Supporting Evidences and References are Critical

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is so obvious that all proofs and arguments must be supported by reliable evidences from various sources, e.g. research papers, links, references, etc.

However we need to understand there is a limitation to the above in relation to any online philosophical forum such as this one.
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. To optimize, what can be done is provided reference and links as a rough lead to greater details if necessary.

I have often received complains like this;

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.
What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

The onus is on the one who disagree to argue why my real empirical evidence are not true nor reliable.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Besides 'TimeSeeker' tell me who else?

Views?

[commonsense]

So true, so true.

I, for one, am more logician than philosopher, but I enjoy using logic in its role as a subset of philosophy. Notably, I am guilty of rarely using references and never using quotes.

Mea culpa.

[Age]

It is so obvious that all proofs and arguments must be supported by reliable evidences from various sources, e.g. research papers, links, references, etc.

Is that what is obvious to YOU.

If you are NOT able to see the truth, and falsehoods, in things yet, and thus NEED "reliable" evidence from various sources, then so be it. But not ALL are you like YOU.

However we need to understand there is a limitation to the above in relation to any online philosophical forum such as this one.
Discussion in such a forum like this is very limited. It is not a rigor academic exercise. As such the evidences that can be presented here is also limited. To optimize, what can be done is provided reference and links as a rough lead to greater details if necessary.

I have often received complains like this;

Really?

How often do you actually receive "complaints" like this?

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.
What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

The onus is on the one who disagree to argue why my real empirical evidence are not true nor reliable.

First, you would have to provide some REAL empirical evidence BEFORE one could disagree with it.
Second, if you had provided some REAL empirical evidence, then one would obviously be a fool to disagree with it.

By definition if "it" is REAL, then "it" generally could not be argued against. Unless of course this can be argued otherwise and shown not to be the case.

Since you started this thread let us show how this works.

First, YOU provide some REAL empirical evidence that supports your BELIEF.
Then, I will do, what I will do.

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Besides 'TimeSeeker' tell me who else?

Would you really like me, and/or some one else, to go back through ALL the years and through ALL of the posts, within this forum, to find the answer for YOU?

By the way if others would like to see my views regarding human beings using, needing, and sharing "others" links, quotes, references, et cetera to back up their own opinions, views, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, and from where the idea of this actual post has derived it's self from, then the link is ... I was about to give the link but because I do not usually give links, if ever, i do not know how to do it. But this is the post;
Re: Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa
Post by Age » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:50 am

If some one would like to share how to link to a particular post direct this would be appreciated, as it might come in handy one day for me.

Views?

My view is I can not see WHERE is, and WHAT is, your supposed REAL empirical evidence that the people within a banking system who wrote the rules regarding muslims being allowed to wear head and face coverings, whilst shopping within their banks, is based on fear from other terrorist attacks, and not just based on some thing else as simple as, like just respecting other's religious (stupid or not) beliefs as one example?

There may be another reason, or a mixture of multiple of reasons, WHY they made the rule they did of which I am unaware. But I would not be as foolhardy to BELIEVE I KNOW what the answer is for WHY some person wrote some thing without first gaining clarification from them, directly.

[Age]

So true, so true.

I, for one, am more logician than philosopher, but I enjoy using logic in its role as a subset of philosophy. Notably, I am guilty of rarely using references and never using quotes.

Mea culpa.

There was a time when every one was using every one else's references and quotes to "prove" with "evidence" that the sun revolved around the earth. The more references and quotes they had and used, from "others" and "other" sources, then the more they BELIEVED that they were actually true, right, and correct. But, obviously, the only ONE who was saying the opposite could not use any one else's references and quotes. Who appears to have been more true, right, and correct.

Just some thing to think about.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is so obvious that all proofs and arguments must be supported by reliable evidences from various sources, e.g. research papers, links, references, etc.

Is that what is obvious to YOU.

If you are NOT able to see the truth, and falsehoods, in things yet, and thus NEED "reliable" evidence from various sources, then so be it. But not ALL are you like YOU.

True not many are like me as the minority.
It is a fact, the more advanced people [intelligent, smarter, wiser, EQ, critical thinkers ] are generally of the smaller percentile [1 -10%] within a distribution of humans.

