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.
If fundamentalist Christians are more compassionate than atheists (and I'm not saying that they are) that would mean a heck of a lot more than open-mindedness.
You can a very "open-minded", but selfish person. Open mindedness is not some kind of virtue.
Ozzy, you're desperate that you start adding components to the discussion. Go argue with yourself for a while.
If fundamentalist Christians are more compassionate than atheists (and I'm not saying that they are) that would mean a heck of a lot more than open-mindedness.
You can a very "open-minded", but selfish person. Open mindedness is not some kind of virtue.
lmao, "if they were", you would be right. they are not.
like many statements of belief, the starting "if's", I call "base axioms" usually show the flaw in the system based on a statement of belief.
two extreme examples:
a) christian fundy: died for our sins. clearly that "if" grew into a sick belief system.
b) atheist fundy: anti-religion, clearly that "base axiom" grew into a sick belief system.
^ Funny there, especially considering that I've worked in engineering and scientific fields all of my life. And with no issue, I might add.
Go ahead and make up whatever "reality" you want about me. If that makes you happy; slandering others. I'm thankful I don't lower myself to your tactics...
And yet you have shown no evidence of investigating whether cognitive bias is a possible source of your internal experience. Yet if experience is evidence of your god, then the experience of the miracle of the sun at Fatima must also be true.
If the miracle is NOT true, then how can you be sure your internal, spiritual experience of god is true?
one deciding a personal experience to be 'real' and discounting it because of a "miracle, here a child's "delusion", if we can say children have delusions. I mean, over all I am with you. "personal experience" is a cop out. I see it everyday in politics with "what if it was your kid". I didn't invade another country and use my child as shield, so what are they talking about.
see how I twisted that simple notion using false equivalence.
one deciding a personal experience to be 'real' and discounting it because of a "miracle, here a child's "delusion", if we can say children have delusions. I mean, over all I am with you. "personal experience" is a cop out. I see it everyday in politics with "what if it was your kid". I didn't invade another country and use my child as shield, so what are they talking about.
see how I twisted that simple notion using false equivalence.
no, I never said that. I said you used a false equivalence to make your point. I mean, i agree with you and I turned your stance off as soon as you made it all or nothing.
Its not an all or nothing proposition. Its not "anti-god/religion so deny everything" nor is it "my god only". Its about describing what are the possible explanations for some believing in something and others not believing.
false equivalencies don't make this any easier. At least use reasonable counter arguments. "if personal bias is real then so are miracles" or "if miracles are real so are personal experience" isn't a reasonable start. all lines of logic from those points are less valid to all but the two ends of the human boob stick.
lets look at "personal experience/bias" and match it to the surrounding system that drive those "feelings". Yes, some are on the delusional end of the spectrum, but not all of them. what would be causing people's "feeling" that they are connected to the system around them and which explanations are more valid in describing the human reaction to the surroundings?
'anti-their-religion" because of my personal bias isn't a reasonable start either. 'anti-their-religion" because they have some components I don't agree with, like "go out and save others" is a reasonable start. not a false equivalence between miracles and bias.
no, I never said that. I said you used a false equivalence to make your point.
Then that is exactly what you said. I compared a cognitive bias what is probably a cognitive bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
At least use reasonable counter arguments. "if personal bias is real then so are miracles" or "if miracles are real so are personal experience" isn't a reasonable start. all lines of logic from those points are less valid to all but the two ends of the human boob stick.
As I never made such an argument, I wonder why you wrote this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
Yes, some are on the delusional end of the spectrum, but not all of them.
How do you know this? If a person's experience can not be verified, if they are personal, how can you make the claim some are not? The best you can do is say some may be genuine.
[/quote]'anti-their-religion" because of my personal bias isn't a reasonable start either. 'anti-their-religion" because they have some components I don't agree with, like "go out and save others" is a reasonable start. not a false equivalence between miracles and bias.[/quote]
Again, not my argument. Clearly the sun did not jump around the sky at Fatima, so some people experienced a miracle that did not happen. They convinced themselves one would occur because a miracle was prophesied. Their cognitive bias gave them a false experience.
And that is why personal experience is a bad argument unless that experience can somehow be verified. Such as a person experiencing a god that makes predictions.
But what if we are just living in the matrix, or a computer simulation, we are all just 1's and 0's created by the "future us" and they decided, in this simulation that is playing out before our eyes, that the only intelligent life in the universe is on our planet?
When in reality there is plenty of intelligent life out there in the universe, but we don't know that, because the simulation doesn't allow us to see it.
I say, just live every day the best you can in this computer simulation we call reality!
90% of the world does.
They appreciate the creator of the temporal that we call reality.
Saint Paul nailed it 2k yrs ago, as did max Planck.
Max Planck said in 1944, “As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”
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.
