| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Louis" |
| Date: |
06 Nov 2004 06:49:49 AM |
| Object: |
Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
Here goes :
Dear Petrus,
What makes you think I have not considered it? Possibly you don't get
this. What you are claiming requires faith in the thing you are
claiming. This is tautologous.
Look, your belief/opinion is different to that of many other people's
belief. You have already conceded that differentiating between
religious beliefs, in terms of accurately being representative of
reality, is impossible. There is simply no reason to believe the
claims of any religion other than a personal desire to do so. Not only
do I not desire or need to do so, I am strongly opposed to faith
claims. I'll explain why.
I'll simplify it a bit (not because you won't get it, but because it's
long!) for brevity. I shall first state my assumptions: 1) I am an
existing, conscious entity, 2) there is something that is not me and
something that is me, I shall call these things the external universe
and my mind.
I exist as an object/entity that is contained within the external
universe, i.e. I am not seperate to it, it's simply that my mind has
little or no automatic, innate knowledge of the external universe. If
I wish to acquire knowledge about the external universe I can do one
of two things: i) I can interact with the external universe to form
ideas, ii) I can use the ideas that exist only in my mind.
In reverse order I'll deal with the second one first,
i.e.non-interaction and internal conjectural idea forming. If I use
ideas that I have conjectured purely internally to claim knowledge of
the external universe, by which I mean that I come up with an idea and
claim that because I have had that idea that it is a representative
picture of the external universe, then I have a certain probablity of
being correct. It isn't necessarily a low probability, but if one
takes a series of ideas that have been uninformed by observing reality
then the distribution of those probabilities of being accurate will be
randomn. Since each idea is not informed by interaction with the
external universe, none of the ideas necessarily has any accuracy as a
model of the external universe. Of course none of the ideas
necessarily has no accuracy, this is why that probability distribution
will be randomn, there is no process, iterative or otherwise, by which
the general probability of idea accuracy could be altered. So my
chances of conjecturing an idea that is an accurate representation of
reality are entirely randomn.
So now I have the first option to return to, i.e. interaction leading
to informed, iterative idea forming. The first thing I have to get my
mind to interact with the external universe, this is what I will call
in a very general sense "observation". I don't mean in the simple
sense of just "seeing", but in all mechanisms of interacting with the
universe. In fact it is even possible for me to observe my methods of
observation, something I shall come to later. What I therefore do is
make an observation of the universe and use what I learn from that
observation to base an idea on. There is of course a probability that
that observation is inaccurate and thus not useful in forming an
accurate model of the external universe, but obviously there is also a
probability that it is accurate. The first thing to appreciate is that
should I take a series of single observations, and then make a
seperate observation based on each seperate observation, (i.e. not one
observation then another to iteratively form ideas, just imagine that
all the observations and the ideas based on them are not linked to any
other idea or observation in any way) then if we look at the
distribution of the probabilities of the ideas being accurate we will
notice clumping together into two major groups. Within those groups we
might find randomn distribution of probabilities, but we will find two
main clumps. These will be the ideas formed on accurate observations
and ideas formed on innacurate observations. Obviously if considering
single observation/idea forming events the probability distribution
will be pretty broad. But I didn't just want to make single
observations, I wanted to make several observations and link them
together to make ideas about the external universe.
So what I do is make my first observation, and just for the moment
assume my observation is correct. I then make my second observation
and so on. Let us just arbitrarily say I make 10 observations before I
form an idea based on those observations. It doesn't matter how many I
make as long as it isn't 1 or 0! So what I have after these
observations is my first idea, note that I have conjectured the idea
based on the observations, not simply from within my own mind. Let's
call this idea A. I then make a series of observations again and form
idea B. Then I compare ideas A and B to see if there are any obvious
overlaps, i.e. similar elements to the ideas. I'll get to what I do
with the similarities should they exist in a moment. Should I find no
similarities at all I would then go one making series of observations
and comparing the ideas formed on them until I discover similarities.
