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.
Having faith, up-front, that God exists and that God has certain attributes like "is good and loving" falls in the harmless category. Virtually nothing bad ever comes from such faith. It's a mere personal preference, sorta like enjoying the taste of broccoli, or not. But the practice of claiming various types of specific attributes for God can lead quickly into vast grey areas, and even some very dark and/or wildly irrational areas. But even here, some of these beliefs could remain relatively harmless. But when you bring these beliefs in a public discussion forum, then critical thinking becomes needed (although the need goes unmet far more often that not).
having faith in deny anything and anti-religion, without critical thinking is one of the most dangerous ideologies I know.
yup, critical thinking toss aside in favor of anti-religion beliefs is the shout down we often meet when observations challenge a personal need based belief in anti-religion, or anti-anything, for that matter.
Can you give an example of how the bias crept in and if so how it to a greater or lesser extent invalidated the argument being made? As distinct from applying unfair discrimination nd saying that because his bias was identifiable, we should reject his arguments without worrying much about whether they were valid or not?
you reject many arguments with little concern for critical thinking, unless its fits with your anti-religion deny anything beliefs.
Yes, it is, but it would be ingenuous or even misleading not to refer to eample of not using critical thinking and relying on faith-based claims...of which religious is one of the more pervasive.
Certainly not believing in a religion is a bias. of course it is. But bias of itself is no more a bad thing than discrimination.
Bias and discrimination as used in logical and moral arguments have the (tacit) connotation of unvalidated bias and unfair discrimination.
It i percetly ok to discriminate against criminals and in favour of the innocent when administering the law. But it is not fair to discriminate between two people presenting a their arguments on the grounds that one is a blonde and everyone knows that blondes are dumb.
Critically we should knbow that this is a false and in fact reprehensible discriminatory argument.
Similarly, where one is coming from in terms of what they believe or even what agenda they are pushing does not of itself invalidate their case, which should be evaluated on its' own terms: validated evidence and logical reasoning; critical thinking, in fact. Though being aware of possible bias should warn us to look carefully for it creeping into the case being presented.
your right, your insistence that you deny anything because of a blind faith statement about religion is the reason most of your views fall short in any arena but the most fundy-mental-think circles.
over organised religion could leave us with critical thinking. but revenge being sought after, for personal reasons, often leaves us blind to the truth. Sure, some get lucky, but you anti-religious socialist from outside the borders aren't one of them.
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.
lmao at this post.
truth seems to be inversely proportional to volume.
all freaked out over three letters g, o, d. three little letters as the sole purpose for your attacks on the innocent. Poof? lmao at that, you deny everything out of hand without any reason but personal needs, you and mardofarant.
youre just like them. they attack because of three letters too. man up and take responsibility.
its too funny how you blame a thing that isn't even real. it be real funny, except you out for the sole elimination of freedom and liberty to exact your revenge.
Now, get the taste of your own medicine and solve the problem by "respecting me". You can't - if I am a danger to the society, your extending of "respecting" me won't do crap to change the situation.
We have convicted killers, rapists, pedophiles who need to be brought to justice rather then receiving our "love and respect" - we have mass murderers like Ariel Sharon, Netanyahoo, Bin Ladin, Hitler etc - I would rather see God rendering some justice to them instead of me respecting them.
These days, there is a new trend going on - We read these heart wrenching news every other day where adults/parents torture their little and helpless kids to death - starving them to death, cracking their skulls to death, tossing them into microwave (chucking babies into garbage and trash cans seems old fashioned now), beating and breaking their bones to death - it looks like as if it's the new "Can you top this?" Murder your kids in the most brutal ways and see if anyone else can do it an even worse way.
You can give all your "love and respect" to these sick monsters all you want, do whatever you can for the "well being" of these scums of earth, and then see if it fixes the problem and brings relief to the victims and their loved ones? But trust me, these ugly n sick criminals don't deserve an iota of my respect.
I would rather see law enforcement putting a bullet in the back of their heads cuz I don't want my tax dollars to be used to provide three hot meals a day, gym, Internet, TV, library, housing, laundry, healthcare and security to these sick monsters in prison facilities. But yeah, you can give them "respect".
