truth values, or semantic values all of which can be rigidly defined and explicated

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> my talk of Socrates was relevant to my satire, it's that simple >>> and i repeat without him & his likes we wouldn't have the info we have. kapish !

No it's not relevant. If you say it is relevant, then it becomes a fallacy because atheism has no bearing on whether or not he was one of the originators of some forms of logical reasoning.
Since you said you meant it sarcastically, then that implies that you actually meant the opposite of what you posted there.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i corrected your statement >>> we are concerned with beliefs not views >>> btw, this only cements the fact that a person explicates his belief not his 'unbelief' >>> Person B was demonstrating what he 'does not believe' by actually showing us what he believes in - that fire does not harm >>>

"you do not prove (nor explicate) a non-belief"

- Uyi Iredia

This is false. One can demonstrate that they do not share a belief with another person. i.e one demonstrates their non-belief in your belief. Keep in mind that when two people have directly contradictory views or beliefs, demonstrating one means demonstrating a non-belief in the other.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> the Wiki article you posted concerns propositions, truth values, or semantic values >>> beliefs whilst related to them is more_shall i say_ insidious

for example, beliefs can violate the basic logical law of non-contradiction, a person can believe 2 mutually opposing views * consider 'double think',  'cognitive dissonance', 'schizophrenia' e.t.c* >>> like faith, it is tricky to define belief >>> this doesn't apply as such to propositions, truth values, or semantic values all of which can be rigidly defined and explicated

I disagree. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved one way or another. So the person does not actually maintain these mutually contradictory views. And I don't see the relevance here especially with the example I presented.

thehomer:

No it's not relevant. If you say it is relevant, then it becomes a fallacy because atheism has no bearing on whether or not he was one of the originators of some forms of logical reasoning.
Since you said you meant it sarcastically, then that implies that you actually meant the opposite of what you posted there.*1


This is false. One can demonstrate that they do not share a belief with another person. i.e one demonstrates their non-belief in your belief.*2 Keep in mind that when two people have directly contradictory views or beliefs, demonstrating one means demonstrating a non-belief in the other.


I disagree. Cognitive dissonance must be resolved one way or another. So the person does not actually maintain these mutually contradictory views. And I don't see the relevance here especially with the example I presented.
*3

*1 >>> i simply meant, and still mean, that Socrates would laugh at what you posted >>> what else do you need me to say !

*2 >>> this is false >>> a repetition of the semantic juggling i still accuse you of >>> you are treating beliefs and truths as the same thing

>>> one only demonstrates their belief (this is a self-evident axiom) thereby explicating their 'non-belief' in a mutually opposing stance >>> they do not demonstrate their non-belief >>> it is merely an illusion >>> all they do is explicate their belief >>> Person B only demonstrated that he believes fire does not harm >>> he did not demonstrate that he does not believe fire harms

*3 >>> not always >>> my guesstimate is that one can remain in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance >>> one that is rather insidious >>> this is by the way, lemme focus on your argument

the relevance of this is that cognitive dissonance & double think are highly dependent on beliefs >>> logic/critical thinking tend to be suspended in both cognitive dissonance and moreso in doublethink >>> let us not confuse beliefs with truths and statements >>> they are all unique

thehomer:

No just verifiably true.*1

This was what I was trying to demonstrate. There is a necessity of function that applies to humans that is outside of freewill and thus not considered to affect or negate freewill. That was what I was demonstrating in my post there: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.0.html#msg7241298
*2

No. Based on the physical laws, only one of them could be true.
*3


Please have you made this statement before because I previously didn't notice it.
Keep in mind that we act and think based on what we know not based on what we don't know. One doesn't need to know all things to be a free-thinker. In fact, it is necessary for one not to know all things to be a free-thinker. And there is a difference between the totality of one's knowledge and statements that can be true.
How do you get to the last line there? Free-thinking will be limited to what? Free-thinking implies a readiness to question conclusions and assumptions so I don't get what you're driving at.
*4

I have checked but couldn't find a reference. I would be grateful if you could direct me to a resource where such a survivor was noted.*5


You disagree? This means you think that a person who does not believe that a decapitation will not kill him will not be killed by a correctly applied guillotine.
My use of if is to demonstrate that if it is true that e.g a guillotine that decapitates someone kills the person, then the person will die. If it is false, then the person will not die. This has no effect on the fact that the statement being true will kill someone properly subjected to it irrespective of the person's belief.*6

