Official RGT random **** thread

[kurto]

Originally Posted by kurto

Ummm... Evidence will show you that marx's view is not determined by what he said or did... Rather it's more important to weigh what Splenda believes his views are. This appears to be true on any subject as all studies are inferior to what she decides is true.

Originally Posted by Splendour

Rly?

You can listen to a person's words or read them but it's still hard to determine their motives.

But you can sometimes detect something true by their behavior or acts.

Marxism advocates rebellion.

But obedience to God is a heart issue. Love fosters obedience and obedience fosters love.

This book has an excellent practical definition on obedience:
http://www.christianbook.com/diction...1929/pd/061929

Even the word practical has new meaning when splendour posts.

Called it on Splenda ignoring what people say and using Splenda powers to decide what people believe. We're lucky to have someone who intuitively knows what everyone really believes despite what people say or do to the contrary.

[neeeel]

Kurto, I dont get it. You know what splendour is like, you know that its fairly likely she will always be like that. So why keep doing this? Is it possible that you are personally getting something out of responding?
Put her on ignore, relax, and forget about it.

[kurto]

Originally Posted by neeeel

Kurto, I dont get it. You know what splendour is like, you know that its fairly likely she will always be like that. So why keep doing this? Is it possible that you are personally getting something out of responding?
Put her on ignore, relax, and forget about it.

A few reasons-
* If I was in a forum and there's a person who posts racist posts... I'd mock then endlessly. She has a history of all sorts of offensive posts. She has made a number of racist, sexist, biggotted posts. I think she's a pretty horrible person. And I don't think that kind of person should go unignored.

* There is some fun to it. Like a word game. Find: the logical flaws, find the factual errors, find the hypocrisy, etc. Keeps you sharp.

I suspect everyone gets something out of posting regardless of who they converse with. Splenda's schtick... sometimes it gets irrating and often I don't bother, but sometimes it really makes me laugh. I'm genuinely amused sometimes just seeing her going through her usual motions when people correct her or challenge her. When she clearly makes up something and that you find facts that shows she's wrong... seeing her do everything except admit that she's wrong is a hoot. I don't converse with many people in real life with this degree of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. Its fascinating giving her material to see it in action.

[zumby]

Originally Posted by kurto

I don't converse with many people in real life with this degree of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. Its fascinating giving her material to see it in action.

+1

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by zumby

+1

I'm surprised you'd buy this.

Cognitive dissonance is a human phenomenon. Afaik it's not limited to theists.

The basic theory of cognitive dissonance is simple: People prefer a situation in which their cognitions are consistent with each other and their cognitions are consistent with their behaviors.

Is there some reason why this would be limited to theists?

Especially when atheists spend so much time trying to identify contradictions in thinking. It'd seem they fear cognitive dissonance more than the typical theist who allow absolutes from a higher authority guide their behavior. Of course, it could vary by individual.

Psychology Today on cognitive dissonance:


Believing Our Own Lies: Why people change their beliefs to fit their behavior.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...g-our-own-lies

It's also funny why all the arm-chair psychology atheists never know anything about self-perception theory.

It's like they repeat this cognitive dissonance thing by rote without knowing much about it...oh well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-perception_theory

Oh and before you accuse theists of dishonesty you have to take into account the growth factor in their beliefs over time:

James Fowler's Stages of Faith
http://faculty.plts.edu/gpence/html/fowler.htm

[Splendour]

Contradictions and philosophy

Adherents of the epistemological theory of coherentism typically claim that as a necessary condition of the justification of a belief, that belief must form a part of a logically non-contradictory (consistent) system of beliefs. Some dialetheists, including Graham Priest, have argued that coherence may not require consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction


Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", or dialetheia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

[asdfasdf32]

Originally Posted by Splendour

Contradictions and philosophy

Adherents of the epistemological theory of coherentism typically claim that as a necessary condition of the justification of a belief, that belief must form a part of a logically non-contradictory (consistent) system of beliefs. Some dialetheists, including Graham Priest, have argued that coherence may not require consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction


Dialetheism is the view that some statements can be both true and false simultaneously. More precisely, it is the belief that there can be a true statement whose negation is also true. Such statements are called "true contradictions", or dialetheia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism

It should be mentioned that only certain very specific statements are dialetheias, and they almost never apply to factual religious claims.

[asdfasdf32]

By the way, I think most dialetheic statements unnecessarily obfuscate their meaning (perhaps this is on purpose). You end up with statements like this:

Originally Posted by Chuang Tsu

That which makes things has no boundaries with things, but for things to have boundaries is what we mean by saying ‘the boundaries between things'. The boundaryless boundary is the boundary without a boundary.

[SprayandPray]

Is it bigoted that men are charged more for car insurance than women?

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

It should be mentioned that only certain very specific statements are dialetheias, and they almost never apply to factual religious claims.

Did I make a claim? I just thought it was an interesting comparison. Though my impression is there may be a lot of coherentists on this board by the number of unresearched contradictions they cite.

[asdfasdf32]

Originally Posted by SprayandPray

Is it bigoted that men are charged more for car insurance than women?

My knee jerk reaction was no, just because the insurance rate is based on statistical analysis between the sexes. However, if it turned out that asians had more accidents (to confirm the stereotype) I'm pretty sure most people would call it bigoted to charge asian people a higher rate.

Hmmm....I'll have to think about this more, good question.

[asdfasdf32]

Originally Posted by Splendour

Did I make a claim?

I never said you did.

I just thought it was an interesting comparison. Though my impression is there may be a lot of coherentists on this board by the number of unresearched contradictions they cite.

This may be true, I was just pointing out that dialetheism is almost never an issue with regard to the claims that arise on this board.

[Splendour]

Originally Posted by SprayandPray

Is it bigoted that men are charged more for car insurance than women?

Some people would call it "legalized discrimination."

The insurance companies have got a lock on this with statistical facts though so good luck at making the bigot charge stick.

[SprayandPray]

Originally Posted by Splendour

Some people would call it "legalized discrimination."

The insurance companies have got a lock on this with statistical facts though so good luck at making the bigot charge stick.

Yea, I personally would never play that card. I mean...it's not a valid charge IMO.

[Husker]

Originally Posted by Splendour

The basic theory of cognitive dissonance is simple: People prefer a situation in which their cognitions are consistent with each other and their cognitions are consistent with their behaviors.

You should reference sites when you use quotes such as the one above.