Beliefs: how do they work?

[plumjam]

And why under idealism RandFan's wife would be any different than under materialism.

Under idealism she'd be equally as happy with the zircon ring, as with the diamond one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

By the way, based on what the mods explained to me, it's acceptable to call someone a hypocrite if it's relevant to the debate and demonstrable based on their arguments, ....

While I reserve the right to call certain public figures and groups hypocrites, I think even with this negative comment one can still frame it as, this [thing] is hypocritical because earlier you said [this other thing] or some comparable wording that doesn't attack the forum member.

But then I've had my share of posts relegated to the dungeon so I am in no way claiming I manage my own conversations well in every case.

 

[Malerin]

Was that suppose to be an actual reply to your blatant hypocrisy and BS arguments? Red herring ya know?

BTW: Your arguments aren't even within the realm of "threatening" my beliefs since they are so bad. Your arguments are within the realm of disgust I get when someone goes about selling cancer cures made from urine claiming it is due to Quantum Theory or from certain UFO or Big footers who have exactly the same Idealism/solipcistic BS explanation as to why we can't find any evidence for their UFOs or Bigfoot which they use to justify their delusions.

I consider you at about the same level as them. Someone who weasels out of providing evidence by throwing out smoke.

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened. Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism. Who knows. Like I said, I've seen the same reaction in religious fanatics. When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

 

[paximperium]

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened. Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism. Who knows. Like I said, I've seen the same reaction in religious fanatics. When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

I'm naturally hostile towards woo-mongers and dishonesty but can easily control my natural disgust towards such individuals unless a woo-mongerer is also dishonest and then I stop being nice. You will find me as prickly and hostile in discussions with economic woo-mongers with the Venus Project, Anti-Vaxers, 9/11 Truthers and Creationists. Call it a character flaw. You and your religious arguments are not special.

I've never been religious, never had any bad events with religion and frankly have as much respect for it as I do with Scientology or Big Footers.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

Nope. A nice final weak attempt at equivocating your fantasy-based belief with a belief in materialistic reality. Nope they are not even close.

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened.

Ah, the old don't hate me because I'm beautiful ploy. One of Nick's favourites.

Take it elsewhere.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

Possibly because it's not true.

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, I don't think we'd see this level of hostility unless something was being threatened. Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism. Who knows. Like I said, I've seen the same reaction in religious fanatics. When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs. And even getting that far was like pulling teeth.

No that is undemonstrated conjecture, frustration with repeated evesions could produce the same effect.

here is what you appear to have done

1. Observe non-metric behior, in other words you have not shown your measure of hositility.

2. Made comparisons between two alleged sets of people.

3. Made assumptions about cause of behavior of one set of people.

4. Applied conjecture from assumption about behavior from one group to another group.

Alternative explanations that do not involve 'challenges to belief system':

-rudeness on part of poster, historical pattern or brief
-humor on part of poster, historical pattern or brief
-past history of posters in interactions with you (I find this most likely) leading to carry over from past exchanges
-past history of interaction with posters other than you (huge impact on this forum)
-assumption on your part about why people behave they way they do
-posters could be having a bad day and just post rudely to you
-perception on psrt of posters that you just assert your conclusions and then doing the 'sashy' to avoid discussing any actual implication of your ideas


So, you have conviniently just set up a straw justification for your belief with little or no sets of controls. You just assume that the pattern is 'challenge to beliefs' that creates the behavior, you have not demonstrated it , it is a nice hypothesis, as yet unproven with evidence.

If we compare your reception here over multiple threads and over time, will we find that the pattern is actualy comparable say to : someone challenging beliefs on a born again Xian forum?

That would be a static way of comparing responses.

 

[paximperium]

-rudeness on part of poster, historical pattern or brief-That's me!!!
-humor on part of poster, historical pattern or brief
-past history of posters in interactions with you (I find this most likely) leading to carry over from past exchanges-Yup
-past history of interaction with posters other than you (huge impact on this forum)-Agreed. I had a similar discussion with someone with a very similar argument a few years back. Ended up with the same weaseling behavior and whining in the end.
-assumption on your part about why people behave they way they do
-posters could be having a bad day and just post rudely to you-Nah. I'm having a fine day. Saved a life, not too busy at work. Filled my life saving quota of the week.
-perception on psrt of posters that you just assert your conclusions and then doing the 'sashy' to avoid discussing any actual implication of your ideas-Bingo

Anyway, why should Malerin who doesn't believe in the Scientific method care to use it or care about silly things like evidence?

Since all possibilities are apparently the same, I could be a Venusian Warlord transmitting my thoughts via the internet and is out the get Malerin, the resurrected savior of Jupiter...as likely as all of your above explanations.

 

[RandFan]

Maybe you and Rand have personal reasons for rejecting theism.

It's called reason. I came to atheism kicking and screaming. Belief in god was the equivalent of morphine to me. I continued going to church after I concluded that at best god wasn't interested in the personal affairs of humans.

When it reaches this level of nastiness, you can usually put a fork in the thread.

Uh... please to show me where I have been nasty.

I think we've at least nailed down a definition of belief, and the fact that people on both sides have faith-based beliefs.

I've acknowledged from the start that I have beliefs. I've simply noted that not all beliefs are equal and the fact that my wife exists is something that you, I and everyone can verify. I can't verify your internal experiences that lead you to believe in god.

Talk about pulling teeth, you've never acknowledged what my argument is. The only nasty thing I will say about you is that you are dishonest and that is both disappointing and frustrating.

 

[Nick227]

Well 0.3% of a useless treatment is 0.3% too much.

Remember, unlike real medicines that require millions if not billions to develop, homeopathy requires no research, minimal ingredients and almost no regulatory fees. Profit all the way.

A plus is that you don't get side-effects though, I imagine!

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Ah, the old don't hate me because I'm beautiful ploy. One of Nick's favourites.

er, like when have I played this?

Really, Pixy, I see you're living up to your namesake. All I consider I do is put my point across and defend it by any fair means. As I see it you don't like it that I point out that just because someone likes to talk materialism doesn't mean they can walk materialism. I object to these rinky-dink skeptics that think the whole world runs by common sense, like a ball-bearing on a bloody spring. As Dan Dennett says, on models of consciousness....if the theory ain't counter-intuitive it's just wrong.

Go on, tell me it's all gerunds again, or have you developed a new get-me-out-of-this-thread-now tactic!

Nick

 

[athon]

Malerin - any chance of a definition for 'physical' some time soon? Is the question too hard? I thought it was pretty much the fundamental question in this situation.

Athon