Why are you unconvincing?

a reply to: Raggedyman

If you can't remember the posts, clearly you were not concentrating. Repeatedly myself and others have posted the papers, posted the popular science articles, tried to explain to your level of understanding. You refuse to listen.

You then go into (as you just have) ad homenin attacks, thus setting the impression, you are not here to discuss, but either proselytize, or troll.

You also do care, you engage.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Following through is thread, I laugh, as it seems to be a perfect demonstration of your question.

Members trying to convince others that they are not unconvincing when they are trying to be convincing to those who are willingly being unconvinced.

I love ATS

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

If you can't remember the posts, clearly you were not concentrating. Repeatedly myself and others have posted the papers, posted the popular science articles, tried to explain to your level of understanding. You refuse to listen.

You then go into (as you just have) ad homenin attacks, thus setting the impression, you are not here to discuss, but either proselytize, or troll.

You also do care, you engage.

Or
clearly its not as important to me as you Noindy

You call me a troll and have on many occasions and then this

originally posted by: Noinden
You then go into (as you just have) ad homenin attacks

You know what that makes me think of you on a personal level?

So yes I care about the truth, not defending myself from your strawarmy and endless rants about evidence that you cantproduce.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Except none of them are subject matter experts

You might want to revisit those links Noindy

I know that what hinders me from convincing people is:

that I am very forward;

I use my intellect like a hammer instead of like a heat blanket;

I tend to preach instead of teach;

I don't like convincing people because, those few things I do know, they are so simple that it is frustrating to me that they must even be explained;

I'm an angry person;

I love people enough to realize they don't have to know what I know to live - in fact, that ignorance might help them thrive above me;

I'm not fully convinced on most things, but on a few things only, and that because Truth, though somewhat elusive at first, is something you must experience for yourself (which is why I take the attitude that I'm not trying to convince anyone, I'm simply giving information that will help be a piece of the puzzle for them at some point, with the sincere hope that they live to see that time);

I'm not a manipulator and I hate manipulation, which requires acting on the perfect opportunity instead of giving time;

I don't seek relationships to improve my situation, I seek relationships to understand the characters in this story of life;

And these are just a few that I can think up at the phone right now.

But somehow, I've converted some Mormons into believing that I don't have to be Mormon to be saved, I've convinced atheists to entertain ideas of which they were ignorant, I've convinced my wife that I'm really good at what I say (which might be the hardest thing I've ever done), I've convinced an entire family to forgive me for a horrible deed, I've convinced cover bands to hire me when I had never sang a cover, I convinced a sizable business to be my first client (huge contract) when I didn't have ANY tools, I convinced a musician to give me his Signature custom guitar only in exchange for a lowly Canon 60D crop sensor and Tokina lens, I've convinced a judge to not throw me in jail when he completely had the right to (and I practically told him he should, but excitedly accepted when he didn't), I convinced mental health professionals that I was sane When I Wasn't, and my memory is only going through the last year alone.

I know that what convinced everyone of all of that was simply being vulnerably honest about myself without a single thought about what they actually thought about me. The information was merely secondary to the fact that they all felt they knew me within minutes, except my wife, with whom I was honest about all my thoughts, intentions, etc., To the point that the truth was uglier than any lie, and she found no way to not trust me.

There you have it.

By the way, the OP's question is genius and I hadn't considered it before.

a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman

Now my friend, you read those issues, those problems from other atheists who don't believe in evolution, you come back to me with why they are wrong
Why those atheists who don't accept evolution are, well you know

Padawan Raggedyman,

Evolution is not needed or has anything to do with atheism Padawan.

An atheist is only a non belief in god or gods. Evolution doesnt even come into it youngling.

Your home schooling is showing Padawan.

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

See and there is your problem, I've produced the evidence, and you have flat out refused to read it. In several threads you have replied "I don't need to read it, because I know it is wrong". Thus your so called truth is your own bias, and it must be a rather fragile truth if you will not consider evidence which contradicts it.

I also don't rant, I've not started at thread about "why evolution is true" I've been the counterpoint to you and your fellow creationists.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

See and there is your problem, I've produced the evidence, and you have flat out refused to read it. In several threads you have replied "I don't need to read it, because I know it is wrong". Thus your so called truth is your own bias, and it must be a rather fragile truth if you will not consider evidence which contradicts it.

I also don't rant, I've not started at thread about "why evolution is true"

I've been the counterpoint to you and your fellow creationists.

You might want to revisit those links Noindy

a reply to: Raggedyman

You might want to understand what a subject matter expert is Those are the same hackneyed groups you always quote. None of your links are peer reviewed papers

One of your so called "subject matter experts" was an academic at Otago University when I was doing my undergraduate, and post graduate work. He now is working at a think tank for ID, which means he could not cut it as an academic. Now thats fine. But it also shows he's not able to publish his evidence, due to lack of credibility.

a reply to: Noinden

you cant even prove someones own existence to them if they refuse to accept it. does this mean you arent convincing? like giving heart medicine to someone who continues to consume fried chicken and cake by the pound. doesnt mean the heart medicine doesnt work, it just works better if you arent actively undermining it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am sure if I tried to prove Jesus to them they'd be happy Despite there being no direct evidence. Thus by their own standards, Jesus is not real, he's a belief I wonder how many think smoking is not bad for you, or that global climate change is a conspiracy too

a reply to: TzarChasm

I find it surprising how few people will actually consider and take responsibility for their own fault of having the lack of ability in convincing someone else.

And seemingly from so many people who believe they are free agents, which tends to be their argument for why they cannot.

Gotta admit, the OP seems right to me. It would seem the contradiction rests with those who argue with and/or totally ignore the question.

Though one poster attempted to turn this on the OP, that the question itself wasn't convincing.

This would tend to give credence to the "only if they wanna" argument, except it doesn't.

I've met plenty of people that are convinced in their mind, but they reject outwardly in spite.

It has been my experience that one can succeed in convincing and yet suffer even greater consequences than if they had never convinced at all.

It should be realized that to convince does not necessarily result in external agreement, neither does it result always with a positive response.

We're discussing the heart here, friends.

There are many who claim to be convinced by religion or science (or both) because it is suitable for them to do so.

Ooh, how the human loves to lie about their own heart.

And worse yet, how some aspects of some cultures actually practice the lie to maintain a status quo.

There are families I know that are so political in their discourse that they have even almost fooled themselves into believing that they are getting along.

If the OP expected many people to be honest, that was expecting far too much.

a reply to: Noinden

Actually, there is both direct and circumstantial evidence for the existence of Jesus. You'd have to know the definitions of each to understand that.

But to say you do not believe the evidence would actually be more honest and true. No one can fault you for what you choose to believe, but for you to have an argument based on ignorance can be faulted.

There are intelligent men who recognize the evidence and are simply not convinced because they beg for their own vision.

The only problem with living like that is that you imply the visually blind could never know the truth.

I contend the blind do not require to divide their resources, so they have the potential to think more clearly, if they desired.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

The evidence for Jesus is not first hand, and this is why I used it as an example. By their own standards he must there for not exists. There is more evidence for evolution.

I was not actually making a statement on if I beleive there was a Jesus. He's not my saviour (I'm polytheistic, and non abrahamic in my faith) but I have no stance on if he is real or not. I do have a stance on his role as "savior of man".

Thus I return to the fact, that these creationists, who insist there is no evidence for evolution, must logically, disavow Jesus. Or they are hypocrites

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I tapped out on this already.

Interesting points, I'm thinking ego and vanity like most things is the main problem.
Both sides have the same blinders on where they refuse to accept their own biases.

I think the simple answer is that this is sports.
No matter how many championship banners or other "empirical" evidence you show me I will refuse to accept that the Lakers are the best team. It conflicts with my ideal too much so I just reject the idea outright regardless of the evidence.

I guess you need to break someone down first before you can even begin to look at facts.

There may be some ethical concerns with going door to door and waterboarding people, but so far that's the only solution I can come up with.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

I was that poster, and i stand by what I posted. conviction does not guarantee persuasion, and persuasion doesnt guarantee conviction. look at this thread, people cant even agree on why they cant agree. then someone had the genius notion to start a thought exercise where we doubt ourselves just to see what happen, and we turn it into a doubting contest. Who should doubt themselves more? who is legitimately unconvinced and who chooses to remain unconvinced out of spite? how do you tell the difference? first theres a spectrum of conviction, now theres a spectrum of skepticism. and now every shade of skepticism has to be cross examined to determine its authenticity? because we can't just accept skepticism. skepticism is being turned into a game to undermine its function as a BS detector and filter. doubt is not a toy. its a contextual device for separating fact from fiction. and thats what some people are trying to mess with here, reorder our grasp on reality by reordering our grasp on how to rationally interpret it. take advantage of the confusion to push through some questionable concepts and score a couple points just to prove it can be done. then twist it around and use it as basis for dismissing the system that should have been filtering that BS to begin with, before trying to replace the system with that very same BS. mental sleight of hand. you want to talk about the op expecting people to be honest, let's start there shall we?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I tapped out on this already.

Interesting points, I'm thinking ego and vanity like most things is the main problem.
Both sides have the same blinders on where they refuse to accept their own biases.

I think the simple answer is that this is sports.
No matter how many championship banners or other "empirical" evidence you show me I will refuse to accept that the Lakers are the best team. It conflicts with my ideal too much so I just reject the idea outright regardless of the evidence.

I guess you need to break someone down first before you can even begin to look at facts.

There may be some ethical concerns with going door to door and waterboarding people, but so far that's the only solution I can come up with.

including your own ego and vanity. dont pretend to be above it all. you are as human as the rest of us. you have your own biases and thats why you are among the unconvinced/unconvincing.

a reply to: Noinden

You'd have more fun with your mind there if you didn't waste your resources being disingenuous.

That being said, if you understand the law of evidence, I tell you that I've heard Jesus.

Since you cannot disprove that, you must accept that as first hand evidence, or direct evidence, rather. Whether you make the choice to believe it is only up to you.

Don't blame Jesus because you don't believe me.

As well, micro evolution has circumstantial evidence indeed. However, no one has claimed to witness a macro evolutionary event, or rather the birth of a new species from a parent species. If someone had, then that would be interesting and I imagine the scientific world would throw a sizeable party.

But also, that would not prevent me from saying I have heard Jesus, or rather His directions and comforts through the Helper, who claims invisibility.
Since invisibility is claimed, a different form of proof would be required.

However, it just so happens that God requires faith before revealing.

Many judge this, which seems fair enough until you realize that most people would not reveal their inventions or research to a group of individuals who most certainly choose to not have the capacity to even believe what they see or hear.

But even then, God is better, because He has shown everyone. No one is with excuse. Everyone is convinced. There are only those who refuse in spite.

I've yet to meet one individual that was truly confused by the concept of God. No human being is that truly stupid neither possesses that level of hubris. But humans are definitely horrible liars, deceiving for our comfort, deceiving to win arguments, deceiving to put others down, and so forth.

I never believe anyone who doesn't believe in one Ultimate God. The reality is only so simple and obvious to those of us who are honest about what we've witnessed.

The truth is only so elusive because we become wrapped up in our misery and our desires.

Not because the truth is not plain as day.

At any rate, I've been a little annoyed already and also detect I don't have the patience here to explain all the simple things an adult should already know so that one can make an informed opinion wherein the responsibility is not pinned on God, who has no need to convince, but it's pinned on that one who spitefully fights against reason like a teenager.

Done it a thousand times, it's boring, lol.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
including your own ego and vanity. dont pretend to be above it all. you are as human as the rest of us. you have your own biases and thats why you are among the unconvinced/unconvincing.

Where did I pretend to be above it all?

Did you notice in the post that you quoted I gave an example of how I do the same.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
No matter how many championship banners or other "empirical" evidence you show me I will refuse to accept that the Lakers are the best team.

I think one of the main issues is that no one on either side is willing to find a common ground or platform by which to debate. One side shows its "evidence", and the other side proceeds to ignore, refute and then shows its "evidence" (or not); and round and round it goes. There is little to no engaging of the other side. It's mostly antagonistic, and I think it's because either no one really wants to end the debate, or no one has actually tried to creatively bridge the gaps.

What if I were to ask you how would you measure or quantify what makes the best NBA team? If you don't like measuring it in championships maybe because your team doesn't have as many, then maybe we can pick some other variable, like number of all time wins, or winning %, or assists, etc. And if we're lucky enough, and reasonable enough, perhaps then we can have a debate or discussion based on that common variable despite your deep ideological stance.

Problem with God vs Evolution is there is almost no common variable. I've tried to ask our fellow believers if/how they can quantify or measure God scientifically/mathematically. If it can be done then maybe, just maybe, a reasonable debate can be had that might set the stage for some actual agreements on something, rather than finger pointing and ego fondling.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
I guess you need to break someone down first before you can even begin to look at facts.

The problem with "facts" is they tend to be different depending on who the source is. Just look at how history is taught in different countries/cultures. Even scientific facts are only factual until new research forces a new fact to replace the old one.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TarzanBeta

I tapped out on this already.

Interesting points, I'm thinking ego and vanity like most things is the main problem.
Both sides have the same blinders on where they refuse to accept their own biases.

I think the simple answer is that this is sports.
No matter how many championship banners or other "empirical" evidence you show me I will refuse to accept that the Lakers are the best team. It conflicts with my ideal too much so I just reject the idea outright regardless of the evidence.

I guess you need to break someone down first before you can even begin to look at facts.

There may be some ethical concerns with going door to door and waterboarding people, but so far that's the only solution I can come up with.

Everything you said here aligns exactly with my experience indeed.