Most people are blinded and driven by their emotions

MonkeyBalls

As David Hume said, "reason is the slave of the passions".

When you encounter some idiot who "doesn't believe in evolution", you're pissing in the wind if you try to reason with this gob$hite. Do you think that person has decided to objectively analyse the biological data and concluded that, empirically, there simply is not enough strong evidence to support the theory?

No. These people simply experience cognitive dissonance about anything that contradicts the comforting beliefs that they have built their lives around, so, in order to alleviate this uncomfortable feeling (e.g. the terrible suggestion that "your beliefs are retarded and here are the data to show why") they attack the source.

No one wants to feel that for a huge chunk of their lives they were wrong - too much has been invested; there's too much to lose. This skewers their perception of reality - in order to preserve their self-comforting paradigm.

If religious people were not so blinkered by emotionally-reinforced delusion, they would easily see that their beliefs are retarded.

Please give me your thoughts, gents

lmaopml

Well, personally I think it's a huge generalisation and a load of Monkeyballs

..but it your happy....

MonkeyBalls

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, personally I think it's a huge generalisation and a load of Monkeyballs

..but it your happy....

I reckon it's fairly consistent. Show me someone who doesn't believe in evolution and who also doesn't have some ulterior motive of religion, and 1. I'll be surprised, and 2. I'll listen very carefully to his opinions.

Otherwise, nah. The thing about generalisations is that they tend to be true.

Black Swan

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

As David Hume said, "reason is the slave of the passions".

When you encounter some idiot who "doesn't believe in evolution"

Not sure Hume was referring to reasoning about evolution when he made this point? And, although compelling, evolution is a theory, which, if approached through the use of the scientific method, would be treated with caution and not as a proclamation of truth as it appears in this post?

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

No. These people simply experience cognitive dissonance about anything that contradicts the comforting beliefs that they have built their lives around, so, in order to alleviate this uncomfortable feeling (e.g. the terrible suggestion that "your beliefs are retarded and here are the data to show why") they attack the source.

Does this statement suffer from being a broad sweeping generalisation about people who differ in their perceptions, committing a similar error for which they are labeled and condemned herein?

MonkeyBalls wrote: »

Please give me your thoughts, gents

Only "gents" are allowed to comment?

Dades

The worth of a thread is inversely proportional to the amount of vitriol it contains - which makes this thread worthless.

Try and post a thread without calling people idiots or gob$hites, and without repeated use of the word retarded and you might have more luck.