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.
then you will never progress, no matter how much you say you are curious and want to know more.
it's not about what you read or know or learn or talk about.
it's about who you become in the process.
if you don't change, then it doesn't matter what you learn.
someone in some post said they've been having this same argument for over 20 years.
they were bragging about how smart they are ("we have the best arguments; we know more than anyone else")
but what it shows is they are stuck.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-02-2016 at 05:50 PM..
then you will never progress, no matter how much you say you are curious and want to know more.
it's not about what you read or know or learn or talk about.
it's about who you become in the process.
if you don't change, then it doesn't matter what you learn.
someone in some post said they've been having this same argument for over 20 years.
they were bragging but what it shows is they are stuck.
I believe you're over-analyzing what Transponder is saying, if I understand correctly. If you must see everything to believe it, then you are limiting your growth potential. Learning and/or growing doesn't require one to change.
If something in you, or around you, changed - the only way you couldn't learn something is if you're not paying attention.
And to learn is to grow. And growing is better than not, in my books.
That was kind of my question. The post referenced was this....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TZaphkiel
then you will never progress, no matter how much you say you are curious and want to know more. it's not about what you read or know or learn or talk about.
it's about who you become in the process.
if you don't change, then it doesn't matter what you learn.
Bold is my emphasis.
The value in change is in what we learned from the change....not that intrinsically change is better because it has been changed. We can point to lots of changes that don't seem to be for the "better", at least not for the better of "we humans". An example would be global CO2 emissions. Yes we've learned from it, and superficially it might even seem more pleasant to people in colder climates that have experienced warmer temps....but we don't see it for our betterment. And we've only learned about it through science....not by denying reality.
someone in some post said they've been having this same argument for over 20 years. they were bragging about how smart they are ("we have the best arguments; we know more than anyone else")
we're discussing attitudes, not individuals
they also describe it often on these boards as "we know more about religion than the people who are religious"
and "we've heard all the arguments before, not going to hear anything new" and "we know more about the bible than they do"
these clearly reveal the arrogant motivation of one-upmanship = the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person.
which is the polar opposite of being humble / one of the identifying traits of true character and integrity
religion and spirituality address (among other things) building our character and integrity;
growing into our best self;
those are revealed in how we treat others in our interactions with them. not just in person but online as well
we hear that too "oh, i don't talk to people in real life like this, but online it's OK"
integrity and character are holding ourselves to the same high standards whether we are alone or with others; whether we can get away with it or not; whether anyone else is watching or not; whether a person identifies themself as religious, spiritual, or not.
so be willing to ask yourself this: what is "humble" anyway? why is it important? why is it a facet and identifier of any authentic path of individual growth and advancement? in what ways does a rejection of being humble keep me stuck? why do i resist being "humble"
or is it also tossed aside as unnecessary because its not in a science journal? character, integrity, wisdom....science can't prove those, therefore they are "not substantiated" and "you are making it up" and "show me the evidence"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 06-03-2016 at 07:42 AM..
It was you who brought the individual up, not me. But that aside, unless I know whom you are referring to however I can not go back and read their point of view and discuss it.
So I repeat..... who was that then? Have you a post # or something I could refer to?
EDIT: Since you ninja edited you post after it was replied to I have had to do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
they also describe it often on these boards as "we know more about religion than the people who are religious"
AGAIN who is actually saying this? Can you refer me to posts or are you just going to keep saying things like "One user said this....." but then refuse to cite who or where when asked????
Well that is not so much the atheists saying that as reputable companies who compile data. There have been actual studies I can cite if you request showing that atheists in some areas are on average more knowledgeable about certain religions that people who purport to be followers of that religion.
My experiences with Christians seem to bear this out as when I show a Bible to Christians sometimes they are shocked at the size of it. Why? Because they have never seen, bought, held or owned one. They just get a few cherry picked passages read to them in school and/or church.
So when someone like me who has not just read it, but multiple times over multiple translations..... comes along with a copy that are gob smacked at the size of it. Let alone my knowledge of it's contents relative to their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
and "we've heard all the arguments before, not going to hear anything new"
AGAIN who is actually saying this? For example if it was ME convinced of this then I would not be asking theists for their arguments, evidence, data or reasoning as often as I do. On and off line. Why would I? If I thought I was not going to hear anything new I would not bother to ask.
But it is because I am open minded to the possibility of hearing something new that I DO keep asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
these clearly reveal the arrogant motivation of one-upmanship = the technique or practice of gaining a feeling of superiority over another person.
And yet it appears that you are the only one engaging in such things given how many threads you enter but then refuse to engage on the topic of..... choosing instead to go on some tangential route talking about etiquette and attitudes and the like as if you feel you are in some way superior in this regard when in fact your behavior on multiple threads has been anything but honesty or showing integrity. Which is the polar opposite of being humble / one of the identifying traits of true character and integrity religion and spirituality address.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
we hear that too "oh, i don't talk to people in real life like this, but this is online so it's OK"
To an degree I agree with that. Because this is a discussion and debate forum. And that context does compel one to be more robust and intense that one might be in a casual social setting. Complaining that people are more robust in their discourse on here makes as much sense as complaining that people in pubs seem to drink more than people in parks or people in sports centres play with balls more than people in a shopping mall. It is what they are THERE for in the first place. It is MEANT to be that way.
EDIT: You appear to want to continue to ninja edit your post every time I reply to it. Not exactly honest, but I can keep doing so too if you require.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
or is it also tossed aside as unnecessary because its not in a science journal? character, integrity, wisdom....science can't prove those, therefore they are "not substantiated" and "you are making it up" and "show me a peer reviewed article"
If you say so. I certainly did not. I am not even sure what you mean by "Science can not prove these" things as I see no reason why they can not. Anything that happens at the level of the brain can be observed and measured in that context.
Take art for example. An area of human endeavor people have long assumed was outside the purview of science. After all how can science tell us that an Indian Bronze is beautiful, or a Leonardo or any painting?
And, as it turns out, science very much has turned it's eye to this subject and started constructing observations and Theory on what constitutes art and appreciate of art at the level of the brain.
So by all means tell me why the things YOU list are outside the purview of science. Assumption? The "We have not done it yet, so we never will" fallacy? Or something more substantive?
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 06-03-2016 at 07:37 AM..
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.
