A Pondering of the Peculiar (3)

[Davian]

I did not know it then. I knew it when I walked into it years later.

Wow - same here. I have knowledge of the future as soon as I get there too.

OK.. I'm the bully. Now pass the butter, please.

You can try to dismantle it within your denial of there even being a possibility.., but you can not understand it. For, you would have to be knowing God is real in order to do so. You can't.

If gods are only characters in books, no one can, whatever they might have convinced themselves to believe.

What I said about you having no idea is simply a fact. No bullying. Its just a fact. You do not understand spiritual matters.

I don't claim to - my point is that you do not either, as shown in your posts. "Spiritual" is merely a label used for things you do not understand and cannot explain or demonstrate. It's just a lot of hand-waving. You only claim to understand it.

By stating that it makes me a bully?

When your beliefs are stated as truth, with no possibility that you are wrong, in spite of your own admission that you lack evidentiary support for them, with various threats of what supposedly will happen to me if I fail to agree with you, yes, that make you a bully. By your own words.

 

[Davian]

Wiki, Really. That is the most unreliable area to stand behind. It works like this: One puts in a article or study and then like minded people ad to it and if there is a correction then the same type of people will either accept or deny the correction.

You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia? Do you not see the citations for the scientific papers referenced for each section?

I do think it is good for simple research, but to stand by with that much faith, you might as well read the Bible and then have a new life.

So Wiki is "the most unreliable area to stand behind" and the bible is is the same.

Got it.

Are you new to the internet?

You will like the Bible better also.

I cite the Bible as my reference source.

Matt 10:32-33
32 "Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Now that was Preachy

And somewhat offensive.

Have you anything of significance? If this exchange is to descend into preaching on your part, we are done.

 

[GenemZ]

Wow - same here. I have knowledge of the future as soon as I get there too.

This is what I originally said...


" I am 65 years old this year. When I was around 18-19, my Lord showed me then where I am today."


You deflect away from what I really said by playing games. That way you can avoid acknowledging my existence. Just like you do with God.

 

[Dizredux]

BrotherRickG "May the Lord Jesus give wisdom to the un-wise and understanding to the stubborn and self examination to the arrogant."

Dizredux

"Could you possibly entertain the idea that this may also refer to you? "

BrotherRickG "Absolutely, and how about you? "

Of course however it was you that posted the comment though. If you ask this for others, you should also ask it for yourself. These are the kinds of prayers that God often answers.

BTW Are you related to to AliG? A member of the G family so to speak. (grin)

Dizredux

 

[Davian]

This is what I originally said...


" I am 65 years old this year. When I was around 18-19, my Lord showed me then where I am today."


You deflect away from what I really said by playing games.

I do not know what you mean.

That way you can avoid acknowledging my existence.

I have not done that. What I did not acknowledge was the swing of the bully's "fist". It has no effect on me.

Just like you do with God.

Only a character in a book, like all the other gods. What else is there to it?

 

[HitchSlap]

This is what I originally said...


" I am 65 years old this year. When I was around 18-19, my Lord showed me then where I am today."


You deflect away from what I really said by playing games. That way you can avoid acknowledging my existence. Just like you do with God.

So, you're basically saying your life turned out how you imagined it.

Good on ya.

 

[GenemZ]

I don't claim to - my point is that you do not either, as shown in your posts. "Spiritual" is merely a label used for things you do not understand and cannot explain or demonstrate.

Does the dummy you groomed to be me, have blonde hair, or brown? The one that you make say what you want it to say.

"Hello. My name is Davian, and you must conform to my world view. If you don't, I will speak in your direction as if you do."

You don't have a conversation. You look at the person then proceed to have a conversation with an imaginary person.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does the dummy you groomed to be me, have blonde hair, or brown? The one that you make say what you want it to say.

"Hello. My name is Davian, and you must conform to my world view. If you don't, I will speak in your direction as if you do."

