The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2013, 11:55 AM
The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
In my line of experience there are 3 things which people usually never bother to question, when imposed upon to question them by others all have the exact same reactions of anger and intolerance to reason.

The first of these is often the most questioned, Religion, there are many of you here who have bothered yourselves with questioning religion and or your god. Most of you have come to the conclusion that a god does not exist and that your religion was wrong. Many of you did this through scientific reasoning and logical deduction. But that's also where many of you stopped.

You should not have stopped, there is so much more to question, there are so many more lies we believe.

The second of these is the uncommonly questioned but it's still has a surprising number of people who at least try... even if some of them are wrong in their questions an answers. This one would be the government of your nation. Like religion many people believe in their government, think it unlikely to be wrong or corrupt. And further advance their belief that theirs is probably the best. But they are wrong, every government in this world is corrupt, the only question is to what degree? Many of you, like religion, were indoctrinated to your government. Never allowed to express your own thoughts when you were a child and shunned when ever bothering to question it's doings. Now many of you also shun others who would dare question your society. Just like religious people do when others question their religion.

The third is history, rarely ever questioned, and even worse is the sheer hatred that comes upon those who do question it. People feel as though their history can't possibly be wrong. It's in the history books after all! Therefore to them it must be true! but this deduction is the same self evidence that bible thumpers use to proclaim their validity of divine origin. Be it the Torah, the Bible, or the Quran. The followers of the Abrahamic Trilogy all spout the same that because their book exists, then their god must be real. Now some of you do question or deny history, but only when it suits your needs. And mostly only when it involves religious affairs.



And now I will move on to emotions, emotions blind people from the truth. Their hatred stops them from seeing reason in an argument and their passion denies them the insight to question that which they feel they belong to. Hatred does not need a target in order to corrupt it's host. All that it requires is your anger.


Until you are able to overcome your emotions and think rationally, every atheist is just the zealot that the born again christians or muslims are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:13 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
Seems as if you are generalizing everyone here. Many of us are skeptics, and skepticism is the approach to claims. I don't see anyone specifically stating their government is perfect, nor history perfect. Nor would it be fair to assume everyone here does. But there's a balance between being honest about your stance on things and wearing a tinfoil hat.

I think it would be abhorrently silly to accept something without at least researching it, or at least using a good method to determining something.

I am not sure why you are surprised that people use historical reference regarding religious debates on an atheist forum. It's sort of like saying people use historical accounts of bad machined parts when talking about the production of a specific vehicle when posting on a car forum.

I suppose I should be saying... "What's your point?" - Too many generalizations in your post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  In my line of experience there are 3 things which people usually never bother to question, when imposed upon to question them by others all have the exact same reactions of anger and intolerance to reason.

The first of these is often the most questioned, Religion, there are many of you here who have bothered yourselves with questioning religion and or your god. Most of you have come to the conclusion that a god does not exist and that your religion was wrong. Many of you did this through scientific reasoning and logical deduction. But that's also where many of you stopped.

You should not have stopped, there is so much more to question, there are so many more lies we believe.

The second of these is the uncommonly questioned but it's still has a surprising number of people who at least try... even if some of them are wrong in their questions an answers. This one would be the government of your nation. Like religion many people believe in their government, think it unlikely to be wrong or corrupt. And further advance their belief that theirs is probably the best. But they are wrong, every government in this world is corrupt, the only question is to what degree? Many of you, like religion, were indoctrinated to your government. Never allowed to express your own thoughts when you were a child and shunned when ever bothering to question it's doings. Now many of you also shun others who would dare question your society. Just like religious people do when others question their religion.

The third is history, rarely ever questioned, and even worse is the sheer hatred that comes upon those who do question it. People feel as though their history can't possibly be wrong. It's in the history books after all! Therefore to them it must be true! but this deduction is the same self evidence that bible thumpers use to proclaim their validity of divine origin. Be it the Torah, the Bible, or the Quran. The followers of the Abrahamic Trilogy all spout the same that because their book exists, then their god must be real. Now some of you do question or deny history, but only when it suits your needs. And mostly only when it involves religious affairs.



