Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I think I disagree with your last statement notadmblnd Dec 2012 #1
I agree that there are situations to which the theory does not apply, cbayer Dec 2012 #27
OK, so 'normality' tama Dec 2012 #30
While I respect your POV on this and can see the validity of your arguments, cbayer Dec 2012 #32
That's why tama Dec 2012 #35
tama, you are talking over my head. cbayer Dec 2012 #36
Sorry, I'll try, and thanks for asking tama Dec 2012 #38
Thanks, that makes more sense. cbayer Dec 2012 #39
Well, the "quantum looney" etc. tama Dec 2012 #40
This is where we will part ways pretty dramatically. cbayer Dec 2012 #41
Hmm tama Dec 2012 #42
Thank you. okasha Dec 2012 #50
If you recognize the condition, how can you continue to suffer from it without being equally insane? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #56
And then... what the heck do we know? tama Dec 2012 #65
"using this species to develop an antidote against..." NoOneMan Dec 2012 #69
No tama Dec 2012 #70
From what you said Laochtine Dec 2012 #43
I did not say that. cbayer Dec 2012 #44
In silent agreement. Well put. humblebum Dec 2012 #45
The possibility that something is true has no relation to the number of people who believe it. trotsky Dec 2012 #46
So then, if one juror thinks a defendant is guilty, he's guilty, but if all 12 say he's not guilty, humblebum Dec 2012 #47
If one juror 'thinks' he's guilty EvilAL Dec 2012 #74
Never said it did. But I did say that there was a higher probability of guilt humblebum Dec 2012 #83
I don't see it like that, EvilAL Jan 2013 #113
Justin Beiber is the best singer? Laochtine Jan 2013 #88
I think I should probably have added okasha Dec 2012 #49
I have been struggling with putting a similar idea into the right words and cbayer Dec 2012 #60
I recently saw an article about a local group of matachines, okasha Dec 2012 #62
I see no reason to presume otherwise tama Dec 2012 #71
If this is the case, NoOneMan Dec 2012 #76
In terms of their adaptational advantage, for humans, being part of a tribe could be critical. cbayer Dec 2012 #77
Why of course people find religion important NoOneMan Dec 2012 #78
It is interesting that those most discriminated against or who suffer the most have cbayer Dec 2012 #79
Where else are they to turn? NoOneMan Dec 2012 #81
Also tama Dec 2012 #84
I see what you mean. okasha Dec 2012 #48
There were three stages tama Dec 2012 #82
As usual, this discussion is not of much use skepticscott Dec 2012 #2
The two examples you chose actually illustrate two disjoint sets of "knowing". Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #3
The distinction may or may not be valid skepticscott Dec 2012 #4
You may think so tama Dec 2012 #23
It's not my OP skepticscott Dec 2012 #25
Oh, words can mean things tama Dec 2012 #29
Should've been posted in GD. DCKit Dec 2012 #5
Discussions in 'religion' have always dealt with ways of knowing, Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #6
False, as usual from you skepticscott Dec 2012 #8
"fails to respond to challenges to describe in detail these 'other ways of knowing'" - still humblebum Dec 2012 #10
Yes, fail skepticscott Dec 2012 #11
Yep. Same old tired excuse - 'It never happened' - but we know it did, humblebum Dec 2012 #14
Thanks for proving my point skepticscott Dec 2012 #19
Yep, same old tired excuses, er um uh - LIES. As per humblebum Dec 2012 #20
Yep, same old tired excuses AlbertCat Jan 2013 #90
Don't make me laugh. The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam as humblebum Jan 2013 #91
The subject has been covered and examples given ad nauseam AlbertCat Jan 2013 #94
This is one of those areas where a suggestion in the scientific literature ... Igel Dec 2012 #7
Very interesting. Thats my opinion Dec 2012 #13
Do you have anything substantive to say, Charles? skepticscott Dec 2012 #17
Scottie tama Dec 2012 #22
Is there a remotely relevant point here? skepticscott Dec 2012 #24
Yup tama Dec 2012 #31
Actually, TMO was condescending and patronising to a poster, mr blur Dec 2012 #34
That's your interpretation, then tama Dec 2012 #37
There really is argument about this- digonswine Dec 2012 #9
The claim by utterly failed claimants skepticscott Dec 2012 #12
You have been so thoroughly debunked in the past from telling this same lie humblebum Dec 2012 #18
I seem to remember a big discussion about this- digonswine Dec 2012 #33
You're correct okasha Dec 2012 #51
just stopped when i hit 'scientism' Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #15
Doesn't surprise me that okasha skepticscott Dec 2012 #16
That's ok. In that case, you only skipped the last two sentences. cbayer Dec 2012 #28
Yeah, let's chuck out the one thing that we know works. nt Deep13 Dec 2012 #54
Curtis' description here is pretty misleading LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #21
One of my favorite movies is Rashomon by Kurosawa. cbayer Dec 2012 #26
"Is one recollection more valid than the other?" Deep13 Dec 2012 #53
But who is to say which is more true? And does it really matter? cbayer Dec 2012 #61
It matters, and often, as I said, we just don't know. Deep13 Dec 2012 #66
When you talk about the most objective method, you describe science. cbayer Dec 2012 #72
Thanks, cbayer. okasha Dec 2012 #55
When you turn fiction jamtoday Jan 2013 #134
This has nothing to do with the veracity of religious claims. Deep13 Dec 2012 #52
No, you're only assuming that okasha Dec 2012 #57
No, theologies--whether folk or official--are the religion... Deep13 Dec 2012 #58
Wrong. okasha Dec 2012 #59
As further evidence in your presentation... sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #63
How po-mo can you get? Deep13 Dec 2012 #68
Wrong. Deep13 Dec 2012 #64
Mythology and literalism tama Dec 2012 #75
Well that may be true... Deep13 Jan 2013 #111
Thanks for your response tama Jan 2013 #119
Mythology is not theology. okasha Jan 2013 #103
So what's the difference? Deep13 Jan 2013 #108
That's all theology. okasha Jan 2013 #116
A quick and dirty distinction, Deep 13. okasha Jan 2013 #132
Where do you get the idea that there is no theology associated with Native American humblebum Jan 2013 #97
humblebum, tama Jan 2013 #98
The particular subject being addressed was that humblebum Jan 2013 #99
Native rituals are experiental tama Jan 2013 #100
Agreed, though all of us came from tribal cultures similar in many ways to those humblebum Jan 2013 #101
Yes, tama Jan 2013 #102
I get that idea okasha Jan 2013 #104
There does seem to be some equivocation regarding what constitutes theology. humblebum Jan 2013 #109
Please see my post #103, above. okasha Jan 2013 #115
Again, there does seem to be an ambiguity here. I hardly see theology as related solely humblebum Jan 2013 #117
Would you like to tell more about your background and practice? tama Jan 2013 #110
I'm Tsalagi (Cherokee). okasha Jan 2013 #114
Thanks tama Jan 2013 #120
Should have added: okasha Jan 2013 #121
Yup, Road Man :) nt and thanks again tama Jan 2013 #122
Could you define "medicine man" ? Leontius Jan 2013 #127
What I really dislike about the term okasha Jan 2013 #131
Are you trying to claim there's a thing called "the religious experience"... Silent3 Dec 2012 #67
Maybe these "experiences"... NoOneMan Dec 2012 #73
Can you give an example of "self-evident knowledge"? Silent3 Jan 2013 #87
This came first to mind: tama Jan 2013 #93
You're making some assumptions for which I see no basis. okasha Jan 2013 #105
I find Curtis' explanations, to be simplistic and demeaning to human variety, but your last.... Humanist_Activist Dec 2012 #80
basically you are claiming that reality is determined by popular vote, which is the most idiotic... cleanhippie Jan 2013 #85
But isn't that tama Jan 2013 #86
Aka, "consensus reality." okasha Jan 2013 #106
Learn about things before spouting off about them otherwise you come off... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #124
He seems to know exactly what he talking about and what he is talking about IS taught humblebum Jan 2013 #125
I just can't imagine why you complain that people don't listen to you. cbayer Jan 2013 #133
No, because that isn't accepted as evidence alone... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #123
No, but tama Jan 2013 #128
A problem with your example, the word "pretty" is itself subjective... Humanist_Activist Jan 2013 #129
The example was bit tongue in cheek tama Jan 2013 #130
He argues that the art student must rely on intuitive rather than rational information processing .. AlbertCat Jan 2013 #89
Are you an artist? tama Jan 2013 #92
Are you an artist? AlbertCat Jan 2013 #95
You have your theory of inspiration tama Jan 2013 #96
You're arguing with a number of things that neither Curtis nor I said. okasha Jan 2013 #107
rely on parts of your brain that do not depend on such "rational" divisions. AlbertCat Jan 2013 #112
May I suggest that you try to draw a rounded object using 1- or 2-point perspective? okasha Jan 2013 #118
Then tell us how one determines whether a drawing is good or not? humblebum Jan 2013 #126
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»"Other ways of knowi...»Reply #102