Author Topic: A question about the WWGHA text...  (Read 13291 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #232 on: March 19, 2009, 12:37:11 AM »
See, that is a leap of faith.  If you can agree that there is a possibility, regardless of how large or small, that god does not exist, then there is a possibility that ALL morality came from man.  Man might need god to use as a higher authority to give weight to the moral code, but the code itself was developed by man.

Yes, I agree there is a possibility that god doesn't exist. I have never said I was certain. Therefore there is indeed a possibility that all morality came from ourselves - i.e either we evolved it via natural selection, or we invented it to make societies more stable.

Let's assume that is true for the moment. Do you believe that such morality could be objective, that is truly right, and it couldn't have been anything else?

Quote
No one can argue that you don't believe in your own evidence, which meets your own criteria.  However, when held up to higher criteria of proof, I believe it falls on its face.

Are you saying that because I do not claim to be able to prove my conclusions (I "just" consider, based on the evidence, they are the most reasonable conclusions), then my conclusions "fall on their face"? If so, then may I ask you two questions please?

1. What standard of "proof" are you requiring of me? Mathematical proof (which can be absolutely certain), scientific demonstration (which is based on probability - science cannot prove things with absolute certainty), legal proof (beyond reasonable doubt), historical probability (historians can only know things with uncertainty), or what?

2. In what other areas of life do you require this same level of proof before making a decision?

Thanks, and best wishes.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1032
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #233 on: March 19, 2009, 06:36:27 AM »
Are you saying that because I do not claim to be able to prove my conclusions (I "just" consider, based on the evidence, they are the most reasonable conclusions), then my conclusions "fall on their face"?

Yes, that is what I am saying.  See below.

Quote

1. What standard of "proof" are you requiring of me? Mathematical proof (which can be absolutely certain), scientific demonstration (which is based on probability - science cannot prove things with absolute certainty), legal proof (beyond reasonable doubt), historical probability (historians can only know things with uncertainty), or what?

Anything, unklee, anything at all - besides a book, and gut feeling.  We've beaten the book into submission.  A gut feeling is just that, nothing more.  Many religious folks confuse gut feelings, i.e. emotions, with revelations.  I was once told that tears are the first sign of god.  Tears are the first sign of emotion.  The times I have cried Mjolnir-sized tears, I have been the most vulnerable.  Emotions make you feel like god is talking to you, when it's only a chemical reaction in your brain and gut.

Anything substantial, unklee.  We wait with bated breath.  It's the reason I visit this site.

Quote
2. In what other areas of life do you require this same level of proof before making a decision?

Just about every area of my life.  I just recently had an allergy test, and though I've had 55 years of allergy-free living (or so I thought), I found out I am allergic to lots of stuff, and severely allergic to a few things.  What did I do?  I didn't fall on my knees and make supplications to yahweh to take away my allergies.  I didn't light candles in the cathedral, and make appropriate donations, to lighten my burden.  I arranged for a second test, a second opinion, and will then take appropriate steps to avoid the allergens I'm most allergic to, and to start becoming desensitized to those I can't avoid.

When I invest my money, I do the best research I can, and talk to investment professionals.  I don't make supplications to yahweh to show me signs of the best investments. 

I could go on and on, but you get the picture.  One more example, maybe my best.  When I get a bacterial infection, I take an antibiotic.  I can't trust yahweh to cure my bacterial infection, at least not without some help from my moldy friends!  I have an advantage over the billions of folks who lived before about 1948.  Many of them died from rather simple bacterial infections, for lack of the penicillin that yahweh could have easily provided.

I choose to live my life in the light of day, instead of in the darkness of mythology. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #234 on: March 19, 2009, 03:32:48 PM »
Anything, unklee, anything at all - besides a book, and gut feeling. ..... Anything substantial, unklee.  We wait with bated breath.  It's the reason I visit this site.

Hi Odin. That appeared to me to be a very bitter post, and it made me very sad. I'm not sure that mounting some intellectual argument from the other side of the world is very helpful in such a situation. So I'll only make one brief comment.

