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.
I don't think that the video really has a "religious agenda" .....
you're a smart fellow Gaylen and very well read, so this puzzles me.
it's hard to believe. so i wonder if you are being a wee bit disingenuous. just a tad.
however if we take you at your word that you "don't see the religious agenda" then that indicates being really oblivious to how the message comes across.
so i will take you at your word. However i lack trust that you are being altogether honest and straightforward in saying you are "unaware" of the religious agenda in the video.
are you going to also say you had "no idea" that qualia soup publishes numerous videos on atheism and religion? qualia soup is a "UK secular humanist discusses atheism, religion, philosophy" and recommended in the book "Manual for Creating Atheists" (it appears they recruit)
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-30-2018 at 10:16 PM..
the source i gave for critical thinking is from the Foundation for Critical Thinking, it is "a non-profit organization promotes educational reform. promotes essential change in education and society through the cultivation of fair minded critical thinking. essential if we are to get to the root of our problems and develop reasonable solutions. After all, the quality of everything we do is determined by the quality of our thinking."
that to me is absent any religious bent.
critical thinking has nothing to do with religious beliefs. If we are discussing what critical thinking is and how to apply it in our discussions, that is separate and independent from religious beliefs.
that's why i question a source that is atheist in its orientation and presents with a religious slant.
you are saying you dont think it has a religious agenda. if i had posted this link to critical thinking would you also claim it has no religious agenda? It is titled "critical thinking for Christians" and is published by Catholic Culture.org.
because that's what it looks like when you say you don't think the qualia soup video has a religious agenda. if we seek rational discourse, and seek to use critical thinking, and seek to recognize and neutralize bias, that means using unbiased sources as best we can. That increases the credibility of the information we present and the credibility of our sources. that's why with critical thinking we always check the sources.
don't we?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-30-2018 at 11:13 PM..
This is where your train goes off the rails. Since "we don't know," your preference for the name Nature or Universe or Multiverse is no more the automatic default than my preference for the name God. You do NOT have a preferential position despite your inflated opinion of your view.
Invalid in what way?
Your point is very unclear. There is no way whatsoever to remove the imperfection in our human perceptions or our understanding.For you and those who have no experience to draw on, there is no reason to suppose God is behind everything. You can retain your "we don't know" labels of Nature or Universe or Multiverse but they are in no way the default.
The preference for the name 'God' , where others would use the term nature, would lead people to believe that, instead of the unthinking and unplanning processes of matter (I know that we have done this before), you have a controlling and planning mind.
If you would say "No; I am not implying a thinking and planning mind. I mean only the natural physical processes of matter, but because it is supremely important to us, and we are here because of it, I call it "God" as some cosmologists and Physicists do".
Then they and I would understand that, but I would still prefer the term nature because it could lead to misunderstanding and confusion otherwise (1).
But in fact, I am sure that you DO mean a thinking and planning mind behind the processes of nature, so instead of merely risking misleading people, your are trying to Bamboozle people.
The invalidity of the imperfect human perception argument is where it is used (as it was) to imply that the findings of science and what it says is demonstrably so about the way the world works are not reliable. because if they are reliable, then that is what we know and becomes the default theory, which is also the preferred potential explanation for what we don't know. This is the materialist/naturalist default (we have done this before, as we do it all over and over again) and is why it is not for atheism, skeptcism or materialism to prove its' logical position. Science provides the automatic validation for us.
Thus the burden of proof for all other claims falls on the claimant. Believers in the cosmic mind they call God hate this and much prefer that the burden of proof falls on atheism to disprove a god. It does not.
Thus your attempts to debunk the materialist default is invalid. Your reference to imperfect human perception (while true, in a limited way) is invalid as any part of the 'god' argument - which is really the only argument we are having.
Your last point is clear, but skewed, as is all your argument and reasoning. Because of your experiences, there is no reason for you to suppose that there is no cosmic mind (God) behind everything and (like the generality of God -believers) you cannot understand why non -believers do not accept that A priori god -assumption as well.
And of course we have argued this before numerous times, and I remember it, even if you don't. And while I always have a hope that you will see how Godfaith (through your Experiences) is at least not a reason for anyone else to believe, the main point here is that your remarks about my lack of expertise are also irrelevant, because the fallacy and flaws in your beliefs and hypotheses are simple enough for the most unqualified but reasonably intelligent person to comprehend. But not you, despite your undoubted erudition, because Godfaith is skewing your reasoning from the start.
