Overall generally positive for populations? You just pulled that out of your ass, Aractus. You have no standard, objective metric by which to measure its positive and negative benefits.

Hey!  I just realized something:
 
your friend, and my sister,
have never been seen in the same room, at the same time.

(I kid, of course.  But he does sound just like my narcissistic sister).

This is what I recently figured out about my sister....maybe it will help you with your friend:


My sister used to try to debate with me,
but her techniques (like your friend's techniques)
were lazy and corrupt in method.

Instead of arguing by the method of Point >> Proof >> Comment,

(Make your Point >> Support your Point with Proof >> Make an intelligent comment on it)

She argued by the method of Assertion >> Assumption >> Denunciation.

(If I just Assert Something enough times, then it will BECOME absolutely true,
If I Assume Something, then it MUST be true,
If I Denounce Something you say, that makes it absolutely UNTRUE).


Finally, she realized that in an intelligent debate, she couldn't win, because:

1.  I am too good at exposing her bullshit,

2.  That she has given me a wealth of bullshit to expose.

So her solution is also twofold:

1.  Create the PRIMARY illusion
...that anything that *I* will say is going to be bullshit;

2.  Create the SECONDARY illusion
....that it is therefore intolerable to even consider the idea, that my words deserve the chance to even be uttered.


And that, IMO, seems like rather sociopathic behaviour, and utterly lacks all integrity.

Such a person is not worth bothering with....and is unlikely to ever change.

I'm sorry that you had the unhappy experience of your friendship dissolving.

But better to be alone for the right reasons,
than to be friends for the wrong ones.

(October 16, 2015 at 10:16 am)Aractus Wrote:

(October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am)heatiosrs Wrote: My friend that i've known for 2 years just cut all communication with me after finding out i'm an atheist. On so many occasions we have argued, and every single time he just says "i'm right because i'm right", we argued about esports betting, and stuff involving counter-strike(which is where i met him), we did it for fun but somewhere along the line I stopped having fun.

You're not a digital sprite you know, you can't be "deleted". DAMN KIDS THESE DAYS AND THEIR VIRTUAL FRIENDS![i/]

(October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am)heatiosrs Wrote: I got sick of him ignoring my logical arguments that I spent time on and saying "You're fucking stupid" never giving any reason to his logic. I didn't hate him, but I just didn't like how he argued. So many times, and i mean so many times I typed these long things to him explaining why he was wrong IN DETAIL so he could understand it, but he just insisted on not trying to understand anything else but what he said. He was one of my only friends though.

Ah the wisdom of youth.

Logic is not infallible, at all. In fact science, nature, and a whole realm of things are non-intuitive and do not follow conventional logic. It's not logical to look at a tree and say "I see a geometric shape and I shall call it a fractal". In fact until the fractal was discovered in its own right, no one had thought to say "hey that tree is in the shape of a fractal, and so is that shoreline".

You think you're right, he thinks he's right - so what?

(October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am)heatiosrs Wrote: Last night I was having a personal conversation with him and I said this exactly "I'm an atheist, and this is probably why we might disagree on what our life goals are, but i dont think my different view should effect our relationship or mean anything". He agreed at first, and we continued the conversation. 30 minutes ago though, he was arguing that "Marijuana isn't bad for you, and scientists proved it". I said very specifically "Yes they proved there aren't any long term effects, but that doesn't mean it's not bad for you, obviously it worsens your memory and focus, along with motivation". Instead of conceding my obviously right point(this is what he does basically every time, trust me there have been a lot of times, like almost every day for two years we have argued about something), he can't stand to admit he's wrong, he just replied "No you're fucking stupid kid. Most retarded thing i've ever heard in my life".

See here's an example you've just given - where you are wrong. There are negative long-term effects associated with recreational use of Marijuana. Emphysema, cancer, psychosis, it can trigger schizophrenia, it makes a whole range of psychotic illness worse and prevents treatments from being effective, it causes and worsens both depressive disorders and anxiety disorders, it can be more addictive than alcohol, dependence is more persistent (more difficult to wean off) than alcohol, and there is evidence requiring further study that suggests there are long-term effects on brain function (see Filbey, 2014). That said it also has therapeutic qualities - but that's true of almost any drug (including tobacco, alcohol, heroin, Ice, caffeine, cocaine, etc) - and it doesn't make a good idea to self-medicate using it. We don't know what the "safe level" is for any of those effects I just mentioned, because it hasn't been studied in the same detail that alcohol and other drugs have. There is no safe level for triggering mental health issues though, and the emphysema and cancer risks (as well as other risks) are cumulative.

