It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Why are you unconvincing?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:15 PM
a reply to: PhotonEffect

The problem with your entire post is that information is secondary to how you feel about an individual.

No one would care if Trump or Clinton told the truth because it came from Them.

Only a few intelligent people actually care about facts. If you are to convince people, the facts are not enough, ever. Anyone who thinks facts convince people will never convince anyone except for those who are seeking the benefit of those facts.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:16 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That wasn't the point of my post.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:23 PM

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: TarzanBeta

That wasn't the point of my post.

You don't find common ground with an opponent. You contrast with your opponent. You intrigue. Then you tell them your own weaknesses. The only argument for common ground is that everyone has weaknesses. But two opponents will rarely have the same weaknesses. It's always about contrast.

Every human knows that everyone is like themselves - whether one admits that or not.

We don't take pride in our strengths. We take pride in our weaknesses.

A strength has no need for pride, because a strength is a virtue; but pride is scale over the impenetrable dragon's heart of flesh.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta
Wow, okay...

A couple of things you said that would seem to provide answers to the OP's question
You say:

Only a few intelligent people actually care about facts.

This sentiment seems to immediately draw a line in the sand and sets the stage for not convincing anyone. Why must only [a few] intelligent people care about facts? Do you measure someone's intelligence by the number of facts they care about? Or just the number facts they care about that you also happen to care about? Facts are relative in many cases, so what constitutes a fact? What about folks who question commonly accepted facts? Are these people less intelligent? Most progress is made thanks to questioning the so called facts.

You then go on to say:

You don't find common ground with an opponent.

The only argument for common ground is that everyone has weaknesses.

The common ground between any two parties starts with RESPECT, not weaknesses. Before anyone is willing to be convinced about anything, regardless of the so called "facts" that are stacked against their belief or ideology, there needs to be a level of respect.

If you come out and tell someone that they are stupid and unintelligent for not accepting the same facts as you then what's the point of your engagement with that person other than to antagonize? You're only a troll at that point. And then it becomes a battle of who is more insecure.

So you're right it's not about the facts or how "factually based" your argument may be. Respecting the feeling or position of your so called opponent first would probably go a long way to opening the possibility of convincing that person.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 03:55 PM

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You keep making statements like that, with out supporting evidence. Every time we get to talking actual science .... you run away.

I've answered (as have several others) your questions repeatedly.

I will also note, your sources you quote, prove why you are unqualified in discussing this topic.

I would suggest your answers and all your sources are that of a child
See, it's no win, why drone on

I think it's about the sound of your own voice and how much you enjoy it

Dismissing my sources is dismissing science, you are happy to dismiss anything that disagrees with you
I believe you have disqualified yourself and science

Barcs, stop it
Show me the empirical evidence, not a pile of assumptions
All you have got is theory, nothing, zero

How much do you get paid for this thinking and speaking? I mean really - what is your actual reward.

For example, if I decide to emulate you, what will be my reward, and how do you know?
What are YOU being paid to spread this soured sour cream?

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 04:09 PM
a reply to: PhotonEffect

I did not say all intelligent people are convinced by facts. I said only a few intelligent people are convinced by facts.

You seem to be seeing it, but there is no respect without caring about the other's weaknesses. One cannot respect the immortal, but those who survive regardless of their weaknesses. That is respect.

If it is obvious that I'm the best chess player in the world, then there is only respect for those who are weaker and yet defeat me.

It's not respect that convinces unless that person already seeks the benefit of that agreement.

It is the show of vulnerability that causes the human spirit to question its next move, whether this random insect which found its way inside should be squashed, guided out, or caged for pleasure and observation.

But now the people of the house have learned of the new creature and its existence, and that is undeniable.

Once again, no one really cares about facts except those who believe that their acquisition of them garners themselves that respect. The problem is that one's awe respecting your facts lasts less than 10 seconds. But one's awe in response to your vulnerabilities becomes a hobby for consideration.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 05:03 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Leading right off with an ad homenin attack eh? Good for you.

Did you skip over the bit where I said I was a non-Abrahamic polytheist? I'm also a scientist. I know how evidence works. There are zero contemporaneous accounts of Jesus.

You have now delved into the micro vs macro argument. Which is in its self "disingenuous".

You thus have signaled where you stand on this. You only operate on faith. Your deity is not the only one, and he is not mine.

edit on 6-12-2016 by Noinden because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 05:22 PM
a reply to: Noinden

There was no ad hominem argument, only advice.

I didn't skip over what you labeled yourself. But why should I be convinced by what you labeled yourself?

There is no micro versus macro argument. In science, those are both considered valid theories. I simply know which one actually has valid evidence instead of mere conjecture.

I operate on faith indeed, because its reward is far greater than the reward of arrogance, which assumes that its deductions are founded upon every fact - and I say with boldness that I've never met a human being in person whose deductions had a storm proof foundation. Deduction is helpful, like lazily concocted riddles to answers on an exam. But only by faith can one take the time to experiment to the end of discovering what the imagination reflects on one's own experiences and ideas.