Thus the intelligent person will see that you play the 'By "God" I mean nature' card and see clearly that you meant a thinking and planning god all along, and they will say, as I have done before 'Why, the fellow is trying to bamboozle us'.
(1) regular forum -users will recognize the exact same argument used by Goldenrule, but in a more direct and less camouflaged way, and with an almost impudent reference to one (out of several) dictionary definitions as though it proved something. And he finds pantheism a conveniently evasive term, dignified by antiquity, to try to legitimize what is no more than a semantic swindle. You Mystic, in your pan -en -Theism at least do admit the point that he dodges and evades - that "God" really has to be a thinking and planning being to be called God rather than 'nature' without risking misleading people, or indeed deliberately intending to.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-31-2018 at 12:34 AM..
The preference for the name 'God' , where others would use the term nature, would lead people to believe that, instead of the unthinking and unplanning processes of matter (I know that we have done this before), you have a controlling and planning mind.
If you would say "No" i am not implying a thinking and planning mind. I mean only the natural physical processes of matter, but because it is suprememly important to us, and we are here because of it, I call it "God" and some cosmologists and Physicists do".
And they and i would understand that, but i would still prefer the term nature because it could lead to misunderstanding and confusion otherwise.
But in fact, I and sure that you DO mean a thinking and planning mind behind the processes of nature, so instead of merely risking misleading people, your are trying to Bamboozle people.
The invalidity of the imperfect human perception argument is where it is used (as it was) to imply that the findings of science and what it says i so about the way the worl works are not reliable. because if they are reliable, then that is what we know and becomes the default theory, which is also the preferred potential explanation for we don't know. This is the materialist/naturalist default (we have done this before, as we do it all over and over again) and is why it is not for atheism, sketpcism or materialism to prove its' logical position. Science provides the validation for us.
Thus the burden of proof for all other claims falls on the claimant. Believers in the cosmic mind they call God hate this and much prefer that the burden of proof falls on atheism to disprove a god. It does not.
Thus your attempts to debunk the materialist default is invalid. Your reference to imperfect human perception (while true, in a limited way) is invalid as any part of the 'god' argument - which is the only argument we really are having.
Your last point is clear, but skewed, as i all your argument and reasoning. Because of your experiences, there is no reason for you to suppose that there is no cosmi mind (God) behind everything and (like the generality of God -believers) they cannot understand why non -believers do not accept that A priori as well.
And of course we have argued this before numerous times, and I remember, even if you don't. And while I always have a hope that you will see how Godfaith (through your Experiences) is at least not a reason for anyone else to believe, the main point here is that your remarks about my lack of expertise are also irrelevant, because the fallacy and flaws in your beliefs and hypotheses are simple enough for the most unqualified but reasonably intelligent person tocomprehend.
But not you, despite your undoubted erudition, because Godfaith is skewing your resoning from the start.
This the intelligent person will see that you play the 'By "God" I mean nature' card and see clearly that you meant a thinking and planning god all along, and they will say, as I have done before 'Why the fellow is trying to bamboozle us'.
he has in the past said god is nature. and he has said that god is just the sum total of nature and the universe. he said that and i remember because i called him on it. he also used that to support his claim that God changes, that God grows and changes.
he inextricably links God to a physical growth process. he does not distinguish between God and nature. he can't because then would be outside of nature and above nature, which he totally rejects because he rejects anything "supernatural" (literally above nature). His ongoing illustration is cell in a body, the cell grows the body grows. he has also said that he doesn't do creator god. so i don't think he supports or claims intelligent design, because he doesn't do creator god.
i agree with you.
rape is morally wrong.
no one is saying it is not.
and i agree with you that the earth is not flat.
no one is saying it is not.
Then to talk of false ideas and ideologies is not, in itself, wrong, invalid, bad or dangerous.
What is dangerous, bad, invalid or false is to claim ideas or ideologies as true or say that others are false, without valid justification for doing so. How do we decide what are true or false claims, or more likely to be true or false?
Referencing validated science and logically sound reasoning, which is what critical thinking is.
It is nothing really to do with how some people behave or how strident they get in discussion. It is nothing to do with pushing this or that agenda or belief. It is purely the best (by a long way) collection of mental tools that we use for cuting out the gems of reliable fact from the rock -chunk of raw data.
And it is remarkable how theists (together with cultists and fringe -scientists) are exclusively the ones who try all manner of convoluted arguments to try to debunk or fiddle science and logic to make it work for their beliefs.
