The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2013, 02:58 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 02:40 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(07-01-2013 09:09 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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.


You might like to start over.
Your first post was interesting, but you did make some sweeping and accusatory generalizations.
When asked for some substantiation, you became very defensive and went on attack.

This has deteriorated and is completely off the rails.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
07-01-2013, 03:35 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.

Sweet. I love hearing about the experiences people have and the wisdom they draw from those experiences. I'm all ears (eyes)!

(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.

Who stopped? You stopped? I stopped? Of which "many" do you speak?

Surely you have surveys, data, something, anything to support this position that we stopped questioning?

(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  You should not have stopped, there is so much more to question, there are so many more lies we believe.

Wait, are we still talking about religion? You did say that religion is the first of 3 things that people don't question, you haven't yet talked about the second thing, so I assume we're still talking about religion.

So please help me understand - if I applied science (not so much) and skepticism (lots and lots) to the question of God and I've concluded that he doesn't exist, well, what else is there to ask? You say "there are so many more [religious] lies we believe" (still talking about religion, right?) but I have dumped all religious lies out the window by not believing in any gods at all.

What religious lies am I still believing? What further questions must I ask because of these believed lies?

(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  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.

I find this one extremely hard to accept.

I know lots of people. Maybe hundreds of people that I know well enough to converse on such subjects. I've talked to many of them about our government. I have never known one, not one, not even just ONE, who told me our government is "unlikely to be wrong or corrupt". In fact, EVERYBODY I've had such discussions with unanimously agrees that our government is certainly corrupt and wrong on very many things.

Now, I agree, many of my friends believe that democracy is probably the best form of government, but even you said "probably". Besides, what's wrong with thinking one form of government (yours, mine, someone else's) is "probably best"? That doesn't preclude any of us from talking about or even trying to enact improvements to make any specific government more like the best one, or to improve the best one to make it better.

You're right, some people are "indoctrinated" into governments that suppress free speech and prohibit any talk or action against said government. But not mine. In fact, not most. And I daresay, most people oppressed by the worst governments, the ones who don't even let their population speak about improving the government, are almost certainly the people who are the most enlightened about government flaws, errors, and corruption.

(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  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.

Now here you may be right, at least for most people. Historians question history all the time. Most of the rest of us read a history book and consider ourselves better educated about history. Skeptics among us might wonder how the author got his information and whether his information is accurate, but I would say that by the time such a skeptic begins researching and cross-referencing sources, he's become a historian himself, even if only a hobbyist, and so he falls under the heading of a historian questioning history.

The rest of us, yeah, probably not much questioning of historical facts.

Note, I said facts. Most of us take the facts in the history books and accept them as granted. But many of us still ask other questions, like "why did that person do that thing?" or "what would have happened if that historical even never happened?". So we're still questioning history, expanding our understanding, even if only philosophically. Still, that might not be what you meant by "questioning".

And it's true that history is often written by the winner, and they usually slant it to favor themselves rather than reality. So historical "fact" can and should be quetioned by those with an interest in such things.

You're probably also right that many people don't care enough to bother. But certainly not everybody. Certainly not the level of broad generalization you're making.

(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  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.

Aha, now maybe we're starting to agree, finally. Now I'm getting that wisdom from your experience.

You are absolutely correct, though maybe poorly phrased. How about this: "When people hate, their hatred stops them from seeing reason in an argument." If that's what you meant, then I agree. "Passion for our own culture can sometimes blind us to questioning that culture". If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree. Note that I added "sometimes" because some people rise above this, sometimes.

I'm not sure what you mean about hatred not needing a target. I don't know if it's even possible to hate without a target. Nobody just "hates", or if they do, that's probably a mental disorder not applicable to the sane majority. Are you trying to say that "hatred of one thing can corrupt us to other things?" If so, that may be true. I generally advocate a hate-free life, even if it's only so I can live without all that unnecessary negativity.

(06-01-2013 11:55 AM)Heilo Wrote:  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.

And now you lost me. Or, you lost me more than you had already.

First, the generalization that every atheist is unable to overcome our emotions and that we're all irrational. I strongly (but dispassionately) disagree with the very assertion. Some atheists are emotional about some things (I daresay all sane humans are emotional about some things), but that surely doesn't mean all atheists (or all humans) are irrational or that we're not "able to overcome our emotions". Your generalization is so sweeping and so unfounded as to be laughable.

Second, to call atheists "zealots" is also laughable. Sure, a few really are zealous in their aggressive expounding of their world views. But "every atheist"? Really?

In my line of experience, to borrow your own turn of phrase, only a very few atheists even approach a level of pushiness that anyone would (correctly) call "zealous".

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 05:13 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 02:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  You might like to start over.
Your first post was interesting, but you did make some sweeping and accusatory generalizations.
When asked for some substantiation, you became very defensive and went on attack.

