 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>
> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to save
> others - no amount of money compensates for that.
This is a debate that has been around since before Shakespeare. Would you do
it if it didn't make you feel good to have succeeded? Would you give money
to the poor if you didn't get a glow out of helping the poor? Etc.
> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
You know, I was wondering what that fallacy is called. There has to be a
name for "if only you agreed with me, you'd see that I'm right."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:30:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>>
>> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>
> This is a debate that has been around since before Shakespeare. Would
> you do it if it didn't make you feel good to have succeeded? Would you
> give money to the poor if you didn't get a glow out of helping the poor?
> Etc.
Fair point, for firefighters reportedly there is a bit of a "rush" - but
I wonder how many of those who went into the towers on 9/11 (and I hate
using 9/11 as an example) went in knowing they were probably not coming
out.
>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>
> You know, I was wondering what that fallacy is called. There has to be
> a name for "if only you agreed with me, you'd see that I'm right."
There does....Whatever it's called, taking that approach
overemotionalizes the issue and attempts to conflate facts with
opinions. It's almost gotta be a kind of baiting, kinda like "no one has
a relevant challenge? Guess it would be like challenging the Sun." - the
implication being that if nobody has "a relevant challenge", then "I must
be right".
It's a common trolling tactic, but I have to admit to being surprised to
see Patrick use it - I don't often see his posts as falling in that
category.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
alphaQuad wrote:
> Experience I have the
> power to show other worthy people unlike yourself. All of us handed tools of
> experimentation, that admittedly some like monkeys, could not figure out how to
> use. Stay in denial, you will not get the chance to know, my little prophecy.
>
And, this lies at the true heart of every religious argument I have ever
heard. Anyone that disagrees is not so much missing tangible,
reproducible, non-personal evidence, they are a) too stupid to see the
truth of the spiritual world view, and b) can't grasp the "tools" that
got other people there.
http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/06/the_psychology_of_crankery.php
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>> alphaQuad wrote:
>>> OK, on to the relevance then. Beliefs are just that, something you want to
>>> believe but for which you have no personal experience that would justify it.
>>>
>>> What's greater then belief? When you KNOW from experience, you do in fact
>>> actually know something. Belief is more like a faerie tale.
>>>
>>> An atheist has beliefs and doesn't know anything. I am particularly interested
>>> in these people, because of what I could show them. Call me vulnerable, or just
>>> crazy, but if you only KNEW!!!!!!
>>>
>> This is vastly ironic, coming from someone that, probably, like most,
>> lump atheists into some homogeneous group that all agree with each other
>> on "beliefs". Its also even more ironic in that you have
>>
>> a) Belief that the Bible actual describes something that happened.
>> Evidence to support it - your belief that you experienced god. The
>> evidence of any of it really happening though... Hmm..
>>
>> b) Belief that such belief makes you better. Ok.. then explain why it is
>> that, other than a few exceptions, nearly all wars are religiously
>> motivated, and some of the most vile evil people today "mask" themselves
>> in your religion. There isn't a lot of evidence than believing in god
>> does anything more than provide justification for those that are "sure"
>> they are good, to do the things they want, certain in their own minds
>> that everything they do is also what god wants. Too bad no one else
>> would agree with all their choices, when made based on that criteria.
>>
>> c) And this one is part and parcel of the denial of science in this
>> country. The abject refusal, despite diseases like Alzheimer's, despite
>> nearly half the population having to have glasses, despite people losing
>> their hearing, despite the known effects of drugs on the mind, despite
>> blindingly obvious cases of people seeing things, despite the known
>> effects of fasting, which includes hallucinations, despite head injuries
>> changing people's personalities, despite "several diseases" that are
>> known to induce false religious experiences, and none of which even
>> "gets to" the neurological evidence we have now... despite "all" of
>> these things, people like alphaQuad imagine that "religious" experiences
>> are in some "special" category, for which their "personal" direct
>> experiencing of them is 100% infallible, and always right, and
>> constitutes 100% undeniable *evidence* of the existence of the main
>> character of their favorite faerie tale.
>>
>> The argument holds about as much water, based on, "knowing from
>> experience", as the fools looking for how DNA works by comparing it to
>> Chinese language characters. Its pure gibberish. The brain is not
>> reliable at telling if its "own" experiences are accurate, and even some
>> *Christian* philosophers, and members of the church, over the last 2000
>> years, including both Fancis Bacon, and St. Thomas Aquinas, managed to
>> figure that out (or at least almost do so). Why is it that, especially
>> in the US, there seems to be an absolute outbreak of people that *can't*?
>>
>
>
> I think the problem is that you WERE involved in a false religion, and
> mistakenly presume it is THE responsible elucidation of the text. There is
> not anything that is so stupid or wacky or evil that it cannot be said, by some
> idiot, to be taken from the bible or the life's work of ML King Jr., or Lincoln
> or a Bugs Bunny cartoon.
