Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Age]

Yes, quite sufficiently.
'Beliefs' are fundamental to survival and this activity in believing [irrational or rational] within the human brain/mind had been adapted from our ancestors who had survived with this mental feature, thus embedded and inherent in ALL human beings.

Lol.

That is NOT supporting evidence. That is you just stating things, which reflects your already gained and held BELIEFS.

Your BELIEF is; Belief is inherent in ALL human beings. And this is your, attempt at an, argument for this BELIEF;

P1. Beliefs are fundamental to survival.
P2. Believing has adapted from those who have survived.
C. Therefore, BELIEFS are embedded and inherent in ALL human beings.

P1. WHERE is the supporting evidence for P1?
Are human beings the only animal or thing that supposedly NEED BELIEFS to survive?
P2. Of course what you human beings believe changes. For example; You, human beings, began living with and using money, and now most of you have changed to BELIEVE that you can NOT live without money. Change, just happens, and is what IS actually really necessary, for survival. The changing of beliefs, by believing different things, is just natural and NOT fundamental nor necessary for continual survival.
But CHANGE is necessary.
WHEN do you propose BELIEFS began appearing in human beings?
In other words how far into human beings existence did human beings start BELIEVING things?
If human beings came into existence BEFORE beliefs did, then BELIEFS are NOT embedded and inherent in ALL human beings.
If you say; BELIEFS existed/began when human beings began, then HOW do you KNOW this?

If you say you are going to provide 'supporting evidence', then you, obviously, NEED 'supporting evidence', and to provide 'it'.

My stance remains;
Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs, there is nothing for me to comment. The activity of believing [BELIEF] is inherent in all human beings.

If so, what BELIEFS do you human being babies HAVE?

After all, human beings continual survival has relied heavily on baby human being. So, provide the BELIEFS that a new born human being babies supposedly have, then we can LOOK at if your "supporting evidence" really is supporting evidence or not. Until then you are NOT doing what you PREACH.

P1. WHERE is the supporting evidence for P1?
Are human beings the only animal or thing that supposedly NEED BELIEFS to survive?

I have mentioned the example that our ancestors were to ones who believed the sound of a broken twig within the bushes is most likely that of a saber-toothed tiger [even without solid evidence] and they ran for cover away from the potential danger.

WHERE and WHEN did you supposedly mention this?

By stating that you have mentioned the example, ... What are you alluding to here?

If one BELIEVED that the sound of a broken twig within the bushes is most likely that of a saber-toothed tiger, and thus because of this BELIEF they looked ONLY for a saber-tooth tiger but the sound was actually a venomous snake, for example, then we can predict what could take place here. Having a BELIEF like that could have been the end of that ones continued survival, as they could have run into further and more danger.

Does that mean BELIEFS are, and/or could be, to the detriment of human beings?

Also, WHERE is your EVIDENCE for this EVER happening? Or, is it just another one of YOUR assumptions?

Those who do not have such beliefs thus had greater chances of being eaten by tigers over the eons of evolution.

LOL.

Do you think/believe ALL human beings lived with the chance of being eaten by tigers?

Also, those who do NOT have such BELIEFS are MORE OPEN, to their surroundings, and thus are FAR MORE AWARE, also.

Obviously you are NOT aware that if one remains OPEN to ALL dangers, and NOT just BELIEVES in one, "MOST LIKELY", danger, then they have MORE chances of living longer. For example, If you BELIEVED of the danger that you would or could get eaten by a shark if you went for a swim, so instead you just stood on shore just looking at the water, but you were NOT staying OPEN and AWARE of other dangers, then you may not have noticed that you are standing in the middle of the road and eventually get hit by a vehicle and killed. That human being, you, had BELIEFS, but unfortunately that did NOT allow you to consider, look for, notice, and see other dangers around you. So, that BELIEF certainly did NOT help you survive.

Of course you can BELIEVE whatever you like, but BELIEFS are NOT necessary for survival. In fact the opposite could be MORE True. BELIEFS can lead to human beings ultimate extinction. For example, let us say that if the earth was heating up to a point, due to human activity, that human beings will NOT be able to exist and survive in, but human beings BELIEVED that their activity was doing NO harm, then that BELIEF will eventually and ultimately be their own extinction, and thus down fall.

