Heaven & Hell Thread. Naw, Just Fecking Hell.

[faraway saint]

14 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

No I'm not. 

Aye, ye are. 🙈 It's Sunday, rejoice. 🤪

[faraway saint]

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

47 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, ye are.  It's Sunday, rejoice.

Rejoice??? After Russia??? With Belgium tomorrow??? What's to feckin rejoice?

England won, hallelujah. 

So did Arbroath, praise the invisible Man. 

[faraway saint]

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

You've got out of bed too early, haven't you?

I choose not to answer that question. 

All hail the tooth fairy. 🙄

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Aye, but do you choose to believe that you choose not to answer that question, or do you just believe it because of the evidence?

 

1 minute ago, Slartibartfast said:

I'll set my pet dragon on your tooth fairy if there's any more of your gibberish.

Foff twice. 😆

[stlucifer]

14 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

Facts are not necessarily true. For example, it used to be "fact" that the sun orbited the earth, that atoms were the smallest things there were, that bloodletting cured diseases and that angry gods caused earthquakes.

Facts are the conclusions reached with the best evidence we have at that time. If you reevaluate something and come to a different conclusion then you have a different fact, whether or not you have evaluated it correctly. Evolution is a fact but there is still a chance that it is controlled by magic pixies. Personally, I see no evidence for magic pixies, therefore I do not believe that "hypothesis", though I cannot totally dismiss it.

Anyway, back to the point, have you picked something to change your belief about yet? Go on, humour me.

Personally, my beliefs change regularly, either directly because of new information or because of reevaluating something in the light of new information.

Why are you asking me to choose to believe something that I don't believe? I've already said that it isn't possible as it isn't a choice. You think it is, so you should be able to do it. On you go.

 

On the one hand you ask people to pick something to believe in contrary to their previous choice, then you suggest that the facts they used to have that  belief are not necessarily true but they wouldn't be able to change their view. Are you a member of the Flat earth society?

Edited September 8, 2019 by stlucifer

[St.Ricky]

On 9/7/2019 at 9:18 AM, Cornwall_Saint said:

Don’t some of the nutters who like blowing themselves up believe they’ll get to have sex with loads of virgins in “heaven?”

f**k that, I want a woman with some experience and who actually knows what she’s doing.

Have you found one (or two)? 

[stlucifer]

39 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

I'm asking people to TRY to CHOOSE to believe something they don't, I thought that was pretty clear. It's about the ABILITY to CHOOSE to believe something.

Not "contrary to their previous choice", as it wasn't a choice in the first place.

I don't see what facts not necessarily being true has to do with the ability to choose. It might affect the choice you make but there wouldn't be any effect on the ability to make choices.

To be honest, your whole post doesn't make much sense so I've answered what I think it is you're trying to say.

 

No. You're simply substituting one word for another. Entirely different.

[BuddieinEK]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Aye, OK, and I can run the 100m in 2.3s, but I choose not to.

Here was me thinking we were having a serious discussion, should have known better.

Admit it, you don't even know how to choose to believe something that you don't, do you?

I choose to believe that you are clutching at straws here and despite your impressive Fjords, you have lost the plot... even resorting to arguments in the style of a poster I dare not mention!!!

The facts behind your "choice" make it illogical Captain!

We "were" talking about choice based on facts, or at least I was.

Is "winning" an argument that important to you?

if so, I choose to let you win!

The fiddly bits were indeed impressive!

[Cornwall_Saint]

2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Have you found one (or two)? 

Not on a permanent basis

[St.Ricky]

46 minutes ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Not on a permanent basis

Sounds just about right to me then! 

[BuddieinEK]

As I've said, to prove me wrong all you have to do is CHOOSE to change your belief (or non-belief) in something.

Done it yet?

I choose not to!

[oaksoft]

11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

And you're confusing "facts" with "evidence".

I hardly think so. 

[oaksoft]

11 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

Except, in science, if new information contradicts old information then, after investigation, you discard one of the pieces of information if you find that it is wrong. If they both turn out to be correct then you have other investigation to do.

Whereas, in religion, you just automatically dismiss the new information, no need to investigate, as it "must be wrong" because it contradicts "infallible" doctrine/scripture.

Also, in science, if your "leap of faith" turns out to be wrong, you discard it.
🚦

Thank you for mansplaining my day job to me. 

Are you also posting as Ricky? 

[St.Ricky]

27 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

As I've said, to prove me wrong all you have to do is CHOOSE to change your belief (or non-belief) in something.

Done it yet?

You are clearly committed to your view. Fair enough. Others don't share it. Also fair enough. You believe that your argument makes sense. Others, or at least a number of them, believe that it doesn't. People do change their minds. That at least is a fact. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

I'm asking people to TRY to CHOOSE to believe something they don't, I thought that was pretty clear. It's about the ABILITY to CHOOSE to believe something.

