When Debate Doesn't Make Sense

[_Coggins7]

Move on, nothing to see here.

Blah, blah, blah...

[_gramps]

Move on, nothing to see here.

Blah, blah, blah...

Cut, paste, post.

Blah, blah, blah.

[_Coggins7]

Reading comprehension problem, short attention span, limited educational background, inability to comprehend and digest detailed, extended logical arguments.


Typical Mormondiscussions.com anti-Mormon poster.

In fact, textbook typical anti-Mormon.

[_Polygamy Porter]

So, when you and Scratch aren't selling pot in a Gay bathhouse or waving garments in Temple Square when you should be seeing your probation officer, you're here stirring the pot but contributing nothing of substance (well, probably 90 percent of the other posters here don't either, so never mind).

For the love of the Gordon B. Hinckley and his 15 boot lickers, PLEASE JUMP off the wagon! It will pick you up on its way back around. One little hit off the bottle will do you some good.

[_Ray A]

[color=darkblue]
Hi Kindred Souls

Kindred in what, your anti-Mormon obsession? Did I ever tell you what I think about you? Maybe your next "hit song" will be "she's so full of b***s***"?

[_Sethbag]

Cut and thrust. The claim that purpose need not come from a divine creator (human or not), or, indeed, has not come from a creator, is mere assertion as well, and is nothing that flows from scientific data or knowledge. The further question of where the creator's creator came from is, while interesting philosophically tangential to the issue at hand, and using it as a red herring doesn't save you from the fact that general materialist claims are, themselves, nothing more than mere assertion without foundation. Unlike these, however, the Gospel does provide us with a means of certain knowledge on these matters, but that, of course, requires human beings remove their masks of intellectual pretense and self deification and realize that there may be ways of knowing and means of perception than the purely intellectual or scientific.

You deride the purpose that atheists see for themselves as mere assertions of human minds with nothing to back those assertions up. You argue that meaning can only come from a God. Why is that? What, specifically, about there being a God actually gives meaning to existence? As Tarski said on MAD, why is procreating spirit babies for eternity inherently any more meaningful than having a family on Earth and living for 75 years, enjoying your life, being loved by others as you love them, and then passing away? Is the entire substance of your claims the bald assertion that eternal duration alone confers meaning?

You say that atheists simply assert, of themselves, that they have a meaning, and this you deride. And then, in the next breath, you assert, with no argument or evidence, or logic, or reason to back you up, that life in a universe with a God that created it has meaning. And you do this without any data to back you up aside from the speculations and musings of some dead humans who went before us. Oh yeah, and you had some moments of euphoria, which experience you believe was actually someone "upstairs" telling you something was true. Interestingly, or perhaps tellingly, you cannot articulate any way for people to recognize between the true "spiritual witness" and the mere euphoric experience. All of your assertions, all of your arguments, you back up, in the end, with the claim that you know because you know, because you believe that God told you so.

I shall call this henceforth the fallacy of "argument by appeal to an imaginary friend".

[_guy sajer]

Whether Tal intended it, Coggins7 has provided in this thread a near perfect example of the point he was making.

Thanks Cog ol' buddy for your selfless service on this one.

[_beastie]

Tal,

If one's goal is to influence someone else's opinion, then yes, internet debates are usually worthless.

If, on the other hand, one is more interested in observing human behavior in general, it is quite interesting.

For example, internet debates I've engaged in over the past few years at FAIR/MAD provided abundant evidence of the wisdom of Eric Hoffer's observation:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

Internet debates also provide remarkable demonstrations of confirmation bias.

I think human beings are the most interesting animals of all. So I consider my internet hobby to be no more of a waste of time than a bird watcher's decision to spend hours in nature, binoculars and notebook in hand.

[NorthboundZax]

Kindred in what, your anti-Mormon obsession?

Hey Ray A - no offense, but can you read? Here's what I wrote:

This post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be. Hi Kindred Souls

Do you understand those words? They mean that "this post is for all those who have acknowledged that Mormonism cannot be what it claims to be". Since I too acknowledge that, we (the people to whom I am addressing this particular post) are kindred souls in that sense.

I see your reading comprehension hasn't improved much since last time I was on. Pity that Relief Society literacy programme a few years back didn't make it to Australia...!

Anyway, thank you for making my point for me. You and Coggins7 are putting on quite the show. Keep it up, especially the song jokes.

I await further corroboration of my point.

[_harmony]

I think human beings are the most interesting animals of all. So I consider my internet hobby to be no more of a waste of time than a bird watcher's decision to spend hours in nature, binoculars and notebook in hand.

Excellent point. Hobbies are the means we use to escape our daily grind, whatever that grind may be. There is nothing any more or less valuable about bird watching, fishing, needlepoint, or any of a number of hobbies that relax and rejuvenate those engage in them than there is about internet board community debates. To each his/her own.