What is it you believe?

[Avatar]

This is the Close.

--A

[Seven Words]

*hanging head in abject shame*

had been over in the 'Tank, for some random reason thought I still was....

[Cambo]

First I'll preface this by stating my belief in objective reality.

I don't see how. Arguments between faith always remind me of George Carlin. "My God has a bigger dick than your God!"

But what if mine actually does?!?!?
(how. could. i. resist?)

Ah, but mine knows how to use it!

[Savor Dam]

Perhaps...but surely both of you know that the deity to place faith in is one that has command of other appendages!

[Avatar]

*hanging head in abject shame*

had been over in the 'Tank, for some random reason thought I still was....

Go post there too.

--A

[Seven Words]

Indeed..and the infite number of Noodly Appendages shows the truth of Pastafarianism, all hail the Flying Spaghetti monster!

Ramen

[Avatar]

--A

[Holsety]

If and when the tank invades the close, a war with the despiser may not be far off...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This is not war; rather, it is pre-emptive military action designed to reduce The Close's ability to fight against The Think Tank.

*************

If you cannot explain what it is that you believe to other people without proselytizing them then you are in a very weak position. One should always be able to defend one's beliefs in a dispassionate debate. That being said, the other side should not be on the warparth--if all you want is to pick holes in someone else's beliefs, especially if this is done aggressively, then you have nothing to bring to the discussion.

If you wish to believe something that is demonstrably false then you have every right to do so; however, you should be aware that other people will tell you that your belief is incorrect. That isn't a personal attack, of course, only a statement of fact so don't take it personally.

If you wish to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven, regardless of how acute the logical reasoning might be either for or against it, then you are free to do so. The fact that it cannot be disproven means that no one will have the ability to disarm you of your belief...unless you choose to let them do so. The fact that it cannot be proven means that you will never be able to convince anyone of the veracity of your position.

Regardless of which side of a discussion you represent, if your goal is "I will change the other person's mind" then you fail before you begin and I will take joy in laughing at you and your presumption.

[Orlion]

If you cannot explain what it is that you believe to other people without proselytizing them then you are in a very weak position. One should always be able to defend one's beliefs in a dispassionate debate. That being said, the other side should not be on the warparth--if all you want is to pick holes in someone else's beliefs, especially if this is done aggressively, then you have nothing to bring to the discussion.

If you wish to believe something that is demonstrably false then you have every right to do so; however, you should be aware that other people will tell you that your belief is incorrect. That isn't a personal attack, of course, only a statement of fact so don't take it personally.

If you wish to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven, regardless of how acute the logical reasoning might be either for or against it, then you are free to do so. The fact that it cannot be disproven means that no one will have the ability to disarm you of your belief...unless you choose to let them do so. The fact that it cannot be proven means that you will never be able to convince anyone of the veracity of your position.

Regardless of which side of a discussion you represent, if your goal is "I will change the other person's mind" then you fail before you begin and I will take joy in laughing at you and your presumption.

Yep, pretty much how I feel. If you enter a forum and express your belief, it will be discussed critically... sometimes reasonably, sometimes hysterically, but thems the risk. You won't convert anybody, even if you give people an argument that helps them change their position. Really, the best you can do is learn to understand other belief systems better so as not to make the same, cliched generalizations that are always made by people who struggle to understand the breakfast cereal they are eating, let alone someone's contrary beliefs.

Luckily, I do not recall anyone debating here that fits that last characterization.

[Holsety]

This is not war; rather, it is pre-emptive military action designed to reduce The Close's ability to fight against The Think Tank.

*************

If you cannot explain what it is that you believe to other people without proselytizing them then you are in a very weak position. One should always be able to defend one's beliefs in a dispassionate debate. That being said, the other side should not be on the warparth--if all you want is to pick holes in someone else's beliefs, especially if this is done aggressively, then you have nothing to bring to the discussion.

If you wish to believe something that is demonstrably false then you have every right to do so; however, you should be aware that other people will tell you that your belief is incorrect. That isn't a personal attack, of course, only a statement of fact so don't take it personally.

If you wish to believe something which cannot be proven or disproven, regardless of how acute the logical reasoning might be either for or against it, then you are free to do so. The fact that it cannot be disproven means that no one will have the ability to disarm you of your belief...unless you choose to let them do so. The fact that it cannot be proven means that you will never be able to convince anyone of the veracity of your position.

Regardless of which side of a discussion you represent, if your goal is "I will change the other person's mind" then you fail before you begin and I will take joy in laughing at you and your presumption.

This entire post is incorrect; In short, I believe you have intentionally lied with every point you have made.

-Regarding proselytizing, posters generally have not always attacked proselytizers. Moreover, proselytizing is irrelevant to the strength of one's position except insofar as proselytizing necessitates one's position being carried out, or your bias against proselytizing (i.e., an irrelevant aspect).

-Picking holes in someone's beliefs is a way of attempting to get them to justify those beliefs. If they recognize the holes are there, but cannot explain them in any way, regardless of what that brings to the discussion, their opinions begin to become staid. Why should we not discuss the arguments? Why should weaknesses not be addressed? The name "think tank" implies such conflicts.

->Ultimately, those who have problems with holes that are being picked in their beliefs should directly contact other users regarding those problems in order to resolve the lack of worth in dealing with a debate.

-The problem in believing something that is "demonstrably" false relates to some extent to the malleability of evidence itself. Using this sort of technique as the primary way of disproving a belief is weak.

-Changing the other person's mind as a goal is neither good nor bad in and of itself. It is, in fact, an effective method of beginning an argument (i.e. to attempt as much) because it shows to some extent why you yourself might believe it. This is good. Unless one is engaging in games of politics, then simply admit reasons that appeal to you.
-Regarding games of politics it seems one must have some grasp of the basic wants of the other side, some worth on your own turf, perhaps some other things.

-Laughing at someone's presumption for being interested in persuasion shows you don't have an open mind; if you do not have an open mind, you cannot argue.

-If you have criticized someone's arguments, you seem to have shown you believe they believe what they say on some level, therefore you have to some extent been persuaded.
->You might well note that this is in conflict with the "evidence" argument; in other words, even though evidence that proves something is demonstrably false is not intensely persuasive, it is likely quite persuasive. On some level, on the internet, one has to accept that a fair amount of what is on the internet is or might be true, not only of what is thought but of what is actually done. It is not necessarily the case that a mistake unravels the pattern.

-A total persuasion of some abstract point is likely very pointless in comparison to allowing a person freedom of choice. You might point out we don't allow such freedom ourselves; still, the point is that persuading someone of something is not a bad idea because it is "presumptuous" but because not persuading them (very strongly) is effective.

The above may essentially indicate I am a troll, because I am more interested in what you have to say than in what I have to say (interested in making people respond). Saying a great deal is merely a method of ensuring I won't hear some things I have heard before. Yes; to some extent, I am interested in killing at least some discussion - I don't want to hear the kinds of criticisms which not even no one takes seriously and barely even apply to nobody. Would you really at this juncture propose there are still people significantly stupider than I am who are literate enough to read your post?

Mind, I believe these points are to some extent self-evident.
It is also awful that I have spun this post in a self-deprecating manner and consulted a self-deprecating story which ends with an explanation of the story where the character aggrandizes himself. Perhaps someday there will be sincere and enduring self-deprecation. Let us prey.

EDIT-I honestly don't even understand what was going on in the above 2 posts, but I still felt the blatant self-deprecation needed to be dealt with.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

This entire post is incorrect; In short, I believe you have intentionally lied with every point you have made.

*shrug* If you say so.

-Picking holes in someone's beliefs is a way of attempting to get them to justify those beliefs. If they recognize the holes are there, but cannot explain them in any way, regardless of what that brings to the discussion, their opinions begin to become staid. Why should we not discuss the arguments? Why should weaknesses not be addressed? The name "think tank" implies such conflicts.

I was addressing "aggressive" picking, the sort of quasi-argument that is more interested in making bullet points or sound bites than serious inquiry or discussion.

-The problem in believing something that is "demonstrably" false relates to some extent to the malleability of evidence itself. Using this sort of technique as the primary way of disproving a belief is weak.

Believing something that is false is also an exercise in willing irrationality designed to drive other people insane.

-Laughing at someone's presumption for being interested in persuasion shows you don't have an open mind; if you do not have an open mind, you cannot argue.

It is always allowable to laugh when someone presumes to be arrogant enough to think they can change someone else's mind.

The above may essentially indicate I am a troll, because I am more interested in what you have to say than in what I have to say (interested in making people respond). Saying a great deal is merely a method of ensuring I won't hear some things I have heard before. Yes; to some extent, I am interested in killing at least some discussion - I don't want to hear the kinds of criticisms which not even no one takes seriously and barely even apply to nobody. Would you really at this juncture propose there are still people significantly stupider than I am who are literate enough to read your post?

Trust me--you aren't a troll. There may indeed be people who would think you are stupid but I am not one of those people.

EDIT-I honestly don't even understand what was going on in the above 2 posts, but I still felt the blatant self-deprecation needed to be dealt with.

Well, at least you are truthful about it. Typically, though, self-depreciation is a trait I dislike. *shrug* Personal quirk. It won't negatively impact my opinion of you, though.

[Avatar]

I prefer self-deprecating humour to the other kind myself.

--A

[peter]

The clue is in the word humour

[Vraith]

Typically, though, self-depreciation is a trait I dislike. *shrug* Personal quirk.

HAH!!! Got you in a blatant, full-frontal LIE!
I've thought about using this before...I hope I haven't, but I might have and forgotten...for other similar but not identical purposes...

You have said: "It doesn't require any special ability to "Blah."
[blah being a few things, but the most common "get a good-paying work-skill"]
"I've done it and I'm not any smarter than average." [that's a paraphrase, not exact quote].
BUT: Dude, I can tell from your posts [cuz it is in MY field], you have, at absolute minimum, a top 10% brain. [IQ 120]. BUT that is a serious underestimate because at that level you'd be spending HUGE chunks of time and thought on almost every post. But you have a life and job and spouse...my real estimate, and I'd bet serious money on it...is well within the top 2%, most likely in the top 1%, perhaps in the top .5%, some smallish chance .25%.
NONE of those, even the LOWEST is in the category of "nothing special."
[If I did this before, and it was different remember I have more data now.]
One can't claim BOTH "anyone can do it." AND "anyone can do it IF."
Not to mention it conflict with your own claim of being able to figure out almost anything.

So, ON TOPIC!!!!!
I believe Hashi is a liar.



It isn't easy being green, man.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I believe Hashi is a liar.

I believe you are the first person ever to entrap me with my own words. Kudos to you, Vraith.

In my defense, there is a difference between "self-deprecation" and "being modest" and I do not want to appear to be an arrogant braggart.

perhaps in the top .5%

Your accuracy and insight serve you well.

[Avatar]

I suspect the majority of active posters here are at least in the top 10% and most of them higher. Even the ones I disagree with.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

That was amusing.


(aren't they just the cutest normal distributions you've ever seen?)

So, hashi, basically you're saying that if you lie in a way that people do when they signal the cultural standard of pretending to look modest, that is somehow less of a lie?
(not to mention - if it helped you to make the point you wanted to make about how succeeding in various areas of life is not thaaaaaaat dramatically extremely shockingly amazingly easier for people of higher intelligence?)

Also, vraith, my dad always liked to remind me about that Mark Twain quote saying there were three kinds of lies.
(except, ironically for this context, he misquoted it slightly - as "three kinds of liars.")



On topic... (and on a gigantic soapbox, I daresay)
I believe we are all (here, I mean all of humanity!) deeply twisted and confused and foolish liars seeking every advantage for "number one" while trying to convince ourselves that we're better than that, but...

I believe in God the Father Almighty.
(who, when He made a promise to Abraham, swore by himself, since he had no one greater by whom to swear...)
And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, Our Lord...
(who knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.)

...and, of course, there's much, much more, but I think that's about all that most anyone will want to bear...

So it is; I live, a liar in a world full of liars, but have a persistent hope that great good will come in spite of it.

[peter]

Remeber the old adage 'An ounce of lie can save a ton of explanation'. There is truth in this and to state an obvious point, there are indeed times when to lie is not only the right, but the *morally* right thing to do.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

(aren't they just the cutest normal distributions you've ever seen?)

Yes, they are. As long as the sample size exceeds 30, any distribution you find will essentially be the normal one.

So, hashi, basically you're saying that if you lie in a way that people do when they signal the cultural standard of pretending to look modest, that is somehow less of a lie?
(not to mention - if it helped you to make the point you wanted to make about how succeeding in various areas of life is not thaaaaaaat dramatically extremely shockingly amazingly easier for people of higher intelligence?)

No, if I tell a lie it is no less of a lie than any that someone else might tell. There is a difference, though, between pretending to be modest--this kind of behavior is seen often on social media when people are fishing for compliments--and actually being modest, which equates to not putting one's self on a pedestal for others to admire. If you look into the history of various "high iq" societies you will find many egos who wish to the be center of attention, which sometimes causes them to create more exclusive societies because they have something to prove.
You might think that higher intelligence would bring greater success in nearly any venture undertaken; however, studying case histories will show that this is not the case. People of higher intelligence do not succeed at anything other than standardized tests or trivia contests more often than people of more average intelligence. Often times, people with IQ over 160 typically have a more difficult time because either they also have emotional or behavioral problems or they cannot relate to "normal" people, sometimes at the cost of reduced functionality in the real world.

Also, vraith, my dad always liked to remind me about that Mark Twain quote saying there were three kinds of lies.
(except, ironically for this context, he misquoted it slightly - as "three kinds of liars.")

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.