It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why are you unconvincing?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Y U No Be Convincing?!


The purpose of this thread is to try and find an answer to that.


because you cant force people to change their minds. on the whole, thats something to be thankful for. freedom of thought.




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Guess you have your answer OP.

You cannot convince someone who isn't willing to be convinced, but you can (try) to convince someone who's willing to listen.

Is that right or wrong? can you be convinced by that?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

There is no convincing a deeply rooted ideological view point.
edit on 28-11-2016 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: scojak

I don't.

But I'm just as incapable of convincing people as those who do believe.


The problem with trying to convince someone God doesn't exist lies in the fact that logic means nothing to a firm believer because they have "faith".

I can give you a perfectly logical reason of why abiogenisis of life is infinitely more likely than God existing as Christian people believe.

Even with such an argument, faith somehow wins. People would rather believe the tales of a book written by men, largely in metaphor.

For the record, I do believe in a higher power, but certainly not the Christian God.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The complete lack of evidence

Remember many once believed the world was flat, few if any do now because we have learned to study the evidence
Evolution is assumption and faith, it lacks evidence



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The complete lack of evidence

Remember many once believed the world was flat, few if any do now because we have learned to study the evidence
Evolution is assumption and faith, it lacks evidence



i may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

edit on 28-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.


For something to be convincing it has to convince people.

An evolutionist is unconvincing to a creationist and vice versa. I'm not interested in which is right as I've already made up my mind anyway and without convincing arguments I will stay where I am.

There just doesn't seem to be convincing arguments as evidenced by those who aren't convinced.



What do you mean by "convinced"? Science is about discovery and evidence. That's it. There's no need for "convincing" because the door is always open for further knowledge and change to existing theory.

Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory,"
en.wikipedia.org...

What Popper said is the crux of the arguments on this board. Creationists reconfigure science to suit their agenda. They provide no evidence for their theories and slam the door shut on any discussion. They don't acknowledge that science is always a work in progress.

Some of us post research articles from recognized science journals which contain a multitude of reference material. If there's any "convincing" to be done, it's to convince them to READ the articles and DISCUSS the contents in the context of their own beliefs.

Creationism isn't a religion and it's not science. It's a cult: "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." I vote for sinister. I object to cults. I think they're dangerous. Ken Hamm, the junk bond salesman, who's amassing a fortune on the backs of his ignorant followers, should be in the slammer.

Whether they accept the real science of evolution or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that someone shows up to put them in their proper place - which is the dustbin of history.






edit on 28-11-2016 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Keep on trucking with that flawed logic. I'm ducking out of this merry-go-round of ridiculousness.

Take Care.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It is logically flawed to only go with the most "convincing" argument.

I'm going to ask you a question. Take it outside this over arching discussion.

What level of education do you have in science and theology?

Now to come back into this discussion.

Are you not convinced by either stance, due to not understanding them?

I will take the scientific data as an example.

Its verifiable. It has passed peer review. Thus it has convinced many people.

It must then be asked, are you sure it is not convincing? OR are you not willing to be convinced?

Is your entire argument based upon laziness?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The actual discussion over which is correct is pointless because both of us are unconvincing.

Why do you think you are unconvincing?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

I'm not really sure I've ever been really convinced. (To clarify, I'm convinced in the truth of evolution I'm just not sure I ever held a strong alternate position which required convincing from)
I guess I believe in evolution but can't remember a time that I didn't.

As far as my education? No formal education on the matter apart from a semester of theology almost 20yrs ago and I dropped out of Chemistry in high school.

I've read all of Brian Greene's books, all of Krauss's, and I tried to teach myself physics with Roger Penroses's The Road to Reality, I failed. But that's the science that interests me. Actual biology bores me to tears although Dawkins Greatest Show on Earth was fascinating. My intelligence limits me to the pop science levels of understanding that Stephen Hawking started with A Brief History of Time.

Regarding religion, I'm currently reading the Quran. I've read the bible, various Mormon books although the letters discussing the escalation of violence on their way out of Missourri most interests me. I've read Dianetics, plenty of Erich Von Daniken. Every youtube video of Hitchens, Sam Harris, Kent Hovind (the recordings of his jail calls are the best), Dawkins etc.

I personally find the evolution of religion to be fascinating and as clearly evidenced as biological evolution.

I conceitedly consider myself to be more educated than most on the matter even though I'm self taught with a bad teacher.

Laziness? I don't believe that's the reason why I find Creationism unconvincing. And looking at the twisting of science that the creationists do, I can't believe they are lazy either. I personally consider those professionally pushing creationism to be unethical profiteers however I would never say lazy.

If anything I'm trying to avoid an argument because it is futile.
My only real argument is that perhaps we should focus on our own arguments rather than blaming those we can't convince.

The closest I have ever come to convincing someone was getting a black mormon girl to say that if god prefers white people then she would accept god has his reasons. There's no way to verify how successful that was now, however I haven't felt internal conflict like that in someone before out of the hundreds of street preachers I have talked to.

But even my best has most likely been unconvincing.
edit on 29-11-2016 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Whether they accept the real science of evolution or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that someone shows up to put them in their proper place - which is the dustbin of history.


I agree with that 100%, but for someone to put them in their place they need to be convincing.

I'm just trying to understand why with the mountains of evidence people remain unconvinced.
A teacher shouldn't blame their students for not being able to learn.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JimNasium


I'd opine that those folks don't really think what they think they think and when someone/anyone addresses what these folks construe as "Truth" then they take offense.

Thats experience speaking from many years of questioning people, and thats a really good perspective. Officially speaking of course.

When you used to soft interrogate witness subjects to find the impropriety at the scene, in your uniform, what they tell you is bound to be influenced by your presence as a representative of the law. But I get it.

After much case study as a layman, I'm convinced people are mostly consummate liars, denial-ists and cover up artists. They play dumb, deflect blame, feign ignorance, etc.

"I am not convinced" is like taking the fifth. Thats why they have court rooms to get it out in the open court under oath, in public, cross examined by experts, before a jury of peers.

Even then we don't really know what minds are really thinking behind what their mouths are saying.

Lots of people been raised from birth to just believe things without any proof (like in church).

My favorite scene from Christmas story, about 2:09 into this bit--

"Anybody seen Flik?"

"Flik? Flik who?"

"Kids know its always better to not get caught.
Lastly, as a gentleman and a scholar, you might enjoy a gem of a film, Cookie's Fortune.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Phantom423
Whether they accept the real science of evolution or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that someone shows up to put them in their proper place - which is the dustbin of history.


I agree with that 100%, but for someone to put them in their place they need to be convincing.

I'm just trying to understand why with the mountains of evidence people remain unconvinced.
A teacher shouldn't blame their students for not being able to learn.


Willful ignorance. If you ignore the facts, they're not a problem. I regard them more as propagandists rather than students.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

See one problem with words like evolution is that they can be applied to a number of situations. Which I feel is an issue for the religious fundamentalists.

Ok so we get to the crux of your argument. You really are asking creationists why they are unconvincing. Its hard for them, as well how do you prove a Deity? If you could prove it, atheism would be dead and gone. But lo now you can't prove it, is a matter of faith. As someone with a faith (not Abrahamic) ... you either feel it or you don't. Hence yes you need to be convinced



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'll answer your thread with this common expression: "You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink"



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Phantom423
Whether they accept the real science of evolution or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that someone shows up to put them in their proper place - which is the dustbin of history.


I agree with that 100%, but for someone to put them in their place they need to be convincing.

I'm just trying to understand why with the mountains of evidence people remain unconvinced.
A teacher shouldn't blame their students for not being able to learn.


i thought the question was concerned with not being convincing, not why is this one thing not convincing. is there something specific you are addressing here?



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   
They remain unconvinced because they and generations before them have been conditioned to do so, to believe without question. You can't think your way out of fantasia, you can't measure faith with a logical brain from a natural world. You must have the "feeling" you must know it to be true. If you circumvent the intellect, you can believe six impossible things before breakfast. All you really need to do is deny the laws of nature and the rule of logic, and convince yourself without a doubt all manners of absurdities are true. It is the magic of make believe, of make pretend and they call it faith, an auto-deception delusion.


We see a perfect example of this in Raggedyman's post..




The complete lack of evidence Remember many once believed the world was flat, few if any do now because we have learned to study the evidence Evolution is assumption and faith, it lacks evidence


Religion is a belief system, you are required to believe "this" and forbidden to believe "that." This is the opposite of free thought. This is why theists like Raggedy resort to psychological projection, denying their own faults while accusing them in others.

It's an infantile tactic, how else are you going to defend the indefensible? You must twist everything the other way round.
That's why the Bible defines a fool as someone who does not believe completely the outrageous claims of incredulous sources even without asking for evidence, but every other source in the world defines a fool as someone who does these things.



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

I've noticed that the more fundamentalist Abrahamic (its not just Christians) sects are highly suspicious of education (and thus Science). So as a consequence they assume it is "liberal" and "anti-Christian". Indeed there have been studies about this, I am sure that is just liberal academics



posted on Nov, 29 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden

Ok so we get to the crux of your argument. You really are asking creationists why they are unconvincing.


Not at all. Just asking people to find a better excuse than blaming others for their shortfalls in their ability to convince people.
It's applicable to both sides and whilst I'm more interested in why those who accept evolutionary theory are equally unable to convince. It's intellectually dishonest to assume a side is relevant in this discussion.

I guess people refuse to believe the problem could be theirs. And are more concerned about showing they are right than openly questioning themselves.

Perhaps offense creates the need for defense and eliminates the possibility of open discussion.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join