*1 >>>  maybe >>> and maybe not >>> ultimately it is your prerogative

*2 >>> i'm not bothered by this wistful necessity of function >>> we, especially as critically observant humans have the will to change such 'necessity of function'  as we deem it >>> what makes you think in the future medical science wouldn't allow a man to decapacitate his head and put it back on ! >>> you simply cannot don't have all requisite knowledge to show that this is impossible

*3 >>> confound it! >>> the one you now know to be true >>> such 'laws' could have been misinterpreted >>> leaving either of them open to actuality

*4 >>> i have made this statement repeatedly ! >>> how could you not notice it    >>> a case to note is that we act based on both what we know and don't know >>> the remnants of your talk are shadows of what i have since said

"Knowledge/Truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative"

- Uyi Iredia

and how won't i arrive at the last line ! >>> your free-thinking is limited by knowledge/truths you do not know


*5 >>> check [url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVesna_Vulovi%25C4%2587&ei=-KVCTbWsFsPN4Aa3ycBS&usg=AFQjCNEl6Jw0eW16UdR447OQ1gG5DFe2zw&sig2=QC6hi-U_COO5J2h75s5pvw]this[/url] and this and google it

*6 >>> and what if the person's belief leads him/her to invent a means to avoiding a certain death when a guillotine is applied ?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> i simply meant, and still mean, that Socrates would laugh at what you posted >>> what else do you need me to say !

Why would Socrates laugh?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> this is false >>> a repetition of the semantic juggling i still accuse you of >>> you are treating beliefs and truths as the same thing

>>> one only demonstrates their belief (this is a self-evident axiom) thereby explicating their 'non-belief' in a mutually opposing stance >>> they do not demonstrate their non-belief >>> it is merely an illusion >>> all they do is explicate their belief >>> Person B only demonstrated that he believes fire does not harm >>> he did not demonstrate that he does not believe fire harms

You are contradicting yourself. You already agree with what I said. Note the part in bold. <emphasis mine> The parts in bold are contradictory.
And I ask you, is there a way for Person B to demonstrate that he does not believe as Person A?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> not always >>> my guesstimate is that one can remain in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance >>> one that is rather insidious >>> this is by the way, lemme focus on your argument

the relevance of this is that cognitive dissonance & double think are highly dependent on beliefs >>> logic/critical thinking tend to be suspended in both cognitive dissonance and moreso in doublethink >>> let us not confuse beliefs with truths and statements >>> they are all unique

If critical thinking is suspended, then what is its relevance to this thread?
I have not confused beliefs with truth or truth statements unless you can demonstrate that I have.

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>>  maybe >>> and maybe not >>> ultimately it is your prerogative

Yes it is. Is it a problem?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> i'm not bothered by this wistful necessity of function >>> we, especially as critically observant humans have the will to change such 'necessity of function'  as we deem it >>> what makes you think in the future medical science wouldn't allow a man to decapacitate his head and put it back on ! >>> you simply cannot don't have all requisite knowledge to show that this is impossible

Oh really? Whether or not it is possible is irrelevant to this discussion of freewill. The fact is that if the person cannot do it now due to these limitations, then such a person has no freewill to carry it out.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> confound it! >>> the one you now know to be true >>> such 'laws' could have been misinterpreted >>> leaving either of them open to actuality

This is about truth. Therefore, whether or not they knew it, only one of them could have been true.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> i have made this statement repeatedly ! >>> how could you not notice it    >>> a case to note is that we act based on both what we know and don't know >>> the remnants of your talk are shadows of what i have since said

"Knowledge/Truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative"

- Uyi Iredia

and how won't i arrive at the last line ! >>> your free-thinking is limited by knowledge/truths you do not know

I meant the actual place on this thread where you made the statement.

