My Yigo Challenge

[lesliedellow]

Somebody who doesn't think Yigo doesn't exists, is unlikely to go looking for him.

I certainly wouldn't mount a search for the Yeti.

 

[AV1611VET]

Somebody who doesn't think Yigo doesn't exists, is unlikely to go looking for him.

I certainly wouldn't mount a search for the Yeti.

I know some scientists in L'Aquila who could have learned from this challenge.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know some scientists in L'Aquila who could have learned from this challenge.

On a first name basis?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Can you answer my challenge or not?

I answered it by example, AV. I demonstrated how a person who didn't believe Yigo existed (me) can be more apt to find it than one who does ( that would be you).

And why? Because belief is nothing without effort, and no amount of belief on your part can make up for your lack of effort.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know some scientists in L'Aquila who could have learned from this challenge.

Nobody learns from your "challenges," AV -- least of all you.

 

[AV1611VET]

I demonstrated how a person who didn't believe Yigo existed (me) can be more apt to find it than one who does ( that would be you).

Shall I stand in awe of your cartographic perception, or are you just blowing smoke?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody learns from your "challenges," AV -- least of all you.

Believe me -- I've learned a lot from them.

 

[Chany]

No kidding?

They try to push me into that category, and I refuse to budge.

Now all they can do is mock & ridicule our faith; and that's fine with me.

They mocked and ridiculed Jesus -- what makes me any better?

The point is this: you present the belief scale as black and white: that is, people either believe in Y or does not believe in Y.

There exists a catergory of people who are unsure and/or completely willing to change their views when given a reason to do so. Some of these reasons may be irrational, for sure, but they are still open for debate. Many of the people in either camp were once in the middle.

An outside audience is the best choice for finding the existence of something, a person that has no real commitment either way. The next best person would be a non-believer of Y who is entirely open to the possibility Y's existence. The next best person would be a believer who is open to Y's nonexistence. I rate them lower because of the possibility of confirmation bias.

The worst people to discover the truth behind the existence of Y are those adamently opposed to either side and will never be swayed by evidence otherwise.

However, when you take the net worth of it all, when comparing viewpoints of belief versus non-belief in discovering truth, the skeptic of the matter is better.

 

[Loudmouth]

No kidding?

They try to push me into that category, and I refuse to budge.

Now all they can do is mock & ridicule our faith; and that's fine with me.

They mocked and ridiculed Jesus -- what makes me any better?

A perfect example of how being wrong only reinforces being wrong.

 

[JustMeSee]

GEE-GO
I don't have a boat.

 

[AV1611VET]

GEE-GO

Yay! --

I knew someone could do it!

 

[JustMeSee]

I could be wrong, but I think even psychiatrists would agree that if you don't believe something exists, it will be harder to find than someone who knows it exists.

IOW, not believing something can create a mental block that impairs even the empirical senses.

1, I had never heard of it.
2. If neither of us knew where it was located, we would have a similar chance of finding it while travelling.
3. Once I found out what it was, I am apt to believe it exists, or not.
4. I could verify it exists, to a certain extent, by travelling to it.

Everything believed is not necessarily real.

 

[AV1611VET]

1, I had never heard of it.
2. If neither of us knew where it was located, we would have a similar chance of finding it while travelling.
3. Once I found out what it was, I am apt to believe it exists, or not.
4. I could verify it exists, to a certain extent, by travelling to it.

Everything believed is not necessarily real.

I have heard of it though.

In fact, I've been there.

 

[Cute Tink]

The point is this: you present the belief scale as black and white: that is, people either believe in Y or does not believe in Y.

There exists a catergory of people who are unsure and/or completely willing to change their views when given a reason to do so. Some of these reasons may be irrational, for sure, but they are still open for debate. Many of the people in either camp were once in the middle.

An outside audience is the best choice for finding the existence of something, a person that has no real commitment either way. The next best person would be a non-believer of Y who is entirely open to the possibility Y's existence. The next best person would be a believer who is open to Y's nonexistence. I rate them lower because of the possibility of confirmation bias.

The worst people to discover the truth behind the existence of Y are those adamently opposed to either side and will never be swayed by evidence otherwise.

However, when you take the net worth of it all, when comparing viewpoints of belief versus non-belief in discovering truth, the skeptic of the matter is better.

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, had never even heard of Y?

 

[AV1611VET]

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, had never even heard of Y?

What about it?

A more appropriate question ... and one that fits the OP is:

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, refuses to believe Y exists?

Put two people in a room and give each one a map of the world and tell them to find Hell.

Person A, who believes Hell exists, will eventually find it.

Person B, who doesn't believe Hell exists, just might shove the map back and say, "Nice try, but you're not fooling me."

Hell, MI

 

[TLK Valentine]

They mocked and ridiculed Jesus -- what makes me any better?

Absolutely nothing.

They mocked and ridiculed Bozo the Clown -- you're a lot closer to his level than Jesus' (no offense intended to Bozo).

 

[TLK Valentine]

I could be wrong, but I think even psychiatrists would agree that if you don't believe something exists, it will be harder to find than someone who knows it exists.

IOW, not believing something can create a mental block that impairs even the empirical senses.

Yes, but sufficient effort can over come such a mental block.

The key word being effort -- something few creationists believe in.

 

[TLK Valentine]

His "challenges" usually involve some kind of pitfall or trick, and when people refuse to be bamboozled he gets upset. Even though the questions are answered, they aren't answered the way he wants them answered.

The worst kind of con artist is an untalented one. They can't accept that they're only capable of fooling themselves.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Solid aurum.

Now, now, AV -- just because you failed your own challenge is no reason to get bitter at the people who passed.

 

[Chany]

What about it?

A more appropriate question ... and one that fits the OP is:

What about the person who, up until presented with the challenge of finding Y, refuses to believe Y exists?

Put two people in a room and give each one a map of the world and tell them to find Hell.

Person A, who believes Hell exists, will eventually find it.

Person B, who doesn't believe Hell exists, just might shove the map back and say, "Nice try, but you're not fooling me."

Hell, MI

Did you really just use the equivocation fallacy to try and bolster your position?