Those who had such beliefs [without solid evidence] and ran away from dangers had a greater chance of survival produce our current generations of believers.

Do you have any EVIDENCE for this?

Are you aware that a human being can HEAR and/or SEE a saber-tooth tiger, yet still NOT have to form, nor have, nor hold any form of BELIEF, and still be able to get away from said tiger? Or, is this NOT possible from your perspective?

And that is when they HEAR and SEE the actual thing, let alone just hearing or seeing a rustling in the bushes, of which they have NO idea what it actually IS.

Believing the presence of a Saber-toothed tiger without real evidence is merely one example of the principle of BELIEF [of a range of degrees] inherent in all humans and critical to facilitate survival.

LOL.

BELIEVING the presence of a saber-toothed tiger, when the actual real Truth could actually be different, would obviously place that human being in MORE danger of being killed, by what IS actually really there, then by NOT having any such BELIEF in the beginning,

Human beings are not the only living things that had evolved with BELIEFS to facilitate their survivals.

What OTHER ANIMALS have evolved with BELIEFS?

Also, evolution is NOT in question. What is in question is your BELIEF that, BELIEFS are inherent within ALL human beings, and now in SOME animals.

Many animals react immediately as if there is terrible danger and they always avoid an inkling of danger even there is no actual signs of danger.

So what? This is NOT evidence that they are having/holding a BELIEF. Animals just instinctively move from, or against, danger. They obviously are NOT going to sit around and wait for EVIDENCE to verify what the danger actually IS.

This is a sort of 'belief' in the brain of the animal.

Is it REALLY?

What does 'sort of belief' actually mean?

And, do only non-human animals have 'sort of belief' or do some and/or ALL human beings have some 'sort of belief' also?

How do YOU distinguish between 'sort of belief' and 'belief'?

The activity of believing [BELIEF] is inherent in all human beings.

If you so BELIEVE.

I am still waiting for some EVIDENCE of this, however.

If so, what BELIEFS do you human being babies HAVE?

Did not expect you to be so dumb.[/quote]

What I found is a better survival technique is NOT to expect, nor assume, any thing without have EVIDENCE first. Nor to BELIEVE any thing at all.

If you did NOT expect me to be so dumb, then you would NEVER be so surprised nor shocked.

Inherent mean the potential to believe is embedded in the DNA of all human beings and active relative to their development.

But you did NOT state 'the potential to believe IS inherent human being's. You said, 'BELIEFS are inherent in human beings'.

Since when did the word 'inherent' become to mean the potential to believe is embedded in the dna of ALL human beings and active relative to their development?

Also, previously you stated that BELIEFS are inherent in ALL human beings, but now you seem to be saying/suggesting some thing different, like beliefs are relative to a human being development. So, what is it now that you are saying/suggesting?

Are ALL human being babies born with BELIEFS or are they NOT.

If they are, then so be it.
But if they are NOT, then HOW do they survive, and this would infer that BELIEFS are NOT inherent.


You, obviously, made up just another definition for the obvious reason of TRYING TO twist and fit things in with your already held distorted ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS. And, when you come to notice this, through clarifying questions, you quickly change your VIEWS of things.

But YOU would NEVER admit to YOUR failings, and you would obviously much prefer to just TRY TO make out the "other" is just so dumb.

But what has just happened here is in full VIEW, through OUR writings, for ALL the readers to notice and SEE.

I also asked you to clarify WHEN beliefs evolved into being in the human being. What evolved first? Human beings or beliefs?

Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs, there is nothing for me to comment.

You keep saying this. WHY?

If you BELIEVE I have BELIEFS, then you could very easily and simply state them.

You do NOT state them, so the readers will be guessing WHY you can not or will not do this.

[Age]

I said "No," how much simpler do you want it? You did after all state that it was a yes/no question.

That's not a "no".That's a "No" and then some.

No, not from the perspective of 'clairvoyant' that you are using here. So the rest of what you write here is just moot, and a totally distorted assumption of what IS, actually Real and True.

Of course I added "some" in that case.

I have to, to help STOP you from jumping to further ridiculous conclusions, and then making up MORE ridiculous assumptions, in the hope you can TRICK the readers into SEEING things that do NOT exist.