Free thinking is an approach to knowledge not an approach to unknown subjects. So I don't see how unknown truths apply. Note that this is quite different from the necessity of function of freewill.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> check [url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CB8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FVesna_Vulovi%25C4%2587&ei=-KVCTbWsFsPN4Aa3ycBS&usg=AFQjCNEl6Jw0eW16UdR447OQ1gG5DFe2zw&sig2=QC6hi-U_COO5J2h75s5pvw]this[/url] and this and google it

I've checked but none of them was a reference to the free-fall of the person involved.
The first reference was to a person in a plane that fell from a height.
The second article actually indicates that a fall from heights > 30 metres is often fatal.
None of them actually showed a person that fell from that height and survived.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> and what if the person's belief leads him/her to invent a means to avoiding a certain death when a guillotine is applied ?

If the person invents such a machine, then the example will be irrelevant in such a situation. If you accept for the sake of the argument that the person simply does not believe that they would die, do you think the person would die? Do you understand what I'm driving at? If not I can rephrase it to eliminate such possibilities.

thehomer:

Yes it is. Is it a problem?
*1

Oh really? Whether or not it is possible is irrelevant to this discussion of freewill. The fact is that if the person cannot do it now due to these limitations, then such a person has no freewill to carry it out.*2


This is about truth. Therefore, whether or not they knew it, only one of them could have been true.*3


I meant the actual place on this thread where you made the statement.

Free thinking is an approach to knowledge not an approach to unknown subjects. So I don't see how unknown truths apply. Note that this is quite different from the necessity of function of freewill.*4



I've checked but none of them was a reference to the free-fall of the person involved
The first reference was to a person in a plane that fell from a height.
The second article actually indicates that a fall from heights > 30 metres is often fatal.
None of them actually showed a person that fell from that height and survived, *5


If the person invents such a machine, then the example will be irrelevant in such a situation. If you accept for the sake of the argument that the person simply does not believe that they would die, do you think the person would die? Do you understand what I'm driving at? If not I can rephrase it to eliminate such possibilities.*6

*1 >>> that's your business

*2 >>> it is very relevant because this possibility will render your analogy impotent

*3 >>> correction! >>> any one of them could have been true >>> that is why science has to find out which one via use of critical thinking

*4 >>> read thru the thread to see where I iterated this >>> BTW where does free-thinking start from ? if not ignorance ? >>> i never implied that it approaches what is unknown >>> i meant that it is limited by what we do not know >>> never mind its 'approach to knowledge'

*5 >>> you simply didn't read these sites well >>> maybe you skimmed thru 'em
the very 1st paragraph in the Wikipedia site states the GWR status of Mrs Vulovic (the ending paragraph is footnoted with references to sites and other fall survivors) >>> never mind that high-altitude falls are fatal >>> didn't you even glimpse that the article outlined the means you could actually increase your chances of survival of high-altitude falls *one of them noted the need to be calm* >>> all of them were about survivals of high-altitude drops

now go and read that GWR and amuse yourself

*6 >>> good to see ! because that is what i view free-thinking as >>> you consider alternatives to a 'truth' >>> and I want to see your rephrasal

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> that's your business

I know it is my business I'm asking if you find it problematic.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> it is very relevant because this possibility will render your analogy impotent

Then explain how it is relevant. While keeping in mind that what we are talking about is freewill in humans.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> correction! >>> any one of them could have been true >>> that is why science has to find out which one via use of critical thinking

No. Based on physical laws, only one of them could be true.
There is no way that the moon would be larger than the sun or that both the sun and the moon will be the same size and we would have the earth occupying its current location.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> read thru the thread to see where I iterated this >>> BTW where does free-thinking start from ? if not ignorance ? >>> i never implied that it approaches what is unknown >>> i meant that it is limited by what we do not know >>> never mind its 'approach to knowledge'

Why not just post a link or a comment number?
One starts thinking from what they know not from what they do not know.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> you simply didn't read these sites well >>> maybe you skimmed thru 'em
the very 1st paragraph in the Wikipedia site states the GWR status of Mrs Vulovic (the ending paragraph is footnoted with references to sites and other fall survivors) >>> never mind that high-altitude falls are fatal >>> didn't you even glimpse that the article outlined the means you could actually increase your chances of survival of high-altitude falls *one of them noted the need to be calm* >>> all of them were about survivals of high-altitude drops

now go and read that GWR and amuse yourself

She survived that fall in a plane. It was not a free fall. Please read that article again. You will note that she was in a plane. Keep in mind that there is a difference between hitting the ground at 50km/h with your body and hitting the ground at that velocity in a car.
You have still failed to provide a person that has survived such a fall. Again, if you have a reference to such a person, please present it or admit that your claim was false. There is nothing wrong with admitting this.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> good to see ! because that is what i view free-thinking as >>> you consider alternatives to a 'truth' >>> and I want to see your rephrasal

Ok here it is.

