SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Gnug215 I think you're spot on with this video.. Time is very precious in our lives, and if you have invested the majority of life into a belief and then find out it's been a load of fooey, it's verrry hard to let it go, so they will justify it at outrageous lengths.
But that said, "reborn" christians are even worse than someone who has been christian their whole life. Take venomfangx for example... did u know he is back?? Get ready for waves of frustration ;)
@benatssu Yes, there are many psychological mechanisms at play here. The one in my video is just one of them. I also think many view it as a matter of "picking sides", as you would any football team or whatever. Loyalty becomes more important than reality, so to speak.
Yeah, the born agains are the worst, for some reason. Don't know why, to be honest. And yeah, I saw VFX is back. He seems as dense, bias and bigoted as ever. Swell.
@Gnug215 That being said, you can apply this logic to anyone, not just religious beliefs. There's a new genre of people who are over-skeptical and paranoid. They see conspiracies in conspiracies. They link everything to the NWO, yet they demand people rise up and fight "the system" but as soon as anyone does, it's automatically labeled a cult and must be stopped coz it's linked to the NWO! "or they may be a raging psychopath on the loose" - very possible ;)
@benatssu Yes, the NWO'ers/Conspiracy theorists are a fun bunch, too. A lot like the religious people, anything that speaks against their particular faith is actually just the devil/the illuminati/whatever covering things up or something like that, so it ends up empowering their beliefs, instead of the opposite. You can't fight against something like that, because it's essentially a psychological disorder.
@AntiCitizenX Oi! Don't wow me! You commenting here is much more wow! ;)
It's funny, I just stumbled across "false consensus effect" a couple of days ago. It was indeed interesting. Also, its kinda-opposite "pluralistic ignorance".
I also noticed the "overconfidence effect", which sounds a lot like Dunning-Kruger.
It seems there are a lot of these interesting effects out there, and many (including myself) suffer from them. It's as if we're all some degree of crazy!
@AntiCitizenX Oh, and while I have you here: kudos and congrats on a truly awesome video series. You are criminally, monstrouslessnessally undersubscribed. Your series needs to be viewed (and hopefully understood) by way more people - on both sides, because I think it would help - much more than any argument-debunking video ever would.
This stuff needs to be researched more, and broadcast more too! Great job, great work!
I wish I was smart enough to follow these complex arguments to a convincing conclusion, like it seems you and others have. Where science, philosophy, and faith overlap, I believe it is "reasonable" to conclude that none of us can yet comprehend the absolute, objective truth, but can only understand in part, subjectively. So I conclude that open-mindedness and valuing others' opinions brings us closer to the objective. This is where I feel I differ from many people.
@dostol3701 You seem more than smart enough, that's for sure, since you've made a highly accurate observation (about which I'll comment below) about my video. :)
Me, I'm mostly just rambling, letting my train of thought run its course. I'm not skilled enough to properly research the thoughts and conclusions in my head, but I'm putting them out there, so maybe others will teach me something.
...reconcile the quality of your statements with the cheapness and fallaciousness of that attack. It makes it more difficult for me to not dismiss your point of view.
@dostol3701 You are right. There is a discrepancy between the pics in my message and my message, to the point of it becoming hypocritical and a double-standard, almost. I was even behaving a bit in this video with regards to the pictures.
However, I like to think that my underhanded ridicule is received with some humor. I could do a lot worse, really. Also, I am very much guilty of the TMF in this regard, and I cannot fathom some of the stuff coming from the "other side". It baffles me, truly.
@Gnug215 Thank you for your reply. It may surprise you that I am within that faith camp, so to speak, though I disagree with religious people on many levels, doctrine included. To be perfectly honest, I agree (sadly) with your stereotype of the religious mindset because they are, by and large, followers; not disposed towards free, critical thought, as if they should fear it. So I am too hard on you, though I think you understand why. I will enjoy your videos and correspondence.
