Originally posted by lemon limeSo, if someone thinks you can be blustered into reading the book, they are mentally ill, or have you used the word 'delusional' in another sense?
If you think I can be blustered into reading a book devoted to explaining a delusional belief in God then you are delusional.
02 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustIt would appear that you are saying that objective truth does exist in some cases, and that in some cases issues can be settled.
I did point out two things that you may have missed:
1. There are some things in which the truth is easier to find out than in others, e.g. does the FSM exist?
2. Also, where two parties that differ on significant issues have an attitude of possibly learning from each other, rather than proving themselves RIGHT and the other WRONG, then such discussion ...[text shortened]... an external authority (e.g. the height of Mt E) are really a trivial subset of this discussion.
Why do you think that is not the case with regards to whatever questions it was that you said could not be resolved via discussion? Do you believe that neither you, nor the people who disagree with you believe in objective truths, or is it that you believe neither of you have solid evidence or mutually respected external authorities to refer to?
Why do you assume that of those that disagree with you?
02 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeI have to say that in both cases, the reason why I would have ignored you (I don't actually recall the Cambrian explosion one), would be because I know next to nothing about what you are talking about. I don't know enough to say that you have 'strong contradictory evidence', so I certainly have not ignored it on those grounds. But if you start a thread on the topic, I am willing to listen an you can see if you can teach me enough about the relevant science to convince me that it is actually strong contradictory evidence (of what I am not sure as I hold no significant beliefs about the Cambrian explosion). Are you up for that or will you fail my 2.?
But the most revealing response I got was when I talked about the Cambrian explosion. Both times the response was zero. I can't comment on a response when there is no response, so apparently Dawkin was right... ignoring strong contradictory evidence can work to sustain a persistent belief.
02 May 15
Originally posted by FMFThe response (and lack of response) I received fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion:
So your "reliable way of testing your own belief" in these two instances was to gauge how much interest there was in what you posted those two times on the Science Forum?
"... he defines [delusion] as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence"
(Dawkins is assuming the 'falsity' of the persistent belief before going on to say why he believes it's false.)
I wasn't surprised to see (the same) response to the abiogenesis posts, but I was somewhat surprised to see no response at all to both of the Cambrian posts.
Originally posted by lemon limeI would have thought, if one wanted to cast oneself as an opponent and critic of a particular evolutionary biologist and public intellectual, one would at least start out with reading his books. Some people on a message board not paying you the heed you'd have liked a couple of times hardly rates as a reliable way to test your beliefs, or do you think it does?
The response (and lack of response) I received fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion:
"... he defines [delusion] as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence"
(Dawkins is assuming the 'falsity' of the persistent belief before going on to say why he believes it's false.)
I wasn't surprised to see (the same) re ...[text shortened]... sis posts, but I was somewhat surprised to see no response at all to both of the Cambrian posts.
Originally posted by lemon limeSo am I correct in thinking that either:
The response (and lack of response) I received fits with Hawkins' definition of delusion:
a) you think I am mentally ill because I ignored your post on the Cambrian explosion.
b) you lied when you stated that you thought Dawkins was calling you mentally ill.
02 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've already done it twice, and I put a lot of time and effort into doing the second set. That's enough for me. Ignoring me or not remembering seeing the Cambrian one doesn't account for everyone else... I don't assume everyone interested in the topic saw it, but all of the 'usual suspects' were there.
I have to say that in both cases, the reason why I would have ignored you (I don't actually recall the Cambrian explosion one), would be because I know next to nothing about what you are talking about. I don't know enough to say that you have 'strong contradictory evidence', so I certainly have not ignored it on those grounds. But if you start a thread on ...[text shortened]... o significant beliefs about the Cambrian explosion). Are you up for that or will you fail my 2.?
I don't intend to look for those posts or revisit this issue. So to answer your question, no... I'm not up for doing that again.
02 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo sense of humor, eh? I'll have to remember that next time.
So am I correct in thinking that either:
a) you think I am mentally ill because I ignored your post on the Cambrian explosion.
b) you lied when you stated that you thought Dawkins was calling you mentally ill.
02 May 15
Originally posted by FMFOne would think so, wouldn't one.
I would have thought, if one wanted to cast oneself as an opponent and critic of a particular evolutionary biologist and public intellectual, one would at least start out with reading his books. Some people on a message board not paying you the heed you'd have liked a couple of times hardly rates as a reliable way to test your beliefs, or do you think it does?
02 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeIf that was a joke, then yes, I have no sense of humour. Please include a smiley face next time.
No sense of humor, eh? I'll have to remember that next time.
(oh, and by the way, which one was the joke? the one where you called me delusional, or the one where you claimed Dawkins called you mentally ill?)
02 May 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm seeing double again, and this time it's twhitehead and FMF... Aw crap, it's 2:00 in the morning already. No wonder i'm seeing double... my shift was supposed to end two hours ago....
his gelid tentacles will attempt to strangle and suck out all the humanity of every single one of your posts. 😀
😴
Originally posted by lemon limePerhaps people on the Science Forum thought you were just joking?
I'm seeing double again, and this time it's twhitehead and FMF... Aw crap, it's 2:00 in the morning already. No wonder i'm seeing double... my shift was supposed to end two hours ago....
😴
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me turn the question around.
It would appear that you are saying that objective truth does exist in some cases, and that in some cases issues can be settled.
Why do you think that is not the case with regards to whatever questions it was that you said could not be resolved via discussion? Do you believe that neither you, nor the people who disagree with you believe in objective trut ...[text shortened]... ected external authorities to refer to?
Why do you assume that of those that disagree with you?
Do you think that the question whether dasa or RJH is "right" can be resolved by them discussing their beliefs (like it's never been tried!)
Do you think that the question of who has the "right" religion can be solved by "reasoning" between an orthodox Jew and a Sunni militant?
Each thinks the other is deluded, and you obviously think both are.
At the simplest level, yes, objective truth seems to exist (like your example of height of Mt E and whether 2 + 2 = 4). But at the level of religious faith (which seems to be the topic of your question, otherwise why this Forum?) the answers are far more complex.