Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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 02-02-2018, 01:14 PM
 
12,595 posts, read 6,628,464 times
Reputation: 1350

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
You have an incredibly tenacious ability to completely misinterpret and/or misrepresent what I say. If other people agree with your interpretations of me, then I seriously need to question my abilities as a writer because, judging from your interpretations, I am a sort of monster who says some utterly absurd things. Luckily, I rarely encounter anyone (that I know of) who takes my words and runs off into such whacky directions. Even here on C-D, where absurd misinterpretations and "low-blows" are the norm, most people seem to get the gist of what I say.

Until someone is kind enough to step forward and defend your interpretations of me, I am inclined to think as follows: It appears to me that you have completely dismissed what I earlier referred to as the Principle of Charity. If you listen to someone and, on your initial interpretation they appear to be a monster, or a monstrous idiot, then this is a sign that you should go back and rethink what you think the person is saying. Find an interpretation that makes the person look as reasonable as possible (as you see it), and then paraphrase that interpretation to see "is this what you are saying"? What you do, instead, is focus on the worst possible interpretation of some tangential detail and dig into that like your life depends on it. Everything else - especially the key central points - get completely lost. [Addendum: After posting this, I saw GldnRule's comment. Perhaps he will corroborate your interpretation of me?]

Obviously I don't get to change beliefs for another person. That's absurd. I couldn't do that, even if I wanted to, any more than I could think their thoughts for them. On the Principle of Charity I'm trying to think of another way to interpret your words here, but within the larger context of what you say, I'm having trouble finding a better interpretation. A major theme of several of your posts is that I want to force people to change their beliefs, and to do this I'd kidnap them and imprison them if I have to. But it is intuitively obvious to me that that is a bad strategy in virtually all cases, and I have clearly said so. Nevertheless you keep pushing that on me, as if it were my preferred choice.

In common language, the concept of convincing a person to change her mind is not interpreted as strapping her to a chair and beating up on her until she believes what you want her to believe. Technically, there are options like kidnapping and brainwashing (e.g., the Stockholm Syndrome, etc.), but in common language this not what people mean. Rather: "Changing another person's mind" means finding a way to convince them that they should change their own mind. This can involve emotional appeals and various sorts of manipulative behavior, but I have been explicitly advocating critical thinking as the preferred technique. Freedom of Speech was written into the American Constitution because of an underlying principle, namely this: "Cream rises to the top" - meaning, if you let all ideas flow freely, then eventually the best ideas will tend to have the most influence. Obviously it doesn't work in every instance, but over the long run over a large population, it tends to work more often than not. But it only works well if critical thinking skills are fairly widespread in the population. Certain types of beliefs can improve the prevalence of critical thinking and increase the likelihood of "the cream rising to the top" whereas other types of beliefs tend to derail critical thinking and interfere with the natural "cream-rising" process. Conversation aimed at uncovering logical fallacies and the presence of good and bad assumptions underlying ideas are among the good ways to promote relatively good ideas and demote the relatively bad ones. (I say "relatively" because ideas tend to be spectrums with lots of grey.)

Strategically, the gentle, supportive approach is best in cases where emotions run high (as in casual conversations about controversial subjects like religion and politics, or if confronted by a person who is being pulled into a cult, etc.), but there are also good realms where more direct approaches are good too. Science and academic philosophy are a couple of these realms. Here the goal of "changing minds" by challenging bad assumptions, etc., is more explicitly acknowledged. The goal is to convince people that theory X is better than theory Y. I approach these threads from the standpoint of a philosopher. I am explicit and up-front in acknowledging that I am trying to change some minds via the application of critical thinking. Obviously my own critical thinking skills can and do sometimes fail me, but my aim is always to think and communicate as clearly as I can. But you have an uncanny knack for twisting my words into monstrous forms that I can barely recognize. If this happened a lot, I would be forced to take this as evidence for my own failings as a writer, but given the lack of other examples, I have to tentatively conclude that this is just a quirky talent of yours.
We know that you are cool Gwoof...and that you wouldn't do that to people.
BUT...I'm sure you have seen the threads and posts that say they want belief in Gods to be deemed a mental illness, and people to be made to undergo "treatment" for it.
Also...those that teach such things to a kid be cited and prosecuted for child abuse.
Many have said that they see Religious Beliefs as the greatest threat to humankind.
There ARE those on this board the say those things specifically, and in no uncertain terms...and I believe they mean it.

