Another infidel joins the fray

[TheoCurious]

Hello, DCR forum members. I'm a longtime skeptic, and I just happened upon this forum yesterday. Having spent most of my online discussion time in skeptics' forums, I am tired of the same old debates. I'm here looking for exposure to a broader range of opinions about the whole "truth" thing. For instance, it would be nice to use the word "truth" in a sentence without someone always replying with a link to the "Loose Change" video on YouTube. In return, I will do my best to offer original ideas and challenges, which I realize can be difficult to do when engaging in one of the longest-raging debates in human history.

Most skeptics take pride in saying they are open to changing their opinions if the opposing argument is sufficiently compelling and persuasive. Most of them are lying. I'll try to be more honest and say that, while I don't expect to change my opinions, I sincerely believe engaging in discussion and debate with people of differing viewpoints enriches all participants. I'm just not sure why. Maybe I'll find out here.

[McCulloch]

Welcome TheoCurious

[Greatest I Am]

Hello, DCR forum members. I'm a longtime skeptic, and I just happened upon this forum yesterday. Having spent most of my online discussion time in skeptics' forums, I am tired of the same old debates. I'm here looking for exposure to a broader range of opinions about the whole "truth" thing. For instance, it would be nice to use the word "truth" in a sentence without someone always replying with a link to the "Loose Change" video on YouTube. In return, I will do my best to offer original ideas and challenges, which I realize can be difficult to do when engaging in one of the longest-raging debates in human history.

Most skeptics take pride in saying they are open to changing their opinions if the opposing argument is sufficiently compelling and persuasive. Most of them are lying. I'll try to be more honest and say that, while I don't expect to change my opinions, I sincerely believe engaging in discussion and debate with people of differing viewpoints enriches all participants. I'm just not sure why. Maybe I'll find out here.

As a former non believer, this believer welcomes you.

" I'm just not sure why."

Because you, like most skeptics and non believers who engage in debate, seek to know for sure that you are on the right track. You probably wonder as to how and why religion has had such a hold of humans for so long and how intelligent people could actually believe in talking snakes and other such nonsense.

At least that is why I think I used to be a skeptic.

I now believe in a God but not the miracle working genocide using loser that scripture shows. My God does not break His own laws of killing humans.

Regards
DL

[olavisjo]

Welcome to the forum.

I'm here looking for exposure to a broader range of opinions about the whole "truth" thing.

In my experience I have concluded that people find what they are looking for. If you are searching for truth you will find truth, if you are looking for justification of your belief, you will find justification for your belief.

I wish you good hunting.

[Zzyzx]

.

Because you, like most skeptics and non believers who engage in debate, seek to know for sure that you are on the right track.

I, a Non-Theist, do not debate to learn if I am on the right track. I am quite satisfied with the conclusions and decisions by which I live – though I am willing to examine contrary or conflicting evidence and modify conclusions if appropriate.

My motivation to debate these issues is to present to readers alternative ideas to the religious propaganda that permeates our societies and to encourage them to 1) evaluate the merits of what is said based upon reasoning and evidence 2) make decisions on those bases, and 3) take full responsibility for all outcomes of all decisions they make.

[Greatest I Am]

.

Because you, like most skeptics and non believers who engage in debate, seek to know for sure that you are on the right track.

I, a Non-Theist, do not debate to learn if I am on the right track. I am quite satisfied with the conclusions and decisions by which I live – though I am willing to examine contrary or conflicting evidence and modify conclusions if appropriate.

My motivation to debate these issues is to present to readers alternative ideas to the religious propaganda that permeates our societies and to encourage them to 1) evaluate the merits of what is said based upon reasoning and evidence 2) make decisions on those bases, and 3) take full responsibility for all outcomes of all decisions they make.

OK. You do know that reasoning takes a back seat to dogma with most believers, especially with fundamentals whose reasoning begins with the belief in talking snakes.
Good luck. I do hope you have better luck than I have using reason with these.

Regards
DL

[Zzyzx]

.

OK. You do know that reasoning takes a back seat to dogma with most believers, especially with fundamentals whose reasoning begins with the belief in talking snakes.

I understand and agree. Fundamentalists and I occupy very different positions on the continuum. They begin with a conclusion (dogma) and seek evidence. I attempt to evaluate what I observe to reach a conclusion. There is a vast difference.

Good luck. I do hope you have better luck than I have using reason with these.

I make NO attempt to "reason with" fundamentalists / literalists. I reply to their posts with counterpoints and questions intended to encourage READERS to consider the merits of what is said. I am confident that thinking, analytical people can decide what views are supported by evidence and which are not.

It helps damage fundamentalists' "arguments" when they refuse to reasonable questions or give answers which make no sense (except to those who already believe and worship as they do).

[Greatest I Am]

.

OK. You do know that reasoning takes a back seat to dogma with most believers, especially with fundamentals whose reasoning begins with the belief in talking snakes.

I understand and agree. Fundamentalists and I occupy very different positions on the continuum. They begin with a conclusion (dogma) and seek evidence. I attempt to evaluate what I observe to reach a conclusion. There is a vast difference.

Good luck. I do hope you have better luck than I have using reason with these.

I make NO attempt to "reason with" fundamentalists / literalists. I reply to their posts with counterpoints and questions intended to encourage READERS to consider the merits of what is said. I am confident that thinking, analytical people can decide what views are supported by evidence and which are not.

It helps damage fundamentalists' "arguments" when they refuse to reasonable questions or give answers which make no sense (except to those who already believe and worship as they do).

Unlike you, I do not see them seeking much of any evidence of anything. To seek you need an open mind. The talking snake has snapped shut over theirs and closed all arguments. When faced with logic they retaliate in various ugly forms that invariably see me in Hell. Thank God Hell does not exist.

Regards
DL

[Evales]

Welcome TheoCurious!
I've seen you post a couple of times in the forum already and if they're anything to go by I look forward to your view on subjects to come.

[Fallibleone]

Hi TheoCurious, and welcome.