And it is is the skeptic, the rationalist and the scientist (acting as a scientists even if they have a god -belief) who use these mental tools according to the rules. And atheists and rationalists constantly find themselves having to explain these rules, why we have them, and correcting misuse and misrepresentation of them - always to suit some Faith -based belief or other.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-31-2018 at 12:35 AM..
he has in the past said god is nature. and he has said that god is just the sum total of nature and the universe. he said that and i remember because i called him on it. he also used that to support his claim that God changes, that God grows and changes.
he inextricably links God to a physical growth process. he does not distinguish between God and nature. he can't because then would be outside of nature and above nature, which he totally rejects because he rejects anything "supernatural" (literally above nature). His ongoing illustration is cell in a body, the cell grows the body grows. he has also said that he doesn't do creator god. so i don't think he supports or claims intelligent design, because he doesn't do creator god.
Well, the Hypothesis might have changed, but I am sure that past references to God as an a priori creator refutes the idea that "God" evolved along with humans. Perhaps in terms of a spiritual education class keeping one lesson ahead of us, and it was a fully -formed omniscient mind that planned it all from the start (or at least has a plan, even if it didn't go the way he'd intended) that he has had in mind all along.
I think too much confusion surrounds the handy term supernatural. There are validated claims and unvalidated ones. Black holes and some of the stranger stuff at cosmic and sub atomic particles are as Supernatural as you could wish, but they don't sound like it as they can at least have a plausible explanatory mechanism even before being validated. "Supernatural" carries the connotation of an event without explanation but just done by an act of will by a huge invisible being.
That is why Abiogenesis looks a natural explanation and Creation supernatural, even though neither are validated. One has a plausible explanatory mechanism (or two) and the othey is just a god waving a magic wand.
No wonder that if you could take a supernatural claim, validate it, research and explain it, check and repeat it and peer review and publish it, it would become nature and science and cease to be supernatural, even if it was some God or religious claim or other.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-31-2018 at 12:41 AM..
you're a smart fellow Gaylen and very well read, so this puzzles me.
it's hard to believe. so i wonder if you are being a wee bit disingenuous. just a tad.
however if we take you at your word that you "don't see the religious agenda" then that indicates being really oblivious to how the message comes across.
so i will take you at your word. However i lack trust that you are being altogether honest and straightforward in saying you are "unaware" of the religious agenda in the video.
are you going to also say you had "no idea" that qualia soup publishes numerous videos on atheism and religion? qualia soup is a "UK secular humanist discusses atheism, religion, philosophy" and recommended in the book "Manual for Creating Atheists" (it appears they recruit)
You are right. Qualiasoup (or Theramin trees) very much has all irrational -claim -thinking in mind and particular religion. of course he does. But that in itself is not what the video is doing: it is pointing out that critical thinking is beneficial and needful for anyone doing thinking at all, and how it does not limit speculative thinking but enables it by providing a logical base from which to speculate freely without the mind losing sight of what is reliable and what is speculative.
There's another one that I have posted ofetn on Open -mindedness, and the religious -cultish -fringe -science - supernaturalist agenda -aspect is even clearer.
You are right. Qualiasoup (or Theramin trees) very much has all irrational -claim -thinking in mind and particular religion. of course he does. But that in itself is not what the video is doing: it is pointing out that critical thinking is beneficial and needful for anyone doing thinking at all, and how it does not limit speculative thinking but enables it by providing a logical base from which to speculate freely without the mind losing sight of what is reliable and what is speculative.
There's another one that I have posted ofetn on Open -mindedness, and the religious -cultish -fringe -science - supernaturalist agenda -aspect is even clearer.
It is, I have often said, required watching for any atheist or indeed anyone getting into religious apologetics.
that was my point. the video and video publisher qualia soup has a religious agenda.
regarding "not losing sight of what is reliable" that is what makes the qualia soup video a not reliable source, because it is pushing a religious agenda. Just like the critical thinking article from Catholic Culture.org has a religious agenda. Do you see that they both have a religious agenda and bias? Do you see this makes them unreliable in the exact same way? In your estimation is the Catholic Culture article on "critical thinking for Christians" a reliable source for you Trans to use and follow? why or why not? i'm serious check it out. my point is that's exactly how the qualia soup videos sound. in your parlance that's how the videos present as cultish fringe. exactly the same way. if you can't see that, that in itself is a problem.
critical thinking seeks to recognize and remove bias. that's why examining and evaluating the credibility of source is so important. the more biased a source is, the less reliable it is, the less credible it is.