And now I will move on to emotions, emotions blind people from the truth. Their hatred stops them from seeing reason in an argument and their passion denies them the insight to question that which they feel they belong to. Hatred does not need a target in order to corrupt it's host. All that it requires is your anger.


Until you are able to overcome your emotions and think rationally, every atheist is just the zealot that the born again christians or muslims are.
Care to cite evidence to support your broad generalizations?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
06-01-2013, 12:16 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2013 12:24 PM by Nappa.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:14 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  The first of these is often the most questioned, Religion, there are many of you here who have bothered yourselves with questioning religion and or your god. Most of you have come to the conclusion that a god does not exist and that your religion was wrong. Many of you did this through scientific reasoning and logical deduction. But that's also where many of you stopped.

You should not have stopped, there is so much more to question, there are so many more lies we believe.
Care to cite evidence to support your broad generalizations?
If it was worth citing evidence, I would. But this is not me trying to prove something, it is merely a small text for you to reflect on.


(06-01-2013 12:14 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Seems as if you are generalizing everyone here. Many of us are skeptics, and skepticism is the approach to claims. I don't see anyone specifically stating their government is perfect, nor history perfect. Nor would it be fair to assume everyone here does. But there's a balance between being honest about your stance on things and wearing a tinfoil hat.

I think it would be abhorrently silly to accept something without at least researching it, or at least using a good method to determining something.

I am not sure why you are surprised that people use historical reference regarding religious debates on an atheist forum. It's sort of like saying people use historical accounts of bad machined parts when talking about the production of a specific vehicle when posting on a car forum.

I suppose I should be saying... "What's your point?" - Too many generalizations in your post.


When I was a devout christian, I thought anyone who didn't believe what I did was wrong, the equivalent to a man wearing a tinfoil hat. Until I tried on that tinfoil hat myself I could not have possibly begun to think outside the box. And that is where you are at fault, you doubt those whom you believe to be fools and you refuse to either question their actions if they are your leaders or if they are trying to bring to you something you believe to be folly. Do not doubt based on what they have to say, doubt based on the amount of evidence and reason they bring.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:25 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2013 12:29 PM by Logisch.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:16 PM)Heilo Wrote:  When I was a devout christian, I thought anyone who didn't believe what I did was wrong, the equivalent to a man wearing a tinfoil hat. Until I tried on that tinfoil hat myself I could not have possibly begun to think outside the box. And that is where you are at fault, you doubt those whom you believe to be fools and you refuse to either question their actions if they are your leaders or if they are trying to bring to you something you believe to be folly. Do not doubt based on what they have to say, doubt based on the amount of evidence and reason they bring.

I don't think you can specifically tell me what I do and do not doubt, nor tell me where I am at fault without having any example. You're making generalizations. Who said I don't weigh evidence? Oh wait... you did... with no citations, examples or anything other than generalizations and putting words in my mouth.

Are you arctic sage? You sure sound like him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:31 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:25 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I don't think you can specifically tell me what I do and do not doubt. You're making generalizations. Who said I don't weigh evidence? Oh wait... you did... with no citations, examples or anything other than generalizations and putting words in my mouth.
I am not here to tell you what you do and do not doubt, my 'generalizations' are meant as a means to speak to a wider audience than one individual. By your accusation of people wearing tin foil hats I concluded that you are most likely ignorant. You in theory just said that if a man was wearing a tinfoil hat you would not care to see him as reasonable until proven otherwise. And you also in a way, stated, that a group of people already exist who should be collectively put under the term of tinfoil hatmen. Of whom you'd doubt no matter what they had to offer for evidence or logical deductions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:33 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:16 PM)Heilo Wrote:  If it was worth citing evidence, I would.
Oh, please do. I'm curious about the methods you used to figure out the background and attitudes of a few thousand anonymous people ("most" of our ~5800 users).

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
H,
To add to your list, don't forget to include any and all systems and institutions e.g. the global financial system(s), the companies we work for, the sports teams we support even the families we are a part of.

Much generalisation in your OP but you won't get any dissent from me.

Thanks for the post.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
06-01-2013, 12:43 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:31 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 12:25 PM)Logisch Wrote:  I don't think you can specifically tell me what I do and do not doubt. You're making generalizations. Who said I don't weigh evidence? Oh wait... you did... with no citations, examples or anything other than generalizations and putting words in my mouth.
I am not here to tell you what you do and do not doubt, my 'generalizations' are meant as a means to speak to a wider audience than one individual. By your accusation of people wearing tin foil hats I concluded that you are most likely ignorant. You in theory just said that if a man was wearing a tinfoil hat you would not care to see him as reasonable until proven otherwise. And you also in a way, stated, that a group of people already exist who should be collectively put under the term of tinfoil hatmen. Of whom you'd doubt no matter what they had to offer for evidence or logical deductions.

You were speaking in reply, quotation, to me. Then you made a reply, that (unless specified otherwise) is a reply to me. You said in context about what I do and do not doubt as well as where I was at fault.

If you wish to articulate that your reply is meant for a broad audience and not one specific person, you should try specifying that, lest your response be taken otherwise. My use of the example tinfoil hat is generally those who are paranoid people who think everyone is out to get them who accept every contradictory idea of something as a theory or idea in lack of evidence. You know... ufologists, alien abductees, people who think the government is stealing their thoughts and watching them through cameras throughout their house who think that the president was an alien.

My point is that there is a fine line between being skeptical of your government or country and simply assuming that because you were wrong about religion that instantly everything else is wrong too. But again, skepticism is an approach to claims. I do not assume everything else is wrong because I was wrong about religion when I was a Christian. However, I do take the time to revisit things I thought prior were always right and then look at them skeptically since it has brought about a large turnabout in how I view things.

There is no doubt that people blindly assume things, or that people blindly accept things. But making generalizations without examples makes it rather difficult to absorb.

This is perhaps feedback for you, but if you are going to try and make a case for something, especially on a forum full of skeptics... providing an example, a citation, or some sort of material that people can pick apart and absorb in coercion with your case would help your case a great deal. I will agree with you that being skeptical is important of things. But atheism is only one stance on one subject. You also will be easily dismissed by the general population by using generalizations about a population on a forum and your points will likely not be ready by the masses. Consider a way perhaps to make your point in such a manner that those kinds of users can process it or even personalize it for themselves. Especially in this age, people very much appreciate citations, examples and other material they can go to and look at for themselves.

We should all know that people sometimes have stupid ideas but it doesn't make them stupid overall. Or that people with sometimes stupid ideas are incapable of articulating things that can change the world. Look at Isaac Newton. The guy was a genius when it came to understanding things around us, but also believed in alchemy. Anyone today would look at him and laugh about the alchemy, probably even call it ridiculous and stupid.. but of course he had many other great ideas. It may have even been his wild interest in how fantastic the idea could have been and his emotional tie to it that he pursued alchemy and turning things into gold. After all.... who wouldn't want to do that? Nonetheless, the man was intelligent and you and I have much to thank for him.

At least... I believe that is your point on dismissing people on how they come across.

But again... approach to claims. Evidence. Citation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 12:43 PM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2013 12:48 PM by Nappa.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 12:16 PM)Heilo Wrote:  If it was worth citing evidence, I would.
Oh, please do. I'm curious about the methods you used to figure out the background and attitudes of a few thousand anonymous people ("most" of our ~5800 users).
Why are you curious about me when you should be curious about more important matters? stop trying to entangle me in a pointless cycle of 'citing evidence'. I'm sick of citing evidence. I cited plenty of evidence in the past for various debates and various forums. Only to have them shot down by zealots, atheist and theist alike. Which is the point of this thread. To share with you your mistakes, which were once mine as well. You automatically assumed that my generalizations only pertained to the users of this forum. When in reality I've visited many forums with the same outcome. Which has led me here and now, the formulation of a small text I deemed worthwhile to share with others.

The only place I found a person who was willing to listen was on an online game, how pathetic is that? That out of all the 'skeptics' I've met, that only a 17 year old girl was willing to listen? She was curious about the right things, you are curious about the wrong things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: