Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you doing the "what if" thing? That's always a good question to ask yourself. My experience is that the black/white, good/evil, right/wrong is the exact opposite type of thinking that leads to insight.
I was still running the program that either you agree with me or something was wrong with you then I saw this:
Oh good point. So if I take a slight bit of liberty with JerZ's fundamentalism, and convert to fundamentalist....I get something like this....
Fun Dam Mental List = an enjoyable criteria, for the clinically insane, by which comfort is had by formulating lists of actions which will dam violators to hell, aka oblivion.
Well, I wouldn't go with the "aka oblivion" part. Oblivion is fine with me. Hell is eternal torment for immortal and aware individuals who will experience all of it in exquisite detail. Reminds me of the villain in the old Wild, Wild West TV series, introducing the hero to his fate of being skinned alive:
Quote:
And now, Mr. West, the sacred peeling of the husk ... quite an elegant and thorough procedure, exquisitely slow, and it leaves you completely alive and aware, but with millions of enraged nerve endings.
Or, put Biblically (and this is what Texas' Lt. Governor tweeted this morning, supposedly not intentionally about the Orlando mass shooting):
Quote:
Be not deceived, God is not mocked -- for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
It is this avidity when contemplating the supposed just comeuppance of those who don't believe as you do, that is so ghastly. It is understandable; they are just imitating their sky daddy.
And now, Mr. West, the sacred peeling of the husk ... quite an elegant and thorough procedure, exquisitely slow, and it leaves you completely alive and aware, but with millions of enraged nerve endings.
lmao, this is azz backwards ... really not worth a reply.
we all have bias. My bias is holding to claims that can handle more conditional changes than those that do not. like my doc says, if you are questioning yourself then you are not as sick as you think you are. So I am just fine.
For example: The black and white thinking of "all atheist or all theist are wrong" does not match observation. You are not in the middle because your anti religion conclusion is far more emotional based than mine and the numbers do not support your anti-religion stance. "anti religion", meaning anything religous, as in a group of people sharing the same intrests in this matter.
Now my middle stance of "Fundemental"/"millitant" is a personality disorder and these people are dangerous fits many more conditions than yours. In fact, if we list just the personality traits of these people we will see there not much of a difference between them. Like looking at football teams wearing different colors.
Some just can't see the game let alone the "volume of space" on whitch it is being played.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
Yet you replied anyway.
Indeed he did. Arach, mate, you display a continued 'agnostic /accommodationalist' Fundamentalism (1) in doing theist -type apologetics: beginning with a beef about atheism (because you are not in fact atheist, but a sortagod -agnostic) and then 'what facts can we find to support it?' (2). Thus your check list of 'evidence' to support your conclusion and never mind whether it is true or relevant.
Bias..as indeed all 'common sense' reasoning - is part of human thinking, and it is not logical very often. We are thus well advised to apply logic to our rationale to see whether it stands up, and if it doesn't, whether it matters. That I adore Bruckner and detest Rap is a personal preference and not logical, and I would never attack anyone elses' tastes or engage on an internet campaign to get rid of Pop music (as tough a task as pushing back Christianity in America). But atheism even if is a non -logical basis for most in the beginning has a solid logical rationale and talking about it shows this to be so.
Applying logical thought enables us to deal with bias. So the accusation is just some of your fishing around for "evidence" to support your bias.
Now, I fully anticipate a 'Wow you wrote a lot, I sure hit a nerve." (the 'You Got annoyed, so I must be right' ploy - so tempting it is even used on us when we don't get annoyed), but in fact it is valuing you in explaining yet again in hopes that you will become reasonable and either see your own wrongheadedness about this or it will at least let others see it and not be taken in by it.
(1) "claims that can handle more conditional changes " is an example. A stance of determined fence -sitting on all questions, disregarding whether the reasons and evidence says they are right or wrong.
(2)fallacy of numbers, for example "and the numbers do not support your anti-religion stance." A Gdnrule favourite.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-13-2016 at 05:06 AM..
Are you doing the "what if" thing? That's always a good question to ask yourself. My experience is that the black/white, good/evil, right/wrong is the exact opposite type of thinking that leads to insight.
I was still running the program that either you agree with me or something was wrong with you then I saw this:
Couldn't agree more. "What if you're wrong?" is a theist apologetics favourite. (1) and asking ourselves that question led through to the whole conclusion about an afterlife that we don't need to worry about even if there is one, a soul that makes no odds even if there is such a thing and a sortagod with no particular interest in humans let alone their religions.
Thus the soul, afterlife, NDE -enthusiasts and Agnostic thests who seem to think that we atheists are hysterically trying to shout down the evidence for souls, an afterlife and a sortagod don't realize that it is merely academic even if true and they are the ones being hysterical about any doubt or question of their Faith in the fact of a soul, NDE or a god, but the implied implications (3) of such things. If there isn't a deep -seated heaven -carrot (2) dangling there somewhere I am at a loss to explain it.
(1) Dawkins came up with the Spaghetti monster in a response to that - not bad as an ad hoc response to a Pascall wager -related question. No doubt he would follow the train of though through afterwards.
(2) and a fear of losing it hellthreat -substitute if not a residual hellfear.
Oh good point. So if I take a slight bit of liberty with JerZ's fundamentalism, and convert to fundamentalist....I get something like this....
Fun Dam Mental List = an enjoyable criteria, for the clinically insane, by which comfort is had by formulating lists of actions which will dam violators to hell, aka oblivion.
Sounds fine they way you use the terms - so long as you explain what they mean to you
Couldn't agree more. "What if you're wrong?" is a theist apologetics favourite. (1) and asking ourselves that question led through to the whole conclusion about an afterlife that we don't need to worry about even if there is one, a soul that makes no odds even if there is such a thing and a sortagod with no particular interest in humans let alone their religions.
Thus the soul, afterlife, NDE -enthusiasts and Agnostic thests who seem to think that we atheists are hysterically trying to shout down the evidence for souls, an afterlife and a sortagod don't realize that it is merely academic even if true and they are the ones being hysterical about any doubt or question of their Faith in the fact of a soul, NDE or a god, but the implied implications (3) of such things. If there isn't a deep -seated heaven -carrot (2) dangling there somewhere I am at a loss to explain it.
(1) Dawkins came up with the Spaghetti monster in a response to that - not bad as an ad hoc response to a Pascall wager -related question. No doubt he would follow the train of though through afterwards.
(2) and a fear of losing it hellthreat -substitute if not a residual hellfear.
(3) not a tautology, though it sounds like one.
Bobby Henderson came up with FSM. Dawkins is just a convert.
Bobby Henderson came up with FSM. Dawkins is just a convert.
Ah. I thought Dawkins made it up on the spur of the moment. But it had already been thought of?
The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in (January) 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes (Wiki)
What if fundamentalists have a sort of enlightened knowledge about humanity? They know that humans are up to no good. Like the God of Noah, they would like to destroy humanity for this reason. They know that humanity is a sort of "bacterial infection" on planet earth, and that the only way to bring peace to the planet is to somehow destroy themselves in an apocalyptic judgement. Their "god" is really their higher minds, which tells that that humanity is selfish and destructive.
But perhaps the New Covenant (from the prophet Jeremiah) represents more and more people coming to a mature knowledge, without the superstition of religion. Without the need to overpopulate and destroy the planet. It is very hopeful to humanity.
Has anyone else ever thought that superstitious thinking people might have some kind of psychological insight?
Are you suggesting that a fundamentalist (you probably mean a conservative Bibliolater, as "fundamentalist" originally started as a label for Christians who tried to "re-create/maintain" and follow "original fundamentals" not literal interpretation) might have a "greater vision" or "correct perspective" about how humanity deserves sadism? I think a lot of literalists that venerate fear-inspiring masochistic/sadistic literature are simply fearful masochists/sadists themselves. They have no better vision than an ant under a leaf or a worm under a rock. The greater vision is provided by STEM fields employing more reliable study methods and statistics.
Most fundamentalists (most often relabeled quasi-literalists) I know of are very selfish and destructive themselves (and use religion to fit in socially, bottle up their urges, etc) and they assume that everyone else is just like them too, except the they are "now except" because of their "change" of accepting a certain myth(story) as reality. They don't really understand/care for ideas about variance distribution, etc. And they certainly don't want to destroy themselves but they only want to destroy others, they see themselves as some sort of "chosen/righteous" bacteria and the rest as bacteria deserving pain and punishment or annihilation for not believing as they do.
Superstitious people might have conscious or subconscious correct insights, but I haven't seen many of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Indeed he did. Arach, mate, you display a continued 'agnostic /accommodationalist' Fundamentalism (1) in doing theist -type apologetics: beginning with a beef about atheism (because you are not in fact atheist, but a sortagod -agnostic) and then 'what facts can we find to support it?' (2). Thus your check list of 'evidence' to support your conclusion and never mind whether it is true or relevant.
I fully anticipate a 'Wow you wrote a lot, I sure hit a nerve." (the 'You Got annoyed, so I must be right' ploy - so tempting it is even used on us when we don't get annoyed), but in fact it is valuing you in explaining yet again in hopes that you will become reasonable and either see your own wrongheadedness about this or it will at least let others see it and not be taken in by it.
What if there is psychological truth to fundamentalism?