You don't have a conversation. You look at the person then proceed to have a conversation with an imaginary person.

I hope you're trying to be funny, because the majority of your posts are non sequiturs with blustery preachin' and worn out bible verses.

O' the irony.

 

[Davian]

Does the dummy you groomed to be me, have blonde hair, or brown? The one that you make say what you want it to say.

"Hello. My name is Davian, and you must conform to my world view. If you don't, I will speak in your direction as if you do."

You don't have a conversation. You look at the person then proceed to have a conversation with an imaginary person.

That was not the intent of my statement, but your response is quite ironic.

Are you not describing exactly how you talk to others that do not share your beliefs?

You know (I hope you know) that they don't think the same of your bible or your god, yet you talk right past them, as if things like hell, sin, devils, etc. are real.

You do not have a conversation, you talk right past them.

I am not saying those things are not real. I am saying that if you want others, such as myself, to think that they are real, you will need much more than bluff and bluster.

When asked to substantiate the existence of such things, you appear indignant, admit that you cannot substantiate your beliefs, yet continue on as if you have substantiated them, and wave those (empty) threats of what we will encounter after we are dead. I cannot begin to describe how little I worry over those threats.

Do you see the irony now?

 

[GenemZ]

So, you're basically saying your life turned out how you imagined it.

How could I imagine it? I had no frame of reference for where I now live. Nothing like it where I grew up. A different part of the country all together.

When someone grows up with only pine trees all around him, he can not imagine a palm tree. Not unless he saw a picture of one. I had no such frame of reference to be able imagine what I was shown in the dream. All I did know was that it had a tranquil supernatural peace about it. A peace, that at that time of my life, I lacked. I woke up and wondered why I could not have that same peace after I woke up that I experienced a few minutes ago..

 

[FredHoyle]

How could I imagine it? I had no frame of reference for where I now live. Nothing like it where I grew up. A different part of the country all together.

When someone grows up with only pine trees all around him, he can not imagine a palm tree. Not unless he saw a picture of one. I had no such frame of reference to be able imagine what I was shown in the dream. All I did know was that it had a tranquil supernatural peace about. A peace, that at that time of my life, I lacked.

Do you find yourself being able to recall instantly something that happened 30 years ago but have trouble remembering what you were thinking 10 minutes ago?
I know I do, I was born one year exactly after the war started, for us it started in Sept 1939.
I asked because I noticed you are 64.

 

[GenemZ]

Do you find yourself being able to recall instantly something that happened 30 years ago but have trouble remembering what you were thinking 10 minutes ago?

The older memories remain because they were stored on our hard drive. The ones ten minutes ago, are still floating in RAM and may not get saved. That may have something to do with it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The older memories remain because they were stored on our hard drive. The ones ten minutes ago, are still floating in RAM and may not get saved. That may have something to do with it.

You aren't too far off. As it happens, for humans, the time frame in which memories are best kept in permanent form spans from about the early twenties to mid thirties (I will enter that range in about a year). This is why Alzheimer's patients often revert to these memories when the disease progresses; these are the most well kept memories and usually the last to fade away. Rather unfortunate for those who were in combat for these years.

If you have forgotten something from ten minutes ago, you probably will not be able to remember it without being reminded by someone or by the presence of something related to that memory. Short term memory usually lasts for only about a minute or less, and there isn't much "free-floating" a memory can do before it begins to significantly decay. Like it or not, you have forgotten more than half of the information you interpreted in any given day, and most of what you remember is patchy and missing details.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Umm how about no. Just because you had to look up the dictionary and it offended your sense of "language intelligence" doesn't mean I've used the wrong word.

Model parsimony is well understood vernacular, and in statistical and probability modelling they often trade parsimony for model fit using a variety of metrics.

Try looking up the following:

AIC Akaike Information Criterion
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion
DIC Deviance Information Criterion

Or take a first year statistics subject at university. Or maybe, just maybe, don't presume to know more than me about something without checking my knowledge first .

