Considerations In Talking With Theists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2012, 12:24 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
We could always use other words like these synonyms.

misconception, misbelief , apparition, blunder, casuistry, chicanery, daydream, deception, deceptiveness, dream, eidolon, error, fallacy, false impression, fancy, fantasy, figment, fool's paradise, ghost, hallucination, head trip, ignis fatuus, illusion, lapse, mirage, misapprehension, mistake, optical illusion, oversight, phantasm, phantom, pipe dream, self-deception, shade, speciousness, spuriousness, trickery, trip, vision

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:26 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:15 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  So this isn't really about behavior in conducting productive conversation as much as it is you just claiming you're right.

k Drinking Beverage
Hold up, I will have to do some research before I can even begin to counter this profound and well-argued rebuttal. I'll be back later.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 06:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 05:36 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Yeah, you shouldn't expect someone to become delusional after you've had a rational discussion with them. Drinking Beverage

Right, having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking.

But since your opinion is that my worldview is delusional, my guess is that your presumption is that I am incapable of rational discussions.
It's the average atheist mindset.
I understand Drinking Beverage


Actually you are in error. The point of logical, rational, debate is to finish the debate closer to the truth than before. Rather than to win a position.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 06:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Right, having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking.

But since your opinion is that my worldview is delusional, my guess is that your presumption is that I am incapable of rational discussions.
It's the average atheist mindset.
I understand Drinking Beverage


Actually you are in error. The point of logical, rational, debate is to finish the debate closer to the truth than before. Rather than to win a position.

I didn't say anything about winning a position.
The statement "Having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking."
was a response to - " You shouldn't expect someone to become delusional after you've had a rational discussion with them."

So, I'm basically saying "When you have a rational discussion with someone, it should lead the other person into rational thinking as well." Nothing about the point of rational discussion. Just what is normally expected in normal conditions.

Now, it is also true that the point of rational discussion is to move the others viewpoint to a more accurate viewpoint concerning reality or truth.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:41 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:36 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 12:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Actually you are in error. The point of logical, rational, debate is to finish the debate closer to the truth than before. Rather than to win a position.

I didn't say anything about winning a position.
The statement "Having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking."
was a response to - " You shouldn't expect someone to become delusional after you've had a rational discussion with them."

So, I'm basically saying "When you have a rational discussion with someone, it should lead the other person into rational thinking as well." Nothing about the point of rational discussion. Just what is normally expected in normal conditions.

Now, it is also true that the point of rational discussion is to move the others viewpoint to a more accurate viewpoint concerning reality or truth.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Well then I stand corrected.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2012 12:49 PM by ideasonscribe.)
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 12:36 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I didn't say anything about winning a position.
The statement "Having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking."
was a response to - " You shouldn't expect someone to become delusional after you've had a rational discussion with them."

So, I'm basically saying "When you have a rational discussion with someone, it should lead the other person into rational thinking as well." Nothing about the point of rational discussion. Just what is normally expected in normal conditions.

Now, it is also true that the point of rational discussion is to move the others viewpoint to a more accurate viewpoint concerning reality or truth.

Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Well then I stand corrected.

Consider

Hmm, I'm not sure how you stand corrected..
For a minute, I thought I was corrected there.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 12:57 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:45 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 12:41 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Debate is a method of interactive and representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than deductive reasoning, which only examines whether a conclusion is a consequence of premisses, and factual argument, which only examines what is or isn't the case, or rhetoric which is a technique of persuasion. Though logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are important elements of the art of persuasion, in debating, one side often prevails over the other side by presenting a superior "context" and/or framework of the issue, which is far more subtle and strategic. The outcome of a debate depends upon consensus or some formal way of reaching a resolution, rather than the objective facts as such. In a formal debating contest, there are rules for participants to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.

Well then I stand corrected.

Consider

Hmm, I'm not sure how you stand corrected..
For a minute, I thought I was corrected there.

However with atheists the objective facts, or reality is the thing that makes you correct.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 01:10 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 12:57 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 12:45 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Consider

Hmm, I'm not sure how you stand corrected..
For a minute, I thought I was corrected there.

However with atheists the objective facts, or reality is the thing that makes you correct.

Right, and god not existing is not fact. It is simply an inference from observed empirical reality and philosophy. It is something not believed in by Atheists because of their observation of nature and humans, and equally the cause of belief for Theists like myself.

Not that that was part of your point lol
But, strangely enough, is something I can't seem to get some people to understand.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2012 01:58 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 01:10 PM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 12:57 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  However with atheists the objective facts, or reality is the thing that makes you correct.

Right, and god not existing is not fact. It is simply an inference from observed empirical reality and philosophy. It is something not believed in by Atheists because of their observation of nature and humans, and equally the cause of belief for Theists like myself.

Not that that was part of your point lol
But, strangely enough, is something I can't seem to get some people to understand.

I would argue that the god experience is from subjective reality, and the only evidence I've ever seen has been that the places in the bible are there.

No more valid than Mount Olympus being there to prove Zeus.

The observation and experimentation of reality removed the things god once caused. Once the natural explanations proved more useful, religion became the explanation for moral guidance, and explanation. (science already has an explanation for morality)

With natural explanations for everything god was supposed to control, we notice he is not needed. The nature of god is logically contradictory, further showing the idea is absurd.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 02:07 PM
RE: Considerations In Talking With Theists
(17-08-2012 07:25 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 06:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Right, having a rational discussion with people should not lead them to delusion. It should lead them to rational thinking.
Agreed. Thumbsup

(17-08-2012 06:28 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  But since your opinion is that my worldview is delusional, my guess is that your presumption is that I am incapable of rational discussions.
It's the average atheist mindset.
I understand Drinking Beverage
Whether or not one is delusional is not a matter of opinion.

It's not about opinion. Whether or not one is delusional depends on whether their beliefs are reality or a delusion. I'm agreed with you that it doesn't appear likely that God exists, but that doesn't mean that we should presume that we must be right.

Vosur, did you totally miss the point of this thread? This isn't considerate debate.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: