...Continued

You probably wouldn’t be in the position you’re in now if you did.

<<Second, this is assuming that we want to assess those claims to begin with.>>

What do you mean by “those claims”? I’m talking about claims in general.

<<Not that I agree that I have such obligations, but apparently it was not fine with you until now, because I said just that perhaps 100 times and you keep harassing me about it anyway.

I’ve said that it was fine several times, and as I told you the last time, you are not arguing that you shouldn’t have to, but that you don’t have to (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199643); as you have done again here too. Please try to keep up.

<<And then you addressed me as a sleek lawyer - OK, the law is on your side, but justice is not.>>

If the religious process, by its very nature, cannot be demonstrated, then you have no right to claim that an injustice has occurred.

<<...your use of the word 'religion' hurts religious people and makes it easier for others to justify violence against the religious.>>

I am only using the dictionary definition; the definition that you have not provided any rational reason as to why it, and the use of it, is wrong.

<<...being aware of the damage yet being so insensitive about contributing to it, is commonly considered how pigs behave...>>

This is why I'm careful to back my claims with agreed-upon definitions, and reason and evidence. Feel free to send me packing by returning in kind instead of appealing to emotion.

<<No, for example I don't [have a direct experience], not at this very moment. Most people, most of the time, experience whatever they experience indirectly through their mind and senses.>>

That’s what I meant by “directly experience”; as opposed to actually being, say, a brain in a vat.

<<English unfortunately has no word to refer to what I am forced to translate as "direct experience"...>>

Then why assume that that’s what *I* would have meant when *I* said it, and carried on as such?

More equivocation...

Dear AJ Philips,

<<So why can’t you just say what you meant if you weren’t trying to obfuscate?>>

Because it would take me too long and use up too many words.

<<Please share how this works?>>

There are many possibilities, for example:
* One could remember what is good, even though they don't know it any more.
* One could believe another about what is good.
* One may take hints, even if unsure.
* One could take a chance, then use trial-and-error.
* One could pray for guidance, then follow their inner voice or intuition.
* One may actually know what is good, but not through a method that you would approve of.

This list is far from exhaustive.

<<No, Implied by the person who says it.>>

I don't imply such things. I usually talk about the topic, not about myself.

<<No, because that would be drawing something from what they said, that wasn’t necessarily implied.>>

Exactly, that's what you do when you draw a conclusion that "I implied to know".

<<it is assumed (for the sake of brevity) that the person making the statement claims to know it.>>

That could be a wrong assumption.

<<Otherwise, we add qualifiers such “In my opinion...”.>>

You can add what you like, but I rather stay on the subject.

<<If you make the claim, then only you can provide more information.>>

The claim that I make is what I write, nothing less, nothing more. You are welcome if you want to investigate that claim and use whatever scientific and/or other tools you have to do so, but instead you tend to digress and investigate my knowledge and motivation etc., which are irrelevant.

<<But if you don’t want to appear dishonest, then you should...>>

I am happy to risk appearing dishonest then.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<I am also not forcing you to be here.>>

Not exactly, because you implied retribution otherwise, in the form of systematically interfering with my conversations with others ("I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense"): this forces me to be and remain here under duress. Believe me, I have many better things to do!

<<So you expect that others just sit back, drool, and mindlessly absorb what you say then?>>

No, I expect nothing, though the last bit could be beneficial for some.

<<So you did... that you did?>>

Question makes no sense, clarify if you want an answer.

<<“those claims”? I’m talking about claims in general.>>

Me too. I meant "the claims in question". Not everyone makes a hobby of assessing claims.

<<If the religious process, by its very nature, cannot be demonstrated, then you have no right to claim that an injustice has occurred.>>

That's inhumane legal-speak, thus [wrongly] attributed to pigs.

<<I am only using the dictionary definition>>

Are you asking me to repeat the Nuremberg argument? I thought no.

<<I'm careful to back my claims with agreed-upon definitions,>>

Agreed among?

Your kind of people of course, not mine.

<<That’s what I meant by “directly experience”>>

Then what makes it "direct", as opposed to just any other experience?

Dear Yuyutsu,

<<…it would take me too long and use up too many words.>>

Let’s see what you said then:
“If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each their own mind.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200097)

We were talking about “the same lie”, now you’re telling me that you were referring to “the same [thing that takes too long to explain]”?

