For those of you who are always right...

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm wrong all the time, but I never let that stop me.

"Wrong" just means you haven't done a good enough job lying to, tricking, coercing, or intimidating someone well enough into seeing that you're right.

 

[sun rise]

I have sympathy for those that preach revealed TRUTH because I was once one. Not in the religion sphere, but in the health sphere. I had learned some health truths from a book and preached them to the unwashed to enlighten them and lead them to TRUTH.

What cured me? Life. LIfe wields a cluebat from time to time:

That does not mean, of course, that I'm wrong, just that if I say I'm right too often things start happening to me.

 

[Stovepipe_Hat]

It's getting tiresome. ...I never cease to be amazed by those posters who cannot even begin to conceive of the idea that someone else may have a valid point. ...It has everything to do with your attitude.

Know-it-all-ism is easily of the most well represented religions here.

... Im old and crochity and a chermudgeon,...

I don't take my opinions too seriously - or even have firm opinion on everything. I will argue matters of fact which I can cite some qualified source on, but we now have a concept of separation of church & state for a reason. Unfortunately, dogmatism is an incurable and fatal illness. Then, there are some of us embarking on religious or spiritual quests because we perceive our time on this planet is running out. I happen to be in that group, and posting here beats wallowing in self-pity over arthritis and hemorrhoids.

 

[Alceste]

What's the book, Katz?

 

[Apex]

It's getting tiresome. As a 9 1/2 year member of RF, I never cease to be amazed by those posters who cannot even begin to conceive of the idea that someone else may have a valid point.

I always cringe when I get into a discussion with one of these posters. You end up with two options: 1) Enter into the futility that is attempting a two way discussion with them, or 2) Realize it is pointless and just back out while you still have your sanity while the other poster dances around acting like they just won an argument.

We should start giving these posters an award. I even know who we can name it after.

 

[Katzpur]

What's the book, Katz?

It's called "Crucible of Doubt" but it's kind of oriented towards an LDS audience. The author is really a bright guy, though; his writing reminds me a lot of C.S. Lewis.

 

[Katzpur]

I always cringe when I get into a discussion with one of these posters. You end up with two options: 1) Enter into the futility that is attempting a two way discussion with them, or 2) Realize it is pointless and just back out while you still have your sanity while the other poster dances around acting like they just won an argument.

What kills me is that these posters always have to have the last word, and the last word is always somelike like, "I see... You're just afraid of the truth," or "Go ahead, run off with your tail between your legs." Sometimes they add something like, "Yup, that's just like a Mormon (or Catholic or Muslim or whatever group you belong to). Every time one of you guys are backed up against a wall, you suddenly refuse to continue debating." They make it next to impossible to just gracefully exit from a debate by saying, "Look, this discussion is going nowhere. I have better things to do than continue going around in circles with you." They haven't "won" at all. Nobody has and nobody ever will. It just gets down to who has more time to waste debating completely subjective issues.

 

[Alceste]

It's called "Crucible of Doubt" but it's kind of oriented towards an LDS audience. The author is really a bright guy, though; his writing reminds me a lot of C.S. Lewis.

Thanks, I was curious - that was a good quote. Checked out the write-up and it's not really up my alley, but isn't reading awesome?

 

[Sapiens]

It's getting tiresome. As a 9 1/2 year member of RF, I never cease to be amazed by those posters who cannot even begin to conceive of the idea that someone else may have a valid point.

What is getting tiring is the paucity of new insights/arguments from creationists. I'm rather bored also.

I just started reading a fantastic book. I'm going to quote something from page 2:

"We all inhabit geographical, linguistic, and social words that shape our vision and our impressions of what is normal, what is real. Our worldview is a collective set of assumptions we carry with us that condition every question we ask. These 'paradigms' make it possible to guide inquiry, but they can also limit and impede our inquiry. They can get us off on the wrong foot, obscure our line of sight, or simply misdirect our focus. This is because, all too often, we don't realize the limiting assumptions with which we are working."

True enough, as far as it goes.

It
If you are one of those people who can never acknowledge even the possibility that you don't have all the answers, and know better than all the rest of us what "Truth-with-a-capitol-T" is, you have no idea how frustrating it can be for the rest of us to try to have a mature dialogue with you. Every one of us is coming from a distinctly unique place. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of those who come here for religious debate and discussion genuinely believe that their perspective is correct. They do so because of what they've been taught, what they've experienced, and what faith, reason, or a combination of the two tells them is correct. It is, of course, possible, that some people haven't ventured very far out of the box, and haven't given much thought to any perspective other than their own. I really feel sorry for them, whether they have come to some of the same conclusions as I have or not.

