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, 12:48 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:43 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 12:33 PM)Vosur Wrote:  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 the wrong things.
Have you considered it is perhaps your approach which is why you are shot down and not taken seriously? One can make a rational argument and a most coherent and wildly exciting statement... but if it is taken in a specific manner, or perceived in a manner that is perceived as dishonest, empty or generalized without substance that perhaps it isn't worth a person's time?

You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Logisch's post
06-01-2013, 01:06 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:48 PM)Logisch Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 12:43 PM)Heilo Wrote:  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 the wrong things.
Have you considered it is perhaps your approach which is why you are shot down and not taken seriously? One can make a rational argument and a most coherent and wildly exciting statement... but if it is taken in a specific manner, or perceived in a manner that is perceived as dishonest, empty or generalized without substance that perhaps it isn't worth a person's time?

You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result.
Oh I have often considered if it was my approach. But it could not be, I've always stated my evidence, always listed my reasons, they have always been sound and resolute! FLAWLESS! No it was 'skeptics' such as yourself they were at fault, they can hardly be blamed though. Those who are not actively seeking to know the truth when they are presented an intelligent debate are often the ones to be closed minded in the debate. That's because anything that's worth debating is controversial, and it's only controversial because some people allow their emotions to cloud their judgment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2013, 01:19 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.
At least this thread is posted in the right section.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
06-01-2013, 01:21 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 01:06 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(06-01-2013 12:48 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Have you considered it is perhaps your approach which is why you are shot down and not taken seriously? One can make a rational argument and a most coherent and wildly exciting statement... but if it is taken in a specific manner, or perceived in a manner that is perceived as dishonest, empty or generalized without substance that perhaps it isn't worth a person's time?

You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and getting the same result.
Oh I have often considered if it was my approach. But it could not be, I've always stated my evidence, always listed my reasons, they have always been sound and resolute! FLAWLESS! No it was 'skeptics' such as yourself they were at fault, they can hardly be blamed though. Those who are not actively seeking to know the truth when they are presented an intelligent debate are often the ones to be closed minded in the debate. That's because anything that's worth debating is controversial, and it's only controversial because some people allow their emotions to cloud their judgment.
Controversy is not only controversial because of emotion. There is the controversy of situations, of sources, of evidence, of disagreement of reasoning. There is of course emotional tie to controversial topics, but to say it is only controversial because of emotion would be inaccurate. Would it not?

To also assume that a person's approach is perfect is not only a ridiculous statement, but its own fallacy. Do you really think that one statement or one approach is a perfect approach for every person? Emotions stem a wide variety in how people invest their emotions, how they are perceived. One statement cannot be an "end all" to an argument for all people.

Again, this is why a broad generalized statement to an entire population or forum is going to be hard to take seriously for the vast majority.

One person may come in here and say... "HOW DARE YOU! you're talking some shit! and I'm taking this personally!" and immediately exit the thread, not bother taking a single word you said.

Another may perhaps read part of it and tell themselves how much of an arrogant twat a person sounds without references or examples and not take it seriously.

Others may disagree and perceive it as a rational argument with little to no substance and perhaps move on their merry way.

In any such example, does it mean that your approach was flawless? If it were, you'd be reaching all audiences, all situations, all examples in such a manner that would be perfectly sound to all of us... would it not?

I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say here. I can appreciate that at least you've considered your approach may not be perfect, but I don't think you're quite understanding what I'm saying. You've already seen examples in this thread where you've been challenged, been asked questions and asked for some sort of reference (even a slight one) and then said your approach is flawless, and have yet for anyone to take you quite as seriously as you might perhaps hope you would be.

I'm not saying you didn't make good points, I'm saying the way you tried to make them is not flawless.

Are you yourself able to approach your own arguments in a way that you can perhaps see why they are shot down or immediately dismissed? Are you yourself able to look it over and admit that perhaps your approach isn't taken in a specific manner because the manner you present it is perhaps odd, offensive, silly, ridiculous, empty, not personalized or otherwise to people you hope to reach? Consider Because I think if you did, you would not try and speak of it as flawless.. After all, jesus was the only perfect person to ever have lived (sarcasm by the way)!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logisch's post
06-01-2013, 01:46 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 12:43 PM)Heilo Wrote:  Why are you curious about me when you should be curious about more important matters?
I didn't say that I am curious about you, I stated that I'm curious as to the methods you used to find out so much information about such a large number of anonymous people. I'm skeptical of your generalizations because you have yet to give me a reason to think that they have any merit. With that said, please don't attempt to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Thank you.

(06-01-2013 12:43 PM)Heilo Wrote:  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.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. ("What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.")

