PDA

View Full Version : Does TOL get us anywhere?



heartless_Adam
August 21st, 2004, 09:50 PM
Just out of interest; has anyone ever started out at TOL with one set of ideals or beleifs, then actualy had them changed by things that were said by other members?:rolleyes:

Mustard Seed
August 21st, 2004, 10:01 PM
My basic beliefs have remained in tact. Many misconceptions I had about my faith are gone and I see more logic behind my belief than I did before.

On the whole you are probably correct in your implicit statement from the question that we are not accomplishing a whole lot. I spend far to much time here. It's something I need to repent of if I want to get more accomplished in my life.

I've contemplated just quiting as I obviously have failed several times in my attempts to moderate what I do here. I hope I make the correct decision. There was a thread of this nature quite a while ago. It' was quite good. That repetition though is classic of this site. As far as addressing something new it rarely if ever happens and when it does it is likely dwelled upon for far to long.

Sure there's always the hope you affect someone and change them for the better. However if I spent my time trying to better myself and not worry as much about everyone else I would likely be better off and perhaps better capable of influencing others in my life. I am not going to say that the debate is utterly futile nor that it doesn't, at times, bring about good. But I am seriously thinking about forsaking it. I think I may have said enough at this point to be reaching the point of diminishing returns. Then there's always that stupid worry that's really unfounded that if I sware it off that someone will be able to undo any good I might have accomplished through any number of mediums.

OMEGA
August 21st, 2004, 11:12 PM
NEW GUY ,

I have been on this forum for over 5 years and

seen many people (like you) come and go .

I have had to Defend my opinions and

changed my outlook when more learned posters

presented their documentation.

It has made me Stronger in the Faith .

I find TOL one of the most TOLERANT forums on the Net.

and Knight is one of the BEST Webmasters on the Net.

If you doubt my word, try posting your opinions on the following forum and see how fast they BAN YOU .

http://www.christianwebsite.com/appiesboard/search.php?search_author=OMEGA3

Redfin
August 21st, 2004, 11:51 PM
“The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly. Minimally, the very fact that I learn that my dialogue partner believes "this" rather than "that" proportionally changes my attitude toward her; and a change in my attitude is a significant change in me. We enter into dialogue so that we can learn, change, and grow, not so we can force change on the other, as one hopes to do in debate--a hope realized in inverse proportion to the frequency and ferocity with which debate is entered into. On the other hand, because in dialogue each partner comes with the intention of learning and changing herself, one's partner in fact will also change. Thus the goal of debate, and much more, is accomplished far more effectively by dialogue.?

See - http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=579516#post579516

Lucky
August 22nd, 2004, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by heartless_Adam

Just out of interest; has anyone ever started out at TOL with one set of ideals or beleifs, then actualy had them changed by things that were said by other members?
As iron sharpens iron,
So a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

I think I've been sharpened quite a bit. :eek:

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 12:28 AM
I find TOL one of the most TOLERANT forums on the Net.

and Knight is one of the BEST Webmasters on the Net.


Suck up. ;)

heartless_adam: I've gained something from my use of TOL over the years... I don't think the fact that I haven't changed my core beliefs negates that.

Lucky
August 22nd, 2004, 12:33 AM
I dunno... calling Knight's website "tolerant" is a bit of an insult. :chuckle:

OMEGA
August 22nd, 2004, 01:30 AM
DON'T CALL ME A SUCK UP

IF YOU THINK THIS FORUM IS TOUCHY

TRY AND POST ON THIS FORUM.

YOU WILL BE BANNED IN A SECOND .

http://www.christianwebsite.com/appiesboard/search.php?search_author=OMEGA3

firechyld
August 22nd, 2004, 01:31 AM
DON'T CALL ME A SUCK UP

I was just kidding, doll.