@dostol3701 It doesn't surprise me a lot, actually. In fact, it pleases me greatly - because we (as in, everybody, not just the non-believer side) see far too few of your kind; the sensible and pleasant believer. The amount I have met onl YouTube can be counted on one hand, I'm afraid.
This is perhaps also why I've allowed myself to be so irreverent in my videos - even when calling for greater understanding and respect. (Also, I can't help it, but some of those pics are just hilarious...)
@dostol3701 I do, however, reserve the right to make fun of some of the religious segment. I actually feel that poking fun can accomplish something in many situations, although if it is ridicule, it has to be done fairly tastefully, and not with a hostile tone. (I think I'll suggest you check out my "Creationism is an evil conspiracy and a lie" video, because I would like to know how you feel about that one.)
Thanks for the comment, and I'm sure I will enjoy the correspondence as well. :)
I posted this comment after watching azsuperman's "kalam response" video, then after watching your "mind fallacy", I realized the comment belonged here. I will copy and paste it.
You are on the right track in my opinion. Narrow-mindedness is counter-productive to all sides of the argument. I respect your saying that the scientific camp is guilty as well. My only objection is that your pictures that follow the monologue clearly imply an ad homonem attack on the faith camp. I can't...
What if they are not thinking about religion substantially, but instead making decisions based on feelings, and everything else is an after the fact rationalization? When atheists talk about religion, they use words like reason, evidence, and proof. These are very cognitive words usually with the intent of finding an objective reality.
When theists talk about religion they use words like faith, confidence, love, “personal relationship”, and other emotionally salient motivations. The movie Marjoe demonstrates clearly that charismatic Preachers are difficult to distinguish from con artist (that’s confidence artist), and most of the machinations that he goes through are obviously emotionally potent.
Listen to the Thinking Atheist #14 0:54:30, I’ll paraphrase.
“Look out you gonna fry. They gonna put you in the oil like a funnel cake and there aint gonna be no powdered sugar.” This is obviously intended to frighten.
I think that AnticitizenX has done some great work on the after the fact rationalization, but ignores the behavioral aspects of religious decision making. So, maybe we are making the Typical Mind Fallacy when we look at an apologist’s argument and say I wouldn’t use that logic to pick a breakfast cereal. Maybe it’s poetry and not prose.
@RakaTheTenacious I think we are indeed making that fallacy. I think it's REALLY evident that we're talking past each other most of the time when debating with theists. AntiCitizenX's vids are not yet a full explanation of the pshychology of belief, but he's got more coming. :)
However, the TMF is a very broad aspect of psychology and mentality, and not all theists' minds are the same, so it might be hard to determine something specific and useful about theists committing the TMF.
@RakaTheTenacious But yeah, one often really wonders how anyone is swayed by apologist arguments. We can't just wave it off and say that millions and even billions of people are "just insane". That is in itself illogical, I'd say, and we can do better than that.
@Gnug215 I see the TMF on both sides, as well. What are we hoping to accomplish? Do we want some progress in the debate? Better understanding for both sides is possible, but a resolution is quite unlikely.
@RakaTheTenacious Well, it's as if neither side ever gets off the ground in a debate. One side will usually begin to ridicule, or shake its head in disbelief at the other before any substantial point has been reached. If we could at least get past the starting phase without getting bogged down, then that would be a great accomplishment.
@Gnug215 In Iran those who claim to have a monopoly on Truth have used it to gain physical control. Apostates are executed. The religious don’t need to explain themselves.
If you haven’t already, watch Truth Seekers by Not1delusion. Some people do get convinced to change sides. Atheists can only offer a way to seek truth that uses reason, consistency, and evidence because if someone wants to base reality on what feels real, then we won’t be able to stop them. So, I hope the debate continues.
@Gnug215 Hopefully, the debate itself is worthy of continuation without resolution, because I see only two resolutions: the Swedish solution, and the Iranian solution. Religious debate in these countries may not have completely ceased, but the debate has no practical societal ramification. In Sweden, the society has chosen to base their view of reality, on objective reality where it can be known. The history of Christianity is acknowledged, but few people care.
@RakaTheTenacious What I'm seeing now is mostly polarization and extremism from both sides. I'm not expecting a resolution to the debate, but I think we have to fight against this negative spiral. Any dampening of hot-tempers would be a success, I think.
When I picture a year it has roughly a rectangular shape with rounded corners with January on the top left , and June on the bottom right. I remember when I was very young assuming that this was how everyone visualized it, and finding out from my father it wasn't. In fact he used no visual representation for a year at all. Colors are another example of something we all view similarly, but may see completely differently.
Someone here in Alabama recently asked me how I can look at the trees, and not believe in God. Clearly we're looking at the same thing when we look at trees, but seeing them very differently.
@TheNakedAtheist Exactly. That's exactly the thing I'm talking about. I find it strange, though, that not more people make this realization, but... by doing so, I'm really committing the Typical Mind Fallacy, ironically. :)
But having realized this and thought a lot about it, I must say that I feel I have more sympathy and understanding for theists, and people who think differently from myself.
I've read that there was a 1996 study published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology in which men were grouped by their responses to a questionaire, and their sexual response to gay porn was measured. Those who were categorized as homophobic showed greater levels of arousal than the non-homophobes. So, yes, gay-bashers who claim homosexuality is a choice probably are, themselves, struggling against gay impulses.
@wickedenchanter I've seen similar studies, and it's quite an interesting correlation. I can sort of understand how a person would make up a kind of defence mechanism that ends in bigotry against the very thing oneself is, because of the attempted distancing from it.
Interesting stuff, and there should be more of this. :)
Good to see you again. I have been pondering similar ideas, specifically the difference between intuitive thought and systematic thought.
As to your question about if people who use the argument "If it weren't for God I would just lie and steal." my guess is that they are confused as to why they feel a compunction not to while also feeling certain temptations and they attribute the compunction not to to God rather than there own innate moral compass. Just a guess though.
And yeah, there are lot of "types of minds" that one could talk about, really. Like, the artist vs. the accountant, or the athlete vs. the mathmatician. I often see how one type of person presumes that another type ought to think like they do, and you can often see the cause of conflict before it even arises.
I think your guess is correct. They haven't thought much about this because, well, God already has all the answers, even those he didn't offer. :)
Levay referred to this fallacy as solipsism and was one of the satanic deadly sins. The assumption that someone else has the same knowledge and experience and thinks just like you.
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE, because of entropy, couldn't have sustained itself from all eternity. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 6 months ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living and reproducing if their reproductive system and other vital organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Why are you spamming this video with irrelevant nonsense?
Gnug215 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 6 months ago
Comment removed
Mogley52 6 months ago
awesome
Vincenteloco 1 year ago
@Vincenteloco Hmm, could you maybe be a bit more specific? :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
What is this video about? I'm sorry I was pissing my pants laughing at the photos.. hehe ;)
benatssu 1 year ago
@benatssu Hehe, you're not the only one. I'm glad you liked the photos, at least. Any thoughts about the video? :)
But yeah, maybe I should just use a few pics, and leave them on screen for longer.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 I think you're spot on with this video.. Time is very precious in our lives, and if you have invested the majority of life into a belief and then find out it's been a load of fooey, it's verrry hard to let it go, so they will justify it at outrageous lengths.
But that said, "reborn" christians are even worse than someone who has been christian their whole life. Take venomfangx for example... did u know he is back?? Get ready for waves of frustration ;)
benatssu 1 year ago
@benatssu Yes, there are many psychological mechanisms at play here. The one in my video is just one of them. I also think many view it as a matter of "picking sides", as you would any football team or whatever. Loyalty becomes more important than reality, so to speak.
Yeah, the born agains are the worst, for some reason. Don't know why, to be honest. And yeah, I saw VFX is back. He seems as dense, bias and bigoted as ever. Swell.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 That being said, you can apply this logic to anyone, not just religious beliefs. There's a new genre of people who are over-skeptical and paranoid. They see conspiracies in conspiracies. They link everything to the NWO, yet they demand people rise up and fight "the system" but as soon as anyone does, it's automatically labeled a cult and must be stopped coz it's linked to the NWO! "or they may be a raging psychopath on the loose" - very possible ;)
benatssu 1 year ago
@benatssu Yes, the NWO'ers/Conspiracy theorists are a fun bunch, too. A lot like the religious people, anything that speaks against their particular faith is actually just the devil/the illuminati/whatever covering things up or something like that, so it ends up empowering their beliefs, instead of the opposite. You can't fight against something like that, because it's essentially a psychological disorder.
Gnug215 1 year ago
EVERYBODY is guilty of generalizing. Take me for example...
AtheismTV 1 year ago
@AtheismTV Lol, quite.
I've always said that generalizations are generally wrong. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Wow, thanks for the plug!
With regards to the typical mind fallacy, I suggest you research the "false consensus effect." It is another very classic and ubiquitous bias.
AntiCitizenX 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Oi! Don't wow me! You commenting here is much more wow! ;)
It's funny, I just stumbled across "false consensus effect" a couple of days ago. It was indeed interesting. Also, its kinda-opposite "pluralistic ignorance".
I also noticed the "overconfidence effect", which sounds a lot like Dunning-Kruger.
It seems there are a lot of these interesting effects out there, and many (including myself) suffer from them. It's as if we're all some degree of crazy!
Gnug215 1 year ago
@AntiCitizenX Oh, and while I have you here: kudos and congrats on a truly awesome video series. You are criminally, monstrouslessnessally undersubscribed. Your series needs to be viewed (and hopefully understood) by way more people - on both sides, because I think it would help - much more than any argument-debunking video ever would.
This stuff needs to be researched more, and broadcast more too! Great job, great work!
Gnug215 1 year ago
I wish I was smart enough to follow these complex arguments to a convincing conclusion, like it seems you and others have. Where science, philosophy, and faith overlap, I believe it is "reasonable" to conclude that none of us can yet comprehend the absolute, objective truth, but can only understand in part, subjectively. So I conclude that open-mindedness and valuing others' opinions brings us closer to the objective. This is where I feel I differ from many people.
dostol3701 1 year ago
@dostol3701 You seem more than smart enough, that's for sure, since you've made a highly accurate observation (about which I'll comment below) about my video. :)
Me, I'm mostly just rambling, letting my train of thought run its course. I'm not skilled enough to properly research the thoughts and conclusions in my head, but I'm putting them out there, so maybe others will teach me something.
Gnug215 1 year ago
...reconcile the quality of your statements with the cheapness and fallaciousness of that attack. It makes it more difficult for me to not dismiss your point of view.
But, as I said, you are on the right track.
dostol3701 1 year ago
@dostol3701 You are right. There is a discrepancy between the pics in my message and my message, to the point of it becoming hypocritical and a double-standard, almost. I was even behaving a bit in this video with regards to the pictures.
However, I like to think that my underhanded ridicule is received with some humor. I could do a lot worse, really. Also, I am very much guilty of the TMF in this regard, and I cannot fathom some of the stuff coming from the "other side". It baffles me, truly.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 Thank you for your reply. It may surprise you that I am within that faith camp, so to speak, though I disagree with religious people on many levels, doctrine included. To be perfectly honest, I agree (sadly) with your stereotype of the religious mindset because they are, by and large, followers; not disposed towards free, critical thought, as if they should fear it. So I am too hard on you, though I think you understand why. I will enjoy your videos and correspondence.
dostol3701 1 year ago
@dostol3701 It doesn't surprise me a lot, actually. In fact, it pleases me greatly - because we (as in, everybody, not just the non-believer side) see far too few of your kind; the sensible and pleasant believer. The amount I have met onl YouTube can be counted on one hand, I'm afraid.
This is perhaps also why I've allowed myself to be so irreverent in my videos - even when calling for greater understanding and respect. (Also, I can't help it, but some of those pics are just hilarious...)
Gnug215 1 year ago
@dostol3701 I do, however, reserve the right to make fun of some of the religious segment. I actually feel that poking fun can accomplish something in many situations, although if it is ridicule, it has to be done fairly tastefully, and not with a hostile tone. (I think I'll suggest you check out my "Creationism is an evil conspiracy and a lie" video, because I would like to know how you feel about that one.)
Thanks for the comment, and I'm sure I will enjoy the correspondence as well. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
I posted this comment after watching azsuperman's "kalam response" video, then after watching your "mind fallacy", I realized the comment belonged here. I will copy and paste it.
You are on the right track in my opinion. Narrow-mindedness is counter-productive to all sides of the argument. I respect your saying that the scientific camp is guilty as well. My only objection is that your pictures that follow the monologue clearly imply an ad homonem attack on the faith camp. I can't...
dostol3701 1 year ago
When I checked my subscriptions and saw a new Gnug vid, I said "Hell yeah!"
cruo 1 year ago
@cruo I thought you would have said, "who the hell is Gnug??" - since it's been such a bloody long time since I've made a video. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
What if they are not thinking about religion substantially, but instead making decisions based on feelings, and everything else is an after the fact rationalization? When atheists talk about religion, they use words like reason, evidence, and proof. These are very cognitive words usually with the intent of finding an objective reality.
continued>>>
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
When theists talk about religion they use words like faith, confidence, love, “personal relationship”, and other emotionally salient motivations. The movie Marjoe demonstrates clearly that charismatic Preachers are difficult to distinguish from con artist (that’s confidence artist), and most of the machinations that he goes through are obviously emotionally potent.
Listen to the Thinking Atheist #14 0:54:30, I’ll paraphrase.
continued>>>
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
“Look out you gonna fry. They gonna put you in the oil like a funnel cake and there aint gonna be no powdered sugar.” This is obviously intended to frighten.
I think that AnticitizenX has done some great work on the after the fact rationalization, but ignores the behavioral aspects of religious decision making. So, maybe we are making the Typical Mind Fallacy when we look at an apologist’s argument and say I wouldn’t use that logic to pick a breakfast cereal. Maybe it’s poetry and not prose.
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
@RakaTheTenacious I think we are indeed making that fallacy. I think it's REALLY evident that we're talking past each other most of the time when debating with theists. AntiCitizenX's vids are not yet a full explanation of the pshychology of belief, but he's got more coming. :)
However, the TMF is a very broad aspect of psychology and mentality, and not all theists' minds are the same, so it might be hard to determine something specific and useful about theists committing the TMF.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@RakaTheTenacious But yeah, one often really wonders how anyone is swayed by apologist arguments. We can't just wave it off and say that millions and even billions of people are "just insane". That is in itself illogical, I'd say, and we can do better than that.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 I see the TMF on both sides, as well. What are we hoping to accomplish? Do we want some progress in the debate? Better understanding for both sides is possible, but a resolution is quite unlikely.
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
@RakaTheTenacious Well, it's as if neither side ever gets off the ground in a debate. One side will usually begin to ridicule, or shake its head in disbelief at the other before any substantial point has been reached. If we could at least get past the starting phase without getting bogged down, then that would be a great accomplishment.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 In Iran those who claim to have a monopoly on Truth have used it to gain physical control. Apostates are executed. The religious don’t need to explain themselves.
If you haven’t already, watch Truth Seekers by Not1delusion. Some people do get convinced to change sides. Atheists can only offer a way to seek truth that uses reason, consistency, and evidence because if someone wants to base reality on what feels real, then we won’t be able to stop them. So, I hope the debate continues.
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
@Gnug215 Hopefully, the debate itself is worthy of continuation without resolution, because I see only two resolutions: the Swedish solution, and the Iranian solution. Religious debate in these countries may not have completely ceased, but the debate has no practical societal ramification. In Sweden, the society has chosen to base their view of reality, on objective reality where it can be known. The history of Christianity is acknowledged, but few people care.
Continued>>>
RakaTheTenacious 1 year ago
@RakaTheTenacious What I'm seeing now is mostly polarization and extremism from both sides. I'm not expecting a resolution to the debate, but I think we have to fight against this negative spiral. Any dampening of hot-tempers would be a success, I think.
Gnug215 1 year ago
I was too busy looking at the pictures, what did you just say....
Everfrost1000 1 year ago
@Everfrost1000 Haha, that seems to be a common complaint on my vids. Maybe I should just have one or two pics during the whole video?
That certainly would make the editing easier and less time consuming for me. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Nice vid Gnug, I like your conjecture.
Squawkerd 1 year ago
@Squawkerd Yay! Thanks. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
LOL!!!
google
easter bunny roadkill picture
!!!
farvision 1 year ago
When I picture a year it has roughly a rectangular shape with rounded corners with January on the top left , and June on the bottom right. I remember when I was very young assuming that this was how everyone visualized it, and finding out from my father it wasn't. In fact he used no visual representation for a year at all. Colors are another example of something we all view similarly, but may see completely differently.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
(cont)
Someone here in Alabama recently asked me how I can look at the trees, and not believe in God. Clearly we're looking at the same thing when we look at trees, but seeing them very differently.
TheNakedAtheist 1 year ago
@TheNakedAtheist Exactly. That's exactly the thing I'm talking about. I find it strange, though, that not more people make this realization, but... by doing so, I'm really committing the Typical Mind Fallacy, ironically. :)
But having realized this and thought a lot about it, I must say that I feel I have more sympathy and understanding for theists, and people who think differently from myself.
Gnug215 1 year ago
MOAR VEDYOZ
AcanLord 1 year ago
@AcanLord I'll try, hehe.
Gnug215 1 year ago
I've read that there was a 1996 study published in Journal of Abnormal Psychology in which men were grouped by their responses to a questionaire, and their sexual response to gay porn was measured. Those who were categorized as homophobic showed greater levels of arousal than the non-homophobes. So, yes, gay-bashers who claim homosexuality is a choice probably are, themselves, struggling against gay impulses.
wickedenchanter 1 year ago
@wickedenchanter I've seen similar studies, and it's quite an interesting correlation. I can sort of understand how a person would make up a kind of defence mechanism that ends in bigotry against the very thing oneself is, because of the attempted distancing from it.
Interesting stuff, and there should be more of this. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Good to see you again. I have been pondering similar ideas, specifically the difference between intuitive thought and systematic thought.
As to your question about if people who use the argument "If it weren't for God I would just lie and steal." my guess is that they are confused as to why they feel a compunction not to while also feeling certain temptations and they attribute the compunction not to to God rather than there own innate moral compass. Just a guess though.
conradleviston 1 year ago
@conradleviston Thanks! :)
And yeah, there are lot of "types of minds" that one could talk about, really. Like, the artist vs. the accountant, or the athlete vs. the mathmatician. I often see how one type of person presumes that another type ought to think like they do, and you can often see the cause of conflict before it even arises.
I think your guess is correct. They haven't thought much about this because, well, God already has all the answers, even those he didn't offer. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Lond time no see Gnug!
steinarrexfaroensis 1 year ago
@steinarrexfaroensis Hehe, jaaah. Sorry it took so long. :)
Gnug215 1 year ago
Levay referred to this fallacy as solipsism and was one of the satanic deadly sins. The assumption that someone else has the same knowledge and experience and thinks just like you.
anubis2814 1 year ago
@anubis2814 I think I'd differentiate between the two, though. Like this:
Typical Mind Fallacy: Everyone thinks like me.
Solipsism: Nobody thinks like me - nobody else thinks at all!
At least, that is the kind of solipsism I learned about way back when in philosophy class. Perhaps Levay defined it differently.
Gnug215 1 year ago
@Gnug215 That is actually the more typical definition, Levay didn't have a good definition on hand so stretched it to mean his definition.
anubis2814 1 year ago