The knowledge illusion

@sonship said
@FMF

So, you almost never talking about your religion in action, is other people's fault?

I think it goes without saying that Christianity (in spite of its corruptions) has done more for humanitarian actions in the world then your atheism has.

I don't think boasting about your religion's track record counts as you walking the walk. I think it just counts as more talking the talk.

@suzianne said
Even if one were to research some topic themselves in an effort to not rely on previously uncovered information, one must needs resort to acknowledging the efforts of those who have come before, or else their research becomes bogged down into stagnation. The scientific method renders a way to avoid rehashing each new discovery by turning the experiments of one generation in ...[text shortened]... it, is that the only knowledge that can be considered "illusory" is not knowledge at all, but rumor.

I suppose another way of looking at it would perhaps be how much actual usable and applicable and transferrable knowledge would I have at my disposal if, tomorrow, there were suddenly no internet and no books to consult and no experts I could contact. There'd be something somewhat "illusory", I'd say, about all that knowledge I'd not have access to. I am speaking for myself.

@fmf said
I don't think boasting about your religion's track record counts as you walking the walk. I think it just counts as more talking the talk.

You're the main poster here. You do quite a lot of talking too.

And you have an odd way of deflecting from the points made by sonship by making it personal. It's an ad hominem.

Where's your integrity? And why did you ignore my post on the previous page?

@secondson said
And you have an odd way of deflecting from the points made by sonship by making it personal. It's an ad hominem.

You appear not to know what an ad hominem is.

@secondson said
And why did you ignore my post on the previous page?

Because there was a whole thread that you started about Rajk999 and we discussed him quite extensively. Your comment on page 2 didn't add anything new that I needed to respond to.

Suzianne's hackneyed default setting criticism of Rajk999's posting is based on a seemingly deliberate mischaracterization of what his theoligical stance is. Read what I said to her again.

@secondson said
You're the main poster here.

What makes you say that?

@secondson said
And you have an odd way of deflecting from the points made by sonship by making it personal.

You obviously haven't been following the dialogue between us. The issue of think the think versus walk the walk, and talk the talk versus walk the walk, is very much "the point'' and in no way whatsoever involves "deflecting".

@fmf said
What makes you say that?

What makes you say that?

@secondson said
What makes you say that?

You think I am the main poster here? What makes you believe that? Number of posts? I'd have thought sonship beats me on that front. But the idea of there being a main poster seems to be a joke, surely?

@fmf said
Because there was a whole thread that you started about Rajk999 and we discussed him quite extensively. Your comment on page 2 didn't add anything new that I needed to respond to.

Suzianne's hackneyed default setting criticism of Rajk999's posting is based on a seemingly deliberate mischaracterization of what his theoligical stance is. Read what I said to her again.

But you deflected away from my question in that thread too.

You really are quite insincere.

@fmf said
You think I am the main poster here?

No. I think you think you're the main poster here.

@fmf said
But the idea of there being a main poster seems to be a joke, surely?

I get the impression you think it's all something to joke about.

If you were genuinely sincere you wouldn't waste so much ink squirming away from direct points made by others, and deflecting from the heart of the discussions.

Now you're going to ask me how do you do that.

@secondson said
I get the impression you think it's all something to joke about.

Yes. The notion of somehow being "the main poster" is a joke. Clearly. But, you think I AM the main poster, do you?

@secondson said
But you deflected away from my question in that thread too.

You really are quite insincere.

No, I didn't. You are mistaken.

@secondson said
I get the impression you think it's all something to joke about.

Not "all" of "it", no. But the idea of someone being "the Main Poster" on a message board like this is something to joke about, yes.