The 'Benefits of Religion' Thread

[Confuzius]

Fort does like to post a WALL of text he has stashed somewhere, stand over it pointing and go "SEE!!!!" rather than actually engaging in conversation.

No, I don't do any such thing.

I assume you are joking.

However, if you are not, I am WAY too lazy to go through about half a dozen threads you actively participate in (including this one) and present a similar wall of text (composed of your wallS of texts), so you're 'off the hook' so to speak.

But I do assume you are joking.

[sandman]

Fort does like to post a WALL of text he has stashed somewhere, stand over it pointing and go "SEE!!!!" rather than actually engaging in conversation.

No, I don't do any such thing.

I assume you are joking.

However, if you are not, I am WAY too lazy to go through about half a dozen threads you actively participate in (including this one) and present a similar wall of text (composed of your wallS of texts), so you're 'off the hook' so to speak.

But I do assume you are joking.

I don't think he's joking. He likes to approach these things like a debating club or somesuch thing, it seems, while most of the rest of us prefer to treat it as just casually shooting the shit.

[Fortigurn]

I assume you are joking.

I am not joking. You can go through all the threads you want, and you will not find me simply posting a wall of text I have 'stashed somewhere' and then standing over it pointing and going 'SEE!!!' rather than actually engaging in conversation. Where appropriate I cite the relevant scholarly literature on a subject (in this case it was specifically requested), and I place it in footnotes so people aren't confronted with a wall of text, and they can see clearly my point by point engagement in the conversation.

I don't think he's joking. He likes to approach these things like a debating club or somesuch thing, it seems, while most of the rest of us prefer to treat it as just casually shooting the shit.

What happens is people come along all guns blazing, hotly asserting their long cherished personal beliefs as gospel truth, become outraged when these beliefs are challenged, start insisting dogmatically that they are right and that their views are indisputably factual. Then, at the height of their feverish shrieking and emphatic insistence that they are absolutely right, it is demonstrated that their views are based on little but irrational thinking and hearsay.

At this point they typically throw a tantrum and storm off whilst insisting that they are right regardless of the facts, or immediately claim 'Oh I wasn't being serious anyway, I was just throwing out ideas, this is just a casual discussion about possibilities, you need to lighten up'. This, after they've gone to the fanatical lengths of quote mining academic articles and dishonestly misrepresented other sources, in an attempt to defend their claims. If you've ever looked around at Forumosa Happy Hour and wondered who would lie shamelessly to defend their beliefs, reading this forum is one of the easiest ways to find out.

[Confuzius]

I assume you are joking.

I am not joking. You can go through all the threads you want, and you will not find me simply posting a wall of text I have 'stashed somewhere' and then standing over it pointing and going 'SEE!!!' rather than actually engaging in conversation. Where appropriate I cite the relevant scholarly literature on a subject (in this case it was specifically requested), and I place it in footnotes so people aren't confronted with a wall of text, and they can see clearly my point by point engagement in the conversation.

Too lazy to go through the threads (seen it myself). You quote a WALL of text then assert that the poster(s) you are disagreeing with are wrong based on those texts. You then demand that to engage with you, they read everything you quoted. That becomes your little, personal prerequisite to continue serious engagement in discussion.

Seriously, how many times, after supplying a wall of text, have you then later in the thread said something akin to "have you read all the sources I cited" or "you clearly did not read all the sources I cited"?? Even though 99% of people on this forum simply are not going to do that (now, you can come up with whatever reason for their not wanting to do so, which I am sure will not be complimentary to others but will shine a little halo around you) but either way, the vast majority of people are going to just ignore your sources.---Truly a case where "less is more" I must say ole chap.

That's how you roll man, I aint doggin ya, but its true.

[Fortigurn]

Too lazy to go through the threads (seen it myself). You quote a WALL of text then assert that the poster(s) you are disagreeing with are wrong based on those texts. You then demand that to engage with you, they read everything you quoted. That becomes your little, personal prerequisite to continue serious engagement in discussion.

That is a misrepresentation. As I have pointed out, what I do is cite reliable sources providing evidence for my case; I cite it in footnote specifically so people are not confronted with all wall of text, and can easily read my

Seriously, how many times, after supplying a wall of text relevant reliable sources to substantiate your case as requested, have you then later in the thread said something akin to "have you read all the sources I cited" or "you clearly did not read all the sources I cited"??

Many times, and rightly so. When people ask me for evidence, and I provide the evidence, and they don't read it and then repeat their request for evidence, I'm not going to copy it all out for them again. I'll simply refer them again to the evidence I already provided in answer to their question. What is it about this that you object to; me providing them with the evidence they request, or me asking them to read it after they've refused to read it and then repeated their question? Or something else?

Even though 99% of people on this forum simply are not going to do that (now, you can come up with whatever reason for their not wanting to do so, which I am sure will not be complimentary to others but will shine a little halo around you) but either way, the vast majority of people are going to just ignore your sources.

I don't care if they ignore my sources. What I care about is them ignoring my sources and then dishonestly claiming I have not provided any evidence for my case. That's what I object to most, not just the intellectual laziness but the intellectual dishonesty.

[Confuzius]

What is it about this that you object to; me providing them with the evidence they request, or me asking them to read it after they've refused to read it and then repeated their question? Or something else?

I ain't objectin, just sayin.

If, as you say:

I don't care if they ignore my sources.

Then you're not really trying to have a discussion, you're trying to win an argument, but if you haven't noticed, a lot of the time people ignore your sources. Lets say, per thread, you provided 1-3, then you might get a little more back and forth rather than a wall of text with your own footnotes (some of which, are hard to navigate I must say...and this is coming from someone who LIVES in footnotes) think about those who don't...

But as you said, you don't care if anyone actually reads your sources--meaning you cite them for your own satisfaction rather than for anyone else. Its quite one sided.

Like I said, no objection, just sorta pointing out the obvious (been told I gotto knack for that).

[Fortigurn]

If, as you say:

I don't care if they ignore my sources.

Then you're not really trying to have a discussion, you're trying to win an argument, but if you haven't noticed, a lot of the time people ignore your sources.

You have it completely backwards. The fact that I take the time to address people's points and provide evidence on request shows that I am having a discussion. Of course I've noticed a lot of the time people ignore my sources; if you haven't noticed, I've objected to this many times. As I have explained previously, I object not simply because people aren't reading them, but more because of the intellectual dishonesty involved. They ask for evidence, I provide it, they don't bother reading it, and then claim I haven't provided any evidence.

Lets say, per thread, you provided 1-3, then you might get a little more back and forth rather than a wall of text with your own footnotes (some of which, are hard to navigate I must say...and this is coming from someone who LIVES in footnotes) think about those who don't...

There's nothing preventing people from controlling how much they read. If they're intellectually lazy and dishonest, that's their problem not mine.

But as you said, you don't care if anyone actually reads your sources--meaning you cite them for your own satisfaction rather than for anyone else.

No that is not what I meant. It doesn't satisfy me to spend my time doing research to provide answers which people may or not need. I don't cite them for my own satisfaction rather than for anyone else, I cite them to substantiate my arguments, and I typically cite them on request. My comment about not caring if they ignore my sources was in the context of precisely what it is that I object to the most. I am not going to get all upset when people ignore my sources.

I am however going to object when people ignore my sources and then continue to claim that I haven't provided any evidence for my case. As I have said before, that's what I object to most, not just the intellectual laziness but the intellectual dishonesty. The fact that you're attempting to justify this intellectual dishonesty and make me the villain for providing substantiating evidence for my case is extraordinary.

[Confuzius]

The fact that you're attempting to justify this intellectual dishonesty and make me the villain for providing substantiating evidence for my case is extraordinary.

Maybe you didn't read what I wrote, since I never justified people claiming you didn't provide sources. I said nothing of the sort, nor did I even touch upon that issue. Though I do appreciate your appreciation of my extraordinariness

Neither am I making you a villain, just noting of your posting style and the way you attempt to overwhelm people with sources, which is what you do by posting a WALL of text, then stand over it pointing.

But remember, very often 'less is more'. Provide about 1/5th of the sources you do, and you may have more engaged discussions (if that is TRULY what you want). People will be less likely to ignore your sources then.

Just a suggestion and Take it (or not) as you will.

[E04teacherlin]

This has become humorous. Mr Fortigurn, keep those sources coming. There are people who do read them. I for one wonder why it would be so and since I do some research myself, wonder sometimes if there are other variables involved when research is done that can not be controlled or the researcher might not be aware of. For one, I wonder if the self preservation behavior is a result of religion and the community that comes with it, or a fear of death and not satisfying a deity.
What I do find humorous is that this thread has become exactly what fortigurn has said. People make claims and become all excited to the point of fanatic about what they believe, and then refuse to properly engage in conversation when provided with alternative points of view. When cooking, please only provide us a fifth of the recipe as we are too lazy to read and the cake will be a f-up whether we read the whole recipe or not, seems like a bad idea in my opinion.

[Teddoman]

What I do find humorous is that this thread has become exactly what fortigurn has said. People make claims and become all excited to the point of fanatic about what they believe, and then refuse to properly engage in conversation when provided with alternative points of view.

I'm glad we finally agree on something.