Not "contrary to their previous choice", as it wasn't a choice in the first place.

I don't see what facts not necessarily being true has to do with the ability to choose. It might affect the choice you make but there wouldn't be any effect on the ability to make choices.

To be honest, your whole post doesn't make much sense so I've answered what I think it is you're trying to say.

 

I think that what you have done is twist yourself in a knot such that people are no longer following your original point.

Would you like to start again and clarify what you are talking about?

[BuddieinEK]

I think that what you have done is twist yourself in a knot such that people are no longer following your original point.
Would you like to start again and clarify what you are talking about?

Indeed.

If you have made a choice in the first place, without a change of circumstances or information, why would you choose to believe otherwise.

That said... People DO choose to change their point of view... Regularly.

Usually after a change in information available, circumstances or personal experience.

You don't just "decide" to choose... You choose based on personal circumstances.

I laugh, for example, when I hear people justify an affair by saying "we couldn't help it. We just fell in love""!

Bollocks.

At some point in that relationship, both parties had moments of choice!

Do I flirt? Do I walk away?
Do I agree to meet? Do I decline?
And so on.
Moments of decision!
A chance to choose!

[stlucifer]

1 hour ago, Slartibartfast said:

2 hours ago, stlucifer said:

No. You're simply substituting one word for another. Entirely different.

What am I substituting?

You've used decide as a substitute. Accepting evidence is rarely involuntary. It's a conscious decision. It's a choice. As for choosing to believe in something you don't already believe in. It happens. People have been known to have an epiphany. No change in evidence. Only deciding, (choosing), to interpret that evidence differently.

 

[BuddieinEK]

You've used decide as a substitute. Accepting evidence is rarely involuntary. It's a conscious decision. It's a choice. As for choosing to believe in something you don't already believe in. It happens. People have been known to have an epiphany. No change in evidence. Only deciding, (choosing), to interpret that evidence differently.
 

Epiphany! That's the word.
Genius.

[oaksoft]

22 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

You've used decide as a substitute. Accepting evidence is rarely involuntary. It's a conscious decision. It's a choice. As for choosing to believe in something you don't already believe in. It happens. People have been known to have an epiphany. No change in evidence. Only deciding, (choosing), to interpret that evidence differently.

 

Exactly. I used to be left leaning a few years ago but changed my mind to become a bit more right wing. My politics are pretty much centre ground with bits of both left and right wing things thrown in ( a belief in personal responsibility but also a belief in nationalisation of public transport for example). I made that change by re-evaluating my thoughts. No new evidence needed. I did the same with my views on IndyRef. Normal people change their minds on things all the time without a need for new "evidence". I have deliberately used quotes there because I don't think hard facts are possible to ascertain in politics.

TBH, I am not sure where slarti is coming from at all on this.

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, BuddieinEK said:

Indeed.

If you have made a choice in the first place, without a change of circumstances or information, why would you choose to believe otherwise.

That said... People DO choose to change their point of view... Regularly.

Usually after a change in information available, circumstances or personal experience.

You don't just "decide" to choose... You choose based on personal circumstances.

I laugh, for example, when I hear people justify an affair by saying "we couldn't help it. We just fell in love""!

Bollocks.

At some point in that relationship, both parties had moments of choice!

Do I flirt? Do I walk away?
Do I agree to meet? Do I decline?
And so on.
Moments of decision!
A chance to choose!

Or "it was his fault that he got his wallet stolen. He shouldn't have left it in front of me unprotected and stuffed with notes".

 

[stlucifer]

56 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

Epiphany! That's the word.
Genius.

I know. It's getting to the stage I think I'm going round in circles and debating with King Cnut. That's Canute to the uninitiated. 😂

[BuddieinEK]

Or "it was his fault that he got his wallet stolen. He shouldn't have left it in front of me unprotected and stuffed with notes".
 

But some bastard chose to steal it!

[St.Ricky]

8 minutes ago, BuddieinEK said:

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Or "it was his fault that he got his wallet stolen. He shouldn't have left it in front of me unprotected and stuffed with notes".
 

But some bastard chose to steal it!

Choices. Some well founded. Some not. But choices nevertheless. 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Or "it was his fault that he got his wallet stolen. He shouldn't have left it in front of me unprotected and stuffed with notes".
 

But some bastard chose to steal it!

Exactly. I think my sarcasm was missed. 

Edited September 8, 2019 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, St.Ricky said:

Choices. Some well founded. Some not. But choices nevertheless. 

If you cut out the patronising mainsplaining, cut out these ridiculous attempts at meaningless soundbites which add no value at all to any discussion you take part in and actually open up and properly contribute, you'd maybe find that people would engage with you more.

Just some constructive advice bud.