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.
Nobody. or everybody. That is what society is all about.
Nobody/everybody
black/white
right/wrong
my way/nobody's way
my belief/no other belief
we have the real truth
we have the clarity logic and reason
hmmm, milli's mentals at their best. cluster-b personalities cause nothing but trouble because they have no point. Their focus in never a "real" solution but rather they make up imaginary problems and thus keep real solutions clouded in the mist of uncertainty.
it doesn't matter what belief cluster-b's have people. Weather they believe in god or they do not, it makes no difference to the danger they pose to reason, common sense, and logic.
trans kind won in n norea, poh pot, russia, and china. look at the problem they caused when they had a large population. not 30 million with a content size plot of land, but look what happen when they cut themselves off from the out side world and tried it on their own. nothing but death and destruction to every last freedom they could reach.
When they are done with the fundamentals they will turn on the rest of us.
been calling out hyper anti-religious socialism from outside the USA's borders for a awhile now.
Their sole purpose is anti-religion socialism. They are not interested in describing how the universe works.
anti-religious socialism is the single biggest threat to the freedom and liberty for all people in the united states today. especially from those outside the our borders.
i concur that anti religion stance is a threat, and restriction to freedom and liberty. I also see it as not rational. it is fanatical in the same way as "anti-government" "anti-men" "anti women"
The "'love' jazz" grandpa references is not just a warm fuzzy feeling, but is exactly what he is talking about in terms of respect: a concern for the well-being of everyone in any situation. That's why [b]those who actually understand this specify "agape" [/Bi]n their presentation, and why the failure to understand this leads to so much confusion and drivel from those who refuse to give up the idea that "love" is just "warm fuzzies."
'logical" is simply logical or it is not. The only difference in what is to one person and not to another is what premises the logic is based on, which is why internal consistency is such a pitfall for "holy-book-based" apologists.
if the people who talked the most about "agape" actually demonstrated it, then it would have more credibility. they may "specify" it but that is not the same as putting it into action here on the forum.
THAT is what creates the confusion. It is not a lack of "understanding." It is a lack of seeing it demonstrated by those who bang that drum the loudest.
I count for little by myself; I am no judge. But I am part of society, and society is the judge. We have to make sure the judgement is rational andnot emotional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
Yes a civilized society treats everyone as equals. Everyone in the society must be subject to the same laws. But not everybody is going to want to live in the same way and that is why we need to go our separate ways. Some people need to form their own separate society in their own separate part of the world and live the way they want according to whatever laws they want and let other people do the same.
They would probably need to be some sort of overarching legal system to which they are all subject.
In practical terms,we have to respect the right of peoples to make their own laws, but the efforts to have a league of nations and then a UN with efforts to agree on an "overarching legal system" as you say to which as many as possible will agree, shows that differing systems of law and ethics is a anomalous situation.
But this ought not to become a discussion of international law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
i concur that anti religion stance is a threat, and restriction to freedom and liberty. I also see it as not rational. it is fanatical in the same way as "anti-government" "anti-men" "anti women"
Now, there's bias, loud and clear. Either we have a society (hopefully global) taking sound logic and validated evidence as the basis of knowledge or we take faith and reject reason and evidence where it conflicts.
If you see the desire to have a rational rather than faith-based social thinking as a threat, that is unfortunate for you. But we will continue working to roll it back out of society.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-28-2018 at 05:24 PM..
No....YOU overlook that the Atheists work off of "Faith & Belief" as well....just like everyone else, about anything else.
You have faith in your belief that there is no evidence of Gods (just Deity Gods, of course. NonDeity Gods do have objective evidence for their existence) that you are not aware of yet.
There could be...and you can never be 100% objectively certain there isn't...since you cannot possibly check everywhere.
Think critically all you want...you just have Faith your hunch is correct.
I agree that it is a high probability...but I only have Faith it is, I can't know for sure.
