You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?
Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:
If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737
So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.
I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.
So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.
Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.
So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.
You're certainly entitled to your opinions. But taking a look through the thread, when the vast cloud of witnesses states otherwise isn't it irrational to question what all of these others believe is true simply because you, personally, don't see it?
Naw, I'll just repeat Hume's point:
If I ask you why you believe any particular matter of fact, which you relate, you must tell me some reason; and this reason will be some other fact, connected with it. But as you cannot proceed after this manner, in infinitum, you must at last terminate in some fact, which is present to your memory or senses; or must allow that your belief is entirely without foundation.--David Hume 1737
So far I have seen absolutely zero rebuttal of the points PC has made from that 'cloud of witnesses' and have seen a lot of unkind comments directed at her personally.
I have seen a lot of comments about what she said that I can't find that she said.
So I have to go with Hume's theory that the stated beliefs about what PC intended and/or said are so far entirely without foundation here.
Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I see no points in the OP except the one we already discussed that are worth discussing and my position is clear, nor will I engage in one-sided debate with a straw man other than to point out that it is, in fact, a straw man and move on. Which has also already been made clear. If you seriously expect me to chase my tail over logical fallacies, I'm afraid I will have to disappoint.
So it is now your position that one should NOT take the position of others into account when one is confronted with the testimony of a large group about the existence of an intangible? When does your "cloud of witnesses" matter, and when does it not? Or by rejecting the opinion of the herd when it doesn't suit your predelictions, are you now by your own definition being irrational? I don't follow your logic on this one.
I don't think you've made a good case to support that there is a straw man in the OP. And I don't think the 'cloud of witnesses' you used to back you up have made their case that the OP says what they say it says.
The 'cloud of witnesses' analogy that I used was the testimony of the hundreds of millions or billions of people who do believe in a deities. Many claim personal experience with a deity. And again go back to the analogy of the physician and his patients or the pink elephant I used. Can you make a coherant argument for why I am wrong? Did you understand these? Or did you ignore them because you can't refute them?
The OP suggested all these themes to me. Interesting concepts. And interesting and varied ways of looking at them. You continue to make it personal and call it a straw man.
Different strokes for different folks I guess.