Also true enough, as far as it goes, but here's where it stops: when a claim is thoroughly and rationally debunked (e.g., the Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution) yet the claim keeps getting repeated over and over because it is what someone was taught and is what faith, reason, or a combination of the two when combined with a lack of knowledge tells them is correct.

This constant, "I'm right, brother, and you're wrong," is starting to annoy me to no end. (You know who you are.) How about saying, "I believe..." or "From my perspective..." or "The way I see it..." for a change? None of us knows anything "for sure."

Wiggle words are good, when appropriate, when inappropriate they simply serve to lend credence to stupidity.

God (and yes, I'm going to assume He exists because the idea that He does resonates very strongly with me) has not handpicked you to be the purveyor of all truth while letting the rest of us wallow in ignorance.

True enough, no god has chosen me to be the purveyor of all truth. As to whether some god has chosen you to wallow in ignorance ... that's between you and your god.

Believe what you will. Stand up for what you believe. But for Heaven's sake, stop equating what you believe to be true with fact, because it's not.

Within the limits of modern science, it is in fact true, but I know that "truths" change, that's something that most believers can't handle. Especially since the critical truths never change toward their beliefs.

It's your belief, your opinion, your perspective. That's all it is. And try to let up a little with respect to the condescending responses. It's making all of us despise you. This has nothing to do with what's true and what isn't. It has everything to do with your attitude.

No, it is not my belief, my opinion, my perspective.It is the virtual consensus of current educated western thought. Whether you despise me or worship me makes no difference in what can be shown to be "true" and what can be falsified, and that has nothing-what-so ever to do with my attitude.

 

[Katzpur]

No, it is not my belief, my opinion, my perspective.It is the virtual consensus of current educated western thought. Whether you despise me or worship me makes no difference in what can be shown to be "true" and what can be falsified, and that has nothing-what-so ever to do with my attitude.

Wow! Was it something I said? I don't have a clue what you're even going off about. When did we start talking about evolution anyway? Unless I've completely misunderstood this rant of yours, it appears as if you are are directing a whole lot of anger towards me over something I never said or even implied. I actually don't despise you or worship you; I don't even know you, for crying out loud, and until right now have never even spoken to you.

 

[s2a]

It's getting tiresome. As a 9 1/2 year member of RF, I never cease to be amazed by those posters who cannot even begin to conceive of the idea that someone else may have a valid point. I just started reading a fantastic book. I'm going to quote something from page 2:

"We all inhabit geographical, linguistic, and social words that shape our vision and our impressions of what is normal, what is real. Our worldview is a collective set of assumptions we carry with us that condition every question we ask. These 'paradigms' make it possible to guide inquiry, but they can also limit and impede our inquiry. They can get us off on the wrong foot, obscure our line of sight, or simply misdirect our focus. This is because, all too often, we don't realize the limiting assumptions with which we are working."

If you are one of those people who can never acknowledge even the possibility that you don't have all the answers, and know better than all the rest of us what "Truth-with-a-capitol-T" is, you have no idea how frustrating it can be for the rest of us to try to have a mature dialogue with you. Every one of us is coming from a distinctly unique place. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of those who come here for religious debate and discussion genuinely believe that their perspective is correct. They do so because of what they've been taught, what they've experienced, and what faith, reason, or a combination of the two tells them is correct. It is, of course, possible, that some people haven't ventured very far out of the box, and haven't given much thought to any perspective other than their own. I really feel sorry for them, whether they have come to some of the same conclusions as I have or not.

This constant, "I'm right, brother, and you're wrong," is starting to annoy me to no end. (You know who you are.) How about saying, "I believe..." or "From my perspective..." or "The way I see it..." for a change? None of us knows anything "for sure." God (and yes, I'm going to assume He exists because the idea that He does resonates very strongly with me) has not handpicked you to be the purveyor of all truth while letting the rest of us wallow in ignorance. Believe what you will. Stand up for what you believe. But for Heaven's sake, stop equating what you believe to be true with fact, because it's not. It's your belief, your opinion, your perspective. That's all it is. And try to let up a little with respect to the condescending responses. It's making all of us despise you. This has nothing to do with what's true and what isn't. It has everything to do with your attitude.

In my own defense, as one who is certainly one of the jerks that is identified here, I acknowledge that there are times that I am/can be most unpleasant company, especially at parties with diverse views.

I do take comfort in the notion however that I am almost always right, even when lending overreaching deference to the ignorant, the hateful, and the perpetually fearful of anyhing they do not understand.

I am no longer the smartest guy in the room (mostly anyway.) But I confidently remain the guy that (again, mostly) knows what he is talking about, and almost never demonstrably proven wrong by introduction of any of those "liberal biased" facts.

This is not my fault, or a failing of available information,

Regrettably, in this day and age of information overload, most people that are demonstrably and clearly wrong, choose to be so. Even when they know it.
It's no accident.