You uterly contradict your own position. You ignore evidence (I know that you argue that negative evidence is not evidence) and then say that we can think critically all we want (which we do) and then say it is still Faith. Ift is not. Is is understanding that logic and evidence (including negative evidence) has always given the reliable results, and faith -claims have not.
Logic says that taking unknowns as evidence of something is incorrect. The correct logic is not to believe that claim until is is valiated.
And before you consider arguing that 'Nature' is "God" and therefore "God" exists, don't.
if the people who talked the most about "agape" actually demonstrated it, then it would have more credibility. they may "specify" it but that is not the same as putting it into action here on the forum.
THAT is what creates the confusion. It is not a lack of "understanding." It is a lack of seeing it demonstrated by those who bang that drum the loudest.
Now that's a nice point and I have argued it myself. Is that 'bias'? I don't think so. It is showing that a claim that ought to produce results, does not, and that is evidence that it is a claim not supported by evidence. So the point, dear lady, come under the heading of critical thinking and not 'bias'.
If I were to say that a person who talks of Agape love was not a nice person and therefore we should not listen to him, that would be an argument from Bias. But I do not. Mystic is good people, and I have evidence of that. I just think his beliefs are demonstrably wrong, and that Agape Love does not seem to produce any better results that the (apparent) belief that divine input is imparting true facts into the brain, suggests that both beliefs are invalid.
Now that's a nice point and I have argued it myself. Is that 'bias'? I don't think so. It is showing that a claim that ought to produce results, does not, and that is evidence that it is a claim not supported by evidence. So the point, dear lady, come under the heading of critical thinking and not 'bias'.
If I were to say that a person who talks of Agape love was not a nice person and therefore we should not listen to him, that would be an argument from Bias. But I do not. Mystic is good people, and I have evidence of that. I just think his beliefs are demonstrably wrong, and that Agape Love does not seem to produce any better results that the (apparent) belief that divine input is imparting true facts into the brain, suggests that both beliefs are invalid.
I think much of the time you don't show bias Trans. You research a ton of stuff and your posts on a variety of topics really show the depth of your knowledge and research. You absolutely shine in that arena. Also you are very grounded and practical in your approach and ate willing to discuss topics over the long haul and In detail with a willingness for back and forth interaction. In that regard there is also depth in your understanding and participation.
So most of the time in your posts you do present as rational and provide rational disourse that demonstrates critical thinking and for the most part you are courteous congenial and respectful. I appreciate that over the years and on many threads. I'd say you are a nice person and I respect you and your views.
When I point out a double standard (such as "see atheists as individuals we are diverse, " but don't see theists as diverse) that is not rational. And I am genuinely curious to hear you talk through that and see whether you can recognize and acknowledge it.
I'm fine with disagreeing. I have no desire to proselytize or change anyones beliefs as that is against my religion.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-28-2018 at 06:16 PM..
You uterly contradict your own position. You ignore evidence (I know that you argue that negative evidence is not evidence) and then say that we can think critically all we want (which we do) and then say it is still Faith. Ift is not. Is is understanding that logic and evidence (including negative evidence) has always given the reliable results, and faith -claims have not.
Logic says that taking unknowns as evidence of something is incorrect. The correct logic is not to believe that claim until is is valiated.
And before you consider arguing that 'Nature' is "God" and therefore "God" exists, don't.
You don't have "negative evidence". You have "lack of evidence"...and admit it!
MOF...that is the position of the type of Atheism prevalent on this board now...that I have labeled "Wimp Atheism".
I even note the doctrine it is based upon...and coined it the LOBBUNE (Lack Of Belief Based Upon No Evidence) DOCTRINE.
Negatve Evidence (to use an oft proffered analogy) would be searching the entire area of your garden for Gnomes...and declaring that a thorough search & examination of the entire area has shown that there isn't any.
THAT is "negative evidence"...and it IS evidence that can be considered to be substantiated.
BUT...that is not what you have. You Lack Evidence...yet, try to use that evidence you do not have, as evidence.
Y'all are so illogical, as standard...you no longer know you are illogical.
Arq, old friend, what you call Humanism is part of Christianity, as is Veganism - it is a universal love for all manifesting as Agape or Maitri in Buddhism. The lion and the lamb will lie down together, etc. The descriptions of Jesus and by Jesus match perfectly (to my best ability to discern) the consciousness I encountered in deep meditation. That is why I identify Him as the one who achieved perfect resonance. The legends and myths following the same spiritual template over populations and generations are what lead me to select the Jesus narrative as manifesting the ultimate expression of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
it is too temptingly easy to use the character and bias (or claims about character and bias) of this or that group as part of the evidence, when in fact,it isn't.
So, no; character assassination is not part of critical thinking.
Tell that to people like Tzaph who actually think that it is part of critical thinking. She actually engages in it in the first part of her explanation of it and then compounds the error by expounding on why character assassination (she calls it evaluating and examining the source) is an essential part of critical thinking! Nowhere in her understanding of critical thinking is any concern for the validity or internal consistency of the content being presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
two things on "critical thinking"
one ----the subtext when people throw this type of statement around seems to be along the lines that: if people used critical thinking then they wouldn't be religious. and that you don't think religious people use critical thinking. and religious people may not be smart enough to use critical thinking. now you may not mean that Gaylen, but that sort of admonition which atheists often bandy about comes across that way. Mystic does it too with his implication that most people are too dense to understand what he is trying to explain.
two----a big part of critical thinking for me is to evaluate and examine the source to gauge how credible the source is on a particular topic. and with regards to religion and spirituality, it very much matters who they are, how they present, and how they treat other people. that is the coin of the realm. many atheists balk at this because they see it as irrelevant and just want to talk about ideas, not their own behavior. that's where these conversations are often at cross purposes.
and if someone claims to be rational and intellectual but makes irrational statements, or presents as a zealot or fanatic, then that erodes their credibility. Nothing to do with whether we disagree.
QED!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
You have hit the nail on the head Mystic may use critical or logical thinking (or may believe that he does) but since he does it based on this or that premise which (as I recall very well he himself has admitted) were his own beliefs about experiences he had, his logic and critical thinking (should he be doing it) is never going to produce valid results, only a logically -structured hypothesis which is still merely an hypothesis.
Your hubris exceeds any bounds given your lack of knowledge of the underlying science involved. "Never" produce "valid" results???? You are free to be skeptical of them but to pronounce what they NEVER can be is supercilious and overbearing!
Quote:
I needn't rehearse the habitual dismissal of any of the flaws and problems I have found with it, but would remark that the dismissal out of hand with some of the 'you don't understand' stuff (when I have shown that I Understand it better than he does) displays typical and basic bias in theist thinking-to present personal beliefs as valid evidence and dismiss any serious objections without much consideration.
More superciliousness given your lack of knowledge, Arq, especially since you have NOT shown at any time even that you understand it at all, let alone better than I do. But you DO repeatedly assert these asinine claims along with fantasies about debunkings. Get some help, old friend.
I count for little by myself; I am no judge. But I am part of society, and society is the judge. We have to make sure the judgment is rational and not emotional.
ROFLMAO This is such a preposterous lack of self-awareness, given the number of times you presume to judge my Synthesis, my knowledge of science, and my hypotheses with claims of debunking despite your admitted ignorance of the actual science and issues involved! You even claim to understand my views better than I do! Unbelievable!
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.
Mystic may use critical or logical thinking (or may believe that he does) but since he does it based on this or that premise which (as I recall very well he himself has admitted) were his own beliefs about experiences he had, his logic and critical thinking (should he be doing it) is never going to produce valid results, only a logically -structured hypothesis which is still merely an hypothesis.
ROFLMAO This is such a preposterous lack of self-awareness, given the number of times you presume to judge my Synthesis, my knowledge of science, and my hypotheses with claims of debunking despite your admitted ignorance of the actual science and issues involved! You even claim to understand my views better than I do! Unbelievable! 
