For some reason, several members here seem to think that bullying people into endless debates is a good thing. These members do not realize that "debate" does not mean you're looking for truth. Many use it as a way to provide endless excuses to keep from being convinced.
I present my evidence by explaining my philosophy and experiences and getting others to experience it for themselves. Consider it my style of debate. If you don't like it then a civil option would be to not continue the discussion with me as opposed to trying to bait me into endless debates.
I want moderators to address this issue.
Example provided in post 4.
Debate
Moderator: Moderators
- Aetixintro
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 918
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
- Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
- Has thanked: 431 times
- Been thanked: 27 times
- Contact:
Post #11
[Replying to post 8 by otseng]
Feelings as "feelings for intellect" refined through many years, favorably, is a kind of evidence in and by itself. See nervous system as including the brain, actually.
It turns out, cold people, people without feelings can be quite stupid. Ignoring one's feelings certainly don't make you smarter. See for example Somatic Experiencing. Or Somatism as philosophy of psychiatry or indeed mSomatism (Modified Somatism).
It's the deep-into-schizophrenia ill people who have no feelings to add to perception. Another point is that the number of people who are the most honest about religion tend to found their conviction on deep felt sense. Even detectives of the police refer to "gut feeling", "uneasiness" and other expressions of feelings.
I support Razorsedge. How easy isn't it to ruin the discussion by appeal to "number of papers" or just base observation without giving it much thought. The novices may point to lack of evidence, but should look outside "their intellectual boy's room" for the truth of it. See Problem of Induction", "there are no black swans..."
Cheers!
Feelings as "feelings for intellect" refined through many years, favorably, is a kind of evidence in and by itself. See nervous system as including the brain, actually.
It turns out, cold people, people without feelings can be quite stupid. Ignoring one's feelings certainly don't make you smarter. See for example Somatic Experiencing. Or Somatism as philosophy of psychiatry or indeed mSomatism (Modified Somatism).
It's the deep-into-schizophrenia ill people who have no feelings to add to perception. Another point is that the number of people who are the most honest about religion tend to found their conviction on deep felt sense. Even detectives of the police refer to "gut feeling", "uneasiness" and other expressions of feelings.
I support Razorsedge. How easy isn't it to ruin the discussion by appeal to "number of papers" or just base observation without giving it much thought. The novices may point to lack of evidence, but should look outside "their intellectual boy's room" for the truth of it. See Problem of Induction", "there are no black swans..."
Cheers!
I'm cool! - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!
- OnceConvinced
- Savant
- Posts: 8969
- Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Has thanked: 50 times
- Been thanked: 66 times
- Contact:
Post #13
But what if you're wrong about that desire just to argue?
Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.
Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.
There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.
Check out my website: Recker's World
Post #14
Very few debate with intentions of getting to the truth. This is clear since so most do not change their minds because of a debate. Only their ego gets worse. Many change only when they have experienced and I'm including atheists.OnceConvinced wrote: But what if you're wrong about that desire just to argue?
I am not always right but it is unlikely that I'm wrong on this matter.
- Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #15
[Replying to post 14 by Swami]
Do you realize that this sounds like it lacks self-awareness? Under what situations do you go into a debate expecting to be proven wrong? Do you make expectations for your debate opponents that you don't make for yourself?
Do you realize that this sounds like it lacks self-awareness? Under what situations do you go into a debate expecting to be proven wrong? Do you make expectations for your debate opponents that you don't make for yourself?
Indeed, one could define science as reason’s attempt to compensate for our inability to perceive big numbers... so we have science, to deduce about the gargantuan what we, with our infinitesimal faculties, will never sense. If people fear big numbers, is it any wonder that they fear science as well and turn for solace to the comforting smallness of mysticism?
-Scott Aaronson
-Scott Aaronson
Post #16
I am sure that no one goes into a discussion expecting to be wrong. If you look at politics or a court trial, do you think one side doesn't admit their guilt or their wrong because they care about the truth?Neatras wrote: [Replying to post 14 by Swami]
Do you realize that this sounds like it lacks self-awareness? Under what situations do you go into a debate expecting to be proven wrong? Do you make expectations for your debate opponents that you don't make for yourself?
My expectations are for honest debate. I have clear standards in place to determine dishonest from honest debate.