The underlying point which remains unassailable is that belief is not knowledge. It is belief. Calling it knowledge is certainly something people will do (and do, etc.) but it doesn't change that the two are not the same, even when they are assumed to be so.

Actually, if you'd like to imagine something, imagine me pitying you, for I do. Anyone who can come into a topic like this and do nothing better than what you have deserves pity.

All systems of belief begin with an assertion that is considered axiomatic. The key word here being 'considered', an assumption that a particular thing or set of things is true. A belief. Specifically, a belief that is treated as if it is knowledge.

That does not, however make it so.

If or when there is no interest in being understood, or when the only interest is finding agreement or neutralizing different perspectives, opinions, or beliefs, communication and all benefit that rises from it is stymied.

Sure, we're able to have pretty things or helpful things or fun things on demand at the local WalMart, but there are a host of costs (both tangible and intangible) that are really quite lacking in benefit that are a required component of this.

We call these things progress... but over what? Is working a 70 hour week to afford to keep up on the credit debt really better than working a 30-40 hour week on the farm?

WalMart can destroy entire segments of society and culture with impunity so long as they aren't doing it here, right?

That does seem to be the consensus, which frankly, is shameful.... and the most egregious example of how consumerism ignores or denies the things that its hunger demands.

I am reminded of the opening to a movie called 'The Gods Must Be Crazy'. Mind you, the presentation of the Bushman culture is pure fallacy, but the presentation of our 'civilized' consumerism society was, I thought, quite insightful and thought-provoking. I've linked it from Youtube.

"You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own.... but in this, you fail rather abysmally."

Every one of your debates fall back on this method of ad honimem and derogatory treatment of those who either disagree with you or refuse to engage with you.

And you wonder why people refuse?

Wow.

Oh, I'm not voting down your arguments, but thank you for telegraphing that's what you are doing. Hypocrite, much? Big surprise (not).

I missed nothing. The entire debate is facile and irreconcilable. THAT is the point.

We may as well be Lilliputians.

I'll reiterate it: All knowledge is belief. Naturally, the previous statement is implicit in any statement of 'knowledge' on the part of one who makes it. Thus you are incorrect in your assumption that it is a statement of knowledge. Applying your perspective is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean it's automatically primary for anyone but you.

Feel free to try again.

Let's just say I'm not surprised. Long-winded statistic gamers are not the same as effective debaters, though I admit, the difference takes most a while to grasp.

Your initial post was about as far from intellectual discourse as it is possible to get. It is pure preference, without any address of differing perspectives or even rebuttal in relation to them.

You make the same mistake in your original post as you complain about my making here. I believe that's called hypocrisy, but I suspect you'll be blind to it as well.

Maybe if you ever manage to recognize the difference between 'reasonable expectation' and 'wild assumption', you'll get to a point where you can realize that the very last thing contributing to the rising oil prices in America is "geo-political factors".

I do realize that it is hard to admit you've been gulled by yet another savvy bit of propaganda, but you'll make it no easier on yourself strutting about pretending your arguments are unassailable every time someone chuckles at you and refuses to waste the time.

You see, it would be worth the time to create rebuttal were the target someone who had demonstrated the ability to actually consider opinions other than their own.... but in this, you fail rather abysmally.

If you wish to consider it inability, feel free, but it's more a sign of your own arrogance than any reality. (smile)

How do you know what street you live on? Would you feel you knew if, every morning, when you walked outside, the street sign held a different name? How do you know that you know?

How do you know 2 + 2 = 4? Because you learned it in school? Because the rest of the world agrees? What if 2 + 2 = 7? How would you ever discover it?

Could you ever manage to even try to understand that your 'knowledge' is, more often than not, based either upon what someone else told you was true, what some authority insists you accept as true, or your own direct, personal experience?

How much of what you think you know is the result of your own, direct, personal, experience in life? If you honestly think about it, you will be surprised.... and if you're really thinking about it, you'll have to admit that the criteria for thinking we know something is far easier to meet than the one for proving how we know it.

And even the proof is little more than the same 'authority' or 'accepted thought' that itself hinges on another authority or accepted thought... regress, regress, regress.

In the end, you say you "know" something because you BELIEVE you know it. Nothing more.

If you can understand the difference, you're overdue for switching your vote. If not, feel free to do nothing.

The criteria for true knowledge has never been met. The best we manage is a strong belief of knowledge. There is yet a difference.

You're now off in the weeds wanting to argue about debate societies, when the initial point (which remains, by the by) is that this place is intended to function like one.

What you consider "snide" is simply a literal statement without any particular intent other than saying that I sincerely believe you never been in a debate society. And no, sorry, high school debate class is not 'being in a debate society'.

As for your opinion on my words or their intent, you may choose to judge as you wish, that does not, however, obligate me or the rest of the world to take your definition or preference or view as the only view, or even one that matters.

Every system on the planet is built upon the notion that one thing supports another, in some way, eventually.

While there are many arguments made upon the notion that consumerism supports many other economic systems and thus, is helpful, the simply reality is that man made systems tend almost exclusively toward unsupportable, inorganic, non-sustainable patterns that require more effort and resources to support than practically any natural alternative.

Consumerism is no different in this regard and the notion that it is anything other than destructive on a short or long term basis is simply delusion.

Not to mention the herring of China and India will want more oil, oh my! Erm, maybe you missed it, but China is already active in the market as is India... and neither are going to suddenly or exponentially unbalance things.

Maybe you should read the link I gave in my previous post.

The conclusion that it's scarcity and demand (aside from inflation) is over-simplified and mis-informed.

Rampant consumerism provides the foundation upon which the speculators gain motivation.

Your assertion that 'no omnipotent or omniscient being is observable' is unprovable and thus, invalid. You do not prove something by it's absence and you cannot prove a negative.

That we cannot really talk about observing these traits does not mean they fail to exist. It simply means we have no experience of them. Don't you find it a bit arrogant to assume one leads to the other?

If you do not know how 'nothing can be beyond doubt' ties in with theology, I suggest you're in the wrong debate. But it has given me a wonderful idea for one.... so thank you.

While it would be easy and simple to blame 'big oil', the simple fact is that it's never that simple.