Lighthouse
August 22nd, 2004, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by heartless_Adam

Just out of interest; has anyone ever started out at TOL with one set of ideals or beleifs, then actualy had them changed by things that were said by other members?:rolleyes:
Honestly, yes. And I haven't even been here a year. My views on certain aspects of security and righteousness have changed. I used to believe that salvation could be lost, but now I know the difference between seasonal disobedience, and not being saved in the first place.

BillyBob
August 22nd, 2004, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by OMEGA

TRY AND POST ON THIS FORUM.

YOU WILL BE BANNED IN A SECOND .

http://www.christianwebsite.com/appiesboard/search.php?search_author=OMEGA3

Sounds like fun!!

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by Redfin

“The primary purpose of dialogue is to learn, that is, to change and grow in the perception and understanding of reality, and then to act accordingly. The following article will prove this impossible: www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates62.html


From the article:
Everybody in his daily behavior again and again bears witness to the immutability and universality of the categories of thought and action. He who addresses fellow men, who wants to inform and convince them, who ask questions and answers other people's questions, can proceed in this way only because he can appeal to something common to all men - namely: the logical structure of human reason. The idea that A could at the same time be non-A is simply inconceivable and absurd to a human mind.

Cont. from the article:
Polylogism denies this. As close inspection of the term suggests, it means: many logics.... What is true according to one culture isn't necessarily true for another...it means that different peoples literally do not think the same way. Their minds do not operate according to the same logical rules. Whatever the cash value of this reality is, the peoples live in different cognitive amd moral universes...

If,say, Americans moving into the 21st century really do live in a different cognitive and moral universe from, say, peoples in the Islamic world - then how do we communicate with them, whatever our purpose? We can't. Not really. They will talk right past us and we will talk right past them.


One need only view the many threads and detailed arguments for and against Abortion on TOL to conclude Yates is right. There is no common logical structure to human reason. He goes on to say:"If we begin with the assumption that peoples cannot communicate, no one will ever have any reason to try. Disputes will be resolved not by any form of reason but by fighting it out."

Jefferson
August 22nd, 2004, 08:29 AM
[b][i]Originally posted by Art Deco

The following article will prove this impossibleThen how do you explain the people just on this thread who have stated their minds have been changed. Do you think they are lying?

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by heartless_Adam

Just out of interest; has anyone ever started out at TOL with one set of ideals or beleifs, then actualy had them changed by things that were said by other members?:rolleyes: I know of several former posters who fit that profile...

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson

Then how do you explain the people just on this thread who have stated their minds have been changed. Do you think they are lying? Jeff, these are rare exceptions. Call me when Zakath repudiates atheism...

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

I know of several former posters who fit that profile... Really, several, out of how many hundreds of millions. Wow, I stand corrected... :rolleyes:

Turbo
August 22nd, 2004, 01:20 PM
Hundreds of millions? :noway:

Balder
August 22nd, 2004, 01:21 PM
Art,

Just because you're stuck in a rut and are incapable of "hearing" or grasping other peoples' arguments doesn't mean everyone is!

;)

Seriously, the fact that people in different cultures and times have different structures behind their logic(s) doesn't mean that those structures are immutable. If they were, you never would have progressed past the first logical structures of your 5 year-old mind. (Resisting the urge to make a wisecrack. Bad Balder.) Certainly logic isn't universal, nor is it independent of human embodiment, human culture, or human development. But that knowledge can facilitate communication, not preclude it, once you get some grasp on the structures that inform different peoples' thought. This realization, in fact, is part of what informs the article Redfin posted.

If the author of the article you posted really has thrown in the towel and decided that communication is impossible and warfare and destruction of opponents are the only ways "forward" in the world, well, that is indeed sad. A self-fulfilling prophesy if I ever saw one. And a pretty harmful one at that.

B.

aikido7
August 22nd, 2004, 01:21 PM
Just out of interest; has anyone ever started out at TOL with one set of ideals or beleifs, then actualy had them changed by things that were said by other members?

I get understanding and empathy. As for change... I figure God always has His own timetable for that.

Zakath
August 22nd, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Really, several, out of how many hundreds of millions.
"hundreds of millions" of TOL posters???

Hundreds, I believe.

Thousand or more, maybe...

But "hundreds of millions"?

:chuckle:


Wow, I stand corrected... Glad to help set you on the "straight and narrow, AD. ;)

OMEGA
August 22nd, 2004, 04:08 PM
The Mind changes by having its beliefs Challenged.

Zak does not have any beliefs to be Challenged

and therefore, does not have a Mind

that can be changed.:chuckle: :jump: :bannana:

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Turbo

Hundreds of millions? :noway:


Relax, that includes the general public as well...

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Balder Art,If the author of the article you posted really has thrown in the towel and decided that communication is impossible and warfare and destruction of opponents are the only ways "forward" in the world, well, that is indeed sad. A self-fulfilling prophesy if I ever saw one. And a pretty harmful one at that. Balder, it may be sad, but true. History bears out his thesis. You ignore it at your peril. Preemptive strikes are required in a world without reason. :think:

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

"hundreds of millions" of TOL posters???

Hundreds, I believe.

Thousand or more, maybe...

But "hundreds of millions"?

:chuckle:

Glad to help set you on the "straight and narrow, AD. ;) Relax, that included the general public as well. TOL is gaining in popularity though...:angel:

temple2006
August 22nd, 2004, 04:36 PM
Omega...Zak is in the same boat as we are. His BELIEF is that there is no God. He cannot prove that.

BillyBob
August 22nd, 2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by temple 2000

Omega...Zak is in the same boat as we are. His BELIEF is that there is no God. He cannot prove that.

OK, from a purely logical perspective, it would be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist [if He doesn't]. However, it should be provable that God does exists [if He does].

It's virtualy impossible to prove any 'negative' such as this.

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by OMEGA

The Mind changes by having its beliefs Challenged.

Zak does not have any beliefs to be Challenged

and therefore, does not have a Mind

that can be changed.:chuckle: :jump: :bannana:


Omega, I don't as a rule defend Zakath, however, your syllogism is a bit off the mark. Zak does have a Secular Humanist World View to be challenged. His mind is intact, his reasoning ability needs work. We have our work cut out for us. :help:

Redfin
August 22nd, 2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

The idea that A could at the same time be non-A is simply inconceivable and absurd to a human mind.

Yes, the "excluded" middle.

However, what is quite conceivable, is an "included" middle, "I", which is neither "A" nor "not-A," but which has the potential to become either.

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

OK, from a purely logical perspective, it would be impossible to prove that God doesn't exist [if He doesn't]. However, it should be provable that God does exists [if He does].

It's virtualy impossible to prove any 'negative' such as this.


Moral absolutes require that an extraterrestrial God exists somewhere in the universe. Without God moral relativism reigns supreme.:think:

BillyBob
August 22nd, 2004, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Moral absolutes require that an extraterrestrial God exists somewhere in the universe. Without God moral relativism reigns supreme.:think:

I agree, but prove that human morals are not purely relativistic.

I am not arguing a case for or against God, I am simply applying logic to this issue. I am a believer, but I cannot logically claim that I know He exists. It would be just as difficult to define God.

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Redfin

Yes, the "excluded" middle.

However, what is quite conceivable, is an "included" middle, "I", which is neither "A" nor "not-A," but which has the potential to become either. If it is not "A" it is by your definition a "Non A" Whether it has the potential become "A" is meaningless. When it becomes "A" it is profoundly "A".

Art Deco
August 22nd, 2004, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I agree, but prove that human morals are not purely relativistic.

I am not arguing a case for or against God, I am simply applying logic to this issue. I am a believer, but I cannot logically claim that I know He exists. It would be just as difficult to define God.


Your dilemma is shared by millions. One can only look to divine revelation and the gift of faith for comfort and assurance. I believe that God exists as strongly as I know my pick-up truck is parked in my drive way. I don't see it but I know it's there.

