< 1 2 3 4 > 
 
   
 

A Tactful Approach

 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 22:30
 

Because it shows that your premises are shaky and therefore anyone heeding them should be aware of how shaky they are.

what shaky premises are these exactly?? elucidate me.

 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 22:51
 

good eye,
i was trying to make a point… you’re coming ‘round a bit I suppose.  =)

[ Edited: 01 June 2009 23:01 by Slow Nerve Action]
 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 22:55
 
Simpleton - 01 June 2009 08:34 PM
Slow Nerve Action - 01 June 2009 08:30 PM

Because it shows that your premises are shaky and therefore anyone heeding them should be aware of how shaky they are.

what shaky premises are these exactly?? elucidate me.

Sorry, it is quite nonsensical to even try “elucidating you”.  Your nick should suffice.

The ones I elucidate in the post that you chose to snip out.  Go back in the thread and resume from where you left off, if you really care.

how typical, so very *simple* to claim my premises are shaky without expliciately stating how they are. 
you’re a cutie =)

 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 23:03
 
Simpleton - 01 June 2009 08:32 PM
Slow Nerve Action - 01 June 2009 08:26 PM

I guess you’re just not getting it.  let me spell it out:

- I’m using this very converstation with you to show you how most people will ignore you if you interact with them the way you do.. durr

Indeed, and it is working very poorly, considering that you are still interacting.  Not addressing questions, not explaining your positions, spewing Dr. Phil aphorisms and ad hominems perhaps, but nevertheless interacting.

Guess that’s the second time you failed in this thread alone!

Why not try answering the questions on your first set of assertions, instead?  Heck, that might be more useful.

read closer friend.
.. notice how i didn’t say people will stop interacting with you… i said they will ignore you… and let me assure you if its still not clear I have ignored almost everything you’ve written.

 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 23:15
 
Simpleton - 01 June 2009 09:09 PM
Slow Nerve Action - 01 June 2009 08:51 PM

good eye,
i was trying to make a point… you’re coming ‘round a bit I suppose.  =)

Well go ahead and make it then.

i already did

I’m using this very converstation with you to show you how most people will ignore you if you interact with them the way you do.. durr

  do you really not get it??

In which case it is clear that almost everything you said on my writings were done from a position of, ignorance.


LOL

of course !!

but it also doesn’t take much reading to realize you’re pointlessly insulting me and being generally barbarous

I guess you do not care, which makes me suspect that you too realize how shaky they wer]e.

this is such a typical repsonse from someone who has nothing to back up what they’ve said.  but no, that not you, right?

[ Edited: 01 June 2009 23:25 by Slow Nerve Action]
 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
01 June 2009 23:35
 

anything but responding to your thesis.

oh this entire conversation has been entirely about my thesis… I’m just addressing it on a different level than you are. wink

 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
02 June 2009 14:03
 

Simpleton, open your eyes. Slow Nerve HAS been discussing the subject of this thread…..using YOU as a perfect example of how NOT to approach theists. Slow Nerve is playing the role of the hypothetical theist, and you are playing the role of…well…yourself (a Bad Rabbit type). You apparently are completely obtuse to what Slow Nerve is doing here. You only seem to be interested in picking a fight, and are playing right into SNA’s hands.  Let’s review, shall we? You said (in posts 15, 17 and 21).....

But you have not answered what I asked.

So how would you discuss Genesis, or would you avoid discussing Genesis at all?  If you choose the latter, would you even discuss any parts of the Bible?  Which ones, and why those and not Genesis?

While it is not worth repeating the entire conversation, I leave you with an opportunity to redeem yourself, so that you may be taken seriously in the future and not just ridiculed.  Just answer the following.  It is not threatening at all, except to someone who had no intention of discussing things.

So how would you discuss Genesis, or would you avoid discussing Genesis at all?  If you choose the latter, would you even discuss any parts of the Bible?  Which ones, and why those and not Genesis?

You look evasive when you do not address questions.  Perhaps you forgot it when you are busy hurling ad hominems.  Here it is:

So how would you discuss Genesis, or would you avoid discussing Genesis at all?  If you choose the latter, would you even discuss any parts of the Bible?  Which ones, and why those and not Genesis?

.....and continued to criticize SNA for what you perceive to be an inability to address your questions…..apparently having completely forgotten about the fact that SNA did sufficiently answer your Genesis question, back in post 14. I don’t know how exactly, but it seems that the chip on your shoulder is having some negative effect (directly or indirectly) on your memory. Simpleton, you’re making a very valuable contribution to this thread, but not in the way that you think you are.

[ Edited: 02 June 2009 14:11 by Josh]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
02 June 2009 17:34
 

As you wish, Simpleton.

question:
So how would you discuss Genesis, or would you avoid discussing Genesis at all?

Slow Nerve Action - 01 June 2009 05:40 PM

My best guess is that for the most people the most effective approach would be to argue against genesis as you naturally would, but only after you become friends with that person.