 
Old 02-02-2018, 01:44 PM
 
22,015 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
...judging from your interpretations, I am a sort of monster who says some utterly absurd things.
yes you do say some utterly absurd things. they did not magically come out of thin air. they came from your posts:

kidnapping
involuntary commitment to mental health facility
forced imprisonment
brainwashing
manipulative behavior

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
my aim is always to think and communicate as clearly as I can. But you have an uncanny knack for twisting my words into monstrous forms that I can barely recognize....
if you don't want your words to appear as monstrous forms, then stop putting forth monstrous scenarios for consideration in your posts

and clear direct communication rests on the person delivering their message. Not some convoluted guessing game dance around "oh he said this but he really meant this." how about: he said this so he means this. what a concept.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 01:57 PM
 
63,571 posts, read 39,862,781 times
Reputation: 7821
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
What in the blazes are you talking about? I am beginning to suspect you are creating your own beliefs about my views based on your lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of them. The pomposity and pretentiousness of claiming to know more about a hypothesis than its creator are truly beyond the pale. I dismiss nothing in science. I employ it extensively in my Synthesis. Your antipathy to Theism drives you to focus entirely on my beliefs and ignore my Synthesis because you do not understand the science in it. Dark energy and dark matter like our consciousness are unmeasurable despite the fact that they comprise over 95+% of our reality. Our science is based entirely on the less than 5% of our reality that is measurable. Given the fact that we do NOT know what our reality IS on what basis do you claim that the materialism based on less than 5% of reality is the default? We have tried to explain to you why that is unsupportable given our consciousness and subjectivity but you seem unable or unwilling to understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
You are clearly clutching at straws here.
First, you repeat your accusations, then you ignore (twice now) the point about science - you 'employ' it (and it was shown -as I explained - by proper scientists - that your 'science' was wrong) So you 'employ' science the way creationists 'employ' evolution theory.
What exactly is a "proper scientist," who exactly is one who showed my science was wrong, and how on earth do you know this????? You are really starting to **** me off, Arq. How did YOU vet the science or the "proper scientist" you choose to believe over me, how were YOU able to discern what was legitimate especially in the more detailed explications, where does your annoyingly pompous certainty come from about what transpired between me and whatever "proper scientist" you believe "debunked" me????
Quote:
Second para, you latch onto the mention of dark matter and the claims you made about it and try to make that an arguing point. Wrong yet again. The stuff we don't know about is merely unknown and, you like so many other theist apologists, are irrational in trying to make unknowns part of the debate. They are unknowns.

The materialist default is based on what an be shown to be reliable. The rest is unknown. This is such a easily debunkable and woefully poor but frequent error (in fact the venomfang fallacy (1) that your being unable to see it underlines my point. You may know a lot (much of it shown to wrong) but your theism (thus your beliefs cannot be separated from the 'science' as it invalidates it - the classic reason why they don't mix) skews it all.
I repeat, how the hell do YOU know when I have been shown to be wrong???? You not only do NOT know the science but you have repeatedly shown your inability to follow the philosophical rationales tying the science to reality. I repeat, where does your pompous certainty come from about when and how I have been "debunked." You sure claim to know a lot about what you know nothing about.
Quote:
"We'? You mean Gaylen and you? I gather that doesn't agree with you. Not for the first time, I would suggest that he won't appreciate being co-opted as a support for your crackpot hypothesis.
So all you are doing is conceited abuse and irrational waffle - for the umpteenth time. It looks to me like you have sunk on every single point, and you are still acting a though you are the teacher and I'm the dunce.
You can take that to the bank despite your irrational and pompous pretensions.
Quote:
I'm only doing this because of you trying to make me look small, so don't blame me for what you are getting.
I don't have to try, you do a sufficient job of it on your own.(Hint: Overinflating your understanding or ability to evaluate complex issues does NOT make you bigger.)
Quote:
(1) atheists (he named a few) are like kids playing in a sandbox, and ignoring all the other stuff. In fact, they are explaining and validate what we do know (your 5%) and the rest is as yet unknown or at least unexplained. And if you make claims as fact about it, you are being as irrational and wrong as he was.
While we can not measure them directly, we can measure their effects. Dark matter seems to provide the gravity that keeps galaxies together. Dark energy is responsible for the accelerated expansion (Growth?) of our universe. Consciousness is responsible for subjectivity, objectivity, and our ability to learn and communicate about these things. The fact that these manifestations of the unified field are not directly measurable is what they have in common.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Kent, Ohio
3,429 posts, read 2,723,868 times
Reputation: 1667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
kidnapping
involuntary commitment to mental health facility
forced imprisonment
brainwashing
manipulative behavior
Look! The words you wrote!
In agreement you must be
Proof of the monster!
 
Old 02-02-2018, 02:15 PM
 
63,571 posts, read 39,862,781 times
Reputation: 7821
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
And this is what you are missing.
You don't get to change them for another person.
You want to make another person change you want control over what they think and do. You don't have that. You don't get to have that.
You are twisting the discussion from the explanation of beliefs and applying critical thinking to them and are veering into how to prevent someone's beliefs from inflicting harm on themselves or others by changing them. This is a discussion forum, NOT therapy. We are applying critical thinking to existing beliefs but you refuse to engage on that level. You seem to want to protect your beliefs from any scrutiny or critical thinking by misconstruing the analyses and drawing unwarranted negative conclusions about the posters. That is not allowed. Gaylen is the most gifted explainer I know and you tenaciously misconstrue his posts and draw negative and hostile conclusions about him. I can only guess about the reason for your defensiveness and tendency to see posts as " patronizing, arrogance and supremacy. "I know better than you and i will force it upon you." Please redirect your posts to the actual content and stop evaluating the posters. Thanks.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 02:21 PM
 
22,015 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
...The theism/atheism debate revolves not so much about the science but about the validity of the reasoning...But, once you see though this sham, you will realize that his beliefs from cosmic mind to spiritual fossil record are not just speculative but unsound, and his continued refusal to accept this is what makes him irrational and intellectually dishonest....
as an impartial bystander reading the conversation between Trans and Mystic over many threads and many years, i have to say that Trans your posts consistently make more sense and show more logic, rational thinking, consistency, and clarity than do Mystic's. Trans has more credibility, and shows greater understanding, and communicates more clearly and succinctly. Trans is the more consistent thinker. Hands down. Across the board. Not even close. He also puts in hundreds of hours in actually researching and learning in depth. i see few people on these boards match that. And he tracks incredibly well.

Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-02-2018 at 02:32 PM..
 
Old 02-02-2018, 03:22 PM
 
22,015 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are twisting the discussion from the explanation of beliefs and applying critical thinking to them and are veering into how to prevent someone's beliefs from inflicting harm on themselves or others by changing them.....
It is not saying Gaylen personally believes these things or does those things. It is discussing ideas and principles and a variety of different scenarios and proposed course of actions based on a person's principles and beliefs, and how they use critical thinking at each and every step.

Gaylen is a good guy it is not about him personally. His heart is in the right place and his concern is to prevent someone from harm. It is about ideas that he is putting out there and we are discussing the outcome and progression of those ideas. It is discussing principles not people.

I said i don't like the behavior of evangelism and conversion and proselytizing. Gaylen (if i understand correctly) took issue with that and sought to explore (prove? wonder about?) if there would ever be any situation where its OK to try and force conversion on someone even if it was to save a life. He put forth two scenarios, one with a suicide bomber, one with someone in a Kool Aid suicide cult.

He asked what about this what about this what about this, and i went through each of the points he made and said what i found problematic about the proposed courses of action. We were discussing some what if scenarios, and what does it look like when a person seeks to put a principle into actions. Something can sound fine and noble as a principle and proposed course of action; but guess what when it was put into boots on the ground reality check it takes a person down a fanatic extremist path. Critical thinking around beliefs and principles is very much a part of this topic and this thread. It's a great conversation and a great discussion.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:43 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,524,475 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel View Post
It is not saying Gaylen personally believes these things or does those things. It is discussing ideas and principles and a variety of different scenarios and proposed course of actions based on a person's principles and beliefs, and how they use critical thinking at each and every step.

Gaylen is a good guy it is not about him personally. His heart is in the right place and his concern is to prevent someone from harm. It is about ideas that he is putting out there and we are discussing the outcome and progression of those ideas. It is discussing principles not people.

I said i don't like the behavior of evangelism and conversion and proselytizing. Gaylen (if i understand correctly) took issue with that and sought to explore (prove? wonder about?) if there would ever be any situation where its OK to try and force conversion on someone even if it was to save a life. He put forth two scenarios, one with a suicide bomber, one with someone in a Kool Aid suicide cult.

He asked what about this what about this what about this, and i went through each of the points he made and said what i found problematic about the proposed courses of action. We were discussing some what if scenarios, and what does it look like when a person seeks to put a principle into actions. Something can sound fine and noble as a principle and proposed course of action; but guess what when it was put into boots on the ground reality check it takes a person down a fanatic extremist path. Critical thinking around beliefs and principles is very much a part of this topic and this thread. It's a great conversation and a great discussion.
the problem is anything good can be turned bad. I brainwash my kids everyday. Everyday i teach them to look after other people and help when one can. Of course I use the word "balance", a term that fundy theists and anti-religious socialist don't understand.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 04:50 PM
 
28,432 posts, read 11,524,475 times
Reputation: 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
He did. But if you think about it - it IS the same thing. If it isn't, then all he is doing is accusing me of hostility toward theism. In fact pulling the old 'atheists are biased' trick. I am arguing on basis of what we can rely on through science, mitigating, as Mystic admits, the limitations of our perceptions. All that we know works without a god being involved.

Thus, in considering what we don't know, the way things works as we do know, is the preferred hypothesis. The materialist default. To dismiss that is irrational, and in fact biased.

All that we don't know - proves nothing. Claims made about what we don't know are speculative. To claim them as facts as Mystic does, is irrational. Not me.

So it isn't I and skeptical -materialist -atheism that is biased, and irrational. It is theism. This isn't anti -theism, it is pointing up that theism is not a rational position.

It is very simple and, if you are able to overcome a god -partiality that is evidently making you support Mystic's theory which (I have never denied, is the only one I have ever seen that tries to explain God scientifically) must be attractive to those who have God -belief but nothing much to support it, you will see that this is right, it is very simple and easy to understand without Phd's and Mystic is at the least putting forward a speculative hypothesis dressed up in a lab coat.

At least his 'lab' coat' additions of science and mind experiments have been shown unsound. I suggest you go back and read the posts and see that Mystic has only been able to deny past debunks and ignore the present ones.

P.s I would rather not go back through the history of my long efforts to understand Mystic's Hypothesis, though I may have to to show you how mystic is misrepresenting it for his own ends, but I will try to counter this constant certificate -waving.

The theism/atheism debate revolves not so much about the science but about the validity of the reasoning, given the science as a reliable default.

It of course becomes subject to the believers trying to debunk science where it conflicts with their beliefs (which is what they are, even if they call them "scientific"). Perforce we have to consider whether the science is valid and we are often not experts. This makes it tricky when we come up against someone who is qualified in a field or is at least has expertise in it , but it becomes evident that it is being mangled to support the faith.

We should not have to defend evolution -theory against creationism (Mystic is not a creationist, note), but be able to use it as evidence that Genesis is factually wrong. Similarly, we should not have to support the 'materialist default'. It should be bloody obvious that what science has shown to be the working is every case (and God in none of them) is the preferred potential explanation and speculation of any kind isn't. I should should not have to defend the logic of the burden of proof or the principle of parsimony, but I find myself having to because they undermine Mystic's beliefs and so he tries to debunk them.

I did this in occam's razor and you will have seen how he ignored it and went back to ..denial, really.

P.p.s I have to explain this much at least.

At the time I read the 'Synthesis', iI was clear that it was obscure and speculative. I spent months of effort in trying to understand what the hypothesis actually was. It gradually came together, but there were some moments when a bit of his argument slipped - the reversal of burden of proof, the denial of emergence in connection with evolution (of consciousness as well as life - mind; this was hypothetical not arguing proven science) and the big one - when arguing dark matter I believe, his science (and the figures) was shown wrong, and he then claimed he hadn't intended it as real science abut an 'analogy'. Of what other than an unknown science that is either his speculation or faith -based?

So this accusation of not trying to understand is unfair, Right from the start the idea was to get it as a hypothesis - we didn't have to accept it. But the logic, coherence and in the end the science broke down. and he is still pretending it's all fine. He does it very well - the ct of the sorely tried professor trying to din facts into the thick head of a dunce. But, once you see though this sham, you will realize that his beliefs from cosmic mind to spiritual fossil record (it is all related) are not just speculative but unsound, and his continued refusal to accept this is what makes him irrational and intellectually dishonest.
no, you are far more intellectually dishonest than he is. he has been nothing but upfront about the limits of his beliefs.

You, on the other hand, misuse science to benefit your deny everything belief statement. You shun, change, or avoid science that doesn't support your base belief statement of anti-religious socialism.

Openly run away when your baseless beliefs hits commonsense, logic and reason.

Quite frankly, you have been debunked time and time again, and like any fundy, you don't even know have fast you lost.
 
Old 02-02-2018, 06:23 PM
 
22,015 posts, read 19,117,250 times
Reputation: 18149
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You are twisting the discussion from the explanation of beliefs and applying critical thinking to them and are veering into how to prevent someone's beliefs from inflicting harm on themselves or others by changing them. This is a discussion forum, NOT therapy. We are applying critical thinking to existing beliefs but you refuse to engage on that level.....
religion and religious beliefs are very much about ethics, morality, and principles that guide our thought speech action and decisions. it appears you seek to distance yourself at every turn from taking personal responsibility for your thoughts and feelings by saying things like "this is not therapy" and seemingly being content to never move beyond the most vague "love, and repent when you don't" or "consider the well being of everyone involved" without ever actually delving into the "OK what does that look like in this or that scenario and how do we put that into action in boots on the ground reality." Gaylen and I are interested in discussing those topics and practical application of ethics and morality that stem from religious or irreligious beliefs, and applying critical thinking skills in theoretical and actual situations. We are having many excellent conversations. I appreciate his views and insights and articulate in depth thoughtful considered approach.

This is what civilized engaging in-depth conversation looks like even when people disagree. Don't try to silence it.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:58 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top