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.
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.
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.
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.
and actually since he believes in evolution, then it seems he is saying that god came after life evolved.
it seems he is saying life evolved, we think, we require a brain to think, the physical brain gives birth to thoughts, the thoughts are "consciousness," all those "conscious thoughts" put together are a blob that is God.
isn't he saying brains give birth to god, humans give birth to god.
he said that before too. that god can't exist without humans.
he has said over and over that god grows and changes because we grow and change. that means god is dependent on humans. that means humans came first and god is a byproduct of humans. he doesn't have a creator god making humans. he has humans creating god as a byproduct of their thoughts.
mystic.....can you clear this up? we see some significant contradictions and inconsistencies.
It is for Mystic to say what he is saying rather than you or me, but my understanding of his hypothesis is that God (a cosmic mind with forward planning abilities, if not omniscient foreknowledge) arranged for the process of evolution to result in a being capable of reasoning. Then that Mind put into the human brain divinely imparted understanding of those things that mere scientific investigation could not show us.
If so, it is merely any other kind of theistic evolution -belief, with some sciencey stuff used to substantiate it.
....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.
yes. we looked carefully. it did creep in. big time.
that's what makes the source not credible.
that's why the source is rejected in favor of one that is less biased and meets more of the criteria of critical thinking that I use. the one without an obvious religious agenda. it's more logical. more credible. more reliable.
that's why the source is rejected in favor of one that is less biased and meets more of the criteria of critical thinking that I use. the one without an obvious religious agenda. it's more logical. more credible. more reliable.
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?
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?
take a glance at the catholic article.
what is objectionable to you about it?
or are you fine with having that be your guide to critical thinking?
because that's exactly how the qualia soup videos come across.
My observation and experience is that those who reject or have a problem with or express contempt and disdain for considering the well being of everyone in a situation--- are the ones who violate and do harm to the well being of others.
If someone says "respect is a crock" they are a danger to society and they are a danger to the individual.
Litmus test: ask, if someone is contemptuous to love and sneers at respect, would you date this person? Would you trust them with your children?
No. And no.
Didn't you just prove my point?
You consider me a danger to society, for example.
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.
take a glance at the catholic article.
what is objectionable to you about it?
or are you fine with having that be your guide to critical thinking?
because that's exactly how the qualia soup videos come across.
flip side of the same coin.
I can't recall the catholic rticle, but i get your drift. But what you don't get is that however I react emotionally to the catholic bias, or you to the irreligious bias, we should put that aside and judge of the validity of the argument. It's a subset of logic and rationalism called critical thinking. Atheism is another subset. The scientific method is a third.
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.
That a pretty good post. It appealed to some basic emotions, but I'd have to hold fire until I think it through, but it does seem to point up the case of respect where it is merited, not for everybody whether they deserve it or not - never mind for their beliefs whether that offends them or not.
And the point is well taken that those who talk about respect for others could well consider how much respect they show for those with whom they vehemently disagree.
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.
The fanatic extremist element of your view is again stark and chilling.
It is the ugly face of supremacy that not only condones violence and brutality but actively incites it, justifies it, and goes on an irrational bloody rampage carrying it out.
Your view and what you advocate is bloodthirsty and I will say this again and again it is dangerous, it is fanatic. It is the mindset of a vigilante justice, it is lynch mob vengeance.
If you want to discuss politics and controversy or history or current events take it over to those parts of the forum. This is religion and spirituality.
The problem is the view and mindset you both advocate and demonstrate has zero regard for ethics and honesty. It is driven purely by blind hate. And dont you just love graphic violence. It's all over your post. Like attracts like. That is what you invoke that is what you crave that is what you incite.
Your whole ideology is based on supremacy, and seeing others as not human (oh let's say apes and pigs shall we) and then it is a hop skip and a jump to atrocities and violence and brutality.
You are not the voice of reason you are not the voice of honesty. Yours is the voice and ideology of blind hate. Stark ugly bone chilling blind hate and supremacy.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-31-2018 at 07:47 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.
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).