I would rather see our kids show some "respect" to the teachers, to the elderly, to the parents etc - THATS WHAT YOU CALL RESPECT.
As I said before, this love jazz and respect crock doesn't work with EVERY SINGLE one in the 7 Billion earth population. We will ALWAYS have those among us, who will not understand this 24/7 blabbering of love and respect. So this remedy fails.
We need justice and law enforcement to have a better society TOGTHER with love and respect NOT for everyone but towards those who deserve it.
Also, "helping and caring" for those who are less fortunate trumps this love and respect drama.
What the heck will a homeless man do with my "love and respect", if I am unable to buy him food, clothing, and I am unable to arrange a shelter facility for him?
So yeah, love and respect is important but it's not for EVERYONE. It should be given to those who deserve it.
yeah, you proved his point. If one can't turn a person off or toss an illegal out with love, one is just a chump-sickle.
Thanks! And this is exactly what I am talking about.
************************ Enjoying the "respect" extended to me by Tzap. *****************************
I am going to do a shameless plug, Cardinals old mate. You and I have disagreed and argued, often very strongly, because I am atheist and you are Theist. But I believe I was always personally respectful to you, if not to your beliefs. This is the message - you may expect respect, your ideas can't. They have to earn it by being logical and supported by evidence.
It takes someone of a rival religious view to clobber you with a total lack of respect that they accusingly bash anything "atheist" with as not being respectful. We are often mistaken. In attacking (or scuitinizing critially, rather) ideas, this is often taken personally, and is interpreted as lack of respect for the person.
Mind. You are a muslim. There may be a reason why Tzaph went for your throat.
p.s ...and I wrote and deleted this a couple of times, but I have got to say it. genneral comment, not specific to you or your post.
I am interested (1) these days not in rhe What of the debate (that's done) or the How (that's pretty much done, too) but the Why. And two of the prominent things I notice are the the utter self -confidence and even shamelessness of Faith. No matter how totally you smash the other person's arguments and even show them up to be lacking in sound reasoning and a lot more, it doesn't seem to bother then at all. They know they are right on Faith and the evidence counts for nothing of itself, but whether it can be used to support the faith.
The other is projection. it is perhaps the bitterest thing an atheist debator has to face to be accused of a string of personal and moral shortcomings that are not merited - except by the one doing the accusing. I see this time and again, and I see the 'How' but I still wonder about the 'why'.
(1) in the sense of trying to understand it.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-31-2018 at 05:59 PM..
I will do my best but that has not seemed to be good enough in this forum except with Gaylen. You and Arq are stuck in a Creator meme which biases your expectations and interpretations. My views are grounded in an existential view. Everything exists because God exists and everything is some part of God. So nothing can come before God. There are no separate "others" to come before. God IS living and living mandates things like reproduction and change. So nothing is dead because everything is some part of our living God. Our role appears to be to reproduce God's consciousness.
Quite apart from the question of 'Did this God create everything or not?' which you avoid, the rest seems the usual Faith -based wafle and plonking faith-claims that - upon examination - have no valid substantiation.
Now this is YOUR thread to explain and argue your thesis, so I, having put (yet again) my take on it, to perhaps (as with previous posters who engaged with you) save them time in getting you to explain clearly, can hopefuly bow out and leave what is after all not a Problem for atheism, to itself.
I know that Gaylenwoof seems to take you seriously. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he is just interested in the philosophical aspect and not the Theist.
I am interested in the Theist aspect and only the philosophical where they are used as evidence to support the theism. It's the same with theology. Normally I don't bother unless it comes into the argument.
So I am a concrete thinker. I don't think that's altogether a bad thing, as it keeps the mental feet on the ground.
We've done the 'lack of expertise' thing and I believe I showed that the issues are actually not requiring tremendous erudition. That is the case with the whole irreligion debate. The basic issues do not require a masters' degree to make a sound decision. And your beliefs, old chum, are not in themselves too hard to understand, unless you smokescreen them with erudite jargon to make them so.
As I have said before, this is bamboozlement and I have hopefully hacked away a lot of the bamboo.
