RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

luckydawg -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:15:31 PM)

I quoted you jeffff.

That is what you think is, " I retracted it. I took responsibility. That's what a man does. "






Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:16:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

But with replies like this from you? Jesus Christ. Grow up.


Perhaps you'd like to follow you own advice? Or are you incapable of seeing the fault in your behaviour?

- LA

Consider that you answered not one point in my reply to your swipe. You moved right to the personal (and a fair share of assumptions). Any questioning of your positions is an attack to you.

Consider that you're wondering why people aren't coming around to your views, not even wondering if, gee, maybe you aren't a priori the center of the logical universe, expecting them to recognize you are just right.

Consider whether perhaps you're being unreasonable. Maybe that's why the masses aren't lining up, grateful for you taking time to set them straight with your wisdom.

Truly, it must be dark to be so trapped by fear in such a defensive and immovable set of convictions. Perhaps that's why dogmatic approaches push your buttons so much.

Who knows. You'll just have to be cursed in a universe where no one can match your brilliance and tolerance.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:19:02 PM)

quote:

Christianity has a dogma that Jesus is the Son of God (or some similar idea); Atheism has a dogma that there is no God.  Both are beliefs.  Neither can be proven.


Treasure, I believe this statement has the potential of being both right or wrong.

1) For some, religion is based in dogma.
2) For some, atheism is based in dogma.
3) For some, their religious beliefs went through a critical analysis and they maintained some kind of religious belief.
4) For some, their religious beliefs went through a critical analysis and they rejected their religious beliefs and became atheists.

And this is but a snapshot in time and ebbs and flows in a person's life.

You are however right that absolutely none of this can be proven, which is why I've never considered myself a pure atheist but rather a defacto atheist who sees hereself defined by the 4th statement.

- LA



Musicmystery -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:22:52 PM)

quote:

But the key is ... I am willing to change my paradigms, especially if someone gives me one that has the ring of truth, and that is presented with deep self-awareness and intelligence. I've changed many of my basic paradigms over my life, and I can even tell you when and why, and the effects they have had in my life (if we were close enough, and I had that kind of relationship with you).


Sooner or later, it's got to occur to someone that it's not like Firm and Treasure and I are accustomed to arguing from the same side.

In this case, though, the assumptions being rammed through as absolute either/or truth are just too far over the top.

A good argument is a good argument, no matter who posted it. And a poor one is a poor one, regardless of poster.

And, like Firm, I've often changed my paradigms as well--including on this issue, incidentally, in the past. Such shifts are usually (1) recognition that I'm facing superior arguments, or (2) recognition that what I'm doing isn't working, and that I have to change. It's not always easy, but it's common sense, and I'm always the better for it, as well as happier and better balanced.



thompsonx -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:23:43 PM)

quote:

Bush was a Draft Dodger.

I take it that you do not feel that he was a draft dodger.
How exactly would you define a draft dodger?



Jeffff -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:24:39 PM)

Frim....

SO much of religion has to be taken on faith that to my mind it precludes critical thinking.

Here is my main problem, if you will bare with me.

God is all knowing and omnipotent correct?. If we assume that if follows that He knows all from the begining till the end of all time.

We as people were put on earth with free will to act as we see fit. In Christianity our beliefs and behavoir determines whether we will spend eternity in or out side of God's presence.

The problem as I see it is, God being omnipotent, knew all along how I would behave, the choices I would make and my actions.

This makes it a suckers bet and feel will an illusion.

Add to that the statement, "know one can know the mind of God".... Ok..... yet I know way too many Christians that are sure their personal relationship with Jesus Christ DOES grant them eternal salvation. They seem to be claiming to know the mind of God.

Yes I know it is written in the Bible, but many things are written in the Bible.

It comes down to faith and faith can not be judged the same as fact.






luckydawg -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:25:42 PM)

yawn, trolls are getting boring......





Jeffff -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:26:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I quoted you jeffff.

That is what you think is, " I retracted it. I took responsibility. That's what a man does. "







Yes I typed that... how can you possibly turn that into something bad?


What the FUCK is wrong with you?

LOL



FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:29:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Sooner or later, it's got to occur to someone that it's not like Firm and Treasure and I are accustomed to arguing from the same side.


[sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif]

Why ... yes ... it did occur to me.

And has surprised the heck outa me, too!  [:D]

Firm



subtee -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:29:31 PM)

Forget it. Continue to beat each other off with no real meaning.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:30:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: taleon
Ok, there are two separate statements which seem to get intertwined:
1 - science and religion are not the only two approaches you could use to describe experiences or describe the world around us.
2 - science and religion are not opposed to each other.