Of course there is a possibility that no similarities would ever be
found for any idea based on any set of observations, using any
observational method ever. This would merely return us to our randomn
distribution of probabilities of idea accuracy. But as I mentioned
above, we will find clumps of accuracy probabilties in parallel single
observation/idea forming events, clumped into those ideas that were
based on accurate observations and those ideas that were based on
inaccurate observations. This obviously gives us a non-level playing
field, we will have accurate observations and inaccurate observations
(of course there will be a distribution, in this case a randomn one if
we assume randomn single observations). Thus, returning to the
iterative observation/idea forming process, the probabilty of finding
no similarities in ideas becomes smaller the more obervation sets and
idea comparisons we make.
So, returning to ideas A and B, as I am making observations, forming
ideas on those observations and then comparing them I will have a set
of aspects of the ideas that overlaps, i.e. a set of aspects of those
ideas that is similar. If I take these similarities and keep them, and
discard those spects of the ideas that are not similar, then I wil
have a new idea, let's call it something else to avoid confusion,
let's call it an hypothesis, hypothesis A. It should be immediately
apparent that if I then examine hypothesis A and try to understand the
model of the external universe that it represents could make simple
predictions about the nature of the universe based on that hypothesis.
I could also do this with the method based purely on internnal
conjecture that I outlined above, but as we saw the probability of
those being accurate is purely randomn. In the case of the iterative
observational method, what I have done is take the similar parts of
the ideas I have had to form a hypothesis, this is distinctly
non-randomn, and as the number of ideas formed on sets of observations
increases, the probability of the hypothesis that is being formed from
them being an accurate model of the external universe is greater. What
I am doing is deliberately selecting those parts of ideas which seem
to work well as models of the external universe.
So, taking my hypothesis and making predictions about the external
universe I then make observations about the external universe again.
This time however there is an important difference, the observations I
make are specifically designed to see of the predictions I made based
on my hypothesis are accurate predictions of the natures of the
external universe or not. It doesn't matter whether the predictions
are accurate or not on any personal level, what I must do at all times
is go with what works. Should my predictions be show to be innaccurate
I go back to the drawing board, make more observations, make more
ideas based on them, take the similar bits of those ideas, form an
hypothesis on the similar bits of those ideas, make predictions based
on the hypothesis, and make observations to determine the accuracy of
the predictions. Note that at every stage what is being maximised is
the probability of a particular idea being an accurate model of the
external universe. Should my predictions be accurate and thus borne
out by observations designed to assess their accuracy, I take this
hypothesis and hold it to one side for a moment. I then start the
process again, this time however making new observations in a slightly
different direction to the ones I originally made. Going through the
process again to the next hypothesis, hypothesis B, I then compare not
only the two hypotheses for similarities but the similarity of the
predictions based on them. i.e. whether these predictions and
hypotheses are consistent with one another. Again what I am doing is
maximising my accuracy. I think it should be very obvious that even if
I start with a very low probability of idea accuracy, I am rapidly
going to progress to a situation where these ideas have a very high
probability of being accurate.
By now the method is obvious, taking from those hypotheses only the
parts which make preditctions that are found to be accurate by
observation, and using only those predictions that have been shown to
be accurate by observations I formulate another hypothesis, but again
to avoid confusion we'll call this tier of idea a theory. This tier of
idea, the theory, might be based on huge numbers observations, it has
a measurable and large probability of being accurate as model of the
external universe. The theory can be used to make predictions etc and
the iterative process continues.