The thing I find so troubling with people is that everyone exercises the truth every single day, and yet somehow still finds a way to argue against their own nature.

This is one of the reasons I'm so angry and frustrated and weak. How can what is so obvious to me be so foreign to others? The truth is that it's not.

I drink heavily because stupidity desires itself. I absorb it, ruminate, then silently yell at the sky for why I should not be allowed ignorance. Then I drink and remember that even though those who love strong drink shall never be rich in money, maybe I invest in a little peace.

Peace from a lying, lying world.

This may be judged against me in this season where people should be helped from their demise, and I work to that end. Whether it is known that I drink my intelligence away willfully, I don't know.

But I do know the OP is right.

Only true suffering can make someone admit the truth. And when suffering passes, most will attribute the divine to that which science can explain, or death will be blamed on the very God whom they condemn by means of their rejection of His existence.

It makes me both ill and bored at the same time.
edit on 12/6/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Love, baby, love.

edit on 12/6/2016 by TarzanBeta because: I'll be ill.

edit on 12/6/2016 by TarzanBeta because: Itself is yourself and yourself is itself, if we all get together the more grammatically correct we will be...

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 06:09 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

You began by saying I was "disingenuous", thus implying I was insincere. That is by its very essence an attack on the person, not the argument. You then throw the term lying around a lot. QED an ad homenin attack.

Why would you not be convinced by my self lable as a non-abrahamic polytheist. I'm have been open to that in posts on ATS. Or were you simply trying to imply I'm an atheist? Word to the wise, I am not. I'm a proud and well known member of the Pàganachd community. Several people on ATS have investigated this, and found that to be the case. But here I will make it simple for you. I'm a pagan polytheist, who swears fealty to specific members of the Tuatha. I reject that Jehovah/Allah is the only deity, supreme deity, or any such thing. I live by the phrase an fhirinne in aghaidh an tsaoil.

I'm also a professional scientist (I get paid to commit science for a living), who has degrees in chemistry and Bioinformatics. I understand evolution very well.

The only people who use the micro vs macro distinction are those who do not understand, evolution is just evolution. Micro vs macro is a level of granularity that one looks at. Again only creationists try to make something of this distinction.

Thus I return to you, the point. That if creationists used the same level of requirement for their demigod Jesus, that they expected from Evolution, they would be non believers. Because otherwise they would be hypocrites. They understand gnosis to some extent but not eídein.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 06:32 PM
a reply to: Noinden

It's not an attack to say that you are being disingenuous, especially when you're still being it.

You gave a phrase by which you live, but provided no translation as a means of testing my intelligence.

You can't be more disingenuous if you tried. I mean no harm, but I'm letting you know that my ignorance of the English translation of your motto is not ignorance of your intentions by your speech.

I don't care about your label because labels are what people use to fit in. It doesn't define you.

There is a reason there is a distinction between micro and macro evolution, and you know why. Don't bore me, please. I'm the one with the defect of using my intellect like a hammer. Your defect is trying to use a hammer on a screw.

You seem to want a battle, I.Q. vs. I.Q.

I've drank enough that the match should be roughly equal by now.

But until then, I'll ponder the meaning of your existence with another drink. Bottoms up, Marvel Super Hero Worshipper! Or are yours in D.C. Comics? Do they even make them anymore?

Ooh yeah. I insulted, but that was just fair game. See, I'm straightforward with my challenges, unlike you.

Or should I propose a riddle as well, in honor of your own motto? And a response to the same -

In English: What object is able to hold itself above itself?

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 06:57 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

You apparently do not understand that every insult you post (you've implied my faith is fantasy/comics, that you hold a higher IQ than I do, and must drink to make this an equal contest, that I am not speaking the truth etc), is an Ad Hominem Argument. In that you are trying to discredit the argument, by attacking the person, not the argument itself. This is a logical fallacy, and are considered to be a sign that your arguments hold not water.

I am not beholden to translate common phrases in modern languages, when google is available. But clearly you are not willing to do research.

An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil translates from Irish to The Truth facing the world in English. If you were familiar with the various myths and legends of the Celtic peoples. You would know that speaking a mistruth would result in certain members of society being removed from office.

In this case I am a scientist. I'm published, others on here have verifed both my faith and my profession. I'm not going to try and defend either.

Macro vs mirco evolution are phrases with limited application. Evolution is evolution is evolution. Macro evolution is having the lenses you view it from set on the least focused, the long view, as such you see the time line. Mirco is having it quite focused, and you see the individual mutations. Under this, at the finest setting, you have the bioiformatical (genomics in this case) analysis where you see the actual change in nucleic acids, which then leads to a change in the amino acid sequence (the protein, and thus proteomics). None the less I reiterate: Evolution is evolution is evolution. It happens if you beleive in it or you do not. Just like gravity, thermodynamics, kinetics, magnetism, the SN1 or SN2 mechanisms etc. Theories of science are based on data, not belief. QED.

