It appears to me that 97% of all Internet posters, both atheists and Christians, and everybody else, insist that it is THEY who have won the argument and they declare victory. "I have won and you have lost" they say. So? So I wrote the following just to have some innocent fun. ____________ A Very Short Story About John And Bob and Tom. by JAG There are two atheists that are having an argument over contradictory propositions. John Atheist and Bob Atheist. They are having a private debate in their own thread. They are now on page 60 in the thread and they are not writing short posts, but long drawn out lengthy screeds. They both claim victory and claim that they have established a high degree of Probability that their position is the correct one, and that their opponent's position is incorrect. I have utterly defeated you says John. My arguments stands at a 90% Probability of certainty and your arguments stand only at a 70% Probability and here are my reasons to support what I say. No, all that is incorrect replies Bob. My arguments stands at a 90% Probability of certainty and your arguments only at a 70% Probability of certainty and here are my reasons to support what I say. _____________ The two atheists, John and Bob, decide to meet in Real World and continue their arguments. They do this and they continue to argue back and forth for 30 days and 30 nights till they are near exhaustion. Neither John or Bob will budge an inch. How can we settle this, asks John. Bob replies, let's go to the academic community and let them decide. You mean we take a Majority Vote within the academic community? Well no, replies John that would ruin our scholarly reputations and we'd be howled out of the room because everybody knows that taking a Majority Vote can not settle who has won an argument. So my Ph.D's against your Ph.D's is not a very smart plan. By the way Bob, again I have won and you have lost this argument. No John, again you have lost and I have won this argument. I know how we can settle this, said Bob, we can go and put our case before this organization: The International World Authority That Has The Power To Decide Who Has, Or Has Not, Presented The Most Plausible Arguments. That's a great idea replied John, but where are they located? I don't know said Bob, lets ask Tom where we can find them. So they asked Tom, but Tom said Listen fellas there is no such organization in the world as that, and you both should know that. John and Bob both said well okay Tom, I guess you are right about that, but what in the world are we going to do now? How can we settle who has won this argument with the highest degree of Plausibility? I know how we can settle it, said John. We can let Tom settle it. Okay said Bob, we will let Tom settle this. Okay Tom, which one of us has won this argument? Tom replied I declare that John has won this argument with the highest degree of Plausibility. I declare that John has won and that Bob has lost. And so it came to pass that it was forever settled by Tom. John had won, and Bob had lost. Ahh victory is sweet said John. I love it when I win and can know for certain that I have won. The End. LOL
Its not a winnable argument. Technically a 'true' agnostic wins the argument by that recognition alone. Neither side can prove their argument because the system of proofs are merely an impasse. Atheists use physically based arguments, that which can be touched to prove their point and theists use spiritually based arguments to prove their points and accept/reject each others evidence in the same manner. Because neither can support their the position using the same basis for evidence its impossible to for either to 'win'. They both have faith their beliefs are correct. Either side of the argument can at best be accepted on faith and faith alone.
People have a bias and will self-declare that they won the debate or won't admit that they lost. This is why we need objective outside observers. But people who agree with someone are more likely to believe that he won the debate and visa versa. So it is best to get a mix of people with both perspectives, and see who won. The most reliable votes are those where opinions were changed or when you agreed with someone but admit that he lost the debate. Unfortunately we don't have anything like this here and we never will. The best thing you have is your opinion whether you won or lost. Instead of bragging that you won, let the facts speak for themselves and let everyone else decide that for themselves. It is very rare that people will admit that you won the debate, so all you have is your biased but sometimes correct opinion. Additionally, winning the debate doesn't mean you are right. You may just be a better debater or just have a lot more experience debating the topic, so it wasn't a fair fight the begin with. It is more fulfilling the make debate about learning about other opinions and improving your views than winning debates. Debate is about learning not winning.
Distraff, Thanks for taking a look at my piece up there and for your comments. If you have a moment take a peek at my Opening Post titled Christianity Is A Faith, here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/christianity-is-a-faith.572842/
Kokomojojo, Thanks for your interesting contributory comments. Internet "debate" seems to boil down to "let the reader decide" who "won." Please take a peek at my Opening Post at the link. The Opening Post is titled Christianity Is A Faith. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/christianity-is-a-faith.572842/ . . .and give me your thoughts on it. Thanks.