"True believers" have a clear conscience, in whatever they promote as "truth". However, "belief" is always the worst kind of evidence in evaluating any "doubt". It really is...unless you prefer "belief" over testable and repeatable evidences.

"Knowing stuff" is sometimes: unpopular, unproven, or even ugly. But listening to some screeching street preacher insist that they, and they alone can ever hope to render some "absolute" and/or "final answer to ALL lingering questions of existent life, well...this again brings about my hopes that at some point that deliberate stupidity will be soooo inexorably painful that any remaining rational and thinking people will eschew the simplistic silly, in favor of the most rational potentialities.

 

[s2a]

I don't understand. If I can't explain to people why I'm objectively right about everything then how will other people learn just how wrong they are?

Articulation is your friend.

Knowing about what you are talking about, really helps too.

 

[s2a]

Hi there again. So what's your impression on intent here? To what extent do you feel people know they're doing this, or is it mostly unintentional? Perhaps we've all come across this way occasionally. But obviously some a ton more than others.

Personally, I find it hard to judge intent ... at least in the beginning. When it's pointed out by several others though, and it still continues, then I tend to start thinking the person won't get it or can't get it. Now that sounds ridiculously insulting, but yes I do share you ideas on it being tiresome.

And...a BIG "and" here...

..it's always OK to opine upon matters of which you know little or nothing...it is. As some in the cadre of Faux News would overstate, "it's your right"!

However...

"Judging" is largely irrelevant". Questioning...is relevant.

It's what humans are evolved to do.

But if you choose to share (or even spread) simplistic opinion alone, just know that within any forum of "DEBATE", there may be others that will not only counter a faulty/flawed premise, but may even go so far as to demonstrate in fair fashion thet what you say may be dumb, or wrong. These are not inherently "bad" people. Those that choose to engage "debate" may seek to change your own mind/attitude/perspective of whatever you "think" is true. That's kinda the point.

Otherwise, perhaps it may be best to simply "preach to the choir", and revel in the validation it offers absent..."debate"

 

[Sapiens]

Wow! Was it something I said?

​

That's logical.
​

I don't have a clue what you're even going off about.

​

I think I was pretty clear.
​

When did we start talking about evolution anyway?

​

Evolution was not the topic, just an example.
​

Unless I've completely misunderstood this rant of yours,

​

I resent that characterization.
​

it appears as if you are are directing a whole lot of anger towards me over something I never said or even implied.

​

I resent that implication of my feelings.
​

I actually don't despise you or worship you; I don't even know you, for crying out loud, and until right now have never even spoken to you.

I never said you did. Please reread with a dash less paranoia.

 

[Katzpur]

I never said you did. Please reread with a dash less paranoia.

No thanks. Perhaps I just failed to appreciate your sarcasm.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: For those of you who are always right...
-----------------------------------------------------

Full marks to the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for admitting they were wrong in the past!
Let's hope they've got it right at last..

 

[Sapiens]

Topic title: For those of you who are always right...
-----------------------------------------------------

Full marks to the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses for admitting they were wrong in the past!
Let's hope they've got it right at last..

What? They admit some "minor" errors (like the status of non-white races) and then expect a pass on all the rest of their foolishness ... no way.

 

[Katzpur]

And the interesting thing is that the dogmatism can come from either end of the spectrum.

 

[Sapiens]

And the interesting thing is that the dogmatism can come from either end of the spectrum.

There you go ... using words that you may not understand fully and thus do not really mean. Dogmatism is more a matter of style than of content, it is characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles, and thus can come from even the most middle of the middle of the road, extremes are not required. Thus, no matter what your attitude is, it is quite impossible to be dogmatic concerning, say, the idea that in base 10 two plus two equals four. However, without a degree of humility that escapes most true believers, it is quite possible to be dogmatic about the contents of the Book of Mormon, or a tract in the Watchtower.

 

[Kathryn]

There you go ... using words that you may not understand fully and thus do not really mean. Dogmatism is more a matter of style than of content, it is characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles, and thus can come from even the most middle of the middle of the road, extremes are not required. Thus, no matter what your attitude is, it is quite impossible to be dogmatic concerning, say, the idea that in base 10 two plus two equals four. However, without a degree of humility that escapes most true believers, it is quite possible to be dogmatic about the contents of the Book of Mormon, or a tract in the Watchtower.

And there YOU go - shoving words and meanings into the mouths of those who didn't say them.

What Katzpur said was this:

Originally Posted by Katzpur
And the interesting thing is that the dogmatism can come from either end of the spectrum.

She didn't say dogmatism ONLY comes from either end of a spectrum. She did say that it CAN come from either end of a spectrum, and it certainly can. I see nothing in her statement that warranted assuming that she didn't know the meaning of the word.