In terms of knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy-proper, the majority are at the lower grades. Note the majority were once flat-earthers, geocentrists, the irrationals, and even not the majority are taking the illusory as real in the case of theists [90%].

So far, you have not presented evidence and arguments why your kind of 'stupid' ideas should prevail.

Well you would be so much more of a fool if you had already stated your focus on islam is based on 'false' empirical evidences. As I have pointed out many times to you previously, you only BELIEVE it is "real" empirical evidence, because it SUPPORTS your already held BELIEFS.
What you say is NOT real empirical evidence.
What you are DOING is grasping onto any thing you can, which confirms your already held biases. This is OBVIOUS. But this, obviously, would not be obvious to YOU, just yet anyway.

The onus is on the one who disagree to argue why my real empirical evidence are not true nor reliable.

First, you would have to provide some REAL empirical evidence BEFORE one could disagree with it.
Second, if you had provided some REAL empirical evidence, then one would obviously be a fool to disagree with it.

By definition if "it" is REAL, then "it" generally could not be argued against. Unless of course this can be argued otherwise and shown not to be the case.

Since you started this thread let us show how this works.

First, YOU provide some REAL empirical evidence that supports your BELIEF.
Then, I will do, what I will do.

Note my hypothesis:
Islam is inherent evil.

A. I have provided real empirical evidences to support my hypothesis, i.e. one example,


B. I have provided verses from the Quran [core of Islam] to support my hypothesis.

C. I have also presented evolutionary principles, e.g.
1. DNA wise all humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts.
2. 20% [conservatively] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency.

B and C combined to trigger real evil and violent acts as evidenced by A above.
QED!!

To maintain intellectual integrity and honesty, I believe I am one of those who has provided the most quotes, links and references currently in this forum. Besides 'TimeSeeker' tell me who else?

Would you really like me, and/or some one else, to go back through ALL the years and through ALL of the posts, within this forum, to find the answer for YOU?

By the way if others would like to see my views regarding human beings using, needing, and sharing "others" links, quotes, references, et cetera to back up their own opinions, views, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, and from where the idea of this actual post has derived it's self from, then the link is ... I was about to give the link but because I do not usually give links, if ever, i do not know how to do it. But this is the post;

Re: Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa
Post by Age » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:50 am

If some one would like to share how to link to a particular post direct this would be appreciated, as it might come in handy one day for me.

Not sure what is your point.
Btw, I did not mean NO [zero] links nor reference. I stated 'lots of links and references.'

• How to link a post?
  In the top of every post there is this;
  " [] Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Nov 25, 2018 ...."
  There is this [] on the left like 'a sheet of paper'.
  Right Click on that and click 'Copy Link Address' then paste to wherever applicable.

Just give me evidences, at least some to give an idea who else generally include a lot of reference and links.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Views?

My view is I can not see WHERE is, and WHAT is, your supposed REAL empirical evidence that the people within a banking system who wrote the rules regarding muslims being allowed to wear head and face coverings, whilst shopping within their banks, is based on fear from other terrorist attacks, and not just based on some thing else as simple as, like just respecting other's religious (stupid or not) beliefs as one example?

There may be another reason, or a mixture of multiple of reasons, WHY they made the rule they did of which I am unaware. But I would not be as foolhardy to BELIEVE I KNOW what the answer is for WHY some person wrote some thing without first gaining clarification from them, directly.

I don't think there are rules in that bank which allow woman to wear burga.
Generally it is known, banks do not allow those who covered their faces to enter into the bank. The bank staff would have prevent any one wearing a balaclava, with a scarf covered face, in entering the bank.
You would be a small child if you insist I provide evidence on this.

If you are knowledgeable and informed of the following;

• 1. the strategy of terror as commanded by Allah in the Quran,
  2. the incidents of the UK rape gangs based on fear effected by 1 above
  3. the state of political correctness re 1
  4. the general fear of wounding the religious feelings of Muslims
  5. various threats of terror from Islam
  6. stupid belief on the need to placate and coddle Muslims as victims

you would be able to get an idea why that bank staff was bias against the lady who wear the helmet and ignore the person in the burga.