Defending the existence of God by human logic is a fool's errand. BillyBob, it's all a matter of faith. Faith that can move mountains is faith enough to acknowledge the existence of God. :angel:

Balder
August 22nd, 2004, 06:28 PM
I just read the article you cited, Art. Are you sure you understood it? The author denies that polylogism exists, therefore he is not saying that it is impossible to communicate and therefore fighting (or engaging in preemptive strikes) is the only answer. Further, he is against war and against what Bush the younger is doing.

His argument against polylogism -- that it is self-refuting -- is the old "performative contradiction" argument. I would agree with him that there are certain deep structures to logic that appear to be universal, but there is also abundant evidence that cognitive capacity is developmental and not all forms of logical reasoning are available to all people at all times. The same goes for moral reasoning. In this sense, there are "multiple" logical and moral structures that guide human thinking, but they are not random nor are they immutable and unbridgeable.

So, his refutation of polylogism is rather shallow, in my opinion. If he wants to refute the idea that every human group or culture inhabits its own island and is completely alien and inaccessible to everyone else, then of course I agree with that. But that is a straw man, in my opinion; I know of very few people who would argue such an extreme position.

Peace,
Balder

Chileice
August 23rd, 2004, 06:29 AM
Is TOL supposed to get us anywhere? I started a thread once on this same topic. But later I thought although people are passionate, it is more of a recreational activity than out and out intelligent debate. Although we are able to maintain some good discussions at times there always seems to be someone with an agenda to hijack the thread. What would be fun is to have threads that were limited to discussion without personal attacks, and other open threads where people could let the fur fly. It might be too hard to administer but it would make a space for everyone and for the mood one was in on that particular day.

BillyBob
August 23rd, 2004, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Art Deco

Your dilemma is shared by millions.

I don't feel as though I am in a dilemma, I was just applying logic to the concept of God.


One can only look to divine revelation and the gift of faith for comfort and assurance. I believe that God exists as strongly as I know my pick-up truck is parked in my drive way. I don't see it but I know it's there.

That is an interesting analogy. Can you be 100% sure that you truck is in your driveway without looking? I can think of a few scenarios where it might have been removed from your driveway while you were sleeping. Apply that same thinking to your concept of God and His existence.




Defending the existence of God by human logic is a fool's errand. BillyBob, it's all a matter of faith. Faith that can move mountains is faith enough to acknowledge the existence of God. :angel:

I would not disagree with you, it is a matter of faith, not proof.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by Balder

I just read the article you cited, Art. Are you sure you understood it? The author denies that polylogism exists, therefore he is not saying that it is impossible to communicate and therefore fighting (or engaging in preemptive strikes) is the only answer. Re-read the opening sentence.: Just recently I lectured a group of students at the Mises University on polylogism and its problems, and it dawned on me that the prevalence of polylogism in the modern world may be one of the reasons the world is threatening to explode in any number of places.

Posted by Balder:
His argument against polylogism -- that it is self-refuting -- is the old "performative contradiction" argument. I would agree with him that there are certain deep structures to logic that appear to be universal, but there is also abundant evidence that cognitive capacity is developmental and not all forms of logical reasoning are available to all people at all times. The same goes for moral reasoning. In this sense, there are "multiple" logical and moral structures that guide human thinking, but they are not random nor are they immutable and unbridgeable. So, his refutation of polylogism is rather shallow, in my opinion. In fact Balder, they are so shallow as not to exist at all. He did not refute the concept of polylogism. We need only look at the abortion issue to see polylogism in action.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob I would not disagree with you, it is a matter of faith, not proof. That is the final thing to be said Billy Bob. There is no greater truth than that. :think:

Granite
August 23rd, 2004, 07:46 AM
No.

heartless_Adam
August 23rd, 2004, 08:31 AM
QUOTE BY OMEGA: NEW GUY ,

I have been on this forum for over 5 years and

seen many people (like you) come and go .

