{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/10/2015 1:52:49 PM
1
Nothing can be certain if your regimen of evidence is that strict.
English
-
That's the point, nothing is infallibly certain unless you see or experience something for yourself. You can accept something and operate on the basis that it is fact, but you don't truly know if that information is entirely true unless you witness it firsthand.
-
Not even if you witness it first hand
-
Were you there when Jesus was crucified? Was I? The answer is no therefore we can only assume and determine what is probable, without knowing what is undeniable fact. My point is not to put down my own religion. My point is that we must all learn to look at things from different angles, and consider all possibilities. I think the creed of the assassins brotherhood fits this situation perfectly, "nothing is true. Everything is permitted".
-
Have you ever been to Mars? How do you know it's real? That argument is silly, as most things (evolution, cosmology, etc) is taken without personal experience, but with either evidence or probability (based on what evidence is available).
-
I don't need to go to Mars to know its real. All I have to do is look up in the sky in someplace where there isn't a lot of light pollution. The theory of evolution is still a theory, but I accept it because it is the most logical explanation. Scientific discovery is based on empirical evidence, that has been confirmed time and time again. Historical fact is often warped and re shaped, depending on who's stating. An example of this is the Armenian genocide. One side calls it genocide because the Turks killed about 1.5 million Armenians, and the other side denies that it was genocide and merely an action of retaliation against the Armenians, and that they didn't kill that many. History is debated and debated, but scientific discoveries can be confirmed again and again because evidence can be renewed and rediscovered. If all you have are the mentionings and writings of long deceased figures, then how can you know how credible they actually are. Historical fact is defined by record keeping. Record keeping is vulnerable to human flaws and errors as well as exaggeration. It is only until hard, concrete evidence, which can deteriorate over time, is discovered.
-
You're at John Locke levels of evidence. The beautiful part about whether or not Jesus existed is that it doesn't matter. Evolution deniers and climate change deniers matter.
-
It really doesn't matter because either way you look at it is not going to change anything. Deniers of evolution and climate change are ignorant because they refuse to look at the issue from both sides. The problem with issues like that, is that there is always one side that makes an argument, that could potentially end in disaster if they're wrong. Both sides of an argument are never right or wrong until what they are discussing takes place. It's like shrödinger's cat in a way, but everyone thinks they are right, and that what they say is set in stone. No one ever considers what will happen if they're wrong, and when no one considers that disaster ensues.