While the effects you mentioned, pertaining to memory, focus and motivation are valid, you ignored a whole slew of far more serious health conditions associated with the drug. That makes both of you wrong.

(October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am)heatiosrs Wrote: I guess all this time I always thought that maybe if i explained my points(about anything remember, we argued about random stuff) maybe he would accept them. Nope. Not once did he ever consider my point of view, or admit he was wrong. No exaggeration. 

This time however, he did something I didn't expect. After cursing at me and ignoring my point, he said "I bet you're one of those people who argues against God on atheist websites rofl". This set me the fuck off. You have to realize that I told him that after being nervous, knowing he was a christian, but also one of my best friends. I might be acting like he was the devil incarnate, but we defnitely had good times. This remark tipped me over the limit. I wrote almost an essay response to him. I told him how incredibly intolerant, ignorant, and arrogant he was. I listed out everything that he was wrong, how he would cry and crawl up in a corner any time someone brought logic in to the equation, and how he would instantly start cussing me out any time I said he was wrong. He removed me from everything, steam, skype, phone, everything. Blocked me on everything he could, even blocked my number.

Well, perhaps you shouldn't tell people they're "wrong" then?

(October 16, 2015 at 12:54 am)heatiosrs Wrote: I am so fed up with religion. Maybe religion is not inherently what caused this, but it's definitely the foundation for the way he thinks.
DO YOU SEE WHY RELIGION HAS A NEGATIVE OUTCOME? BECAUSE PEOPLE START REFUSING TO ACCEPT LOGIC, AND CONVINCE THEMSELVES THEY ARE RIGHT. IT'S THE REASON THAT ONE OUT OF MY ONLY TWO FRIENDS ONLINE REMOVED ME FROM HIS LIFE. I WOULDN'T SAY SOMETHING THIS PERSONAL BUT WHO CARES AT THIS POINT. I HAVE LITERALLY NO CLOSE FRIENDS IRL. HE IS ONE OF THE ONLY CLOSE FRIENDS I HAD. STILL THINK RELIGION ISN'T HARMFUL? TELL THAT TO HIM AND ALL THE PEOPLE LIKE HIM WHO RUN FROM LOGIC BECAUSE OF IT.

Incorrect. Let me quote you a passage from Williams & Sternthal (2007): [i]"The strongest evidence exists for the association between religious attendance and mortality, with higher levels of attendance predictive of a strong, consistent and often graded reduction in mortality risk."

There are positives AND negatives that religion provides on health, but overall it is generally positive for populations. That isn't saying that there isn't harms - but usually the benefits well outweigh the harms. One of the things that is not positive (that we now know) is assimilation, so wanting to change people to your beliefs, values, and culture. And we also know that people who are excluded from participating in a religion is also negative. But no more so than any other "us and them" divisions between people.

Logic is not the backbone of truth. Often it prevents people from understanding the true nature of things. You might know that insulin is an important hormone that regulates blood glucose - in fact most people know that. What most people don't know is that it also has a long term effect on hunger - more insulin makes people more hungry and makes them get fat. That wasn't logical, that wasn't intuitive, it's something discovered from empirical evidence.

Miasma theory was logical too. Empirical evidence proved the communicability of disease and that it was made up of some form of microscopic matter (hypothesised to be microbes and later proved empirically).

Also, why should what seems logical to you seem logical to other people? There are different ways to use logic to arrive to different conclusions based on the starting conditions. If you walk into a supermarket and find the condiments - is the "logical" choice necessarily going to be the right one? Is there perhaps more than one right choice?[/i]

Are you just set on being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole? I clearly didn't put much time into this thread. Just because i was not 100% accurate on everything doesn't mean i'm wrong.