I have had to Defend my opinions and

changed my outlook when more learned posters

presented their documentation.

It has made me Stronger in the Faith .

I find TOL one of the most TOLERANT forums on the Net.

and Knight is one of the BEST Webmasters on the Net.

If you doubt my word, try posting your opinions on the following forum and see how fast they BAN YOU .


ALRIGHT, keep your hat on darling.

Why would we be banned from this web sight Omega? Is it basically a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, intolerant hate mongers who regard there faith like some sort of neo-nazism?

I hate people like that. Don't you?

heartless_Adam
August 23rd, 2004, 08:36 AM
Quote by mustard seed: Sure there's always the hope you affect someone and change them for the better. However if I spent my time trying to better myself and not worry as much about everyone else I would likely be better off and perhaps better capable of influencing others in my life. I am not going to say that the debate is utterly futile nor that it doesn't, at times, bring about good. But I am seriously thinking about forsaking it. I think I may have said enough at this point to be reaching the point of diminishing returns. Then there's always that stupid worry that's really unfounded that if I sware it off that someone will be able to undo any good I might have accomplished through any number of mediums.



Good points? Kudos. :)

Lucky
August 23rd, 2004, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by heartless_Adam

Why would we be banned from this web sight Omega? Is it basically a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, intolerant hate mongers who regard there faith like some sort of neo-nazism?

I hate people like that. Don't you?
So you're hateful and intolerant towards hateful and intolerant people? That makes a lot of sense! :kookoo:

add yasaf
August 23rd, 2004, 05:25 PM
Obviously the Bob Hill supporters are not willing to change with his Mid-Acts view. They have not responded to the threads against them.

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 07:02 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

No.

No what? :confused:

Art Deco
August 23rd, 2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by heartless_Adam

QUOTE BY OMEGA: NEW GUY, Why would we be banned from this web sight Omega? Is it basically a bunch of closed minded, ignorant, intolerant hate mongers who regard there faith like some sort of neo-nazism?

I hate people like that. Don't you? I'm closed minded and intolerant of evil-doers. You got a problem with that buttercup?

Balder
August 23rd, 2004, 09:39 PM
Art,

Prof. Yates' argument is that widespread belief in polylogism is destructive, not polylogism itself -- since he refutes the idea altogether.

Do you disagree with him? Do you think people really do inhabit different (and unbridgeable) logical and moral universes?

Peace,
Balder

Poly
August 23rd, 2004, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Art Deco

No what? :confused:

No...sir??

Redfin
August 23rd, 2004, 10:44 PM
:darwinsm:

Lighthouse
August 24th, 2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by BillyBob

I was just applying logic to the concept of God.
:freak:
It doesn't work, does it?

Art Deco
August 24th, 2004, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Poly

No...sir??


No...nonsense. :angel:

Jefferson
August 24th, 2004, 07:58 AM
Art Deco: 80% of Christians today were raised in nonchristian homes. That means they changed their minds. Your article isn't worth the paper it's written on.

By the way, I'm a subscriber to LewRockwell.com. I enjoy most of their articles but this one is simply wrong.

Granite
August 24th, 2004, 08:25 AM
Art: I was just jumping in to answer the thread's question.

I've never changed my mind based on what someone here said. That's not why I come to TOL.

Art Deco
August 24th, 2004, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Jefferson

Art Deco: 80% of Christians today were raised in nonchristian homes. That means they changed their minds. Your article isn't worth the paper it's written on.

By the way, I'm a subscriber to LewRockwell.com. I enjoy most of their articles but this one is simply wrong.


You're entitled to be profoundly wrong... :rolleyes:

Art Deco
August 24th, 2004, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by granite1010

Art: I was just jumping in to answer the thread's question.

I've never changed my mind based on what someone here said. That's not why I come to TOL.


Granite, at least you're honest. I don't know about you, but I would die for what I believe in. And may someday. Open minded people are generally air heads. They don't stand for something so they usually fall for anything.