With all due respect, don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously if you are unable and/or unwilling to support your assertions. The burden of proof does not become null and void simply because you don't feel like substantiating your claims. If you don't like having your position challenged and can't handle constructive criticism, you have come to the wrong forum.

(06-01-2013 12:43 PM)Heilo Wrote:  You automatically assumed that my generalizations only pertained to the users of this forum.
No, that's not true. You specifically addressed the users of this forum in the opening post of this thread (see below).

(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.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
06-01-2013, 03:12 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
Please provide an example of hating without an object.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 02:51 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2013 03:01 AM by Nappa.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(06-01-2013 01:46 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I didn't say that I am curious about you, I stated that I'm curious as to the methods you used to find out so much information about such a large number of anonymous people. I'm skeptical of your generalizations because you have yet to give me a reason to think that they have any merit. With that said, please don't attempt to tell me what I should or shouldn't do. Thank you.


Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. ("What is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.")

With all due respect, don't expect me or anyone else to take you seriously if you are unable and/or unwilling to support your assertions. The burden of proof does not become null and void simply because you don't feel like substantiating your claims. If you don't like having your position challenged and can't handle constructive criticism, you have come to the wrong forum.
If you're being skeptical about me I'd have to say your skepticism is misplaced a great deal. If it were me I'd be more skeptical of those wielding power and wealth, least I waste my thoughts and time on some generic bloke walking down the street. But by all means if you wish to do that go right on ahead! But me I plan on putting the next 18,000 days of my very short lifespan to better use. God forbid you should give something the benefit of the doubt by it being mutually beneficial to yourself. But now I have to provide evidence for my train of thought just so you can give it the doubt without the benefits!

Challenging my position on where I gathered this information is not even worth a minute out of the day of 18,000 days I have left in my natural life. It's not that I wouldn't provide evidence if it was something actually worth taking the time to do it. But now I've got to explain to you THAT YOUR MISSING THE BLOODY WALL! you're looking at a very minor and insignificant ant that is crawling up the wall, you're paying so much attention to that little ant that you are not seeing the wall itself. God forbid you should reflect on the wall and prevent yourself from running into it.

You have nothing to lose by considering my original post but have the potential to gain so much more knowledge. And here you are. Looking at an ant. I can not describe to you how frustrating it is... watching people look at ants as they run smack into a wall.

The information was given to you free of charge, nothing required but your brief reflection on what was said. And you get SIDETRACKED BY A FUCKING ANT. I don't know, maybe this is just your reaction to the Tri-Religious Concordant. Maybe you can't possibly even begin to fathom what was said because it contradicts to much of what you 'know'. And so you focus on the ant. No no, go ahead, don't let me stop you. I'm sure that ant is really interesting. Keep looking at it. See if I care. Just like creationists keep looking at eyes stating it's to complex for evolution because of their absolute failure to understand how evolution works. I bow before your astounding intellect and superior skeptic skills, you've just asked me to provide the greatest evidence that will forever change the way we look at our lives.

Also if you don't know what a metaphor is, then I don't know how you manage to breathe.

Quote:Please provide an example of hating without an object.

No. I'm not going to think for you, I'm fairly certain you can manage to figure this one out all by yourself. Oh look at that, an ant... what a pretty little ant. Do you see that ant?

Please people, reflect on what I said, and don't just post because you feel like it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 07:54 AM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 02:51 AM)Heilo Wrote:  No. I'm not going to think for you, I'm fairly certain you can manage to figure this one out all by yourself. Oh look at that, an ant... what a pretty little ant. Do you see that ant?

Please people, reflect on what I said, and don't just post because you feel like it.

You first. Drinking Beverage

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 09:09 AM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 02:51 AM)Heilo Wrote:  If you're being skeptical about me I'd have to say your skepticism is misplaced a great deal. If it were me I'd be more skeptical of those wielding power and wealth, least I waste my thoughts and time on some generic bloke walking down the street. But by all means if you wish to do that go right on ahead! But me I plan on putting the next 18,000 days of my very short lifespan to better use. God forbid you should give something the benefit of the doubt by it being mutually beneficial to yourself. But now I have to provide evidence for my train of thought just so you can give it the doubt without the benefits!

Challenging my position on where I gathered this information is not even worth a minute out of the day of 18,000 days I have left in my natural life. It's not that I wouldn't provide evidence if it was something actually worth taking the time to do it. But now I've got to explain to you THAT YOUR MISSING THE BLOODY WALL! you're looking at a very minor and insignificant ant that is crawling up the wall, you're paying so much attention to that little ant that you are not seeing the wall itself. God forbid you should reflect on the wall and prevent yourself from running into it.