I indicated that the universe, humanity, human experience and history all point to God. You said that you wanted "higher criteria of proof". I asked what level of proof, and you have now replied "anything substantial". But the universe, humanity, human experience and history are as substantial as it gets, so we have gone round in a circle.

So I can only ask: What sort of "proof" are you looking for? Do you want to know about God (if he exists) or are you quite comfortable with disbelief? (It doesn't sound as if you are.) If this is too personal, let's discuss by PM.

Best wishes to you.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Offline dmnemaine

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1557
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #235 on: March 19, 2009, 03:42:48 PM »
I indicated that the universe, humanity, human experience and history all point to God.

I see a problem here, unklee.  You say this as if it is a given.  I know you went into this on the other topic that you started, and from what I've seen over there, your "evidence" for this claim isn't all that strong and hasn't stood up against criticism.  I think it's a bit cheeky of you to be dogmatic about it when it's pretty obvious that there are valid alternatives to "all point to God". 

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #236 on: March 19, 2009, 04:20:06 PM »
G'day Deus,

It seems I am already provoking you to some asperity, for which I am sorry.  In the end, this is not a philosophical exercise for me. (I'm not suggesting it is or isn't for you, just stating where I'm at.) The possible existence of God is important enough for me to want to make a choice if I can. I don't believe the choice is certain, either way, and not making a choice is effectively a choice in itself.

I review the evidence, and I find God's existence is most probable. As the saying goes, I'm not going to die wondering. I commit, question myself almost constantly, keep my thinking updated, and adjust as I go. I also live daily with God via prayer, reading the Bible, acting as I think God calls me to, etc, matters which I don't discuss much here because people don't accept that stuff. But my life reinforces my intellectual choices. It holds together, intellectually, personally.

So of course I will continue. And of course you can find uncertainties and things you disagree with. But your arguments, while powerfully and skillfully written, don't really address the issues that are formative for me, I'm sorry. The philosophical fine points you raise don't seem to me to cut much ice. I believe in logic, but I believe also in being practical. And on those terms, the world looks to me more like a world that was created by God than one which was not, for reasons I've given many times.

Thus, I could answer all your points to my satisfaction, though doubtless not yours, and then you could answer my answers to your satisfaction but doubtless not mine. We would go round and round and prove nothing except our collective perseverance. So this time around I am eschewing such drawn out debates and trying to stick to asking and answering questions, challenging myself and others, and trying to make new friends.

Please don't be pissed off at me for not living up to the macho atheist vs theist debate model - life's too short. Let's just be friends and enjoy the chat. What do you say?

Peace.

I'd say that's pretty much a conversation-killer. I can't agree that it "holds together intellectually" if the UnkleE Newspeak Dictionary attempts to redefine god-of-the-gappery to exclude one's own particular brand of god-of-the-gappery, nor if one exchanges an honest admission of ignorance for arbitrary sets of premises that effectively define their own "explanations". Which puts us at an impasse. You state that my arguments "don't really address the issues that are formative for {you}" and "don't seem to {you} to cut much ice". I can only deal with the arguments you present. If these arguments are not "formative" for you, then all you're doing is feeding us red herrings. If rebuttals to them don't "cut much ice", there's presumably some reason why they don't. If you don't offer such a reason, do not address the rebuttals, but maintain that the original argument still makes God "more probable than not", then one could be forgiven for thinking that you're simply digging your heels in, and that - contrary to your assertion above - there are some things that you're not really all that prepared to question. A quite natural human reaction, of course, but not one that's really conducive to further discussion on the topic.

Some amount of frustration is inevitable. I don't hold it against you personally. :)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 04:42:26 PM by Deus ex Machina »

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3833
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #237 on: March 19, 2009, 04:22:57 PM »
Quote
I'm in no way avocating what the nazis did.
 
I know that, DM.

Quote
I think what they did was evil.
 
But Fridge's statement was "I don't believe in evil, that's why pain and suffering is a better term."

I appreciate that he's saying that evil doesn't come from an external source; but that's not a reason not to believe in it. That's my point.

Quote
You cannot even say that every sane person believes that with certainty.
 
I can and I do. I said :

"The Nazi medical experiments were completely and utterly unjustifiable.

No civilized, sane person would disagree."

If I'm wrong, find me one sane civilized person justifying them.

Or, we could try agreeing that moral authority is a product of civilization, and sanity, and accept those limits on its universality ?

I could live with that...

Cheers,

Gnu.


Offline Fridge

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #238 on: March 19, 2009, 04:44:04 PM »
You're taking my words out of context, Gnu. I don't believe in evil the way it is portrayed in the Bible or the way most people see it in the problem of evil. The only objective evil is physical pain. Everything else is subjective.

Quote
If I'm wrong, find me one sane civilized person justifying them.

It's still subjective, Gnu. To figure this out you'll need to ask every single person, and that includes past and future. And you haven't clarified something: what do you mean by civilized?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. " - Martin Luther King Jr.

"He wants us to stop sinning- to stop hurting each other.  And one of the ways we do that is by coming to Jesus and eating His flesh and drinking His blood"
-theist

Offline Gnu Ordure

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3833
  • Darwins +109/-9
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #239 on: March 19, 2009, 05:43:12 PM »
Quote
You're taking my words out of context, Gnu. I don't believe in evil the way it is portrayed in the Bible

Trying not to, Fridge; I acknowledged that you don't believe in the Devil (if that's what you mean by biblical evil) - but you seem to be saying you don't believe in evil at all. That's what I've been asking about.

Quote
The only objective evil is physical pain

Sorry, Fridge, I don't get that.

One, physical pain can be a good thing. Pain is a naturally-selected physiological mechanism which is of great benefit to organisms that possess it. Stand too near to a fire, and your pain eventually moves you out of harm's way.

Two, as I said before, pain is the necessary complement of pleasure. Neither can exist on their own.

Three, it's possible to do something evil without causing physical pain. I could drug someone and then kill them painlessly. Still evil.

Pain is not the issue.

Gnu.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 05:47:09 PM by Gnu Ordure »

Offline Fridge

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 538
  • Darwins +0/-0
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #240 on: March 19, 2009, 06:38:03 PM »
Quote
You're taking my words out of context, Gnu. I don't believe in evil the way it is portrayed in the Bible

Trying not to, Fridge; I acknowledged that you don't believe in the Devil (if that's what you mean by biblical evil) - but you seem to be saying you don't believe in evil at all. That's what I've been asking about.

Quote
The only objective evil is physical pain

Sorry, Fridge, I don't get that.

One, physical pain can be a good thing. Pain is a naturally-selected physiological mechanism which is of great benefit to organisms that possess it. Stand too near to a fire, and your pain eventually moves you out of harm's way.

Two, as I said before, pain is the necessary complement of pleasure. Neither can exist on their own.

Three, it's possible to do something evil without causing physical pain. I could drug someone and then kill them painlessly. Still evil.

Pain is not the issue.

Gnu.

Yes, but I said universal evil. The way you're talking now means no evil at all, subjectively or objectively. But the only type of evil that could exist objectively has to be physical, by definition. Not all pain is good, a lot leads to death. Pleasure being a complement of pain doesn't answer the problem of evil, it's already been addressed.

There are four types of evil presented by the problem of evil: metaphysical, moral, natural, and physical. Natural and physical I tie together because natural evil wouldn't  be considered evil unless it inflicted physical pain or destroyed property... something objective. The other two are subjective.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. " - Martin Luther King Jr.

"He wants us to stop sinning- to stop hurting each other.  And one of the ways we do that is by coming to Jesus and eating His flesh and drinking His blood"
-theist

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1032
  • Darwins +13/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #241 on: March 19, 2009, 06:42:06 PM »
So I can only ask: What sort of "proof" are you looking for? Do you want to know about God (if he exists) or are you quite comfortable with disbelief? (It doesn't sound as if you are.)

No, I am not comfortable with disbelief.  I have yet to get comfortable with the notion that, one day, I will blip from existence, without the benefit of ever coming back. 

I only take comfort in two things about this:

1.  I now know I have to live my life like there is no afterlife.  I have to look at my wife, children, siblings, friends, and enemies, and know that once they are gone, I will never, ever see them again.  It is actually a concept that frees me to live a good life.  I can't bet that I can make up the time I waste, like typing this bulls**t here, on useless things instead of spending time with loved ones and friends. 

2.  I now know that I was dead for the last 13 billion years, assuming that is the approximate age of the universe.  I don't remember it hurting, and therefore I have to assume it didn't hurt.  I have to assume it won't hurt to be dead for the next 13 billion years. 

I appreciate what you are trying to do for me.  I can't take comfort in belief, although it would be easy to do so.  There are so many believers around me, that faking it would be simple and almost pain free.  If we could have a "Do-Gooders Club," with the same benefits of church (tax-free, of course), with all the feel-fine contributory stuff and the social networking and safety net, but without the mythology, I would be the High Priest.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline realdemocracy

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #242 on: March 19, 2009, 07:27:22 PM »
If we could have a "Do-Gooders Club," with the same benefits of church (tax-free, of course), with all the feel-fine contributory stuff and the social networking and safety net, but without the mythology, I would be the High Priest.

Odin, King of the Gods
Odin,
You might want to visit a Unitarian-Universalist church.

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #243 on: March 20, 2009, 01:53:59 AM »
I indicated that the universe, humanity, human experience and history all point to God.

I see a problem here, unklee.  You say this as if it is a given.  I know you went into this on the other topic that you started, and from what I've seen over there, your "evidence" for this claim isn't all that strong and hasn't stood up against criticism.  I think it's a bit cheeky of you to be dogmatic about it when it's pretty obvious that there are valid alternatives to "all point to God".

Hi! Sorry about that. I didn't mean to infer it as a given, as obviously it is not. I have several times said what I am expressing are my views, but it gets tedious if I say it every post. But I thought everyone would understand. Yes, that is my conclusion, others conclude differently. But the deeper point is that whatever conclusion we draw, it is all evidence requiring interpretation.

Thanks for the correction, I wouldn't want to be misunderstood.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #244 on: March 20, 2009, 05:21:01 AM »
I'd say that's pretty much a conversation-killer. I can't agree that it "holds together intellectually" if the UnkleE Newspeak Dictionary attempts to redefine god-of-the-gappery to exclude one's own particular brand of god-of-the-gappery, nor if one exchanges an honest admission of ignorance for arbitrary sets of premises that effectively define their own "explanations". Which puts us at an impasse. You state that my arguments "don't really address the issues that are formative for {you}" and "don't seem to {you} to cut much ice". I can only deal with the arguments you present. If these arguments are not "formative" for you, then all you're doing is feeding us red herrings. If rebuttals to them don't "cut much ice", there's presumably some reason why they don't. If you don't offer such a reason, do not address the rebuttals, but maintain that the original argument still makes God "more probable than not", then one could be forgiven for thinking that you're simply digging your heels in, and that - contrary to your assertion above - there are some things that you're not really all that prepared to question. A quite natural human reaction, of course, but not one that's really conducive to further discussion on the topic.

Some amount of frustration is inevitable. I don't hold it against you personally. :)

I'm sorry again for frustrating you, but I am truly thankful that you don't hold it against me personally. I don't agree my attitude is a "conversation killer" - rather it is an argument-killer, but if we eschew argument or debate, we may then be freer to discuss. That's what I would prefer. I don't know for how long this little visit to WWGHA will last, but while here this time I am trying  a new paradigm. I see no point in endless debating with people whose views are presented as if totally fixed, and who cannot discuss openly. Rather I am trying to have friendly discussions with people who are willing to ask and answer questions in an open way. As for being prepared to question, I think I show myself more willing than most here. After all, I keep saying that this is my view, I recognise others disagree, etc. Most people here make very definite statements as if their views were factual (that is, if they don't make unjustified and disparaging remarks about my sanity!) : )

Thanks again.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Online velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17134
  • Darwins +341/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #245 on: March 20, 2009, 01:28:32 PM »
Quote
Rather I am trying to have friendly discussions with people who are willing to ask and answer questions in an open way.

I'm curious what your defintion of "open way" is. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #246 on: March 20, 2009, 03:53:46 PM »
I'm curious what your defintion of "open way" is.

Fair question. It is pretty obvious that on this, and many other (anti) religious forums, most people have strong views and few people change their views very much. I recognise this applies to me as well as others. But strong argument polarises people and I'm wondering how much of this is inevitable, and how much is caused by the manner in which people discuss, which is not inevitable.

So I'm thinking that two particular practices tend to create polarisation:

(1) calling other people names or denigrating them (I don't need to give examples here) or attributing to them viewpoints they don't actually hold (e.g. christians have faith but no reason, atheists have no morality); and

(2) arguing so vehemently that there is no prospect of anything constructive coming out of the discussion.

I think we can do better. We could present arguments as "the way I see it" (or similar wording) rather than dogmatically factual, be happy to discuss matters in a more constructive way where each person hopes to learn something, not feel angry if the other person doesn't see my own marvellous arguments (hem hem) to have any merit and treat each other as friends.

This ideal is sort of what I mean, and I am trying to do this myself by avoiding hard-faced debate and concentrating on asking and answering questions, being polite (as I would to my face-to-face friends) and only discussing with people who at least come part way to meet me. It's an experiment, and I'm still working things out - when I first came on this forum several years ago I was more argumentative naturally, so I have much to learn.

Thanks for the question.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3030
  • Darwins +23/-3
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #247 on: March 21, 2009, 07:41:09 AM »
What do you consider a "constructive" result of a discussion? Because right now, you are shutting down discussion. What you propose isn't a discussion. It's just a few people having their turn on the soapbox. That's not what a discussion forum is for.

And as far as "dogmatically factual" is concerned, when someone is in fact wrong (as in the case of your attempt to engage in special pleading, claiming that your brand of god-of-the-gaps reasoning actually isn't), you can't expect me to hold back from saying so. This place isn't a respecter of incorrect statements. If that's a problem for you, then frankly, you'd be better off setting up your own blog or something. Neither this forum nor any other is going to change to suit you.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 07:47:20 AM by Deus ex Machina »

Online velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17134
  • Darwins +341/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #248 on: March 23, 2009, 11:10:55 AM »
I'm curious what your defintion of "open way" is.

Fair question. It is pretty obvious that on this, and many other (anti) religious forums, most people have strong views and few people change their views very much. I recognise this applies to me as well as others. But strong argument polarises people and I'm wondering how much of this is inevitable, and how much is caused by the manner in which people discuss, which is not inevitable.

So I'm thinking that two particular practices tend to create polarisation:

(1) calling other people names or denigrating them (I don't need to give examples here) or attributing to them viewpoints they don't actually hold (e.g. christians have faith but no reason, atheists have no morality); and

(2) arguing so vehemently that there is no prospect of anything constructive coming out of the discussion.

I think we can do better. We could present arguments as "the way I see it" (or similar wording) rather than dogmatically factual, be happy to discuss matters in a more constructive way where each person hopes to learn something, not feel angry if the other person doesn't see my own marvellous arguments (hem hem) to have any merit and treat each other as friends.

This ideal is sort of what I mean, and I am trying to do this myself by avoiding hard-faced debate and concentrating on asking and answering questions, being polite (as I would to my face-to-face friends) and only discussing with people who at least come part way to meet me. It's an experiment, and I'm still working things out - when I first came on this forum several years ago I was more argumentative naturally, so I have much to learn.

Thanks for the question.

Sorry, arguing vehmently is just that, arguing vehmently.  If I have evidence and you don't and I present it strongly, that doesn't invalidate my argument as you seem to wish to claim it does.  There are plenty of facts that do not have to be couched "as I see it" because that would be wrong.  I don't need to accept your claim as if it were real when it is more than obvious that it is not likely to be so, just to salve your wounded pride.  That seems to be what you mean by "open way", blindly agreeing with you so you don't feel bad.

As soon as I actually see a Christian really living like facts can be subjective, that'll be the day I think this claim that everything should be up for grabs is a valid argument. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #249 on: March 24, 2009, 03:41:40 PM »
Sorry, arguing vehmently is just that, arguing vehmently.

So I should believe this because you have expressed it strongly, but without evidence?

You asked me what I thought about a matter that is subjective, and I told you. Now you want to tell me it is a factual matter?

Quote
If I have evidence and you don't and I present it strongly, that doesn't invalidate my argument as you seem to wish to claim it does.

What if I have evidence and you don't and you still express yourself vehemently?

Can't you see that the way you responded to my honest answer to your question lends support for what I said and undermines what you are saying?

But this is a foolish thing to argue over, as it is subjective, so let's not bother.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Online velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17134
  • Darwins +341/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #250 on: March 24, 2009, 07:32:42 PM »
Quote
Sorry, arguing vehmently is just that, arguing vehmently.
Quote
So I should believe this because you have expressed it strongly, but without evidence?
No.  You seemed to missed the point.  No matter how vehmently some argues, that does not validate or invalidate their evidence.
Quote
You asked me what I thought about a matter that is subjective, and I told you. Now you want to tell me it is a factual matter?
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.  What matter is subjective?  Your opinion of what an "open way" is? 
Quote
If I have evidence and you don't and I present it strongly, that doesn't invalidate my argument as you seem to wish to claim it does.
Quote
What if I have evidence and you don't and you still express yourself vehemently?
See above.  I have yet to see you have any evidence at all for your claims, incidentally. You seem to think that people must accept your claims with no evidence, that they must "come half-way to meet you" when there is no reason to even come half-way if you are wrong.  Discussion isn't only done when "met half-way".
Quote
Can't you see that the way you responded to my honest answer to your question lends support for what I said and undermines what you are saying?
Not at all. If you would give examples, perhaps I could. 
Quote
But this is a foolish thing to argue over, as it is subjective, so let's not bother.
Sorry but not understanding what you mean.  I have yet to see anything terribly subjective, unless you wish to declare your opinoin of what discussion should be subjective.  That I could agree with considering that your version of discussion isn't very realistic.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #251 on: March 25, 2009, 03:11:08 AM »
Hi Velkyn,

I'm really not wanting to prolong this discussion, but I will try to answer your questions.

No.  You seemed to missed the point.  No matter how vehmently some argues, that does not validate or invalidate their evidence.
Of course. I never suggested otherwise. You will recall that I expressed a preference for certain types of discussions over others. You asked me to clarify. It had nothing to do with invalidation, just with enjoyment and preference.

Quote
Sorry I have no idea what you are talking about.  What matter is subjective?  Your opinion of what an "open way" is? 
Yes. And hence the types of discussion I prefer. (After all, it is my choice.)
 
Quote
See above.  I have yet to see you have any evidence at all for your claims, incidentally. You seem to think that people must accept your claims with no evidence, that they must "come half-way to meet you" when there is no reason to even come half-way if you are wrong.  Discussion isn't only done when "met half-way".
Isn't it interesting. I think I quote experts and reference useful webpages more than most people do. Yet people keep on saying I don't have evidence and they do. Yet they rarely quote it. And this was what I was getting at. You said "If I have evidence and you don't ..." and I was just gently suggesting that it may actually be the other way round. But you can suggest I lack evidence here and no-one minds (least of all me), but when on another thread I suggested the same to someone else, a mod came in on the discussion to "correct" me. Not your fault, but you can maybe understand why I get a little sensitive about getting a fair hearing.

Quote
Quote
Can't you see that the way you responded to my honest answer to your question lends support for what I said and undermines what you are saying?
Not at all. If you would give examples, perhaps I could. 
My point was that you were asking me questions about personal preferences, but when I answered, you then started to suggest you had evidence and I didn't, and making other comments about me which I felt were derogatory and not relevant to your question or my answer.

So, what are your aims here? Is there anything worthwhile we should and could discuss?