The "No" was still there. So, that IS a "No", no matter what else was added.

Just answering YES or NO, without clarification, to questions, used to "trick" unwilling participants to SEE things that do NOT really exist, has lead to some people living unworthy, unjust, and unnecessary lives in prison.

[TimeSeeker]

I said "No," how much simpler do you want it? You did after all state that it was a yes/no question.

That's not a "no".That's a "No" and then some.

No, not from the perspective of 'clairvoyant' that you are using here. So the rest of what you write here is just moot, and a totally distorted assumption of what IS, actually Real and True.

Of course I added "some" in that case.

I have to, to help STOP you from jumping to further ridiculous conclusions, and then making up MORE ridiculous assumptions, in the hope you can TRICK the readers into SEEING things that do NOT exist.

The "No" was still there. So, that IS a "No", no matter what else was added.

Just answering YES or NO, without clarification, to questions, used to "trick" unwilling participants to SEE things that do NOT really exist, has lead to some people living unworthy, unjust, and unnecessary lives in prison.

I asked you a question about what is True and Real (natural disasters). You couldn't answer it.

The only conclusion I reached is that you don't know the answer.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs, there is nothing for me to comment.

You keep saying this. WHY?

If you BELIEVE I have BELIEFS, then you could very easily and simply state them.

You do NOT state them, so the readers will be guessing WHY you can not or will not do this.

I understand your position;

You believe you do not have BELIEFS.
If you insist you do not have beliefs [inherent in all humans] why should I bother since there is no reasonable beliefs of yours for me to comment on.

[Age]

Until you communicate and state your one-of-a-kind beliefs, there is nothing for me to comment.

You keep saying this. WHY?

If you BELIEVE I have BELIEFS, then you could very easily and simply state them.

You do NOT state them, so the readers will be guessing WHY you can not or will not do this.

I understand your position;

You believe you do not have BELIEFS.

But I do NOT believe I do not have BELIEFS. Therefore, you do NOT understand my position at all.

My position is I just do NOT have any BELIEFS. I have NOT made any BELIEFS up. I CHOOSE to neither BELIEVE nor DISBELIEVE, nor do I DECIDE to BELIEVE any thing. I much prefer to just REMAIN OPEN ALWAYS.

Are you able to SPOT the difference, now?

If you insist you do not have beliefs [inherent in all humans] why should I bother since there is no reasonable beliefs of yours for me to comment on.

Of course you can NOT comment on what does NOT exist.

Also, If, as you BELIEVE, BELIEFS are inherent in ALL humans, AND, I do NOT have any BELIEFS, then WHAT does that make 'Me'?

[Age]

That's not a "no".That's a "No" and then some.

No, not from the perspective of 'clairvoyant' that you are using here. So the rest of what you write here is just moot, and a totally distorted assumption of what IS, actually Real and True.

Of course I added "some" in that case.

I have to, to help STOP you from jumping to further ridiculous conclusions, and then making up MORE ridiculous assumptions, in the hope you can TRICK the readers into SEEING things that do NOT exist.

The "No" was still there. So, that IS a "No", no matter what else was added.

Just answering YES or NO, without clarification, to questions, used to "trick" unwilling participants to SEE things that do NOT really exist, has lead to some people living unworthy, unjust, and unnecessary lives in prison.

I asked you a question about what is True and Real (natural disasters). You couldn't answer it.

You asked a question about; Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?

AND, I could and did answer it, with a "No".

The only conclusion I reached is that you don't know the answer.

Did you reach that only conclusion BEFORE or AFTER I answered the question?

[TimeSeeker]

AND, I could and did answer it, with a "No".

So even though you said "there is only one event", you can't tell me what's True and Real about (what a human would call) "the future".
So it seems to be that you experience "time" exactly like us - humans.

Because clearly - you can't 'see' into the future.

Did you reach that only conclusion BEFORE or AFTER I answered the question?

After.

[Age]

AND, I could and did answer it, with a "No".

So even though you said "there is only one event", you can't tell me what's True and Real about (what a human would call) "the future".

But I can tell you what is True and Real about, what you human beings call, "the future".

So it seems to be that you experience "time" exactly like us - humans.

But I do NOT experience time, and especially NOT like you human beings do.