You have nothing to lose by considering my original post but have the potential to gain so much more knowledge. And here you are. Looking at an ant. I can not describe to you how frustrating it is... watching people look at ants as they run smack into a wall.

The information was given to you free of charge, nothing required but your brief reflection on what was said. And you get SIDETRACKED BY A FUCKING ANT. I don't know, maybe this is just your reaction to the Tri-Religious Concordant. Maybe you can't possibly even begin to fathom what was said because it contradicts to much of what you 'know'. And so you focus on the ant. No no, go ahead, don't let me stop you. I'm sure that ant is really interesting. Keep looking at it. See if I care. Just like creationists keep looking at eyes stating it's to complex for evolution because of their absolute failure to understand how evolution works. I bow before your astounding intellect and superior skeptic skills, you've just asked me to provide the greatest evidence that will forever change the way we look at our lives.

Also if you don't know what a metaphor is, then I don't know how you manage to breathe.
I'd really like to give you a detailed response, but unfortunately you haven't said anything significantly new since your last post. It's the same emotionally charged attempt at negating the burden of proof by telling me that your post is insignificant and that I should focus on more important matters. I've said it once and I will say it again: If you can't handle having your position challenged and criticized, which appears to be the case, you've come to the wrong forum.

Having said that, if you aren't able to provide me with any evidence to support your generalizations, why not be intellectually honest and admit that you have none?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 02:40 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 09:09 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-01-2013 02:51 AM)Heilo Wrote:  If you're being skeptical about me I'd have to say your skepticism is misplaced a great deal. If it were me I'd be more skeptical of those wielding power and wealth, least I waste my thoughts and time on some generic bloke walking down the street. But by all means if you wish to do that go right on ahead! But me I plan on putting the next 18,000 days of my very short lifespan to better use. God forbid you should give something the benefit of the doubt by it being mutually beneficial to yourself. But now I have to provide evidence for my train of thought just so you can give it the doubt without the benefits!

Challenging my position on where I gathered this information is not even worth a minute out of the day of 18,000 days I have left in my natural life. It's not that I wouldn't provide evidence if it was something actually worth taking the time to do it. But now I've got to explain to you THAT YOUR MISSING THE BLOODY WALL! you're looking at a very minor and insignificant ant that is crawling up the wall, you're paying so much attention to that little ant that you are not seeing the wall itself. God forbid you should reflect on the wall and prevent yourself from running into it.

You have nothing to lose by considering my original post but have the potential to gain so much more knowledge. And here you are. Looking at an ant. I can not describe to you how frustrating it is... watching people look at ants as they run smack into a wall.

The information was given to you free of charge, nothing required but your brief reflection on what was said. And you get SIDETRACKED BY A FUCKING ANT. I don't know, maybe this is just your reaction to the Tri-Religious Concordant. Maybe you can't possibly even begin to fathom what was said because it contradicts to much of what you 'know'. And so you focus on the ant. No no, go ahead, don't let me stop you. I'm sure that ant is really interesting. Keep looking at it. See if I care. Just like creationists keep looking at eyes stating it's to complex for evolution because of their absolute failure to understand how evolution works. I bow before your astounding intellect and superior skeptic skills, you've just asked me to provide the greatest evidence that will forever change the way we look at our lives.

Also if you don't know what a metaphor is, then I don't know how you manage to breathe.
I'd really like to give you a detailed response, but unfortunately you haven't said anything significantly new since your last post. It's the same emotionally charged attempt at negating the burden of proof by telling me that your post is insignificant and that I should focus on more important matters. I've said it once and I will say it again: If you can't handle having your position challenged and criticized, which appears to be the case, you've come to the wrong forum.

Having said that, if you aren't able to provide me with any evidence to support your generalizations, why not be intellectually honest and admit that you have none?
Emotionally charged... really... after I just said that being emotional is a faulty and corrupting? I think you might just be trolling now. Hey by the way can you cite the evidence that you took a shit earlier today? And can you please cite the evidence that you're actually breathing? Until you do this I can't accept that you exist because I'll have no evidence to support you existing other than a few mingled words on a screen.

[Image: h8EB5DF94]

Keep your ant, you're either a troll or a mindless sack of flesh. Either way I don't think I can help you, I can not help anyone if they are unwilling to help themselves.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Religious ecstasy and the calling down of the Holy Spirit Thall 11 338 31-03-2014 09:48 PM
Last Post: Sam
  Now that the religious fascist nation has attacked a secular nation I and I 20 846 26-05-2013 01:11 PM
Last Post: viking
  Woo is woo, religious or not. Chas 153 4,810 09-03-2013 05:15 PM
Last Post: Luminon
Forum Jump: