= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
I appear to be unable to delete my comment.
The latter. Actually, I guess I still consume a lot of unknown things, but now almost exclusively online, where when the thing sucks, you can instantly move on to something else.
Much better to download a movie and watch five minutes of it and delete it than to coordinate going to the theater with someone, buy overpriced popcorn, watch a bunch of ads, then sit through an hour and a half of something you don't really like.
I can't really tell whether this is me failing to appreciate some aspect of human experience, or just that the way people tend to do things is stupid.
I can't really tell whether this is me failing to appreciate some aspect of human experience, or just that the way people tend to do things is stupid.
I wonder the same about myself all the time. Sometimes I feel less..., uh, "human" (?) for it. At those times, I ask myself, "would you rather be doing X?" and the answer is invariably that I would not. I seem to be happier for not doing these things because when I give in and do them, I get bored or annoyed.
Not to belittle KLF's achievements, but is that really the best example you can come up with?
Followed by another. Seriously. Politics is the mind-killer. Back away from the edge.
I have studied two of the items on his list extensively: theology and literary theory. And I agree that they are worse than worthless.
Here's your evidence: what significant problems have these fields ever solved?
In response to
Rationality Boot Camp
This sounds awesome. I can't attend this year due to other commitments but I hope you continue running it so I can do so later.
I too would be interested in doing this next year.
In theory. But in practice, this is the correlation I've noted.
I too have noticed this. In fact, most of your post could have been written about me.
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
My general answer to that question is here.
In this specific context, I would recommend thinking carefully about what made you want to change your beliefs, assuming you did want to. If you can figure that out and articulate it, you may find that other people in the same position you were in will react to it the same way.
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
I actually didn't want to. It was more of an overwhelming evidence deconversion. But I was willing to look at that evidence because I had a strong desire to be a defender of light, to boldly face the philosophical abyss of unbelief--- for God.
Yet there was a key difference somewhere between what I did and what I see a lot of believers do. I read enemy texts, not just friendly texts on enemy ideas. Why did I, in that frame of mind, do that? That might be the thing to figure out and then articulate, as you put it.
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
If they really are rejecting logic in its entirety, as you suggest, then they have insulated themselves from being forced into accepting conclusions they don't want to accept simply because they follow from premises they've previously accepted, so any attempt to convince them that depends on that sort of force will simply fail.
It seems to follow that, if you want them to accept your beliefs, you will have to induce them to want to accept those beliefs.
All of that said, I'm somewhat skeptical that this is actually what they've done, although of course I don't know the people you're talking about.
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
No, you're right about that. They're not rejecting logic. They use it (selectively). They're just saying "I reject logic" as a tactic to stopsign any arguments in which they get cornered.
I like the idea of getting them to want to accept my beliefs. That's a rather large task though, isn't it? I'm not quite sure how I managed it myself. Sure, now I look back and say, "what a dreadful and frustrating perspective that was in comparison", and now the beauty of what we might achieve without a god, and the natural world, are overwhelming, but how to get that across?
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
This comment puzzles me.
You have found that the most effective strategy, if you actually want to convince people of the truth of your position, is to argue from within their worldview and according to their rules. So far, so good... this is also my experience, of both theists and nontheists alike.
You have found that some people dismiss "logic itself," which you find (understandably) frustrating.
Given those two findings, the natural conclusion seems to be that the most effective strategy for convincing those people is to give up arguing from "logic," discover what it is they are using instead, and argue from whatever that is.
Instead, you seem to ignore your own first paragraph and try to convince them using the selfsame "logic" that they dismiss.
Why do you expect that to work?
In response to
comment
by
on
The annoyingness of New Atheists: declaring God Dead makes you a Complete Monster?
That's a rather good point. I suppose I assumed that everyone (on some gut level) endorses logic, that it was just my failure to communicate my point clearly, not that they were viewing logic as external in the same way they did the other evidence.
Yet, I don't see where to go from here. Without getting some sort of commitment to logic, anything I say using any methodology can be rejected for no reason.
Perhaps I ought to use scriptures to show that God endorses logic? Hmm. What a twisted path that is.
View more: Next
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
The problem is that we don't know how influential the blind spot is. It could just fade away after a couple minutes and a "hey, wait a minute..." But assuming it sticks:
If I were a car salesmen, I would have potential customers tell me their ideal car and then I would tell them what I want their ideal car to be as though I were simply restating what they just said.
If I were a politician, I would target identities (e.g., latino, pro-life, low taxes, ect) rather than individuals because identities are made of choices and they're easier to target than individuals. The identity makes a choice and then you assume the identity chose you. E.g., "President Obama has all but said that I'm instigating "class warfare," or that I don't care about business owners, or that I want to redistribute wealth. Well, Mr. Obama, I am fighting with and for the 99%; the middle class; the inner city neighborhoods that your administration has forgotten; Latinos; African-Americans. We all have had enough of the Democrats decades long deafness towards our voice. Vote Romney." Basically, you take the opposition's reasons for not voting for you and then assume those reasons are for the opposition, and you run the ads in the areas you want to affect.
I don't like either presidential candidate. I need to say that before I say this: using current rather than past political examples is playing with fire.