Now, whether or not you found this answer to be copasetic is a debate for another day, sport. But ya gotta admit…..he did address this question. And as for questions 2 and 3…..

If you choose the latter, would you even discuss any parts of the Bible?  Which ones, and why those and not Genesis?

Actually, upon more thorough inspection, this appears to be THREE questions, not two. But I digress. These questions are not applicable, by your own specification. SNA did not choose the latter part of your first question; he chose the former. If you wanted him to answer these questions anyway…..you should have said so, my friend!

So am I now “worthy of heeding in this matter”?

[ Edited: 02 June 2009 17:40 by Josh]
 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
02 June 2009 18:59
 

Thanks for the support Josh.

The situation is somewhat ironic in that it seems simpleton cannot argue in favor of his approach without abandoning it.  And in doing so admitting its inadequacy

[ Edited: 02 June 2009 19:02 by Slow Nerve Action]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
02 June 2009 21:05
 

Okay Simpleton, I think I understand what’s going on here. SNA did agree that it was effective “to argue against Genesis as you naturally would”. So we can assume that he agrees with you that we should argue against the scientific accuracy of Genesis, based on the presupposition that it be taken literally…..instead of arguing in favor of its metaphorical value.

I think (and if I’m wrong, enlighten me) that what SNA was referring to as ineffective, is NOT whether we discuss Genesis literally or metaphorically, but whether we have first established a friendship with the theist, so that the theist will be more likely to actually engage us in this conversation in the first place. But you’re right, Simpleton. When or with whom was notwithstanding, because you didn’t mention that aspect of it, and he didn’t ask.

IMHO, what SNA was most likely trying to get at (but failed to articulate to your satisfaction), was that he agreed with your method of discussing Genesis, as long as the discussion could be had in a civil, respectful manner (preferably having befriended the theist beforehand). And I get the impression that SNA is not entirely confident that you are capable of having that discussion without turning it into a fight. That’s the “approach” that I believe SNA was ultimately opposing, and which I oppose as well. And that’s what this thread was originally about…..unless SNA agrees to change the thread title to “Should Genesis Be Discussed Literally or Metaphorically?”.

[ Edited: 02 June 2009 21:12 by Josh]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
02 June 2009 21:18
 

Slow Nerve Action,  just to clear up any misunderstanding here, do you agree with Simpleton that we should argue against Genesis as if it were to be taken literally, and point out that it is scientifically in error (as long as the discussion is civil, respectful, and altercation-free)? Or do you think that we should argue that it be taken metaphorically?

 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
02 June 2009 22:21
 

My thesis had nothing to do with the difference between a scientific and metaphorical approach to genesis.  That is an interesting debate but it was not the focus of this thread.  Personally I don’t really understand what that means to claim that something is metaphorically true. 

I was not focused on the content being communicated but instead the mode of communication.

My point was pretty simple:

1. Human beings are animals and should be treated that way.
1a. I believe human beings are physical systems.  The task of convincing a human being that a certain proposition is true reduces to the task of reconfiguring a physical system.  Systems have mechanisms that obey certain principles.  If we are attempting to reconfigure any physical system it is only rational to step back and assess how its mechanisms work so that we may reconfigure it in the most effective manner.  Simply assuming that we know the most effective manner is probably not going to get us very far. 
——
2. I have not conducted extensive studies on the matter so I don’t speak from a position of authority but what I have noticed is that these particular physical systems (i.e. humans) are most easily reconfigured when the physical system feels a close bond or kinship with you.  Noticing how religious organizations are able to reconfigure these systems so easily without any valid support convinces me of the effectiveness of this approach.  I also notice that simply presenting sound reasoning is not as effective as I would expect it to be, possibly due to the dunning-kruger effect or to an unwillingness on their part to consider the very possibility they may be wrong.

3. IMHO, if we want to reconfigure these systems (i.e. convince people) we should stop arguing altogether (until the time is right.)  Instead we should simply focus on becoming their good friend.  There is more to life than religion.  Bond over your personal affairs, sports, art, food, people, the weather, music, politics, travel, the news, technology, cars,  etc.. you get the idea I hope.  When you feel that you are close friends then you can argue against genesis and you can do it however you want, so long as you’re not sacrificing your friendship. 


Now, please understand I’m not trying to impose rules about how you need to behave or anything.  All I’m saying is that if you actually want to convince someone (reconfigure the system) this is probably the most effective way of going about it… IMHO.

-But again, I have no opinion about whether a metaphorical argument is better than a scientific one.  I believe either of them can be useful for reconfiguring the system but I have no opinion on that matter specifically.

thank you

[ Edited: 02 June 2009 22:34 by Slow Nerve Action]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
03 June 2009 14:11
 
Simpleton - 02 June 2009 08:26 PM

To note, SNA’s first remarks to me were:
“Simpleton, I’m afraid you’ve completely missed the point.  You’re entire argument is based on a misinterpretation”

.....immediately followed by “I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear so allow me to clarify.” But you snipped off that part. Please think about what you have done here, the next time you feel the urge to criticize SNA or me for selective “snipping off” of text.

For someone who is seemingly advocating a congenial approach, SNA did not exemplify a compelling case in my opinion.

SNA, it looks like Simpleton does have a point here. And looking back, it appears that I am guilty of the same hypocrisy. My very first remark to Simpleton was “Simpleton, open your eyes”. First of all, neither of us seem to have made any attempt to befriend Simpleton (and chit-chat about news, weather, and sports), BEFORE launching into our arguments. Now, I don’t know if you have any history conversing with Simpleton or not, but I don’t. At the very least, I could have started with “Hi, Simpleton. I’m Josh. How’s it going?” or something.

Secondly, our first remarks were not exactly…..well…..tactful. Instead of “open your eyes”, I could have worded this opening remark a bit more politely, such as “if you don’t mind my intrusion into this conversation, perhaps I could shed some light on the subject”. You could have rearranged your first remarks as well as re-worded them a bit. Something like “Simpleton, I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear so please allow me to clarify. I feel that you may have misinterpreted the point that I wished to make, perhaps due to poor articulation on my part”. This, IMHO, would give the first impression that we are not here to quarrel, but to extend an olive branch. Maybe this would have taken the wind out of Simpleton’s confrontational sails, and this whole thread would have looked completely different (featuring a more civil tone on both sides). And we would be beautifiully exemplifying the original point of this thread.

[ Edited: 03 June 2009 14:28 by Josh]
 
Josh
 
Avatar
 
 
Josh
Total Posts:  852
Joined  22-05-2008
 
 
 
03 June 2009 21:03
 

Simpleton, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for NOT “bailing without further banter”. I’m glad to see that you are not giving up without a fight.

Simpleton - 03 June 2009 05:36 PM

Why should I afford that insincere part any credence?  It would be like saying “Fuck you Josh, for your sanctimony, and I feel bad as I say this, so…”

SNA did not say anything like that at all, my friend. Comparing “you’ve missed the point and based your argument on a misinterpretation” with “fuck you for your sanctimony”......is comparing apples to oranges. Now, I did point out that SNA could have worded those remarks a little more tactfully, but COME ON!!! Did you seriously see a “fuck you” between the lines of SNA’s post?  If you really were that butt-hurt by SNA’s remarks, then I would be more than happy to offer you a tissue. Honestly…..as feisty and bellicose as you seem to be, I would not have guessed that you would actually be the thin-skinned, easily offended type. You’re not…..are you?


...as long as we call a spade a spade, instead of mollycoddling people and instead calling it a pencil till we have properly engaged in a naked kumbhaya, brusque approaches are surprisingly effective with reasonable people wink

quod erat demonstrandum

Obviously (as indicated by your “wink” smiley), you must realize that your advocacy for your “brusque approach” is based upon the debatable presupposition that most people ARE reasonable enough to look past your discourteousness and see the light of your logic and reason. I can pull this off (I’m still talking to you, obviously), and so can most people on this forum. But much of the rest of the world’s population is just not built this way. IMO, your approach will scare most people away before you get the chance to share your wisdom with them.

I don’t think that we should ever call a spade a pencil, but a little naked kumbhaya will be effective in preparing the theist for the discussion of what exactly to call the spade. As R. Kelly’s classic hit song SHOULD have said…..“I don’t see nothing wrong…..with a little naked kumbhaya”!

[ Edited: 03 June 2009 21:40 by Josh]
 
Slow Nerve Action
 
Avatar
 
 
Slow Nerve Action
Total Posts:  30
Joined  27-05-2009
 
 
 
04 June 2009 02:47
 
Josh - 03 June 2009 12:11 PM

For someone who is seemingly advocating a congenial approach, SNA did not exemplify a compelling case in my opinion.

SNA, it looks like Simpleton does have a point here.

I will respond to this with a few points. 

1. You’re absolutely right, this is a skill I am still developing and having trouble doing so to be honest.  I’m still learning and I think its something all of us need to learn more of. 
Notice what I said right after I accused simpleton of misinterpreting me:

The problem with skeptics and rationalists like myself, and many people here I’m sure, is that many of us don’t know how to have a good time unless we’re arguing.


2. I think its great that simpleton has redirected the conversation in this direction.  And I would like to apologize to simpleton if I offended you.

3. I don’t intend for this point to undo the first two in anyway…  I think that the friendship approach is probably always the most effective way of convincing someone…  but ...  I do think that after a person has learned to follow reason there is more leeway that can be taken in arguing with them.  Not that this conversation should in anyway be used as an example of a good approach.

[ Edited: 04 June 2009 02:50 by Slow Nerve Action]
 
 < 1 2 3 4 >