Does a person who lived in the year 2010 that does not believe that decapitation with a guillotine will kill him die if said person is decapitated with a guillotine on December 24 2010? I think a simply yes or no will do.

thehomer:

I know it is my business I'm asking if you find it problematic.*1


Then explain how it is relevant. While keeping in mind that what we are talking about is freewill in humans.*2


No. Based on physical laws, only one of them could be true.
There is no way that the moon would be larger than the sun or that both the sun and the moon will be the same size and we would have the earth occupying its current location.*3


Why not just post a link or a comment number?
One starts thinking from what they know not from what they do not know.*4


She survived that fall in a plane. It was not a free fall. Please read that article again. You will note that she was in a plane. Keep in mind that there is a difference between hitting the ground at 50km/h with your body and hitting the ground at that velocity in a car.
You have still failed to provide a person that has survived such a fall. Again, if you have a reference to such a person, please present it or admit that your claim was false. There is nothing wrong with admitting this.*5


Ok here it is.

Does a person who lived in the year 2010 that believes that decapitation with a guillotine will not kill him die if said person is decapitated with a guillotine on December 24 2010? I think a simply yes or no will do.*6

*1 >>> till you present a good case as to why critical thinking tends to atheism >>> this, i opine, nullifies the 'free' in free-thinking

*2 >>> right after you explain how 'head-cutting' rapports with our discourse on free-thinking

*3 >>> it is with the same verve that you say this that i declare that: "the point is it could be otherwise" >>> maybe we could as well be avatars living on Pandora (with moons bigger than the sun) *i would liken you to the character, Tsu'tey*

*4 >>> this is merely a claim that needs backing >>> and i am not eager to fork into another argument >>> my point is that

'Knowledge/Truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative"

- Uyi Iredia

it's that simple >>> state your problems with and/or interpretation of this posit

*5 >>> i had to read the article for the umpteenth time >>> did you note that the plane tore apart b4 its downfall ? and that  she was found in the rear part of the plane's wreckage ? *how could she have been in a plane that was burning and torn apart* >>> you did not even read the footnotes and you did not comment on what i emphasized on the 2nd article - that one can survive high-altitude falls by 'playing upon factors' >>> Mrs Vesna survived a free-fall & thankfully she is still living testament to that

>>> also recall what I said in the "Atheism Is A Religion" thread >>> that I would need a good reason to b4 allowing for an error

*6 >>> i corrected your question and >>>

Yes >>> he will die not minding his belief

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> till you present a good case as to why critical thinking tends to atheism >>> this, i opine, nullifies the 'free' in free-thinking

I have done that along this thread. You may look at a brief summary here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.64.html#msg7335906

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> right after you explain how 'head-cutting' rapports with our discourse on free-thinking

I already did that here.

thehomer:

This was what I was trying to demonstrate. There is a necessity of function that applies to humans that is outside of freewill and thus not considered to affect or negate freewill. That was what I was demonstrating in my post there: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.0.html#msg7241298

Do you read my posts before you respond? The decapitation example is about freewill not freethinking.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> it is with the same verve that you say this that i declare that: "the point is it could be otherwise" >>> maybe we could as well be avatars living on Pandora (with moons bigger than the sun) *i would liken you to the character, Tsu'tey*

It seems you now simply wish to make things up as we go along. This post of yours is disingenuous so a serious response is not needed. This simply demonstrates that when you are shown an error in your thinking, you simply retreat to making absurd claims.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> this is merely a claim that needs backing >>> and i am not eager to fork into another argument >>> my point is that

'Knowledge/Truth is relatively absolute and absolutely relative"

- Uyi Iredia

it's that simple >>> state your problems with and/or interpretation of this posit

It seems with this post simply wish to change the scope of the discussion from truth to knowledge/truth. This is a bad tactic. Knowledge and truth are different.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> i had to read the article for the umpteenth time >>> did you note that the plane tore apart b4 its downfall ? and that  she was found in the rear part of the plane's wreckage ? *how could she have been in a plane that was burning and torn apart* >>> you did not even read the footnotes and you did not comment on what i emphasized on the 2nd article - that one can survive high-altitude falls by 'playing upon factors' >>> Mrs Vesna survived a free-fall & thankfully she is still living testament to that

>>> also recall what I said in the "Atheism Is A Religion" thread >>> that I would need a good reason to b4 allowing for an error

Huh?  Are you saying she crawled into the plane after it hit the ground? Did you not read that she was wedged somewhere in the plane?
Note that she was in the plane. She did not fall freely to the ground from that height.

Did you note my example of the difference between hitting the ground at 50km/hr with your body and hitting the ground at that velocity in a car? With the second article, was there a person that was said to have survived such a fall?

You see you simply wish to make some more stuff up here when you have no facts to back up what you wish to say.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> i corrected your question and >>>
Yes >>> he will die not minding his belief

Then why did you say this in response to this post of mine?

thehomer:
. . . .
Whether or not one believes a statement is true would not stop the statement if true from affecting such a person when necessary.

Uyi Iredia:

. . . .
*6 >>> as a matter of fact i disagree with this >>> science is built on what is fundamentally opposed to what u have stated >>> it tries to falsify a truth (which in this case is a hypothesis) >>> besides you appear to conflate truth and truth statements in this instance >>> your talk of if also implies conditionality >>> which only goes to back up my claim of relativity

thehomer:

I have done that along this thread. You may look at a brief summary here: [url]https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-556936.64.html#msg7335906
*1

I already did that here

Do you read my posts before you respond? The decapitation example is about freewill not freethinking.*2



It seems you now simply wish to make things up as we go along. This post of yours is disingenuous so a serious response is not needed. This simply demonstrates that when you are shown an error in your thinking, you simply retreat to making absurd claims.
*3


It seems with this post simply wish to change the scope of the discussion from truth to knowledge/truth. This is a bad tactic. Knowledge and truth are different.*4



Huh?  Are you saying she crawled into the plane after it hit the ground? Did you not read that she was wedged somewhere in the plane?
Note that she was in the plane. She did not fall freely to the ground from that height.

Did you note my example of the difference between hitting the ground at 50km/hr with your body and hitting the ground at that velocity in a car? With the second article, was there a person that was said to have survived such a fall?

You see you simply wish to make some more stuff up here when you have no facts to back up what you wish to say.*5


Then why did you say this in response to this post of mine?*6

*1 >>> post a comment no >>> i did not see what you were referring to

*2 >>> comment no please !

*3 >>> Baguazhang appears to be your preferred style >>> lemme emphazize again that a given set of physical laws could possibly work otherwise >>> it is that simple, really !

i'd say u call my claims absurd because in my humble opinion you do not apply yourself to free-thinking >>> i wager that your kind of free-thinking is one that is inelastic

*4 >>> i merely went back to the root cause of this part of our discourse >>> check comments #14, 15 & 17

* 5 >>> stop interjecting my statements ! >>> where did i mention that she crawled into the plane >>> she free-fell from the sky & landed amongst the rear part of the wreckage

>>> again! you did not even read the footnotes and you did not comment on what i emphasized on the 2nd article - that one can survive high-altitude falls by 'playing upon factors'  >>> i'm well aware that that free-fall in a container and without are very different things

*6 >>> because free-thinking and physical thinking considers other factors and possibilities which cause that person's death >>> that is how science can make technological advancements >>> every fact/system/law/theory has loopholes per se >>> a scientist could investigate the death of the man of your example and find out that such a man can be resusciated even after decapacitation (directly implying that such a person is not dead)

your example boils down to simple induction: when men are decapacitated they die (this is a truth statement) >>> as a matter of fact there can be exceptions to this truth that your statement tries to photograph based on what you do not know

when i accused you of conflating truth and truth statements, this was my mentation >>> a truth statement is a statement (words) that we use to define what we observe in reality >>> it does not and can not fully do this (the limitation of language) >>> the person does not believe in your statement but the truth your statement tries to capture (which he might define in his own way) >>> this truth does not necessarily work the same way in various instances (it might, it might not) >>> truths are based on contingencies

Uyi Iredia:


*1 >>> post a comment no >>> i did not see what you were referring to

Click on the link it will take you to the particular comment. I just did that again. But here is the number. It was #82 in my response to DeepSight.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> comment no please !

This was from my comment #119 You could see the direct reference to freewill not freethinking.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> Baguazhang appears to be your preferred style >>> lemme emphazize again that a given set of physical laws could possibly work otherwise >>> it is that simple, really !

i'd say u call my claims absurd because in my humble opinion you do not apply yourself to free-thinking >>> i wager that your kind of free-thinking is one that is inelastic

This is more made up stuff. Please present the physical laws that would make the other two options correct otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you simply are not serious and simply wish to make stuff up to suit you. This is not thinking rationally.
Do you think that free-thinking means that a person needs to imagine whatever they like and run with it? That my friend is fantasy not free-thinking. They are very different.

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> i merely went back to the root cause of this part of our discourse >>> check comments #14, 15 & 17

Read your post again. Truth is very different from knowledge.

Uyi Iredia:
>>> i used to be averse to Kierkegaard's notion >>> but of recent i realize that he was right in positing that truth is subjective >>> we ultimately measure the kind of truth we subscribe to >>> in light of this I decided that : Truth is absolutely relative and relatively absolute

Your initial reference was to truth not knowledge. Again, please repeat after me knowledge is different from truth.

Uyi Iredia:

* 5 >>> stop interjecting my statements ! >>> where did i mention that she crawled into the plane >>> she free-fell from the sky & landed amongst the rear part of the wreckage

This is a direct implication from what you said. Here is your quote again.

Uyi Iredia:
did you note that the plane tore apart b4 its downfall ? and that  she was found in the rear part of the plane's wreckage ? *how could she have been in a plane that was burning and torn apart*

I hope you understand that this implies that she wasn't in the plane since this is a rhetorical question.
And this was from the article.

Wikipedia:
In an interview she commented that, according to the man who found her, ", I was in the middle part of the plane. I was found with my head down and my colleague on top of me. One part of my body with my leg was in the plane and my head was out of the plane. A catering trolley was pinned against my spine and kept me in the plane.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87#Fall]Vesna Vulović[/url]


So which is it? Was she in the plane while it was falling or wasn't she?

Uyi Iredia:

>>> again! you did not even read the footnotes and you did not comment on what i emphasized on the 2nd article - that one can survive high-altitude falls by 'playing upon factors'  >>> i'm well aware that that free-fall in a container and without are very different things

Rubbish. What was so fascinating about the footnotes? Can you provide a link that would point to a conclusion different from her not falling freely to the ground?
The second article had nothing on surviving an 8000 metre free fall to the ground. If you think it did, then please present someone who survived such a fall.
If you know that falling in a plane and falling freely to the ground are different, then why are you still presenting this single case when it obviously does not meet the requirements?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> because free-thinking and physical thinking considers other factors and possibilities which cause that person's death >>> that is how science can make technological advancements >>> every fact/system/law/theory has loopholes per se >>> a scientist could investigate the death of the man of your example and find out that such a man can be resusciated even after decapacitation (directly implying that such a person is not dead)

your example boils down to simple induction: when men are decapacitated they die (this is a truth statement) >>> as a matter of fact there can be exceptions to this truth that your statement tries to photograph based on what you do not know

This is terrible hand waving. Do you have a way or mechanism that was available in 2010 to enable a decapitated person survive for 1 year and 1 day?

Uyi Iredia:

when i accused you of conflating truth and truth statements, this was my mentation >>> a truth statement is a statement (words) that we use to define what we observe in reality >>> it does not and can not fully do this (the limitation of language) >>> the person does not believe in your statement but the truth your statement tries to capture (which he might define in his own way) >>> this truth does not necessarily work the same way in various instances (it might, it might not) >>> truths are based on contingencies

Please demonstrate where I conflated this because as far as has been demonstrated on this thread, you are the one conflating them.
This is also terrible hand waving. Your claim that truths are based on contingencies is indeed laughable.
Consider this statement: A = A is true. When will A = A be not true?
Also, your evasive tactics are becoming quite tiresome.

thehomer:

Why would Socrates laugh?*1


You are contradicting yourself. You already agree with what I said. Note the part in bold. <emphasis mine> The parts in bold are contradictory.
And I ask you, is there a way for Person B to demonstrate that he does not believe as Person A?*2


If critical thinking is suspended, then what is its relevance to this thread?
I have not confused beliefs with truth or truth statements unless you can demonstrate that I have.*3

* 1 >>> because you opine that critical thinking tends to atheism

*2 >>> notice that non-belief is in quote >>> why did you think I put the word 'non-belief' in quote ? >>> my answer: because there was no 'non-belief' in the first place >>> all Person B does is to evince why he believes that fire 

>>> Rephrase your question. I do not understand it. 

*3 >>> answer: to find out why this is so and do something about it

>>> then indulge yourself in correcting the 'flaws'_if they so be_in point 3 of comment #114 (this is where I explain why I supposed that you conflate belief & truth statements)

thehomer:

Click on the link it will take you to the particular comment. I just did that again. But here is the number. It was #82 in my response to DeepSight.


This was from my comment #119 You could see the direct reference to freewill not freethinking.*1


This is more made up stuff. Please present the physical laws that would make the other two options correct otherwise, I'll be forced to conclude that you simply are not serious and simply wish to make stuff up to suit you. This is not thinking rationally.
Do you think that free-thinking means that a person needs to imagine whatever they like and run with it? That my friend is fantasy not free-thinking. They are very different.*2


Read your post again. Truth is very different from knowledge.

Your initial reference was to truth not knowledge. Again, please repeat after me knowledge is different from truth.*3

This is a direct implication from what you said. Here is your quote again.

I hope you understand that this implies that she wasn't in the plane since this is a rhetorical question.
And this was from the article.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87#Fall]Vesna Vulović[/url]


So which is it? Was she in the plane while it was falling or wasn't she?


Rubbish. What was so fascinating about the footnotes? Can you provide a link that would point to a conclusion different from her not falling freely to the ground?
The second article had nothing on surviving an 8000 metrefree fall to the ground. If you think it did, then please present someone who survived such a fall.
If you know that falling in a plane and falling freely to the ground are different, then why are you still presenting this single case when it obviously does not meet the requirements?*4


This is terrible hand waving. Do you have a way or mechanism that was available in 2010 to enable a decapitated person survive for 1 year and 1 day?*5


Please demonstrate where I conflated this because as far as has been demonstrated on this thread, you are the one conflating them.
This is also terrible hand waving. Your claim that truths are based on contingencies is indeed laughable.
Consider this statement: A = A is true. When will A = A be not true?
Also, your evasive tactics are becoming quite tiresome*6

*1 >>> your conclusion is still biased >>> knowledge in the aforesaid subjects does not equate to critical or free-thinking (they simply use critical thinking) >>> by the way, the fact that there are people with ample knowledge of such topics who aren't Atheist should back me up >>> you seem to appropriate free-thinking as something arcane *this is why I asked whether one must think* and I reckon that this isn't quite the case

*2 >>> consider the following: that we now understand gravity to be a bend in the space-time continuum and not a force (as emphasized in Newtonian physics) >>> also consider that we now view the universe with Copernican lenses (or some other new cosmological model I do not know) as against the former revered Ptolemaic models 

These are good examples/analogies to evince what I meant when I said physical laws can work otherwise 

Furthermore chimeras have a role to play in the vast concept of free-thinking >>> what we say is tenable is really limited to knowledge which is simply not absolute >>> on a slightly different note, lemme add that imaginative genius (in felicity with reality) plays a crucial role in free-thinking


*3 >>> that is quite impertinent >>> I posit that both truth and knowledge are absolutely relative and relatively absolute 

However: Knowledge is different from truth >>> are you satisfied ?

*4 >>> I goofed ! She was in the plane >>> however, do me a favor by evaluating the footnote links >>> and that article is not irrelevant; 8000m or not, it outlines the means to increase chances of survival from high-altitude falls

*5 >>> how is it hand-waving ? >>> besides it is consistent with what I said earlier

I'd say the onus is on you to find such equipment

*6 >>> this is what I just did >>> and I am serious about truth based on contingencies >>> this is one of the founding reasons why I said that physical laws could act otherwise >>> contingencies (that consist of our perception of such laws and the dynamics of the laws themselves)  apply to them_as well as truth and knowledge >>> your talk of A=A is a simply a truth statement >>> not the truth

>>> please ! do not be tired we can amicably end this discourse >>> all I need is a good reason to admit my errancy >>> if you can't do such then examine your own stance or your way of presenting it

besides I have sacrificed a considerable part of my time-table on this discussion >>> I do not want it to end inconclusively as did the topic "Atheism Is A Religion"

Uyi Iredia:

* 1 >>> because you opine that critical thinking tends to atheism

And of what relevance is Socrates to this discussion?

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> notice that non-belief is in quote >>> why did you think I put the word 'non-belief' in quote ? >>> my answer: because there was no 'non-belief' in the first place >>> all Person B does is to evince why he believes that fire 

>>> Rephrase your question. I do not understand it. 

Can you tell me what Person B believes?
And is this belief different from not believing that fire will harm him?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> answer: to find out why this is so and do something about it

Critical thinking is different from free-thinking.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> then indulge yourself in correcting the 'flaws'_if they so be_in point 3 of comment #114 (this is where I explain why I supposed that you conflate belief & truth statements)

That was not an explanation. That was a claim please read what you posted again. My request was for your evidence backing up that claim. Do you have any?

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> your conclusion is still biased >>> knowledge in the aforesaid subjects does not equate to critical or free-thinking (they simply use critical thinking) >>> by the way, the fact that there are people with ample knowledge of such topics who aren't Atheist should back me up >>> you seem to appropriate free-thinking as something arcane *this is why I asked whether one must think* and I reckon that this isn't quite the case

I never said it equated to free-thinking. Free-thinking is the application of reason to basically any opinion. I already pointed out that someone who chooses not to apply reason to their religious beliefs or other superstitious beliefs is not thinking freely on such topics but relying on dogma, poor evidence etc.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> consider the following: that we now understand gravity to be a bend in the space-time continuum and not a force (as emphasized in Newtonian physics) >>> also consider that we now view the universe with Copernican lenses (or some other new cosmological model I do not know) as against the former revered Ptolemaic models 

These are good examples/analogies to evince what I meant when I said physical laws can work otherwise

No they are not good examples or analogies because the law still works the same way. Those are models based on reality. Not fantasy, not imagination but reality. So it would not work differently simply because you do not understand it.

Uyi Iredia:

Furthermore chimeras have a role to play in the vast concept of free-thinking >>> what we say is tenable is really limited to knowledge which is simply not absolute >>> on a slightly different note, lemme add that imaginative genius (in felicity with reality) plays a crucial role in free-thinking

Imaginative genius does not warrant a person choosing to escape to fantasy when interactions of real objects are being considered.

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> that is quite impertinent >>> I posit that both truth and knowledge are absolutely relative and relatively absolute 

However: Knowledge is different from truth >>> are you satisfied ?

No. Truth is not relative to what you know, what you know as true is dependent on what the truth actually is. Or do you wish to state what truth is relative to and what you actually mean by that turn of phrase?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> I goofed ! She was in the plane >>> however, do me a favor by evaluating the footnote links >>> and that article is not irrelevant; 8000m or not, it outlines the means to increase chances of survival from high-altitude falls

I see no reason why I should because it does not have anyone surviving such an impact. You also need to take note of the mortality rates after certain heights.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> how is it hand-waving ? >>> besides it is consistent with what I said earlier

I'd say the onus is on you to find such equipment

Are you serious? You actually want me to scour the web looking for a machine that you made up in your fantasy? Get real. If you know of such a machine prior to 2011, please present it or you can also admit that this fantasy machine of yours is simply that. A fantasy.

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> this is what I just did >>> and I am serious about truth based on contingencies >>> this is one of the founding reasons why I said that physical laws could act otherwise >>> contingencies (that consist of our perception of such laws and the dynamics of the laws themselves)  apply to them_as well as truth and knowledge >>> your talk of A=A is a simply a truth statement >>> not the truth

It is based on the truth that A = A. For you to properly disagree, you will need to demonstrate that A = ~A.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> please ! do not be tired we can amicably end this discourse >>> all I need is a good reason to admit my errancy >>> if you can't do such then examine your own stance or your way of presenting it

I have given you several reasons. You simply need to do something more than bringing fantasy mechanics and machines to discussions on this universe. If you have noticed anything wrong with my stance or presentation, you're free to raise it.

Uyi Iredia:

besides I have sacrificed a considerable part of my time-table on this discussion >>> I do not want it to end inconclusively as did the topic "Atheism Is A Religion"

I don't see how that discussion ended inconclusively.