What had happened to you is you a so blinded to points 1-5 above that you have arrived at a belief/inference that is narrow-minded.

[Age]

It is so obvious that all proofs and arguments must be supported by reliable evidences from various sources, e.g. research papers, links, references, etc.

Is that what is obvious to YOU.

If you are NOT able to see the truth, and falsehoods, in things yet, and thus NEED "reliable" evidence from various sources, then so be it. But not ALL are you like YOU.

True not many are like me as the minority.
It is a fact, the more advanced people [intelligent, smarter, wiser, EQ, critical thinkers ] are generally of the smaller percentile [1 -10%] within a distribution of humans.

In terms of knowledge, critical thinking, philosophy-proper, the majority are at the lower grades. Note the majority were once flat-earthers, geocentrists, the irrationals, and even not the majority are taking the illusory as real in the case of theists [90%].

So far, you have not presented evidence and arguments why your kind of 'stupid' ideas should prevail.

WHAT EXACTLY are MY "stupid" ideas?

You say they are "stupid" but I am yet to see what you THINK/BELIEVE My ideas are.

Dare I ask where do you BELIEVE you lay in the line from the most "stupid" people to the "more advanced" people?

When I first read what you wrote, I thought you were implying that you lay in the smaller percentile [1 - 10%] but I could be WRONG, so just clarifying with you.

The onus is on the one who disagree to argue why my real empirical evidence are not true nor reliable.

First, you would have to provide some REAL empirical evidence BEFORE one could disagree with it.
Second, if you had provided some REAL empirical evidence, then one would obviously be a fool to disagree with it.

By definition if "it" is REAL, then "it" generally could not be argued against. Unless of course this can be argued otherwise and shown not to be the case.

Since you started this thread let us show how this works.

First, YOU provide some REAL empirical evidence that supports your BELIEF.
Then, I will do, what I will do.

Note my hypothesis:
Islam is inherent evil.

Yep. Noted.

And OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE.

A. I have provided real empirical evidences to support my hypothesis, i.e. one example,

Note that this is NOT real empirical evidence to support your hypothesis.

What I do note is YOUR INTERPRETATION, and also note, I have already explained WHY 'your interpretation' is WRONG, in and of itself.

I have also asked you questions regarding this figure, which you totally ignored and will NOT answer.

Just because a group of human beings, who have been given a descriptive label, have done some things since a particular date IS NOT, and I repeat NOT real empirical evidence to support YOUR hypothesis that islam is inherently evil.

I have already explained that the word 'islam' is accepted by some, when translated, as meaning or being a derivative of the word 'PEACE', which if you are unaware can be seen as being related to the exact OPPOSITE of evil.

B. I have provided verses from the Quran [core of Islam] to support my hypothesis.

Those verses only support YOUR INTERPRETATION of the quran, which I have already explained the reason of WHY it is WRONG.

You are basing your own so called "evidence", on your own INTERPRETATIONS.

You can not successfully base YOUR conclusion, of some one else's writings, on YOUR own INTERPRETATIONS of what the writings are saying. Especially when YOUR own INTERPRETATIONS are so OBVIOUSLY biased to begin with.

C. I have also presented evolutionary principles, e.g.
1. DNA wise all humans has the potential to commit evil and violent acts.

WHERE is the EVIDENCE, for this BELIEF?

DNA affects what is physical. There is NO correlation between 'person', 'non-muslim', and/or 'non-believer' and the physical, which I have already alluded to many times already, and which you have totally ignored, many times also.

What you have not yet realized is that DNA can not affect that what is NOT physical. What you also have not yet realized is WHAT controls human's behaviors. Plus the multitude of other things that you have NOT YET REALIZED.

2. 20% [conservatively] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency.

WHERE is the EVIDENCE, for this BELIEF?

I have also questioned you about this previously in regards to WHAT EXACTLY is the so called "active evil tendency", where does it exist, how does it actually work, et cetera, et cetera, which you ALSO totally disregarded in answering.

B and C combined to trigger real evil and violent acts as evidenced by A above.
QED!!

If you BELIEVE that this is proof, or evidence, then LOL.

Would you really like me, and/or some one else, to go back through ALL the years and through ALL of the posts, within this forum, to find the answer for YOU?

By the way if others would like to see my views regarding human beings using, needing, and sharing "others" links, quotes, references, et cetera to back up their own opinions, views, assumptions, beliefs, et cetera, and from where the idea of this actual post has derived it's self from, then the link is ... I was about to give the link but because I do not usually give links, if ever, i do not know how to do it. But this is the post;

Re: Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa
Post by Age » Mon Nov 26, 2018 4:50 am

If some one would like to share how to link to a particular post direct this would be appreciated, as it might come in handy one day for me.

Not sure what is your point.

Do not be to concerned. It is just another one of My completely MISSED, ignored, overlooked, or not understood points, by you.

Btw, I did not mean NO [zero] links nor reference. I stated 'lots of links and references.'

WHERE in the quotes above does it say anything like this?

• How to link a post?
  In the top of every post there is this;
  " [] Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Nov 25, 2018 ...."
  There is this [] on the left like 'a sheet of paper'.
  Right Click on that and click 'Copy Link Address' then paste to wherever applicable.

Thank you.

Just give me evidences, at least some to give an idea who else generally include a lot of reference and links.

WHY?

What do you hope to get out of it?

Do you think/believe that the one who provides the most links and/or references is the most RIGHT or some thing?

[Age]

Views?

My view is I can not see WHERE is, and WHAT is, your supposed REAL empirical evidence that the people within a banking system who wrote the rules regarding muslims being allowed to wear head and face coverings, whilst shopping within their banks, is based on fear from other terrorist attacks, and not just based on some thing else as simple as, like just respecting other's religious (stupid or not) beliefs as one example?

There may be another reason, or a mixture of multiple of reasons, WHY they made the rule they did of which I am unaware. But I would not be as foolhardy to BELIEVE I KNOW what the answer is for WHY some person wrote some thing without first gaining clarification from them, directly.

I don't think there are rules in that bank which allow woman to wear burga.

So WHY do you think bank staff are instructed NOT to allow face coverings, except burkas?

Generally it is known, banks do not allow those who covered their faces to enter into the bank. The bank staff would have prevent any one wearing a balaclava, with a scarf covered face, in entering the bank.

AND, if the bank staff do NOT prevent a human being wearing a piece of muslim face covering clothing but prevent a human being from wearing a motor bike helmet, for example, from being in the bank, then WHAT do you think the actual reason IS?
Do you think the staff can pick and choose WITHOUT any guidance or rulings who they allow in or do not allow in?
Are you under some sort of illusion that bank staff have their OWN discretion to choose who they want to allow in?

What I have noticed on the front of the banks, that I walk into, is a NO face covering motor bike helmet sign displayed, which I have also thought of was a RULE, made up by some human being, and a rule told to bank staff to enforce. I have yet to see a sign displayed NO face covering religious clothing allowed.

I am not sure what country you are from but do you really think/believe that banks in a country with a majority of muslim people would NOT allow muslim woman to wear burkas in banks?

You would be a small child if you insist I provide evidence on this.

I feel like a very young child trying to comprehend what you are thinking/believing some times.

If a bank insists, by rules, that human beings are not allowed to cover their faces with balaclavas, scarfs, full face helmets, et cetera but allow muslims to cover their faces, with religious clothing, then the bank has made rulings, with exceptions. An 'exception' is a rule, within its self.

What is it about that that you can NOT comprehend?

If you are knowledgeable and informed of the following;

• 1. the strategy of terror as commanded by Allah in the Quran,
  2. the incidents of the UK rape gangs based on fear effected by 1 above
  3. the state of political correctness re 1
  4. the general fear of wounding the religious feelings of Muslims
  5. various threats of terror from Islam
  6. stupid belief on the need to placate and coddle Muslims as victims

you would be able to get an idea why that bank staff was bias against the lady who wear the helmet and ignore the person in the burga.

I OBVIOUSLY must NOT be knowledgeable and informed, like YOU ARE, of 1 through to 6.

Are you suggesting that that bank had no rulings in regards to this, and that bank staff are freely able to express and show their own biased opinions and views whenever they so freely wish to?

Have you ever considered I have a different INTERPRETATION of things than you do?

Or if another has different interpretations than you do, does that just mean, to you, that that person is NOT knowledgeable and NOT informed?

Are you at all able to understand that: Absolutely every thing is relative to the observer?

You OBVIOUSLY are a different observer than I.
You also OBVIOUSLY observe things differently than I do. Very differently in fact.
Therefore, YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of things can be and IS vastly DIFFERENT than mine.

What had happened to you is you a so blinded to points 1-5 above that you have arrived at a belief/inference that is narrow-minded.

You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
WHEN will you do this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What had happened to you is you a so blinded to points 1-5 above that you have arrived at a belief/inference that is narrow-minded.

You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
WHEN will you do this?

Correction: It is a Niqab [with a slit for the yes] not the Burga [full cover - netting for the eyes].
In any case I have provided most of my point in the appropriate thread, i.e.

Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa [Niqab]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25546

Re 'belief'

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.
-wiki

You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
WHEN will you do this?

Note whatever views you [any others] are presenting, they are basically personal beliefs.
When I made reference to your views, those are fundamentally your beliefs or inferences.

What is implied when I critiqued your beliefs is they are not Justified True Beliefs [JTB], i.e. you provided no evidences and justified arguments.

Me, on the other hand have made the attempts to provide evidences and reasonable arguments.

[Age]

What had happened to you is you a so blinded to points 1-5 above that you have arrived at a belief/inference that is narrow-minded.

You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
WHEN will you do this?

Correction: It is a Niqab [with a slit for the yes] not the Burga [full cover - netting for the eyes].
In any case I have provided most of my point in the appropriate thread, i.e.

Bank BANS woman in Helmet but Allows MAN in Burqa [Niqab]
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25546

What has this got to do with the quote that it is directed at?

I think you might have more success of clearing this up by writing your own separate post, with this correction.

Re 'belief'

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
Another way of defining belief sees it as a mental representation of an attitude positively oriented towards the likelihood of something being true.
-wiki

You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
WHEN will you do this?

Note whatever views you [any others] are presenting, they are basically personal beliefs.

So, are you suggesting that one of these words is completely unnecessary, and therefore should be removed from language altogether?

If you are not suggesting that, then they have two distinct different meanings.

When I made reference to your views, those are fundamentally your beliefs or inferences.

How are you using the word 'basically' and 'fundamentally' here?

Are those words implying the exact same thing, or, not the exact same thing?

Either 'views' means the exact same as 'beliefs', or they have two different meanings, which one is it?

What is implied when I critiqued your beliefs is they are not Justified True Beliefs [JTB], i.e. you provided no evidences and justified arguments.

But I do NOT have any beliefs.

Also, there was two issues here;
1. You keep mentioning I have these beliefs/inferences things, but I have yet to SEE you put into detail WHAT they are EXACTLY.
2. WHEN will you do this?

Once again, you completely overlooked/ignored/dismissed my point, and carried on with some other thing, of NO relevance whatsoever.

Either write down what you see as MY beliefs are, so that the readers can SEE what you SEE, or we will be left wondering what it is that you are actually talking about here.

Me, on the other hand have made the attempts to provide evidences and reasonable arguments.

You are RIGHT, in that you have 'made an ATTEMPT', all right. Not a very good one at all, I might add. But at least you 'made an attempt' at TRYING TO justify, your own BELIEFS.

[TimeSeeker]

What is implied when I critiqued your beliefs is they are not Justified True Beliefs [JTB], i.e. you provided no evidences and justified arguments.

But I do NOT have any beliefs.

Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.

This is an interesting predicament.

You said you have knowledge.
You also said you don't have any beliefs.

But knowledge is justified true belief.

So if you don't have any beliefs (not even true justified ones) then how can you have any knowledge?

[surreptitious57]

Knowledge and belief mean two completely different things so one should never be used to define the other in any way
And so I would therefore define knowledge not as justified true belief but more accurately as justified objective truth

I have precisely zero use for the word belief and I avoid using it even colloquially
There are only things I know or think I know or do not know but nothing I believe

[Age]

What is implied when I critiqued your beliefs is they are not Justified True Beliefs [JTB], i.e. you provided no evidences and justified arguments.