So as you feel you are administering advice, here is some. Alcohol is a depressant, alcohol leads to poor judgement. I grew up near a Salvation army home for alcoholics. Your future if you stick to your admitted behavior is one of pain (cyrosis of the liver sucks, I've worked on treatments for that in my career) and lonesomeness. Thus if your demigod jesus is the only thing that gives you hope, he's not doing his job. My gods teach me lessons, but expect me to stand on my own two feet, and be responsible. tá an fhírinne go minic searbh

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:33 PM
a reply to: Noinden

No, you expect me to Google so that my ignorance could be displayed. What you failed to realize is that my riddle addresses your motto.

I am not ignorant of the future of an alcoholic. Are you so silly?

The rest of your post is nonsense and you know it.

Solve my riddle and you'll find that the answer is the truth of your motto, which I solved without looking up, but it was given to me.

I must admit I doubted when it was given to me, but when I saw your translation and knew the answer to my riddle, it made me laugh, and your entire rebuttal looked silly to me.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 07:50 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I will return to what I tell the rest of the creationist crowd. One has to prove something is so, for it to be so, not just say "it is evident".

I'm not beholden to your demands. You wish to show you have some sort of ability at logic. It is clear you don't understand scientific method, You do not have a godly tongue which distills honey, to tether me with chains of amber and gold.

You may see things as silly. But it does not make it so. Logic is not your thing.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 08:10 PM
a reply to: Noinden

Logic is so much my thing that it has been one of my biggest hindrances to any form of righteousness.

The godly tongue does not distill honey, but a sword.

You must prove your deity and then I will prove mine.

Solve the riddle, friend. Find the truth hidden in your ironic motto.

posted on Dec, 6 2016 @ 09:02 PM
a reply to: TarzanBeta

This is the issue with talking to people who drink. They think they are so glib
You are not.

I do not have to prove my deities (plural) as I do not claim that they are paramount in the universe.

You missed the point I was making. I did not say my gods were real and yours are not. My faith is a mater of gnosis (faith) not eídein (intellectual knowledge). Thus it is a matter of belief, not quantitative facts.

You don't understand what a hard polytheist believes. We believe all deities are real, but none are supreme.

What I said was: That if a creationist (and I am assuming you are one to some extent) who does not believe the evidence that evolution is real, but insists Jesus was the son of god, walked the earth around 2000 years ago etc. IF they can not produce evidence that this person they claim is real, then they can not question evolution, which has many thousands of pieces of evidence, and has been demonstrated to occur.

Thus if you say evolution can not occur (even if you do the hand wavy macro vs micro fallacy) because there is no direct evidence. Then you may not say (logically) that Jesus walked this earth and was the son of a supreme deity. You can not prove that, thus you must reject that faith, as you reject evolution. When you talk about actual physical things (real people) you forgo the safety of belief. QED.

You neighbour are also not my friend. I'd not make that mistake if I were you
I am not a follower of Abrahamic values, my ethics come from my ancestors.

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 09:11 PM

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
There's been countless posts putting forward various positions. I have tried and failed, and many are continuing to try and fail.

No one is convincing.
If anyone was, the discussion would end.

So can anyone explain why they aren't convincing?

If you try to explain this with the stupidity of your opponents then you accept you cannot convince a fool which makes you even more foolish.

Does an answer exist to this question?
I certainly don't have it and would be curious to see what the people on both sides have to say.

here's a brain teaser for you. how do you convince someone who refuses to be convinced of how convincing you are? otherwise known as why do people beat dead horses and how to tell them they are doing it wrong.

posted on Dec, 7 2016 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: TzarChasm

Which is the crux of what is wrong with the OP's thread. He does not seem to understand that no matter how persuasive, logical, or heartfelt an argument might be, some will not sway their point of view.

Thus in this specific instance, very few dyed in the wool creationists are going to believe the science. Perhaps it is the Devils deception. Perhaps they don't trust the educated scientist? That last bit is a known phenomenon.

Similarly someone who trusts that scientific method is valid. Is not going to change their ways to "God did it" because of an impassioned sermon. This is why very few people who research evolution for a living, are creationists.

In the end I return to my oft repeated line. This is a battle between gnosis (belief) and eídein (evidence).

So it is not about being convincing, it is about being willing (for what ever reason) to listen, and be swayed.

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 03:16 AM
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Short answer is cognitive bias.

/the end
edit on 23/4/2017 by ReturnofTheSonOfNothing because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 05:44 AM

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Short answer is cognitive bias.

/the end

Ooh no. Cognitive bias makes it much, much easier to be convincing. Having passion for a lie is how many sales people meet their goals.

posted on Apr, 23 2017 @ 07:45 AM

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

So can anyone explain why they aren't convincing?

Why am I not convince of what? General Topics? God existence? Darwinism evolution? New species created by gene mutation drive by natural selection or speciation ? Abiogenesis primodial soup theory, etc...?

I could give you many answers why I'm not convinced. My answers depend on subject which may or may not relate to one another.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in