What if you're wrong?

rozeboosje · 16-01-2015 10:00pm

Nope. Invincibibbility.

smiley_face400 · 17-01-2015 1:03am

Haven't looked at this thread in a couple of days and I'm not trawling through 7 pages of arguments to figure out where we are, just want to add my two cents.

In my experience I've found that the devoutly religious have a tendency to mix up the definitions of fact and faith. To have faith in something is to believe in it regardless of whether or not there's any definitive proof. People believe that their God (or Gods) exist(s) despite being unable to back it with facts.

Once again, in my own personal experience (not forcing my point of view on anyone), I've found that atheists and agnostics are actually more tolerant of those who are different from them as they (or the ones I've met at least) don't judge based on someone's religion or lack thereof. As an atheist myself I'm happy to let anyone carry on practicing their faith once they're not in my face about it. I don't go around preaching my atheism to everyone around me so all I ask is that religious people don't go around preaching their faith to me. Let me make my own damn decisions.

Finally, to answer the question in the thread title "What if you're wrong?". So what if I'm wrong, or if anyone else is. You don't have any facts to back up the existence of your deity do you? What if you're wrong, eh?

K4t · 17-01-2015 1:07am

rozeboosje wrote: »

I am under no obligation to address nonsense.

Thankfully, neither am I.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 12:58pm

K4t wrote: »

Thankfully, neither am I.

Gawd-speed to you so!

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 12:59pm

smiley_face400 wrote: »

You don't have any facts to back up the existence of your deity do you? What if you're wrong, eh?

I appreciate that you don't want to read through the entire thread, but if you had at least read the Original Post you would know that the existence of some kind of "deity" (whatever THAT is supposed to be) was not what I was suggesting people might be "wrong" about...

Harika · 17-01-2015 3:30pm

rozeboosje wrote: »

I appreciate that you don't want to read through the entire thread, but if you had at least read the Original Post you would know that the existence of some kind of "deity" (whatever THAT is supposed to be) was not what I was suggesting people might be "wrong" about...

What you suggested implicates that you need a god or higher entity, else it would be something different and would not belong in this part of the forum.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 4:08pm

Harika wrote: »

What you suggested implicates that you need a god or higher entity

I would love to know by what bizarre abortion of logic you managed to arrive at THAT conclusion

Harika · 17-01-2015 4:32pm

rozeboosje wrote: »

I would love to know by what bizarre abortion of logic you managed to arrive at THAT conclusion

Look at your first post, what did you state was maybe needed for social cohesion? Religion and Faith. For this you need a god, else name three religions or faiths, that are used for social cohesion, that don't use a god, please.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 5:26pm

Harika wrote: »

Look at your first post, what did you state was maybe needed for social cohesion? Religion and Faith. For this you need a god, else name three religions or faiths, that are used for social cohesion, that don't use a god, please.

Maybe you should look at my first post again, and this time VERY carefully, and pay much more attention than you did the first time to the EXACT wording that I used. Maybe that will help you with your comprehension.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 5:29pm

But here, let me be kind to you and give you an example. I may choose to use a screwdriver for the PURPOSE of hammering in a nail. That would be neither smart nor efficient. But what point would there be in throwing away the screwdriver if I didn't replace it with a hammer?

Harika · 17-01-2015 6:14pm

rozeboosje wrote: »

But here, let me be kind to you and give you an example. I may choose to use a screwdriver for the PURPOSE of hammering in a nail. That would be neither smart nor efficient. But what point would there be in throwing away the screwdriver if I didn't replace it with a hammer?

Keeping the screwdriver, for the purpose of hammering, is not a good idea, as it will stop you from looking for an alternative that fits the purpose of hammering better, because the screwdriver gets the job done, and why change a running system? This is the inside view of the bubble, from the outside someone might look into it and think that there is a better tool for this. On the other side, you might also find a better use for the screwdriver. As we are all inside the bubble, we don't have the option to look from outside on it, but we have the option to think about why the screw driver is not the best tool for this, and discuss a better solution for this. Also we might look at other bubbles and find out what they are using to get the job done. And still the best solution we might find nowadays is not the best tool possible.
As we are a democracy we can sit together and find a better solution and not insist that today's fiction is the best and can only replaced by another fiction, but instead by a common ground we find. Here in science fiction we find very good examples of good and bad replacements for social cohesion.
Heinlein states e.g. in Starship Troopers:

Service men are not brighter than civilians. In many cases civilians are much more intelligent. That was the sliver of justification underlying the attempted coup d' etat just before the Treaty of New Delhi, the so-called 'Revolt of the Scientists': let the intelligent elite run things and you'll have utopia. It fell flat on its foolish face of course. Because the pursuit of science, despite its social benefits, is itself not a social virtue; its practitioners can be men so self-centered as to be lacking in social responsibility.