Best wishes.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Online velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17134
  • Darwins +341/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #252 on: March 26, 2009, 07:40:34 PM »
Unklee, you never want to continue discussions that you don't like the results of. 

You said "2) arguing so vehemently that there is no prospect of anything constructive coming out of the discussion."  You made the assumption that vehemence cancels out anything "constructive".  This would assume that passion invalidates the discussion.  I have yet to see how it does that, other than perhaps giving an excuse to one side that they can "win" an argument by attacking a method of discussion rather than the claims involved.

I do understand that you do prefer a "discussion" that doesn't include the exchange of claims and the proving of such.  And yes, it is your choice.

Quoting websites and what you call experts is one thing.  Actually showing that what you claim is true is another.  I do hope you don't think I'm ignorant enough to beleive anything anyone posts on the web.  That's why people say you have no evidence.  You don't see to understand what the word evidence actually means and are simply another Christian who wants to change the meanings of words to support their myths.  I'm not quite sure which thread you mean but if a mod corrects you, there likely is a reason.  I don't have a problem with you requesting the same evidence requested of you but I unfortunately have not seen you actually respond with evidence. And I mean evidence, not anonymous anecdotes or occurences that have no proof at all. 

Personal preference doesn't really enter into it.  A discussion is a discussion.  As has been stated, what yuo want is a chance for every opinion to be aired with no one allowed to critize it. That isn't a discussion.  That's propaganda.  That is my aim here, to show that you do not understand what a discussion is and what this forum is for.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #253 on: March 27, 2009, 03:40:42 AM »
That is my aim here, to show that you do not understand what a discussion is and what this forum is for.

G'day Velkyn,

I wonder where you want this discussion to go? You asked a reasonable question about a subjective matter and I gave an honest answer. But now you are telling me you know better than I do how I feel about the subjective matter ....

Quote
Unklee, you never want to continue discussions that you don't like the results of.
Quote
You made the assumption that vehemence cancels out anything "constructive".  This would assume that passion invalidates the discussion.
Quote
I do understand that you do prefer a "discussion" that doesn't include the exchange of claims and the proving of such.
Quote
You don't see to understand what the word evidence actually means and are simply another Christian who wants to change the meanings of words to support their myths.
Quote
what yuo want is a chance for every opinion to be aired with no one allowed to critize it.

None of these statement represents my view, though I can understand that you might think they do. So is this a discussion and is this what the forum is for? I am happy to keep discussing this matter, if you are willing to try to listen and understand, otherwise it is a waste of your time and mine. We can move forward to something constructive, perhaps even friendly, or we can do something else. What is your wish?

Best wishes.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?

Online velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 17134
  • Darwins +341/-19
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #254 on: March 27, 2009, 11:19:12 AM »
Unklee,

If you "can see how I could think so" about your intentions being what I have indicated I think that they are, do you realize that you may have a problem in how you are presenting yourself?

I think I'm done.  I've doen what I have intended to do.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline unklee

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • "Look who knows so much!" ........... Miracle Max
    • Is there a God?
Re: A question about the WWGHA text...
« Reply #255 on: March 27, 2009, 05:24:17 PM »
If you "can see how I could think so" about your intentions being what I have indicated I think that they are, do you realize that you may have a problem in how you are presenting yourself?

That's a very good question so late in the day. I'll try to answer it.

1. My statement was expressing my willingness to see your point of view, not an admission of failure.
2. Nevertheless, I am far from perfect, and very self analytical. I try to do the best I can, and I am constantly considering how I am going. Within the limits of honesty and politeness, I have tried many different approaches at different times on different forums, and I am still keen to learn and improve. If you have any advice to offer me, I would genuinely appreciate it.
3. It takes two to communicate. I don't always find that people approach my posts open-mindedly or with a desire to understand.

Quote
I think I'm done.  I've doen what I have intended to do.

It's nice to leave the customer satisfied! : )  Thanks again.
"Between the idea, and the reality .... falls the shadow." T S Eliot. Avoid the shadow, find out Is there a God?