Now to the problems. It is possible that our observations are
inaccurate. It is possible that we have formed an hypothesis, and
hence a theory, that is based on similarities in ideas that are not
representative as a model of the external universe. We could be
barking up the wrong tree so to speak. However, if we keep up the
observation process this becomes decreasingly likely. In fact as long
as the model of the external universe we have in our theory works,
i.e. it makes accurate predictions about the external universe that
are borne out by observation, we have no reason to assume (for that is
what we would be doing) that it is not accurate. Either way, ideas,
hypotheses and theories based on this method are only ever going to be
probably accurate model of the external universe, they are never going
to necessarily be 100% accurate models. There is an important reason
for this, and it is called the limit of observation. It is not
possible for us to observe all parts of the external universe and the
mind at all times in all ways. There is no chance that we are going to
make a 100% accurate observation on this basis (if anyone is familiar
with the concepts of Boltzmann distribution and asymptotic tendancies
you will grasp this immediately). We can tend towards making a 100%
accurate observation, but we cannot actually reach it. Thus it is
important that we check our observations by making other observations,
by repeating the observations and using what we can reproducibly
observe to form ideas. This way we will minimise the chances of making
innacurate observations and barking up the wrong tree. We won't have
an absolute picture of the external universe, but we can have a very
very accurate one. After all what, in practical terms is the
difference between 100% and 99.99999999999%? By the way there is a
reason I chose that number of decimal places for the 99.9 etc %
example, the most accurate theory we have come up with in modern
science (quantum electrodynamics, or rather the subset of the standard
model that deals with the interactions of photons and electrons) makes
predictions that agree with the observations based on those
predictions to the 11th decimal place. That is EXTREMELY accurate,
about the equivalent of not only predicting the distance between New
York and Los Angeles to the accuracy of the width of a human hair, but
when measured to that level of accuracy, finding out you were right!
Not too
shabby!
So what we have is a method of making models of the external universe,
or rather we have two methods, one which works iteratively and thus
allows us to make increasingly accurate models, and another which, as
it is uninformed by observation, allows us to make randomnly accurate
models. I should point out that it is possible for the internal
conjecture method to make very accurate models, it's just that we
should not EXPECT that they are accurate, we have no way of knowing
whether they are accurate or not since we will not be observing the
external universe. The two processes I have described are common in
our every day lives, they are reason and faith. We use reason for
everything, which path we walk through a room, how we buy a car, how
we comb our hair, everything. We make observations and thus models of
the universe from them so we can act in the external universe
effectively. Denial of this by the way is the ultimate expression of
nihilism,the denial of reality, and I hope I don't need to explain why
that would be both extremely dishonest and irrational.
The other method, faith, is a specific kind of faith, blind faith.
That is the forming of an idea about the external universe in the
absence, or in contradiction to, observations of the external
universe. This is where the problems start for the person who is using
blind faith as their method of understanding the external universe.
There is no way for them to know if their idea is accurate. If they
then use observation to try to assess the accuracy of their faith
derived idea, then they are using reason to assess the idea not faith.
If they claim that their idea is true because of some internal feeling
in the mind, they are eschewing reason, and thus have no reason to
expect their idea is accurate as I have shown. Of course they have no
reason to expect that their idea is inaccurate either. If the person
using faith claims that some manner of revelation corroborates their
idea, if that revelation is something that has been expressed
internally (e.g. a voice or feeling or set of instructions in the
mind) as oppsed to something that had been expressed in the external
universe then how can on ascertain if that revelation is itself
accurate without using reason? The answer is that one cannot. There is
always the possibility that the "revelation" is merely another self
referential and self sulfilling purely internal conjecture based idea.
There is no way other than observation, reason for the person using
blind faith to asses the accuracy of their ideas.
Should the person using blind faith then use reason to assess their
ideas' accuracy, what was the point of the faith in the first place?
Nothing! The only reason to hold to the faith is to do so in
contradiction to the ideas based on observation, otherwise your idea
would be upheld by reason. Another problem comes when those persons
using faith test their ideas by observation and find them not to be
accurate, what does one do then? Does one abandon the observations or
abandon the faith based idea? The faith based person has no way of
telling based on faith alone, yet again the faith using person has to
rely on reason to distinguish between ideas. Should reason continue to
contradict the idea based on faith then by definition the reasoned and
reasonable thing to do is to discard the faith based idea in favour of
a reason based one.
