The Psychology of Religion. (prophets, believer, California, virtual)
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.
As always, we have to assess just what good a response is doing - for the wider browsing audience, not to Ozzy so much, as he is arguing from a faith position, which means that they keep trying all kinds of ploys to score a point, and not consider any points against, just which points to drop (and try later against someone else )it's the old Faith-based principle of preach, but not be preached to.
Those posters who talk some palpable nonsense that we can disregard anyone who takes their posts seriously can simply be left alone, which isn't the same as 'this thread isn't one for me'. if there's a point and a value in responding, I feel i must respond. Dignified silence is a failure to respond.
That's how i see it, anyway.
Seems to me a big part of participating in this forum is choosing whether to dignify an "unworthy" comment with a reply and/or which comments to respond to in general, or not. All entirely up to each individual according to whatever suits them best. I don't think any kind of silence is necessarily a "failure to respond" in any case. Might just be a good opportunity to promote a focus somewhere else more worthy...
Would be worthwhile to test your theory, because I think you've got something there, but of course religion also involves a lot of the "ends justify the means" sort of approach, and that's part of the challenge as well I think...
Yes, I think that's very true, also. We see that right here in this forum when people essentially lie to justify something in the bible.
Seems to me a big part of participating in this forum is choosing whether to dignify an "unworthy" comment with a reply and/or which comments to respond to in general, or not. All entirely up to each individual according to whatever suits them best. I don't think any kind of silence is necessarily a "failure to respond" in any case. Might just be a good opportunity to promote a focus somewhere else more worthy...
Sometimes silence in the best option, but I find myself assessing possible returns for outlay of effort. Others will make different assessments.
Yes, I think that's very true, also. We see that right here in this forum when people essentially lie to justify something in the bible.
Yes. The dishonesty is what initially fascinated me. I at first thought it was just misunderstanding, but now I am sure that what is true simply isn't important for them. What they believe and propping it up any way that can is what's important.
It must be hard for them to understand someone like a rationalist who is happy to be proved wrong if they get the facts more correct thereby. I have sometimes been castigated by the Believers for valuing winning. It's amusing when winning at all costs - up to and including walking away (usually with a variety of flounce) with the last word, (and if they don't get it, complaining that 'atheists always have to have the last word' )is the name of their game. Wheras for me, winning is simply getting to the facts that stand up best even if the mind has to be changed along the way.
Since what is the best argument is where the rationalist ends up, a 'win ' is getting to the end of a soundly argued out conclusion. That is not what 'win' means in theist apologetic terms - that is silencing the unbelievers, however you have to do it.
Yes. The dishonesty is what initially fascinated me. I at first thought it was just misunderstanding, but now I am sure that what is true simply isn't important for them. What they believe and propping it up any way that can is what's important.
It must be hard for them to understand someone like a rationalist who is happy to be proved wrong if they get the facts more correct thereby. I have sometimes been castigated by the Believers for valuing winning. It's amusing when winning at all costs - up to and including walking away (usually with a variety of flounce) with the last word, (and if they don't get it, complaining that 'atheists always have to have the last word' )is the name of their game. Wheras for me, winning is simply getting to the facts that stand up best even if the mind has to be changed along the way.
Since what is the best argument is where the rationalist ends up, a 'win ' is getting to the end of a soundly argued out conclusion. That is not what 'win' means in theist apologetic terms - that is silencing the unbelievers, however you have to do it.
There are lots of differences with regard to how people argue their beliefs, regardless the beliefs. For some the exercise is not so enjoyable for all variety of reasons. For others more like you and me I think, the application of logic and reason is enjoyable and to be promoted. Depending on one's inclination in these regards, however, if two people having such a discussion are not of like mind, the exercise can become something else altogether; a matter of "winning" and/or losing. Too emotional, exhausting, frustrating...
This is in large part why I prefer this forum where I can scratch my political "itch" without concern about how these sorts of exchanges can go south in terms of raised voices, talking over one another, getting emotional and upset. Here one can simply have their say in proper order, long or short, in black and white for the record, for anyone else to process and respond as they wish. Not that this forum is perfect in every way, but since so few people can have such discussions in calm, collect and adult fashion when in person, exchange of opinion here has some important advantages by comparison.
That said, there is plenty inclination toward "winning" here too. We're probably mostly all just losers, however, given what time we spend here with so little accomplished. Which reminds me. It's past time for me to sign off now again. Best of Sundays to all the C-D winners and losers until maybe again tomorrow...
Yes. The dishonesty is what initially fascinated me. I at first thought it was just misunderstanding, but now I am sure that what is true simply isn't important for them. What they believe and propping it up any way that can is what's important.
It must be hard for them to understand someone like a rationalist who is happy to be proved wrong if they get the facts more correct thereby. I have sometimes been castigated by the Believers for valuing winning. It's amusing when winning at all costs - up to and including walking away (usually with a variety of flounce) with the last word, (and if they don't get it, complaining that 'atheists always have to have the last word' )is the name of their game. Wheras for me, winning is simply getting to the facts that stand up best even if the mind has to be changed along the way.
Since what is the best argument is where the rationalist ends up, a 'win ' is getting to the end of a soundly argued out conclusion. That is not what 'win' means in theist apologetic terms - that is silencing the unbelievers, however you have to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
There are lots of differences with regard to how people argue their beliefs, regardless the beliefs. For some the exercise is not so enjoyable for all variety of reasons. For others more like you and me I think, the application of logic and reason is enjoyable and to be promoted. Depending on one's inclination in these regards, however, if two people having such a discussion are not of like mind, the exercise can become something else altogether; a matter of "winning" and/or losing. Too emotional, exhausting, frustrating...
This is in large part why I prefer this forum where I can scratch my political "itch" without concern about how these sorts of exchanges can go south in terms of raised voices, talking over one another, getting emotional and upset. Here one can simply have their say in proper order, long or short, in black and white for the record, for anyone else to process and respond as they wish. Not that this forum is perfect in every way, but since so few people can have such discussions in calm, collect and adult fashion when in person, exchange of opinion here has some important advantages by comparison.
That said, there is plenty inclination toward "winning" here too. We're probably mostly all just losers, however, given what time we spend here with so little accomplished. Which reminds me. It's past time for me to sign off now again. Best of Sundays to all the C-D winners and losers until maybe again tomorrow...
Self-congratulatory posts like these are what belie your search for the real truth. The application of logic and reason is NOT sufficient. You actually have to have sufficient KNOWLEDGE to reach the truth, otherwise, you are drawing logic syllogisms within ignorance because "you know not what you do!"
Self-congratulatory posts like these are what belie your search for the real truth. The application of logic and reason is NOT sufficient. You actually have to have sufficient KNOWLEDGE to reach the truth, otherwise, you are drawing logic syllogisms within ignorance.
You're going to critique other people in regard to posting things that are self-congratulatory??? That's rich.
It always is good to have a post from the master of the steel toecaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Self-congratulatory posts like these are what belie your search for the real truth. The application of logic and reason is NOT sufficient. You actually have to have sufficient KNOWLEDGE to reach the truth, otherwise, you are drawing logic syllogisms within ignorance because "you know not what you do!"
Brickdust, Mystic. I won't speculate about why you see it that way (I don't need to, the others seems to have sussed you well enough) but this is half proffering a hypothesis about Theist -thinking, and based on evidence of the kind we saw here, and half about how i think (and the others, i believe) and you have no input to make about that, since I doubt that you could think rationally, even when you were an atheist.
Your speculations are based on denial of pretty much everything we know while still claiming to be based on science. I need no advice whatsoever from you about how to research, as distinct from think stuff up and sneer as everyone who says anything else. In fact you post, seems, as a typical example of hardly bothering to look at what i posted before lashing out, pretty much substantiates what i posted.
It always is good to have a post from the master of the steel toecaps.
Brickdust, Mystic. I won't speculate about why you see it that way (I don't need to, the others seems to have sussed you well enough) but this is half proffering a hypothesis about Theist -thinking, and based on evidence of the kind we saw here, and half about how I think (and the others, I believe) and you have no input to make about that, since I doubt that you could think rationally, even when you were an atheist.
Your speculations are based on the denial of pretty much everything we know while still claiming to be based on science. I need no advice whatsoever from you about how to research, as distinct from think stuff up and sneer as everyone who says anything else. In fact, your post, seems, as a typical example of hardly bothering to look at what I posted before lashing out, pretty much substantiates what I posted.
Ah, Arq, despite your relative ignorance of science and the philosophy of science, virtually all your posts to me about my views can be summarized as follows: You accuse me of not knowing the science, not knowing the rational use of logic, not properly using analogies, not understanding the mathematics of physics or cosmology, not understanding the biology of life, not knowing the basis of consciousness in the brain, and to top it off you presume to be able to evaluate when I have been "sussed, debunked, and refuted" by others. What seems to stick in your craw is that despite my extensive knowledge I have been convinced by experience that God exists and have developed an explanation the fits within existing science and my extrapolations from the frontiers of science that are only now being realized. You call it my Faith-based denial of your concrete materialist reality.
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.
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.
)it's the old Faith-based principle of preach, but not be preached to.