That's a fascinating perspective in light of what we both know actually happens here inside Thread World. I sure get the strong deep abiding impression that when atheists and Christians "debate" that both sides seek to win and to defeat their opposition. And this is when both sides are being polite and actually continuing a true intellectual exchange during argumentation. Just think how it actually is when the "debate" turns really ugly and both the direct and indirect ad hominem starts. I expect we have both seen hundreds of threads where the obvious intent of both sides was to DESTROY the reputation and the self-image of their opponents.
It is human nature to focus far more on refuting your opponent than to try to learn from his position. It is also human nature to take religious and political issues personally and emotionally and to have negative views of those who disagree. You and I fall into these problems without thinking every day.
It's pretty simple to those who bother to study; the materialists simply can't discuss the monotheistic concepts, which are immaterialistc at root. Materialism is derived from pantheism, and never the twain shall meet, so to speak. The superstitious pantheists are pretty frightened by the monotheists and their 'invisible' God, but are confused by their own claims of 'physically based arguments' and rely on impotent pseudo-intellectual rubbish and a complete ignorance of empirical methods.Hayek's The Fatal Conceit goes into this in good detail re the 'rational constructionists' and their miserable social experiment failures compared to the history of progress under Christian philosophy, uphill and partial as it was. The materialists simply have nothing to replace what they want to destroy as social constructs and traditions. The vast majority are not atheists, just sociopaths trying to dress themselves with legitimacy by making up fake 'science'. There are no 'debates' here, just spamming and attempts to shout down Da Evul Xians by assorted deviants, sociopaths, and angry children who kept praying for a pony or something and when God didn't perform for them as they deserved they whine forever after. All they want is for mindless self-indulgence to be acceptable as personal philosophy, and try to crush any opposition to that.
This is true. I seem to recall reading one of your posts here at PF where you said that you could de-construct any argument that was advanced by any Christian to support the truth of Christianity. Did I get that right? Or was that somebody else who said that? Have you read Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and the late Christopher Hitchens? Do you generally agree with them? What is your "big interest"? What do you hope to accomplish here at PF's ? You have over 9000 posts here, so there must be something going on here that "does it for you." What is it? I know some atheists inside Thread World that have a strong desire to eliminate Christianity off the planet -- to be replaced by Secular Humanism. Do you want to do that? I have been out here a long time and I make an effort to keep my emotions out of what happens here inside Thread World. This is not the Real World anyway --- I mean pecking away on keyboards and for the most part "posting past each other" is not all that sane when you stop and seriously think about it. I get the impression that many posters are merely waiting for their opponents to "shut up", so they can resume their own line of thought? Then there are those who will pop into a thread where someone has spent 3 hours researching to compose an intelligent Opening Post and they will hit the quote button and quote the entire lengthy post, and then write the one word Nonsense in the posting block. /LOL Then there are the "shock posters" that get a kick out of posting outrageous comments designed to shock and irritate people. That's just some thoughts I had that I thought I'd share with you. Anyway, its fun to write post. And at least we can share points with each other. Thought For Today: "Its a lot of fun to share points with the good folks here inside Thread World. And they share their points with you so it must be enjoyable for them as well. We are a Point-Sharing Community. That posts. When in doubt, post. When happy, post. When sad, post. When confused, post. When astounded, post. To live is to post. I post therefore I am. LOL__JAG
Farnsworth, I read all that. It was an enjoyable read. I grinned several times. I assume your "da Evul Xians" means "The Evil Christians" ? "There are no 'debates' here, just spamming and attempts to shout down Da Evul Xians by assorted deviants, sociopaths, and angry children who kept praying for a pony or something and when God didn't perform for them as they deserved they whine forever after. All they want is for mindless self-indulgence to be acceptable as personal philosophy, and try to crush any opposition to that."___Farnsworth That up there is a truly fascinating statement. Thanks for reading my Opening Post and for your contributory comments. God bless. `
It's an immediately observable fact in the vast majority of cases; and, they eventually out themselves after a few " I Touched You Last!!!" failures at retorts. You're welcome; it sounded like a legitimate attempt at discussion; pretty rare here and on most other boards' Religion and Philosophy forums these days
I hear you. Yeah things get a tad snippy here in Thread World on the Internet At Large in Religion & Philosophy Forums is surely true. Later . . .
I don't see an indication that this silly story has anything to do with questions about the exisence or nonexistece of a god.
WillReadmore, Thanks for your comment and thanks for reading my story. The story was not silly. You overlooked the purpose of the story which was stated in the opening paragraph, where I said this: JAG Wrote: "It appears to me that 97% of all Internet posters, both atheists and Christians, and everybody else, insist that it is THEY who have won the argument and they declare victory. "I have won and you have lost" they say."___JAG My story had other interesting points also: For example this one: ___________________ JAG Wrote: By the way Bob, again I have won and you have lost this argument. No John, again you have lost and I have won this argument. I know how we can settle this, said Bob, we can go and put our case before this organization: The International World Authority That Has The Power To Decide Who Has, Or Has Not, Presented The Most Plausible Arguments. That's a great idea replied John, but where are they located?"___JAG ____________________ Now back to my post to you . . The story was to emphasize the reality of how a large majority of "debaters" here inside Thread World always and forever declare that it is they who have won the argument and their opponents have lost the argument. The story was a lite fun moment. Don't you think that we need a little lite fun moments here inside angry Thread World where the angry cannibals gather to bite and devour one another in often bitter ugly exchanges? It cannot be denied that Thread World on the Internet At Large is cannibalistic. The cannibals often smell blood in the water and gather to "feed" --- changing metaphors from cannibals to sharks LOL. Take care . . .
WOG, Thanks for reading my story. My story did have meat -- prime rib and filet mignon, it had. See my post just above up there written to WillReadmore.
!! OK - I get it. I never think about anyone "winning" - I totally missed that! And, I'll admit to being overly sensitized by the "atheist" word, too. I have to watch that. Yes, we have people claiming they "won" - often before they even present their argument!
Okay, Noted. Okay. Yeah. . .I's poking fun at everybody, not just atheists . JAG Wrote: "It appears to me that 97% of all Internet posters, both atheists and Christians, and everybody else, insist that it is THEY who have won the argument and they declare victory. "I have won and you have lost" they say."___JAG Yeah, I hear ya. Say . . You've been around here a long time. Over 32,000 posts here. What is the attraction? What keeps you going? Is it because you WillReadmore? . . ./grin `
Yardmeat, The key to it is in the first paragraph, where I said: JAG Wrote: "It appears to me that 97% of all Internet posters, both atheists and Christians, and everybody else, insist that it is THEY who have won the argument and they declare victory. "I have won and you have lost" they say." So? So I wrote the following just to have some innocent fun"__JAG What is difficult to understand about that? _____________ You didn't find the following just a tad humorous? "The International World Authority That Has The Power To Decide Who Has, Or Has Not, Presented The Most Plausible Arguments."__JAG `
If you are saying that the post was just an innocent jest to with no significance, then that would explain why I saw no significance in it. As a creative writing exercise, I guess it was fine.
Yardmeat, The piece was a lite fun moment. But it did make some true points. You have over 22,000 posts here --- so you have read many and many a thread. Do you mean to tell me that you don't see any connection to that story up there and what you have read here inside Thread World since at least 2010 ? The story was to emphasize the reality of how a large majority of "debaters" here inside Thread World always and forever declare that it is they who have won the argument and their opponents have lost the argument. Do you see that? ______ Then here is how the story ended: JAG Wrote: John and Bob both said well okay Tom, I guess you are right about that, but what in the world are we going to do now? How can we settle who has won this argument with the highest degree of Plausibility? I know how we can settle it, said John. We can let Tom settle it. Okay said Bob, we will let Tom settle this. Okay Tom, which one of us has won this argument? Tom replied I declare that John has won this argument with the highest degree of Plausibility. I declare that John has won and that Bob has lost. And so it came to pass that it was forever settled by Tom. John had won, and Bob had lost. Ahh victory is sweet said John. I love it when I win and can know for certain that I have won. The End."___JAG Yardmeat, the point being that there is never anybody here inside Thread World that can settle who has won the endless "debates" that go on all the time. Yet everybody seems to think it is THEY who have won the argument. And THEY declare Victory! The last line of the story emphasizes the absurdity of this. "Ahh victory is sweet said John. I love it when I win and can know for certain that I have won." ` `
A crude tatesless joke gives the best answer to your question.. What do the Special Olympics and arguing on the internet have in common? Even if you win, you're still retarded..