On 1, I do not disagree with you. I'm not quite sure if I will agree with you either, I need to give it more thought.
On 2, I argue that their approach to describing nature is so different that I'd put them in opposing camps. I've put my arguments for that position on the table. If you don't find them convincing, then there is little left I can do to persuade you and we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Let me take a stab at #2.

By "science" what I believe most people are talking about is the use of the scientific method to verify whether a proposed explanation is valid. Given this, there are only 3 possible results to using the scientific method:

1) Experimental testing appears to verify that a proposition is correct.
2) Experimental testing appears to show that a proposition is incorrect.
3) There is currently no way to experimentally test this proposition.

Many, many things, not just a lot of religious beliefs, fall into Category 3. The scientific method is a tool for experiencing the world. As with all tools, it is not useful in all circumstances. Similarly, the scientific method is not a way to create new ideas and theories - it is a way to validate them. To a "real" scientist (and I use the term reservedly) the source of a given theorum - whether from intuition, a dream, a joke, a small child's ponderings or divine inspiration - is irrelevant. It's the methodology for testing the proposition that will prove its validity or expose it as a fallacy - not the source of the idea. Einstein claimed that the inspiration for the theory of relativity came to him in a dream when he was thirteen or fourteen. Some might say that's not "scientific" - but the point of science isn't whether or not you have inspirational dreams but whether the conclusions you draw from these dreams are empirically valid.

I don't believe that the battle is truly between religion and science - but between "dogmatism" and "free thought". Between the rejection of an external concept because it contradicts one or more firmly held beliefs and the willingness to accept new ideas as potentially valid no matter their genesis.

There are dogmatic scientists and there are free-thinking believers. The history of science is replete with examples of the entire scientific community hounding and ridiculing the lone genius with the new idea until finally they are forced to accept some new theory or hypothesis because it is repeatedly and demonstrably correct. The history of religion is full of splinter groups, sects, heresies and all manner of people breaking from the dogma of the existing religious structure because they found parts of it flawed or impossible to correlate with the visible world around them.

In the realm of dogma - it's very difficult to free one's self of it. Everyone thinks that they are a free thinker - easily able to accept new ideas and to judge things based on their own merits - until faced with something that contradicts their own unthinkingly accepted assumptions. It's tough to work out how much of what you accept as "true" is based on a "logical and critical analysis of available facts" and how much is simply bias or socially induced dogma that is unthinkingly accepted.

Of course, all of my personal beliefs are based solely on rational analysis - I would never blindly accept anything as true otherwise.[;)]



FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:32:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Frim....

SO much of religion has to be taken on faith that to my mind it precludes critical thinking.

Here is my main problem, if you will bare with me.

God is all knowing and omnipotent correct?. If we assume that if follows that He knows all from the begining till the end of all time.

We as people were put on earth with free will to act as we see fit. In Christianity our beliefs and behavoir determines whether we will spend eternity in or out side of God's presence.

The problem as I see it is, God being omnipotent, knew all along how I would behave, the choices I would make and my actions.

This makes it a suckers bet and feel will an illusion.

Add to that the statement, "know one can know the mind of God".... Ok..... yet I know way too many Christians that are sure their personal relationship with Jesus Christ DOES grant them eternal salvation. They seem to be claiming to know the mind of God.

Yes I know it is written in the Bible, but many things are written in the Bible.

It comes down to faith and faith can not be judged the same as fact.


Jefff,

I'm Firm, not Frim, but will I do? [:D]

I'd suggest another thread about religion per se if you'd like to discuss this particular aspect of Christianity.

I may or may not participate.

I will say, however, that your claim that "critical thinking" and "religious belief" are exclusionary has already been address several times in this thread.

I know it will be a bother, but I'd recommend reading from the start.  [:D]

Firm



JstAnotherSub -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:32:52 PM)

you are a class act chickie.......



luckydawg -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:34:23 PM)

actually jeff, only some sects of Christianity hold that there is predesntination(God knows what you are going to choose ahead of time). Many do not, and hold "free will", as a central tenent of thier belief system.

Episcopalians ( which I got brought up as, but do not currently follow, I am not a Christian)and some others, believe that Christ's sacrifice saved all of Mankind. That you go to heaven no matter what, and that Christ freed everyone from hell.




Another off topic point, is that in an Atheistic unioverse there can be no free will. It is only through a "spiritual/God paradigm) that free will can exist at all. If the Universe is simply particles and waves behaving according toNatural laws, there could be no free will. It is just a machine, albiet incredibly complex.



subtee -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:35:06 PM)

Thank you for that, today especially (((hug)))



Icarys -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:36:36 PM)

quote:

but why attack my intellect or my character? It only makes you look small.


