Buddhism and Scientology

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No. I was never a theist, at least not after the age of about 6.

I am not saying that all theists are irrational. However, those which do not accept the fundamental proposition that they may be wrong cannot be debated in a meaningful way, since they are not prepared to meaningfully accept that your points may be valid if they contradict the ...[text shortened]...
Of course, I accept that my position may be wrong, but I don't think it is (rather obviously).

1) Interesting; my doubts started in my teens though I can't say I was a particulary devout believer as a child (such a thing is rare but not unknown). I still think that most atheists start as theists and then adopt an atheist position based on their evaluation of the "evidence" (such that it is).

2) Do you think that is a common attribute of theists? Sometimes I think that being on this board, which is dominated by a particulary rabid form of minority Christianity leads one to conclusions about most theists that are unwarranted. Your paragraph, is of course, a circular argument.

3) Of course but why did you think other people don't share the same mindset?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You seem to be taking this way too personally. Calm down.

Whether the US is the freest country in the world is purely academic. The debates point was, rather, that there are many places equally as free as the US.

She was being irrational, but in your statement above you assume a rational observer is making a judgement on her and my arguments. at they might be fundamentally wrong in their beliefs, you may as well debate a brick wall.

What? Umm...ok...sorry to have upset you.

The point is, you can reason with anyone and influence both the person you're speaking to and other people in the process. Telling me that this is not true is annoying and incorrect.

Now, of course, if not offending people is more important than having influence, that's different. You just aren't very interested in having influence in that situation. You have different priorities like keeping your obnoxious American friend from getting offended.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What? Umm...ok...sorry to have upset you.

The point is, you can reason with anyone and influence both the person you're speaking to and other people in the process. Telling me that this is not true is annoying and incorrect.

Now, of course, if not offending people is more important than having influence, that's different. You just aren't very ...[text shortened]... have different priorities like keeping your obnoxious American friend from getting offended.

Do you feel this is true of Jaywill? Is it true of a 7-day creationist? No! The reason is that they do not accept the same things as evidence that you do. You can present all the graphs and data you like, and it will have no effect.

To a moderate Christian, who is willing to accept that they might be wrong in their position, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but people who cannot see past their own brainwashing are sadly, unreachable.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Do you feel this is true of Jaywill? Is it true of a 7-day creationist? No! The reason is that they do not accept the same things as evidence that you do. You can present all the graphs and data you like, and it will have no effect.

To a moderate Christian, who is willing to accept that they might be wrong in their position, I wholeheartedly agree with you, but people who cannot see past their own brainwashing are sadly, unreachable.

Yes. I do feel it's true with both. Now please stop insisting I'm wrong and then getting all pissy when I demonstrate that I am not. You're too sensitive for this discussion and I don't want you to get upset again.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes. I do feel it's true with both. Now please stop insisting I'm wrong and then getting all pissy when I demonstrate that I am not. You're too sensitive for this discussion and I don't want you to get upset again.

I am not in the slightest way emotional about this.

I have seen lots of assertions by you, but no proof. When you convert someone here, let's say Jaywill, I'll defer to you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I am not in the slightest way emotional about this.

I have seen lots of assertions by you, but no proof. When you convert someone here, let's say Jaywill, I'll defer to you.

Well, you're right, I have no proof. I don't particularly expect you to defer to me, but someone has to "defer" as you put it. Your expression of not being deferent is as soon as I say "Yes" you say "NO!". If I were going to do the same thing we'd be here all night.

I think you have an unusually aggressive idea of what "not deferring" means.

When you wrote this, I think you were really confused about what I was writing:

You seem to be taking this way too personally. Calm down.

I was pointing out that just because people think you're a troublemaker doesn't make biased hysterical people more attractive as sources of wisdom. I wasn't worked up at all. Thus when you accused me of taking things personally it seemed like you were being oversensitive and hostile for no obvious reason.

I mean...Socrates was a troublemaker. So was Jesus. Not that I'm on that level of significance.

IF I really wanted to reclaim someone from their obsessive conviction in say a 6000 year old (and no older) Earth...

Their Christian friends would be excellent people to work on. Peer pressure is huge. These people are this person's support network and may be more open to reason than the person in question.

To accomplish this with Jaywill I'd need to get to know him personally, IRL. I'd have to make a lot of effort to befriend him. It would be a real pain in the butt. But I think it could be done.

If I cared enough.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
When you wrote this, I think you were really confused about what I was writing:

[b]You seem to be taking this way too personally. Calm down.

I was pointing out that just because people think you're a troublemaker doesn't make biased hysterical people more attractive as sources of wisdom. I wasn't worked up at all. Thus when you accused me ...[text shortened]... ean...Socrates was a troublemaker. So was Jesus. Not that I'm on that level of significance.[/b]

Okay, okay, perhaps I read something into your statement which was incorrect. I apologise.

I thought something was annoying you, perhaps the way your post was phrased.... Anyway, my intention was to pour oil on troubled water, nothing more.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
IF I really wanted to reclaim someone from their obsessive conviction in say a 6000 year old (and no older) Earth...

Their Christian friends would be excellent people to work on. Peer pressure is huge. These people are this person's support network and may be more open to reason than the person in question.

To accomplish this with Jaywill I'd ...[text shortened]... m. It would be a real pain in the butt. But I think it could be done.

If I cared enough.

Haha, well, okay.

Maybe you'll get your chance one day! Personally, I do not believe Jaywill would ever listen, because he is unwilling to accept even at a notional level that he might be wrong. To convince someone that a 6000 year old earth is wrong, they have to be willing first to accept that a 6000 year old earth might be wrong.

A quote, on the subject, I like;

"To understand what another person is saying, you must assume that it is true and try to imagine what it could be true of. Even if the person seems crazy, or wrong, really listen to him, without judgement, and try to figure out how he could think that way"

George A Miller, James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Psychology, Emeritus