Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Absolutely!
If evidence tends to lack independent objective verification, it doesnt matter whether it is a believer, or non believer citing the evidence, to support a belief.
...I just love how human interpretation "works" in all cases.
In following your lead, what I was intending to 'mean' was that ...
As a general rule, people will be much more illiberal in how they define legit evidence if they have a strong psychological need to disbelieve something.
IMO, the exercise many go through to denigrate religious beliefs, by ignoring or misconstruing possible evidence, is more an exercise to keep themselves unconvinced than anything else.
Above all on both ends is the need to be right, and the more invested one is on the topic the more mental gymnastics they will do to confirm that they’re indeed right. That’s why religious debate communities are so full of spectacular examples of ego-preserving interpretations of facts and arguments. Nobody wants to think they’ve been wrong about the most meaningful aspect of their life....I just love how human interpretation "works" in all cases.
In following your lead, what I was intending to 'mean' was that ...
As a general rule, people will be much more illiberal in how they define legit evidence if they have a strong psychological need to disbelieve something.
IMO, the exercise many go through to denigrate religious beliefs, by ignoring or misconstruing possible evidence, is more an exercise to keep themselves unconvinced than anything else.
It all depends what criteria one uses to associate certain evidence, with belief.
We are all unique in how we apply and it is heavily driven by personal psyche.
So, it sounds like you're a little different in this expectation than is, say, @Eight Foot Manchild?
Above all on both ends is the need to be right, and the more invested one is on the topic the more mental gymnastics they will do to confirm that they’re indeed right. That’s why religious debate communities are so full of spectacular examples of ego-preserving interpretations of facts and arguments. Nobody wants to think they’ve been wrong about the most meaningful aspect of their life.
Ah, the phrase “mental gymnastics” is indeed an insult to gymnasts and deep thinkers everywhere, a fair point. But generally there’s a lot of athletic terminology associated with criticism — dodging, leaping, running, etc. — that aren’t necessarily indictments on their physical counterparts. I still think it’s a perfectly serviceable term to describe arguments that make great leaps and contortions of logic in order to maintain a specific viewpoint. Maybe it’s overused, but it’s serviceable.On a general level, I think you're right about this. There are a number of Christian apologists who won't give quarter to additional, more expansive insights or considerations. They tend to be [[locked-in] ] into singular mental tracks toward certain conclusions by way of their chosen axioms and/or reliance upon chosen epistemological frameworks. This is truly is a sad state of affairs for all involved.
However, at the same time, I also think we need to do away with the use (and stigma) of the concept of "mental gymnastics." It's a very poor and ambiguous, even vague, analogy. When last I checked, gymnastics of the physical kind was seen not only as a competitive sport but also as one that requires a tremendous amount of concentration, skill, and ongoing practice. So, when we likewise relate to the mental side of things, we might need a better term since this one, like the net of a negligent fisherman, seems to be trotted out way too often to catch way too many specimens that just happen to swim by and into the fisherman's net.
I attempted to imply that it is serviceable to some extent, but since it is so over-used, even abusively so, I rather tend to refrain from using it.Ah, the phrase “mental gymnastics” is indeed an insult to gymnasts and deep thinkers everywhere, a fair point. But generally there’s a lot of athletic terminology associated with criticism — dodging, leaping, running, etc. — that aren’t necessarily indictments on their physical counterparts. I still think it’s a perfectly serviceable term to describe arguments that make great leaps and contortions of logic in order to maintain a specific viewpoint. Maybe it’s overused, but it’s serviceable.
Sure, and I hear you — but here’s the catch: the type of person to use what could legitimately be called mental gymnastics likely isn’t the type of person to appreciate the soundness of an argument accusing them of such. So there’s rarely a point in explaining why you characterized someone’s argument that way.I attempted to imply that it is serviceable to some extent, but since it is so over-used, even abusively so, I rather tend to refrain from using it.
If a person is going to apply it, it might behoove him to become comprehensively familiar with the epistemological structures or protocols used by the opposing side rather than guessing at those structures or protocols. If this can't or won't be done, then it seems to me that tossing out the term "mental gymnastics!" is nearly on a par with trollish mud-slinging from atheists as well as with the fundamentalist "God-did-it!" rhetoric delivered by some Christians. Its use too often serves as an excuse for a bit of aloofness, in an 'anti-Sun Tzu' kind of way.
Above all on both ends is the need to be right, and the more invested one is on the topic the more mental gymnastics they will do to confirm that they’re indeed right. That’s why religious debate communities are so full of spectacular examples of ego-preserving interpretations of facts and arguments. Nobody wants to think they’ve been wrong about the most meaningful aspect of their life.
I wouldn’t say necessarily valid, but everything’s fair game for mutual examination. Like Zippy said a few pages back, the key to a productive discussion/debate is a mutual reverence for truth and an openness to new ideas.So, all weapons are valid, even if one person will refuse to consider their opponents' weapon choice as being real. Maybe this is the root of "choice" itself...being the most basic and ultimately unique device of the individual. Or, it really can be just an illusion...
I wouldn’t say necessarily valid, but everything’s fair game for mutual examination. Like Zippy said a few pages back, the key to a productive discussion/debate is a mutual reverence for truth and an openness to new ideas.
So, all weapons are valid, even if one person will refuse to consider their opponents' weapon choice as being real. Maybe this is the root of "choice" itself...being the most basic and ultimately unique device of the individual. Or, it really can be just an illusion...
Maybe it's in the darkness where we cling desperately and resolutely to our shields and swords, until the light shines brightly upon us, and we can clearly see that our weapons were but a passing illusion...and then, for the first time, our wills are free to choose.
The light shows that our weapons are, but, the illusion of freewill...we see that our wills are captive...as more is revealed...freedom is gained.
I would say that we are unnatural (post "Fall"), so the "condition of our nature" is twisted in deep darkness (profound confusion).
Before the light shines, man is lost in a sea of subjectivity, if you will, with no way to orient himself...adrift...so deluded, that all he can do, to have some sense of peace, is cling to illusion.
After the light shines, there is resistance within and without...objects present themselves and they must be dealt with--no longer deniable...fear surges more powerful and pervasive than ever before...it is a real fear, of exposure...
*We are castaways...no longer sailing...adrift at sea...traveling the length of our dreams...
**And as the light continues in its undying glorious shine, the castaway looks around and suddenly sees that, the illusion he so desperately clung to, was, in fact, an unknown rock...that grows and grows gradually into a land he has never known...a land of true peace...
Are you asking...or offering...?
It all depends what criteria one uses to associate certain evidence, with belief.
We are all unique in how we apply and it is heavily driven by personal psyche.
You don't seem to know what a discussion is supposed to be.
Answer this,
Can you provide evidence of your meal content you ate today but a year ago?
If you fail to get the point, just leave it there for others to read, instead of throwing out pointless equivocations!
I think you need to add: Do they want to believe in a God or do they not want to believe in a God.It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God. It’s hard to blame them for this, because trying to tie down a strict definition for either one of these words could send them plunging into a philosophical rabbit hole where it’s very easy to lose your way.
Because of this, when we see theists and atheists locking horns, the discussion often devolves one of two ways: A) into a frustrating, repetitive bout of talking past each other that escalates into lost tempers and name-calling or B) into an in-depth examination of the epistemic tools being used by both parties, in which case the more experienced/educated interlocutor wins by mentally exhausting the other and the subject matter at hand doesn’t even get discussed.
That’s not to say it always goes those ways, but I’d go so far as to say it happens more often than not, at least in the threads in which I tend to participate. While not entirely pointless, these discussions rarely ever end up being about the question that’s asked originally.
I think the fundamental difference between theists and non-theists here isn’t in the arguments they’ve heard, the experiences they’ve had, or the facts they’re aware of. Rather, it is their approach to belief itself: what constitutes sufficient reason to believe something? Is it important for a belief to comport with reality? What beliefs must we take as self-evident before forming the rest? These are the issues that have to be settled up-front or else our discussions will end up devolving in the ways described above. And yet if we were actually able to accomplish that we would probably end up all on the same side anyway.
So I guess what I’m trying to say is none of the discussions we have here are likely to sway anyone from one side to the other. Instead these discussions serve to display how different people justify their views based on their own idiosyncratic epistemologies. The best we can do is point out each other’s inconsistencies.
Just something to keep in mind when you find yourself repeating the same thing over and over and the bonehead on the other side isn’t “getting” it.
Motivated reasoning can play a part, but that goes for all sides. As I’ve said before, no one wants to believe they’ve been wrong about the most meaningful part of their life.I think you need to add: Do they want to believe in a God or do they not want to believe in a God.
All the atheists and agnostics I have talked with really do not want there to be a Christian God, but will not admit that to being their reason to not believe in God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?