If you took time to understand the situation you would see that you are giving him way too much credit, as he would literally just respond with curse words and go offline on steam/skype whenever he felt defeated in an argument. You also should realize that I would REPEATEDLY tell him "I will not be mad if you prove me wrong, but at least have a civil argument with me bro", and he would ignore it. I was not 100% on if I was right or not, nor does it matter, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt. I offered to have logical arguments with him many times. He did no such sort. Oh yeah and logic meaning fucking anything that makes any type of sense instead of just cursing me out and saying "im right because im right", stop analyzing my every word and finding every little detail to prove me wrong, the truth is I could be wrong on any of the arguments I had with him, but that's not the point of the story.

Like what are you even saying man? Do you think i'm a professor, and an expert on philosophy? I'm not making statements on this thread, like really why the fuck do you care? I'm 15 and this isn't meant to be a debate about what the meaning of logical is. Sorry I wasn't 2000% clearer in my words, and ironically you are criticizing someone that might describe a tree as a scientific description, yet you expect me to have a scientific description for everything I said or else you don't understand it apparently.



"Well perhaps don't tell people they're wrong then"
Like what? What are you even saying? Huh???

Even though this is a completely stupid statement, even then I still would clarify it to my friend and say "If you can't provide any evidence, you saying you are right doesn't make you right, so you can refute my points, or else you're wrong by default"

I would never just straight up say "you're wrong" that's the type of shit he would do. And why does it even matter, i'm allowed to tell anyone they are wrong as long as I can prove it.


"you ignored a whole slew of other far more serious health conditions that makes you both wrong"
What? How does it make us both wrong? Why are you assuming I willingly ignored it? You realize he was trying to suggest that there were LITERALLY NO SIDE EFFECTS so I was trying to use the most mild ones possible so he would agree with me. You think I was writing some fucking article, and im a doctor or something? Stop being a douchebag just because you get a kick out of it.

(October 16, 2015 at 11:23 am)Faith No More Wrote: Overall generally positive for populations? You just pulled that out of your ass, Aractus.  You have no standard, objective metric by which to measure its positive and negative benefits.

For the health of populations, I did not pull it out of my ass - I gave a link to Williams & Sternthal (2007) and there are plenty of other peer-review journal articles that you can look up.

You can stomp your feet all you want, but you aren't entitled to your own facts FNM.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: Are you just set on being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole? I clearly didn't put much time into this thread. Just because i was not 100% accurate on everything doesn't mean i'm wrong.

It doesn't mean you're always wrong, but I can see just from your response - labelling me an asshole - that you're quick to leap to conclusions, and that you may feel as if you are personally attacked when someone disagrees with something you assert.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: If you took time to understand the situation you would see that you are giving him way too much credit, as he would literally just respond with curse words and go offline on steam/skype whenever he felt defeated in an argument. You also should realize that I would REPEATEDLY tell him "I will not be mad if you prove me wrong, but at least have a civil argument with me bro", and he would ignore it. I was not 100% on if I was right or not, nor does it matter, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt. I offered to have logical arguments with him many times. He did no such sort. Oh yeah and logic meaning fucking anything that makes any type of sense instead of just cursing me out and saying "im right because im right", stop analyzing my every word and finding every little detail to prove me wrong, the truth is I could be wrong on any of the arguments I had with him, but that's not the point of the story.

I never disagreed with anything you said about your friend. I have no way of knowing. But I'll point out to you that you just said that you explained to him that you wouldn't get mad if you were proved wrong - I proved to you there are long-term effects of marijuana, and you seemed to get pretty hot-headed about it. What's interesting, for me, is that this is a topic that can be divisive between different people that "just know" they're right. You can't talk sense to people who take drugs - believe me I know. I have had friends who have used every drug imaginable, and I've family members who have suffered negative long-term effects of marijuana use.

I have friends, and I know other people who have had other addiction issues with alcohol and gambling, and I know several people personally who have been the victim of domestic violence. I had one friend who was the victim of domestic violence - who wouldn't leave her partner - that wouldn't talk to any of her other friends because they kept labelling her partner a horrible monster that she should leave as soon as possible. You can't just "tell" people in these situations how to behave. It's not respectful, and it shows a lack of your own understanding if you do. You might have good intentions, but they won't follow-through to positive outcomes if you approach these situations in ways which cause people to push back, put up barriers, or feel threatened/misunderstood.

It appears that you feel that logic is the foundation of facts or truth. That's not at all unusual especially at the stage in which you're at in life. I remember back when I myself thought logic was the fundamental building block of fact - I was around your age at the time. But it isn't. As I've grown older I've understood this. Logic-arguments are just divisive arguments where one person pits their logic and reasoning against the logic and reasoning of other person. Each person's argument makes perfect sense to them, but they can't make it make sense to the other.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: Like what are you even saying man? Do you think i'm a professor, and an expert on philosophy? I'm not making statements on this thread, like really why the fuck do you care? I'm 15 and this isn't meant to be a debate about what the meaning of logical is. Sorry I wasn't 2000% clearer in my words, and ironically you are criticizing someone that might describe a tree as a scientific description, yet you expect me to have a scientific description for everything I said or else you don't understand it apparently.

"Well perhaps don't tell people they're wrong then"
Like what? What are you even saying? Huh???

Even though this is a completely stupid statement, even then I still would clarify it to my friend and say "If you can't provide any evidence, you saying you are right doesn't make you right, so you can refute my points, or else you're wrong by default"

See there's your problem. What makes you the one to decide who's right by default?

My point about fractals, by the way, is that most people don't look at nature and say "look at all these fractals". Most people don't see it, because it's not intuitive and it doesn't follow logic. Einstein's theory of relativity, and the theory of quantum mechanics are also both counter-intuitive and counter-logical. You don't need to understand them to recognise that they're not logical - it is in fact in not understanding them that you do understand that they aren't logical. They also aren't facts either... they're just theories to describe interesting things about the world. Einstein himself stomped his feet and labelled quantum mechanics as ridiculous nonsense, which was not exactly his smartest move.

Have a look above - Faith No More has chipped in and asserted that "I" am wrong about religion and public health (even though I've repeatedly pointed out in the past that it isn't my assertion at all and I'm just parroting what I read from the experts), but he didn't provide any evidence and I did. This is quite a normal thing here actually, which is why that Journal article is in my signature. You think that'd make him wrong by default - in fact he is wrong, because he hasn't read the evidence like I have, but you try telling him that. He'll just keep saying "nuh-uh, nuh-uh, nuh-uh" like a little child. It'd be nice if he'd actually read some Journal articles on it and then say "oh yeah, there is evidence that people live longer and more of their lives free from the burden of disease when participating in religion, that's interesting". But he won't - he knows he's right after all, no need to look at evidence. He'll use his logic and anecdotal experiences instead.

Ignaz Semmelweis thought that women in the maternity ward were being poisoned by what he called "cadaverous particles" - invisible particles carried by medical students from the morgue to the maternity ward that were causing new-born mothers to come down with a fever and then die! So he said, in his own words, that "soap and water is not enough" to clean the skin of the "cadaverous particles" and that instead medical students needed to wash their hands in a chlorinated lime solution. Although Semmelweis was technically right that the chronicled lime solution did clean better than soap, he couldn't really explain why, the medical students hated it because the solution stung their hands every time they used it, they fought back and ultimately Semmelweis was kicked out of the hospital.

In the absence of empirical evidence, this is what logic leads to. Semmelweis says "you have to clean your hands in chlorinated lime" and his students say "no we're going to use soap and water, it's what people have been doing for centuries, that's what you use to clean your hands". And even today people disagree about how to categorise him. I think he was a heretic, quite frankly, and he was just lucky to have been on the right path. But that's often how scientific advances are made - through luck. Other people think he was an early pioneer and visionary, and misunderstood by his peers.

(October 16, 2015 at 7:37 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(October 16, 2015 at 11:23 am)Faith No More Wrote: Overall generally positive for populations? You just pulled that out of your ass, Aractus.  You have no standard, objective metric by which to measure its positive and negative benefits.

For the health of populations, I did not pull it out of my ass - I gave a link to Williams & Sternthal (2007) and there are plenty of other peer-review journal articles that you can look up.

You can stomp your feet all you want, but you aren't entitled to your own facts FNM.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: Are you just set on being an asshole for the sake of being an asshole? I clearly didn't put much time into this thread. Just because i was not 100% accurate on everything doesn't mean i'm wrong.