Quite apart from the question of 'Did this God create everything or not?' which you avoid, the rest seems the usual Faith -based wafle and plonking faith-claims that - upon examination - have no valid substantiation.
Now this is YOUR thread to explain and argue your thesis, so I, having put (yet again) my take on it, to perhaps (as with previous posters who engaged with you) save them time in getting you to explain clearly, can hopefuly bow out and leave what is after all not a Problem for atheism, to itself.
I know that Gaylenwoof seems to take you seriously. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he is just interested in the philosophical aspect and not the Theist.
I am interested in the Theist aspect and only the philosophical where they are used as evidence to support the theism. It's the same with theology. Normally I don't bother unless it comes into the argument.
So I am a concrete thinker. I don't think that's altogether a bad thing, as it keeps the mental feet on the ground.
We've done the 'lack of expertise' thing and I believe I showed that the issues are actually not requiring tremendous erudition. That is the case with the whole irreligion debate. The basic issues do not require a masters' degree to make a sound decision. And your beliefs, old chum, are not in themselves too hard to understand, unless you smokescreen them with erudite jargon to make them so.
As I have said before, this is bamboozlement and I have hopefully hacked away a lot of the bamboo.
this stance has already been debunked. many times.
I know that Gaylenwoof seems to take you seriously. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because he is just interested in the philosophical aspect and not the Theist.
MPhD and I agree on some things and disagree on others. When it comes to the details of his efforts to indicate scientific support for theism, I tend to disagree more than agree (or, in some cases, never really feel like I understand him). But, very broadly speaking, there is nothing wildly crazy about trying to characterize God in terms of a unified conscious field or dark matter/energy, etc. A great many important details are missing and/or too vague for my tastes, but he is not saying anything that is blatantly impossible, so far as I can see. If you think I am misguided in the sense that I'm missing something that is blatantly absurd or logically incoherent, then I would encourage you (or anyone here) to point these things out because, at the moment, I have missed them, or forgotten them over the countless pages ranging over many dozens of 300-page threads).
On the flip side, MPhD, if you see some critical elements of your science claims that I seem not to understand, feel free to point those things out and try (for the millionth time, I'm sure) to explain them in a way that I can understand. (BTW: Whenever possible, if you could reference a scientist or philosopher who is saying more or less the same thing about this or that particular detail of your theory, that would be great. I would probably understand some of these elements better if I could put them in the context of a professional whose work I am already familiar with. E.g., "X's theory of Y is very similar to my theory, except for this or that detail. That way most of your work is already done for you. All you have to explain is just the tweak on their theory.)
MPhD and I agree on some things and disagree on others. When it comes to the details of his efforts to indicate scientific support for theism, I tend to disagree more than agree (or, in some cases, never really feel like I understand him). But, very broadly speaking, there is nothing wildly crazy about trying to characterize God in terms of a unified conscious field or dark matter/energy, etc. A great many important details are missing and/or too vague for my tastes, but he is not saying anything that is blatantly impossible, so far as I can see. If you think I am misguided in the sense that I'm missing something that is blatantly absurd or logically incoherent, then I would encourage you (or anyone here) to point these things out because, at the moment, I have missed them, or forgotten them over the countless pages ranging over many dozens of 300-page threads).
...the rest is to Mmph (I like that)
You may recall that I pointed out to you (you doubted it) that there was no reason why a mind of just electronic thoughts in space (so to speak) was logically impossible, though I thought that the way the world works would require it was first part of a living being to give it the form. In OW it was a feasibility study for a human consciousness existing after death.
In the same way there is nothing logically impossible about Mytsic's cosmic consciousness. Your approach may be philosophical. Mine is atheistic - what reason to believe that such a thing is so? In essence it comes down to the usual apologetics - asserting that it is true (either because the Bible says so or on 'personal experience'. In Mystic's case, the latter), and dismissing logic and science as human error, where it conflicts with the faith.
So if you are missing anything as you say, it is the religion debate, and perhaps it is right that you should and just look at the philosophy. We goddless bastards can handle the Theist apologetics.
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.
You are a muslim. There may be a reason why Tzaph went for your throat.