|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 15, 2020 8:47:05 GMT
What makes you think what seemed best to you is rationally determined at all? Human brains are a bundle of biases and heuristics that make choices based not on reasoning most of the time but feelings and intuitions, neither of which produce reliable truths. My mom smokes because it feels "best" to her, it temporarily relieves pain and anxiety; but science, actual facts and reason, shows that smoking harms your health and has far worse long-term consequences than whatever brief relief it might also provide. So saying you "tried" these things and chose what was "best" isn't really saying much. It's just the expression of a feeling. There's nothing rational about it. EDIT: I'll add that your own religious upbringing had already biased you towards believing that already. You had no good reasons or evidence to believe, but indoctrination is a powerful thing and can do for some what no amount of facts and reasoning can undo. I believe the number one goal is the maximum attainment of happiness. And the maximum avoidance of unhappiness. Believing in God makes me happy. Not believing doesn't work as well. Seems logical to me. Ones happiness, or contentment, can often be founded on belief systems. Some may work, some may not.The belief in itself is intangible and may not stand up to logical scrutiny. How is happiness defined and what is the measure, especially in relation to God, which can't be defined?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 10:45:07 GMT
The answer is that you did not provide any. One doesn't have to be stupid by criticising you about religion to see that. I answered your question twice. The third time I told you were trolling. I only asked two questions as I have already shown, with my other reply being a statement. Meanwhile "So some who criticise you, in your experience, do really know religion?" remains to be resolved. Which is not surprising as it is potentially the most damaging, as it would mean those who really know religion who dare criticise you would classed as among the "asses". Never heard of the Socratic method in debate then, huh? But given your demolition elsewhere on this thread, its time to move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 11:36:00 GMT
First of all remember that I have not called any individual retarded. I have spoken of types of atheists who are, but mentioned no names. One exception might be FilmFlaneur who scares me a bit and I asked about whether he has a real problem, hoping to help him through it if he does. "Being effective" means addressing an urgent problem. The solution cannot be postponed. Sometimes the truth stings. If you avoid the sting, it is likely the problem remains or gets worseTell that to Trump. You are about as 'retarded' as each other! Bingo. I'm trying to help you defeat Trump. One key to that is understanding why he won in the first place. He won in the first place because Democrats have adopted a false narrative they believe is based on science and it is not. Their concept of religion wrong (as is Trump's) and they are going to need the cooperation of people who are actually religious and scientific.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 11:39:44 GMT
Tell that to Trump. You are about as 'retarded' as each other! they are going to need the cooperation of people who are actually religious and scientific. The Scottish ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 11:44:25 GMT
No. Let me guess. You think science ceteris paribus is the one and only truth? It is not. In fact it is usually not even relevant. I do remember you saying how "most scientists agree" and I got chided for using ad populum and you didn't. Then let me refresh your memory: IMDB2.freeforums.net/post/3934911/thread "Truth" is the correspondence between map (belief) and territory (reality). Science has proved better at making the former reflect the latter than any other discipline out there. That doesn't mean there can't be other truths that aren't found by strictly following the scientific method, but then it's about evidence and reasoning, which you are always in short supply of. Saying "most scientists agree" is an appeal to expertise/authority, not population. When most experts agree on a given subject, that's very much evidence of the truthfulness of that subject, because that's implied in the nature of expertise. Populations agreeing don't mean much because general people are generally ignorant of whatever subject it is they're hypothesizing about. Even direct, eye-witness accounts are highly likely to be wrong, and can be easily influenced by others in a way that doesn't happen in peer-reviewed science. and ad verecundiam are fallacies too, Adolph. You should thank me for not using those since religious people are more successful. I didn't bring that up first though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 11:47:38 GMT
First of all remember that I have not called any individual retarded. I have spoken of types of atheists who are, but mentioned no names. One exception might be FilmFlaneur who scares me a bit and I asked about whether he has a real problem, hoping to help him through it if he does. "Being effective" means addressing an urgent problem. The solution cannot be postponed. Sometimes the truth stings. If you avoid the sting, it is likely the problem remains or gets worse You say this as if what you're doing is somehow better than calling an individual a retard; it is not. In fact, calling a general population of people that is arguably even worse, because not only is the word still just as offensive, now you're generalizing and with no actual evidence for the generalization. One has to ask what basis you have, considering you don't believe IQ tests are an accurate gauge of intelligence, for establishing or judging anyone's intelligence. Apparently, you'd like to make this another case where YOU'RE the sole arbiter of what intelligence is. I'm sure FilmFlaneur scares you, because he repeatedly asks questions you can't answer with evidence or reasoning. That's a scary thing for credulous believers like yourself. What urgent problem are you addressing by calling people and/or populations of people "retards," and what are you actually accomplishing by uttering this "truth?" You are being incorrigible, which is far worse than being retarded, but you and your atheist friends won't know that and think I'm being kinder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 12:15:30 GMT
they are going to need the cooperation of people who are actually religious and scientific. The Scottish ones? It might be terribly embarrassing, but sometimes you need the Irish.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 12:20:18 GMT
It might be terribly embarrassing, but sometimes you need the Irish. The truly religious and scientific ones?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 12:35:25 GMT
It might be terribly embarrassing, but sometimes you need the Irish. The truly religious and scientific ones? The same.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 12:40:28 GMT
The truly religious and scientific ones? The same. Excellent news. And who decides which ones are truly, or "really" religious and scientific on this occasion?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 12:42:17 GMT
Excellent news. And who decides which ones are truly, or "really" religious and scientific on this occasion? Not you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 12:47:53 GMT
Excellent news. And who decides which ones are truly, or "really" religious and scientific on this occasion? Not you. Of course not, I wouldn't presume. And we know it can't be the Democrats or Trump as, apparently "their concept of religion is wrong". So who? We really need someone with superior reading skills, without an attitude problem, or any mental handicap, and who has identified this problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 12:53:10 GMT
Of course not, I wouldn't presume. And we know it can't be the Democrats or Trump as, apparently "their concept of religion is wrong". So who? We really need someone with superior reading skills, without an attitude problem, or any mental handicap, and who has identified this problem. You're getting warmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 12:59:53 GMT
Of course not, I wouldn't presume. And we know it can't be the Democrats or Trump as, apparently "their concept of religion is wrong". So who? We really need someone with superior reading skills, without an attitude problem, or any mental handicap, and who has identified this problem. You're getting warmer. Someone who acknowledges himself an authority on religion and science and has plenty of time to spare on the problem as visiting hours are restricted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 15, 2020 13:05:40 GMT
Someone who acknowledges himself an authority on religion and science and has plenty of time to spare on the problem as visiting hours are restricted. Still not you.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 13:17:52 GMT
Someone who acknowledges himself an authority on religion and science and has plenty of time to spare on the problem as visiting hours are restricted. Still not you. I've already ruled myself out as I said I wouldn't presume. So who shall we choose then? They would need to be able to substantiate their opinions and be polite to everyone, while not being constantly ridiculed in public forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on May 15, 2020 16:53:31 GMT
Tell that to Trump. You are about as 'retarded' as each other! Bingo. I'm trying to help you defeat Trump. One key to that is understanding why he won in the first place. He won in the first place because Democrats have adopted a false narrative they believe is based on science and it is not. Their concept of religion wrong (as is Trump's) and they are going to need the cooperation of people who are actually religious and scientific.
Just what is this false narrative based on science, because if it is a narrative, it can be easily articulated. So, give us a rundown and let’s see what’s false about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 17:01:45 GMT
I believe the number one goal is the maximum attainment of happiness. And the maximum avoidance of unhappiness. Believing in God makes me happy. Not believing doesn't work as well. Seems logical to me. Ones happiness, or contentment, can often be founded on belief systems. Some may work, some may not.The belief in itself is intangible and may not stand up to logical scrutiny. How is happiness defined and what is the measure, especially in relation to God, which can't be defined? I don't see what's illogical about trying three things, and choosing what works best. That seems most logical. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 15, 2020 17:18:33 GMT
I answered your question twice. The third time I told you were trolling. I only asked two questions as I have already shown, with my other reply being a statement. Meanwhile "So some who criticise you, in your experience, do really know religion?" remains to be resolved. Which is not surprising as it is potentially the most damaging, as it would mean those who really know religion who dare criticise you would classed as among the "asses". Never heard of the Socratic method in debate then, huh? But given your demolition elsewhere on this thread, its time to move on. 1) I've never had anybody question, complain or criticize my beliefs who impressed me as really knowing religion. Of course I don't sit them down with a thorough questionnaire. I'm just going off impression. And I never said I've talked to everyone in the world. 2) The Socratic Method says nothing about endlessly asking the same question in slightly different ways. That seems more like a trolling tactic. 3) Demolition ?? That sounds more like wishful thinking, than an honest assessment. But imagine what you will. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 15, 2020 17:40:16 GMT
I've never had anybody question, complain or criticize my beliefs who impressed me as really knowing religion. [my emphasis] Such a sweeping assessment of anybody who takes an opposing view to you probably says more about you than it does them, and inevitably reminds one of Arlon's talk, just recently, of those required "people who are actually religious and scientific". Have you ever been to Scotland? The Socratic method is the asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions. I am sorry it didn't work for you. That's very kind of you but it wasn't a matter of imagination but your epistemological weakness.
|
|
