I Think I've Found P Ps True...
Society & Culture1 min ago
What Makes A Good Thread On R & S?
89 Answers
If a believers view is expressed on here, the responsive message is, in general terms, "Shut up stupid! Father Xmas & Tooth Fairy. You betray yourself thinking illogically! You are wrong and we are right!"
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
These sentiments are often accompanied by anything from mild annoyance, to anger.
So, what makes a good thread on here, in your opinion?
Should the atmosphere be like PM's question time in the Commons, or like a social drinking session amongst friends in the local?
Or something else I have not yet covered?
And, if I post a thread, what would make it interesting for you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Once again you have foxed me, naomi. If you think that the 'Santa/Tooth fairy' argument is silly then please explain why. That would represent not only 'serious debate' but a break-through on this site, since no-one else has ever done so.
And Russell's teapot has for decades been a definitive answer to those who say "You can't prove there isn't a God". Pure logic again.
And Russell's teapot has for decades been a definitive answer to those who say "You can't prove there isn't a God". Pure logic again.
Chakka, of course I fox you because the 'pure logic' of which you claim to be a master crumbles when you're faced with genuine logic. I cite our discussion on Occam's Razor and on that I rest my case because you've insulted me enough lately and I have no wish to discuss anything with you on a one to one basis. You're too rude.
The whole point of Russell's teapot ( and he used the example of a teapot to be intentionally facetious), is that any old load of cobblers would be equally valid as religious belief. It is merely indoctrination from infancy, involving "ancient texts", etc. etc. that makes some people think it is valid.
Again, why are otherwise intelligent rational people completely unwilling to accept the fact that religious belief is based on nothing more than the particular load of old cobblers they happened to have been brought up to believe ?
I had a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, but recognised it for the hypocritical, inconsistent nonsense it was based upon by the age of 9 or 10.
Again, why are otherwise intelligent rational people completely unwilling to accept the fact that religious belief is based on nothing more than the particular load of old cobblers they happened to have been brought up to believe ?
I had a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, but recognised it for the hypocritical, inconsistent nonsense it was based upon by the age of 9 or 10.
Naomi,
just how can you have reasoned argument with a religious fanatic, who refuses to allow any questioning of their beliefs ?
Anyway, I find you supremely arrogant to dismiss a very cogent argument for the folly of religious belief by no less an intellectual than Bertrand Russell as "silly tit-for-tat".
To reiterate, the whole point of the teapot analogy is to show that continuing religious belief is nothing more than indoctrination, coupled with a refusal to think for oneself.
just how can you have reasoned argument with a religious fanatic, who refuses to allow any questioning of their beliefs ?
Anyway, I find you supremely arrogant to dismiss a very cogent argument for the folly of religious belief by no less an intellectual than Bertrand Russell as "silly tit-for-tat".
To reiterate, the whole point of the teapot analogy is to show that continuing religious belief is nothing more than indoctrination, coupled with a refusal to think for oneself.
Ludwig,
the point of Russell's argument was not whether anyone believed there to be a teapot in orbit or not , but people's attitudes to those who did not believe in similarly absurd statements posited as divinely inspired "truth". The only difference is indoctrination via "sacred texts" and an inexplicable unwillingness ever to question anything relating thereto.
the point of Russell's argument was not whether anyone believed there to be a teapot in orbit or not , but people's attitudes to those who did not believe in similarly absurd statements posited as divinely inspired "truth". The only difference is indoctrination via "sacred texts" and an inexplicable unwillingness ever to question anything relating thereto.
nescio, //I find you supremely arrogant to dismiss a very cogent argument for the folly of religious belief by no less an intellectual than Bertrand Russell as "silly tit-for-tat".//
You do? Well, perhaps you hold people in awe rather more than I do. You see I disagree with Richard Dawkins sometimes - and I've had some pretty wobbly moments with Stephen Hawking too. Why not? Being in control of my own thoughts, my own mind and my own opinions, I am acutely aware that no one on this earth is God and no one is infallible. Oops. I reckon I've really blotted my copybook now. :o(
.... But let's cut to the chase here. Of course Mr Russell was making a relevant point with his famous teapot - and I imagine there are few people here who do not understand completely the point he was making - but the problem is his point instantly demolishes all debate. The religious say 'prove God isn't there', Mr Russell says 'prove my teapot isn't there'. Therefore it is just a silly tit-for-tat resulting in the instant cessation of all discussion, so in actual fact I don't think it's very smart at all. I think it's quite ridiculous - but of course, that is only my opinion.
