U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-21-2014, 03:36 PM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Being semi serious but ALSO semi tongue in cheek.... I would not be as pessimistic as you here as to declare that "you wont convince me" or even "I wont persuade you".

If I thought it was impossible that someone on these fora could not convince me I would not even be here. The whole reason I post on forums is because I hold out some hope that other people can educate me on something I did not know before, convince me about something I disagreed with before, or in some way affect my mind and upgrade it or change it.

I strongly agree with your core message there however. Replying to nonsense on forums such as this is important NOT because you need to respond to the person posting the nonsense.... who probably has you on ignore anyway or is at least pretending to...... but to ensure that anyone who goes onto google and puts in a search term that happens to bring them to a thread such as this..... does not just hear one side of nonsense but hears all the rebuttals too.

I play not just to the "Lurker" therefore. I play to anyone who manages somehow to happen by for any reasons.

And whatever else I might ever either be accused of OR complimented on on this forum, one thing I can be proud of is I know I have never left egregious nonsense sit on a thread without a rebuttal sitting near by for anyone who might happen along to read it.
Generally, I agree with your position. It is just that Mystic and I have argued this up and down and I doubt that either of us will produce now anything that will change our positions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2014, 04:35 PM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Generally, I agree with your position. It is just that Mystic and I have argued this up and down and I doubt that either of us will produce now anything that will change our positions.
And neither of you have to. As such nonsense becomes more dilute... people who type it into google come up with only a few results..... most of them deepak chopra..... and some of them might be this forum and our local deepak.

Rest assured that rebuttals show up in equal quantities

It does not have to be new. It just has to be either "consistent" or worthy of alteration

If you have either of those..... then keep doing what you are doing kid.... cause youre one of the heroes on here for me
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2014, 06:34 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
I agree, neither of us have to alter our position or views and because surely all the arguments have been done, neither of us will.

But of course, when either of us post, we are putting our views forward and the implication is that that the readership out there is going to be (perhaps) influenced by our arguments - particularly those as persuasive as Mystic's. Especially to those who would love to believe in a God but haven't up to then seen anything that didn't look pretty waff advanced as an argument.

Mystic's system, with dark matter, Cosmic consciousness and the argument for Dualism relating back to the very erudite hard Question and David Chalmer's arguments against monism is just what they are looking for. And it might persuade a few others, just as Behe's ID persuaded Anthony Flew - before it was shown up as speciously scientific sounding, but actually unsound.

I know what you mean about Deepak Chophra, but that is the answer. To loftily ignore him suits him down to the ground. To argue against his claims is to undermine them. This is why the failure to counter Von Daniken has led to to decades of space -aliens nonsense. It is why I had no doubt that Nye should debate Ken Ham. And why I have to jump on Mystic when he posts plonking faith - claims as fact.

Thus, while I admire Mystic's synthesis, I think it unsound and, having spent months debating the case, I can explain how. This is just giving the 'Other side' - as we should. And rather than anyone taking what I say on trust, let them make up their own minds.

I ask only that they consider the arguments objectively, if they can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 12:55 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
I do not see any such "persuasive" arguments coming from that quarter really. They are transparently nonsense to anyone who actually does understand the terms that are being consistently misused by such people. I think I write less to have people be influenced by my arguments so much as to highlight exactly why no one can be be theirs.

I guess I just do not "admire" this stuff as much as you do. But that likely says less about those arguments are more about yours and my different requirements for being impressed by something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 02:29 AM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
4,411 posts, read 2,989,261 times
Reputation: 2043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
Being semi serious but ALSO semi tongue in cheek.... I would not be as pessimistic as you here as to declare that "you wont convince me" or even "I wont persuade you".

If I thought it was impossible that someone on these fora could not convince me I would not even be here. The whole reason I post on forums is because I hold out some hope that other people can educate me on something I did not know before, convince me about something I disagreed with before, or in some way affect my mind and upgrade it or change it.

I strongly agree with your core message there however. Replying to nonsense on forums such as this is important NOT because you need to respond to the person posting the nonsense.... who probably has you on ignore anyway or is at least pretending to...... but to ensure that anyone who goes onto google and puts in a search term that happens to bring them to a thread such as this..... does not just hear one side of nonsense but hears all the rebuttals too.

I play not just to the "Lurker" therefore. I play to anyone who manages somehow to happen by for any reasons.

And whatever else I might ever either be accused of OR complimented on on this forum, one thing I can be proud of is I know I have never left egregious nonsense sit on a thread without a rebuttal sitting near by for anyone who might happen along to read it.
I know you motivated me to become less biased. We had a long, long discussion many months ago, or maybe even over a year or two, that there is a good chance you won't remember, that I became rather traumatized by. I believe you called me a liar at some point. I don't remember if I lied or not. I now pride myself on my lack of bias though. A lack of bias takes practice to learn, and evidently sometimes negative feedback can be a good motivatior.

I think people tend to trick themselves...and it takes practice to learn not to do that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 03:01 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
Indeed. Our whole mental make up is built upon the premise of tricking ourselves. We do it all the time. When you are reading my words you think you are seeing a continuous image for example but in fact you have a blind spot.... everything you see reaches your brain upside down..... and your eyes are rarely focused directly on something but without you knowing flicking left and right minutely in order to build a continuous view screen.

And our eyes are only one example. There are you tube videos abound that inform us of how we are tricking ourselves all the time. It is simply what we do. Especially emotionally. People can convince themselves of absolute nonsense in the face of emotion.... or lack of it. A great example of this is Capgrah syndrome where the lack of a given emotional response results in people building delusions that important people in their life.... such as their own mother.... have been replaced with identical impostors. It is massively interesting how our strong desire to get our view of reality to match the emotions we feel (or not feel) makes us willing to believe things that are patently false.

It seems our species prefers ideas that conform to our emotions rather than to our reality.

So when it comes to intellectual discourse and inquiry it is, as you said, a skill one must learn to observe when, where and how this self trickery is evident. We must work hard to ensure it is not affecting our intellectual discourse or ideas on any matter. And it is a fight that never ends. The moment you lower your internal guard, we as a species start making these errors all over again. It is a constant need to check and recheck oneself.

The specific users world view being discussed here for example is a strong emotional response to an alleged personal experience had decades ago. And the desire this user has for there to be a god is not based on any arguments or evidence or data or reasoning..... but a strong and unending desire to believe the delusion that appears to conform to the emotions. Not to actual reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 06:58 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
Indeed. I believe now that self -justifying bias is the most common method of argument and reasoning that is used, and is actually more admired than wishy -washy reasonableness.

Politics, to me great distress is more to do with bamboozling people into swallowing what you say than telling the truth. Science, while not perfect, does at least have a basis of trying to assess the information objectively and giving weight to how good and sound it is.

That is why the habitual bias, projection, evasion and illogic used to make a case for religion and the God -claim is such a pain. I can see what they are doing, and sometimes I see myself doing it too, but I try to stop and give myself a shake when I find myself doing it.

On the theist side, Faith ..well, it's not only more reliable, but it is more useful and makes one feel better because ( I am pretty sure) it is no coincidence that the the great, powerful and supremely wise, good and superior being for which the apologist is arguing is a mirror image of the person themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2014, 11:34 PM
 
472 posts, read 320,674 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Indeed. I believe now that self -justifying bias is the most common method of argument and reasoning that is used, and is actually more admired than wishy -washy reasonableness.

Politics, to me great distress is more to do with bamboozling people into swallowing what you say than telling the truth. Science, while not perfect, does at least have a basis of trying to assess the information objectively and giving weight to how good and sound it is.

That is why the habitual bias, projection, evasion and illogic used to make a case for religion and the God -claim is such a pain. I can see what they are doing, and sometimes I see myself doing it too, but I try to stop and give myself a shake when I find myself doing it.

On the theist side, Faith ..well, it's not only more reliable, but it is more useful and makes one feel better because ( I am pretty sure) it is no coincidence that the the great, powerful and supremely wise, good and superior being for which the apologist is arguing is a mirror image of the person themselves.

There are only two paths. One is easy. The other supports truth. It is a narrow path few follow.
Which do you follow?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2014, 01:34 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,288,132 times
Reputation: 2973
I follow the path where substantiation leads.

Since you have offered none. Ever. I will not be walking your path.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-24-2014, 11:15 AM
 
39,235 posts, read 10,905,565 times
Reputation: 5100
Quote:
Originally Posted by domenic View Post
There are only two paths. One is easy. The other supports truth. It is a narrow path few follow.
Which do you follow?
Truth, every time. The narrow and well marked path of evidence based truth. The profusions of fantastical growths on either side may look and smell attractive, but I stick to the path. I have seen people get lost before and they come back raving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top