Ok I'll do something no one else does. I'll engage, since this is the first comment from you that I actually bothered reading and actually understood.
You could have phrased it simply, but you didn't. Like this:
Simply believing either side (even for what to look into) isn't true skepticism.
Nature doesn't require one to hold one belief or another. Our beliefs drive our actions which drive the consequences we face. When certain beliefs lead to painful consequences for us, nature doesn't relent. Therefore, in a way, it demands we adapt our beliefs based on which consequences we wish to get.
Your comment is of tangential relevance. One of the reasons people ignore you. Why do you pick such convoluted language to express your opinion? Then you skip logical steps in between. Does it make you feel superior that others cannot understand what you're saying?
Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?
And I don't agree that skepticism means "you consent to believe or not believe a suggestion from others". Skepticism about a topic is merely a collective term to describe those who do not buy it, regardless of whether or not they were put on that path by suggestion from others. Individuals may have their own experiences that led to it. They are still counted under the umbrella term "skepticism".
Ok I'll do something no one else does. I'll engage, since this is the first comment from you that I actually bothered reading and actually understood.
You could have phrased it simply, but you didn't. Like this:
Simply believing either side (even for what to look into) isn't true skepticism.
Nature doesn't require one to hold one belief or another. Our beliefs drive our actions which drive the consequences we face. When certain beliefs lead to painful consequences for us, nature doesn't relent. Therefore, in a way, it demands we adapt our beliefs based on which consequences we wish to get.
Also, why do you pick such convoluted language to express your opinion? And you also skip logical steps in between. Does it make you feel superior that others cannot understand what you're saying? You too are a slave of your beliefs about how to write comments, aren't you?
Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?
And I don't agree that skepticism means "you consent to believe or not believe a suggestion from others". Skepticism about a topic is merely a collective term to describe those who do not buy it, regardless of whether or not they were put on that path by suggestion from others. Individuals may have their own experiences that led to it. They are still counted under the umbrella term "skepticism".
Ok I'll do something no one else does. I'll engage, since this is the first comment from you that I actually bothered reading and actually understood.
You could have phrased it simply, but you didn't. Like this:
Simply believing either side (even for what to look into) isn't true skepticism.
Nature doesn't require one to hold one belief or another. Our beliefs drive our actions which drive the consequences we face. When certain beliefs lead to painful consequences for us, nature doesn't relent. Therefore, in a way, it demands we adapt our beliefs.
Why do you pick such convoluted language to express your opinion? And you also skip logical steps in between. Does it make you feel superior that others cannot understand what you're saying? You too are a slave of your beliefs about how to write comments, aren't you?
Why, Mr. Anderson, why do you persist?
And I don't agree that skepticism means "you consent to believe or not believe a suggestion from others". Skepticism about a topic is merely a collective term to describe those who do not buy it, regardless of whether or not they were put on that path by suggestion from others. Individuals may have their own experiences that led to it. They are still counted under the umbrella term "skepticism".