What do you think/believe 'time' is?

And, how do you experience that, what you call, "time"?

Because clearly - you can't 'see' into the future.

But I already told you what WILL happen in, what you call, "the future".

Did you MISS that also?

It seems to be that you really do MISS a great deal of what I actually write down.

Did you reach that only conclusion BEFORE or AFTER I answered the question?

After.

Okay.

[TimeSeeker]

But I can tell you what is True and Real about, what you human beings call, "the future".

I don't want to know what's True and Real about the future. I want to know what happens in the future.

But I do NOT experience time, and especially NOT like you human beings do.

Yes. I understand that.

What do you think/believe 'time' is?

And, how do you experience that, what you call, "time"?

It's irrelevant We experience 'the future' - you don't. So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

That means you know something that we don't.

But I already told you what WILL happen in, what you call, "the future".

You told me when and where the next natural disaster will happen? I definitely missed that!

You told me that you couldn't answer. If you know what is True and Real about the future, why can you not answer?

[Age]

But I can tell you what is True and Real about, what you human beings call, "the future".

I don't want to know what's True and Real about the future.

SO, although you specifically stated: So even though you said "there is only one event", you can't tell me what's True and Real about (what a human would call) "the future".

AND, I responded by saying: But I can tell you what is True and Real about, what you human beings call, "the future".

YOU, still replied back by saying: I don't want to know what's True and Real about the future.

It is NO wonder that 'you', human beings, have only evolved to the stage that you are now, when this is written, especially when you so frequently MISS what is being said, and then reply back the way that you do.

I want to know what happens in the future.

If that is what you want to know, then just say that.

But it is to late anyway, as I have ALREADY told you what WILL have happen in, what you call, "the future".

You, obviously, have completely MISSED this also.

What do you think/believe 'time' is?

And, how do you experience that, what you call, "time"?

It's irrelevant

It is always irrelevant when it is your turn to define the words and/or terms that you use.

We experience 'the future' - you don't.

In a sense, Yes.

So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

That means you know something that we don't.

Yes, you are correct here.

But I already told you what WILL happen in, what you call, "the future".

You told me when and where the next natural disaster will happen? I definitely missed that!

I NEVER told you when the next natural disaster will happen.

In fact I said "No", when you specifically asked me: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?

Seriously, HOW could you have definitely MISSED this point, especially considering HOW MANY TIMES we have already gone over this point?

You told me that you couldn't answer.

I do NOT recall EVER telling you that I couldn't answer, your question. What I do recall, however, is actually giving you my answer, to your question, by saying, "No".

Let us see if you can understand it this time:
You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

"lease do NOT tell me that you MISSED it again, this time?

If you know what is True and Real about the future, why can you not answer?

But I DID answer, ALREADY. Look back over our discussion here, and you SHOULD see the answer, pretty easily and simply.

[TimeSeeker]

So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

That means you know something that we don't.

Yes, you are correct here.

You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when and where the next natural disaster will take place on Earth?

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.
But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

[Age]

So you know what happens in the future and we don't.

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

That means you know something that we don't.

Yes, you are correct here.

You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when and where the next natural disaster will take place on Earth?

'Natural disaster' is a VERY relative and subjective term, so you would have to define and clarify what YOU mean when you use the term 'natural disaster' BEFORE I could answer the question correctly, for you.

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.

But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, I do, and yes you do not.

Yes, you are correct here.

You asked: Do you know where and when the next 100 natural disasters on Earth will take place?
I answered: No.

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when and where the next natural disaster will take place on Earth?

'Natural disaster' is a VERY relative and subjective term, so you would have to define and clarify what YOU mean when you use the term 'natural disaster' BEFORE I could answer the question correctly, for you.

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.

But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

[Age]

So you know what happens in the future, but you don't know when and where the next natural disaster will take place on Earth?

'Natural disaster' is a VERY relative and subjective term, so you would have to define and clarify what YOU mean when you use the term 'natural disaster' BEFORE I could answer the question correctly, for you.

I guess this means you only know some things about the future.

But you don't know everything that happens in the future.

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

Yes, WHY?

[TimeSeeker]

Do you know what an 'tsunami' is?

Yes, WHY?

Do you know when and where the next tsunami will happen on Earth?