You’ve been sprung. Wear it.

<<There are many possibilities…>>

None of those negate what I was saying. We were talking about more fundamental truths (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200084); truths that would need to be established to even understand the possibilities you mentioned.

<<I usually talk about the topic, not about myself.>>

Yeah, that’s where implications come in.

<<…that's what you do when you draw a conclusion that "I implied to know".>>

No, it's not. Once again, when you state something as fact, you imply that you know it.

Knowledge:
1. facts, information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2. awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge

<<You can add what you like, but I rather stay on the subject.>>

That would not be straying from the subject.

<<The claim that I make is what I write, nothing less, nothing more.>>

"I was telling you WHAT I know (if I know), not THAT I know - the rest is your imagination." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199779)

Apparently even more is “is my imagination” now. Where will you run next?

<<...but instead you tend to digress and investigate my knowledge and motivation etc., which are irrelevant.>>

You motivation is irrelevant; the rest isn’t when you bear the burden of proof.

<<I am happy to risk appearing dishonest then.>>

That makes no sense if you want to defend religion. Unless, again, you’re just targeting the gullible.

<<…you implied retribution otherwise, in the form of systematically interfering with my conversations with others ("I, on the other hand, DO know how to respond, so I’m standing up for those ideas and any future one’s that you will inevitably respond to with the same nonsense")…>>

Continued…

…Continued

I have made no such threats. I only said that what I am saying now is in defence of the claims of others in the future. Either way, I would be within my rights to query your claims in the actual future. You are equally free to ignore them. You just want a free pass to make whatever claims you like and get away with it.

<<Question makes no sense, clarify if you want an answer.>>

It makes perfect sense. I suspect you’ve just realised that what I was responding to made no sense to begin with (“At this time I don't know” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200117)) and you need a differently worded question from me to obfuscate with.

<<Not everyone makes a hobby of assessing claims.>>

Of course not; but consciously or subconsciously, we assess claims all the time. It should have been clear that that’s what I was talking about from the context of what I said (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200102).

<<That's inhumane legal-speak, thus [wrongly] attributed to pigs.>>

Nope, if you make serious, and potentially slanderous, charges regarding an injustice committed by others, then you bear a burden of proof.

<<Are you asking me to repeat the Nuremberg argument?>>

I already invalidated that: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#199367

Your Nuremberg argument is offensive to Jews who suffered through the holocaust too.

<<Agreed among?>>

The majority - as language requires.

<<Your kind of people of course, not mine.>>

And every other religious person I’ve ever known. My entire life (as a youth group leader, Sunday school teacher, etc.) used to be a life surrounded by nothing but Christians and religion.

I suppose you wouldn’t consider these people “yours” then: http://tinyurl.com/mlados4

<<Then what makes it "direct", as opposed to just any other experience?>>

The fact that it is as direct as my experiences can get, and more direct than an experience as a brain in a vat, in the event that that’s what I actually am, and/or all that exists.

I made it clear that I was describing all my conscious/real-world experiences (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579#200085).

You are getting tangled up in your own obfuscation.

Dear AJ Philips,

I lost the thread long ago and have no idea why we are discussing this in the first place. It is therefore quite possible that my answers do not relate to the questions in your mind, because if you still hold a context to those questions, I do not, so I just take one question independently at a time.

You wrote: "If that were the case [that the mind necessarily distorts what it perceives], then no two people would be able to communicate unless they were experiencing the same lie"

So I denied it by replying: “If going through their minds, then both experience not the same, but each [the lies of] their own mind.”

Two different sets of lies: Person A experiences mind A and Person B experiences mind B. Communication thus is bound to be partial and distorted (unless they don't use their minds, but that's rare).

<There are many possibilities>

But even one such counter-example is sufficient to disprove that "you have to know what is good before you can aim to be it".
(not that I remember why I need to disprove it)

One can always aim at whatever. They could perhaps be wrong (if they don't know whether what they aim for is indeed good), but they could be right too (in the extreme case, even by chance), which is sufficient to disprove what you said.

<<when you state something as fact, you imply that you know it.>>

First, most of the time I don't say "this is a fact", only occasionally and even then typically about things that are not in contention.
Second, even when I use the word 'fact', despite your dictionary saying otherwise, I could well refer to a fact which I don't know
(most of the time this is indeed the case, but that's another story).

(continued...)