As good as it sounds, a society based purely on science and rationality does not work as it does take people into it. And without taking the people with you it won't work. If you ever tried to manage a big project without taking the stakeholders on board, you know what I mean. (While there is also SciFi where this works)

On the other side you have the utopia of Star Trek, this is working because of the technological advancements that take away the necessity of work, while giving people the freedom to fulfill their dreams while working towards all humans.
There are projects towards this, can't remember the name but basically a "guaranteed basic income for everyone" what removes the necessity to work, while giving people the freedom to fulfill their dreams. Pilot projects have shown that people in this projects tend to create a very social environment with an extreme effective output.

So there are options, that have not been tested, but without looking for a better alternative we would still use horses over cars. And that something that was created thousands of years ago for social cohesion is nowadays still the best option is highly questionable.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 6:19pm

Harika wrote: »

Keeping the screwdriver, for the purpose of hammering, is not a good idea

Right. And I made such a suggestion, where, exactly?

I agree with the rest of your post. But just taking a crutch away from a lame person and then leaving them there to hobble on all by themselves is just mean.

Zascar · 17-01-2015 6:23pm

I think Richard Dawkins answers this question pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 6:26pm

Zascar wrote: »

I think Richard Dawkins answers this question pretty well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

No. Richard Dawkins answers the question asked by yer wan in the audience pretty well. Indeed. But the question asked by yer wan in the audience is NOT the question I'm addressing here in this thread

Harika · 17-01-2015 6:47pm

rozeboosje wrote: »

Right. And I made such a suggestion, where, exactly?

Here

But what point would there be in throwing away the screwdriver if I didn't replace it with a hammer?

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 7:32pm

Harika wrote: »

Here

Again with the comprehension levels. How exactly, kindly explain to me, do you derive from that that I'm arguing for the continued use of that screwdriver? I'm not. I'm saying that it's important to find that hammer. Because if we don't, we're completely empty-handed and THEN (and ONLY THEN) we may as well keep the screwdriver.

Seriously, why do I have to keep explaining this? And why do people like Zascar keep repeating the same ridiculous response to this thread? Yes, the TITLE states "what if you're wrong?", but even if you can't be bothered to read the entire Original Post, you ONLY need to read as far as the SECOND line that states "Ha! No, I'm not leading into the usual Pascal's wager" to know that posting a response like Zascar's would be frankly idiotic.

Harika · 17-01-2015 8:55pm

rozeboosje wrote: »

Again with the comprehension levels. How exactly, kindly explain to me, do you derive from that that I'm arguing for the continued use of that screwdriver? I'm not. I'm saying that it's important to find that hammer. Because if we don't, we're completely empty-handed and THEN (and ONLY THEN) we may as well keep the screwdriver.

Seriously, why do I have to keep explaining this? And why do people like Zascar keep repeating the same ridiculous response to this thread? Yes, the TITLE states "what if you're wrong?", but even if you can't be bothered to read the entire Original Post, you ONLY need to read as far as the SECOND line that states "Ha! No, I'm not leading into the usual Pascal's wager" to know that posting a response like Zascar's would be frankly idiotic.

You are funnier and more stubborn than Festus.

Thats an achievement.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 10:58pm

Harika wrote: »

You are funnier and more stubborn than Festus. Thats an achievement.

I'm glad I'm amusing to you. It's an improvement on your previous inability to comprehend a word I said.

smacl · 17-01-2015 10:58pm

Harika wrote: »

You are funnier and more stubborn than Festus. Thats an achievement.

A sore head you will have, if a brick wall you keep hitting it off.

rozeboosje · 17-01-2015 11:11pm

I'm sorry if this is all too difficult for the both of yous.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 6:18am

rozeboosje wrote: »

I enjoy picking holes in stupid arguments, yes. And all that is needed to prove a general statement wrong is a single exception. Do I really need to explain how basic logic works?

You have not picked holes in a single argument I have seen yet. An exception has to actually apply before it is admissible, so a review of logic before presuming to lecture others on the subject is in Order.

If someone says "X does not by definition cause Y" then finding a case, real or imagined, where X causes Y..... is not an exception. Because saying X does not by definition cause Y is not negated by a case where X does cause Y.

Had my claim been "X never causes Y" however, you might actually have a semblance of a point were you to find an exception to my claim. Given that is not the claim I made however, I can merely suggest you try again. Maybe you should look at my post again, and this time VERY carefully, and pay much more attention than you did the first time to the EXACT wording that I used. Maybe that will help you with your comprehension.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 8:34am

Nice dissertation there. Now, are you labouring under the notion that I am claiming that some "X" is actually "causing" some "Y"? Kindly explain. I need to understand what strawman you've built up here.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:30am

Three paragraphs is a dissertation now? Wow.

I made no such claim, I was pointing out the logic fail about applying an exception where it does not fit the claim being made.

As I said to you already, my posts on the thread are solely evaluating the claim that religion is a social cohesive. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You made a point that perhaps religion somehow affects the dynamic of whether a person would choose to work with a group or against it during a period of diversity. And I simply repeat I do not think religion really alters that dynamic much at all, as with or without it that choice still remains before the individual.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:34am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I was pointing out the logic fail about applying an exception where it does not fit the claim being made.

A propos of what? You just decided to throw that in there for no good reason? Is this your Modus Operandi? Drown your opponent in irrelevant verbal diarrhoea?

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:36am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think religion really alters that dynamic much at all

And there is the generalisation to which I presented a single exception.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:37am

rozeboosje wrote: »

A propos of what? You just decided to throw that in there for no good reason? Is this your Modus Operandi? Drown your opponent in irrelevant verbal diarrhoea?

If three paragraphs "drowns" you then I can not help you with this, though I question the wisdom of being on an internet discussion forum at all.

However if someone says an exception proves my point wrong, but the exception does no such thing, then my "modus operandi" will be to point this out. Can not actually think of a reason why I would not do so.

rozeboosje wrote: »

And there is the generalisation to which I presented a single exception.

Except it is not, for the reasons I pointed out in the first post this morning.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:38am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except it is not, for the reasons I pointed out in the first post this morning.

Your reasons fail to convince.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:39am

Then by all means rebut them and explain why. The above line however is a bit throw away and adds nor furthers nothing in the conversation. Perhaps begin by expounding on the specific example you offered and explain its relevance to the point.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:40am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then by all means rebut them and explain why. The above line however is a bit throw away and adds nor furthers nothing in the conversation. Perhaps begin by expounding on the specific example you offered and explain its relevance to the point.

Who says I'm interested in having a conversation with YOU? You barged into this thread misrepresenting my position. As far as I'm concerned you can go jump into a lake.

MarkY91 · 19-01-2015 9:42am

If I by some bizarre way am wrong. I will still not be religious. Why should I worship a god? Feck off :L

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:42am

Last time I checked this was a public discussion forum and anyone can join at any time.

I am also not aware of having misrepresented anyone at any time on the thread. Perhaps you can be more specific.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:43am

MarkY91 wrote: »

If I by some bizarre way am wrong. I will still not be religious. Why should I worship a god? Feck off :L

Good on ya! Not the topic of this thread, though.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:45am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Last time I checked this was a public discussion forum and anyone can join at any time.

I am also not aware of having misrepresented anyone at any time on the thread. Perhaps you can be more specific.

1) This is a public discussion forum. Indeed. Anyone can join. Absolutely. But I'm under no obligation to entertain your confrontational way of conducting yourself.

2) There can only be two reasons why I would need to be more specific. Either you don't understand what I wrote in the first place, or you're being deliberately obtuse. I don't want to insult you by assuming the former.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:47am

rozeboosje wrote: »

1) This is a public discussion forum. Indeed. Anyone can join. Absolutely. But I'm under no obligation to entertain your confrontational way of conducting yourself.