>
Show me a "true religion" that doesn't have most of its members
practicing the same silly BS too, just on less "serious" issues than the
ones you insist on claiming are "not true Scot..", or sorry, "Not true
Christians", then you can talk. I didn't reach this conclusion by being
"in" one of the crazy assed cults that I hear about all the time, I
reached my conclusions from the realization that the **only difference**
between those cults and your cult is how many subjects their members
decide to be assholes about, and to what length they are willing to go
to "punish" people for not agreeing with them. The basic failure at
common decency between some churchy that doesn't like Darwin, so breaks
into the local library to steal books, and burn them, and some fracking
nut case that blows up a building, because they don't like "America", is
the same. The only barrier between one and the other is how "strongly"
they believe in their version of justice, and whether they can get past
the minor inconvenience of convincing themselves that there are "proper"
times to kill someone. And both are driven by the idea that there is an
infallible, perfect, thing, which they both follow, which will "accept"
this action, because in their case, they are doing it for "its" cause.
The ones that don't believe this, read maybe 1/2 of the NT, gloss over
the rest, where Jesus does something nuts, insist that Revelations isn't
literal, and ignore 90% of the OT, unless they need some excuse to go
after some group, like gays, in which case they cherry pick the lines
they want to use to support them.
Truth is, there isn't a "nice" liberal Christian alive that doesn't
fundamentally deny nearly 100% of the OT, and gloss over parts of the
NT. And there isn't one extremist who doesn't expound with great glee
and excitement, as justification for their bigotry, on the very things
that the "nice" ones reject. So, the good people ignore it, the bad
people think it should be taken literally, and love to quote it, and
none of them seem to really be paying any attention to any sort of
"god", when looking for advice or justifications. What use is "either"
the holy text, or the invisible magic man behind it, then?
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>
> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to save
> others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>
>> The people that say otherwise are
>> in denial, or have been taught to say otherwise, and almost manage to
>> believe it.
>
> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>
> Jim
Statement of where the evidence leads. If you can show evidence
otherwise, I will be happy to change my position. Not so sure about the
person it was directed towards.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:30:05 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>>> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>> This is a debate that has been around since before Shakespeare. Would
>> you do it if it didn't make you feel good to have succeeded? Would you
>> give money to the poor if you didn't get a glow out of helping the poor?
>> Etc.
>
> Fair point, for firefighters reportedly there is a bit of a "rush" - but
> I wonder how many of those who went into the towers on 9/11 (and I hate
> using 9/11 as an example) went in knowing they were probably not coming
> out.
>
>>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>> You know, I was wondering what that fallacy is called. There has to be
>> a name for "if only you agreed with me, you'd see that I'm right."
>
> There does....Whatever it's called, taking that approach
> overemotionalizes the issue and attempts to conflate facts with
> opinions. It's almost gotta be a kind of baiting, kinda like "no one has
> a relevant challenge? Guess it would be like challenging the Sun." - the
> implication being that if nobody has "a relevant challenge", then "I must
> be right".
>
> It's a common trolling tactic, but I have to admit to being surprised to
> see Patrick use it - I don't often see his posts as falling in that
> category.
>
> Jim
Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and
sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend
to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a
tactic. Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a
murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its
a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the
known murderer was a murderer.
It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological
traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of
them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own
position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting
them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of
love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good.
Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise anyway.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:05:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Ultimately, all acts are selfish ones.
>>
>> I disagree. Talk to anyone who has gone into a burning building to
>> save others - no amount of money compensates for that.
>>
>>> The people that say otherwise are
>>> in denial, or have been taught to say otherwise, and almost manage to
>>> believe it.
>>
>> "Either you agree with me or you're stupid"?
>>
>> Jim
> Statement of where the evidence leads. If you can show evidence
> otherwise, I will be happy to change my position. Not so sure about the
> person it was directed towards.
That's a pretty good straw man, I have to admit.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:12:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and
> sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend
> to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a
> tactic.
A fair point. I was just surprised at the source - had to double check
to see if it was in fact you. :-)
> Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a
> murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its
> a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the
> known murderer was a murderer.
? The known murderer *was* a murderer. I don't follow here.
> It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological
> traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of
> them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own
> position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting
> them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of
> love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good.
Well, I wouldn't say all people who believe in a God (NB difference from
"supernatural explanations") refuse to see things that don't support that
position. There are quite a few people in the scientific community who
believe in "god(s)" and who acknowledge that there is a bit of a strange
dichotomy there. They generally rationalize this by saying that what
they believe in is that there is more to the universe than we know, and
that there may well be something (or indeed someone) there that (who) has
a bigger view.
> Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
> you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise
> anyway.
Now that I have seen, time and again.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:03:04 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Truth is, there isn't a "nice" liberal Christian alive that doesn't
> fundamentally deny nearly 100% of the OT, and gloss over parts of the
> NT.
That's a bit of a straw-man as well, since an example could be provided,
but when provided it would be easily refuted by "no, I said
*liberal*". ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 13:17:59 -0700, Tim Attwood wrote:
>
> > I didn't say that belief in God makes you good. I said that good people
> > do good things, and that love motivates you to do good things.
>
> Well, I think Patrick might've been saying that the rest of you wrote
> just feeds the trolls.
>
> But I don't think love motivates you to do good things. I think
> selflessness does. Love comes with the baggage of some sort of
> expectation for your efforts.
>
> But I guess that also depends on how you define "love".
>
> Jim
yes exactly, "how YOU define it", as you speak of it you only "define" your
perception of it revealing little details of yourself.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