[now this also depends on the audience, because within a person's own community those sources may be seen as reliable and credible. but this conversation in this forum is discussing critical thinking without a bias, and without in particular a religious bias because it is a mixed audience.]
the irony of this does not escape me. it's actually hilarious. the so called "rational" skeptics (trans and Gaylen) are wanting to use sources with a religious agenda and bias. while the person arguing for using sources that remove religion altogether from the conversation about what is critical thinking, is the religious person (me). to put it bluntly the religious person (me) is being far more rational, and exercising far stronger critical thinking skills than the skeptics who can't seem to talk about critical thinking without dragging religion into it.
the topic is being rational. and using critical thinking skills. that has nothing to do with a person's religious beliefs. therefore for a source to be reliable, and for the information to be credible it needs to be absent any religious agenda or slant.
do you get that?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-31-2018 at 12:47 AM..
The preference for the name 'God', where others would use the term nature, would lead people to believe that, instead of the unthinking and unplanning processes of matter (I know that we have done this before), you have a controlling and planning mind.
If you would say "No; I am not implying a thinking and planning mind. I mean only the natural physical processes of matter, but because it is supremely important to us, and we are here because of it, I call it "God" as some cosmologists and Physicists do".
Then they and I would understand that, but I would still prefer the term nature because it could lead to misunderstanding and confusion otherwise (1).
But in fact, I and sure that you DO mean a thinking and planning mind behind the processes of nature, so instead of merely risking misleading people, you are trying to Bamboozle people.
The invalidity of the imperfect human perception argument is where it is used (as it was) to imply that the findings of science and what it says is demonstrably so about the way the world works are not reliable. because if they are reliable, then that is what we know and becomes the default theory, which is also the preferred potential explanation for what we don't know. This is the materialist/naturalist default (we have done this before, as we do it all over and over again) and is why it is not for atheism, skepticism or materialism to prove its' logical position. Science provides the automatic validation for us.
Thus the burden of proof for all other claims falls on the claimant. Believers in the cosmic mind they call God hate this and much prefer that the burden of proof falls on atheism to disprove a god. It does not.
Thus your attempts to debunk the materialist default is invalid. Your reference to imperfect human perception (while true, in a limited way) is invalid as any part of the 'god' argument - which is really the only argument we are having.
Your last point is clear, but skewed, as is all your argument and reasoning. Because of your experiences, there is no reason for you to suppose that there is no cosmic mind (God) behind everything and (like the generality of God -believers) you cannot understand why non -believers do not accept that A priori god -assumption as well.
And of course we have argued this before numerous times, and I remember it, even if you don't. And while I always have a hope that you will see how Godfaith (through your Experiences) is at least not a reason for anyone else to believe, the main point here is that your remarks about my lack of expertise are also irrelevant, because the fallacy and flaws in your beliefs and hypotheses are simple enough for the most unqualified but reasonably intelligent person to comprehend. But not you, despite your undoubted erudition, because Godfaith is skewing your reasoning from the start.
Thus the intelligent person will see that you play the 'By "God" I mean nature' card and see clearly that you meant a thinking and planning god all along, and they will say, as I have done before 'Why, the fellow is trying to bamboozle us'.
(1) regular forum -users will recognize the exact same argument used by Goldenrule, but is a more direct and less camouflaged way, and with an almost impudent reference to one (out of several) dictionary definitions as though it proved something. And he finds pantheism a conveniently evasive term, dignified by antiquity, to try to legitimize what is no more than a semantic swindle. You Mystic, in your pan -en -Theism at least do admit the point that he dodges and evades - that "God" really has to be a thinking and planning being to be called God rather than 'nature' without risking misleading people, or indeed deliberately intending to.
WE DO NOT KNOW whether or not God or Nature or Universe or Multiverse is thinking or planning but the fact the WE are thinking and planning provides a foundation for thinking it is. What is your foundation for thinking it isn't? Every one of us is the product of thinking and planning parents. What example do you have of a thinking being arising from an unthinking source?
Come on Mystic. You know better than that. I though that you believed in evolution. Between anything that even LOOKEd like a conscious mind rather than survival instincts and this postulated cosmic parent of yours is a whole scientifically -postulated (not to say validated) non -conscious deelopment (now with chemical evolution not even needing to be biological).
Your analogy is little more than a rhetorical trick.
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.
Come on Mystic. You know better than that. I though that you believed in evolution. Between anything that even LOOKEd like a conscious mind rather than survival instincts and this postulated cosmic parent of yours is a whole scientifically -postulated (not to say validated) non -conscious deelopment (now with chemical evolution not even needing to be biological).