Should observations actually support the faith based idea, all well
and good, but one should honestly appreciate how one knows that the
faith based idea is accurate, i.e. via reason. However it is important
to make observations about the observations as I mentioned above, only
by doing this can we make sure our observations are increasingly
accurate. We must repeat our observations to make sure they are
reproducible, we must make reliable observations that can be
demonstrated to be aspects of the external universe otherwise we are
not making ideas about the external universe but merely our internal
mind. Again assuming that we wish to acquire knowledge about the
external universe. If we merely wish to close off all possible
observation and interaction with the external universe then we are
absolutely fine with blind faith. This verges again on a nihilist
denial of reality. The reliability of our observations, their tested
and testable accuracy as aspects of the external universe are what
allows us to make accurate models of the universe, without that
reproducibility we must always strongly doubt the accuracy of our
observations.
Thus whether I like it or not, the choice I have made is to observe
the external universe and make ideas that are based on those
observations. Whether I like it or not those observations and ideas
have shown a model of the universe that by the definitions of the
words is rational, has no supernatural component and has a mechanism
which we can comprehend. Were the external universe to have no
mechanism, no way of working, then my observation based ideas would be
as randomnly accurate as the faith based ideas. This is why reason
works. There is way that the external universe works. Faith based
ideas do not require any mechanism for the external universe, they are
strictly randomn.
For you, Petrus, to claim that god is beyond logic is a purely faith
based assertion. By defintion there is no way for you to corroborate
that outside of using reason, and logic is derived from reason. You
see I have considered that this god of yours (and quite a few
others!) is "out there". There is just no observation that
corroborates this idea. All observations to date have demonstrated
that by all definitions given for the idea "god", that this idea is
not an accurate model of reality. To claim that this idea you call
"god" is beyond observation is to claim it is beyond reason. To claim
it is beyond reason is to relegate the idea to the realms of purely
internal mind based fantasy. There is no reasonable reason to
entertain the idea at all. Why in fact entertain the idea over the
infinite number of other possible faith based ideas? For example that
this table is a small Czech policeman named Boris.
Without observation, without reason, your faith, your ideas based on
faith, are purest fantasy. Images and models only valid in your head
because they lack external corroboration. It is POSSIBLE that they may
be accurate, but as I have shown there is no reason to think they
are.The very second that you attempt to corroborate your faith based
idea you abandon faith and use reason. That is the central irony of
belief. Believing something on faith alone has a randomn chance of
being accurate, trying to corroborate your faith based ideas with
reason effectively denies faith as a mechanism of acquiring knowledge
about the external universe. The minute you try to make your ideas
more accurate than a randomn chance might allow, you immediately do
away with faith.
This is why I do not use faith as a mechanism of acquiring knowledge
about the external universe, and it all flows from two assumptions.
Two very simple assumptions that even people who base their whole
lives on faith make as equally as I do. Were the assumptions to be
untrue then observation would not make accurate models of the external
universe, reason would not work. It clearly does work, thus the
assumptions are likely to be accurate. I don't say that they ARE
accurate, because there is always the limit of observation, the thing
unknown. All I claim is that for the assumptions to be inaccurate, for
the model of the universe we have built from centuries of observation
to be completely inaccurate a existence itself would have to be
fictional. Now it's possible that it is, but this is again nihilism.
It appears to be the case that we exist, I prefer to act on the
assumption that that appearence is accurate. I have no way to know if
it is, I just have to act as if it were, all the time appreciating
that the philosophical rug might be pulled from under me!
This is why your claims of "he is love in the sky" etc fall on deaf
ears. You haven't demonstrated that your claim, your idea,can be taken
seriously on a rational basis. Thus there is no rational basis to
consider it accurate. Thus I don't. I also don't consider several
other undemonstrated claims to be accurate from the existence of the
soul to the easter bunny. Demonstrate by reason your idea has any
accuracy and I will consider the idea. Otherwise you have no right to
claim the accuracy of your idea anymore than my faith based idea of
this table being Boris. That is precisely how ridiculous your ideas,
your claims, are.
Should you claim that your faith is supported by observation (as I am
sure you will) the problem you then have is that you have to tell if
those observations are accurate. Since that has been not accomplished
by anyone to date, and a staggeringly large number of people have
tried, you will forgive me if I doubt your claims based solely on your
say so. Perhaps part of what you fail to understand is that athiesm in
not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in a particular idea. All
atheists say is that your claims have not been proven. Your ideas have
no basis in observation. Couple that with what are now well understood
sociological and psychological reasons for religious belief being
prevalent in our species, and you have no real basis for you claims at
all.
Louis
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
06 Nov 2004 11:40:51 AM |
|
|
"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0411060449.43075594@posting.google.com...
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
Here goes :
Dear Petrus,
What makes you think I have not considered it? Possibly you don't get
this. What you are claiming requires faith in the thing you are
claiming. This is tautologous.
The reason I find it difficult to help you is that you have only posted your
own arguments and t=not those of the person you are debating.
Look, your belief/opinion is different to that of many other people's
belief. You have already conceded that differentiating between
religious beliefs, in terms of accurately being representative of
reality, is impossible. There is simply no reason to believe the
claims of any religion other than a personal desire to do so. Not only
do I not desire or need to do so, I am strongly opposed to faith
claims. I'll explain why.
Whatever you say, the other person will rationalize it by making it fit into
his/her belief system categorizing you as not to be responded to as a real
person but a set of heretical ideas. As to specific arguments you might have
tried, once again, you have only show your side of the argument, so I can't
pick up clues to peculiarities of the other person's thinking.
<too long to repeat, or even to read>
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
07 Nov 2004 10:13:04 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:<D08jd.6550$O11.2609@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0411060449.43075594@posting.google.com...
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
Here goes :
Dear Petrus,
What makes you think I have not considered it? Possibly you don't get
this. What you are claiming requires faith in the thing you are
claiming. This is tautologous.
The reason I find it difficult to help you is that you have only posted your
own arguments and t=not those of the person you are debating.
Look, your belief/opinion is different to that of many other people's
belief. You have already conceded that differentiating between
religious beliefs, in terms of accurately being representative of
reality, is impossible. There is simply no reason to believe the
claims of any religion other than a personal desire to do so. Not only
do I not desire or need to do so, I am strongly opposed to faith
claims. I'll explain why.
Whatever you say, the other person will rationalize it by making it fit into
his/her belief system categorizing you as not to be responded to as a real
person but a set of heretical ideas. As to specific arguments you might have
tried, once again, you have only show your side of the argument, so I can't
pick up clues to peculiarities of the other person's thinking.
<too long to repeat, or even to read>
The other guy hasn't really made any arguments yet, except to tell me
he's a theist (christian) and to encourage me to pray, and to say that
logic/reason aren't muuch use etc.
Louis
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
08 Nov 2004 07:49:56 PM |
|
|
"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0411070813.a373aa1@posting.google.com...
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<D08jd.6550$O11.2609@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"Louis" <thethinker111@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761bf1a.0411060449.43075594@posting.google.com...
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
Here goes :
Dear Petrus,
What makes you think I have not considered it? Possibly you don't get
this. What you are claiming requires faith in the thing you are
claiming. This is tautologous.
The reason I find it difficult to help you is that you have only posted
your
own arguments and t=not those of the person you are debating.
Look, your belief/opinion is different to that of many other people's
belief. You have already conceded that differentiating between
religious beliefs, in terms of accurately being representative of
reality, is impossible. There is simply no reason to believe the
claims of any religion other than a personal desire to do so. Not only
do I not desire or need to do so, I am strongly opposed to faith
claims. I'll explain why.
Whatever you say, the other person will rationalize it by making it fit
into
his/her belief system categorizing you as not to be responded to as a
real
person but a set of heretical ideas. As to specific arguments you might
have
tried, once again, you have only show your side of the argument, so I
can't
pick up clues to peculiarities of the other person's thinking.
<too long to repeat, or even to read>
The other guy hasn't really made any arguments yet, except to tell me
he's a theist (christian) and to encourage me to pray, and to say that
logic/reason aren't muuch use etc.
Louis
If it were me, I'd start asking questions, like how do I pray, and then ask
questions about about the answers.
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
06 Nov 2004 01:54:33 PM |
|
|
(Louis) wrote:
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume. [...]
Are you one of those people who ask for help from others when doing
crossword puzzles?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Louis" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
07 Nov 2004 10:14:49 AM |
|
|
nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote in message news:<j4bqo0d3uasopv75m98b03kg69mkdii4s8@4ax.com>...
thethinker111@hotmail.com (Louis) wrote:
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume. [...]
Are you one of those people who ask for help from others when doing
crossword puzzles?
No, but I did think I would do the decent thing and have someone read
through the long thingy above just to make sure I was making sense.
After all a quick proof read by someone can help the clarity of a
piece considerably. We all make sense to ourselves after all.
Louis
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
06 Nov 2004 08:57:07 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2004 04:49:49 -0800, (Louis) wrote:
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
Whoa. Do these people actually work their way through arguments this
long?
At any rate, I wouldn't waste the work on it. I'd just say that faith
has never been proven to change anything. So since these people have
no more proof than any other believers, I'll just keep relying on what
has been very effective - non faith.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Help honing argument! (Sorry, long) |
06 Nov 2004 07:56:06 AM |
|
|
On 6 Nov 2004 04:49:49 -0800, (Louis) wrote:
Dear All,
I haven't posted up anything in a while, and since I have been having
some fun on another board I thought I'd post something I wrote up
while discussing something with a guy who calls himself "Petrus" after
the chateau I presume.
Basically I would be very grateful if you guys would take the time to
plough though my diatribe and see if you can spot any points I might
improve on. The reason the sodding thing is so long and turgid is I
have been dealing with some particularly {ahem} "special" theists on
this other board, you know the sort who insist their beliefs are
absolutely true, refuse to prove them and go on about how much prayer
will work if you keep on praying for something until you get what you
pray for. In other words.....some of them are nutters.
The problem is that you will never get through to the nutters.
Intelligence, logic, observation etc won't work because they don't use
these themselves.
They speak a different language, where words have been redefined to
fit their beliefs.
They ignore reality when it conflicts with their beliefs.
And these beliefs include for example that you are evil, an enemy of
God etc.
Remember that God is axiomatic, not up for question and the very fact
that you dispute this makes you unreasonable, suspect, etc.
So any explanation of what your POV really is gets dismissed as a lie.
As does anything else you have to say.
Sad but true.
They have a sound-byte mentality and a short attention span.
You can't argue with them in sound-bytes, because...well, those are
your sound-bytes, which they know are wrong while theirs are right.
You can't argue against their sound-bytes, because they are
Limbaugh-esque: baseless premises that demean us that are grounded in
bigotry, faulty "logic" to reach even more demeaning "conclusions".
There is so much wrong with these sound-bytes that any explanation
takes longer than their limited attention span. Sop in their minds you
haven't answered them.
So the sound-bytes stand.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Sorry
John Kerry Kicks AWOL's Cocaine-Snorting ***** (What a Sorry Little Man..)
Re: sorry...
The Times April 17, 2006: "I'm so sorry, you fellows, but I always religiously avoid your sort", Science Notebook by Anjana Ahuja
aa & OT: Sorry for some things, not sorry for others.
Holy War General says he's sorry for being exposed
OT: Sorry, someone has to be the man in the egg-stained tie
I'm sorry
| #Dem Congressman visits Iraq, sees reality, decides US needs to STAY. Sorry, Lefties......
Do you feel sorry?
OT: Sorry for the Torture -- Let's Keep on Torturing
Sorry...wrong slot....damn HVAC...
Is God trying to Save the Repubs Sorry Asses?
Sorry Pluto, you're not even biggest dwarf planet
I am sorry for spamming.
|
|
|