This has deteriorated and is completely off the rails.
If by attack you mean, trying to explain to him that citing such an insignificant and a large overwhelmingly disappointing time in my life on which I draw my experiences from is not only tedious but time consuming as well then yes. I did do that. You see, there are some people out there who like to spend their time consumed in utterly pointless matters. I took a shit earlier today, it smelled bad, do you want me to cite my evidence for this experience? Hm? HM!? No. I didn't think so. No No. No matter what I do there's always some asshat who likes to argue the most insignificant minor detail. And if he doesn't get that... oh dear god there will be hell to pay.





See vosur? See him? Don't be him, spend your time looking at the bigger picture, then go back and look at some minor details that may significantly change that picture. But don't start with the minor details because then you'll never see the big picture. Him? He's not even looking at a minor detail. He's looking at shit, just flat out shit. He's not even looking at anything, and if he were looking at something I'd consider it shit. Because nothing is so unimportant to me as shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 08:32 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 05:13 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(07-01-2013 02:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  You might like to start over.
Your first post was interesting, but you did make some sweeping and accusatory generalizations.
When asked for some substantiation, you became very defensive and went on attack.

This has deteriorated and is completely off the rails.
If by attack you mean, trying to explain to him that citing such an insignificant and a large overwhelmingly disappointing time in my life on which I draw my experiences from is not only tedious but time consuming as well then yes. I did do that. You see, there are some people out there who like to spend their time consumed in utterly pointless matters. I took a shit earlier today, it smelled bad, do you want me to cite my evidence for this experience? Hm? HM!? No. I didn't think so. No No. No matter what I do there's always some asshat who likes to argue the most insignificant minor detail. And if he doesn't get that... oh dear god there will be hell to pay.





See vosur? See him? Don't be him, spend your time looking at the bigger picture, then go back and look at some minor details that may significantly change that picture. But don't start with the minor details because then you'll never see the big picture. Him? He's not even looking at a minor detail. He's looking at shit, just flat out shit. He's not even looking at anything, and if he were looking at something I'd consider it shit. Because nothing is so unimportant to me as shit.


Apparently you just prefer being angry and resentful. Have fun, just don't expect a useful conversation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-01-2013, 09:02 PM
AW: RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 02:40 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(07-01-2013 09:09 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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.

[Image: ad_hominem_by_jrigh-d39msf2.jpg]

I'm done here. Drinking Beverage

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
07-01-2013, 10:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2013 10:54 PM by Nappa.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 08:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Apparently you just prefer being angry and resentful. Have fun, just don't expect a useful conversation.
Was I angry? No I don't think so, I just don't partake in useless shit. If I'm angry it's at a very low level. I'd call it frustration rather than anger. And trust me, I don't expect any useful conversation, not from the likes of atheists or theists, and certainly not from fence sitting agnostics. Being an atheist does not make you intelligent, and it certainly doesn't make you a critical thinker. Being an atheist only means you've conquered one of the Tri-Religious Concordant. If there was any useful conversation to be had here he would have tried reflecting on what I had said instead of shitting all over the place. And when I mean shit I mean he just shat all over the point of the post. Cite my experiences, this is one of them now. An atheist, a skeptic, a critical thinker presented with a statement for him to consider and instead of considering it what does he do? He asks for my god damn life story.

One man reflected on what I had to say, and that's all I wanted from him, just a brief moment of his time for him to pause and reflect. What a good man that was. I'm not going to debate with him because he's already accomplished the purpose of this thread. Reflection. Unlike some jackass called Vosur who spends his days asking for citing evidence and then afterwards once the evidence is produced to him he'll just argue about the evidence and not reflect upon what I had to say originally. Oh yes, that's an experience of mine. And if I thought it was necessary to cite my evidence I would have. If I thought it was necessary to cite evidence of something I thought worth while, I would have. But asking me for a biography of my entire life is not going to happen. Even so a lot of these experiences can not be cited, long forgotten of where and when they took place. Lost articles on the internet abroad. And the few I can recall to cite would only lead to further disruption by their being of controversial topics.

And 96% of people are Cosmic Fucking Morons when it comes to controversial subjects. You see I already have that experience. It's added in here. The Fallacy of Emotions. Specifically put there because 96% of people think with their emotions and not their brains. And when it comes to a controversial subject, once they start to hate there is no way to convince them otherwise. Not even if you brought to them a mountain of evidence. So if you wanted me to cite my experiences I have no other choice but to say fuck you. You are not going to discount what I have to say just because something is controversial.

Quote: I'm done here. Drinking Beverage

You can't quit, you'd have to try first in order to quit. But you sir, you never even tried reflecting on what I said, no instead all you wanted to do was bicker over citing and evidence and all the goody nonsense that goes with. Like I said you're either a troll, or extremely stupid... the latter of which is more common in this world than you can possibly imagine. I actually think Africans might be smarter than Americans or Europeans. Sure they might not know as much, but I judge people by their intelligence not their knowledge. Two different things... two very different things. It's so rare to see someone with knowledge be intelligent. Look at atheists for example, a little scientifically literate and they think they're god damn Einstein, and act like Adolf Hitler.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 10:51 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 10:38 PM)Heilo Wrote:  
(07-01-2013 08:32 PM)Chas Wrote:  Apparently you just prefer being angry and resentful. Have fun, just don't expect a useful conversation.
Was I angry? No I don't think so, I just don't partake in useless shit. If I'm angry it's at a very low level. I'd call it frustration rather than anger. And trust me, I don't expect any useful conversation, not from the likes of atheists or theists, and certainly not from fence sitting agnostics. Being an atheist does not make you intelligent, and it certainly doesn't make you a critical thinker. Being an atheist only means you've conquered one of the Tri-Religious Concordant. If there was any useful conversation to be had here he would have tried reflecting on what I had said instead of shitting all over the place. And when I mean shit I mean he just shat all over the point of the post. Cite my experiences, this is one of them now. An atheist, a skeptic, a critical thinker presented with a statement for him to consider and instead of considering it what does he do? He asks for my god damn life story.

One man reflected on what I had to say, and that's all I wanted from him, just a brief moment of his time for him to pause and reflect. What a good man that was. I'm not going to debate with him because he's already accomplished the purpose of this thread. Reflection. Unlike some jackass called Vosur who spends his days asking for citing evidence and then afterwards once the evidence is produced to him he'll just argue about the evidence and not reflect upon what I had to say originally. Oh yes, that's an experience of mine. And if I thought it was necessary to cite my evidence I would have. If I thought it was necessary to cite evidence of something I thought worth while, I would have. But asking me for a biography of my entire life is not going to happen. Even so a lot of these experiences can not be cited, long forgotten of where and when they took place. Lost articles on the internet abroad. And the few I can recall to cite would only lead to further disruption by their being of controversial topics.

And 96% of people are Cosmic Fucking Morons when it comes to controversial subjects. You see I already have that experience. It's added in here. The Fallacy of Emotions. Specifically put there because 96% of people think with their emotions and not their brains. And when it comes to a controversial subject, once they start to hate there is no way to convince them otherwise. Not even if you brought to them a mountain of evidence. So if you wanted me to cite my experiences I have no other choice but to say fuck you. You are not going to discount what I have to say just because something is controversial.


That certainly sounds angry.

And there you go again. "96% of people are ...". Really? Are you sure it's not 97%?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
07-01-2013, 11:01 PM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2013 11:06 PM by Nappa.)
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 10:51 PM)Chas Wrote:  That certainly sounds angry.

And there you go again. "96% of people are ...". Really? Are you sure it's not 97%?
well I assure you it might sound angry to you, but I am quite calm. A little frustrated at vorus's lacking of the ability to conceive the point of the term reflection but quite calm. You're probably just in attack mode. Like Vorus is. Turn off the attack mode and try reading it again from a frustrated point of view. Then you'll know what I'm trying to sound like. If you're in attack mode however, which 98% of people are when they're proposed with a controversial subject. You'll likely block out any evidence they offer, and just reply with HURRRR DAT'S STEWPEEED. While right now you're just misreading my text in your mind to becoming from someone who's angry, when I'm only frustrated, and incredibly depressed by the world's crushing amount of stupidity it has to offer.

If it helps try reading this in Sarge's voice from RvB, Sarge or Dr. House. Both are masters of sarcasm, and I love sarcasm, so much so that I think it seeps through me at a subconscious level.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 11:15 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 11:01 PM)Heilo Wrote:  If it helps try reading this in Sarge's voice from RvB, Sarge or Dr. House. Both are masters of sarcasm, and I love sarcasm, so much so that I think it seeps through me at a subconscious level.

Harumph... I would prefer to read it in the voice if Jim Carey from Cable Guy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2013, 11:20 PM
RE: The Tri-Religious Concordant and the Fallacy of Emotions.
(07-01-2013 11:15 PM)Logisch Wrote:  Harumph... I would prefer to read it in the voice if Jim Carey from Cable Guy.
Jim carry is good too, just as long as it's sarcastic, and preferably funny.
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 11 341 31-03-2014 09:48 PM
Last Post: Sam
  Now that the religious fascist nation has attacked a secular nation I and I 20 847 26-05-2013 01:11 PM
Last Post: viking
  Woo is woo, religious or not. Chas 153 4,820 09-03-2013 05:15 PM
Last Post: Luminon
Forum Jump: