thenexttodie's mind-reading

Sparhafoc

Active Member
In this thread which is now locked, thenexttodie had several times tried to forward the notion that atheists are uniform in their views.

Cutting down on some of the early tedious exchanges, eventually survey data was shown establishing that atheists are not remotely universal in their positions - amusingly, not even in their position on the existence of gods.

Not to be deterred by reality, thenexttodie decided instead to focus on me and suggest he is capable of performing some kind of mind-reading trick. It is this I want to focus on in this thread, not because it's interesting, but because thenexttodie wrote to me by PM complaining that the thread being locked meant he couldn't continue his line of questioning.

That 'questioning' so far is as follows:

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187085#p187085
thenexttodie said:
I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187088#p187088
Sparhafoc said:
Your first sentence is provably wrong because not only do you not know what I think, even when I tell you what I think, you still pretend you know better than me what I think when this is just inane narcissism on your part.

Evidence is a tricky thing for untrained people. We're well aware of how people seek to confirm their biases and rather than amend their erroneous beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence, will actually end up believing their erroneous beliefs are confirmed by that contradictory evidence.

As such, I don't think your assertions are worth the e-paper they're written on.

They're just a public rehearsal of prejudice.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187238#p187238
thenexttodie said:
Well we can take this step by step, if you like.

I know that you think it is good to kill people who have not been convicted of any crime and that it is good to keep people alive who are guilty of murder.

Is there anything you would like to say about this? How do you think I know this?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187242#p187242
Sparhafoc said:
We're going to take 'this' step by step where you show you know what I think?

Well then, the very first thing you must know right now is that I think that's daft.

Wrong on both accounts, ergo not the best start for your mind-reading party trick, is it?
>> Is there anything you would like to say about this?
Sparhafoc said:
Well yes: wrong
>> How do you think I know this?
Sparhafoc said:
Well, you don't "know" it - you just think it. The reason you think it is that you are employing your prejudices to dictate reality rather than encountering reality and letting it inform you. It's a standard Creationist practice.

So, here thenexttodie can continue with his line of 'questioning'.

I am sure everyone can already see where this is going.

He thinks he's going to show that my position is that it's "good" to "murder" "unborn babies" while it's "not good" to execute convicted murderers.

Let's remember that the only real question is whether thenexttodie knows what I think because 'we' are all the same, and the entire forum is evidence of 'this'.
 

*SD*

Member
It's the Sye Ten approach. Insisting he knows what others think and believe. He has no mechanism to demonstrate this. In fact, it's piss easy to show that he cannot do this.

If he knows what I, or you, or anyone else thinks, he should be able to prove this with ease. He can't so his claim that he can is summarily dismissed. I think theres a reasonably high chance that he doesn't actually think he can read minds, he just thinks it's a somehow good way to argue. Sye does this all the time, which is why practically no one takes him seriously. He's the laughing stock of the fundie circle. A lolcow.
 

*SD*

Member
From the same thread...
TNTD said:
I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this
SD said:
You don't know what he thinks any more than you know what I think. I don't know if Spar believes in God or not, because I've never asked him. As for me, although you didn't address me I'll respond to you anyway - I don't believe in God. You can tell me I do if you like, but it won't change the fact that I don't. So I can't really 'rebel' against an entity I don't believe even exists. And this forum is evidence of no such thing.

I mean, are you really being serious here or just trolling?
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
*SD* said:
From the same thread...
TNTD said:
I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this
SD said:
You don't know what he thinks any more than you know what I think. I don't know if Spar believes in God or not, because I've never asked him. As for me, although you didn't address me I'll respond to you anyway - I don't believe in God. You can tell me I do if you like, but it won't change the fact that I don't. So I can't really 'rebel' against an entity I don't believe even exists. And this forum is evidence of no such thing.

I mean, are you really being serious here or just trolling?

Aye, sorry I did notice that post again in passing by to collate the comments for this thread, but I left it out to maintain a single line of conversation.

But yeah, you're spot on. In reality, you don't know whether I believe in a god or not because you've never asked, and I've never made a shoddy argument trying to argue for the existence of one.

thenexttodie doesn't know either, but the same minds that make shoddy arguments for the existence of supernatural entities are, unsurprisingly, also those minds that seem to think that they're the fulcrum of the universe wherein anything that operates in their mind is automatically a necessary prescription of reality.
 

Visaki

New Member
Gnug215 said:
Well, in his defense...

We all do think he's a bloody moron.
I wouldn't mind so much if he was just a bloody moron. What I take exception to is that he a dishonest bloody moron.
 

Gnug215

New Member
Visaki said:
Gnug215 said:
Well, in his defense...

We all do think he's a bloody moron.
I wouldn't mind so much if he was just a bloody moron. What I take exception to is that he a dishonest bloody moron.
Heh, it's actually the arrogance that gets me the most.

How can people THIS stupid think they're THAT smart??

The disconnect is baffling.
 

Visaki

New Member
Gnug215 said:
Heh, it's actually the arrogance that gets me the most.

How can people THIS stupid think they're THAT smart??

The disconnect is baffling.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

- Charles Darwin
 

Gnug215

New Member
Visaki said:
Gnug215 said:
Heh, it's actually the arrogance that gets me the most.

How can people THIS stupid think they're THAT smart??

The disconnect is baffling.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

- Charles Darwin

Exactly. I love that quote, which is basically Darwin explaining the Dunning-Kruger effect some 150 years ago.

What I don't get is the lack of self-reflection that's involved. And why isn't obivious to people that they perhaps aren't as good as they think when they observe someone who is clearly better than they are?

I don't know...
 

thenexttodie

New Member
Interesting thread. Sorry that I had pressing business to attend to and could not come back to the forum until now. I will start now with my 1st reply.
 

*SD*

Member
thenexttodie said:
Interesting thread. Sorry that I had pressing business to attend to and could not come back to the forum until now. I will start now with my 1st reply.

Reality will always be the most important consideration, so no issues there.

Please remember to detail your abilities to know what people think to a greater extent than they, themselves, know what they think.

Much obliged.
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
thenexttodie said:
Interesting thread. Sorry that I had pressing business to attend to and could not come back to the forum until now. I will start now with my 1st reply.

I may have done that for you if you want to save some typing time?

He thinks he's going to show that my position is that it's "good" to "murder" "unborn babies" while it's "not good" to execute convicted murderers.
 

thenexttodie

New Member
Sparhafoc said:
He thinks he's going to show that my position is that it's "good" to "murder" "unborn babies" while it's "not good" to execute convicted murderers.

Let's remember that the only real question is whether thenexttodie knows what I think because 'we' are all the same, and the entire forum is evidence of 'this'.
Ok, here we go..

Is there anyone on this forum who would not agree that we should kill unborn babies or fetuses?
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
thenexttodie said:
Sparhafoc said:
He thinks he's going to show that my position is that it's "good" to "murder" "unborn babies" while it's "not good" to execute convicted murderers.

Let's remember that the only real question is whether thenexttodie knows what I think because 'we' are all the same, and the entire forum is evidence of 'this'.
Ok, here we go..

Is there anyone on this forum who would not agree that we should kill unborn babies or fetuses?

Not a great start because you've wrapped in a negative into the modal verb, so you're asking if we should kill X which makes it sound like we should kill all that X, like it's desirable to do so. Clearly, that's not what you mean, so best reading:

Do you mean:

Is there anyone on this forum who would agree that we should not kill unborn babies or fetuses?

If so?

Yes, I agree that we should not kill foetuses.

Is that it done now? Presumably you thought the entire forum was in disagreement, so your premise is shown faulty right at the outset.
 

*SD*

Member
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, I agree that we should not kill foetuses.
I'll second that. But if you want it to be a focused line of reasoning, Spar, maybe get it set up as a debate thread where no one else can interfere etc. Just a thought, as it seems like you want to take TNTD to task (as do I) and it'll be hard for me to refrain from posting! A bit like a pork chop at a BBQ, I just can't resist :)
 

thenexttodie

New Member
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, I agree that we should not kill foetuses.

Is that it done now? Presumably you thought the entire forum was in disagreement, so your premise is shown faulty right at the outset.
Right, I know. spachafoc. You dont think it is right but you support it because of liberty.

Anyone else?
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
*SD* said:
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, I agree that we should not kill foetuses.
I'll second that. But if you want it to be a focused line of reasoning, Spar, maybe get it set up as a debate thread where no one else can interfere etc. Just a thought, as it seems like you want to take TNTD to task (as do I) and it'll be hard for me to refrain from posting! A bit like a pork chop at a BBQ, I just can't resist :)

No such desire here. I don't do formal debates because they're bloody hard work and I am not keen on taking on responsibilities in my play time! ;) I'd only do it if there were reasonably high stakes involved, and then I'd take it damn seriously.

I don't want to take thenexttodie to task either - he wants to take me to task.... I just want to give him the opportunity to do so, and then to answer honestly and comprehensively, and show that his conceptions are utterly flawed. He might learn from this and put away his prejudices, or he might not. Either way it will be a public record.

For my part, I don't want to restrict other people posting here either. In fact, given the nature of his original claim about the uniformity of the heathen, different people answering will either validate or invalidate that conception.
 

Sparhafoc

Active Member
thenexttodie said:
Sparhafoc said:
Yes, I agree that we should not kill foetuses.

Is that it done now? Presumably you thought the entire forum was in disagreement, so your premise is shown faulty right at the outset.
Right, I know. spachafoc. You dont think it is right but you support it because of liberty.
Wrong.

I don't support killing foetuses, thenexttodie. Not because of liberty, not because of anything at all. I don't support it full stop.

You're not doing well so far.

Perhaps you should try the old fashioned way of mind-reading: asking questions with the intent to learn the ideas of the person you're speaking to, rather than attempting to corral their ideas into your prejudiced conceits?
 
Top