I see nothing confrontational. You put forward the thesis that religion is a social cohesive and I am merely discussing that thesis. If you do not wish to do so, no one is forcing you to reply to my posts. That I am aware of anyway. As for being confrontational I am not the one getting mod warnings or telling people to go jump in lakes. The lack of decorum exists alright, but it is not from my side of the discourse at hand.

rozeboosje wrote: »

2) There can only be two reasons why I would need to be more specific. Either you don't understand what I wrote in the first place, or you're being deliberately obtuse. I don't want to insult you by assuming the former.

Or the claim that I have misrepresented you is entirely false and my wish for you to be more specific is to see if you can explain or support the claim.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:51am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You put forward the thesis that religion is a social cohesive

Did I?

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:53am

rozeboosje wrote: »

Did I?

Post #1. 5th Paragraph. First sentence. My posts have been discussing this sentence and the idea it suggests.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:53am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Post #1. 5th Paragraph. First sentence. My posts have been discussing this sentence and the idea it suggests.

And *boom* there it is. Misrepresentation.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:56am

How so? Again the idea put foward is that religion is a social cohesive. The exact line is "What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion?"

So how is my discussing whether religion is a social cohesive a misrepresentation exactly?

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 9:57am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The exact line is "What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion?"

Good boy. Now go and actually understand that sentence.

efb · 19-01-2015 9:58am

Damned anyway

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 9:58am

rozeboosje wrote: »

Good boy. Now go and actually understand that sentence.

If I am failing to understand it then by all means explain how and where. But you appear to be operating under the MO of throw away lines you fail to add substance to.

The sentence is suggestive that religion may be a social cohesive. So I am discussing whether religion is a social cohesive. Again, where is the misrepresentation? You do not appear to be able to point it out.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 10:00am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If I am failing to understand it then by all means explain how and where.

No sorry, THAT would be insulting. THAT would be treating you as if you were an idiot. I am going to assume that you're intelligent enough to work out what it actually means all by yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 10:00am

So you can not point out and explain how it is a misrepresentation then.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 10:02am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you can not point out and explain how it is a misrepresentation then.

Oh, I can. But I won't. I'm confident that you have the mental wherewithal to work it out all by yourself. Once you decide to do so and you decide to stop attacking straw men I'll be more than happy to continue this discussion on an even keel. But not with you playing silly buggers.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 10:05am

Except I am doing no such thing. The idea that religion is a social cohesive was mentioned, I am discussing it. I see nothing wrong with this. If you can not, or will not, discuss it and choose to hide instead behind false accusations of misrepresentation that has not occurred, then so be it. I am not required to pander to this.

So has anyone else here got anything which supports the claim religion is a social cohesive then that they can actually present?

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 10:07am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The idea that religion is a social cohesive was mentioned.

Not by me. So why did you decide to bring it up?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So has anyone else here got anything which supports the claim religion is a social cohesive then that they can actually present?

If you want to start another thread that discusses whether religion IS or IS NOT a social cohesive, an entirely different topic, feel free to.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 10:14am

rozeboosje wrote: »

Not by me. So why did you decide to bring it up?

As I said I am discussing the suggestion "What if I told you that the purpose of faith is social cohesion?". I am evaluating whether faith, specifically in the context of religion, is a social cohesive or not. If you do not want to discuss this, no one is forcing you to.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 10:15am

By the way, this is why I'm correct in my assertion that your modus operandi is confrontational. You told me what sentence you were responding to and what you thought I was saying in that sentence. I told you that that interpretation of that sentence is incorrect. If you then insist that your interpretation of what you read is actually correct, you are being confrontational. If you proceed on the basis of your original reading of that sentence, then you are (deliberately, too) misrepresenting my position.

The correct response would be to consider how else you could read that sentence in order to arrive at the CORRECT interpretation of same. As I already said earlier: I think that you have the mental capacity to do this, so I am not going to pre-chew it for you.

rozeboosje · 19-01-2015 10:16am

Oh darn it. I'm such a sweetie. Here's a little hint for you.

Ponder the meaning of the word "purpose" for a while. Maybe then it'll come to you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-01-2015 10:17am

If you wish to offer or explain another interpretation of the sentence then do so. I repeat: I am discussing the suggestion that it is a social cohesive. No one is forcing you to discuss it with me.

What if you're wrong?

Comments