Ludwig, that is the real crux of the matter. Nobody believes in it, and that's precisely why, as an analogy, it fails miserably.
You do? Well, perhaps you hold people in awe rather more than I do. You see I disagree with Richard Dawkins sometimes - and I've had some pretty wobbly moments with Stephen Hawking too. Why not? Being in control of my own thoughts, my own mind and my own opinions, I am acutely aware that no one on this earth is God and no one is infallible. Oops. I reckon I've really blotted my copybook now. :o(
.... But let's cut to the chase here. Of course Mr Russell was making a relevant point with his famous teapot - and I imagine there are few people here who do not understand completely the point he was making - but the problem is his point instantly demolishes all debate. The religious say 'prove God isn't there', Mr Russell says 'prove my teapot isn't there'. Therefore it is just a silly tit-for-tat resulting in the instant cessation of all discussion, so in actual fact I don't think it's very smart at all. I think it's quite ridiculous - but of course, that is only my opinion.
Ludwig, that is the real crux of the matter. Nobody believes in it, and that's precisely why, as an analogy, it fails miserably.
Rational debate presumes rational debaters. Those who assert faith, belief, feelings, intuition, unshared experiences or personal interpretations of such as valid admissible points in a meaningful discussion capable of revealing, validating and relating truth of any kind have excluded themselves as candidates for a rational debate from the onset.
Objectivity and reason are the only available means of discovering, validating and exchanging knowledge and ideas and are the only tools carried in the rational debaters toolkit. The only option left to a rational debater when faced with an adversary who denies objectivity and who has abandoned reason is to point out the empty absurdity and mindless futility of such an opponents unexamined premises, fallacious arguments and unsupportable position to those capable of discerning truth from deception and self-delusion.
Given the abstruse nature of the issues typically discussed in R&S and the emotional investments and appeals required of adherents and apologists to defend and sanction the unsupportable beliefs you are likely to encounter here, this section is riff with those who attempt to subvert objectivity and reason through appeals to the emotions while resorting to emotional blackmail in the same breath. Don’t be fooled into thinking you’ll be able to enlighten those whose minds are dominated by sheer force of will leaving little to no room for persuasion by what is real. Nevertheless it is a virtual treasure trove for a glimpse into the depths of depravity to which a mind that has strayed from the path of reason can sink and for gaining a heightened awareness and comprehensive understanding of the challenges one faces in attempting to carry on a meaningful productive illuminating discussion where rational debate is the last thing you should reasonably expect to encounter.
Objectivity and reason are the only available means of discovering, validating and exchanging knowledge and ideas and are the only tools carried in the rational debaters toolkit. The only option left to a rational debater when faced with an adversary who denies objectivity and who has abandoned reason is to point out the empty absurdity and mindless futility of such an opponents unexamined premises, fallacious arguments and unsupportable position to those capable of discerning truth from deception and self-delusion.
Given the abstruse nature of the issues typically discussed in R&S and the emotional investments and appeals required of adherents and apologists to defend and sanction the unsupportable beliefs you are likely to encounter here, this section is riff with those who attempt to subvert objectivity and reason through appeals to the emotions while resorting to emotional blackmail in the same breath. Don’t be fooled into thinking you’ll be able to enlighten those whose minds are dominated by sheer force of will leaving little to no room for persuasion by what is real. Nevertheless it is a virtual treasure trove for a glimpse into the depths of depravity to which a mind that has strayed from the path of reason can sink and for gaining a heightened awareness and comprehensive understanding of the challenges one faces in attempting to carry on a meaningful productive illuminating discussion where rational debate is the last thing you should reasonably expect to encounter.
There's your answer then Theland. Mibs idea of a good thread goes like this..
Questioner: Does god exist?
person 1 : No.
person 2 : No.
person 3 : No.
person 4 : No.
person 5 : No.
person 6 : No.
Questioner: OK, thanks.
Which, although it has its merits, I personally think discussions like that would get a bit boring. so I quite welcome subjective input into these debates.
Questioner: Does god exist?
person 1 : No.
person 2 : No.
person 3 : No.
person 4 : No.
person 5 : No.
person 6 : No.
Questioner: OK, thanks.
Which, although it has its merits, I personally think discussions like that would get a bit boring. so I quite welcome subjective input into these debates.
It would appear to me that the R&S site should be re-titled to ''The Atheist & Disbeliever Site'' Have the sheer audacity to suggest that one believes in a supreme being & you are at once denounced as an idiot or a raving lunatic, may I point out to you all that the most eminant scientists have admitted that sometimes in their search for the truth at atomic levels for instance they are baffled, nobody knows it all. Take fairies as an example, you very clever people who subscribe to this site will obviously be aware that dogs & other animals can hear sounds that we humans cannot, that our vision only works within a defined area & therefore can you honestly & arrogantly state as a fact that anything that lies outside our audio & visual range doesn't exist? No doubt you very clever & erudite folks know the answer to all,I eagerly await your pronouncements.
Theists put forward a devine being that "cares" for the world and looks after all of us. They postulate a position and are them amazed that anyone should argue against thier point. The facts are that there is no evidence to support a divine being of any type or religion none. Just because science cannot explain somethng doesn't mean it unexplainable does it?
The available evidence suggests that if thier should be a devine being he doesn't fit any religions belief.
I understand Naomis point, but as far as I am concerned one mythical being is the same as another.
So rather than post questions then run around beleating, how hard done by you are by the atheists, why when you post a question, don't you stand your corner and argue in an intelligent and lucid way against any athiests that may use facts?
The available evidence suggests that if thier should be a devine being he doesn't fit any religions belief.
I understand Naomis point, but as far as I am concerned one mythical being is the same as another.
So rather than post questions then run around beleating, how hard done by you are by the atheists, why when you post a question, don't you stand your corner and argue in an intelligent and lucid way against any athiests that may use facts?
Naomi,
please take the time to actually read my answers and understand what I am saying.
Your argument against Russell's teapot is completely missing his point about people's perceptions of what constitutes truth.
I have a scientific background (theoretical physics) and have worked in scientific research for over 20 years. I am fully aware that there are many areas where science cannot provide the answer, but there is absolutely no necessity to invoke any kind of supernatural explanation. Occam's razor is pretty useful as a rule.
Even though we may not agree with each other on this particular issue, at least we are keeping up a debate, despite your protestations over its validity.
You are one of the relatively few apparently rational, sensible posters on this site.
I mean no ill feeling towards you personally.
The only reason I even mentioned Russell's teapot was because Theland, a propos of nothing, suddenly introduced a teapot stand into the discussion. I could not resist the temptation (no hint of irony there) to have a dig.
please take the time to actually read my answers and understand what I am saying.
Your argument against Russell's teapot is completely missing his point about people's perceptions of what constitutes truth.
I have a scientific background (theoretical physics) and have worked in scientific research for over 20 years. I am fully aware that there are many areas where science cannot provide the answer, but there is absolutely no necessity to invoke any kind of supernatural explanation. Occam's razor is pretty useful as a rule.
Even though we may not agree with each other on this particular issue, at least we are keeping up a debate, despite your protestations over its validity.
You are one of the relatively few apparently rational, sensible posters on this site.
I mean no ill feeling towards you personally.
The only reason I even mentioned Russell's teapot was because Theland, a propos of nothing, suddenly introduced a teapot stand into the discussion. I could not resist the temptation (no hint of irony there) to have a dig.
Did any of you see BBC Horizon What Is Reality ? If you missed it have a look here, you must watch all episodes 1-6. Ron.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1UJXS2o34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1UJXS2o34
Ron, that program was widely discussed on this thread..
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question979218.html
http://www.theanswerb...y/Question979218.html
