Illusions opinions reality

@kellyjay said
Again a little more direct.
If you want to alter what was said to accuse me of saying or implying something I did not say just so you could attack that is counter to common ground.

I don't mind questions and answers, feel free to ask what you will. Just don't alter my answers or statements to attack what you make up instead limit your conversation to those things I did say.

Hi KJ. I have to admit that your writing is not always clear to me, so clarifications are sometimes called for.

You accuse me of “altering your answers or statements to attack you”.

Here is what happened, and please correct me if I am wrong and my analysis faulty:

1. I ask you two very basic questions that can be answered simply yes or no.

2. You reply NOT by answering the questions, but with some very convoluted reasoning and argument which, in my mind, totally avoids the questions.

3. Later, you claim to have answered the questions. Which you had not.

Now you say that I altered your answers. But they were NOT answers to my questions!

Can we perhaps cut to the chase and start over? Let’s roll back to the time when I asked those two questions. Would you do me the honour of giving me a simple answer, in words of one syllable, as to your position here? No waffles and arguments pro and con, just a simple answer. Is that too much to ask? (Especially since you stated that you do not mind questions and answers.)

After that, we can persue any line of reasoning that you suggest. But let us clear that up first.

@caljust said
Hi KJ. I have to admit that your writing is not always clear to me, so clarifications are sometimes called for.

You accuse me of “altering your answers or statements to attack you”.

Here is what happened, and please correct me if I am wrong and my analysis faulty:

1. I ask you two very basic questions that can be answered simply yes or no.

2. You reply NOT by ans ...[text shortened]...

After that, we can persue any line of reasoning that you suggest. But let us clear that up first.

If you limit your questions to what I say please we can put this behind us, no worries. If you come at me with what was not said, or alleged don't bother. You can even ask leading questions that suggest you think I mean this or that, that would be different that saying thing I didn't.

@kellyjay said
If you limit your questions to what I say please we can put this behind us, no worries. If you come at me with what was not said, or alleged don't bother. You can even ask leading questions that suggest you think I mean this or that, that would be different that saying thing I didn't.

Deja vu?
For days I was asking you simple questions which you refused to answer.

I'm puzzled.
Are you scared? Ashamed? Or just a charlatan?

@wolfgang59 said
Deja vu?
For days I was asking you simple questions which you refused to answer.

I'm puzzled.
Are you scared? Ashamed? Or just a charlatan?

What question? I see a lot of insults from you so your name basically just gets glossed over a lot.

@kellyjay said
What question? I see a lot of insults from you so your name basically just gets glossed over a lot.

How many posters and their posts are you now “glossing over” KellyJay?

@kellyjay said
If you limit your questions to what I say please we can put this behind us, no worries. If you come at me with what was not said, or alleged don't bother. You can even ask leading questions that suggest you think I mean this or that, that would be different that saying thing I didn't.

It is my considered opinion that my question was 100% in line with your OP. You did, after all, raise the question as to who is right, deists or atheists, and how do either of them know theye are right, and the consequences of this. (Or did I totally misunderstand you? As I mentioned before, your English is slightly convoluted, and I have to read your posts three or four times to try to understand them.)

But you are correct in one aspect - why bother?

@caljust said
It is my considered opinion that my question was 100% in line with your OP. You did, after all, raise the question as to who is right, deists or atheists, and how do either of them know theye are right, and the consequences of this. (Or did I totally misunderstand you? As I mentioned before, your English is slightly convoluted, and I have to read your posts three or four times to try to understand them.)

But you are correct in one aspect - why bother?

As you wish

@kellyjay said
As you wish

No, as YOU wish.

You start a thread and then refuse to engage in what is a very reasonable response.

Then YOU said "don't bother".

Don't turn the knife around and pretend you are blameless.

@caljust said
No, as YOU wish.

You start a thread and then refuse to engage in what is a very reasonable response.

Then YOU said "don't bother".

Don't turn the knife around and pretend you are blameless.

I said I would engage if you don’t want to, okay. I am not going to hassle you for it. Ask, don’t ask, I don’t care. I only request you don’t alter what I say to attack what you make up. Seems straightforward to me and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in our last exchange that what I said was not clear. Do what you will, it is now and always has been up to you!

@caljust said
No, as YOU wish.

You start a thread and then refuse to engage in what is a very reasonable response.

Then YOU said "don't bother".

Don't turn the knife around and pretend you are blameless.

KellyJay is the poster here most renowned for avoidance, for dodging targeted questions.

He pleads innocence and “good faith” / “bad faith” etc and tends to post long fluffy convoluted fuballs which, if you have the patience to dissect, are like the forum equivalent of owl pellets I.e. a crusty round fibrous ball of fur with a couple of bones crunched up somewhere inside.

@kellyjay said I only request you don’t alter what I say to attack what you make up. Seems straightforward to me and I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in our last exchange that what I said was not clear.

OK, I am also willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So let's start over with a clean slate and see if we can get somewhere interesting.

Your title to this thread is illusions, opinions, reality. This is a hugely interesting topic, as I said elsewhere, it has kept some philosophers busy for their entire life.

For me the question is also (and has been since my youth) when do we ever know that we are not deluded? How can I be absolutely sure that what I believe is correct?

Especially in view of the fact that some very dear people that I know, intelligent, loving and humble folks, have diametrically opposite views that they would defend with their lives.

So this is what I thought you wanted to discuss. If not, then my bad.

But if yes, then how would you propose that one goes about seeking the truth, eliminating the possibility of error and illusions?

And don't say read the Bible, because it is exactly there where people differ most. Galv and yourself being a case in point. I am sure you both diligently read the Bible, and just see how far apart you are. Now which one of you is deluded? Not so easy to tell, is it. So falling into the trap of insulting one another and calling names, is just a cop-out.

How would you feel about such a discussion?

@caljust said
OK, I am also willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. So let's start over with a clean slate and see if we can get somewhere interesting.

Your title to this thread is illusions, opinions, reality. This is a hugely interesting topic, as I said elsewhere, it has kept some philosophers busy for their entire life.

For me the question is also (and has been since my you ...[text shortened]... ing one another and calling names, is just a cop-out.

How would you feel about such a discussion?

I don’t recall the name of the person who said this but they claimed God speaks to us in two places nature and scripture. If we leave scriptures out, I will with you promise to stick with nature as well as long as you do too. If you bring in an authoritative voice I am supposed to accept, scripture is back in too, other opinions are acceptable since we acknowledge they are opinions up front. Is that acceptable, if not, what would you prefer?

@caljust said
Your title to this thread is illusions, opinions, reality. This is a hugely interesting topic, as I said elsewhere, it has kept some philosophers busy for their entire life.

It is indeed hugely interesting. Unfortunately, KellyJay's 'busy philosophizing' on this topic, even after revisiting it thread after thread, year after year, amounts to little more than: 'Truth is when my opinions about Truth line up with my opinions about reality' [my paraphrasing]. Versions of this are then repeated over and over and over and over again and scrutiny of it is fended off, blanked out, and/or declared to be in bad faith.

@kellyjay said
I don’t recall the name of the person who said this but they claimed God speaks to us in two places nature and scripture. If we leave scriptures out, I will with you promise to stick with nature as well as long as you do too. If you bring in an authoritative voice I am supposed to accept, scripture is back in too, other opinions are acceptable since we acknowledge they are opinions up front. Is that acceptable, if not, what would you prefer?

When you say “God and Nature” you are immediately limiting it. In fact, that gives it a starkly religious overtone.

There is actually an entire field of study on the subject of how we know what we know. It is called epistemology.

I agree with you that neither of us (or anybody willing to join in) should quote an “authoritative source” . At least not as “proving” your position, but maybe as additional and supportive information.

For example it would be OK to say that so-and-so thought this, or the Apostle Paul felt wisdom and knowledge is such-and -such. Without being seen as the unanswerable clincher.

Actually, what I would really think would be worthwhile (and I am totally sincere about this) if we could tackle the subject from first principles.

For example: How do we think? What has formed the opinions that I now hold? What has made me change them in the past?

That would be more useful for me than finding truth “in Nature”, because, as I said, that merely leads us down a similar thread that somebody started (sorry that I forgot who) :” Creation (nature) is proof of which god?”

OK so far? If this works, it could be a first on the SF.

@caljust said
When you say “God and Nature” you are immediately limiting it. In fact, that gives it a starkly religious overtone.

There is actually an entire field of study on the subject of how we know what we know. It is called epistemology.

I agree with you that neither of us (or anybody willing to join in) should quote an “authoritative source” . At least not as “proving” your ...[text shortened]... reation (nature) is proof of which god?”

OK so far? If this works, it could be a first on the SF.

Sounds reasonable to me, if I stray and I'm not saying this because I plan on it, I'll say sorry in advance and attempt to do better.