It doesn't mean you're always wrong, but I can see just from your response - labelling me an asshole - that you're quick to leap to conclusions, and that you may feel as if you are personally attacked when someone disagrees with something you assert.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: If you took time to understand the situation you would see that you are giving him way too much credit, as he would literally just respond with curse words and go offline on steam/skype whenever he felt defeated in an argument. You also should realize that I would REPEATEDLY tell him "I will not be mad if you prove me wrong, but at least have a civil argument with me bro", and he would ignore it. I was not 100% on if I was right or not, nor does it matter, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt. I offered to have logical arguments with him many times. He did no such sort. Oh yeah and logic meaning fucking anything that makes any type of sense instead of just cursing me out and saying "im right because im right", stop analyzing my every word and finding every little detail to prove me wrong, the truth is I could be wrong on any of the arguments I had with him, but that's not the point of the story.

I never disagreed with anything you said about your friend. I have no way of knowing. But I'll point out to you that you just said that you explained to him that you wouldn't get mad if you were proved wrong - I proved to you there are long-term effects of marijuana, and you seemed to get pretty hot-headed about it. What's interesting, for me, is that this is a topic that can be divisive between different people that "just know" they're right. You can't talk sense to people who take drugs - believe me I know. I have had friends who have used every drug imaginable, and I've family members who have suffered negative long-term effects of marijuana use.

I have friends, and I know other people who have had other addiction issues with alcohol and gambling, and I know several people personally who have been the victim of domestic violence. I had one friend who was the victim of domestic violence - who wouldn't leave her partner - that wouldn't talk to any of her other friends because they kept labelling her partner a horrible monster that she should leave as soon as possible. You can't just "tell" people in these situations how to behave. It's not respectful, and it shows a lack of your own understanding if you do. You might have good intentions, but they won't follow-through to positive outcomes if you approach these situations in ways which cause people to push back, put up barriers, or feel threatened/misunderstood.

It appears that you feel that logic is the foundation of facts or truth. That's not at all unusual especially at the stage in which you're at in life. I remember back when I myself thought logic was the fundamental building block of fact - I was around your age at the time. But it isn't. As I've grown older I've understood this. Logic-arguments are just divisive arguments where one person pits their logic and reasoning against the logic and reasoning of other person. Each person's argument makes perfect sense to them, but they can't make it make sense to the other.

(October 16, 2015 at 5:37 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: Like what are you even saying man? Do you think i'm a professor, and an expert on philosophy? I'm not making statements on this thread, like really why the fuck do you care? I'm 15 and this isn't meant to be a debate about what the meaning of logical is. Sorry I wasn't 2000% clearer in my words, and ironically you are criticizing someone that might describe a tree as a scientific description, yet you expect me to have a scientific description for everything I said or else you don't understand it apparently.

"Well perhaps don't tell people they're wrong then"
Like what? What are you even saying? Huh???

Even though this is a completely stupid statement, even then I still would clarify it to my friend and say "If you can't provide any evidence, you saying you are right doesn't make you right, so you can refute my points, or else you're wrong by default"

See there's your problem. What makes you the one to decide who's right by default?

My point about fractals, by the way, is that most people don't look at nature and say "look at all these fractals". Most people don't see it, because it's not intuitive and it doesn't follow logic. Einstein's theory of relativity, and the theory of quantum mechanics are also both counter-intuitive and counter-logical. You don't need to understand them to recognise that they're not logical - it is in fact in not understanding them that you do understand that they aren't logical. They also aren't facts either... they're just theories to describe interesting things about the world. Einstein himself stomped his feet and labelled quantum mechanics as ridiculous nonsense, which was not exactly his smartest move.

Have a look above - Faith No More has chipped in and asserted that "I" am wrong about religion and public health (even though I've repeatedly pointed out in the past that it isn't my assertion at all and I'm just parroting what I read from the experts), but he didn't provide any evidence and I did. This is quite a normal thing here actually, which is why that Journal article is in my signature. You think that'd make him wrong by default - in fact he is wrong, because he hasn't read the evidence like I have, but you try telling him that. He'll just keep saying "nuh-uh, nuh-uh, nuh-uh" like a little child. It'd be nice if he'd actually read some Journal articles on it and then say "oh yeah, there is evidence that people live longer and more of their lives free from the burden of disease when participating in religion, that's interesting". But he won't - he knows he's right after all, no need to look at evidence. He'll use his logic and anecdotal experiences instead.

Ignaz Semmelweis thought that women in the maternity ward were being poisoned by what he called "cadaverous particles" - invisible particles carried by medical students from the morgue to the maternity ward that were causing new-born mothers to come down with a fever and then die! So he said, in his own words, that "soap and water is not enough" to clean the skin of the "cadaverous particles" and that instead medical students needed to wash their hands in a chlorinated lime solution. Although Semmelweis was technically right that the chronicled lime solution did clean better than soap, he couldn't really explain why, the medical students hated it because the solution stung their hands every time they used it, they fought back and ultimately Semmelweis was kicked out of the hospital.

In the absence of empirical evidence, this is what logic leads to. Semmelweis says "you have to clean your hands in chlorinated lime" and his students say "no we're going to use soap and water, it's what people have been doing for centuries, that's what you use to clean your hands". And even today people disagree about how to categorise him. I think he was a heretic, quite frankly, and he was just lucky to have been on the right path. But that's often how scientific advances are made - through luck. Other people think he was an early pioneer and visionary, and misunderstood by his peers.

The only reason I am getting "hot headed" is because you keep making assumptions about me, and inferring things. I don't have a concrete view of what "logic" is, you hardly proved me wrong in my statement about marijuana. Regardless, why do you think I am saying these things definitevely? I didn't mean for this to be a debate thread, nor did I do much research on these subjects, I was open for my friend to refute me because we were in an argument, I was never in an argument with you specifically, i was explaining the situation. You keep making assumptions about my thought process based on your own childish experience, and keep belittling my issues and the content of what I was saying because of my age, someone who spends time making thoroughly detailed responses that no one reads, on a thread you do not care about should probably know that age doesn't mean anything. I never meant for this to be explaining my philosophies on life, so I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion of what they are.

You're obviously not getting the message. It's not that I was able to provide all this proof in arguments with him, or that I was unaccepting of anything that didn't fit with my view of logic. It's that he never explained his reasoning for anything. Instead of explaining why he believes something, even religious people will explain their reason for belief as wrong as it may be, but he would curse me out any time I challenged his thinking.

If you think that someone who buckles when challenged in thinking and can't explain why they believe something should be respected in regards to the argument, you are thoroughly misleaded. I also never said(or intended to say) that someone is "Wrong by default" if they can't explain their reasoning, i'm talking about in the context of the argument they are wrong. They could be right, but in the context of an argument if you can't explain why you are right you have lost the argument by default. That's how it works.

I don't feel personally attacked when someone disagrees with me. I feel angry when someone totally misses the point of the thread and tries to make everything a situation where he can disprove someone. I never asserted anything, I asserted it in the context of the argument with my friend. I don't need you to prove me wrong, because I don't care, and this wasn't about debating. I would HAPPILY debate you on a subject that I cared about. Not to say I don't want to know the truth, but you are writing these long ridiculous essay long responses to prove me wrong on a subject I never claimed to be right on in the first place. Yep, I never claimed to be right. In the context of the argument I claimed to be right by default because the other person could not back up their counter-argument but does that mean I proved anything? If I wanted to debate these topics with people I would have made an entirely different post, so pick on someone else. This was also a thread made out of anger and sadness. I never "asserted" anything. All in all, you are taking what I clearly put little time into way too seriously by trying to prove my every word wrong as if I was attempting to inform people of the truth, all so you can make me feel bad about saying something I didn't even care about in the first place.

You are giving this person, that you have never met, and have no evidence of the actual conversation taking place way to much credit.


That being said, I know you will analyze every single word I said in order to get a kick out of proving me wrong in a tiny detail with no relevance to the thread that you never cared about in the first place, so i'm not responding again.

ASSUMPTION :
" My friend that i've known for 2 years just cut all communication with me after finding out i'm an atheist "

REALITY :
" I got sick of him ignoring my logical arguments that I spent time on and saying "You're fucking stupid" never giving any reason to his logic. I didn't hate him, but I just didn't like how he argued. So many times, and i mean so many times I typed these long things to him explaining why he was wrong IN DETAIL so he could understand it, but he just insisted on not trying to understand anything else but what he said. "

" he was arguing that "Marijuana isn't bad for you, and scientists proved it". I said very specifically "Yes they proved there aren't any long term effects, but that doesn't mean it's not bad for you, obviously it worsens your memory and focus, along with motivation". Instead of conceding my obviously right point(this is what he does basically every time, trust me there have been a lot of times, like almost every day for two years we have argued about something), he can't stand to admit he's wrong "

" I wrote almost an essay response to him. I told him how incredibly intolerant, ignorant, and arrogant he was. I listed out everything that he was wrong, how he would cry and crawl up in a corner any time someone brought logic in to the equation, and how he would instantly start cussing me out any time I said he was wrong. "

..... yep that must be the reason he doesnt want to be friends with you just because your an atheist ( eyeroll )

(October 16, 2015 at 5:36 am)Iroscato Wrote: I honestly thought I'd be getting a Fancy Drink when I clicked on the thread.

Same response. Great minds and all...

---

heatiosrs, it seems like maybe you need to take a little time for self reflection. Your response to Aractus sort of paints you as a hypocrite, you are literally responding the exact same way that you are accusing your friend of.

Maybe the reason that you don't have that many friends IRL has more to do with you or your personality, and less to do with your atheism? I am trying to say that in the nicest way possible--I am not trying to attack you--but there really is no easy way to say it. Whether you intend it or not, you are very combative and abrasive. Those qualities are very off putting. It seems that you like to argue, and maybe the answer is to channel that energy into honing that skill. Take some debate classes, some formal logic classes. You skip right to the ad hominem when people don't agree with your perception, but you have to allow people to be individuals. Debating people is not about making them adopt your view.

Quote:For the health of populations, I did not pull it out of my ass - I gave a link to Williams & Sternthal (2007) and there are plenty of other peer-review journal articles that you can look up.

My bad. I misread you.

Carry on being a pedantic dick.

(October 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: The only reason I am getting "hot headed" is because you keep making assumptions about me, and inferring things. I don't have a concrete view of what "logic" is, you hardly proved me wrong in my statement about marijuana. Regardless, why do you think I am saying these things definitevely? I didn't mean for this to be a debate thread, nor did I do much research on these subjects, I was open for my friend to refute me because we were in an argument, I was never in an argument with you specifically, i was explaining the situation. You keep making assumptions about my thought process based on your own childish experience, and keep belittling my issues and the content of what I was saying because of my age, someone who spends time making thoroughly detailed responses that no one reads, on a thread you do not care about should probably know that age doesn't mean anything. I never meant for this to be explaining my philosophies on life, so I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion of what they are.

I'm not making assumptions or taking sides. I don't know anything about your friend except what you said. No one is belittling you here for your age or otherwise.

This is what you said: "If you can't provide any evidence, you saying you are right doesn't make you right, so you can refute my points, or else you're wrong by default"

What I asked is simply why do you get to decide who is right by "default"?

(October 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: You're obviously not getting the message. It's not that I was able to provide all this proof in arguments with him, or that I was unaccepting of anything that didn't fit with my view of logic. It's that he never explained his reasoning for anything. Instead of explaining why he believes something, even religious people will explain their reason for belief as wrong as it may be, but he would curse me out any time I challenged his thinking.

Well maybe he isn't a good communicator? Maybe he didn't want to explain his point of view for other reasons such as sensitivity. I don't know, all I'm saying is that Logic in any form is not reliable guidance to fact and truth. That's why we have people who deny the Holocaust - because it just isn't logical. It actually takes a lot of work to understand how and why such a policy could ever have developed, even within wartime, and we now not only have much more information about how it happened - but we also understand counter-intuitive mental health issues such as the bias of belief and the inherent dangers of abuse that come with being in a position of authority. So we can prove the Holocaust - but not through logic. Logic tells you it couldn't have happened, but facts and science show that it did.

Not all "religious beliefs" are wrong, by any stretch of the imagination. Some are, but many are not. If a person tells you their religious belief is based on their belief that all people should be treated fairly, that people should learn to forgive others and treat people with dignity, respect, and in the way in which they would like a stranger to treat them and people who they care about, and having a strong community fellowship so that people can bond together and be more involved in helping one another - who are you or I or anyone to say that's "wrong"? I understand it's difficult to separate that from other beliefs that may seem silly - but often religious people do base their beliefs on principles rather than ancient doctrines and literal teachings from religious texts.