But I do NOT have any beliefs.

Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.

This is an interesting predicament.

You said you have knowledge.
You also said you don't have any beliefs.

But knowledge is justified true belief.

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

If you are not, then great. But you are coming across as though you are. To me this statement appears to be presented and proposed as being absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

If, however, you are absolutely 100% sure that the statement; ' knowledge is justified true belief' IS True, Right, and Correct, then that is fine also, as you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like.

But can you back up and support your BELIEF here?

So if you don't have any beliefs (not even true justified ones) then how can you have any knowledge?

Here, do you mean 'knowledge', from YOUR perspective, or 'knowledge' from OTHER perspectives?

By the way the first line in the first quote, in this post, is not by me, but this is totally MY fault as I did not quote veritas aequitas correctly in the first place.

Also, you have previously pointed out that if I were expressing what I saw in your words, then I would quote your words VERBATIM. Character-by-character. Although the actual context in which I was referring to has, hopefully, already been cleared up by now. That is; the actual words/characters being used some times do not reflect the actual message that come across. In other words some times what I see with-IN the words being used is not the same as what the ACTUAL words/characters, themselves suggest. Some times the actual meaning, within or behind the actual characters being used, is NOT the same as, or not in line with, the actual words being used. Therefore, I do NOT have to supply the OBVIOUSLY SEEN character-by-characters to express what I SEE with-IN the characters. Some times the message/s between the lines can be read (SEEN), without the author of the words even seeing and recognizing this yet. But this can be very subliminal, and thus not yet noticed at all, by human beings, just yet anyway, and thus is a topic, for discussion, for another time.

Anyway, are you aware that when you say that I said some thing, that you, yourself, do not actually quote My words verbatim, character-by-character? Therefore, the True meaning of what I am saying could be and is being misinterpreted and misconstrued.

There is a big difference between expressing what another said, and NOT post-scribing that VERBATIM, character-by-character, and, expressing what is seen IN another's words. The former NEEDS to express verbatim, character-by-character if they are to do it properly and correctly. The latter does NOT need to express verbatim, character-by-character, as what is being expressed is just a view, from what is being seen, which as stated ALREADY could be completely and utterly WRONG, anyway.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Me, on the other hand have made the attempts to provide evidences and reasonable arguments.

You are RIGHT, in that you have 'made an ATTEMPT', all right. Not a very good one at all, I might add. But at least you 'made an attempt' at TRYING TO justify, your own BELIEFS.

Age: "Not a very good one at all"
That is your personal opinion.
It is more likely you lack the knowledge base to understand those points I have raised.

But at least you 'made an attempt' at TRYING TO justify, your own BELIEFS.

This point seem to be your ace card, but it is a stupid point.
The default is every one who make a point in such a forum must justify their beliefs which basically can only be their own.

In practice, it is always the case, i.e. when scientists or any one present their hypothesis they have to justify their own BELIEFS until it is convincing enough to be agreed by others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is implied when I critiqued your beliefs is they are not Justified True Beliefs [JTB], i.e. you provided no evidences and justified arguments.

But I do NOT have any beliefs.

Unlike you I KNOW, and thus am able to distinguish between what is perceived to be true and what is actually really True. I have already said this previously.

This is an interesting predicament.

You said you have knowledge.
You also said you don't have any beliefs.

But knowledge is justified true belief.

Are you absolutely 100% sure that 'knowledge' is justified true belief?

If you are not, then great. But you are coming across as though you are. To me this statement appears to be presented and proposed as being absolutely True, Right, and Correct.

If, however, you are absolutely 100% sure that the statement; ' knowledge is justified true belief' IS True, Right, and Correct, then that is fine also, as you are free to BELIEVE whatever you like.

But can you back up and support your BELIEF here?

Justified True Belief [JTB] is not absolute knowledge [nb: Gettier's] rather it is objective knowledge that is sufficiently credible, practical and useful, e.g. enabled humans to land on the moon safely.