What are the Benefits of Theism?

[Immanuel Can]

It would prove that you had read two books.

Heh.

Have all of the philosophical, scientific and theological books you have read started with the same premises and reached the same conclusion?

Red herring. I neither said that they did, nor is it honest of you to misrepresent what I said in that way. It's just another twist-and-stick on your part. Consequently, I owe you no account of that argument. It is not mine. It's a fabrication.

What I said was that two books disagreeing proves nothing but that two men once disagreed. Your fabricated objection doesn't deal with whether or not they were (to use your word) "serious" in their approach, or whether they both had all the data, or both had the same data, or whether the two who "disagreed" did so because of the data or because of prior ideological commitments.

I'm kind of past thinking that you're going to consider that, though. I'm seeing a person who just wants to troll, using the twist-and-stick method to get people to respond. And one should always starve a troll.

Hence, I shall go hence.

[tillingborn]

I'm seeing a person who just wants to troll

I'm sorry that you think I am a troll. It's pointless arguing with that, since everyone has their own definition of troll, and on occasions I have thought the same of you. My point is serious though; you just happen not to like it. Which rather proves my point.

[Immanuel Can]

My point is serious though; you just happen not to like it.

Well, no...I happen to think it's not factually correct, and I've shown it lacks any specific evidence. That's not a matter of aesthetics, but of fact.

Rather proves my point, actually.

But okay.

[Skepdick]

Step 1 of Scientific thinking: Avoid confirmation bias.
Step 1 of Philosophical thinking: Intentionally commit confirmation bias.

I'm sorry that you think I am a troll. It's pointless arguing with that, since everyone has their own definition of troll, and on occasions I have thought the same of you. My point is serious though; you just happen not to like it. Which rather proves my point.

Well, no...I happen to think it's not factually correct, and I've shown it lacks any specific evidence. That's not a matter of aesthetics, but of fact.

Rather proves my point, actually.

But okay.

[tillingborn]

My point is serious though; you just happen not to like it.

Well, no...I happen to think it's not factually correct, and I've shown it lacks any specific evidence. That's not a matter of aesthetics, but of fact.

That's the irony. My point is that ultimately all ideas lack specific evidence. There isn't one piece of evidence I know of that is specific to one idea, and one idea only. All evidence, in my view, can be interpreted in different ways and used to support different ideas.

[tillingborn]

Step 1 of Scientific thinking: Avoid confirmation bias.
Step 1 of Philosophical thinking: Intentionally commit confirmation bias.

I disagree:
Step 1 of Scientific thinking: Look.
Step 1 of Philosophical thinking: Create hypothesis.

[Skepdick]

I disagree:
Step 1 of Scientific thinking: Look.
Step 1 of Philosophical thinking: Create hypothesis.

You aren't gonna do very well in either discipline if you can't tell the difference between looking and thinking.

What do philosophers create hypotheses from without observation anyway? Thumbsucking?

[tillingborn]

What do philosophers create hypotheses from without observation anyway? Thumbsucking?

Philosophical thinking is not exclusive to philosophers.

[Skepdick]

Philosophical thinking is not exclusive to philosophers.

They why do you call it "philosophical thinking" and not just thinking?

[tillingborn]

Philosophical thinking is not exclusive to philosophers.

They why do you call it "philosophical thinking" and not just thinking?

So that I can have civilised conversations with people whose opinions are worth a fuck.

[DPMartin]

no argument there.

It's a strange world we're starting to live in, isn't it, DP? It's starting to become a kind of "culture of snitching," in which people use information about others, and present it to the uses of the PC set in order to show themselves "committed" to social justice. But a "culture of snitching," like the one they had in East Germany prior to the fall of the Wall, for example, makes everybody terrified of their neighbours.

Worse still, the day comes when you don't actually have to be guilty of violating the PC groupthink, but that it's enough for you to be accused of so doing, or even just accused of being suspicious of having harboured attitudes that could lead to it.

We must not let that happen. If it does, we will have no "Socialist paradise." Instead, what we'll effectively have is a "reign of terror," a universal gulag of sorts.

I do believe that started to root in after 9/11 were everyone was encouraged to report anything suspicious, and that was interpreted by the cowardly, and now has stayed long enough for some to take advantage of. thing is, with cell phones there are no rules that gives to much power to the tiny minded.

just look at what kind of politicians are elected and those nut jobs are the result of what they public thinks.

and to be clear there is no such thing a socialist paradise.

[Skepdick]

So that I can have civilised conversations with people whose opinions are worth a fuck.

From what I've seen you aren't all that capable of "civil" part...

[tillingborn]

So that I can have civilised conversations with people whose opinions are worth a fuck.

From what I've seen you aren't all that capable of "civil" part...

You should try expressing an opinion that is worth a fuck.

[Skepdick]

You should try expressing an opinion that is worth a fuck.

Even if I do, I don't think you can respond in kind.

[tillingborn]

You should try expressing an opinion that is worth a fuck.

Even if I do, I don't think you can respond in kind.

That's quite good. Well done Skepdick.