(October 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: If you think that someone who buckles when challenged in thinking and can't explain why they believe something should be respected in regards to the argument, you are thoroughly misleaded. I also never said(or intended to say) that someone is "Wrong by default" if they can't explain their reasoning, i'm talking about in the context of the argument they are wrong. They could be right, but in the context of an argument if you can't explain why you are right you have lost the argument by default. That's how it works.

Go to google and type "confirmation bias".

(October 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: I don't feel personally attacked when someone disagrees with me. I feel angry when someone totally misses the point of the thread and tries to make everything a situation where he can disprove someone. I never asserted anything, I asserted it in the context of the argument with my friend. I don't need you to prove me wrong, because I don't care, and this wasn't about debating. I would HAPPILY debate you on a subject that I cared about. Not to say I don't want to know the truth, but you are writing these long ridiculous essay long responses to prove me wrong on a subject I never claimed to be right on in the first place. Yep, I never claimed to be right. In the context of the argument I claimed to be right by default because the other person could not back up their counter-argument but does that mean I proved anything? If I wanted to debate these topics with people I would have made an entirely different post, so pick on someone else. This was also a thread made out of anger and sadness. I never "asserted" anything. All in all, you are taking what I clearly put little time into way too seriously by trying to prove my every word wrong as if I was attempting to inform people of the truth, all so you can make me feel bad about saying something I didn't even care about in the first place.

Well I disagree. I think you did assert certain things, and I have simply tried to explain how it makes sense from your point of view, but from my point of view those things make different sense.

(October 16, 2015 at 9:49 pm)heatiosrs Wrote: You are giving this person, that you have never met, and have no evidence of the actual conversation taking place way to much credit.

That being said, I know you will analyze every single word I said in order to get a kick out of proving me wrong in a tiny detail with no relevance to the thread that you never cared about in the first place, so i'm not responding again.

I never said anything concrete about your friend - positive or negative. I said I don't know him. You might be completely right that he's a closed-minded, immature, and petty. All I'm explaining to you is that I don't think telling people "they're wrong" or constantly trying to use "logic arguments" with people is a very good way to strengthen a friendship.

I had a friend who started using drugs when she was 11 or 12, and you'd probably be shocked if I repeated the things that she said to me and some of her other friends when she was around your age (15-17). And there's a reason she behaved so destructively towards her "better" friends - she hated herself and that we weren't going through the journey that she was with drugs. She hated that we were more level-headed. It was not our fault - we always had treated her like any other friend. We didn't think we were better than her, we didn't want her to feel inadequate or unworthy of being loved and cared for. For whatever reasons made sense to her, she behaved in that way. After she'd been sober and clear for a while she apologised to everyone - and then a couple of months later started up all over again.

It's difficult to accept, especially when it happens to your friends or family that you love dearly, but people have their own journeys and sometimes they do push you away for no fault of your own. I'm not blaming you for your loss of friendship at all - I don't know what your friend was thinking. It's possible as I've talked about that something you has made him feel threatened, unsafe, etc. That kind of thing often happens without your intentions.

But now I'll tell you about another friend of mine (and to prove I'm not lying to you, you can also read it here). This one is definitely an ex-friend that I've cut all ties to. He always behaved as if he was better than me. He was extremely disrespectful. He wasn't interested in listening to other people's opinions and would quite literally say "I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say". Even on things that didn't concern him. He was extremely judgemental, and he tried on a number of occasions to turn other friends of mine against me. As far as he's concerned - he did nothing wrong.

I now have to deal with the fact that I have two existing friends with completely opposite opinions on this. One thinks I should seek a resolution - something I already did many times in the past. Thinks that if I want a better friendship it's my fault. Which is hurtful, because I shouldn't be blamed for it. Not only that but any-time I see him I feel extreme distress (I quite literally feel panic) and avoid him at all costs. Another friend of mine understands my point of view, and that I didn't do anything wrong. I never went around talking to people behind his back trying to poison his friendships, I wasn't the one who judged his character and routinely told him how terrible it was.

I literally have the shakes now. If your friend doesn't give you the shakes when you write about him, it's not as bad as mine!! It could be worse.

(October 16, 2015 at 11:28 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

Quote:For the health of populations, I did not pull it out of my ass - I gave a link to Williams & Sternthal (2007) and there are plenty of other peer-review journal articles that you can look up.

My bad.  I misread you.  

Carry on being a pedantic dick.

Carry on blindly believing that you're right.