You mean like you did me?[:D]

Your just being silly.



FirmhandKY -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:37:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack

By "science" what I believe most people are talking about is the use of the scientific method to verify whether a proposed explanation is valid. Given this, there are only 3 possible results to using the scientific method:

(redacted)


Excellent post, IB.

Firm



LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:37:45 PM)

quote:

Consider that you're wondering why people aren't coming around to your view


I'm not here to have people come around to my views. This isn't a contest, this is a discussion. I came here willing to have my views changed. Look at my OP:

Am I biased when I think that I see much more of this on the religious side than the secular side? I'm honestly asking as I might be.

I know some people think this is about me trying to prove a point. The KYs have said it time and time again. Well if you don't believe me, I've wasted enough time trying to explain this to people. I have my biases and I see the world in a certain way. I wanted to see how others saw it. Yes I gained perspectives but they were always laced with judgements about mine, which I find unproductive.

The reason why I'm not addressing what you write is because I find your condescending style annoying. Once you recognize that you are being condescending, we might have an intelligent conversation again.

- LA



luckydawg -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:39:21 PM)

Jeffff, men don't issue weak" well its technically"... Then follow up with another fake charge, related to the first one. Then throw in a bunch of insults.


At least to me. That is more how a whiny bitch operates.
In my opinion....






LadyAngelika -> RE: Critical Thinking & Logical Deduction Are Becoming Extinct Like The Dinosaur (5/3/2010 5:41:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

 You made a lot of assumptions about me, which I'm not surprised I got from Firm & Treasure ...



Not surprised, huh? [8D]

Why would that be, Lady Angelika?

Firm



Firm, point me to one place in this thread where you didn't try to speak with some voice of authority and you changed your mind about something and let someone else's opinion even slightly sway you, allowing your paradigm to shift and I'll take that statement back.

- LA


hmmm ... so this is the thread where I have to have all of my life changing revelations and reevaluations of my beliefs and my life?  [:D]

I have been very focused and narrow in what I've said in this thread, primarily to point out alternate ways of seeing things, or to point out obviously inaccurate logic and poor critical thinking (kinda the point of the thread, I believed.  Perhaps I was wrong?)

When the quality of thought and the quality of discussion warrants it, I certainly learn.  I've even been known to admit mistakes, and even apologize.

So far, I've seen little in this thread that warrants a "paradigm change".  Primarily because I believe that there is more than enough closed minded dogmatic thinking being displayed by other posters, that I've focused on simply pointing that out.

Have I issued a personal insult to you (or anyone else, for that matter), or made any assumptions in which I was not willing and able to give you my reasoning, logic, sources and quotes?

No?  Then why do you take offense?

Yes?  If you disagree with something I've said, I'm certainly willing to discuss it, and either back off what I said, or provide more and better argumentation.

That, after all, is what a civil, logical discussion is about, isn't it?

And, if I speak with "authority", and am willing and able to back it up (case in point: the "appeal to authority" that I claimed, and then duppelganger came back, 10 or more pages later and challenged me on), what exactly is wrong with speaking with "authority"?

I'm sure that you have life experiences, and put a lot of thought into your life schemata.  Me too.

And I guarantee that they are different.

One of the areas that I've concentrated on in life is people, and how and why we think, and how we are lead, influenced, deceived, manipulated and how we learn to act and behave.  From both an individual point of view, and a societal point of view. I believe that it has made me very self aware of what and how I am influenced, and what I believe, so yes, it is pretty difficult to move me from many of my basic paradigms.

I have a very sensitive "bullshit detector".  And a very well developed, consistent and workable schemata of life.

But the key is ... I am willing to change my paradigms, especially if someone gives me one that has the ring of truth, and that is presented with deep self-awareness and intelligence.  I've changed many of my basic paradigms over my life, and I can even tell you when and why, and the effects they have had in my life (if we were close enough, and I had that kind of relationship with you). 

Yet you challenge me like I was a 13 year old student of yours, wanting to know "what did you learn at school today?"

Firm


Firm, I'm sorry you felt challenged like a 13 year old. I was trying to challenge you like a grown man.

I appreciate what you wrote here. There is a lot of sense it in and I agree with most of it.

But bottom line, you asked me why I wrote what I wrote and I told you why. In this thread, you have shown very little openness to other ideas. If you have done so in the past and plan to do so in the future, I look forward to seeing it.

- LA



Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875