I have no idea why a word as basic as parsimony would be in the word of the day calendar.

1, I didn't look it up, I make a point of not looking at dictionaries anymore because I get easily distracted by all the other words around the ones I look up. 2, I had never seen the word used quite that way and it tripped me up a little. it isn't a common word to begin with, and is one of those words you have to see used to really understand the connotation and usable meanings (sort of like the word glib, at least in my opinion looking that word up alone doesn't reveal how best to use it). 3, Parsimony might be the vernacular of the intellectual fields, but so are a bunch of other terms most people wouldn't necessarily recognize. the vernacular of college text books is not the vernacular of everyday speech, and 4, word of the day calendars can have words as simple as abscond, so I highly doubt that parsimony isn't fair game.

It didn't offend me, it just tripped me up, as I said. it is impossible to know all the uses of every word of a language, I was attempting to assimilate a new use of a word, but I wanted to make sure that use was correct first. it is how I tend to learn stuff from other people when I am not certain of the potential for error. I didn't think you used the wrong word (language charlatans reveal themselves pretty quickly) I was trying to assess how common that use of the word was, and since I hadn't seen it used that way, thought that probably a great deal of other people besides myself hadn't either. most people who don't know those words will just assume a meaning for them or not bother with an entire comment and just ignore it. My statement of using the vernacular was intended as friendly advice, as a fellow overly verbose individual striving to advise another on the most auspicious manner of communication with various peoples. Trust me, being misunderstood gets old. It might be better for you though because you are older than me (probably, I am taking an educated guess seeing as you don't have your age next to your avatar, but I am willing to bet that you are older than me. I turned 19 less than a month ago).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wikipedia is not a good source. it is useful for finding links to good sources sometimes, but in itself is often very flawed, especially with information that requires but does not have a citation. I dislike how it is overused on this forum as a reference in general.

 

[BrotherRickG]

Wikipedia is not a good source. it is useful for finding links to good sources sometimes, but in itself is often very flawed, especially with information that requires but does not have a citation. I dislike how it is overused on this forum as a reference in general.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, that thing means satisfied (when I quote you, that is what it says in words in place of... that). Ok... kind of creepy looking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia is not a good source. it is useful for finding links to good sources sometimes, but in itself is often very flawed, especially with information that requires but does not have a citation. I dislike how it is overused on this forum as a reference in general.

I disagree. For items that are considered "settled science" it is a very good source. It has an error rate about the same as that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, as noted, it does have links to other sources that can be checked out.

It is many orders of magnitude more reliable than any creationist site.

Of course if a creationist wants to ban Wikipedia then we definitely have to ban sites like Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and other such creationist sites. All of which have been shown to be not only wrong but often openly dishonest.

 

[BrotherRickG]

Oh, that thing means satisfied (when I quote you, that is what it says in words in place of... that). Ok... kind of creepy looking.

it is kinda creepy, but trying to find a meme that said what I was trying to portray just wasn't there.... I hope you don't have nightmares now...

 

[BrotherRickG]

I disagree. For items that are considered "settled science" it is a very good source. It has an error rate about the same as that of Encyclopedia Britannica. Also, as noted, it does have links to other sources that can be checked out.

It is many orders of magnitude more reliable than any creationist site.

Of course if a creationist wants to ban Wikipedia then we definitely have to ban sites like Answers in Genesis, the Discovery Institute, and other such creationist sites. All of which have been shown to be not only wrong but often openly dishonest.

why do you hate your dad? Anyways, the wiki thing is not to discard it. It is regulated by it's peers and that in itself makes it reference only not an absolute, whether creation or evolution or ?. As for its error rate, there is no way real way to confirm that statement because wiki is filled with personal data that cannot be verified. Its basic function is for information and then tries to make it truthful through interaction. It is the interaction that is also questionable. Wiki is good for directional and exploratory research though.